No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc 5 of 7EXHIBITS PROJECT - Evendell FILE NO. - L01TY401 & L01P0O16 EXHIBIT No. 1 Department of Development and Environmental Services Combined File LOITY401 & LO1P0016, Application filed & dated July 6, 2001. EXHIBIT No. 2 a. Department of Development and Environmental Services Application for Land Use Permit(s)LOITY401 & LO1POO16, Application dated July 6, 2001. b. Zone Reclassification Application and Justification Questionnaire w/revision received September 6, 2001 EXHIBIT No. 3 a. Department of Development and Environmental Services Preliminary report, Prepared 02/20/03. With attachments: 1. Map of Rezone from R-4 to R-6 2. Reduced copy of R-6 - 70 Lot Preliminary Plat 3. Reduced copy of R-4 — Alternative 46 Lot Plat 4. Density Calculations For R-6 Plat 5. City of Renton January 20, 2003 Letter 6. City of Renton June 15, 2001 Letter 7. Certificate of Water Availability, May 30, 2001 8. School Information, July 12, 2001 9. SWM Adjustment Approval, L02VO024 b. Department of Development and Environmental Services Addendum report with corrections and additional information regarding schools serving the property, prepared 02/27/03. EXHIBIT No. 4 Revised Environmental Checklist dated October 14, 2002 EXHIBIT No. 5 Mitigated Determination of Non -significance dated December 23, 2002 EXHIBIT No. 6 Affidavit of Posting indicating October 3, 2001 as date of posting and October 4, 2001 as the date the affidavit was received by the Department of Development and Environmental Services. e EXHIBIT No. 7 a. Site Plan (Plat Map) received August 29, 2002. b. Alternative Site Plan Received EXHIBIT No. 8 Assessors Maps SE 14-23-05, NE 14-23-05, SW 14-23-05 & NW 14-23-05 PROJECT - Evendell / FILE NO. L01TY401 & LOIPOO16 Page 2 EXHIBIT No. 9 Traffic Impact Analysis by Gary Struthers, Inc, dated June 28, 2001 EXHIBIT No. 10 Traffic Memo, dated January 29, 2002 from Gary Struthers & Assoc., Inc EXHIBIT No. 11 Preliminary Technical Information Report by Haozous Eng. PS Dated June, 2001 EXHIBIT No. 12 Level Three Downstream Drainage Analysis, dated August 26, 2002 EXHIBIT No.13 Addendum to the Level Three Study, dated December 5, 2002 EXHIBIT No.14 Wetland Evaluation & Delineation Report, Wildlife Habitat Evaluation, and Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan, dated May 15, 2001 EXHIBIT No. 15 Addendum wetland/stream/wildlife report, dated October 28, 2002 EXHIBIT No. 16 City of Renton 3 page Certificate of Sewer Availability dated 6/15/01 EXHIBIT No. 17 Jaques, Fred & Helga, e-mail w/concerns 11/l/01 Density, traffic on SE 128th St., wetlands & crime EXHIBIT No. 18 Carlson, Marilynn, 11/7/01 Ltr. - Runoff/drainage, traffic on 150h Ave. SE, urban grid for access, need for sewer/payment for sewer service, perimeter landscape screen needed. EXHIBIT No. 19 REVISED Alternative R-4 Plat density calc., Received 3/26/02 EXHIBIT No. 20 Petition from Gwendolyn High, Received 9/23/02 Opposed, neighborhood character, Traffic impact, Sewer, wetlands, wildlife, drainage, public subsidation of private development EXHIBIT No. 21 City of Renton Ltr. Received 1/22/03 w/ 4 pages of attachments EXHIBIT No. 22 Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE), dated 4/5/02, Growth/density, traffic, wetlands, wildlife, photos of neighborhood, and other information EXHIBIT No. 23 G. High, & M.Rollinger, CARE petition to intervene, received 2/18/03. Issues —police, fire, transportation, zoning, w/attachments PROJECT - Evendell / FILE NO. LOITY4O1 & LO1POO16 Page 3 EXHIBIT No. 24 DDES planning map showing new development planned in the immediate vicinity, prepared 2/20/2003 EXHIBIT No. 25 Gregg Zimmerman, City of Renton Letter dated 3/5/03 EXHIBIT No. 26 EXHIBIT No. 27 EXHIBIT No. 28 EXHIBIT No. 29 EXHIBIT No. 30 EXHIBIT No. 31 EXHIBITS PROJECT - Evendell/Ma'or Plat Revision FILE NO. - L03RE038 (Continuation of Exhibit List 1-58 for LO1P0016) Exhibit No. 1 DDES combined file LO1 TY401 & LO1 POO16, application filed and dated July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 2A DDES application for land use permit(s) LOITY401 & LOIP0016, application dated July 6, 2001 2B Zone reclassification application and justification questionnaire with revision received September 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 3A DDES preliminary report prepared 02/20/03 with attachments as follow: I . Map of rezone from R-4 to R-6 2. Reduced copy of R-6 --- 70 lot preliminary plat 3. Reduced copy of R-4 - alternative 46 lot plat 4. Density calculations for R-6 plat 5. City of Renton January 20, 2003, letter 6. City of Renton June 15, 2001 letter 7. Certificate of water availability dated May 30, 2001 8. School information dated July 12, 2001 9. SWM adjustment approval for L02VO024 dated October 17, 2002 313 DDES addendum report with corrections and additional information regarding schools serving the property, prepared 02/27/03 Exhibit No. 4 Revised environmental checklist received October 14, 2002 Exhibit No_ 5 Mitigated determination of non -significance dated December 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 6 Affidavit of posting indicating posting dates of October 3 and 4, 2001. Exhibit No. 7A Site plan (70 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 713 Alternative site plan (46 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 8 Assessors maps (4) for SE 14-23-05 revised 02/23/95, NE 14-23-05 revised 04/05/93, NW 14-23-05 revised 10/92, and SW 14-23-05 revised 07/07/97 Exhibit No. 9 Traffic impact analysis by Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. dated June 28, 2001 Exhibit No. 10 Traffic memo dated January 29, 2002, from Garry Struthers Assoc., Inc. Exhibit No. 1 I Preliminary technical information report dated June, 2001, by Haozous Eng., P.S. Exhibit No. 12 Level 3 downstream drainage analysis by Haozous Eng., P.S., dated August 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 13 Addendum (6 pages plus cover) to the level -three study dated December 5, 2002 Exhibit No. 14 Wetland evaluation and delineation report, wildlife habitat evaluation and compensatory wetland mitigation plan by Habitat Technologies, dated May 15, 2001 Exhibit No. 15 Addendum to wetland/stream/wildlife report dated October 28, 2002 Exhibit No. 16 City of Renton three -page certificate of sewer availability dated 6/15/01 Exhibit No. 17 Jaques, Fred & Helga email dated November 1, 2001 Exhibit No. 18 Carlson, Marilynn letter dated November 7, 2001 Exhibit No. 19 Revised alternative R-4 plat density calculations received 3/26/02 Exhibit No. 20 Petition from Gwendolyn High (8 pg. + cover), received September 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 21 City of Renton letter received January 22, 2003, with attachments (4 pgs.) Exhibit No. 22 Letter from G. High & M. Rollinger for Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) dated April 5, 2002 with attachments (60 pgs. + cover) Exhibit No. 23 G. High and M. Rollinger, CARE petition to intervene filed on 2/18/03 Exhibit No. 24 DDES planning map (created 7/1/2003) prepared 2/20/2003 showing new development planned in the immediate vicinity Exhibits - Evendell I FILE NO. L03RE038 Page 2 Exhibit No. 25 Letter from Greg Zimmerman, City of Renton, dated March 05, 2003 (2/12/03 memo attached) Exhibit No. 26 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency received July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 27 Topographic map provided by City of Renton (aerial photography taken Winter, 1996) subject property in conjunction with Highland Estates Exhibit No, 28 Article from King County Journal, "Give Us Some Space, Firefighters Say..." 02/27/2003 Exhibit No. 29 Transportation service areas 2000 map — KCDDES, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 30 Community action strategies sub -area priority ranking map — KCDOT, February, 2001 Exhibit No, 31 Assessors map of East Renion/Briarwood area with coloring Exhibit No. 32 Proposed but not entered into the record — area map showing nesting sites Exhibit No. 33 Online permit details — DDES website printouts (18 pg) Exhibit No. 34 Notice of application for the Bales Annexation and pre -zone application, dated January 15, 2003 — City of Renton Exhibit No. 35 Letter from Scott D. Baker, Consulting Arborist dated 2/8/03 Exhibit No. 36 Tree retention/}protection buffer site plan alternatives Exhibit No. 37 C.A.R.E. households list (2 pg) Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council.dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 39 Tree loss and possible ground water contamination depiction Exhibit No. 40 Sign -in and time donation sheet (3 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 41 Transportation concurrency diagrams for 2001, 2002 & 2003 Exhibit No. 42 a Letter (2 pg) from Don & Janice Milbrath dated March 3, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Kristy J. Hill dated March 6, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Edward and June Hill dated March 6, 2003 d Letter (1 pg) from Charles W. Scoby, Viola M. Scoby, and Geneva D. Scholes dated March 1, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Laurie A. Hindes dated February 26, 2003 f Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 g Letter (1 pg) from Eloise and Claude Stchowiak dated March 6, 2003 h Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby dated Feb. 21, 2003, and March, 6, 2003 j Letter (1 pg) from Richard Savage (undated) Exhibit No. 43 Letter (1 pg) from Dan & Lynn Peterson, also signed by Fred & Helga Jaques (undated) Exhibit No. 44 a Letter (1 pg) from John Nanney dated March 6, 2003 b Letter (1 pg) from Linda Williams dated March 5, 2003 c Letter (1 pg) from Rodney S. Stewart dated March 5, 2003 d Letter (1 pg) from Edward A. Schultz dated March 4, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Joseph Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 f. Letter (1 pg) from Brenda Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 45 a Letter (1 pg) from Richard & Anita Oliphant dated March 5, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Jeff & Karen Sidebotham (undated) d Letter (1 pg) signed by Nancy & Edward Hilton dated March 6, 2003 e Memo (4 pg) from Michael Rae Cooke dated March 4, 2003, with attached resident survey sheet, error notes, and April 3, 2002, memo and attachments (8 pg) to King County Surface Water and Land Management Exhibits - Evendell / FILE NO. L03RE038 Page 3 The following items were entered at the March 10, 2003, continued hearing: Exhibit No. 46 Photos (9) provided by Anita Oliphant with commentary (undated) Exhibit No. 47 Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoody dated February 21, 2003 Exhibit No. 48 Letter (1 pg) from Marilynn Carlson dated March 9, 2003 Exhibit No. 49 Letter (2 pg) from Kristy Hill dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 50 Letter (I pg) from Marsha Rollinger (undated) Exhibit No. 51 Letter (l pg) from Joseph Bostjancic dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 52 Memo (1 pg) from Nick Gillen dated March 7, 2003 Exhibit No. 53 Copy of table #3 from the 2002 Issaquah school plan showing "Projected Capacity to House Sudents" Exhibit No. 54 Memo (1 pg) from Mark Heckert, Habitat Technologies, dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit No. 55 Gwendolyn High's testimony of March 6, 2003 with cover letter dated March 10, 2003 noting correction Exhibit No. 56 Letters from: a Donald & Diane Kezelle (2 pg) - undated b Vanessa Burris (I pg) c Carolyn Ann Buckett (1 pg) d Ronda Bryant (3 pg) dated March 10, 2003 e Michael Rae Cooke (7 pg) dated 3/8/02 f Marsha Rollinger (1 pg) undated g Sally Nipert (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 h Shirley Day (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 i Bill and Donna Mokin (2 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 57 Photos of hawk (2) Exhibit No. 58 DDES revised recommendation/additional conditions dated 3/10/03 January 22, 2004 EXHIBIT No. 59 Department of Development and Environmental Services Application File for Major Plat Revision Filed 10/1/03 EXHIBIT No. 60 a. Department of Development and Environmental Services Preliminary report, Prepared 01/5/04 for L03RE038 With attachments: I. 70 Lot Plat Layout 2. Density Calculations 3. Intent to sell and purchase Density Credits 4. SEPA Adoption Notice 5. Issaquah School District 6. Certificate of Water Availability 7. City of Renton, November 19, 2003 Letter 8. City of Renton, November 26, 2003 Sewer Extension Letter 9. Transportation Concurrency (e-mail & Certificate # 01305) 10. SWM Adjustment Approval, L02VO024 Exhibits - Evendell / FILE NO. L03RE038 Page 4 EXHIBIT No. 61 Department of Development and Environmental Services Corrections To The Preliminary Report to The Hearing Examiner 1 /22/04 EXHIBIT No. 62 Site Plan (Plat Map) for 70 lots, received October 1, 2003. EXHIBIT No. 63 Notice of Application, Hearing & Recommendation, 11/10/03 EXHIBIT No. 64 Affidavit of Posting indicating November 3, 2003 as date of posting and November 6, 2003 as the date the affidavit was received by the Department of Development and Environmental Services EXHIBIT No. 65 Walkway Study prepared by dmp, inc., dated 8/18/03 EXHIBIT No. 66 School Walkway Map Annotated by DDES, prepared 1/21/04 EXHIBIT No. 67 3/10/03 e-mail from Issaquah School District regarding school walkways to Liberty High, Maywood Middle, and Briarwood Elementary School for plat conditions of LOOP0023. EXHIBIT No. 68 Examiner's Recommendation to the Council — L01TY401 & LO l POO 16, dated 3/28/03 EXHIBIT No, 69 Ord. # 14694 denying reclassification to R-6 under file LO 1 TY401 EXHIBIT No. 70 Ord. # 14695 approving the 46 lot plat of Evendell EXHIBIT No. 71 Jaques, Fred & Helga, e-mail w/concerns received 1/20/04 Density, traffic, infrastructure inadequate to support increase in density. EXHIBIT No. 72 Shirley A. Gaunt -Smith, e-mail w/concerns received 1/20/04 1.s:1e CITY OF RENTON PHPLJ 425 430 7241 P.02/03 410 CITY 0k' itr:.N I UIN Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Jessc Tarincr, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 5, 2003 Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdalc Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Attn. Ms. Karen Scharer, Planner SUBJECT: LOITY401 & L41P0016, EYENDELL Dear Ms. Scharer: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon this project_ The City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. has the following comments. 1) The subject project has a City of Renton sewer availability certificate. 2) The subject project is with the Water District # 90 water service area. 3) Please see the attached memorandum for transportation related comments. Thank you. Sincerely, A✓''l'(i� Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator PImming/Building/Public Works Dept. CC Jennifer Homing Sandra Wryer Nick Atzyi Lys Hemsby z5 Exhibit No, Item No. _L-01P ool L, * i� Vr14A3j Received ;1 - !�` King County Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 99055 R E N 1 V N QDThq paper wnWom 0% racycred "N"rtyr. 304L Post consuMer AHEAD OF THE CURVE 13 * 10 CITY OF RENTON PBPLJ CITY OF RENTON . PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12, 2003 TO. Gregg Zimmerman FROM: Nick Afzali 34 SUBJECT: King County Evendel! Rezone and Plat King County ODES File Nos: LOITY401 and L01P0016 This proposed development is within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Therefore, we request the following: R-6 Zoning Preliminary Plat (70 lot). • Right-of-way dedication along SE 136" Street should conform to City of Renton standards (i.e. a minimum of 20-feet (versus the 18-foot dedication proposed on the Plat Plan). • Right-of-way for the street system within the site should meet City of Renton standards (i.e. minimum of42-foot width). f` a Street improvements (roadway paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, etc.) for the street system within the site and along SE 136"' Street should be installed in accordance with City of Renton standards. • Roadway 9avement widening, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street lighting should be installed along 160 Avenue SE in accordance with City of Renton standards (versus the paved shoulder proposed on the Plat Plan). R-4 Zoning (Preliminary Plat (46 Lot): • Right-of-way dedication should be required along the portion of SE 136'� Street abutting the development site to allow for future opening of this street for neighborhood access. Right-of-way dedication should conform to City of Renton standards (i.e. minimum of 20 feet). • Right-of-way for the street system within the site should meet City of Renton standards (i.e. minimum of 42-foot width). • Street improvements (roadway paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, etc.) for the street system within the site should be installed in accordance with City of Renton standards. • The pavement widening, curb, gutter, and sidewalk proposed along the 160d Avenue SE frontage should be installed in accordance with City of Menton standards. Street lighting along the 160'h Avenue SE frontage should also be installed to City of Renton standards. cc: Bob Mahn File RLMUteviewsUO03 Evendell Rezone and Pimb TOTAL P.03 - kingcountyjournal.com - Give us some space, firefighters say: Covington department says... Page ] of 3 KING COUNTY: UU1 Ila KEW1. Horne Eastside So. County Business Boeing News Prep Sports Sports Opinion Obituaries Milestones Living Entertain. Women's Journal Site Map Search Archive World News MoheyWire Mytown Classifieds Traffic Weather Lotto Crossword Dilbert Horoscope Movies Komo TV TV Listings Personals Home Delivery Advertising Jobs with Us About Us Contact Us Archly* I Mytown I Ctassfieds I Ho" Deal ay I Adwrertisring I ContactUs Give us some space, firefighters say: Covington department says houses are being built too close together 2003-02-27 by Bruce Rommel Journal Reporter EX Z8 COVINGTON -- Bigger houses being built on smaller lots could wind up putting the squeeze on firefighters. With growth management policies encouraging higher housing density, developers are building new neighborhoods with houses as close together as 10 feet. Build a fence along the property line and there's only 5 feet between the fence and the side of the house. That's too narrow for firefighters to safely place a ladder to climb to a second -floor window to rescue occupants or to reach the attic vent to help battle a fire, said Kent Fire Chief Jim Schneider. ' 'At two stories, you're probably 20, 25 feet in the air. We have to have the base of the ladder back at least seven feet from the house," Schneider said. The distance between houses in new subdivisions --down to the inch -- has been a topic of conversation among city officials, builders and others after city inspectors discovered some newly built houses didn't comply with Covington's codes for setbacks, that is, the distance between the properly line and the edge of the house. After checking other subdivisions to ensure new homes meet the codes, the City Council is looking again at the setback requirements that determine the width of side yards and the distance between houses. The City Council also has adopted an interim ordinance accepting the existing setbacks. It also will require side yard setbacks of 7 feet 6 inches between the house and property line for new construction, See COVINGTON, A6 meaning the houses would be 15 feet apart. The old code required a 5-foot setback. bttp://www.kingeountyjournal.com/sited/story/htmYl 22812 Exhibit No. Item No. L'11 PMRD t L-0"4q( j Received King County Hearing Exa�t'r 003 kingcountyjournal.com - Give us some space, firefighters say: Covington department says__. Page 2 of 3 Council members also asked Schneider and others, including builders, what new standards they might consider. ' ' What we're asking for in the future is a 10-foot setback," said Schneider, which he said would mean at least 20 feet between two houses. Besides being Kent's fire chief, Schneider also is chief of King County Fire District 37, which serves the city of Covington and other areas outside Kent. Covington isn't the only place with newer subdivisions with houses as close as 10 feet. For years, builders say, the trend has been toward smaller home lots because of rising costs of land. Additionally, growth management policies adopted by King County and suburban cities call for higher density housing on the western side of the county to help preserve rural areas to the east. At the same time, builders say, homebuyers want bigger houses. ' ' So everybody's pushing and pulling," said Dan Lundgren, vice-president of Stafford Homes of Bellevue, which is building new homes in Covington and elsewhere. Houses have been built 10 feet apart around here for decades," Lundgren said. Builders are going to continue to build to the setback line -- there's no way around that." Setbacks for the side yards between houses became an issue after a Covington building inspector thought two new houses looked just a little too close. With a setback of 5 feet for the two side yards, they should have been 10 feet apart. The inspector measured 9 feet 6 inches. It turned out the city's code ' ' measures" the setback from the property line to the exterior wall of the house. But that builder and others were measuring to the exterior wall of the foundation. Framing, sheathing and siding normally extend several inches beyond the foundation, accounting for the differences. While builders say they were following the standard procedures for the county and other titles, Covington's staff was properly following the city's codes, said City -Manager Andy Dempsey. ' 'The builder's plans (submitted to city officials) showed it as a setback of 5 feet when it really was 4 feet 9 inches," Dempsey said. Several developers had to adjust lot lines and building plans before beginning construction to make sure they met the setback requirements, delaying some projects, including the 24 homes planned for the Cornerstone Pond subdivision at 156th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 252nd Street. ` 'We're still waiting for the permits," said Darrell Shull, vice-president of Prestige Homes and Building Corp., the developers. Setbacks and other housing codes will be the focus of a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 18. http://www.ldnl gcountyjoumal.com/sited/story/htinV122812 3/5/2003 - kingcountyjournal.com - Give us some space, firefighters say: Covington department says... Page 3 of 3 Mayor Pat Sullivan said that meeting will launch a review of the city's planning policies. Setbacks and lot sizes determine how many homes are built in an area, Sullivan said, which has a lot to do with how a neighborhood or an area of the city develops and grows. We'll ask the Planning Commission to look at some of those issues and come back with some recommendations," Sullivan said. PHOTO by Gary Kissel/]oumal: With setbacks of 5 feet from property lines, many houses in Covington are only 10 feet apart. Build a fence between homes and it becomes even more of a problem for firefighters to get their equipment, ladders, tanks, etc. between houses. Eastside: King County 3ournal 1705 132nd Ave. N.E. Bellevue, YHA 9SMS-2251 Rhone: 425-455-2222 Fax: 425-635-0602 South County: King County Journal 600 Washington Ave. South Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 253-872-6600 Fax: 253-854-1006 All materials Copyright Q 2003 Horvitz Newspapers, Inc. Any questions? See our contact page. http://www.kingeountyjoumal.com/sited/story/html/122812 3/5/2003 a) cn U d7 a) U U Q) Q)(D U +1 � C w m C) oD z u CO O P O O ;-- co O � 0 co� L a. U} co a �!J w Q a Vj Cl) co co ❑- U? I.—`1 co C cz U I L._J [6 w 14. � S A Q C Z C] 4J O Z � U t E C cm L u }'• oc w eepap U a lAJ li Q Go f,7 2 d] C� � � O i; 4.1 Qm MWLL UC92 7 O L It 0. Co :�9: m o } O C Ects fi N U? � d c M LU Co W Co W N J �a S (D = O C6 � C N C3 5p Vp)i H d � rn o A- CD V O Q f4 a 4 �� O � � � w ,g Cf I LU cp 2 O C I 3 Z -3 U .A L E U Of Lu Cc Y I bIJ � 0 •O co Z � -1 Q ccnn N � C 4-J Vj • rl Q y O Nesting Sites Countless birds and other wildlife currently live on the proposed Evendell site. Here are some nesting sites that concern us... Y. .1424 V — Ar4 04 MGM « HAWK NESTS: Several neighbors have reported seeing either a large hawk or an eagle entering and leaving a tree in the lower southwest area of the parcel. Another hawk nest is believed to be in the northwest corner area. PC WOODPECKER/OWL NESTS: Pileated Woodpeckers, a WA State Species of Concern, various other woodpeckers and owls have been seen entering and leaving hollow old snags on various locations on the parcel. Exhibit No. . Item No. 71 Recei d i King Coicrr g Examiner if rermt7 Appttcanon .tnjormatiou - iJur �, z�, iLng wunry vv asnmgi n rage t oI 1 @') King ant - _ Department. of Developmont and Environmental Serviqm .ODES Fbrnepage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Activity No: A00P0303 Permit Type: PREAPP-O Sub -Type: FEASBLTY Title: JIM HANSEN SP Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: 3 LOT SP Applied/Opened: 10117/2000 Contact Information: Applicant: HANSON, JIM Address: 17446 MALLARD COVE LANE MT VERON, WA 98274 Assigned Staff: Site Information: Location & 14010 154TH AVE Juris.: SE KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan:. URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: Parcel No: 146MOQQ62 (Link to ..Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity. Other Py*ds/Acbons attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King Cou_W I Permit Applications Report Engine News I Services I Comments Search links to exterrsl sites do not cw* lMe eridorsemerds by King County. By visiting this and other )Qng County web pages. you expressly agree to be bound by terms and condiborm of the site. The deteifs. Exhibit No. __ Item No, �-Q fP iial Received King County Hearing Examiner http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripts,/permdetail.cfin?permit no=-AOOP0303 2/16/03 rerrim jc�ppncarjon lnionrnanon - 1jur-6, &mg uounry wasnington rage iotl King CouMY Department of Dov4dQpmt ano goonn� . DOES Hanepagr Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Activity No: A02PM063 Permit Type: PREAPP-M Sub -Type: LUSD Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE PARCEL NUMBER 1023059390 (14.7 ACRES) INTO 26 SINGLE FAMIL Applied/Opened: 09/19/2002 Contact Information: Applicant: NORTHWARD HOMES Address: 1560 140TH NE BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Assigned Staff: Site Information: Location & 11813 148TH AVE Juris.: SE KC Community Plan: NEVIICASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner. CRULL RICK H Parcel No: 1023059390 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: Other ftiects/Actions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report Engine I News I Services I Comments I Search links to external ORM do rrot eorrsStte errdorsemerrte by XJjV Couniy. By visiting Oft end other Fling Cou* web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and ooroftons tithe site. The detail& http://www6_metrokc_gov/ddes/scripts/permdetaii.cfin?permit no=AO2PM063 2/16/03 I 4111111 !"lFF22y1111V11 AI W11111i11w1 - i1l/Lilt Ai".b \.+V► Alj •1 w1ui1 av11 1 ar'l. 1 Vl t County• - - • - ►ODES Fbrnwpage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Activity No: A03PM013 Permit Type: PREAPP-M Sub -Type: LUSD Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent Description: submit parcel number 4246000570 into two lots. one existing house. Applied/Opened: 02/07/2003 Contact Information: Applicant: JEWETT, ALAN & SUSAN Address: 18144 SE 42ND PL ISSAQUAH, WA 98027 Assigned Staff. Site Information: Location & 16376 SE 40TH ST Juris.: KC. Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: JEWETTALAN S+SUSAN E Parcel No: 4246000570 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reioris Related Parcel/Permit Activity: Other Pro�eO?Mctions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King Counter ! Permit Applications Report Engine I News I Servrc:es I Comments I Search unim is exterrW site; do not cmft to endorsements by King county. --- By vWtrkg this and other Kiry County web Pages, you eapresely agree to be hound by terms and cormSdone of" site. The detarls_ http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripLs/permdetail.cfrn?permit no-=A03PM013 2i16/03 CG11.11t t%ppiluatlolt J111V1111at-my" - iJVi J, 11111r' LVtlilty VT db]A 11rtV11 ragetof1 Home News Depa4mont off= pavelopment aad Environmental entice 1 Dr1 E S Fage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: BOOL1276 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: SINGLE Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT AND BASEMENT GARAGE Contact Information: Applicant: YELKIN, GRIGORY Address: 3831 NE 140TH AVE BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Assigned Staff: Site Information: Valuation: $364,860.00 Location & 16615 SE 43RD ST Juris.. KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Applied/Opened: 0911112000 Owner: YELKIN, GRIGORYParcel No: 1324059140 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project BOOL1276 Other Projects/Actions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report Engine I News ervices I Comments I Search tanks to external sites do not conaft is endorsements by Knp County. By vW§ng this and other Knq County web pages, -you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conddbns of the site. The detells_ h"://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripts/permdetall.cfim?permit no=BOOL]276 2/16/03 rr'Amft tipptlt;auvtt Illuvtuluuvlt - LUL.�, ntnr' L.vtulty 1 il-_11HIgtUIE Yage 1 oI f < •; Home - News - services I Cot]7ment9 W+R rtment of a opment anO Environmental.Sqrvi: ate$ Online. Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: B02Ll675 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub- Type: SINGLE Title: LOT 2 KCSP 1080094 Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Contact Information: Applicant BEACH, VICTOR Address: PO BOX 187 RAVENSDALE, WA 98051 Assigned Staff: PINTACHA Site Information: Valuation: $220,129.00 Location & 14717 180TH AVE Description: NEW RESIDENCE & Juns.: SE KC ATTACHED GARAGE Community Plan: NEWCASTLE . (MECH INCL) Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AG Applied/Opened: 10102/2002 Owner: MILLER DUANE L Parcel No: 7230400535 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project B02Li675 Other Projects/Actions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report _Engine I News I Services I Comments f Search Unks to external sites do not constitute endorsements by Fling County. By Visiting We and otter tGny County web pages, you expms* agree to be bound by terms and eondiliorts of the site. The deteila h"://wwwO.metroke.goy+/ddes/scripts/permdetail.cf n?permit no=BO2L1675 2/16/03 rutuitL nu,r' wuuay r.a3uukswil rarc1vii 0 King County 111111MM111111- DOES Fiam M-00 Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: B03LO159 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: S!NGLE Title: GAMBLE NEW SFR Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: Applied/Opened: CONSTRUCT NEW 3 BEDROOM SFR WIATTACHED GARAGE (MECH INCL) 02/07/2003 Contact Information: Applicant: GAMBLE, MIKE Address: 11624 164TH AVE SE RENTON, WA 98059 Assigned Staff: Site Information: Buildings: 1 Units: 1 Valuation: $239,763.00 Location & 9617122ND AVE SE Juris.: KC NEWCASTLE URBAN RES 4-12AC GAMBLE, MIKE 6625900020 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project B03L0159 Other ProiecislActions attached_to Oft parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 Community Plan: Comp Plan: Owner. Parcel No: 1(ing Counly j Permit Applications Report Engine I News f Services I Comments i Search Links to exte W sk" do root consbU to endomemeots by 16np coumy. By v'te rkg ttfs and other 19 g countr web pegs. you expressly agree to be bound by terms and coroftm of the site. The ddaII& http://www6.metrokc.goy/d"scripts/permdebil.cfin?permit no=BO3LO159 2/16/03 A Ara ]Ills L-x PFJ11s,"tAVJ/ AF11Vll11LLlkU11 — LULL`, Alu16 T7 4J2ullbcvu r agv 1 V1 1 @) King County - - r' DDES Hory*page Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: B03LO130 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: SINGLE Title: LOT 13 BLK2 GERBERS ADDN RENT Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: Applied/Opened CONSTRUCT NEW 4 BEDROOM SFR W/ATTACHED GARAGE (MECH INCL) 02/03/2003 Contact Information: Applicant: RILEY JOHN Address: 12414 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 Assigned Staff - Site Information: Buildings: 1 Units: 1 Valuation: $289,029.00 Location & 12417 150TH AVE Juds.: SE KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: RILEY JOHN Parcel No: 2739200260 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reoorts Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project B03L0130 Other Projects/Actions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit AW.-cations RepW EWine I News 1 $!�nd I Comments I Lnks to exW" sites do riot aanst Ue endorsements by Fling County - By risifirg this and other FGrg County "b pages. you expree* agree to be bound by terms and cordUone of the site - Tr* detw h"://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripWpffmddaii.cfin?permit no=BO3LO130 2/16/03 I V1i111♦ T-AP J1111"L1V1I 1111Vk11lpllVU - "L-*A-O, 11111r''.V4111Ey YY a"JlJJfrtvil rage 1 01 1 (i) King Conty NORM W "pairtment of Qeveloprmmt and Environmental..Servic 0DDES Hmwpage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: B03LOO83 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: SINGLE Title: L-131 KCBLA LOOM0046 Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: SFR W/GARAGE, DECKS & COVERED PORCH Applied/Opened. 01 /23/2003 Contact Information: Applicant: PARK LANE HOMES, INC. Address: 4957 LAKEMONT BLVD C-4 #293 BELLEVUE, WA 98006 Assigned Staff: PINTJKEN Site Information: - Valuation: $577,307.00 Location & 70f5 169TH AVE SE Juris.: KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 1 DU1AC Owner. PARK LANE HOMES, INC. Parcel No. 2524059131 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project 803LOO83 Other Projects/Actions attached to this parcel' List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report Engine I Nov I -$ervices I Comments I search Links to w tCrnal site* do not cOrl&We erxiora merds by Nng County. By vWftig No and other i6ng County web Rages, you expres* agree W be bound by Wrne and condtions of the site_ h"://www6.metrokc.gov/dd&scripWpermdetail.cfin?perfnit no=B03LOO83 2/16/03 reTIMI APPlleatlon intormatton - UllLS; zing uounty wastungtcr Page 1 of l King County Oapaftrnonit of Development and Environmentai;. r ice :. ►110E $ Homepage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: B02LO645 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: SINGLE Title: HARRIS SFR Status: Process Percent: Description: Applied/Opened: PENDING 10% CONSTRUCT NEW SFR MATTACHED GARAGE (MECH INCL) 0411812002 Contact Information: Applicant: HARRIS WILLIAM E Address: 4548 186TH AVE SE ISSAQUAH WA 980217 Assigned Staff: Site Information: Buildings: 1 Units: 'I Valuation: $209,248.00 Location & 4370 164TH WAY SE Juris.: KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: HARRIS WILLIAM E Parcel No: 1424059140 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reflorts Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this p_rpjW B02LO645 Other ProiWs/Actions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King Countv I Permit Applications RepM Engine I News I Services I Gotnments Search links to exisrnal sites do not constitute endorsemerf6 by King County. By visiting this and other Mng Couruy %" pages. you expressly agree to be bound by terms and cronditiorre of the site. The details. http://www6.mevokc.gov/ddes/scripts/permdetail.cfm?permit no=B02L4645 2/16/03 rerrrttt Apptie=On lnionnatton - OVEN, xtng "Unty Wasrimgton Page l of 1 W King Counter Department of Pavelopment and gnviramnqntall*� .ODES Homepa9e Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No. B01 L0927 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: SINGLE Title: E100 OF S150 SE NW 13-24-05 Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: NEW 3-STORY SINGLE FAMILY WITH ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECK/COVERED PORCH; RETAINING Applied/Opened: 07/24/2001 Contact Information: Applicant WOLTER, THOMAS Address: 2409 153RD AVE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98007 Assigned Staff: PINTMPHA Site Information: Buildings: r 1 Units: 1 Valuation: $076,240.00 Location & 17126 SE 43RD ST Juris.: KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: WOLTER, THOMAS Parcel No: 1324059W3 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity; List all activities attached to this project B01 L0927 Other Pro' s/Actions attached to this prcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report Engine I News I Services Comments I Searmh Unks to exMrnW sites do rot constitute endorsenuM by 19ng County. By visiting this and o w I0ny County web pe . you expressly a" to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. 7be aluft. http://www6_metrokc.gov/ddcs/sciipts/permdetail.cfm?permit no=BOIL0927 2/16/03 rermit Appneation information - vjj :s, King Lountyr Washington Page 1 of 1 King County - SWIM P. DD@S Homepaw Online Permit Detail Permit Information; Project No: B02LI062 Permit Type: DWELLING Sub -Type: MOBILE Title: TL22 of NE NW 13- 22-05 Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: install double -wide mobile home -1978 Commander, 66'x 28', 3 bedrooms and decks Applied/Opened: 06/13/2002 Contact information: Applicant: CANDLER, JEFF Address: 16915 SE 128TH ST RENTON, WA 98059 Assigned Staff: pbfttq Site Information: Buildings: 1 Units: 1 Valuation: $10,850.00 Location & 16818 SE 132ND ST Juris.: KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Camp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Parcel No: 1323059022 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Re orts Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project B02L1062 Other ProjectslAc Lions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit AQplications Report Engine I New I Services i Comments Search !_inks to 0*wnel Wtee do rwt con0ftW endovsemente by I tg Cow* By vW#np tlfs and other 14ny Cowft web pages, you expressly agree to be boi nd by terms and conditions orthe site. TW dom ts. http-/Iwww6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripts/permdetail.cf n?permit no=BO2L 1062 2/16/03 I cii{ut r1,PV41kratnwii ncNvs L - "Ll:LX, niL t.vtu]Ly, rr aziuusrtvii ragc 1 OI 1 `.rr✓' < < H0me News- Repawts"Ont ofDevelopment and Envirainmentai Service. ►DDES Homepge Online Permit Applications Report 5 Search Results for: Permit Group: Preliminary P WUD Application Permit Status: All Pending Applications Under Review Urban/Rural: All Community: Newcastle Jurisdiction: All Reported through: February 11, 2003 AlPiD No Permit Urban Project Title/Description Applied Status Applicant Type Rural LOOP0024 PRE -PLAT URBAN ASTER PARK 11114/2000 RETAVICI US LAND DEVELOPMEN LDI P001fi PRE -PLAT URBAN EVENDELL PRE PLAT&REZONE 07/06/2001 �� US LAND DEVELOPMEN L41P PRE -PLAT URBAN EAST RENTON LWP0011 PRE -PLAT URBAN HAMILTON PLACE L02POO14 PRE -PLAT URBAN SHAMROCK SUBDIVISION List Date: February 16, 2003 04/03/2002 RE!/WCI CAM WEST DEVELOPME 05/3O/2002 REIMCI KBS III LLC 08/O1/2002 REj-,rWC1 CAMWEST DEVELOPME King County DDES I New Appliggion Search I New I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not conaUtute endomemerft by tong County. By visiting this and other idng County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the Site_ Ttto details. http://wwwb.metroke.gov/ddes/scripts/permlist.cfm 2/16/03 I %,IJJIJL I"]JJVJJ%.auwt Jiuvi iiiauvsi - ill/1�.]? 1sui6 4•vwny rr azoomlg2Vll 1-ugu 1 OI 1 KinigCAWnty • Cwpa4mant of Development and Environmental Sevv e > DD E S Howwpagp Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: L02P0005 Permit Type: PRE -PLAT Sub -Type: PRE=PLAT Title: EAST RENTON Status: RET/WCI Process 10% Percent: Description: EAST RENTON PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 148TH AVE SE. SITE CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS TOT Applied/Opened: 04/03/2002 Contact Information: Applicant: CAM WEST DEVELOPMENT Address: 9720 NE 120TH PL #100 KIRKLAND, WA 98034 Assigned Staff: LHEN PDYE Site Information: No. Lots: 6 Location &G KC ,furls.: Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner SCHIRMAN MICHAEL+WOLF CYNTH Parcel No: 1023059023 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parke/Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project L02P0005 Other ProjectalActions attached. to this paroel List Date: February 16, 2003 KiLig County I Permit Applications Report Engine I News Services I Comments j Search Links to extemal ekes do not con ftfie endorsements by iGng County. By vWbng this and other ring County web pages, you expressly agree to be hound by tans and conditions dthe sibs. The dowk http://www6.metroke.gov/ddes/scripts/permdetail.cfm?pffmit no=-Lo2p0005 2/16/03 i r.........YY'.v.....f..........:.:......:. i+i+Lv� -.b vr.a.J - cwn.. AAr tvAa A agv 1 fn 1 @) King County ►DDES Ho""mVe Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Project No: L02PO011 Permit Type: PRE -PLAT Sub -Type: PRE -PLAT Title: HAMILTON PLACE Status: RETMICI Process 101% Percent: Description: Applied/Opened: 05/30/2002 Contact Information: Applicant: KBS III LLC Address: 12505 BEL-RED RD # 212 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 Assigned Stan: KCLA BWHI Site Information: No. Lots: 23 Location & KC' Juris.. Community Plan: Comp Plan: Owner: Parcel No: NEWCASTLE URBAN RES 4-12AC HAMILTON MARY E 3664500100 (Link to Parke! Viewer Map) Link to: Parke! Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: List all activities attached to this project. L02POO I 1 Other_ ProjectslActions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 Ying Coun I Permit Appli6coWns Report Engine I News I Serv_x;es I Comments I Sean inks to extemef sites do not cons tft endorsemmb by King County. By view this and other Jong county web pagm you expn r a" to to bound by terms and condalons of she site. The detW& bttp://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripWpermdetaii.efin?permit no=L02P4011 2/16/03 �.aauaa aiFfraJu "%JJl lluva u.kuLlVll —Lill: � 111116 %.VUlll_' YY M,11t11g'tUJ1 rage 1 of 1 + Horne News Services I Cc powtol"'t of" 0-'++ 1 awn404 WpRnn" q Services ► ODE S Homepage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Contact Information: Project No: L02P0014 Applicant: CAMWEST Permit Type: PRE -PLAT DEVELOPMEN' Sub -Type: PRE -PLAT INC. Tbtle: SHAMROCK SUBDIVISION Address: 9720 NE 120TI Status: RETMICI PLACE, SUITE 100KIRKLAND, Process 10% Wi Percent: 98034 Description: SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL NUMBERS Assigned Staff: KCLA BWHI 102305-9040, Site Information: 9304, 9319, 9174, 9384, 9415, 9030, 9022, 91 Applied/Opened: 08/01/2002 No. Lots: 118 Location & KC Juris.: Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4 12AC Owner. BALES LTD P. Parcel No: 1023059040 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map). Link to: Parcel Re its Related Parcel/Permit activity: List all activities attached to thisproject L02P0014 Other Prmjeg Actions attached to this pproel List Date: February 16, 2003 ift County I Permit Applications Report Engine I News Services Comments I Search Links to external sites db not consaute endmernwft by IGnq county. By vW ft this and other"County vreb pis, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and concit ns of the site. The det ft http://wwwO.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripwpermdemil.cfm?permit no=L02P0014 2/16/03 rage f crr i King County D,epiwtment of DevelopMent and 4nvire"mentall Services t DOES H—Plilga Online Permit Detail Permit information: Contact Information: Activity No: A99P3025 Applicant: BARGHAUSEN Permit Type: PREAPP-O CONSULT ENGRS, Sub-Type:FEASBLTY INC. True: HARBOR HOMES Address: 18215 72ND AVE S PREAPP-PLAT KENT, WA 98032 Status: PENDING Process 10% Percent: Description: 77 LOT PLAT IN 10- 23-5 Applied/Opened: 06/25/1999 Assigned Staff Site Information: Location & 11813 148TH AVE Juris.: SE KC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner_ HARBOR HOMES Parcel No: 1023059390 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: Other Projects/Actions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report Engind I News I Services I Comments Search links to external sites do not corabtute endorsements by 10ng County - By YisAV this and ot1w ;Ong County web pages, you expres* 9" to be bound by terme and oar Mons of the site. The detow http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripts/penndetaii.cfin?permit no=A99P3025 2/I6/03 r�i�u�� t]p}sit4iu�t�rr lilt uli,iuuV,i - 1'-fui.o, x�rug %_uuury w■ awmi6tun ragciurt King COUOy 11110MM11111 111111EM1111111 MEMO • Qepartmoot of Development and O it " an ! Services: r ODES Homepage Online Permit Detail Permit Information: Activity No: A991P3154 Permit Type: PREAPP-O Sub -Type: F EASBLTY Status: PENDING Process 1011/6 Percent: Description: FORMAL PLATMOSSIBLE REZONE Applied/Opened: 11 /23/1999 Contact Information: Applicant: U.S. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY--%CEN Address: 22617 8TH DR SE BOTHELL, WA 98021 Assigned Staff: Site Information: Location & 13615 Al 54TH AVE Juris.: SEXC Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: MORGON, HENRY Parcel No: 1463400005 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to. Parcel Reports Related Parcel/Permit Activity: Other ProjectslActions attached to this parcel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report End I News I Services Comments Search Unks to external sites do not constitute endorsement6 by King CDeurly, By visiting this and other IOng County web pages, -you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The dot". http://www6.metrokc.gov/ddes/scripts/permdetail_cf n?permit_no=A99P3154 2/16/03 rctllttt f-%Pvjl"tiVtt 11HVltl1411vil — lfi/L'ily 1 Mig %—Vtulty yvabllulgtVll t'age i oT i .@)King County Online Permit Detail Permit Information: 'Project No: LOOP0024 Permit Type: PRE -PLAT Sub -Type: PRE -PLAT Title: ASTER PARK Status: RET/WCI Process 10% Percent: Description: Applied/Opened: 11 / 14/2000 ► ODES Homt¢age Contact Information: Applicant US LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOC. Address: C/O CENTURION DEVELOPMENT SERV 22617 8TH DR SE BOTHELL, VITA 98021 - Assigned Staff. LHEN MBER Site Information: No. Lots: 37 Location & KC Juris.: Community Plan: NEWCASTLE Comp Plan: URBAN RES 4-12AC Owner: MAARTIN, CURTIS N & BEVERLY J Parcel No: 0323059026 (Link to Parcel Viewer Map) Link to: Parcel Repasts Related Parcel/Permit'Activity: List all activities attacied to this project LOOP0024 Other Proiec#sJAs attached to this_pamnel List Date: February 16, 2003 King County I Permit Applications Report Engine I News I Services I Comments I Se rch links to extemat sbee do not mesWe wxbnwmwft by K#ng Carty. By vis&g ttds and other King Cou* web pages, you expresses to be bound by ienm and condilfons of the site. The debits. h"://www6.metroke.goy/ddes/scripWpermdetail.cfm?permit no=LOOP0024 2/16/03 NOTICE OF APPLICATION A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NUMBERINAME: LUA-03-004, A,PZ, ECF/ BALES ANNEXATION AND PREZONE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Renton, in response to a 10% Petition to Annex, is proposing to authorize an annexation election for the proposed Bales Annexation. The subject site is an 8.52-acre area generally located between NE 4"' Street (SE 128' St) on the north and SE 130"' Street (if extended) on the south, 152"4 Avenue SE (if extended) on the west, and 155'h Avenue SE. (if extended) on the east. It abuts the City of Renton boundary on its north and west. The proposed City zoning for the subject annexation site is R-5 Zone, allowing up to 5 dwelling units per net acre. This is comparable to King County's current R-4 zoning which allows up to 4 dwelling units per gross acre. A concurrent prezone from the Bounty's R-4 Zone to Renton's R-5 Zone is also being processed as a part of this application. Future zoning would allow up to approximately 34 single-family detached dwellings on the 8.52-acre annexation site. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed annexation is located on the south side of NE 4'" Street SE across the street from the Morrison Annexation/Maureen Subdivision, west of White Fence Ranch. It abuts the City of Renton to its north along NE4th Street and to its west. PUBLIC APPROVALS: Annexation, Prezone, and Environmental Review for Prezone Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Donald Erickson, AICP, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on January 29"', 2003. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Don Erickson at (425) 430-6581. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION: January15, 2003 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January 15, 2003 DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 15, 2003 Exhibit No. Item No. �4iP IL Tygoj Received 3 " King County Hearing Examiner SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING ARBORISTS zi8r03 Ms_ Marsha Rollinger 15646 SE 13eh PL Renton, WA 98059 RE: Observations and comments regarding development plans for property that is adjacent to 1604h Ave SE in Renton WA, and also, shares a property corner with your neighborhood. Dear Marsha, I'm glad we finally got to meet on February 1't when 1 came out to look at the property north of your neighborhood that is under development review by King County_ I hope that my. observations and comments are helpful to you in presenting a case that might result in a positive change to the eventual development plan. I was happy to see that the Development Company, Centurion Development Services, was willing to have Mr. Michael Romano meet with us. Mr. Romano was focused, during our limited discussion with him, on the issues that exist with trees along the south fence line given the current proposal for a ten -foot "buffer" along that property line. My intent in this letter is to comment on the development as a whole as well as the tree issues on the adjacent properties. 5, 35 The proposed development is to be built -on a mostly flat 13 acre site with one existing residence. The property is currently zoned R-4, meaning that the land may be divided to allow four residential dwellings per acre. The parcel has an area that has been designated as wetland at the northwest corner and is forested with a mixed_ stand of native trees, including Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesh), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), along with other native tree species and associated understory trees and shrubs. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary of King County. In this area high density new development is required by the Growth Management Act in order to preserve open space in other areas. The development planned under the R-4 zoning will allow 46 homes. The layout of the development at that density that you showed me is a simple cul de sac style neighborhood. The plan divides the 13-acre property into small lots, a large surface water detention tract, and a wetland area that is shown as the only (206) 528.4670 7018 471h Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@attbi.corn Rollinger letter 2 03.doc www.sdbca.com Exhbtglblrn nfA Item No.�,. Received .' (0 King County Hearing Examiner AaSCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING ARBORISTS property that will not be disturbed_ The lots run right up to the property lime with no buffer. No trees are likely to be retained on the site outside the wetland area. The developer told us that no trees could be retained on the site. I would point out that this is essentially true given the layout of the lots, tendency to build homes right up to required setbacks, and the amount of required infrastructure. In fact, based on my experience, not only will all the trees be removed, but also most of the surface soil will be removed or destroyed by the development activities. My observation is that any large trees on adjoining properties near the property line that I saw (south line) would certainly be compromised by the development if the lots extend to the edge of the property. Many of your neighbors are worried that larger trees on their property would be at risk from the clearing of the adjacent site. Based on my knowledge and experience, I do not think that there is cause for concern, with the exception of the trees immediately adjacent to the development site property line. You also told me that the developer is petitioning the County for a zoning change to R-6 that would allow the property in question to be split into 76 individual residential lots, an additional 30 homes! At this density, the developer has expressed willingness to extend sewer service to the development at their expense. When we spoke with Mr. Romano, he seemed to be indicating that a 10' "buffer" was something he could live with, although he mentioned a fence to prevent future homeowners from "landscaping" the buffer. He did not tell us if this "buffer" was intended for the R-4 or R-6 plan for the development. In my opinion, the Growth Management Act is a good idea in essence. Increased density can be used to preserve open space and agriculture in surrounding areas. However, looking at this example, I think that the result of this development proposal, at either R-4 or R-6 density, represents a very negative impact on the surrounding community. It is difficult to preserve existing forest, especially large trees, on any construction site. However, when trees and native vegetation are preserved successfully, value is added to a finished project. In a situation like this one where the developer is planing to build affordable homes, I think that preserving trees where possible provides a net benefit. Mr. Romano told us that he is building affordable homes and that the development plan as presented is needed to do this. When I think about that comment, I wonder, does this mean that only those who can afford larger lots receive the benefits of the natural landscape? With the layout that I looked at for (206) 528.4670 7018 47`h Avenue NE - Seattle - WA - 98115 scottdb@attbi.com Roltinger letter 2-03.doc w►yw.sdbca.com Page 2 of 4 AaSCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING ARBORISTS the site proposed at R-4, it is my opinion that most of the forest and all the benefits it brings will be lost. Worse, there is unlikely to be any room on the new properties to plant replacement trees that would provide canopy in the future neighborhood. It is surprising to me that King County is not requiring developers to plan their projects to include preservation of existing canopy and vegetation as a provision for guaranteeing large trees in the future neighborhood. In the scenario we are discussing, a large tract of Natural forest that provides for retention and filtering of storm water that will eventually reach streams will be lost. Turf, rooftop, and pavement will dominate the likely landscape in this new "planned" neighborhood. One result of this engineered plan is the need for the detention pond to hold surface water. I see many of these "ponds" that are generally ugly, surrounded by fences, and quickly covered with invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry. In my opinion, they are not an amenity for people who will live in this neighborhood. The possibility exists to eliminate the large detention pond by using many small attractively landscaped bio-swales throughout the property. This approach has also seen success retrofitted into. existing neighborhoods to deal with runoff problems, resulting in new construction that will serve our area well in the future. The proposal to increase the density even further to 76 homes is excessive, given the value of the resource that will be lost. I understand that the County would be asking the developer to extend the sewer out to the site as part of an agreement to up -zone. In my opinion, the choice to build giant centralized sewage treatment systems should be challenged Avoiding the huge costs and environmental impacts of regional sewage systems and asking developers to build small, decentralized systems to serve their projects, makes much better sense for our region's future. Allowing the density on 13 acres to be 76 homes so that the developer can afford to subsidize the County's sewage business is a bad idea! Well, I have strayed off my favorite subject, trees. As a developer with some experience myself, 1 would enjoy a debate that allowed us to look further at some of the points that I have made above. I think that it is possible to provide housing pt a reasonable cost with a profitable bottom line for the developer while furthering sustainable communities. I'm hopeful that folks like us will be able to influence King County to help instigate the changes that are needed to accomplish this. I do have the following comments regarding trees and some simple changes that may allow successful tree retention on this site at either density. (206) 528 4670 7018 47'" Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scotEdb@attbi.com Rollinger letter 2-03.doc www.sd6ca_com Page 3 of 4 �SCOTT D. BAKER CONSULTING ARBORISTS 1. The ten -foot buffer along the south property line will not work. It is unlikely that any large trees on the development property can be retained with this approach. Mr. Romano described a strip 10' wide with a fence (to keep new owners from "landscaping" the ~buffer"), and then a back yard. This seems like a very poor idea to me. 2. With the loss of just four lots, a 50' deep buffer could be designed along the south property line. At this width a very attractive piece of remnant forest and related understory vegetation could remain along the property line. Some of the trees along the inside edge of this buffer would be removed or snagged for safety. Fifty feet provides ample room for a protected root zone that will ensure the successful retention of selected trees. 3. 1 also think that the community covenants required by the County for the new neighborhood should call for new large trees to be planted and protected. This can be a marketing tool for the developer and adds value to the properties right away_ I've noticed that in many new neighborhoods, few streettrees are planted and that new large trees of any kind are rarely planted. The Real Estate industry tells us that trees add value. I have to ask, where are the new trees going to come from? 4. Consider salvaging small trees and shrubs from the development site for re -use in new landscape buffers. Again, based on what I observed on our brief walk on Saturday, 1 do not think there is a risk to the larger trees that remained in your neighborhood due to the proposed new' development. That being said, please be aware that large trees always present some risk during severe weather. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please give me a call. Respectfully, Scott D. Baker, Consulting Arborist (206) 528A670 7018 04 Avenue NE • Seattle • WA • 98115 scottdb@a attbi_com Rollinger letter 2-03.doc w vw.sdbca.com Page 4 of 4 L x. FGt Last Address City Ren±on I State WA Zip 98059 Parcel ## - - 366450006E Tim and Gina Lex 13116 158th Ave SE Danielle and Davis Eckstrom 156th Ave SE Renton WA WA WA 98059 98059 98059 _ T 1423459oos 3664500062 Rhonda Bryant 15406 SE 136th Renton - - Gary — _ Stanford 13111 160th Ave SE Renton Laurie-_-- Hindes 14115 160 Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059056 Rene and Ully Threadwell 14005 1a3rd ST Renton WA 98059 e920"170 Mary Ann Huniu 115642 SE 139 PL Renton WA 198059 1423059M Debbie _ Erickson 16031 SE 135th ST Renton WA 198059 T� 2ooeooa210 Bob Elwell 16020 SE 130th St Renton WA 980591 1457500054 Roger Paulson 15657 SE 139 PL Renton WA 98059 94 Ranoy. Homer 13404 160 Ave SE Renton WA 98059 2oosa0003a Sally Nipert 14004 156th Ave SE Renton WA 9W59 1423 7 Eloise Stachowiak 15652 SE 139th PL Renton WA 98059 14 Leonard Johnston 16016 SE 135th ST Renton WA 9W59 2006"150 Ray Conwell 13006 158th Ave SE Renton IWA 98059 Brace Osgoodby Sr. 13456 156 Ave Se Renton IWA 98059 366450=1 Esther Delp 12820 156th Ave SE Renton IWA 98059 35645MI65 Wendy Downs 13825 156th Avenue SE , Renton WIA 198059 14634DJD57 Shirlene Day 14412 167th PI SE Renton WA 198059 iomwsw Kathleen Quirnet 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059M Kerrie Mason 13111 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Don and Diane Kezele 15657 SE 137 PL Renton WA 98059 142305MI Charles and Vioia Scoby 13112 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98459 36645=71 Neal Speer 12914 15M Ave SE Renton WA 98059 M-45000% Bud, June and Kris Hill 13527 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423D59059 Mark and Gail Costello 13012 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 30645ODD41 Jeff and Karen Sidebotham 13004 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36645OW43 Ed and Nancy Hilton 13414 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36045=35 Dave Petrie 811 S 273rd CT Des Moines WA 98198 David Kupcho 13110158th Ave SE Renton WA 9W59 3064500064 Fredy and Helga Jaques 1311415M Ave Se Renton WA 98059 3664500M Michael Cooke 13125158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36646=10 Marilynn Carlson 13616156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059o19 K. Sarquist 14204160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 14575M15 Don D. Milbrath 15624 SE 137th PL Renton WA 98059 1423D59a43 Richard Savage 12909158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 366450MOO Geneva D. Scholes 12924158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 38645WM Dale and Don Fisher 13155 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Bret Bowden 13814160th Ave 5E Renton WA 98055 1457500ON Gloria Peters 13025158th Ave SE Renton WA 198059 38$4WO190 Penny, Dave and W Thorbeck 15650 SE 138th PL Renton WA 98059 7418000080 Dan and Lynn Peterson 13118158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Dorothy Riley 14525167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 lost Martha Newton 14518167th PI SE Renton WA 9W59 10e+ Delores Menldng 13415 163rd Ave SE Renton WA SM59 Tent R_ Williams 13421 1Wrd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 359CODD 0 Alice Lee 16304 SE 135th Renton WA 98059 3S9000oo1 Robin and Donna Allred 13412163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500034 Ro)d and J.S_ Greider 13420163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Warren and Sara Pape 13420162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457600037 Constance and Richard Wien 13411 168rd Ave SE [Renton Renton WA 98059 Kenneth and Dorothy Olson 16210 SE 134th St IWA 98059 1457s00025 Exhibit No, 3 Item No. Received King County Hearing Examiner Dave Olson 16206 SE 134th Renton WA 98059 1457 Donald Helms 13404 162nd Ave SE Renton WA WA 98059 98059 ' 145750o— T 1081310190 t3i!I -- Makin 14404 162n8 Ave SE_ Renton John and Sharon Nanney 16169 SE 146th PI Renton WA 98059 f 1081320oso Albert _ Krush 74103 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 142305sa11 Roger and Shidey Anderson 15813 SE 141 st Renton WA 1423059M Fred and Gloria A. Martin 13079 160th Ave SE Renton WA _?80591 980591 3B64500D47 Harold and Roxaine Reynolds 13016 1566 Ave SE Renton WA 980591 366450o25 Jeff Casebeer 14051 156th Ave SE Renton WA 980591 53397=5 David Stevens 15910 SE 142nd St Renton WA 98059 1423059052 Kathryn Monroe 14131 16M Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059M Caro Ann Bu ett 16524 SE 145 ST Renton WA 9W59 1o812000W Sally and Gary Williams 13204 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36645DD220 Lone Crosslin 15430 SE 132nd ST Renton WA 9W59 142,3059115 Sam Tacher 15514 SE 132nd ST Renton WA 98059 142305911s Brent Flatau and Doryan Jarcell 11453 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059116 Russ Waterhouse 12925 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3864SM161 Gerald Smith 18524 S. 125th Renton WA 98055 7961500020 Calvin and Barbara Chin 14517157th Pt SE Renton WA 98059 Harold and Eleanor Zeek 16621 SE 145th Renton WA 98059 10912=1 Jennifer Armstrong 16613 SE 145th ST Renton WA 9$059 1081200300 Gary and J.Y. Smith 14504 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1001200M Michael S. Otis 14521 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081240140 Barbara J. Thomas 14537 166th PI SE Renton WA 9SM9 10612 OU Richard and Anita Oliphant 16519 SE 145th Renton WA 98059 10812OM20 David.. Rozymalski 16511 SE 145th St Renton WA 98059 1081200110 James and Patricia IMcDougal 14502 167th PI SE Renton WA 9W591 10812DXW Paula IChipman 114210 171 st Ave SE Renton IWA W591 7ZMDDM Four CrCCAS ll A. C. unincorporated area council Mr. ,fames O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiner`s Office 850 Union Bank of California Bldg 900 Fourth Ave Seattle WA 98164 March 5, 2003 RE: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications (1_t]1 DWI and L0,1 TY401) Dear Mr. Examiner, The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council was created and serves under the Citizen Participation Initiative, by order of King County Executive Gary Locke, as of December 30, 1994. Our Bylaws state our purpose in Article II: To represent the interests of the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area in dealings with the government of King County and other entities, with respect to issues affecting the area_ Those issues may include, without limitation, zoning and re -zoning, utility planning, open spaces and parks, capital funding, human service plans, surface water management plans, land use regulations, health and safety regulations, governmental services, transportation, annexation, taxes and fees, business regulations, nominations to King County boards and commissions, projects to improve the quality or delivery of County services, community services, community service centers and representatives, police storefronts, IGng County grants for local projects or activities, or any other matters of concern to this area. The issues of concern brought before us by the citizens we represent, in regard to the Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications (1-01 P0016 and L01TY401), compel us to write to you today. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area has seen tremendous residential growth on all sides - Newcastle, Renton and Issaquah. Now the applications are beginning to be submitted in earnest beyond the cities limits and into our community. The police, fire and transportation irrfrastr a Lures are not up to the strain that the impending population boom will bring, and there are no plans for King County to invest in the improvements necessary to support even greater density. The lack of interlocal agreements has led to the consistent occurrence for each jurisdiction blaming the lack of services and infrastructure on the other. And the citizens are left to suffer the consequences without recourse. Exhlblt No. Item No. Lt) I P W it (A rt -Al 4+QI Recelved °3-(Q �U King County Hearing Examiner The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council has asked specifically for relief of transportation inadequacies repeatedly to no avail, The geographic and jurisdictional isolation of the Urban portion of our community has, and will continue to, effectively prevented adequate infrastructure from being installed to accommodate denser development. ❑ Fire and Police funding in the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area have seen no increase to accommodate the burden of greater population and no funding increase is anticipated. ❑ The City of Renton has given notice of its intent to annex approximately 9 acres between the Renton City Limits and the proposed Evendell development at levels comparable to the existing R-4 zoning designation. o There are no adjacent or contiguous parcels of comparable density to that being requested. o No current applications in the Newcastle Planning Area have requested Zone Reclassificatiion. ❑ The Evendell application for Zone Reclassification is out of scale and is not compatible with existing character for the established surrounding neighborhood, and are likewise incompatible with all anticipated development in the area. For these reasons we oppose the Zone Reclassification Application. It is unjustified, unnecessary and insupportable from an infrastructure perspective. As the elected representatives of our community, we trust that the concerns of our neighbors, which we bring to you in this letter, will be considered with the same gravity with which we deliver them to you. We urge you to deny the application for Zone Reclassification_ Respectfully submitted, i E 1 p I y ice yrS I CJZ�e� 4*U V R11!AJ� 4 aclimavl� aa (Owlha- &L�D t -n 49,4 /Muin61Ut &X Flo Exhibit No. _ Item No. Lpi� Received ? .- 6) D King County Hearing Examiner ffl� r_zlc� tamu-rA j ' A rZ {Ca4 Oavt s,' March 3, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 SUBJECT: EVENDELL — L01T401 AND L01P0016 Dear Mr_ O'Connor, E,Y, . 44 L We have lived in this community since 1961. We chose to raise our family here in this once rural and beautifully wooded community, abundant with wildlife. It was not unusual to see owls, rabbits, deer, raccoons and beautiful birds in and around our back yards. Now, we only occasionally see wildlife as if tries to escape the increasing traffic and new housing developments. Their natural habitat is nearly all gone due to the massive construction that has been taking p ace since around the 1990's. We, like many of our neighbors are growing increasingly frustrated with the felling that King County is simply not listening to the communities concerns on the proposed zoning changes to increase density within the urban areas. The rezone that is based on King County Polic developers that they are supposed to be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. Like many of our neighbors our ome s on acres, w e hers sit on ve large lots. The developers would like you to a eve p g houses per acre of land is within character and scale of it's surrounding neighborhood. That sounds like fuzzy match to us. c Developers come and go, but we are stuck with over crowded schools, underdeveloped sidewalks and parks. The parrent roads are expected to carry the increased loads of mor and more i 'th little or no improvements. Are there any plas developer to help build new schools, crosses s or re� ace the WW II memorial 50-year-old Poplar trees that had to be sacrificed along 156' Ave. SE? Lastly but not least, I would like to voice my deep concerns about public safety. I am a retired volunteer fire fighter for nearly 40 years and a District 25 Fire Commissioner for 6 years. I have first hand experience when tragedy strikes. I have gone on many car C�q6..9 accidents that have occurred on 15e over the years. I truly that feel that adding more t, and more houses will drastically increase the amount of accidents on the two lane road. �[ O I would strop encourage o Mr. O'Connor to make the z strongly ag you, right choice. And that choice E should be to keep the Evendell community as close as possible that way it was originally x CC _C E M X LU Ca a O U CM planned. A quiet environment, with privacy and distinct rural flavor. Allowing 6 house per acre would surely destroy the very reason many of us have lived here for many years. We would like to be allowed to continue growing old in the same community that we raised our families, or at least with some of the rural atmosphere that drew us here in the first place. Sincerely, XA- Mr. and Mrs. Don and Janice Milbrath 15624 SE 137h Place Renton, WA 98059 risty J. Hill 13527 156 Ave. S.E. Renton, WA 980S9 Ph.(425) 226-9686 March 6, 2003 Nr. James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 SUBJECT: EVEi�DELL - LO1TY401 AIZ LO1PGa16 Lear Sir; i want to address the issue of the character of our neighbor- hood, and of how ill-fitting the propose up-zon o of this project would be. Earlier developments in this area made an effort to maintain the integrity of the established neighborhood. This one does not! Our neighborhood has pastureland and wooded areas; horses, llamas, and other livestock; bee keepers and exotic bird keepers; vegetable, rose and dahlia gardens, etc. We have hundred year -old native trees and a wide variety of landscape trees. Two storey homes are generally situated on lots of one-half acre or larger, while smaller one -quarter acre lots contain rambler -style homes. Previous developments in our area were required to leave some ex sting trees a e lace a significant percentage of those -zaat-wee removed. These trees provide more than a pretty background and privacy. They also absorb massive amounts of water whicn, in turn, helps control run-orr sna. soli: erosion. 1n a time when power shortages are oecoming the norm,.tney provede a natural cooling option rather than straining limited power supplies with air -conditioners during riot weather. Tney also aid in removing pollutants rrom the air; air quality in an area witn a permanent burn ban snould be or paramount con- cern. This doesn't even address the issue or loss of wilalife hanitat: wllciliie with which the neighbors have not only co- existed, but which we nave also protected anu enjoyed. If unis new development is granted. an is no possibility of it ever fitting neighborhood. Large nouses, on even R-n aesignation, there the well -established smaller than presently Exhibit No. Item No. 0IFO01 C-1 J— �DI Y4/01 Received a (O~ Q King County Hearing Examiner zoned. lots, a.o not allow i'or gardens let alone an si nlficant tree re lacem er n$ c er7ry does not equal a nun - area year -old cedar (or even a brow -lean maple) in beneficial properties. House owners wili not .�ave adequate space to cre- ate an air of individuality in their "yards" as uneir prede- cessors have been able and eager to do. While we in the neighborhood are not anxious to nave any major developments in our midst, we understand the need r'or some controlled growth. What we don't understand, and do not accept, is any real need for a greater density than the presen - . K ng oun y s oe,n s u a ere s more an t as much buildable area available, than is required to m&gt_pro- R-4 allows for slightly larger o s pet house which is sat'er (ask a firefighter) and arr'ords a mucn oetter quality of life Vor all residents. AnoLner frightening aspect of granting an up -zone is the prece- dent it would set. er other ro osed oevelo ment in tbig- area can use it as an argument (excuse) to also request and �ieir own R-o aesi nation. These additional develop- ments Kou d oe a patchwork cutting right through the hearu or a previously compatible neignborhood. Zt seems tnat the wishes of people who nave paid property taxes in, ana have been caretakers or' this area for several years; anu the wishes or' newcomers who snopped aroung and fell In love with the personality or' this neighborhood should count as much or more than une desires of developers who will great- ly impact the neighborhood and then walk away without having to deal with any of the negative impact. Those oz' us who live here will be stuck with it. Respectfully, Kristy J. Hill March b, 200J Mr. James O'Connor Depury Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office b.50 Union Bank of California Buiiding ,vu r'our'tn Avenue Seattle, WA yOdlo4 SUBJECT: EVENDELL - LOITY401 AND LOIp0O16 Lear Mr. O'Connor; We moved to the Renton area in the fall of 1969. We started shopping for a home to buy early in 1970. We looked at sever- al properties but nothing satisfied us. My husband and daugh- ter drove 156th Ave. S.E. every day on their way to Hazen High School where he taught and she was a student. They often re- marked how attractive this one particular home was and that they --wished it was for sale, Magically, one day it was! They shot the phone number from the homemade "For Sale" sign, we called for an appointment that afternoon, saw the house that evening and put earnest money down on it before we left. Our home is situated on a half -acre parcel. We have large trees, smaller landscaping trees, several rhododendrons and azaleas, and a wide variety of shrubs, bushes and flowers. We grow our own raspberries, and we have a vegetable garden. Our cucumbers did very well this past summer. As a result, our homemade "dill pickles graced the tables of many of our neigh- bors last winter. In the tree outside our picture window we hang a seed -filled bird feeder and a suet basket. These attract a variety of birds: flickers, downy woodpeckers, chickadees, juncos, nuthatches, and the occasional hawk who takes the term "bird feeding station" very literally. We also get squirrels and chipmunks who don't mind sharing with the birds. We find watching the birds and squirrels, gardening, even yard work very soul -soothing, as do most of our neighbors. Unfortunately, if this upzone is granted, our new neighbors will. -.have no chance to experience any of this. At least an R-4 designation allows for a little more space for them to put their individual stamp on their own property. In addition an A-4 may also allow a nominal replacement of the trees lost during construction. In the summer, we know the trees a- round our property help keep our home much cooler, thereby elj.m mating the need for an air conditioner. During our recent power shortages, that made life much more bearable. Exhibit No. Item No, Received King County Hearing Examiner I would also like to voice my concern about public safety. My husband worked as a firefighter (volunteer and paid) for sever- al years. He knows it is imperative to have ready access to an area when a fire occurs. There must be adequate space be- tween structures to allow for setting ladders for reaching upper floors of buildings.With houses in too close proximity, a fire in one endangers then all. Another concern is traffic on 156th Ave. S.E. All neighbors with driveways directly accessing 156th find it difficult, even dangerous at times to enter or exit those driveways. other residents accessing side streets experience those same diffi- culties entering or exiting 156th Ave. Mr. O'Connor, I strongly urge you to make the right choice to keep the Evendell community as close as possible to the way it was originally planned. Allowing six houses per acre would surely destroy the atmosphere those of us who have lived here for many years have enjoyed. A quiet, peaceful environment with a rural flavor is something to cherish. We hope the new families can experience the same pleasure, Sincerely, Edward. and June Hill 13527 156 Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 Department of Development and Environment Services March 1, 2003 Our reasons for objecting to building so many houses in our neighbor are - We have a small, quiet, countryfied neighbor here and - - - Too many additional houses would increase the traffic problem and noise to an intolerable level. Increased density could increase crime. More people - more crime. This is extremely stressful on seniors especially. Noise would increase greatly due to many more cars and motorcycles, lawn mower & leaf blowers, people noise, dogs barking, and delivery trucks,etc. Pollution would greatly increase with the so many more vehicles, burning of fire places, barbeques ,gas powered outdoor equiptment etc. We aready have residents who have medical conditions that make it difficult to breath on certain days. Higher density would displace many of our wildlife, which is already bad enough. More houses would put a strain on our utilities such as water, electricity, storm drains, police and Fire protection. It just is not the best action for a community to grow so fast that services cannot keep up with the demand. People need time to adjust also. Charles W. Scoby - 13112 - 158 Ave. S. E. Renton, WA Viola,M. Scoby - 13112 - 158 Ave. S.E. Renton, WA 98059 Geneva D. Scholes - 12924 - 158 Ave. S. E. Re on, Wa 98059 Exhibit No.gz rA Item No. L-0 i PON -4- L 1 "-qoj Received King County Hearing Examiner Laurie Hindes 14115 160" AVE SE Renton, Wa. 98059 February 26, 2003 King County Hearing Examiner Evendell Project Dear Sir or Madam: I reside less than one Quarter of a mile south of several proposed housing projects along 160M AVE SE in Renton. There is a slope aloe 160 t the lower end of the slo e. I have numerous concerns regarding this deve opme 1) Character of the neighborhood: I reside in a largely rural neighborhood. Lot sizes are at least half an acre but generally larger. I am appalled at the state of development alon 1 th (Cemetery Road). It looks like Southern California. No lar'ggFfrees remain.omess a o)di ce ructures. The proposed developments Will create a similar setting on 16dn Ave. 2) Waiter run-off: I am concerned with the water run-off that will no doubt be created by such large developments. Previously I resided in Newcastle below the new Golf Course. Citizens were told by developers and County employees that no flooding etc would be created by stepping an entire hillside of large trees and adding a Golf Course. This did not prove to be the case. I currently reside "down slope" from the current proposed developments and am concerned with assurances that flooding etc won't be an issue. I have found when profits are the main concern, half-truths and inadequate studies are used to 'push" a development through. 3) Egsplaced Animal Population: Clearty when a woodland habitat is destroyed, numerous animal species are displaced. A curious oocurrenee in Newcastle was greatly increased rodent populations in residences. Larger animals reside in the forested area including deer and coyotes. It is not clear where they will go when the area is stripped of vegetation. 4) Traffic: I am concerned with increased traffic on 160'h Ave SE. This road was not designed to handle the great increase in traffic. I am opposed to the current development plan. I realize development is inevitable, but I request it be managed to allow no more than three or four homes per acre. Sincerely, C A 40:�� Laurie A. Hindes Concerned citizen, home owner, tax payer Exhibit No. —9ZL—Q-- Item No. Lo I POD i LO 17`YVop Received -31- 6 — �) King County Hearing Examiner ....................... March 4, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Re: Evendell- LOITY401 and L01POO16 Dear Mr. O'Connor: I write this letter as a lifelong resident of King County to express my concerns about the proposed Evendell development referenced above. My wife and two young children (ages 8 and 5) moved into our neighborhood about five years ago. We chose this spot (which is about a auarter mile from the proposed development) not only because of its central location but because of the unique c aracter oft e neighborhood. My street is made up of mature homes on treed lots, typically one -quarter and one-half acre in size, some larger residences situated on one acre parcels. In addition, the homes are interspersed with several vacant lots which are used to house a variety of animals, including horses, cows, rabbits and geese. In short, the neighborhood has a uniquely rural flavor despite its location within King County's urban growth boon ary. I was not particularly surprised to see the proposed land use sign at the end of my street about a year ago given the fierce pace of residential development occurring in the area surrounding our neighborhood. Up to that time, I had taken some solace in the fact that the new development seemed to be occurring to the West of our street. I understand the concept of the urban growth boundary, I recognize that our street is within that area, and I realize that people need to have a place to live. However, I was taken aback when I noted the proposed density of this development- 75 homes on approximately 11 acres. Bringing this many new homes into our neighborhood will undeniably alter the character of the area, and one need only walk down our street 0 8t' Ave. SE) to conclude that the development will not be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to this incompatibility, I have very real safety concerns related to this proposal. Specifically, as a result of the dramatically increased level of traffic on our street, I will no longer be able to walk up and down the street with my family without being constantly on the alert for speeding cars, and my children will clearly be exposed to a higher level of risk as they go about the simple process of living their lives (e.g., playing in the front yard, walking to the bus, etc.). Further, the main arterials in the area are already cIogged as a result of the hundreds and hundreds of new homes already completed. I have definite concerns about my ability to simply turn from 158t' Ave. SE Exhibit No. item too. k.OiPon&+ Received 3` 4,-12 AJ3IT yy0 King County bearing Examiner onto 128'h (to get to work or get the kids to school) given the congestion resulting from t�ama�ic growth in residential units in this area. As I stated above, I understand the theory behind the urban growth area. I would simply ask that the process be governed by reason. In my view, while it may be reasonable to develop the Evendell lots to facilitate the needs of the growing population, It is not reasonable to do so to the detriment of the surrounding neighborhood and at the expense of the safety and well being of its residents. Please take my concerns under advisement as you consider the proposed development. Could we not balance the interests of all the parties by developing, say, 20 homes at the site rather than 75? Certainly we'd all be safer, the impact on the infrastructure and service providers (i_e., police and fire) would be more manageable, and a considerable number of homes would still be built. Thank you for your reasonable consideration of my concerns, and please feel free to call me at (246)553-7312 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mar Costello 13012 158h Ave. SE Renton, WA oQ Z/ VA'l r_7-Y Ya,( cam. z.o_a,Par��. Z -ol , z Z Exhibit No. a_ Iter►� No. �� Croce � ��c oCoz /C_ Received 3- L...O ! yHOl S� 5-2S . Z ! 3 King County Hearing Examiner Exhibit No. Item No. yq Aeceived-- King County Hearing Examiner ---- — -- — — — -------- - — — ---------------------- — --- --, VJ G 3 �- h/� / 3 H ILE') L 12 c Dan and Lynn Peterson 13118158 Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 9S164 Re: Evendell—L01TY401 and L01P0016 Dear Sir, We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed ReZone in our neighborhood and the Evendell development. We live on 158`' Avenue SE and it is a rural, residential community. Our street has no sidewalks or sewers. It cannot handle any more traffic than it has now. We have two bus stops on our street where children stand on the shoulder of the road. Having added traffic would be a safety concern fog them. The character of our Neighborhood is quiet and rural. We have large lots, and enjoy the horses, cows, and other farm animals that live here. By rezoning and adding scores of new homes at the end of our street, our rural atmosphere will be destroyed and our property values could decrease. It would be difficult for us to safely walk down our street. The construction crews, and work trucks could cause damage to our property and our roads. We certainly hope that the Evendell development in our neighborhood is kept to a minimum in order to preserve its rural character. Our community has been safe because we have had ample police and fire protection.. If the rezoning takes place and many more homes are added, there is a concern that there will not be enough security and fire protection available. The City of Renton has developed so much of our neighboring areas. Let it stop there. We are outside the city limits, and wish to remain a country community. YV e at �lo C o"C t cr- tv I`A 4e albeve ,. r-fle A. Sincerely, Dan Dan and Lynn Peterson Exhibit No. Item No. LQ1e0QV& Received'...n King County Hearing Examiner ii< ►i� .S �re��S to �4 . 4v. S ,5 nvas.9 1 J 4 TO, Cry cs rt V, O v' fir'_ ��: C• 'y �� c t Pecf L6 IT Tqol EXhlblt No. fJ�, Item No. a 1 I ijyq! Received 3 - G— _ 0-3 King County Hearing Examiner <71 La %r C Q V C�) f V � ;P� u v w, e c1 t,•� O i � 7 d � Q, r v—fls A j r ►'� , le �j c.�e-���y vLSc. �j�C w, 4_s 13 2 �z March 5, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue �T m��i1s�1w���� Dear Sir, 1 oppose the Rezone of the following application name and number: Evendell — L01TY401 AND L01P0016. Rezone would adversely change the character and scale of my neighborhood. We moved here 17 years ago for the large lot and forest of trees. Lots being stripped of trees and overbuilding will spoil he quiet, rural atmosphere. Based on King County Policy U-120 Rezone of this parcel should not be approved. Sincerely, Linda Williams 16155 SE 146 h Pl Renton WA 98059 Exhibit No, "z� Item No. + L0/rYg6/ Received King County Hearing Examiner Rodney S Stewart 16168 SE 146"' Place Renton, WA 98059 March 5, 2003 James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 800 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 RE: Evendell — LO 1 TY401 AND LO 1 PO016 Dear Mr_ Examiner: I have been a resident of Renton Highlands for over 30 years. 1 moved here because of the quiet, rural setting. During these years, my famiTy and I have enjoyed the natural environment, the wildlife, and privacy of our neighborhood and surrounding community. I fear that we are loosing the very features that drew me and others to this community by opening up over neighborhood to developments that create a sea of houses and asphalt, lines of traffic, and their associated problems. The developers are here (temporarily) to make a profit, so naturally more and more houses in a smaller area means more and more profits in their pockets. They are not interested in preserving the rural environment or our sense of community. These features which we so cherish can not be easily measured monetarily but for the residents of our neighborhoods they are priceless. I respectfully request that the rezone not be granted. Thanks for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rodney . Stewart Exhibit No. Item No, -A- Lj Q i Received King Cminty Hppring Examiner E. A. Schultz 16152 SE 146`h Pl. Renton, WA 98059 March 4, 2003 Mr. James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner KC Hearing Examiner's Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Forth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Re: Evendell — L01 TY401 and L01P0016 Mr. O' Conner, i3 years ago, after months of very careful searching and research, I purchased my home in Briarwood. With rm-y youngest son still at home with me, my highest priorities were for a rural, family oriented neighborhood with quiet, safe streets, in both my immediate and extended neighborhoods. My reasoning was simple...1 wanted a safe environment for my son ... as a pre-schooler back then and as the teenager he is now. I deliberately avoided areas where I could have paid less for more house so that I could provide this for my boy. Th walking distance nearness of Maywood aid Librrty were also key factors. My long range plan was that he or one o is o er siblings would raise their family here after I had moved on. I have watched with dismay over the last 2 years as developers have turned SE 128th into Kent north_ This rural stretch that was spotted with horses and cattle when I moved in has turned into a four lane arterial with bumper to bumper traffic jams at all hours of the day. I was horrified a few months back when I noticed that the high density malignancy was spreading down 156`h Ave. and more recently as the roadwork began, obviously widening this quiet street into another four lane, high traffic arterial. I bought at a time when housing costs were at a pre -Desert Storm peak and it has only been in the last few years that my home value has recovered from the post war housing slump. I shutter at the potential impact to my home's value as the accesses to my neighborhood become glutted with the denizens of the high density housing being planned for the developments you are reviewing. KC Poli�yc U`-120 does not permit zoning changes to increase density in urban areas unless the development is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding nei hborhoo . Sir, my nei bars an w o sought so carefully for exactly the character and scale we have are the experts on what violates the intent of U-120. Please... listen to us and not the 3evelopers Maintain density levels at an acceptable 4 single family homes per acre. I and my neighbors and our children will be grate u . Thank you, Z. Wjw- F UP 126 Edward A. Schultz Exhibit No. Item No, L 11 Received King County Hearing Examiner March S, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98164 Dear Sir, I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the rezone. Technically because it is against King County Policy U-120 which states that King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase density within the Urban area unless it is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. My wife and I moved to this area over thirty years ago and were happy with the rural flavor of the neighborhood and yet being c ose into eattle. In the last couple of years, we have watched what appears to be the indiscriminate building of condos and tract homes in Renton with only one thing in mind -making as much money for the builders as possible with the highest density possible. All the traffic congestion this has created has added fifteen minutes to my daily commute each way. I don't expect it to get any better but at least,Lyou dash allow-alligher density rezone, we can boa it due 11Set a whole lot wars . And nearb ea will not oo ike Cerrietary Road. Please also consider that with our present economy, our police and fire departments will be further stretched for coverage. Please DO NOT increase the density of the zoning already in place? Respectfully, -Joseph Matsudaira 16128 SE 146"' Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Evendell- LOITY401 and L01P0016 Exhibit No. I "'7 E Item No. k D /14-0 �„ � �Q 1 I V q Received (o- G' King County Hearing Examiner March 5, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98164 Dear Sir, I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the rezone. Technically because it is against King County Policy U-120 which states that King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase density within the Urban area unless it is compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood_ I first moved to this area over thirty ears ago and was attracted to the large lots with old growth trees which were left standing_ O Igea was known for bigger yards and a kind of "coup feel". Over the last few years I have seen aIT the constru on especially along 128 tape place and all the while the traffic on that same main road and the surrounding roads has gotten more and more congested. I am sure that there is no way t__o stop all this construction but to allow the increase in density is crazy. It defin will change the c iaragW of our neighborhood unless t e County keeps the rezone as is. We have already had flooding problems in Briarwood South and more building surrounding our neighborhood and the cutting down of the trees which such high density will require will result in more flooding. Please DO NOT increase the density of the zoning already in place! Respectfully, Brenda Matsudaira 16128 SE 146'h Pl. Renton, WA 98059 Evendell- LO 1 TY401 and LOl P0016 Exhibit No. /-] L� r itemNo.LI-)iP0ai(o * L()17-V4/0/ Received _. 3 (.- co King County Hearing Examiner James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of Calif Bldg. 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Wa. 98164 March 05, 2003 Re: Evendell - L01 TY401 and L01F4016 As residents of the Evendell area, we are very much opposed to the re -zoning of said area. It is clear that there is already a policy in King County number U-120 which states that King Coun shall not approve pro osed zonin chan �rros to increase densi 7it thin the Urban, Area unless the sal re -zoning is compatible with the sun ng neighborhd. Not only es this re -zoning not fit in with the c acter an sc e a e surroun ing area also is a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. The additional water runoff will only add to theproblems for those who live southeast of the said project. As it star s now, w en we ave a heavy rain the King Coun_V Road Maintenance crew is liverin a e water Pond on SE 144 and 166'h SE. Common sense should you that it is only a matter of time before a child is going to fall into one of these water runoff ponds and drowned. Maybe then a stop to this practice will be initiated at the expense of a life and the grief of a family along with the grandparents and others, not to mention the health hazards that they are creating with the breeding of mosquitoes. Our evergreen and pine trees absorb a lot of water thru their needles and clear cutting and putting houses so close together makes it impossible to replant trees only adding to the water runoff problem. The County has already had to sandbag our property in the last year. Additional runoff of water could severely age our property. Many have lived in this area all their lives, myself included. It is our rural area and we want it maintained as a rural area. Others have moved into this area because of its rural setting. It has always had a slow but constant growth, which is the way it should be in order not to upset the natural beauty which surrounds us. Our God given neighbors, the squirrels, racoons, red fox, deer and etc. have had time to adjust to this slower growth and we have adapted to each other as good neighbors. To have a developer come into our area, an area he knows nothing about, and start trying to change its way of life should be stopped by our existing laws. We want them enforced now. We also are not getting increased Fire and Law coverage in proportion to a sudden in -surge of families that a re -zoning would create thus putting an added burden on many. r1EX , 45 Richard and Anita Or h p 6519 SE 14511' Street Renton, Wa. 98059 EXhiblt NO. 1 0,_ Item No.J LD / Tel �J Received ' G King County Hearing Examiner March 4, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Re: Evendell- LOITY401 and L01P0016 Dear Mr. O'Connor: I write this letter as a lifelong resident of King County to express my concerns about the proposed Evendell development referenced above. My wife and two young children (ages 8 and 5) moved into our neighborhood about five years ago. We chose this spot (which is about a quarter mile from the proposed development) not only because of its central location but because of the unique character of the neighborhood. My street is made up of mature homes on treed lots, typically one -quarter and one-half acre in size with some larger residences situate on one acr a s. n addition, the homes are interspersed with several vacant lots w ich are used to house a variety of animals, including horses, cows, rabbits and geese. In short, the neighborhood has a uniquely rural flavor despite its location within King County's urban growth bound "— I was not particularly surprised to see the proposed land use sign at the end of my street about a year ago given the fierce pace of residential development occurring in the area surrounding our neighborhood. Up to that time, I had taken some solace in the fact that the new development seemed to be occurring to the West of our street. I understand the concept of the urban growth boundary, I recognize that our street is within that area, and I realize that people need to have a place to live. However, I was taken aback when I noted the proposed density of this development- 75 homes on approximately 11 acres. Bringing this many new homes into our neighborhood will undeniably alter the character of the area, and one need only walk down our street (158t' Ave. SE) to conclude that the development will not be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition to this incompatibility, I have very real safety concerns related to this proposal. Specifically, as a result of the dramatically increased level of traffic on our street, I will no longer be able to walk up and down the street with my family without being constantly on the alert for speeding cars, and my children will clearly be exposed to a higher level of risk as they go about the simple process of living their lives (e.g., playing in the front yard, walking to the bus, etc.). Further, the main arterials in the area are already clogged as a result of the hundreds and hundreds of new homes already completed. I have definite concerns about my ability to simply turn from 15e Ave. SE Exhibit No. Item No. corT � poi Received - Kina County Hearing Examiner 14 ic)3 onto 128`h (to get to work or get the kids to school) given the congestion resulting from the dramatic growth in residential units in this area. As I stated above, I understand the theory behind the urban growth area. I would simply ask that the process be governed by reason. In my view, while it ma1be reasonable to develop the Evendell lots to facilitate the needs of the gEowing population,it is not reasonable to do so to din nei vrhhnrhond and at the ex ense of the safety and well being of its residents. Please take my concerns under advisement as you consider the proposed development. Could we not balance the interests of all the parties by developing, say, 20 homes at the site rather than 75? Certainly we'd all be safer, the impact on the infrastructure and service providers (i.e., police and fire) would be more manageable, and a considerable number of homes would still be built. Thank you for your reasonable consideration of my concerns, and please feel free to call me at (206)553-7312 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mar Costello 13012 158"' Ave. SE Renton, WA Mr. James O, Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearings Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900'' Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Reference: Evendell Applications #LO 1 TY401 & 4LOlPOO16 Dear Mr. Examiner, The purpose of this letter is to express our utmost concern and present an argument against the proposed Evendell rezone. Our home is located on 15e Avenue South East, not directly adjacent to the site, but very, very close. We are totally opposed to this development proposal for fear of what will happen to our neighborhood. We already feel the squeeze of the recent developments on 128 h. The traffic, noise, pollution, constant construction an roa s tome by too muc u e�iave already changed our lives. Not to mention that developers have clear-cut so many of the trees. We moved here because this area had large lots, a country feel and open space. 1t was close to schools and easy access to the things we need. We moved here because our children had room to play outside, ride bikes and enjoy the freedom of growing up in our clean quiet, open environment with lots of trees and privacy. The Evendell project is about to change all of what we have left of a rural neighborhood. Everyone knows school systems are so overcrowded the kids cant get the attention they need to learn and the traffic situation around here is just terrible. The Evendell project rezone proposal could not have been a result of good growth management planning and should not be granted. We all know that growth is unavoidable. However, growth must be in scale with the surrounding neighborhood and its character. Exhibit No. 0-- Item No, L01POO14 +- CAI T'�il� Received King County Hearing Examiner King County Policy U-20 specifically says "King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase density within the Urban Area unless: a. The development will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood." Granting o rezone would not be com atible with the character and scale of the neighborhood. It woul a quite the opposite. We believe that it would be a rant of pci r nconsistent with the current uses of other properties in the vicinity and neighborhood. It would also set a president. for any new proposals. If this rezone is granted then others are soon to follow. The developers know this and are concerned about one thing. More building lots mean more money. It is clear that this proposal has not been designed to minimize effect on our adjacent properties. We urge you to accept our public appeal and deny this rezone proposal. We live here and need to have a say in our local government and not be over run by development. S' cer 1y, Jeff and Karen Sidebotham 13004 158 h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Edward gyp. Fjiltan 134141581h Ave SE Renton. WA 9 059 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building goo 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Re: Evendell-LO1TY4o1 and LoiPoo16 March 6, 2003 Dear Mr. O'Connor, I am writing because I am very concerned about the issue before you today. Changing the zoning of our neighborhood will totally ruin the quiet, rural setting in which I chose to live and finish raising my children. We bought our house near the end of the road, so that our children could bicycle, skate, and fly kites without fear of being run over. When my elderly father came to live with us, he was able to walk his dog in safety. The large lots and rural flavor of this neighborhood allow us to raise chickens and have horses right across the street. The change in the zoning would put 70 houses in an area that, according to the present neighborhood, would support about 13. We don't even have 7o houses all along the length o€158th! I am also very concerned about the water impact of putting in such a development. Our lot has extensive curtain drains in order to deal with the winter rains, and even with those, our front yard gets soggy after a week of heavy rains. The culvert out front has been filled to the top once since we've been here. (7 years in June) I'm not convinced that the developer's plans are adequate to deal with the water problem. I'm also not thrilled about having a storm drainage pond anywhere near here, which seems to be the latest mitigation effort. They don't drain fast enough, are a breeding ground for mosquitoes, and are an eyesore in the neighborhood. I also a str rein 158thinto a main thoroughfare. must there be a raight road dirgetly into the level Qnment?400 trips in andout dai y right in front of our house is excessive. We bought our house to be at the end of the street to avoid suchtraffic. Why shouTcrt ie lew neighbors have dead ends and we have to put up with traffic streaming past our house every day? It would be much fairer torequire uire the develo r to put at least a "o in the road with feeders off of 156ffi and 16oth. Otherwise there will be traffic slowdowns and irritated residents all aroun so wi e very UMcult for our elderly neighbors to back out of their driveways in safety. Please keep our neighborhood reasonably small, Mr. Connor, and rule against the re -zoning. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Edward Hilton Exhibit No. Item No. ygO1 Received.. A - lo— 0 "Ilfflq Ciounty Hearing Examiner March 4, 2003 To: Greg Kip, Director of DDES, King County DDES. Land Services Division (Current Planning Section) Karen Scharer, assigned DDES planner Kim Claussen, Planner III, Current Planning Section Trishah Bull, Planner II, Current Planning Section Bruce Whittaker, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section Kris Langely, Supervisor, Traffic and Engineering KCDOT Laura Casey, Senior Ecologist, Site Development Services Larry West, Senior Geologist, Site Development Services At Kind County DDES Land Use Services Division (Current Planning Section) Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW. Renton, WA 98055-1219 David Irons, King County Representative District 12 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104-3272 http.://�-w-%v.metrokc.gov/iiikccIMembers/dl2/index.hiiii King County Surface Water and Land Management 206 296 6519 Department of Natural Resources King Street Station 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 Jesse Tanner, Mayor of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 David M. Christensen, Renton Wastewater Utility Supervisor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 From: chael Rae Cooke 13125 158 h Ave. SE , ;' ; F [ p R J � Renton, WA 98059 Subj: Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendall — LOIPOO 16 and LOITY401 Proposed Rezone of 4 and %2 additional acres bounded by 158 h Ave. SE, SE 136 h, and 1601' SE Proposed Rezone of 2 and %2 additional acres bounded by he Ave. SE, SE 132"d, and 160'hSE Who am I? A Washington native, born in Seattle, and a resident of unincorporated King County for 30 years, who has just completed paying off the mortgage to my home. I am employed by the Federal Aviation Administration. I hold the position of Program Analyst and Freedom of Information Act Officer, and have been a Management and Program Manager, I represent my household and the Peterson family who live across the street As an access professional, I know that you have a myriad of sometimes confusing and overlapping regulations to deal with in making your decisions_ As the existing community, we look to your expertise in Exhibit No. .411:f Q_ — — Item No. A.01090e I / + l..4LZy101 Received _ R'(a ^ 03 King County Hearing Examiner different disciplines to provide careful analysis and consideration as you make your official determinations regarding rezoning and building permits in our area. We recognize that growth is inevitable. As it occurs we have three major concerns a. That development bewithin existing zoning and current law and quidejines b- That it not pose angers o ourse ves, of ers, or t e environment, and c. That a egua visions for water supplies, drainage, utilities, road and traffic maintenance, fire and ralice be protected and required: RezaiWn,e item a: development within existing zoning and current law and guidelines. The developers have not met the conditions of the urban grid pattern zoning requirements. t I< L ti Ut I a. There are current statutes and laws, which were specifically designed to provide reasonable growth management.for King County, and that impose requirements on applications of this type, P° i - b. The developers application for 118 does not meet the current King County RSquiremelt that rezoning must within the character of the existm nei borhood, and that a rezone with no contiguous boundaries cannot be made deen IN THE CENTER of an existing approv zone, in tie an area a rea v rezon as R4. c. The area has not been properly identified, which makes the current studies null and void: (1) This area has never been included in the Renton Highlands, which was a specific area in the City of Renton. (2) The area has been known as Renton Hills (see the U. S. Bank designator/ they have another branch which is in the Highlands), Coalfield, and Briarwood. (3) This is not the Green River Watershed and Basin. It is the Cedar River Watershed and Basin, one of only 4 WIRA drainage basins in all of King County. (4) Therefore, parcel location and context data in this application must be reviewed, and the assertions of the developers reassessed, and a report of this analysis be made and placed in the public file. �-.?-s x �l -�p4 � 1591 I,f J Jar,.. S � � �t- d. The developers have been successful in getting THREE FINAL extensions from DDES. The existing residents are entitled to know the conditions on which the developer received a waiver from a final determination three times. Not only is the effort to rezone to R8 irregular, but so is the extension. e. The statutes and laws appear not to have been uniformly applied: 'q6 X- (1) One developer has secured a rezone substantially inside the western border of the R4 to R8 within Renton City limits. (2) Now comes this outside developer trying to add another R8, well into the center of the R4 area in the county, which is clearly in definace of the existing law. (3) If this is successful we understand the plan by developers is to rezone again in the 4 '/2 acres (bounded by 158h Ave. SE, 160a' Ave SE„ SE 136" and SE 134'h) , adjacent to the Evendall plait (bounded by 160`h Ave. SE, SE 13e, and 15e Ave SE to about SE 138th), and again to the north bounded by 160'h Ave SE, SE 132 and SE 130 and 15e Ave SE, all without a vote of the existing residents in the area. Rerar&n¢ item b. That it not pose dangers to ourselves, others, or the environment. Currently the area is under severe stress from unsafe traffic patterns that have resulted in multiple accidents, one death, and inadequate support for road maintenance by a county strapped for funding. (1) The two lane 156'h Ave SE has been reclassifed from a minor throughfare to a major through fare due to the increased volume of traffic. (2) 156`4 Ave SE is designated by King County as a Life Line Route and already presents a danger to citizens due the outstripping of the maximum safe traffic volume. Citizens risk not being able to access this exit route because of a resulting mass traffic jam. (3) lnadquate maintenance and over use has caused one death and multiple accidents when residents try to get onto SE 128`h from current avenues existing from 158`4 Ave. SE, through 160 Ave. SE. Regarding item c. That adequate provisions for water supplies, drainage, utilities, road and tratiic maintenance, fire and police be protected and required. a. Regarding the basic need for water, access to adequate water pressure is already compromised by the addition of the new housing on SE 128'h. Water pressure this summer was so low that my daughter and I had trouble taking a shower. b. Storm drainage has become an increasing problem with the removal of at least 200 trees that used up 25 gallons of water a day and breathed it safely back into the atmosphere. That's 5,000 gallons of water that has nowhere to go. As a result: (1) Neighbors down 160 Ave. SE, and 156 Ave. SE. have had severe in of basements, crawl spaces, and fieldds that they have never ex m2ge ed rior to the new 75Tnew family ress ences built in the last two years lust on SE 128' . The impact of 150 new houses in a small area will be isas ero . (2) Storm water ponds have proven totally inadequate to contain the run off, breed plagues of mosquitos, and are not maintained by anyone, remaining public eyesores and decreasing property values. A c�j? �'t,� ham^ { �^ � sy u tns l{eJ� b�� ei is eaS - &'d cp" I s (3) 1 have lived here 30 years and for the first time since the new houses have gone in have regular flooding under my house which is distinct y unsanitary anor w zc now have t j vpe a s p pump. ewers wi 1 RIOT al eviate the majorityof the problem. If allowed then to proceed the dwelling density proposed will cause not just oiw %ut addtional endangerment to the existing residents, irreplaceable wildlife, and fauna regarding: (1) Exit routes during disasters of fire, flooding will be severely compromised. (2) Fire danger. As a member of a third generation fire fighting family I can vouch that allowing this type of zoning density will increase the serious injury or death rate of firefighters and residents. It is a scientific fact that.lLouses 10 f0 ee�arilJ i� _ a tr_avelinRfire. A house is typically fully invol th famil havin on1 60 seconds to get out. (3) The current ven M plan is for one egress with the road branching into a circle inside the development. That means one egress for fire fighters or police to get in and the same egress for people fighting to get away from the fire. (4) The resulting loss of life in the Evendell development is too horrible to contemplate (5) Contamination of water supplies, destruction of adequate water pressure and water availability for daily living let alone fire danger. (6) Severe storm water damage. (7) .Lack of recreational area forcing children into the streets. (8) Lack of King County funding has prevented the development of two King County park lands for the citizens of this area already. (9) Sociological studies have proven that inadequate protection from disease and crime occur when packing a dense number of people into a contained area. The King County Sheriff's office warned our community of ar) -4td that is why they opened the Four Creeks State Patrol Office on 164" Ave. SE. (10) The developer has not adequately answered basic environmental requirements for licenses to proceed listing as unknown the dangers to the environment, impact on wildlife and fauna and the results of grading and water runoff to areas south of the proposed development. (a) We request a new Environmental Study, including Wildlife Field Data Forms by qualified, independent biologists. (b) We request independent assessments by engineers regarding the regrading of the topography in this neighborhood and the effects on the properties down the hill towards SE 140 and the Jones Road as well. In conclusion, we are here to go on record as saying, the current zoning uses to an gcEe, achieved without a vote of the current resident read does not fit t e character of the existing community and is not our ideal. It poses safety issues, quality of life issues, an allows the destruction of some irreplaceable wildlife and fauna found in our neighborhood. However, it is for us the lesser of two severe zoning impacts and is currently law. We recognize that you in your official positions of decision making can determine a reasonable development. You have the power to address some of the safety issues for the lives of families already living in the neighborhood by choosing to enforce R4 and other regulations already on the books. The existing public in this neighborhood has the right to be as valued and protected as the developers, who do not live in the area, will not inherit the fall out of their actions, and who leave many neighborhoods and environments irreplaceably damaged or destroyed at the expense of both existing and future residents. If four houses to an acre will protect the character and lives of the families already living there; provide a modified semblance of safety for the environment and wetlands and still provide housing for the population in the greater area then that should be your decision. Six or eight houses to an acre will not only totally destroy the existing character of our neighborhood, but poses serious physical safety issues for both current and new residents. In summary, you from many disciplines are in an official position of service to the existing residents and property owners of our neighborhood. We seek justice and fair application of current statutes on the books to ensure growth in our neighborhood is reasonable and provides decent conditions and safety for the existing residents as well as any new residents, and for the environment. '14 )4� W �L� 4,1 Al Please describe your top 3 concems of the effects of the proposed Evendell project, 1. il -eS, 2. Vt�q�c7vq WIQ� BLivestock population totals in our neighborhood may be a key indicator in our statement that the character of our neighborhood will be damaued bythis development. If Ey own Livestock animals lease list types and numbers 10 Number Type Number T Number CDescribe the kinds of wildlife you have seen in this any, and where you have seen them. Especially important are nesfi or other long-term habitations and uses. Creatures in ditches count too. ID I Drainage is another major issue in our arguments. Describe any drainage related problems you have experienced. If you need more room, please continue on the back of this sheet. Even more paper is available. Just ask! 6v'eet,,t IiY� vets Sc �� JIA April 3, 2002 To: Distribution List Attached To: King County Surface Water and Land Management From: Michael Rae Cooke 13125 15e Ave. SE. Renton, WA 98059 Subj: Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendall — L01P0016 and LOITY401 As a homeowner, we recognize that growth is inevitable. But we also know that there are current statues and laws in place that impose requirements on applications of this type. The current application does NOT meet these requirements for the following reasons. Additionally, we wish to prevent loss of the character of an existing community, loss of habitat for wildlife, loss of habitat for livestock, loss of safety regarding exit routes during disasters, and protection from disease and crime that occurs when packing a dense number of people into small area. a. Urban Grid Pattern: It does not meet the urban grid pattern zoning requirements. b. Public Vote: Without a vote of the existing residents, the area was arbitrarily rezoned from R1 to R4. One developer has secured a rezone substantially inside the border of R4 to R8. Now comes this other developer trying to add another R8, well into the center of the R1 area. If the later succeeds, the plan is to rezone again in the 5 acres adjacent to the Evendall plat. b. Character of the Nei borbood: It is not in the character of the existing neighborhood_ The existing neighborhood is semi rural, not urban, inspite of what the county has rezoned it to. Seven houses to the acre in an area that is composed of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 acre plots with one house apiece is totally out of character with the existing neighborhood. In addition: we thrive on the sounds of horses neighing, goats baying, cattle lowing, numerous bird and small animal sounds, space to breathe, safe areas to walk, rural beauty. We have a precedent right to maintain our quality of life here, the animals we keep, and the forests and wildlife we protect. See c. d., e., and f. for the existing character of the neighborhood and how it is being systematically removed. c. Traffic: Traffic safety, tax increases, and maintenance has not been sufficiently managed or studied. Traffic averages 15,000 to 16,000 cars a day already on 160' Ave. SE. This will add 850 or so additional trips up a dead end street (158"' Ave. SE.) per day. If 13e Street is connected to 160 Ave. SE, which the developer has applied to do, a large portion of that traffic will be diverted up 158s' Ave. SE. The impact on taxes, the county roads maintenance, etc., will be substantial. Trying to get our cars out on to SE 128s' is almost impossible already. There has been one fatality, and many accidents, but the county has not addressed local residents concerns and complaints to act on behalf of our safety. Fire and Earthquake: The present road structure is barely able to sustain OSHA requirements for escape routes. (1) Houses as close together as Windsong on SE 12e present an incredible fire danger. If one goes, a whole row will go. At the very least heavy damage will be done to the houses on either side, fire trucks and aid cars will not be able to get to them with the residents trying to get out. (2) We have many natural gas lines in the area In the event of an earthquake, people trying to escape will not he able to do so with the density of 77 new houses on 15e and possibly 55 more adjacent to it in the space of 16 acres. That's 132 house crammed into 16 acres. This is criminal when it comes to safety issues. d. Wildlife/Environmental Issues: There are serious wild life and environmental issues that have not been addressed by King County Water and Land Management offices, nor certified wildlife biologists. The current environmental checklists submitted by the developers lists "unknown"no less than four tithes for threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Let me fill you in on what 9xists ere, and in the area, in many cases nesting: 1 This is a list of the wildlife"My, (}erty. Weasels, Pileated Woodpecker {nesting}, Squirrels (nesting), Raccoons, Opossum, Field Mice (nesting), Great Horned Owls, Red Tail Hawk, Snowy Owl, Doves, Cedar V U Waxwings, Blue Jays, Crows, Titmouse's, Kill Deer, Wren, Mallards, Sparrows. Ruby Finch, Roufess Twoee, Robin, Black Capped Chickadee, Hummingbirds (Ruby and one other (nesting). (2) Ninety percent of these are permanent residents. All of these reside and nest around me on neighbors property adjacent to mine. In addition this seems to be a part of the flyway for Gulls and Canadian Geese as they do land on our wetlands and fields. Ruffled Grouse have been seen nesting by neighbors. (3) Carnivors: In addition cougar (multiple) have been sighted by neighbors one house down from me, around the next block, and up 160'h for two years running, as their habitat is being diminished by R4 and R8 building. (4) Black Tailed Deer are resident on the Evendall plot. I have seen them (four or five of them) often feeding in the fields across the street on 1606' Ave. SE. Behind me on 1560`,1 have seen them running across the road to eat in the fields around 142"' and 140. (5) Bugs and Insects: Most of us have large gardens, fruit trees, open spaces, and evergreen and maple treed lots which provide shelter to a variety of bugs, insects, and wildlife. Beetles of all kinds, hornets, mud wasps, bees of four or five varieties including the endangered native bees, and the rare Bumble Bee nest here and are common here. Several varieties of Dragonflies, Butterflies, and Moths nest here. All of these are present on my and my neighbor's properties. (6) Across the May valley a mile away, are bear on the property of my friends who live there. The character of the open fields and the surrounding trees and wetlands which provide homes for the wide variety of wildlife is currently protected by the character of the neighborhood as it is. It was especially protected as RI. It has been mitigated to R4. �i Grading permits have not been applied for by the developer as required. This may be because they are likely to result in an A impact upon the existing condition of a sensitive area e. Livestock Issues: On my plot I maintain two Toggenburg Goats (the size of small ponies), two Indian runner ducks (nesting), 2 large dogs, and 1 cat Neat door to me are 38 chickens. South of me are a minimum of 12 horses. Within the space of 3 acres south are 5 cattle. North of me, nert to the 38 chickens are numerous geese and ducks, and an occasional turkey. Behind me are large houses on several acres apiece with dogs and children. On 164's running from 132`1 Street south are multiple horses and cattle. Right across from the Evendall plat are Carrier pigeons. Adjacent the Evandall plat are multiple horses (south side) and llamas (east side). f. Drainage: In the bears,,the area has experienced escalating drainage impacts, which have caused flooding and severely impacted the existing residents. (1), New Flood Issues: Since the building on SE 128'h and surrounding area began in earnest three years ago, we have been subjected to ve, ,ere flooding every year, whereas in the 29 years I have owned this piece of property we never had a flooding problem before. - -- (a) My barn has been inundated for the last 3 years with several inches of water during heavy rains. Fortunately part of it is higher than the other, but even that got doused 2 years ago. (b) Under my house has been flooded for the last 3 years with large amounts of water during continued heavy rains and this is a health hazard requiring sump pumps. (2) Creeks. A creek runs 7 months out of the year across the back pastures behind mine and the neighbors. We never had flood issues prior to the changes caused in the water table by the developers putting too many houses on land that previously would not perk. The old laws required perks 3 times a year. (3) Springs: There are multiple springs in the area These have become creeks as the water table level has risen due to destruction of wide tracks of trees, which remove and utilize approximately 1,000 gallons of water a day. (4) Underground River: It is suspected that there is an underground river here. I have dug down to air in the back of my property and there are parts of it that are forever green even in the hottest summer. (5) Ditches: The county has refused to clean out our ditches, which provide drainage, for they say "lack of funds"_ (6) Two Swamp and Pond areas less than 1/8& mile from the house (Coal Creek), (7) Perk requirements and drainage ponds: Perks of property entertained for building, originally had to performed twice in the rainy season, and once in the dry in order to get a permit. Because this area contains several Class Il wetlands, these were usually denied. Apparently because of the new engineering for drainage ponds, this restriction has been lifted. HOWEVER THE NEW DRAINAGE PONDS HAVE NOT PREVENTED FLOODING, but rather have increased iti! Additionally with the drainage ponds have come noxious weeds and hordes of mosquitoes. No one maintains the drainage ponds and they are eyesores and blights on the neighborhoods in which they exist. Once SE 128* was lovely to look at. Now we face rows of ugly drainage ponds. You have only to look at developments of three or seven years to see what a blight they become. We respectfully submit this letter and the attached summary response to the Proposed Evendell Rezone and Plat Permit Applications LA 1P0016 and LOITY40lwhich point out existing conditions, laws and regulations, that support denial of these applications and applications like it. Sincerely, Michael Rae Cooke Program Analyst and Resident 13125 158" Ave. SE. Renton, WA 98059 yes 1 '7 Z S 7W c c i4 N c c E c FL L! y. c �t I c W L 3 � O m a% O. U} pf ? 3 r o W G� - O >LO�° �5�, C� m p �0C •�� c WA U � N c C) O I'�o Wa is w m J m J 0 a 4 92 a .9 a 13 OC c W a' L I 7 CA o j r " -v a IEEE coo 5 Este I I pa R ' a � 8 & w� $.ciao :t p� ea '$ CIO EMI ui t UJ W � C$ la ems? Lp kog* mTE0 T c o E ru 11 v 4 D � 4) E a _ CD a 0 5 0 L co `ia�i �_wrla$ = og _ rm_ m 8 nr m o 3 O C C c CL-2 18E -0 . I E a� fl• CML �c�n RE g .E c��� .Q M O 0 K m �P= } �w� �o .+ P W U c c2 a� I o u,m E CD > - L 4C � 5 O aoE, � a «, tv _ID r— _ as 14 > > w m (D _ o ci ' � 0VC v� to $ # ,`r N L ' c�wu..i U c3 � m;= � "' ��d •mod '�� W CL 0 V J L =I m ca CL'$ ed S -6 Z CV cli a N o `R+� v J °y ro10 g N atsg La CDcZ w Em QID m C * $ ' m (D 2' 0 p 0 E p SL V E C] m ca c2u=aaU — to S 7gEm U S 1= cu wa CLEM m 0-a CD .�� m � 0 5 E v $ �om �L1C.1 may �7 cm W� J m FE 7 7J80 g_ O 3 Na00I @ Q C �U c� C D W "'in a, op �p t Ym >, . W U'o c Cj m u' y_ 2 o cm o ff Cl$ oz 12 m in !IBM 1 0 SaEfamu i$ �J D *0 wa $ cQ�aS —E O en N(DY O FL U. ui o -9 mom-- � n p, J C _ I C C I'a 0 2 ��f} � m w Lo � fin' _ '� � 0 O � 2 ,mo 41 13 Q■� 115 �� m c Q7 � CCCCC� � � 0 U m �$ C yr c 2 CD E�j L9�r. co a,af Q O 0 c� "• o (�_ o,C F Cr- 0 Q a (D r CD D m 9;.�a �ID(D -S > m C G o� cos� m�� CC . 2.2TL - 3� L is to Is wt 0 m a a They say that a picture is worth a thousand words and I would like to share my pictures with you. My husband and I are both retired so we are mainly 24 hour a day neighborhood residences. The first picture is what we are fortunate enough to see the first of each day upon rising. The second is taken across the street from Caroline Buckett's driveway looking south. As you can see she sits quite a bit higher than us. From her place up to SE 144'", which is the next street north of us, is just as steep grade. From there the land continues to stair step up with dips and hills working its way out till you reach SE 128'". The third photo is the pond is located at SE 144`' and 167" SE. This pond over flows periodically after a heayX rain. One of our neighbors on 167`" SE has already told you of his p obleffis with this over flow. As the water is running towards his property it also is running west down our street causing flooding The county maintenance crew religiously brings out sand bags for us to use as recent as within this last year. Picture #4 is taken on SE 138" Place off of 156'" SE, looking north up the boundary towards where the new development is to take place. This road is a cul-da-sac that will never go thru. Pictures number 5 and 6 are taken at SE 137' off of 156" SE looking north. First up the boundary line - #5 and direct east - #6. Picture #7 is taken at 156" SE and SE Be where water retention basins are being installed along 156'h SE. Should SE 136' continue east across 156" SE, would be directly to the right of the utility pole. There has been some discussion of the trees in this location. in the fore ground I believe are the sheds that Mr. Romano has been referring to that will have to be removed should SE 136' go thru. Picture #8 is what you see after turning west onto SE 128'. This area is known as Windwood Estates. There is a land use proposal sign on the property directly looking at the picture which to my understanding will have the same house to house structure. Picture #9 is Amberwood Estates. This picture was taken at Quincy and NE 3d Court. You are looking east and this at the present time is the latest construction on SE 128" headed toward 156" SE. There is no way am I izoing to be con looking at is es 1 7 corn ared to ictures 8 and 9, that this type of over construction is going to be compatible with our neighborhood. There will always be change as each new generation passing does its thing, but sometimes you have to ask yourself, is this change for the better? With houses put so close together there is no air circulation and a lack of light. The only thing that can exist between these houses is mud, moss and top ground slime. The R-4 policy that was admielby the C un is what is in the best inter a' Tochan a it to an - t interest of the developer and following developers. These people will never be member of our community. They do their ng an move on, with many of them being from out of state. You have heard in mass from the community members about the water problems and other related topics so I will not further elaborate. As I said before, the R-4 policy was set-up for the benefit of the majority and I am confident that we as a community have demonstrated to you that we are the majority. For the sake of our community, our children, grandchildren and future generations we are asking that you leave things the way they are as R-4 zoned.. Exhibit No. Item No. 4- Received King County Hearing Examiner z= - -, ,� � ., �I '�._ S+ '..�x .;���—y�sL► �s �� � _ r ,�J �• . 1 i ..} 7 � _' :� � � b ;: . . � � �: i +F �_ i 1 .. .. �- .. � � •� � s �. •� ! f-ti p ..p;!ll'^+. `l"�« • �'7`� '�•}���' yal �`.� -�� F�'n �-f�y'r4R M r�� _ '+5��'- *. � 1. _ ��r i 't. Y � 1 nt� '� 1 _ ram' - - - _ _ sa - - x op 3 r1?6 Co se Ne e- -- j � e gv ekAe- h (:� h (q kp- is Exhibit No. Item No.Oi Received King County Hearing Examiner � -- -4101 I IF 75 dp4, �? � a,cl �•�� �bs� �fi�� �i,�c'� _ 73 � WR • /f� CnJ��1g o Pe C(z it St , 4 o ej o . e C.cuo le__C_ cs o ` ff acalelvex,4--, /"s oue A) ,V V �l4 D . x 7r: �- veodeV ��� ,y f Z� �R- z A/ 4 4 Marilynn Carlson 13616 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 March 9, 2003 RE: Evendell Development LPO 1 P0016 & LO 1 TY401 To Whom It May Concern, I am unable to attend the hearing today therefore I am sending this letter with a neighbor for recording into the hearing. In my opinion this development has several flaws. It has a proposed up zoning from its original 4 units per acre. Since all of the other properties in the area are kept to.a 4 t designation so should t e developer. In previous years there has been a large water rnno om sai property w c affected the neighboring properties in a negative fashion. The proposed water retention system is not going to be adequate to handle the runoff long term. There needs to be a perimeter of untouched vegetation to help with the runoff and also provide other needed community benefits. The benefits are including but not inclusive of, air purification, wind breaks, beauty, wildlife habitat, oxygen creation, aquifer recharging, and of course the aforeeationed runoff control. Thank You Sincerely, Lx- Marilynn Carlson 4hlblf No Fq No, is 17- O*InQ Examiner 'Kristy J. Hill 13527 156 Ave. S.E.`. [ Menton, WA 98059 Ph.(425) 226-9686 March 6, 2003 Mr. James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California. Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 SUBJECT: EVEN DELL - LO1TY401 AhL L01PCO16 Dear Sir; I want to address the issue of the character of our neighbor- hood, and of how ill-fitting the proposed up -zone (to R-6) of this project mould be. Earlier developments in this area made an effort to maintain the integrity of the established neighborhood. This one does not! Our neighborhood has pastureland and wooded areas; horses, llamas, and other livestock; bee keepers and exotic bird keepers; vegetable, rose and dahlia gardens, etc. We have hundred year -old native trees and a wide variety of landscape trees. Two storey homes are generally situated on lots of one-half acre or larger, while smaller one -quarter acre lots contain rambler -style hones. Previous developments in our area were required to leave some existing trees and/pr replace a significant percentage of those that were removed. These trees provide more than a pretty background and privacy. They also absorb massive amounts of water which, in turn, helps control run-off snd. soil. erosion. In a.time when power shortages are oecoming the norm, they provide a natural cooling option rather than straining limitea power suppiies with air -conditioners during not weather. Tney also aid in removing pollutants From the air: air quality in an area with a permanent burn ban should be of paramount con- cern. This doesn't even address the issue oi' loss of wildlife habitat: wildfire with which the neighbors have not only co- existed., but which we nave also protected and enjoyed. If finis new development is granted. an R-6 designation, there is no possibility of It ever fitting the well -established. neighborhood. Large nouses, on even smaller than presently Exhibit No._ — Item Received __ 3 281 U King County H8aring Examiner zoned lots, do not allow for gardens let alone any significant tree replacement. A flowering cherry does not equal a hun- dred year -old cedar (or even a brow -leaf maple) in beneficial properties. House owners wiii not..pave adequate space to cre- ate an air of individuality in their "yards" as their prede- cessors have been able and eager ta-do. While we In the neighborhood are not anxious to nave any major developments in our midst, we understand the need for some controlled growth. What we don't understand, and do not accept, is any real need for a greater density than the present R-4. King County's own studies show that there is more than twice as much buildable area available,than is required to meet pro- jected growth goals tnrougn 2022. R-4 allows for slightly larger lots per house which is safer (ask a firefighter) and affords a mucn better quality of life Tor all residents. Another frightening aspect of granting an up -zone is the prece- dent it would set. Every other proposed development in this area can use it as an argument (excuse) to also request and support their own R--6 designation. These additional develop- ments Koula be a patchwork cutting right through the heart of a, previously compatible neighborhood. It seems that the wishes of people who have paid property taxes in, ana have been caretakers of this area for several years; and they*1sties of newcomers who shopped aroung and fell In love with the personality of this neighborhood should count as much or more than the aesires of developers who will great- ly impact the neighborhood and then walk away without having to a.eal with any of the negative impact. Those of- us who live here will be stuck with it, Respectfully, r //. /� Kristy Y. Hill Mr_ Hearing Examiner, We art not f4lbtinv dr.velonnient We rRcnert and iindergtsnd its neC.Pcslty, hint we. alcn f-.el it shni.dd he. emm�ntihle with the character and scale of the existing neighborhood. We feel that is also the intention of those who created U-120. Neighborhoods are known for their character and assets, whether it be lake or mountain views, tree -lined streets, large estates, etc. People move a Bnarwood, our neighborhood, for the tall trees, lots with large yards for gardening and for its natural/rural feel. This is w at we want to protect. Plenty of land exists e sew ere p 7nfragtT[ietttreC alre_.adV in nl$r_.e to af'r_.mmntndatP_ greatly increased densities and we feel that ig whore, if even necessary, the highest densities should actor. A KitI&CLOjEa "Buildable Land" report exists which clearly shows there is enough land still existing inside the I TQB for development in Ming County to handle Qrowth for the next 20 years about. a le u zone. Granting t is 112 r vendell wDuW undoubtedly cause complete destruction of our nei rhborhood since all other development will likely decide to go with hig er enstties to make more money, all at our expense. After all, we are the ones left with overcrowded schools, inadequate police protection, loss of property values, snd, of r_,oilrse, unbearable traffic issues. s s t trade all ofthis for a simple, road connection is too much They say this road connection from 160th to 156th is an "improvemen , owever, we, t e ees3 ents, see it t erently. We see it as more congestion on the only north -south arterial route that fire trucks and nolice need to access our neighborhoods and the Renton Highlands above us. We see it as even more difficulty leaving our driveways and harder for the children to cross and catch school buses. This r ad connection should be addressed at the same time that 156th's problems are addressed. There are also her traffic/road a ttons that could be considered_For example, a light could be added at 12R� .th and 1.60th, which would allow everyone in the neighborhoods between 158th and wPstwar_ nit.._ School) to exit safely onto an existing four lane arterial. Having these numerous developing neighborhoods funnel onto an already insufficient, busy two lane road doesn't make the best sense. If you've ever been on 156th and tried to pull over to the side to leave a fire truck pass by —with 3 foot deep ditches 2 feet from the edge of the road —you may understand what we mean. 156th is currently unable to handle more traffic safely in our OUT Other m_ajnr eOnCeMS deal with dirt ct property damage.. A f .evel 3 i)raina e. analvcig was requested by the. residents because we had shown (in our submitted report to DDES) that there had been several complaints on record showing a variety of existing drainage problems and feared more will result. Our fears were shown to he just. We now also know that more property damage will occur from this development unless a 50' existing tree buffer remains along the western edge of the Evendell site. Mr. Ramano offered a 10' limited buffer/tract, but after inspection, Mr. Baker said it would not be adequate enough to protect adjacent properties' trees from damage or death. I also have a -mails from 26 Other arhorists wlt0 have stated the vam.P thing; rn.ir trPec will he ciama ed withnr�t this hi.iffer. BaSerl on 4.180 and that the recommendation or decision will not be wreasonably incont tible with or detrimental to affected.nronerfies and the Zeneral public", we ask that you require t e eve niter to revise his mans to include the 50' buffer. Not only will this bmffe>=Pu�acent propert,is from tree dama ,es, it will also help with a variety of other issues such as privacy, pollution, noise cantral_habitat for urban animals, a windbreak for our community, and of course, aesthetic Iu�y keeping the character of our neighborhood intact. The developer can also charge more for the lots that hack thi s "greenbelt", since there are mart sh7dies t _at s Ow as _ r. Baker pointed out, people want to live. in urban areas with trees and will pay more to do so. We would also like to have the opportunity to salvage vegetation from the constriction area and replant it into this• buffer; so that the buffer will continue to he a vital part of our neighborhood and the Evendell neighborhood to be. We hope we have demonstrated, through our presentation and the number of people who took the time to come to this hearing, how much residents currently living in Bri.arwood cure, and want to keen the character of the neighhorhnnd intact. R4 is and should stay, the zoning in our area. The Evendell rezone should be denied. Sincerely, Marsha L. Rollinger 15646 SF, 138th Place � Exhibit No.4c� � Renton, WA 98059 '� _ Item No. Q i-4 l7"�.VU J Received 3 "i0 - 0 3 King County Hearing Examiner, Joseph Bostjancic 16110 SE 146`h Place Renton WA 98059 425-271-0929 March 5, 2003 James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Ave Seattle WA 98164 Subject: New Construction Development Evendell — LO1TY401 and LOIPOO16 Gentleman: Having been a resident of this particular area (Briarwood) since 197 1, 1 am very concerned about the rapid growth of housing begun within the last year. High -density housing is overwhelming SE 128th Street that is very near this site. Traffic and schools will be impacted by these new dwellings along with the normal character and charm of the neighborhood. Please evaluate this situation with care and concern of the people presently living in this area. Respectfully Submitted, 3oseph Bostjancic Exhlbit No. Item Mo. -- Received ICJ "Q King County Hearing Examiner March 7, 2003 TO: Laura Casey, Environmental Scientist III FM: Nick Gillen, Environmental Scientist III � (77 RE: L01 P00I6-Red-tailed hawk nest review Per your request, I visited the above site on March 7, 2003 to look for red-tailed hawk nest(s) in the western portion of the site. The weather on this date was overcast with light rain and air temperatures of approximately 39 degrees. There was a light dusting of show on the ground. Upon arriving at the site, I observed that the entrance gate was locked. I crawled through the gate and proceeded to the front door of the residence to identify myself. I knocked and rang the doorbell, however there was no answer. I proceeded to walk through the western portion of the site to look for hawk nest(s) in the upper canopy of the trees in this area. s you know this ortion of the site consists o a fairl mature stand of Dog ees with a few deciduous trees. Observance of the upper most canopy is difficult if not impossible. I traversed this portion of -the site in a north -south and east -west direction to obtain as many angle views as possible. I also stopped to listen fairly often during my walk through. I did not observe any hawk's nest(s) in this portion of the site. I also did not see or hear any red- tailed hawks in this area of the site. I hope this is helpful. Exhibit No. Item No. 'f pCIC}ila iT yp� Received 3 "%o' 0 King 0onnty Nearing Examiner laulwex3 bulpea�l nlunoo 6u1A PaniaaaH 1 �, 7 -� C I i�;`r '0 N W 911 'ON ;Iglux3 .-A * x zy C CD 3 3 N d N CD � h 0) C� zs :r us w� rn o ~� d 0`r` 70 O CL ' Z �0lD "� 13 O O t O � rt N cr IT (D (y 1 o ' tD fl1 O Q 4A :3 C tJi o CD a3 �W O C ZA :3a w_ CD m 0 = :3 cr =:. fl. o cn fl.cD n � s: su su 0 mom~ O' (A O 7 N 0. CD n m D Q X Q -u T v -u cn w �T r°�K.z vC 3 cra.CDC(D � •�A„� —n V� F• m 0- (D m n oq . C) 0) Mal OLY.'. o ° m ' cn ; n n =X�•� m13 i h � ^^ ..a s� '. # :y i0 '. Xit f 1 a i 041 +7 .f n 51-4 a , V w .00r. to i w i i � • �r N LTC PI vi V I i • i (A) V ►r%3 M OD i w ', v 0 W n. n, w March 10, 2003 Mark Heckert Habitat Technologies R O. Box 1088 Puyallup, WA 98371 Mr. Michael Romano Centurion Development Via e-mail Dear Mr, Romano, To address some of the questions which were brought up at the re -zoning hearing regarding the Evendell development, I visited the project site gn March 8 and March 9, specifically looking for evidence of raptor utilizatn. I observed the site on March 8 in the early morning and on March 9 in the afternoon. I scanned the trees on the site with binoculars for evidence of utilization. I observed what appeared to be a crow nest in the northwest corner. I did not find any evidence of utilization by red-tailed hawks, or any other raptor, on the site. If you have further questions or concerns please contact me. Respectfully submitted. Mark Heckert Exhlblt No, item No, t rx�oic� .LD 1 T yS�D1 Received - King County !-leering Examiner Gwendolyn High Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (C.A.R.E.) P.G. Box 2936 Renton WA 98056 425.917.0117 highlands neighbors c@hotmail.com Mr. James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiner's Office 850 Union Bank of California Bldg 900 Fourth Ave Seattle WA 98164 March 10, 2003 RE: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications (1-01 P0016 and L01 TY401) Dear Mr. Examiner, We would like to ask that the C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01 P0016 and L01 TY401, which was 9resented with all of our other ExhibRs at the commencement of this Public Hearing on March 6 be formally entered into the record, with the following errata notation: All references to 158th Ave SE should be considered to refer to 156th Ave SE, in order to correct a consistent typographical error. Respectfully submitted, Gwendolyn High Exhibit No. t5� Item Na.1 8 ! POD ! (A NL L,o / ry q o f Received ^/Q � (I King County Hearing Examiner C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01POO16 and LOITY401 This Presentation has been compiled from the notes, letters, surveys and conversations of the neighbors to the subject parcels of these applications. The materials contained in it have been prepared and delivered by Gwendolyn High and Marsha Rollinger. The subjects covered are of the highest concern of all citizens involved. We trust that these matters will be considered by the responsible parties with the same level of care we have expended in bringing them to your attention. All assertions stated here are based on our oollective understanding of the situation. If we are in error, your knowledgeable correction is most appreciated. If clarification or additional information is required in order to address our concerns appropriately, please do not hesitate to contact us by any of the following means: Gwendolyn High 425.917.0117 1340515e Avenue SE Renton WA 98059 Marsha Roilinger 425,277.0245 15646 SE 13EP Place Renton WA 98059 Hiehlands il.com Thank you for your time and attention. Citizens Allied for a Responsible Evendell Gwendolyn High Marsha Rollinger Panty 1 nF 11 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - 1-01P0016 and 1-01TY401 Who We Are Since November 2001, Gwendolyn High and Marsha Rollinger have been meeting with and recording the concerns of the neighbors who will be most impacted by the subject applications. We have had three meetings, three newsletters, numerous email discussions and two more meetings are planned. Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell represents over 70 households and over 150 individuals whose residencies range from one year to more than forty years_ Their contact information is attached. Ms. Rollinger is an accomplished graphic designer and commercial artist. Ms. High is a data analyst, programmer and information technology project manager. She is also the district representative for this neighborhood on the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, where she serves as Secretary and Transportation Representative. In the later capacity she has served since October 2002 as the only citizen representative on the King County Transportation Concurrency Advisory Committee. What We Have Accomplished On April e, 2002, we delivered our first Response to these applications. From the data reported in this submission and other communications with DDES staff, our concerns over drainage impacts were further investigated and found to be factual. Additional drainage requirements have resulted. What We Hope To Achieve _ Several issues of contention in two broad categories remain. We oppose the application foLKone Redassifcation and we seek.a�at mitigation for the impacts �le�l5plication as provided by FGng County a e aw_ The balance of this document is an outline of the issues as we see them. Para 9 of 91 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Pr6posed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - 1-01 P0016 and 1-01TY401 General Context Points Revalent to the Neighborhood Police The population of the Fred Two precinct has grown dramatically. In 2002 applications for over 2000 single family homes were submitted, but the assigned officers have decreased from 2.9 to 2.7 over the last 5 years_ The crime rates are rising. It is a dear and present danger to public safety to allow this trend to continue_ Fire The City of Renton provides fire protection services for this area of unincorporated King County. This constitutes a kind of functional intertocal agreement for which consideration of Renton's standards for the accommodation of emergency vehicles and zoning must be included in the evaluation of these applications. Renton Leguires ad Tonal site access conne ' i y, wider and thicker road surfaces with larger turning radii. The Evendell, and all applications for development in areas for which the City of Renton provides Fire Protection, should require these design standards. Construction of structures with 5 foot setbacks is a hazard to public safety. Firefighters do not have room to safely set ladders to rescue people trapped on second stories, or to reach the attic to fight a fire. See CAKE. Exhibit #1. Transportation Functional Arterial Reclassificaticin Study: King County's Transportation Planning Division began a county wide Functional Arterial Reclassification Study in 2002_ The last time the arterial system was reviewed and changed systemwide for Unincorporated King County was in the King County Transportation Plan, adopted in 1989. The Rural portion of this study is now complete. Within the 1,100 miles of rural roadway system, total roadway miles changed were 47.6 miles, with 28.5 miles changing to a lower functional classification and 19.1 miles changing to a higher classification. The Urban portion of the study can be expected to yield comparable reclassifications, and 156th Ave SE is likely to be classified as a Principle Arterial over its current rating as a Minor Arterial. (f this study determines that 156th has been functioning at a higher classification, the Traffic Study done for these applications will be proven have been prepared based on incorrect Levels of Service, warrants, etc. All Traffic Plan and related proposed impacts must be reevaluated based on the results of this study. Transportation Capacity and Improvements: The entire area from the City Limits of Renton to the City Limits of Issaquah, from May Valley to the Cedar River Valley have been out of compliance with ling County Concurrency standards since spring 2002. The currently proposed Concunency Status Map (to be adopted before March 2003) shows no improvement, even with the introduction of averaging factors to prevent a single critical link from driving a zone out of compliance. The current Capital Improvements Plan holds no improvements for our area. The KC Comprehensive Plan: Community Action Strategies - Subarea Priority Ranking places East Renton behind North Hiighline, West Hill, North Soon Creek and JuaniWl(ingsgate for both Urban Retrofit and New Capacity Improvements. See CAKE. Exhibits #2 and #3. Physical and Political Isolation: The eastem projection of the Urban Growth Boundary that surrounds the area of unincorporated King County from the City Limits of Renton to approximately lake Kathleen, is isolated by topology and jsdadcbonal /S 67-A boundaries that prevent logical connection and improvements to the local street network ve SE is the ly North/South connection serving this entire plateau. There is no alternative route avai a to provide additional access or capacity o the e eme changes in elevation, and the lack of formal interlocal agreements between King County and the City of Renton leaves our community caught between opposing finger -pointers. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, through multiple correspondences with both jurisdictions has been assured by each that the other is responsible to provide transportation capacity. The resultant situation is that we will never have the capacity available to bring this area back into LOS compliance. See CAKE. Exhibits #4 and #7. Pans I ref 4 4 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01P0016 and LOITY401 Elliot Bridoe Replacement: The Elliot Bridge is scheduled for replacement. During this major project, traffic along 15e Ave SE will be severely impacted, and access to residences in this community will be very difficult_ We ask that road improvements associated with the Evendell applications be required to not coincide with any Elliot Bridge traffic impacts. Zoning Piecemeal at_ i� These issues can not be made provision} for this fad. The nu IV V VUI Ilr V VUI IIAI. IVI IV LIME ILY I IaU is %. Ul I IFII t;F FtFI M IM r tar I aF FU LCN iU tU t UM> WnJCn are r"Valuaiea on a regular schedule with changes sd'ieduled to be evaluated and adopted by December 2004. No propose! to modify the zoning of this area is anticipated. Given the unique geographic and jurisdictional isolation of this are ail zoning Chan s should be considered in the more appropriate larger context. Parts d of 11 C.AKE. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01 P0016 and 1-01 TY401 • Response to the DDES Staff Preliminary Report to the Hearing Exarrd ner Page 2 Paragraph 2 "... The applicant presented the STC with a conceptual build out plan of the immediate neighborhood..." rim over which this are heron today. None has any intention of ever dividing their parcels as irxlicatedi Don and Diane Kezele A neighbor will speak on behalf of Don and Jan Milbrath, Mr. Miibrath is gravely ill. Michelle and/or Kathy will speak on behalf of their parents Ed and Dorothea Hagerman_ Page 4 Last Paragraph "...there was no specific information provided in the c9i2ens'documentabon to indicate the presence of nesting sites on the proposal property for any protected species." It is not our responsibility to inspect the parcels. Neither do we have authority to trespass in order to inspect the property. The protected species were listed in the applicenfs documentation. DDES staff are responsible to investigate the implications thoroughly. Neighbors did provide the best information available to them by way of written statements and photographs. See C.A kE. Exhibit #4. Page 8 - 2.a. "U-114 _ , _A lower density zone may be used to recognize existing subdivisions..." The west section of the at R4 density. developments completed in this area are at insert address t Hers ere r e nice ones on !' and 162id. Also refer to exhibit. Page 9 U-1� 20 �, "...King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase the density within the Urban Area unless: a. The development will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood,' "There are other similar residential developments in the �^attrspsos�rvs—.fie Of the residential development applications pending with DDES in the Newcastle Planning Area, 13 proposed units are single family or short plat applications, with no request for zoning changes: 310 units are represented by b Plat or Pre -Plat applications with no request for zoning changes. Of those 310 units, 6 represent requests for Density Transfer credits. The only applications requesting or considering Zone Reclassification are 2 represented by US Land Development, See C.A.R.E. Exhibit 96. Renton has just, given notice of a proposed annexation between the subject parcels and the City Limits of Renton. The proposed annexation will maintain zoning comparable to that presently in force. This shows Renton's intent for the long term development of this area. See C.&R.E. Exhibit #T. A Zoning Reclassification would be incompatible with all current application for development in the Newcastle Planning Area and with the anticipated Zoning specifications for the City of Renton's Potential Annexation Area. Page 9 U-121 "...King County, when evaluating rezone reequesis for increases in density, shah no6ty adjacent cities, Veda/ purpose districts and local providers of urban utility service and should wcu* with these service providers on issues raised by the proposal." The City of Renton provides fire protection services for this area of unincorporated King County. This constitutes a kind of functional interlocal agreement for which consideration of Ren ton's standards for the accommodation of emergency vehicles and zoning must be included in ft evaluation of these applications. Renton requires additional site access and road network connectivity, wider and thicker road surfaces with pwm.riro11 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - LOIPt)016 and Lt)1TY401 larger turning radii. The Evendell, and all applications for development in areas for which the City of Renton provides Fire Protection, should require these design standards_ Page 8 U-122 "...King Coup sup rts increases in ua densi4i through the nai iransfiar ar fry traffic, sewer, water parks or open spaoe F� to increase Zone Reclassification is not the onl meth by which to achieve increased density. Under the Compre a save an, King County allows the transfer of development rights from the Rural area to the Urban area as a means of preserving rural land. This very mechanism for achieving greater density inside the Urban Growth boundary is being utilized two blocks north of the subject parcels in the proposed Hamilton Place development (LO2PO011). This is the respMsible alternative by which the requested density may be achieved. See C.A.R.E. Ex i it Page 10 "As shown, more improvements under the rezone wf70 lot plat will be provided than the alternative R-4 Proposal " The above table shows that 4 lineal feet of additional right-of-way per lot would be dedicated and f ? lineal feet of additional shoulder improvement would be built per lot under the rezone W70 lot plat than the 46 lot plat. The total difference between proposals is: R-6/7O lots 13e Right -of -Way 1250 lineal feet 13EP ROW Improvements 1250 lineal feet 16e 8 foot shoulder 800 lineal feet 3300 lineal feet R-4146 lots 13e Right -of -Way 625 lineal feet 16e ROW Improvements 800 lineal feet 1425 lineal feet 3300 -1425 2055 difference in the improvements Price per unit $250,000 Dwelling units 70 - 46 = x 24 $6,000,000 Icon Materials (a major asphalt paving company in Auburn) estimates: A 1250' long half -street, with 4" crush rock base plus 4" Class B hot -mix: $25,000 For a full 24 wide street, , with 4" crush rock base plus 4" Class B hot -mix: $45,000 Even for the greater improvements anticipated under the requested R-B zoning, this is, at best, a bad deal. Page 11 KCC 20.24.190 (D) "I. Since the last previous area zoning or shoreline environment designation of the subject property, authorized.Aub lic improvements, permitted private dement or other conditions_ or aircurnstances the subject property have undergone su amend ma na change no an rcrpa or con m a subarea Alan or area zonina." Adoption of the 1994 Comprehensive Plan and 1995 Area Zoning is not the "last previous" designation change. Thus, references to these changes are irrelevar*-2)000 Comprehensive is not a "substantial and material change not anticipated or contemplated in the subarea plan or area zoning", because it is the 'last revious" designation change." Panp A of 41 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01 P0016 and L01TY401 Reference to ttr Maplewoods Estates development is irrelevant since it is inside the Renton City Limits, and is not adjacent, nor con Rguous o e proposal property. Reference to the Highlands Estates development is irrelevant since it is not adjacent, nor contiguous to the proposal property. This proposal property is within the Potential Annexation Area of the Ci of Renton. The intentions of the City of Renton to maintain the present zoning in this area is illustrated by Renton the fact that Renton has just given notice of a proposed annexation between the subject parcels and the City Limits of Renton. The proposed annexation will maintain zoning comparable to that presently in force. See C.A.R.E. Exhibit 97. The City of Renton. anticipates a reevaluation of its Comprehensive Plan for this area's zoning to coincide with King County's schedule of Comprehensive Plan updates. Both are expected to be complete by December 2004. No changes in zoning are expected to be introduced. Approval of the application for Zone Reclassification will create a development that is not and never will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods. For all new urban development in the Newcastle Planning Area is required, sewer is required. Of the residentiai development applications currently pending with DDES in the Newcastle Planning Area, 13 proposed units are single family or short plat applications, with no request for zoning changes. 310 units are represented by 5 Plat or Pre -Plat applications with no request for zoning changes. Of those 310 units, 6 represent requests for Density Transfer credits. The only applications requesting or considering Zone Reclassification are the 2 of US Land Development. See C.A.R.E. Exhibit #6. On site sewer lift/pump stations are not the only alternative to bring sewer infrastructure to this area. City of Renton Long Range Waste Water Management Plan l East Cedar River Basin Sewer Collection Report states that the Option A (gravity lift station at Elliot Bridge) is the best option for the following reasons: • Least requirement for force main pipe of all options considered • Lowest cost of all options considered - for both construction and maintenance • Better performance than lift station systems • More reliable than lift station systems - less chance of environmental due to failure ft this neighborhood must bear an unequal burden -in the name of the public interest that would be served by the provision of sewer infrastructure, we are entitled to a system that is the best. Page 13 Paint 3 Paragraph 1 and 2 Staff comments site U-119 in error. Text of U-119 is: U- 119 Requests for increases in density of urban residential property zoned for one dwelling unit per acre must include a demonstration that the property does not meet the criteria of Policy U-115. Text of U-119 is: U- 115 King County should apply the Urban Residential, Low land use designation: proted floodplains, critical aquifer recharge areas, Regionally or Locally Significant Resource Areas, high function wetlands and unstable slopes from degradation, and link these environmental features into a network of open space, fish and wildlife habitat and Urban Separators. The residential density for land so designated should be maintained at one unit per acre, provided that lands that are sending sites under the Transfer of Density Program may transfer density at a rate of at least lour units per acre. We assume citation i of U-120 was intended. Please see our response to citation of that portion of the King County Comprehensive Plan above. Page 13 Point 3 Paragraph 2 {assuming intention to cite U-120) 0...no incompatibility issues exist directly north, east and south of the east half of the plat as future urban densities are currently in the planning stages. South of the west half, exisfi reesiden6al de t of ►over, nsif resents some potential for conflict This con rrt is igated, however, by t e decision to retail the Pang 7 of 11 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01 POO16 and LO1TY401 existin house on a large 28,000- ft. rcel he location of the drainage/recreation tract and the street design, w rc wr a nerg orhood circulation oppo unrtles be n ve an reels west. " All pending development cited in this passage is under consideration at R-4 zoning The drainage tract/recreation tract is on the east side of the proposal property. Retention of the existing house on the large lot is a perfect example of the incompatibility of these parcellhouse configurations to that of the exiting neighborhood. No street network connectivity is proposed between the streets inside the Evendell development and the streets that service the west parcels. See C.A. R.E. Exhibits #4 and #9, and Evendell Proposed Plat R-4 and R-6. Page 13 Point 5 Paragraph 1 "... The City concurs that the density proposed is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan for this Potential annexation Area. The density does not exceed six dwellings per acre." City of Renton has significantly different definitions of "dwellings per acre_" Renton has a gross area dwellings per acre system, as contrasts with Fling County's net area dwellings per acre. In King County, if a 10 acre parcel, zoned R-4 has a 2 acre wetland and the plat will require 2 acres of roads, 40 units are allowed. In Renton, wetland and roads are removed from the equation and only 30 units can be allowed. Thus, R-6 under King County is not directly comparable to R-6 under Renton_ No documentation is in the public file for these applications to support the statement "The City concurs that the density proposed is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan for this Potential Annexation Area." Without corroborating documentation, this statement is irrelevant. Page 13 Point 5 Paragraph 2 "The City did express concern with the road improvement standards to be used At this We an intertocal agreement has not been signed between the two jurisdictions by which King County would alternatively recognize City of Renton street improvements. " The City of Renton provides fire protection services for this area of unincorporated Fling County. This constitutes a kind of functional interlocal agreement for which consideration of Renton's standards for the accommodation of emergency vehicles and zoning must be included in the evaluation of these applications. Renton requires additional site access (minimum two per plat), more logical road network connectivity (through street access instead of closed loops), wider and thicker road surfaces, and larger turning radii. The Evendell, and all applications for development in areas for which the City of Renton provides Fire Protection, should require these design standards. Page 13 Point 6 ".._When new neighborhood infrastructure is made feasible by the additional density requested within a rezone, the potential infrastructure benefits to be derived from the density increase are to be viewed as a supporting rationale for granting the rezone request " As illustrated above, 24 additional units is not a reasonable trade for the mad infrastructure improvements proposed.4%_ "r infrastructure imMcernents are required for all residential deveinument in this area. so are .not union Insufficient cost analysis has been presented to support the DDES recommendations. Page 14 Point 7 "The reclassifrca6on of this property to R-6 will facilitate development that MW be reasonably compatible with other nearby development and future development." Development under the eWsting R-4 classificatlion. will provide the same fadlitatiop. A consortium of developers with pending applications is being developed in cooperation with Lakeridge development to the Part:RnfII C.A.R E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - L01POO16 and LOITY401 north and east and the City of Renton. A similar consortium, and/or joint mitigation requirement can provide street improvements. Page 16 Point 6 "...Any locking device shall be approved by the Renton Fire Department (KCFD # 25).." Under the same requirement that give City of Renton approval rights in regards to provision of fire protection, all road standards similarly related to public safety must be required. Pans G rrf 11 C.A.R.E. Public Hearing Presentation: Proposed Evendell Zone Reclassification and Plat Permit Applications - LOIP0016 and L01TY401 Mitigation issues Transportation T 220 The transportation service areas and service strategies described in the following table should be used to direct future transportation improvements and services. Transportation Transportation Transportation Service Strategy Service Area Mode 4 Roads a Construct arterials to meet existing and pipeline capacity needs, then subsequent new growth. a Invest in transit supportive roadway facilities as transit service increases a Construct roadway projects needed for safe TDM a Emphasize ridesharing support Transit a Peak hour commuter service from Park & Ride lots a Phase in transit I HOV mobility as household and employment densities increase Provide specialized Americans With Disabilities Act facilities and service Ferries . Provided by the Washington State Department of Transportation a Explore ferry service options to support Land Use and Transportation Elements Nonmotorized a Integrate nonmotorized projects with roadway improvements a Provide multi -purpose trail facilities which address transportation needs Transportation Service Areas Map indicates that we are in Service Area 4. See C.A.R.E. Exhibit #2. The Nonmotorized section of the -table atove is of interest to us in regards to ese applications. Additionally, the following policies from the King County Comprehensive Plan support ouLLeguest for additional improvements for pedestrian safety: T- 315 Nonmotorized transportation should be promoted countywide to increase safety, mobility and convenience for nonmotonzed modes of travel. These efforts should emphasize the ability of nonmotorized modes to extend the efficiency of regional transit, promote personal mobility in a range of land use areas and expand the transportation alternatives available to the public. T 316 King County should include nonmotorized transportation when general transportation improvements are made, including road construction, reconstruction, subdivision development and development of new transit systems. T 317 New land use plans, subdivisions, and urban planned development proposals should include enhancements to nonmotorized mobility and access. T- 318 Ring County design standards should allow flexibility in selecting, and the authority to require design features that benefit nonmotorized safety and accessibility. T- 319 Unused rights -of -way should be considered for development as pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian or accessible connectors. T 320 King County should evaluate and implement, when possible, standards for new and innovative nonmotorized treatments. ❑nnR 10 of 11 r-` James N. O'Connor- - -Hearing Examiner Karen Scharer -Planner Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA_ 98055-1219 Subject: Oppose R4 zoning reclassification to R6 for proposed Evendell development: Permit application LO1POO16 and LO1TY401 Our neighborhood is diversified in the design of homes and lot sizes.--Mgst homes were established over time bLfolks bu in roe and building a home of their ow Small developments ve been builm past years. These homes are on air ood sizeT and do not distract from the individual look and feel of the neighborhood. The county atmosphere ere as ong been the reason that people have moved to and stayed in the area. It has always been cLuiet with lots of trees and room for children to play without going to separate "recreational areas". Kids play in there awn back yards where their parents can be assured of their safety. Families plant gardens raise chickens, keep goats, pigs, horses and even a llama or two. Wildlife in the area is a joy for both the adults and children. We see eagles, red tail hawks, woodpeckers, owls, coyotes, deer, raccoon and different species of frogs and newts to name a few. U-120 of the Kingiamnly Com2rehensivc Plan should ensure that the character of our neighborhood will remain as it is and not turned into the coon n o a proper ne�g or ood. The following are our concerns pursuant to the Evandell permits being granted. Sewer. Sewer treatment plants are close to capacity. Schools: Are the current schools in the area capable of handling the influx of children or will they be over crowded and the quality of education affected? Traffic: Traffic on 156' has increased dramaticall in the last few years. It is our understanding, t with the completion of the Elliott Bra a ro ect at least 70 Solid Waste trucks a day will use 156`h .The only improvements that have been planned are a turn lane at 136th and a crosswalk with no warn' g light. The dcYclover and Kinp- County want to create a cross street at 136"' and 156" with -no traffic light. An children use 15e and more traffic means more risk. ;ers, walkers, bicyclist and Fire protection. With only one road that handles entering and exiting of Evendell, it will be difficult for fire and rescue vehicles to access the area in case of an emergency. With homes in such close proximity fear that a fire would spread rapidly is very real. It is my understanding that there are no specific fire building codes in King County for homes built so close together. We will need additional fire and police protection. Water- In the past we have had water shortages. Present residents will incur more shortages due to lack of water availability with the addition of these homes. Drainage: Water runoff is a problem in our area. We have had to install a drain around our home to keep it dry since a house was built on the property adjoining the future Evedell development. Trees drink copious amounts of water. With the Evendell plan the mature trees will be removed. There are flooding problems in areas to the south of the planned Evendell development. With runoff being diverted from the Evendell, these areas may have even more flooding. Exhibit No. Item No. L40000Z& I. L!AYTYAI b Received D ' 0 King County Hearing Examiner Tree a own 3Q0 fee est side oft dell deveio ment nd would like to have at least a fifty foot wide green buffer zone "easement" established between our property and Evendell. We have mature trees and are concerned the use of heavy equipment for stump removal, clearing and ou# it tian bui Ong o c ose e pe grouie TO these treffg-TITT6 amage an w e en ua 1, F win is a so a consideration, a ni eve ouglas firs gro them from being uprooted in the wind_ We believe the county and the developer should assume responsibility if our trees are blown over and damage occurs to our home, person or personal property, if there is no longer any natural protection via a buffer zone. The trees also help keep the noise level down created by increased traffic and the gun club, which is located about a mile or so away. The treed area also allows privacy. Neighborhood disruption: When development begins there should be consideration for the current residents. Clearing and construction noise will be stressful_ We request that these activities will take place within an 8-hour day and during the regular workweek. Large heavy trucks will be used to convey excavation equipment and building supplies. Responsibility to correct damage to the roads needs to be established. NOTE; We wish to specifically dispute the data presented by the developers of the proposed Evendell development, submitted March 2e 2002 in the document titled "70 Lot Preliminary Plan" We own a parcel over which the following note and corresponding lot lines have been drawn. (39 Lot, Potential Future Development under R-6 Zoning). We have no intention of subdividing our property as indicated in this document. These statements are incorrect. Respectfully Donald and Dian :�zele Pl 15657 SE 137`' . Renton WA 98059 Phone: 425-228-5952 Hi! My name is Vanessa Burris. I live at 15652 SE 139h pl. Renton, WA 98059. As a mother 1 would like to share my concerns about the impact on R6 versus R4. I grew up just outside Burien and in between south Seattle. The home is considered unincorporated King County. We didn't have to lock our doors and we knew our neighbors and borrowed items if needed. I walked to and from school. Our roads were quiet, crime was minimal and people were friendly. This is now a rarity_ I watched my neighborhood grow and during that time it has changed dramatically. With the increase in density this is some of the change that has occurred. My mother came home to find a stolen vehicle sitting in her front lawn one night. It took out the mailboxes and bushes. She has also had her house robbed. Other neighbors have reported stolen vehicle's as well_ Garbage is misplaced. Traffic is constant throughout the day and night and speeding is the "in thing' Exhaust pollution is higher and more dust is created from this higher density. If you stand outside and listen to the walking population vulgar speech is part of their conversation. The police are short hande So I have seen first hand that with an increase in people we are more likely to experience higher crime My second concern is with homes that are too close. I have never had to experience a fire thankfully but if a fire were to happen in a densely populated neighborhood such as the one I see in the R6 proposal it would destroy an entire neighborhood in ANNOW This is not a comforting thought. 3 Another concern I have is my son's sensitivity to smoke. When he is around smoke it gives him cold symptoms and I listen to him cough at night_ With more homes using fireplaces our air quality will be poorer. I have noticed this with the increase of density on maple valley highway. It causes my son and I to get congested have itchy eyes and nose and make it hard to see. This has gotten worse since the homes were built there. With more people in our neighborhood pollution will increase. Lastly, my son seems to enjoy the wild life. He gets to see squirrel's, mice, deer, mole, hawk, woodpecker, red robin, blue jay, possums, raccoon's, the neighbor's horses, sheep, cats and dogs. We have not seen the owl but we hear him. Both the owl and the hawk are resident's to our area since the trees in Renton were cut down. I myself have noti more raccoons and possums. We will be sad to see them leave_ I like the character of my neighborhood as it is now_ I' would to see it end up the way my mother's neighborhood has. Exhibit No. Item Na,. Q01[n Received 3 ' 1 D 03 King County Hearing Examiner iteau4w 4.w a,d,,,u 16524 SC 14514 Stzd R"&Kl *14 98059-7930 Exhibit No, 5LO C— Item No. =IPM116 I ISD 1 r'y4/01 Received " 0 King County Hearing Examiner Mr. James O'Connor Hearing Examiner, DDES King County Renton, Washington 98055 Dear Mr. O'Connor: March 10, 2003 Through out the proposed plat submission of Evendell to King County I have read that the improvements to the surrounding roads are being made for the "public health, safety and general welfare". I feel that this is so wrong. Traffic counts were made in relatively good weather for the time of year that they were taken. When the weather is bad, or if traffic on 405 or 167 is tied up, traffic on 156th Ave SE increases tremendously. 156`}' Ave SE is the only route to the south for the Cemetery Hill/Highland area. There are, again according to County traffic people, because of the terrain, no other possible routes to the south off the hill. The current, let alone proposed development, for 156th Ave SE does not address the realistic traffic situation there which is already unacceptable. The person who decided traffic volumes have decreased does not live in the neighborhood. The last two years have seen a tremendous jump in traffic volume and for the developer to infer that construction traffic accounts for this increase is ludicrous. There are at present, nor in the foreseeable future, no plans for a light at 1561h Ave SE and SE 1366. I have talked with County personal at Public Meetings and as far as I have been able to find out there are no lans to im rove 156`h Ave SE between SE 128"' and the Elliot Brie beyond the minor corrections to the intersection of 156` Ave SE and SE 136`;. These changes were mandated for fhe Highlands Estates development approval. The Elliot Bridge plan calls for one lane in each direction with a left turn lane and a 10 foot pedestrian walkway on the east. There will be about 500 feet of improvement up hill to the north. This means 1561h Ave SE will remain a two lane secondary road. The present speed limit on 156th Ave SE is 25 to 35 mph, depending on the section being traveled. If one attempts to travel at this posted speed limit you get honked at, tailgate, and/or passed. The road configuration on 156th Ave SE, which will not change appreciatably, creates a sight barrier going south just before SE 136th. Add a change in road elevation and a jog in the road at this intersection and it equates to confusion just over the brink of the hill. The denser R-6 plat for Evendell is estimated to add 700 trips per day. The revised estimate for the Highlands Estates/Maplewood subdivision is over 850 trips per day. (This figure is a rough estimate because they did not do a formal study to determine how many cars the road connection between Maplewood and Highlands Estates would generate). This totals to over 1550 trips per day impacting the intersection of SE 136TH and 156 H Ave SE. It has een stated in this meeting that the new developments op.nding-inAhe Evendell area will ask for the upgraded zoning also, and why shouldn�t_ _ they be ted if a rezone of Evendell igs a Xproved This means the new develo will this propose route also because they will have access to the light at SE 128th. FXhIblt W it m No, L.0�7`Y�Ii`iJ �,A- 0 r= IMY Roaring Examiner The 4dditional plats presently SE intersection amoun o an unara c it will amount to for the area with the present zoning of the S.E_136"'/160"' Ave , When they are granted s under way for the �acraa_djjgctIv south of the Evendell development, h with the rezone, will add another 40 houses. This makes a total of 250 houses, which we know about, and this equals an estimated 2500 trips per day from the east. Add that to the 850 plus trips per day from the west and that gives this intersection a total of at least three thousand three hundred fifty trips per day affecting a NON -REGULATED INTERSECTION. The traffic flow to the proposed new developments will be via 156th Ave SE and SE 136th with a south bound left turn lane crossing traffic coming north on 156th Ave SE , and a right turn pocket going west for the south -bound traffic turning into the Highland Estates/Maplewood development. This is an additional two lanes of traffic, making a total of 36 feet, for people to cross if they want to traveling north on 156`h Ave SE with the improvements to that comer. There will be a school bus stop at the corner of SE 1361h and 156th Ave SE which means that children will be present on 15e Ave SE during peak traffic hours. If memory serves me correctly, traffic is not required to stop if there are three or more lanes of traffic, and a left turn lane counts as a traffic lane. So, northbound traffic on 1561h Ave SE will not be required to stop. If you take the extreme problems of turning north from SE 136th onto 1561h Ave SE now, morning or night, add an additional distance of 24 feet to cross, add to that the additional trips estimated to be generated by the new developments, plus the presents of children, it all equates to trouble at an uncontrolled intersection which means not IF, but when will someone will be killed. There has been reference to a county park located to the west. This park is located at least 6 blocks away, between 144th Ave SE and 152"d Ave SE. It was purchased with Forward Thrust funds. That park is almost totally undeveloped. The very small part that is developed is located on the west side on 140 Ave. SE. There are no roads or paths tying through to 152"d Ave SE. There are no plans or money for development of this park in the foreseeable future. The light on SE 128th that has been referred to at this hearing is a caution light. It is a flashing yellow light with a sign that warns motorists there is left turning traffic ahead, over the brink of the hill, at 160th Ave SE. The Evendell development must have sewers to get a permit even without the rezone. The money to be spent putting in the road and sidewalks along SE 136 h between 156th Ave SE and 160th Ave SE would be better spent putting in a light at the intersection of SE 128" and 160' Ave SE. The expense of the light could be shared with the other five developments slated for the 160`h Ave. SE corridor. They would be more directly served by this light and the large housing development north of SE 1281h at 160' Ave SE would benefit as well. 2 King County would love to see SE 136`h carried on through to make the neighborhood circulation better, in essence, forcing traffic to use the SE 136th corridor to have access to a light at SE 1281h. But are one or more lives worth it? If extending SE 136`h is contributing to the configuration of the neighborhood, what is the proposed circulation pattern for the property directly west of the Evendell project doing? The diverse representation at this meeting puts a lie to the idea that we have a limited neighborhood and no one is interested. We all realize that growth is inevitable, we just want that growth to be controlled and to fit in with the other homes in the neighborhood. One last thing. The reason Highlands Estates had virtually no opposition to a rezone was because we did not know what we could do about it. When I called about the large white sign that was posted on the property, I was told to come to the Hearing Examiner's meeting and I could have my say then. I have since learned that we must do our homework before the meeting. One must know the rule and regulations that govern these rezones and this time I, along with my neighbors, am ready. We know that growth is coming. We just ask that it be controlled and thought out with more than the economic health of the developer in mind. Sincerely yours, C� Ro da Bryant 15406 SE 136`h Street Renton, Washington 98059 3 /� . (,Uv Mr. James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Bldg, 900 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Dear Examiner O'Conner: LX� t.-V1s2s�-�i -'r, 4/dam RE: Rezone from R4 to R6 or greater for Proposed Plat of Evendell File No's: LO 1 TY401 and LO 1 POO 16 (plan 1 for 11 and 1/2 acres and plan 2 for 15 acres). Also RE: Also in preparation for two more hearings scheduled on 2 other plots planned for development. I have been unable to get a copy of the hearings from DDES for them so I do not have the File No's, but they are: • Rezone of R4 to R6 or greater for approximately 4 and 1/2 acres bounded by 158th Ave. SE, SE 136th, 134th and 160th SE. • Rezone of R4 to R6 or greater for an additional 2 and 1/2 acres bounded by 158th Ave. SE, SE, 132nd and 134th and 160th Ave. SE. (in a reverse L shape). • Rezone: There is a fifth area being eyed within the same boundaries. See the King County proposed development maps submitted by land developer companies. General Comments: 1. First let me say thank you for coming out of retirement to hear this case. It is a landmark case for our area, since outside developers and land companies are vying to develop 5 substantial acreage plots, 3 within 1,600 feet of my home, and 2 within 200 and 400 feet of my home. (See the maps presented by Gwendolyn High and Marsha.) How do we know it's a landmark case: Page 14, last paragraph, of the report says "The sewer and road improvements for this rezone/plat are necessary to make this first stage of urban conversion successful, and will provide an infrastructure foundation for the further development of other properties consistent with the R4 designation." P.S. Thank you for the interception and questioning you did from time to time in difficult areas. 2. Secondly, let me say thank you for extending the hearing so that the current family residential land owners could be heard adequately. It is my hope that in the future there will be enough time allowed for the resident citizens land owners to cross examine the developers and DDES as they have been allowed to do to us. 3. If hq an R6 or greater zoning for these two plots is placed in the middle of our R4 zoning, the impact of this will open the way fht-way for the other 3 acreage plots to be re -zoned as R6 or above which would have substantial adverse effects. The safety of the current residents and the environment of this area, which contains Class II Wetlands, cannot support such a great number of homes in such a confined area_ a. This would conservatively add 132 homes on approximately 22 acres. At R4 the density would be 72 homes total forlof the areas (44 for the Evendell File plan one�plus 18 and 10 for the other two proposed plots), and, b. 132 for Evendell File plan two at R-6 zoning, (Evendell 90 homes on both No's, plus 27 and 15 on the other proposed developments). c. Again this does not even include the 5th plot development which is planned. "4. OF GRAVE CONCERN TO ALL THE RESIDENT FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE UNMISTAKABLE SUBVERSIVE WAY IN WHICH TRANSFER OF DENSITY CREDITS (see page 5, paragraph 3 under "g"), AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY (see page 5, paragraph 8 and 9 under "g", and again as "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (BLA) on page 16 at 4 Exhibit No, 51e Q— Item No, 10_1 D0116 * L 17V1 Received . 2/-Q" a? King County Hearing Examiner 2 paragraph 2), and"DENSITY TRANSFER" OR "DENSITY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS" (see page 9 last paragraph from the bottom), "DDES AND DDT STAFF DO NOT ANTICIPATE..." (page 14, paragraph 3), "POTENTIAL DEFICIENT CONDITION" (page 15 p. 3. line 6), "MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAT WHICH DO NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES MAY BE APPROVED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DDES." (Pag3.15 Plat, paragraph 3), WORK AROUND THE EXISTING LAW BY GIVING "MODIFICATIONS." In other words the statutes, zones, and laws are "gray" rather than "black and white". Together with a passing -of -the -buck to the other jurisdiction and back again, our experience as resident family land owners is that we are factually being ping-ponged back and forth between the city who hopes to annex us and provides partial services under the new King County Charter, and the County who provides the rest of the services, so as to make the R4 zoning almost null and void and open to anything developers, the city, and the county would like to do. That is painfully obvious in this DDES Preliminary Report. 5. There are a lot of "should's", "mosts" and "expectations" in the language. These are not binding and are subjective conclusions of opinion, which carry no formal weight and may never come to fruition. They should not be admitted as fact, in favor of, nor influence a decision to rezone. These types of irregularities in the DDES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, Rezone & Proposed Plat of Evendell, File No's: LO 1TY401 and LOI PO016 make the resident land owners suspect that important issues the report addresses are inaccurate and subject to conjecture. 6. Regarding the hearing on March 6, 2003,1 was not able to get a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, at the DDES Hearing Room in Renton, until the evening of the day before and thus my earlier comments did not take in a response the this report or the hearing on March 6, 2003. • Question: I have previously requested to be on the DDES mailing list in April 2001 when I submitted the!Zesident Survey'Respoise to Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendell, LO1PO016 and LO1TY401" and again at this hearing. Karen Scharer, DDES assigned planner, to whom I made this request again in writing during the hearing said it should not go to her but to the clerk who was taking in letters for THIS case. I want to be included on all cases within 2 miles of my home. Can you tell me how to ensure this? 7. Conduct of the hearing: Even though you cautioned all to speak up, the microphones, not being both recording and speaking did not enable us to hear the DDES staff, who most of the time had their backs either fully turned to us or partially turned when testifying. Therefore, it was very difficult for many of us to follow and I heard public frustration, even anger, about this over and over. For the benefit of all this should be corrected. 8. Please review the following comments made subsequent to the hearing, which I was not able to express to DDES or the developer and his representatives due to the time and formalities imposed. The comments are made from the tent of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003- Public Hearing at 9:30 a.m , 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW, Renton, WA.: a. PAGE ONE: ZONING AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: paragraph two cites a 46 lot plat based on the existing R4 zoning on the east 11.46 acres. However, the description below at "Acreage Rezone/Plat" lists 13 acres with a density of 5.6 dwellings per acre with 7.4 dwellings per net acre. These statistics seem to stretch 4 to an acre to 7 an acre and are incongruous. The numbers have been banded about throughout. Further in to the document 15 acres is the amount. On attachment 4 page one is shown R-6 zoning and 4-12 units per acre; on attachment 4, page 2 is shown a 12.43 acre site with 6 houses per acre, for 74.58 dwelling units, and residential subdivision and townhouses developed at a density of 8 units or less per acre, number of proposed units 70; on attachment 4, page 3,,48.17 minimum dwellingy1iits required; on attachment 4, page 4, maximum density of 12.43 acres. ACTION: I CALL THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION. Cy i' S 0 1MA-1, y L) Ay? I Ito cF S . 17- is V€v2 y Cxvr rUSir 6 . On page 13 of the report Rezone, 2. Paragraph one states 5.6 dwellings are appropriate per acre. P determines that the properties no w o wned h y resident families 'ha ve not developed to their highest potential use and density". JUST WHO IS MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT BY LIVING ON MY ONE ACRE, OR ON FIVE ACRES, WE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL USE AND DENSITY AS OTHERS SEE IT. WE EACH OWN THESE PIECES OF LAND BY LAW. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY OTHER OWNER OR ME WHAT THE BEST USE OF THAT LAND IS NOR TO SET UP ORDNANCES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS PROPERTY OWNERS. b. On page one and in appendix 8, the Renton School District is listed. It is the Issaquah School District (I see where the Issaquah .transportation officer's card business card appears on appendix 8, but page one remains unchanged, and Karen Scharer, DDES, ikd.rnade an administrative error when she said that the East side of 158th Ave. S.E. goes to Issaquah and the West side to Renton. In fact, both go the Issaquah. ACTION: Please ensure the testimony data is corrected. c. Page 2. "Community Plap: Newcastle". This is not the Newcastle communi , which ends at the May Valley Aad substantially north of here. It is the Four Creeks Unincorporate arM bounded b Briarwood, Coalfield, and Lake Kathleen wit ay Valley on the North and East arks. d. Page 2, C 1. • Question: What pipeline are we talking about? We are unaware of any existing or planned. e. Page 2, D. Threshold Determination of Environmental Significance: All of the submittals to DDES by a large number of the current residents in April 2002 requested an environmental impact study (EIS) be done. As residents we find tF0,4-the mitigated determination of non -significance (MDNS) rather surprising in that we presented evidence to the contrary on animal, reptile (newts, snakes, lizards), bug, insect, flora, and fauna, as well as surface water Class II Wetlands, the presence of substantial ponds in the area (two private and one large one the size of a small lake on 164th Ave. SE, and other drainage issues. ACTION: We request again that an EIS be required by the Cedar Basin Steward and other appropriate officials from the Kin Goon Surface Water and Land Management offices ofthe D artment of Natural and Land Resources King Street Statio .201 South Jackson S Suite 700 Seattle WA 98104 rior to rezoning, An EIS was also requested on page 5 of the resident survey submitted by Gwendolyn High in April or so of 2002 regarding species with sensitive classifications. f. Page 2, D, MDNS: Notification was not received by the current residents on the mailing list of 21 days to appeal the MDNS. g. Page 2, D. The statement is made in the MDNS "other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed." • Question: If they have substantive authority, why aren't they listed. h. Page 3, E, Agencies Contacted: + Question: Why were four State agencies contacted, but not other King County Agencies. At the very least King County Surface Water and Land Management of the Department of Natural Resources listed at e., and the appropriate King County offices for Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation should have been contacted ACTION: Please require that the other King County offices are coordinated with and included in the analysis requirements for rezoning and not just DDES. i. Page 4, F. Natural Environment: We ask you to consider in your determination: (1) A 20-foot difference in height is substantial. (2) The soil survey was made 30 years ago. Substantial changes in tree growth, etc. have occurred. 4 (3) 200 square feet of wetland to be filled means permanent loss. My lymnologist Civil Engineer daughter who has lived her over 30 years and worked for King County as a lake manager for six, says that the wetland will never recover. (4) 6,989 Square Feet of wetland impact is substantial. (5) Paragraphs P3. Par 3, paragraph 4, 5, and 6. ACTION: should be done by the King County Surface Water and Land Management office of the Department of Natural Resources, listed earlier. (6) Paragraph 6. Wildlife: The flat statement "there was no specific information provided in the citizen's documentation to indicate the presence of nesting sites on the proposal property for any protected species" is inaccurate. Submittals were made as required., I-q-kti„►L,2 .6w t4� Au_ 60— C-,; f j. Page 5, G. Neighborhood Characteristics. (1) Paragraph 1. As stated earlier this is the Four Creeks Area not the Renton Highlands, which is a distinct within the -City of Renton and has been for 60 yeaq. (2) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 6 re er to a rezone withi the Renton City Limits. ✓ ACTION: Please investigate and note that and R 5, R-6 or R-8 zone within the Renton City Limits is not the same as an R 6 or R-8 zone outside the Renton City Limits. (3) Paragraph 2. The sewers for Highland Estates are over a mile away. (4) Paragraph 4. Please spell out what .9 d.u. per acre means. (5) Paragraph 5. Time for submittal of the applications for three other plats IS partially known. My neighbor just received notice of a hearing on March I8, (6) Paragaph H.1. QUESTION: If it is R4 than how can density be am pted at 5.6 d.u.'s? until the re -zoning is approved? (7) Paragraph H. 2. The 46-lot plat is more than 4 to -I I acres. No accuracy here. k. Pages 5 and 6 regarding the "public loop". On access entrance into the entire development at 70 plus homes traps homeowners and is not safe should a major disaster created by high winds or fire occur and all be trying to exit at the same time and emergency vehicleslor simply mass exodus Plocks the way. 1. Page 6. Drainage: Drainage is referred in several places throughout the document, the largest sections being on page 3, page IS, page 20, and 21 of the DDES report. 3t- '1�.r ale- Confusions and inequities which are important issues prior to the type of permit being granted. During presentations on March 6, 2003, at the public hearing there were many regarding sewers and drainage. Mr. Romano's and the DDES presentations were confusing and alluded that sewers and storm ponds would alleviate the ground water problems in the area, while protecting the Wetlands and provide recreational space. ACTION: We request that DDES present Gwendolyn High, our chosen representative, with reports from King County Surface Water and Land Management, and from the Cedar River Basin Steward regarding the following issues: My daughter is a professional lymnologist by trade and a civil engineer. She lived at 13125 158th Ave. SE. for over 30 years. For 6 years, ending in June 2001, when she married and left the immediate area, she worked for King County Surface Water and Land Management (KCSWLM). She was a specialist and lake manager for numerous lakes and streams in King County. She is especially concerned about the sewer, storm pond, and storm drainage systems and that KCSWLM be included as authorities in this rezone. a. Storm Ponds: (1) Until storm pond statistics from the King County Surface Water and Land Management offices and the Cedar River Basin Steward are obtained for a comparison on how well the storm ponds (detention as they are called in this document) actually function in this area and surrounding areas of like land the wet season and over time are presented for public access, the reports by DDES and the Haozous Engineering, Inc., are subject to subjective misinterpretation and conjecture. (2) As landowners owners we feel we are subject to being easily misled without these accurate studies and facts incorporated into the DDES findings. b. Sewers and Storm Drains: The issues of sewers and ground water handling as presented i�irs confusing. Homeowners were led to believe by the language used by both DDES and the developer and his representatives that sewer installation would take care of part of the surface water issues. There was barely any mention of storm drains in the hearing presentation itself, if they were mentioned at all. In fact this is still a significant issue which needs to be clarified and resolved before ANY approval is giving to the developers who seek to expand the zoning beyond R4. (1) Sewers are specifically designed so that storm drain surface water cannot penetrate them. This is because penetration from storm drain surface water will compromises the entire sewer system and leads to overflow and collapse (2) On page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin, you do not mention the who hired Haozous Engineering to do the level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering. There is tot- 0o provision for upstream, which evacuation of downstream will surely impact. What King County Surface Water and Land Management authorities have you submitted this Analysis to. If Haozous Engineering was hired by the developer, then the county has a responsibility to ensure through County authorities that the analysis is accurate when it affects county residents. eat. (3) 1,700 ft downstream is an insignificant area when talking about the affect ¢(nonaffect on the larger area of this neighborhoodwhich such installations will have. Therefore, using it as a justification for applying this to the entire neighborhood, is in question. (4) On page 3 at B. West Drainage Basin you quote KCS)VDM Core requirement 2 How old is the manual. Has it been affected by any modifications or changes? Where is a current and comparative study from the KCSW and LM? Furthermore you do not identify the streets as you did on page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin. sc- (5) Note on page 16 7.c. That there is no approved permanent storm drain outlet # yet on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. And, I still wonder at "e" how you can use a drainage tract for required recreation space. (6) On Attachment 9, page 2 of 3, at the top "4." "As a result, controlled outflows from the westaM Brea will be released FARTHER UPSTREAM IN THE DITCH SYSTEM OF 156TH AVE. SE." V9u 4 e c�-t•�ccy s c S �u-y s s`�s�',� r,�,e� �-�r �,� tf � e r�`p etc-� vc�� �S c�-�+ae,�ts t t�,°-Er � �1, a.�P aGrr.�u�.c� `�.�.1�� in. page 6. 1. 2: Transport Plans: "Most trips will be via 156th Ave. SE." That is pure conjecture. You cannot predict what drivers will do. We get heavy overflow &M 160th across 132nd and un 158 no — and opening 136th with one egress to the development is sure to increase traffic up 158th substantially. At 1.3. The report states "700 vehicle trips a day will be generated" leaving the single egress under the developer's plan for R-6 zoning. Even at zoning for R-4, those residents living on 15M believe these cars will go in a straight line up 15 . n. Page 7, 4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: Relies heavily on modifying traffic standards by allowing a payoff Mitigation Payment System. Fact: As residents who will suffer over the six years mentioned, we find this most curious and again a way of taking an existing ordnance and moving it into the gray area rather than black and white to get around or stall the requirement, which gives a break to the developer and not the existing residents. o. Page 7, Public Services J. 1. Does not apply as stated since it refers to the Renton School District and School Board and should be from the Issaquah School Board and District. 6 ACTION: Please see that this is corrected. p. Page 7, 2. , and page 19 at items 18. and 19. Parks and Recreation Space. (1) We understand the county is selling the one parcel that would have benefited all of the immediate neighborhood (adjacent to 160th). (2) The county is not in a position to guarantee parks for us since they are closing so many due to funding. (3) Later in the DDES document it states that the homeowners will be responsible for upkeep of the "park" in the Evendell plots. The neighborhood at large will not be comfortable going to a park inside the 6-�e" development, and with 70 house on I I acres, plus a pump station, and a storm pond, the park will be insufficient to serve the entire neighborhood, ACTION NEEDED ON A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE: Sandwiched in here ON PAGE 8 J.3 is water for fire prevention. Documented FACT: When my neighbors and I cannot take showers in the summer because of low water Mssure, how is the fire pE&ction Wigg to be maintained? q. Page 8 Comprehensive and Community Plan: (1)As I established in the hearingithe KC Comprehensive Plan with Land Use Map designating this area at 4-12 dwellings per acre, does not override the R4 zoning in affect in this area. ACTION: Therefore this statement is irrelevant, misleading, and should be removed. (2) U-114 and U-118 appear to be in conflict with U-120 which states, KING COUNTY SHALL NOT APPROVE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO INCREASE DENSITY WITHIN THE URGAN AREA UNLESS: A. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER AND SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD." Going on below to r.: r. Page 9. a. b. c. e., and on. page 11 especially the last two paragraphs: THE "NEIGHBORHOOD"IDENTITY IS USED VARIOUSLY TO INDICATE THE IN[ENIDIATE AREA BOUNDED BY 160TH, SE 128TK SE 138TH, AND 156TH IN UNCORPORATED KING COUNTY AND THEN IS STRECHED INTO THE CITY OF RENTON AREA OR PLANS, WHEN IT SUITS THE PURPOSE OF THE DDES AND THE DEVELOPER FACT: WEARENOTPART OF=CITYOFRENTON, YET, AAD UNTIL WEARE, THEIR COVENANTSANDZONINGSDONOTAPPLY. FOLLOWING THAT LINE OF LOGIC, ALL LAW WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT FIT IN THE FUTURE. (9.d) The DDES comment that the Evendell plat plan does not exceed the Ci of R Comprehensive Plan 8 dwellings per acmjW no bearing on avolication in unincorporated King County. I repeat, City of Renton zoning is not the same as unincorporated King County ACTION.- THESE COMMENTS in section U120 AS RELATED TO THE CITY OF RENTON SHOULD BE REMOVED AND NOT APPLY RV THEDECISION TO GRANTA REZONEIN UNINCORPORATEDKING COUNTY. s. Page 10: Charts; (1) Footage statistics developers and DDES are using on page 10 of the DDES report are truly miniscule when you look at the area to be served and make the chart totally irrelevant. t. Page 12 KCC20.24.195 Additional examiner findings - preliminary plats. A. "Appropriate provisions are made for the public safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces.... Etc." Please consider these requirements carefully and apply them to your decision. There will be no open spaces when the developers get through. We are asked to put up with unsafe road conditions for a minimum of 6 years. We who have lived here 30 years will not have access to parks contained in private neighborhoods. Our children will have to endure 700 more cars a day without benefit of sidewalks or wider streets because once they leave the egress to Evendell, guess what, they go straight past my house. u. Page 13 SEPA and Rezone. �K (1) MDNS, which applies to SEPA is addressed on page 3 at items e, f, and g. ei (2) Rezone and property owners rights are addressed on page 2, 8 a.v( 1-ta to t e-41pv; (3) The maps shown by the developer of how they will develop properties and seek permits to do so are in question. A minimum of 4 large tract property owners stood up in the meeting and said they do not plan to sell and they find it unnerving that the DDES or anyone else can give permits ahead of the fact to developers. w. Attachment 6, We as property owners and resident citizens find it a questionable ethics and a breach of property owners rights and wonder how it will stand in a court of law, for the City of Renton, to make the statement that "In order to receive sewer service from the City, the plat must also develop as detached single family and the property owner(s) will be required to execute a covenant to annex form. Will future buyers be presented with this requirement before they have already sold their homes and are ready to sign the final papers to buy in this area so they can change their minds or will they. not find that they must sign away their voting rights until the day they sign their final Rapers, have already sold their other house and are in effect forced to sign. . In closing: THERE APPEAR TO BE SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES HERE REGARDING AN ABRIDGEMENT OF PERSONAL RIGHTS., NOT JUST AS PROPERTY OWNERS BUT AS VOTERS. We wonder if this c9uld be construed by the courts that the City of Renton, the County, and the land developers appear to in collusion. Especially as it has been the factual experience of man residents that the�uck gets passedin this area from one to the other and back again whe inquiring about whif o as 'rc caa �Jf owe jurisdiction and how can we get fair and just treatment, and then we get a document like this full of mitigations. So many people worked on this report at DDES, and with the confusion they must experience in dealing with so many laws and regulations, and probably being short funded and short staffed, I wonder if anyone in a higher position checked it to see to it that each one's work agreed with the others. There are so many inconsistencies in this document that I don't see ethically and in good conscience how you can award the rezone to R-5 or higher. Even at R-4, the inconsistencies will need to be addressed before granting any zoning to the developer at all. Thank you for the time and effort you will be putting into your decision. Respectfully submitted, 1- r ' 1 Michael Rae Cooke Yl�� 13125 158h Ave. SE. Renton, WA 98059 Work number 425-227-2505 Homeowner Program Analyst, DOT, FAA Former Sierra Club and Mountaineer's member 3/8/02 Mr. James O'Conner Deputy Hearing Examiner King County Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Bldg. 900 4th Avenue Seattle, WA 98164 Dear Examiner O'Conner: RECEIVED MAR 12 Z003 1Qtlr3 CRIB' W 0090M BUONO" RE: Rezone from R4 to R6 or greater for Proposed Plat of Evendell File No's: LO 1TY401 and L01P0016 (plan 1 for I I and 1/2 acres and plan 2 for 15 acres). Aiso RE: Also in preparation for two more hearings scheduled on 2 other plots planned for development, I have been unable to get a copy of the hearings from DDES for them so I do not have the File No's, but they are: • Rezone of R4 to R6 or greater for approximately 4 and 1/2 acres bounded by 158th Ave. SE, SE 136th, 134th and 160th SE. • Rezone of R4 to R6 or greater for an additional 2 and 1/2 acres bounded by 158th Ave. SE, SE, 132nd and 134th and 160th Ave, SE. (in a reverse L shape). • Rezone: There is a fifth area being eyed within the same boundaries. See the King County proposed development maps submitted by land developer companies. General Comments: 1, First let me say thank you for coming out of retirement to hear this case. It is a landmark case for our area, since outside developers and land companies are vying to develop 5 substantial acreage plots, 3 within 1,600 feet of my home, and 2 within 200 and 400 feet of my home. (See the maps presented by Gwendolyn High and Marsha.) How do we know it's a landmark case: Page 14, last paragraph, of the report says "The sewer and road improvements for this rezone/plat are necessary to make this first stage of urban conversion successful, and will provide an infrastructure foundation for the further development of other properties consistent with the R-4 designation." P.S. Thank you for the interception and questioning you did from time to time in difficult areas. 2. Secondly, let me say thank you for extending the hearing so that the current family residential land owners could be heard adequately. It is my hope that in the future there will be enough time allowed for the resident citizens land owners to cross examine the developers and DDES as they have been allowed to do to us. 3. If the R6 or greater zoning for these two plots is placed in the middle of our R4 zoning, the impact of this will open the way for the other 3 acreage plots to be re -zoned as R6 or above which would have substantial adverse effects. The safety of the current residents and the environment of this area, which contains Class II Wetlands, cannot support such a great number of homes in such a confined area. a. This would conservatively add 132 homes on approximately 22 acres. (Evendell File plat at R-6 zoning would be Evendell 90 homes on both plots, plus 27 and 15 on the other proposed developments). b. In comparison, at R-4 the density would be 72 homes total as follows: the Evendell plot at 44 on one plot, plus 18 and 10 for the other two proposed plots_ c. Again this does not even include the 5th plot development which is planned, *4. OF GRAVE CONCERN TO ALL THE RESIDENT FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE UNMISTAKABLE SUBVERSIVE WAY IN WHICH LANGUAGE AND ACTIONS WORK AROUND THE EXISTING LAW BY GIVING "MODIFICATIONS. EXAMPLES ARE: THE TRANSFER OF DENSITY CREDITS (see page 5, paragraph 3 under "g"), AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS TO REVISE THE BOUNDARY (see page 5, paragraph 8 and 9 under "g", and again as "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (BLA) on page 16 at 4 paragraph 2), and"DENSITY TRANSFER" OR "DENSITY INCENTIVE PROGRAMS" (see page 9 last paragraph from the bottom), WITH LANGUAGE SUCH AS "DDES AND DOT STAFF DO NOT ANTICIPATE..." (page 14, paragraph 3), "POTENTIAL DEFICIENT CONDITION" (page 15 p. 3. line 6), "MINOR REVISIONS TO THE PLAT WHICH DO NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES MAY BE APPROVED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DDES." (Page 3, at 15 Plat, paragraph 3). In other words the statutes, zones, and laws are "gray" rather than "black and white". Together with a passing -of -the -buck to the other jurisdiction and back again, our experience as resident family land owners is that we are factually being ping-ponged back and forth between the city who hopes to annex us and provides partial services under the new King County Charter, and the County who provides the rest of the services, so as to make the R-4 zoning almost null and void and open to anything developers, the city, and the county would like to do. That is painfully obvious in this DDES Preliminary Report. 5. There are a lot of "should's", "musts" and "expectations" in the language. These are not binding and are subjective conclusions of opinion, which carry no formal weight and may never come to fruition. They should not be admitted as fact, in favor of, nor influence a decision to rezone. "These types of irregularities in the DDES Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, Rezone & Proposed Plat of Evendell, File No's: L0ITY401 and LO1P0016 make the resident land owners suspect that important issues the report addresses are inaccurate and subject to conjecture. 6. Regarding the hearing on March 6, 2003, I was not able to get a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003, at the DDES Hearing Room in Renton, until the evening of the day before and thus my earlier comments did not include a response to the report used during the hearing on March 6, 2003. • Question: I have previously requested to be on the DDES mailing list in April 2002 when I submitted the "Resident Survey Response to Proposed Rezone and Preliminary Plat of Evendell, L01 POO16 and LOITY401" and again at this hearing. Karen Scharer, DDES assigned planner, to whom I made this request again in writing during the hearing said it should not go to her but to the clerk who was taking in letters for THIS case. I want to be included on all cases within 2 miles of my home. Can you tell me how to ensure this? 7. Conduct of the hearing: Even though you cautioned all to speak up, the microphones, not being both recording and speaking did not enable us to hear the DDES staff, who most of the time had their backs either fully turned to us or partially turned when testifying. Therefore, it was very difficult for many of us to follow and I heard public frustration, even anger, about this over and over. For the benefit of all this should be corrected. 8. Please review the following comments made subsequent to the hearing, which I was not able to express to DDES or the developer and his representatives due to the time and formalities imposed. The comments are made in response to the text of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, March 6, 2003- Public Hearing at 9:30 a.m., at 900 Oaksdale Avenue SW, Renton, WA. (The species are contained in the attachment.to my initial submittal presented at the DDES hearing on the 61h of March.) a. PAGE ONE: ZONING AND PROPERTY RIGHTS: paragraph two cites a 46 lot plat based on the existing R-4 zoning on the east 11.46 acres. However, the description below at "Acreage Rezone/Plat" lists 13 acres with a density of 5.6 dwellings per acre with 7.4 dwellings per net acre. These statistics seem to stretch 4 single family dwellings to an acre to 7 an acre and are incongruous_ The numbers have been bandied about throughout, Further in to the document 15 acres is the amount listed. On attachment 4 page one is shown R-6 zoning and 4-12 units per acre; on attachment 4, page 2 is shown a 12.43 acre site with 6 houses per acre, for 74.58 dwelling units, and residential subdivision and townhouses developed at a density of 8 units or less per acre, number of proposed units 70; on attachment 4, page 3, 48.17 minimum dwelling units are required; on attachment 4, page 4, is a maximum density of 12.43 acres. ACTION: I CALL THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AND I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION OF SO MANY VARIANCES. It is very confusing and opens the way for misinterpretation. On page 13 of the report at Rezone, 2. Paragraph one states 5.6 dwellings are appropriate per acre. Page 13 determines that the ro erties now owned by resident families "have not developed to their hi hest potential use and density". JUST WHO IS MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT BY LIVING ON MY ONE ACRE, OR ON FIVE ACRES, WE ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL USE AND DENSITY AS OTHERS who are not the property owners SEE IT. WE EACH OWN THESE PIECES OF LAND BY LAW. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY OTHER OWNER OR ME WHAT THE BEST USE OF THAT LAND IS NOR TO SET UP ORDNANCES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS PROPERTY OWNERS. b. On page one and in appendix 8, the Renton School District is listed. It is the Issaquah School District. Yes I see where the Issaquah .transportation officer's card business card appears on appendix 8, but page one remains unchanged, and Karen Scharer, DDES, made an administrative error when she said that the East side of 158th Ave. S.E. goes to Issaquah and the West side to Renton. In fact, both go the Issaquah. ACTION: Please ensure the testimony data is corrected. c. Page 2. "Community Plan: Newcastle". This is not the Newcastle community, which ends at the May Valley Road substantially north of here. It is the Four Creeks Unincorporated area, bounded by Briarwood, Coalfield, and Lake Kathleen, with May Valley on the North and East flanks. d. Page 2, C 1. • Question: What pipeline are we talking about? We are unaware of any existing or planned. e. Page 2, D_ Threshold Determination of Environmental Significance: All of the submittals to DDES by a large number of the current residents in April 2002 requested an environmental impact study (EIS) be done. As residents we find the mitigated determination of non -significance (MDNS) rather surprising in that we presented evidence to the contrary on animal, reptile (newts, snakes, lizards), bug, insect, flora, and fauna, as well as surface water Class 11 Wetlands, the presence of substantial ponds in the area (two private on 158"' Ave SE, and a large one the size of a small lake on 164th Ave. SE), and other drainage issues. ACTION: We request main that an EIS be required by the Cedar Basin Steward and other appropriate officials from the King County Surface Water and Land Management offices, of the Department of Natural and Land Resources Kin Street Station 201 South Jackson Street Suite 700 Seattle WA 98104prior to rezoning. An EIS was also requested on page 5 of the resident survey submitted by Gwendolyn High in April or so of 2002 regarding species with sensitive classifications. I attached this April 2002 request to my initial letter presented at the DDES hearing on March 6, 2003. 4 f. Page 2, D, MDNS; Notification was not received by the current residents on the mailing list that I contacted, of the 21 days to appeal the MDNS. g. Page 2, D. The statement is made in the MDNS "other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed." • Question: If they have substantive authority, why aren't they listed. h. Page 3, E, Agencies Contacted: + Question: Why were four State agencies contacted, but not other King County Agencies. At the very least King County Surface Water and Land Management of the Department of Natural Resources (address listed at e.), and the appropriate King County offices for Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation should have been contacted, apart from DDES for analysis input. ACTION: Please require that the other King County offices are coordinated with and included in the analysis requirements for rezoning and not just DDES. i. Page 4, F. Natural Environment: We ask you to consider in your determination: (1) A 20-foot difference in height is substantial. (2) The soil survey was made 30 years ago. Substantial changes in tree growth, etc. have occurred. (3) 200 square feet of wetland to be filled means permanent loss. My lymnologist Civil Engineer daughter who has lived here over 30 years and worked for King County as a lake manager for six, says that the wetland will never recover. (4) Almost 7,000 (6,989) Square Feet of wetland impact is substantial. (5) Paragraphs P3, Par 3, paragraph 4, 5, and 6. ACTION: The analysis items at page 4, F. should be done by the King County Surface Water and Land Management office of the Department of Natural Resources, listed earlier at "e." (6) Paragraph 6. Wildlife: The flat statement "there was no specific information provided in the citizen's documentation to indicate the presence of nesting sites on the proposal property for any protected species" is inaccurate. Submittals were made as required, in time for the deadline. j. Page 5, G. Neighborhood Characteristics: (1) Paragraph 1. As stated earlier this is the Four Creeks Area, not the Renton Highlands, which is a distinct community within the City of Renton and has been for 60 years. (2) Paragraph 2 and paragraph 6 refer to a rezone within the Renton City Limits. ACTION: Please investigate and note that and R-5, R-6 or R-8 zone within the Renton City Limits is not the same as an R-5, R-6 or R-8 zone outside the Renton City Limits. (3) Paragraph 2. The sewers for Highland Estates are over a mule away. (4) Paragraph 4. Please spell out what .9 d.u. per acre means. (5) Paragraph 5. Time for submittal of the applications for three other plats IS partially known. My neighbor just received notice of a hearing on March 18, 2003, for one of them, prior to the March 6, 2003, DDES hearing.. (6) Paragaph H. 1. QUESTION: If it is R-4 than how can density be accepted at 5.6 d.u.'s? until the re -zoning is approved? (7) Paragraph H. 2. The 46-lot plat is more than 4 single family dwellings to 11 acres. No accuracy here. k. Pages 5 and 6 regarding the "public loop". One access entrance into the entire development at 70 plus homes traps homeowners and is not safe should a major disaster created by high winds or fire occur and all be trying to exit at the same time and find emergency vehicles or simply mass exodus blocks the way. 1. Page 6. Drainage: Drainage is referred to in several places throughout the document, the largest sections being on page 3, page 18, page 20, and 21 of the DDES report. There are confusions and inequities which are important issues prior to the type of permit being granted. During presentations on March 6, 2003, at the public hearing there were many regarding sewers and drainage. Mr. Romano's and the DDES presentations were confusing and alluded that sewers and storm ponds would alleviate the ground water problems in the area, while protecting the Wetlands and provide recreational space. ACTION: We request that DDES present Gwendolyn High, our chosen representative, with reports from King County Surface Water and Land Management, and from the Cedar River Basin Steward regarding the following issues: Note: My daughter is a professional lymnologist by trade and a civil engineer. She lived at 13125 158th Ave. SE. for over 30 years. For 6 years, ending in June 2001, when she married and left the immediate area, she worked for King County Surface Water and Land Management (KCSWLM). She was a specialist and lake manager for numerous lakes and streams in King County_ She is especially concerned about the sewer, storm pond, and storm drainage systems, and that KCSWLM be included as authorities with substantive shareholder rizhts in this rezone. a. Storm Ponds: (1) Until storm pond statistics from the King County Surface Water and Land Management offices and the Cedar River Basin Steward are obtained for a comparison on how well the storm ponds (detention as they are called in this document) actually function in this area and surrounding areas of like land during the wet season and over time, and _are presented for public access, the reports by DDES and the Haozous Engineering, Inc., are subject to subjective misinterpretation and conjecture. (2) As landowners owners we feel we are subject to being easily misled without accurate studies and facts from these other authoritative and substantial shareholders analyses being required and incorporated into the DDES findings. b. Sewers and Storm Drains: The issues of sewers and ground water handling as presented were confusing. Homeowners were led to believe by the language used by both DDES and the developer and his representatives that sewer installation would take care of part of the surface water issues. There was barely any mention of storm drains in the hearing presentation itself, if they were mentioned at all. In fact this is still a significant issue which needs to be clarified and resolved before ANY approval is giving to the developers who seek to expand the zoning beyond R4. (1) Sewers are specifically designed so that storm drain surface water cannot penetrate them. This is because penetration from storm drain surface water will compromise the entire sewer system and leads to overflow and collapse (2) On page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin, you do not mention who hired Haozous Engineering to do the level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering. There is no provision for upstream, which evacuation of downstream will surely impact. (In fact on attachment 9 this is alluded to, page 2 of 3, at the top of the page at i14." What King County Surface Water and Land Management authorities has DDES submitted this Analysis to. if Haozous Engineering was hired by the developer, then the county has a responsibility to ensure through County authorities that the analysis is accurate and unbiased when it affects county residents. (3) 1,700 ft downstream is an insignificant area when talking about the affect or non - affect on the larger area of this neighborhood which such installations will have. Therefore, using it as a justification for applying this to the greater neighborhood, is in question. (4) On page 3 at B. West Drainage Basin DDES quoted KCSWDM Core requirement 2. How old is the manual_ Has it been affected by any modifications or changes? Where is a current and comparative study from the KCSW and LM? Furthermore DDES did not identify the streets as they did on page 3 at A. East Drainage Basin. (5) Note on page 16 7.c. that there is no approved permanent storm drain outlet # yet on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. And, I still wonder at "e" how you can use a drainage tract for required recreation space. (6) On Attachment 9, page 2 of 3, at the top "4." "As a result, controlled outflows from the western area will be released FARTHER UPSTREAM IN THE DITCH SYSTEM OF 156TH AVE. SE." In the analysis, DDES states that the culverts are undersized. It is my understanding that the Cedar River Basin Steward has a legitimate concern about this fall out. m. Page 6.1. 2. Transport Plans: "Most trips will be via 156th Ave. SE." That is pure conjecture. You cannot predict what drivers will do. We get heavy overflow from 160th across 132nd and up 158th, now and opening 136th with one egress to the development is sure to increase traffic up 158th substantially. At 1.3. The report states "700 vehicle trips a day will be generated" leaving the single egress under the developer's plan for R-6 zoning. Even at zoning for R-4, those residents living on 158th believe these cars will go in a straight line up 158th. n. Page 7, 4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: Relies heavily on modifying traffic standards by allowing a payoff Mitigation Payment System. Fact: As residents who will suffer over the six years mentioned, we find this most curious and again a way of taking an existing ordnance and moving it into the gray area rather than black and white to get around or stall the requirement, which gives a break to the developer and not the existing residents. o. Page 7, Public Services J. 1. Does not apply as stated since it refers to the Renton School District and School Board and should be from the Issaquah School Board and District. ACTION: Please see that this is corrected. p. Page 7, 2. , and page 19 at items 18. and 19. Parks and Recreation Space. (1) We understand the county is selling the one parcel that would have benefited all of the immediate neighborhood (adjacent to 160th). (2) The county is not in a position to guarantee parks for us since they are closing so many due to funding. (3) Later in the DDES document it states that the homeowners will be responsible for upkeep of the "park" in the Evendell plots. The neighborhood at large will not be comfortable going to a park inside the Evendell development, and with 70 house on 11 acres, plus a pump station, and a storm pond, the park will be insufficient to serve the entire neighborhood surrounding the Evendell plot. ACTION NEEDED ON A FIRE SAFETY ISSUE: Sandwiched in here ON PAGE 8, .I.3 is water for fire prevention. Documented FACT: When my neighbors and I cannot take showers in the summer because of low water pressure, how is the fire protection going to be maintained? q. Page 8 Comprehensive and Community Plan: (1) As I established in the hearing on March 6`h, the KC Comprehensive Plan with Land Use Map designating this area at 4-12 dwellings per acre, does not override the R-4 zoning in affect in this area. ACTION: Therefore this statement is irrelevant, misleading, and should be removed. (2) U-114 and U-118 appear to be in conflict with U-120 which states, KING COUNTY SHALL NOT APPROVE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO INCREASE DENSITY WITHIN THE URGAN AREA UNLESS: A. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER AND SCALE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD." Going on below to r.: r. Page 9. a. b. c. e., and on page 11, especially the last two paragraphs: Regarding the neighborhood identity referred to here, as residents with knowledge of the neighborhood we note that THE "NEIGHBORHOOD" IDENTITY IS USED VARIOUSLY by DDES and the Developer TO INDICATE THE IMEMDIATE AREA BOUNDED BY 160TH, SE 128TH, SE 138TH, AND 156TH IN UNCORPORATED KING COUNTY AND THEN IS STRECHED INTO THE CITY OF RENTON AREA OR FUTURE PLANS, WHEN IT SUITS THE PURPOSE OF THE DDES AND THE DEVELOPER. IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW THE LINE OF LOGIC THAT RENTON'S PLANS SHOULD OVERRIDE THE PLANS OF THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY BECAUSE THE LATER'S PLANS MIGHT NOT FIT IN TO THE FUTURE ANNEXATION PLANS OF CITIES, THEN ALL LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY RESIDENTS WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT, AND WE WOULD BE AT THE MERCY OF THE CITY. FACT: THE RESIDENTS OF UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY E ARE NOT PART OF THE CITY OF RENTON, YET, AND UNTIL WE ARE, RENTON CITY COVENANTS AND ZONINGS DO NOT APPLY. THEREFORE AT (9.d) The DDES comment that the Evendell plat plan does not exceed the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan for 8 dwellings per acre, has no bearing on applications in unincorporated King County. I repeat, City of Renton zoning is not the same as unincorporated King County ACTION: THESE COMMENTS in section U120 AS RELATED TO THE CITY OF RENTON, SHOULD BE REMOVED AND NOT APPLY IN THE DECISION TO GRANT A REZONE IN UNINCORPORATED KING COUNTY. s. Page 10: Charts; (1) Footage statistics developers and DDES are using on page 10 of the DDES report are truly miniscule when you look at the area to be served and make the chart totally irrelevant. t. Page 12 KCC20.24.195 at Additional examiner findings - preliminary plats. A. "Appropriate provisions are made for the public safety , and general welfare and for such open spaces..,. Etc." Piease consider these requirements carefully and apply them to your decision. There will be no open spaces when the developers get through. No safe roads to walk on except in Evendell itself. The rest of us are asked to put up with unsafe road conditions for a minimum of 6 years. We who have lived here 30 years will not have access to parks contained in private neighborhoods. Our children will have to endure 700 more cars a day without benefit of sidewalks or wider streets because once they leave the egress to Evendell, guess what, they go straight past my house_ u. Page 13 SEPA and Rezone. (1) MDNS, which applies to SEPA is addressed on page 3 at items e, f, and g of this letter. (2) Rezone and property owners rights are addressed on page 2, 8 a of this letter. (3) The maps shown by the developer of how they will develop properties and seek permits to do so are in question. A minimum of 4 large tract property owners stood up in the meeting and said they do not plan to sell and they find it unnerving that the DDES or anyone else can give permits, or design overlap, ahead of the fact to developers. w. Attachment 6, We as property owners and resident citizens find it questionable ethics and a breach of property owners rights and wonder how it will stand in a court of law, for the City of Renton, to make the statement that "In order to receive sewer service from the City, the plat must also develop as detached single family and the property owner(s) will be required to execute a covenant to annex form. Will future buyers be presented with this requirement before they have already sold their homes and are ready to sign the final papers to buy in this area so they can change their minds, or will they not find that they must sign away their voting rights until the day they sign their final papers, have already sold their other house and are in effect forced to sign. In closing: THERE APPEAR TO BE SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUES HERE REGARDING AN ABRIDGEMENT OF PERSONAL RIGHT, NOT JUST AS PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT AS VOTERS. ..._ ._�._.. We wonder if this will be construed by the courts and the public that the City of Renton, the County, and the land developers appear to be in collusion. Especially as it has been the factual experience of many residents that, when inquiring about who has jurisdiction and how can we get fair and just treatment, the buck gets passed in this area from one governmental authority to the other and back again, leaving us high and dry. And then we get a document like this full of mitigations which seem to support that conclusion. So many people worked on this report at DDES, and with the confusion they must experience in dealing with so many laws and regulations, and probably being short funded and short staffed, I wonder if anyone in a higher position checked it to see to it that each one's work agreed with the others. There are so many inconsistencies in this document that I don't see ethically and in good conscience how you can award the rezone to R-5 or higher. Even at R-4, the inconsistencies will need to be addressed before granting any current or future permits and zoning standards to the developer(s) at all. Thank you for the time and effort you will be putting into your decision. Respectfully submitted, Michael Rae Cooke 13125 158h Ave. SE. Renton, WA 98059 Work number 425-227-2505 Homeowner Program Analyst, DOT, FAA Former Sierra Club and Mountaineer's member J rF m M•• 0 � n Q ..J rD J J •.M �• o CD L< r -h O O 00 O r- cn o rD -d n 0 0 a) : 1'% rn rn �s rm rn CO3 cA �o 0o x G rD O cn PD w O O :3 -a c+ Ca C r+ 4�:2. c c+ Ca n cc cu rD p El o�sm :3 rD 0 C pr Q+ �. C Q) r-� o Z m -h - • X rD w -1 n co E3 Q, J m �• X rD 0 o =4 'I �. W -1 co J Q • J. rD M W — �n �L+n� W A r+ A) CD co p c-) co < a o rD o cn • F to rD U) m C3 a ru ru 0 a 0 0 Ir 0 c t lD 4 N mM T o � mN x� m clEaR 0 t\? O�•G+OOD (n �C--oZ�� W. Z. UI. C;O Q7CTIT -1 •C/IE (A o it M, M M L A Mr, Hearing Examiner, We. are not fighting development We respec..t and understand its necessity, but we also feel it should be compatihle with the character and scale of the existing neighborhood. We feel that is also the intention of those who created U-120. Neighborhoods are known for their character and assets, whether it be lake or mountain views, tree -lined streets, large estates, etc. People move to Briarwood our neighborhood, for the tall trees, lots with lar e yards for gardening and for its natural/rural feel. This is what we want to protect. Plenty o an exists a sew ere in the UGB that has complete infrastruc. 1res a_readv in plac_.e to accommodate greatly increaser) densities and we. feel, that is where, if even necessary, the highest densities should occur. A King County Buildable ).and" ret exists which clearly shows there is enough land still existing inside the IJGB for development in King County to handle growth for the next 20 years without a single upzone. Granting this upzone for Evendell would undoubtedly cause complete destruction of our neighborhood since all other development will likely decide to go with higher densities to make more money, all at our expense. After all, we are the ones left with overcrowded schools, inadequate police protection, loss of property values, and, of cntlrse, Unbearable traffic issai.es`AskinL* us to trade. all of thig for a simple road connection is tno much They say this road connection from 160th to 156th is an "improvement", however, we, the residents, see it differently. Were it as more congestion on the only north -south arterial route that fire trucks and nolice need lo access our neighborhoods and the Renton Highlands above u e see it n re difficult leavin our drivewa s and harder for the children to cross and catch school buses. This road connection should be addressed at the same time that 156th's problems are addressed. There are also other traffic/road options that could be considered. For example, a light could be added at 1.28th and 160th, which would allow everyone in. the neighborhoods between 158th and westward (out to l .iherty High School) to exit safely onto an existing four lane arterial. Having these numerous developing neighborhoods funnel onto an already insufficient, busy two lane road doesn't make the best sense. if you've ever been on 156th and tried to pull over to the side to leave a fire truck pass by —with 3 foot deep ditches 2 feet from the edge of the road —you may understand what we mean. 156th is currently unable to handle more traffic safely in our opinion. Our other major r_.oncPms dealwith di.re_,Ct property dam.am--. A Level 3 Drainage analvsi.s was requested by the residents because we had shown (in our submitted report to DDES) that there had been several complaints on record showing a variety of existing drainage problems and feared more will result. Our fears were shown to he Just. We now also know that more property damage will occur from this development unless a 50' existing tree buffer remains along the western edge of the Evendell site. Mr. Ramano offered a 10' limited buffer/tract, but after inspection, Mr. Baker said it would not be adequate enough to protect adjacent properties' trees from damage or death. I also have a -mails from 76 other arhorists who have stated tho saner- thing otsr traps will be. darnagHei withniFt this huffe.r. Raged nn 20.24.180, "...and that the recommendation or decision will not be unreasonably incompatible with or detrimental to affected properties and the general public we ask that you require the developer to revise his plans to include the 50' buffer. Not only will this buffer protect adjacent properties from tree damages, it will also help with a variety of other issues such as privacy, pollution, noise control, habitat for urban animals, a windbreak for our community, and of course, aesthetic value by keeping the character of our neighborhood intact. The developer can also charge more for the lots that back this "nrt_enhPlt" since thPrP are. many st�.�rliPg that show, as iVlr Raker p6rite. nt1t nannl . want to live in urban areas with trees and will pay more to do so. We would also like to have the opportunity to salvage vegetation from the construction area and replant it into this buffer, so that the buffer will continue to be a vital part of our neighborhood and the Evendell neighborhood to be. We hope we have demonstrated, through our presentation and the number of people who took the time to come to this hearing how much residents currently living in. Briarwnod carp and want to keep the character of the. oeisrhhorhond intact. R4 is and should stay, the zoning in our area. The Evendell rezone should be denied. Sincerely, Marsha L. Rollinger arrshhaL.Rollinger 15646 SF 138th Place Renton, WA 98059 Exhibit No. item No. * LO I-ry -q01 ReceiVed King Coul'iry Hearing Examiner ATTN: HEARING EXAMINER /MARCH 6, 2003 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON U.S. LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONIREPRESENTATIVE: MICHAEL ROMANO KAREN SCHARER,- PROJECT MANAGER 11, CURRENT PLANNING SECTION LUSD RE: REZONE & PROPOSED PLAT OF EVENDELL FILE: L01TY401&L )1P0016 I am putting you on Notice of sane problems arising from this action. If you plan on routing any of the drainage or 1W Ave. you will be causing drainage on 156* is currently not sufficient during years of heavy rains or snowy conditions. I have lived In this area for many years and know some very difficult situations have arisen because of Washington's heavy rainy seasons. I have seen my mother's basement (0 14038 1M* get completely flooded from culverts not being able to handle the storm water,/surface water coming dawn the ditches. The water ran over the culverts/dkches into her driveway like a river and completely flooded her basement. This happened several times during bad weather years. She lost her washing machine & but water tank. She has also had to call the District 25 Fire Dept. to pump it oat several times. Daring rainy, snowy years the water also ran over my driveway 9 14004 150 and the driveway next door. The c ulvertlpipes could not handle the heavy flow. There was road flooding and many other problems. I have seen the road flooded{@ the bottom at 156th where the t� way n& is from overflow drainage. I have seen the Jones Read flooded from drainage and evenly from the rise from Cedar River. Also 1390' road was flooded whore It met from I W. It could not handle the heavy drainage. The new development will be taldug the place of trees and woodlands that helped to control some of this drainage and it will produce more drainage. The le who live on 156d' and in this nelghbffhood and area have a right ow who will be responsible dams a that will most certainly occur. 1 was led to believe that the new County Land Management plan was to build and develop carefully and with common sense and to take the existing neighborhoods into consideration of their property rights. I was led to believe that development would be done with Integrity and common sense without destroying the integrity of the neighborhood and of the people who have lived here and paid their taxes for years and years. I am giving notice now of some of the bad problems which will arlse from over development Flooding is definitely a foreseeable result of this kind of development and more runoff surface water already added to a troublesome system. Also adding all this traffic to 1566, which I cannot not safely get out of my driveway now or safely go to my mallboxc, will cause another hazardous situation, 156'" has become dangerous for the people who live on It and the people who travel it. We need another road coming up this hill N we are going to do all this development. Later on as the developments are completed and the developers move on WE are the ones that will be lets with all the problems, responsibliitles, and the destroyed Integrity of the neighborhood. Thank you, Sally Nipert 14004150 Ave SE Renton, WA 99059 SUBMITTED TO HEARING EXAMINER MARCH 6, 2003 9:30 A.M 1�xhlblt No. !term i1!O 8eceryf-j -- King County Hearing Examiner Evendell File No's LOITY401 & L01POO16 March 6, 2003 Shirley Day 14412-167t'. Place SE Renton, WA 98059 (425) 255-7005 I have lived in this neighborhood for 32 years and am greatly concerned with the changes taking place. We moved here because we were impressed with the natural surroundings and larger lots than the city. Now, developers are trying to squeeze as many homes as possible onto every available acre of land. It is obvious that rezoning will not be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. In the last two years, the worst part of my commute into Seattle has been from my house to the bottom of the hill at Sunset. There are no plans for improving the roads to accommodate all the homes currently being built, let alone all those being planned. My block has had homes and garages flooded since they cleared the area for homes North of 140. The water retention pond has overflowed in years of heavy rains. I find it hard to believe that there are adequate provisions for drainage and our problems will not mcrease. I hope you will consider the potential problems that increased density will have on our area. There should be no reason that the developer can not build using the alternate R4 plan. Note: The School District listed on page lof the preliminary report is Renton. Page 7 of the report reviews Facilities, capacity and impact fees for the Renton District. This development will be in the Issaquah School District as shown on attachment 8. &hlblf rya; a(0 VA 11w N�:QU=1L1 1L2'T'Y1ror Rot�md king � j��.�1� H04HAO Examiner A, March 6, 2003 Mr. James O'Connor Deputy Hearing Examiner King county Hearing Examiners Office 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Ave. Seattle, WA 98164 Dear Mr. O'Connor: 1 am writing to register my and my wife's opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Evendell subdivision in the Briarwood neighborhood of Renton — L OITY401 and L.O1P0016. I site the following reasons: This pocket of high density would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood, which has many rural characteristics. These characteristics are pastures, farm animals, woodlands and rural roads without sidewalks and shoulders. Those of us who chose to buy real estate in Briarwood and to live on their ,property made their investment on the basis of careful, conservative planning. We chose a neighborhood witmmature housi� on purpose because we know that this type of neigh or oo as sta a and is most likely to improve in value. We chose a neighborhood with R4 zonine so that we knew what to expect in terms of any future deyelnnmernt us. We chose a neighborhood with a rural flavor because we wanted the slower pace, the quiet and the tranquility. Before buying our home we asked lots of questions, did lots of research and took all of the steps that a prudent homebuyer should be expected to take. We checked the zoning. We researched the school district. We checked our deed for rights of way, covenants and restrictions. The Declaration of Covenants for Briarwood South No 4, paragraph 9, states - "Ng -lot, or portion of a lot of this plat shall be divided and sold oLzAQld, or ownership changed or transferred whereby the ownership o any portion of this plat shall be less than nine thousand six hundred square feet (9,600)." This is a legal document. It clearly states that the purchaser is entering into a covenant to maintain a density of not more than 4 houses per acre and not to subdivide his lot into a higher density when he sells it. This piece of paper informs us as to the limitations of what we can do with our property, and in doing so it protects us by guaranteeing that certain conditions related to density, structures and commercial activity will endure. What would this piece of paper be worth if someone living outside our neighborhood could petition to have the terms of that covenant changed without our approval? Similarly, if developers and absentee landlords are granted permission to increase density on their land without the permission of homeowners in the vicinity, then that also represents a broken covenant with the citizens of a community. A glance at a King County Zoning map will tell any interested citizen that the zoning density up the street in Exhibit No. C 1 Item No. kO1p6mip + LA1 A/61 Received - A - ) 6 "03 King County Hearing Examiner the proposed Evendell subdivision is also R4. If something as basic as the housing density in large swaths of a community can be changed without the approval of the homeowners in the vicinity, then what assurances do we have regarding the character and stability of our neighborhood? We talked with our neighbors and looked at houses and drove the streets to get a feel for how people maintained their homes. In the end, we decided that Briarwood was a good investment and a great place to live. All of these things come at a price. A homebuyer pays more for a home in an established neighborhood with mature landscaping and larger lots than one would pay for a comparable home in a new subdivision. But we had (and stall have) every reason to believe that the investment is worthwhile. However, if the density of housing changes, then that is a first step toward changing the character of our neighborhood and degrading it in a way that we could not have predicted when we bought our homes. We see this as very much like allowing one party to change the terms of a contract after both parties have signed it. If we look at the example of sprawl that is occurring on 128th Street in Renton Highlands, we can foresee the damage to our community and to our investments caused by the rezone. We see this coming closer and closer, and we want an answer to the question: "Is this the future of our neighborhood?" Traffic is another big concern to us. My wife and I commute on 160th Ave. SE between 128th St. auAI44th St. This is a rural road with. no dividin line, no sidewalk and mostly o� der.-- n the winter, it is Ritch black during the commute time�ool childrw en wait for the bus along the road edge. There areo sidewalks, so they wait on the corners f side streetsand walk along the edge of the right of way between a pavement and the aina e ditches. When tra�flic From E en ell begins to feed this street, the odds of a car hitting a c M will increase. Please do not further increase those odds by putting in more than 70 households and more traffic than this rural road can accommodate. In summary, we ask you not to grant the application to rezone this large piece of our community. Let the new owners live within the conditions and restrictions that we residents have maintained and respected. Sincerely, R J Bill and Dona Mokin 14404 162nd Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 t .. (425) 430-2446 y A,- _.\ QLC It kc, t- Exhibit No. =__ - Item No, I 1 PO, I)n + 4S Received _ 1 b r King County Hearing Examiner DDES Revised Recommendation/Additional Conditions L01 P0016 / Evendell 70 Lot Plat 21. Lots within this subdivision Bast of 158"' Ave. SE are 4ubject to King Cou 21A..Q, which imposes imp= fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance. 22. The dpp line of trees off -site west of easements shall be placed gver line art asement area within the drip line shall bed Lots 12-19 shall be established and e lots of the subiect plat. placement structures or other improvements shall be allowed. line area shall be com leted at the time of engineering review. 23. A pedestrian access easement between 1581h Place SE ;.and no grading, tablishment of the drip ch Ave. SE shall be provided over either Tracts H or L (Tracts as shown on Exhibit 7a.). The easement shall have a minimum 10 foot width and be improved with a 5 foot wide aU-A ax surface. 3/10/03 Exhibit No. Item No. 11d2M Received• King County Hearing Examiner DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON CORRECTIONS to the PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINEk January 22, 2004 - PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:30 AM Hearing Room at DDES 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 PROPOSED REVISION TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EVENDELL FILE NO: L03R.E038 PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. #2003-0490 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: Representative: Michael Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8`h Dr. SE, Bothell, WA 98021 Phone: 425-486-2563 Facsimile: (425) 486-3273 e-mail: Michaei.romano(a)verizon.net O. RECOMMENDATIONS: Grant preliminary pproval of the May 19, 2003 major plat revision to the preliminary plat of Evendeli, subject to the following conditions of final approval: a. The plat shall comply with the base maximum density (and minimum density) requirements of the R-4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R-4 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger, except that minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Department of Development and Environmental Services- b. The Applicant shall provide Transfer of Densi Credit documentation to DDES prior to final approval to allow transfer of a maximum of twenty (20) density credits. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. Joint Use Development Tract H as shown on the plat (Attachment 2) will provide access to Lots 28 and 29. Additionally, it is a future emergency vehicle access ftem No. King COU* Heaft ExamiW �I Evendell Page 2 tract to and from 1601h Ave. SE, which the applicant proposes to create in response to concerns raised by the City of Renton. The applicant shall include proposed protocols for the construction and maintenance of Tract H, plus any related plat notes, with its engineering plans submittal meeting the following standards: The emergency vehicle access to 160"' Ave. SE shall have a minimum driving surface width of 20 feet, with an all-weather surface capable of supporting 25 tons. Any locking device shall be approved by the Renton Fire Department (KCFD # 25). Chains, cable or bollards will not be permitted. The gate shall be located at least 50 feet from 1601h Ave. SE to allow space for fire apparatus to stop while opening the gate or to wait before entering the public roadway. If these conditions are not met any future residence constructed on Lots 28, and 29 and 39 will have to be sprinklered NFPA 13D. These conditions must be satisfied, unless an alternative is approved by the King County Fire Protection Engineer and Renton Fire Department (KCFD # 25) 10. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the 1993 King County Road Standards (KCRS): a. The internal access road from SE 1361h St. to the beginning of the internal loop road shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. l except that portion on the west side between Lot 11 and Lot 12 is not required to be improved with a sidewalk. b. ... 22, The applicant individually or in conjunction with other developers shall construct an off -site walkway to Liberty High school from the site. The walkway shall be constructed within the right-of-way from 160th Ave SE, east along SE 135th St. to 166th Ave SE, and south to Liberty High School at SE 136th. St. The walkway shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the 1993 King County Road Standards and shown on the engineering plans for DDES review and approval. Alternatively, if access improvements are made from and through the plat of "5 Lot Subdivision"/L00P0023 to the southwest gate of LibeM High School the applicant may choose to instead complete school walkway improvements on SE 136' St. and 162"¢ Ave. SE to the sidewalk improvements of "5 Lot Subdivision". Any surfacing alternative from the King County Roads Standards (KCRS 3.09) may be submitted for approval through a road variance al2plication. 01 /21 /2004 6:00 PM dmp, inc. (FORMERLY DALEY ENGINEERING CO.) MBE -DBE August 18, 2003 Karen Scharer King County DDES 900 Oaks Dale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 DALEY-MORROW-POBLETE,INC. ENGINEERING-P LAN NING-5U RVEYING 726 Aub y copy Auburn, (253) 33-2200 FAX (253)333-2206 SEP 0 3 2003 L03P0006 RE: Liberty Grove (LG) & Liberty Grove Contiguous (LGC) L03P005 -006 Dear Ms. Scharer: lwlu WIUNTY LAND USE SERVICES (PLD A survey of the walking conditions in and around the proposed preliminary plats of Liberty Grove and Liberty Grove Contiguous was conducted on Wednesday, July 2, 2003. The survey of walking routes was based on information provided by the Issaquah School District Transportation Department, regarding probable walling routes for school children. Other information included the current location of bus stops for each of the three grade levels. The information gathered has been categorized by grade level. Some photographs are available as examples of described conditions. Not every segment of the surrounding road network was photographed. The breakdown is as follows: Liberty High School: Of all the schools providing educational services to the proposed plats, Liberty High School is the closest institution. Access to the upper fields of the High School was achieved at one time by walking south on 162n' Ave. SE, approximately one block, and continuing east on 137' Place, to the end of the cul-de-sac. This route assumes that frontage improvements will be completed as part of the Liberty Grove (LG) and Liberty Grove Contiguous (LGC) plats. Both sides of 137"' Place have sidewalks that were constructed as part of the nearby Liberty Lane subdivision. In recent years, a fence has been constructed at the end of the 13r Place cul-de-sac which separates the existing walking path and the upper fields of the High School. Tract "A" of the Liberty Lane Plat was not originally designated as a walking path. It was originally established as a Storm Water facility and the walking path likely grew out of the original access road to the pond. The removal of that fence and the construction of a gate would facilitate safe walking to and from the school. However, the existing Tract "A' would have to be modified to provide for public access over the existing storm water tract. No other safe walking routes exist between the proposed development and the High School. Maywood Middle School: Maywood is located several blocks south of Liberty High School, on 168'h Ave. SE. An 8' asphalt shoulder with fog line extends west from the school entrance, along SE 144"' Street to 160'h Ave SE. A combination of asphalt and cement sidewalk extend north from the intersection, towards LG & LGC. Unfortunately, the improvements terminate at the top of the hill, at approximately SE 142"d Place. From that point north, there are no notable improvements. Safe access is possible however, from 16e Ave. SE, if children were allowed to travel r gh Liberty h m lib, King Couribj Hewing Examiner High School as described above. Assuming access to the High School grounds, Maywood student could then exit the High Schools east gate, onto 16e Ave SE. and travel south. The shoulder improvements on 168th Ave. SE vary from 4 to 5 feet of asphalt and/or compact gravel, with a fog line. During the site visit, several area children of varying ages were observed traveling along 168 Ave. SE. While children are currently using the euasbng improvements along 168" Ave. SE, they do not meet the approved safe walking route standards preferred by the School District sand the King County Roads Division. Preferred improvements include an 8' paved shoulder with fog line or extruded curb. If access to the High School grounds is not possible, then no safe walking route to and from Maywood Middle School is possible. Briarwood Elementary: Briarwood Elementary is located northeast of Liberty High School, approximately 3 blocks. An 8' asphalt shoulder with C-curb extends from the school entrance on SE 134`" Street to the intersection with 16e Ave. SE. An 8' asphalt shoulder, with fog line, continues south from that intersection towards the entrance of Liberty High School. From that point, there are no safe walking routes connecting the proposed plats and the school. Assuming access to the High School grounds, Briarwood student could then exit the High Schools main entrance or east gate, onto 168"' Ave SE. and travel north. If access to the High School grounds is not possible, then no safe walking route to and from Elementary School is possible. Bus Stop: The Issaquah School District has identified an existing Elementary bus stop at the intersection of 160u' Ave SE and SE 136"' Street. The nearest High and JR High School stops are located at 162"d Ave. SE and SE 13e Street Both busses for the High and JR High School pass through the intersection at 160" Ave SE and SE 136" Street. Given the proposed development of LG & LGC, combined with the approved plat of Evendale and the proposed plat of Hamilton Place, one block to the north, the School District has agreed to establish a combination bus stop for all three grade levels at 160P Ave SE and SE 136`h Street A combined bus stop at this location would provide safe access to transportation for all four proposed projects and the existing children in the Denyhurst neighborhood. The applicant is willing to work with the School District to provide whatever additional improvements are necessary to accommodate the proposed combination bus stop. Requested Improvements: In several conversations with representatives of the Issaquah School District, at no time has the District indicated that they would require off -site improvements to be constructed as part of the LG or LGC proposal. The focus of all conversations to this point has been the location and design of the proposed combination bus stop. Conclusions: After reviewing the available infomnation, conducting a site visit and communicating with representatives of the Issaquah School District, we have found that there are limited possibilities to provide safe walking routes for school children in the area surrounding the proposed plats. There is, however, an opportunity to work with the school district to develop a combination bus stop at the intersection of 160 Ave SE and SE 131P Street that will service several adjacent projects in addition to the proposed preliminary plats of LG and LGC. If you have any questions, please contact me at (253) 333-2200 Sincerely Hans Korve Planning Manager DMP Inc. LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis A field reconnaissance was conducted on July 2, 2003 to determine the existing condition of likely school walking routes. The attached photographs represent a sample of the existing conditions surrounding the proposed preliminary pl LG and LGC. L 0 a T Q L _r r z- t 7 sr Entrance to Elementary School. Note 8' Asphalt Shoulder �x v LG & L.GC School Walking Route Pictures 1 LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis LG & LGC School Walking Route Pictures LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis Intersection of 160'hAve. SE and SE244th Street looking North. The existing 5' shoulder terminates at the top of the hill. LG & LGC School Walking Route Pictures 3 LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis Several Street segments have only gravel surfacing and grass shoulders. LG & LGC School Walking Route Pictures LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis View West on SE 135'�' Street. Road Terminates. LG & LGG School Walking Route Piabms E LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis View East on SE 135 h Street, at 163rd Ave. SE. Road Terminates. LG & LGC School Walking Route Pictures n LIBERTY GROVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis c View West on SE 144111 Street. S' Asphalt Shoulder LCr & LGC School Walking Route Pictures 7 Cooper, Ted From: Jeremy S, Febus Deremy.febus@drstrong.com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:30 PM To: ted.cooper@metrokc.gov Cc: mark.bergam@metrokc.gov Subject: FW: Dickinson Subdivision b7 Ted, I received the following correspondence from the Issaquah School District regarding the bus stop and pedestrian path issue. The District is requesting that the Plat use an existing trail south rather than north, and that modest improvements be made to this trail. We will specify these improvements on our plans. Their memo specifically states that the gravel pathway improvements to the north are not necessary, thereby satisfying the hearing examiner's condition. I will include a hard copy of this email with our next submittal, which should be very soon. Please let me know if you have any questions, the Issaquah School District transportation director's email is also below if you have any questions for her. Thank you, Jeremy S. Febus, E.I.T. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98033 ph: (425) 827-3063 fx: (425) 827-2423 www.drstrong.com ----Original message ----- From: Porter, Jo TRANS-DirectorLmailto:PORTERJ@issaquah.wednet.edu] Sent: Monday, March 10, 20C3 3:16 PM To: 'jeremy.febus@drstrong.com' Cc: McCoy, Connie TRANS -Staff; Nilsen, Kathy TRANS -Staff Subject: RE: Dickinson Subdivision March 10, 2003 To: Jeremy S. Febus Re: Dickinson Subdivision Issaquah Transportation Supervisor, Connie McCoy, and I reviewed the existing bus stop for Briarwood Elementary school at 164th live SE and SE 144th St, Renton. There is a current walking path from the proposed Dickinson Subdivision, north of this bus stop which accesses this current J stop. EAM NO tc This pedestrian walking pathway is safe and acceptable if it is Item No. L �1 improved: 1 . The path needs to be widened of overhanging shrubbery and branch*ng Cam HUft E=rIner 1 2. There is a need to add gravel to the dirt pathway- 3. There is no need for a gravel pathway to 160th Ave SE because the designated bus stop for elementary students will be at 164th Ave SE C SE 144th St. 4. The middle school students will be walking to Maywood using the same existing pathway to SE 144th ST that the elementary students will be using- 5. The high school students will be walking on an acceptable existing pathway from the east end of the Dickinson Subdivision to Liberty High. Please feel free to call me with any further questions or concerns at 425 837-6325. Sincerely, Jo Porter Director of Transportation Issaquah School District -----Original Message ----- From: Jeremy S. Febus [mailto;jeremy.febusadrstrong.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:33 AM To: porterj@issaquah.wednet.edu Cc: Donita Dickinson; luay.joudeh@drstrong.com Subject: RE: Dickinson Subdivision I would like to make a correction to the first point in my last email. I understand that a new bus stop will not be created at 162nd and'139th, but rather at 164th Avenue SE and SE 144th. Therefore, please indicate this location in your email or letter, and please state that an acceptable pedestrian route exists to this bus stop location. We still need a statement regarding points two and three as well. I apologize for any confusion. Again, thank you for your help. Jeremy S. Febus, E.I.T. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98033 ph: (425) 827-3063 fx: (425) 827-2423 www.drstrong.com -----Original Message ----- From: Jeremy S. Febus [mailto:jeremy.febus@drstrong.com] Sent-. Monday, March 03, 2003 4:35 PM To: porterj@issaquah.wednet.edu Cc: Donita Dickinson; luay.joudeh@drstrong.com Subject: Dickinson Subdivision Ms. Porter, t Thank you for taking the time to meet with Bonita regarding your district's approval of the proposed plat. Based on your meeting with DOnita today, and the drawings she showed you, we simply need an email or letter from you that states the following three things: I. New bus stops for the middle and elementary school buses will be created at the intersection of 162nd Avenue 5E and the newly created SE 139th Place. 2. A gravel pedestrian walkway is not necessary from the Plat to 160th Avenue SE. 3. The engineering plans show an acceptable Pedestrian route to Liberty High School. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Jeremy S. Febus, E.I.T. D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suite 101 Kirkland, WA 98033 ph: (425) 827-3063 fx: (425) 827-2423 www_drstrong.com 3 1,01 P0016 Karen Scharer ODES/LIDS❑ Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 Telephone (206) 296-4660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 March 28, 2003 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL ON APPLICATION FOR REZONE AND ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File Nos. L01P0016 & L01TY401 Proposed Ordinance Nos. 2003-0031 & 2003-0032 EVENDELL REZONE AND SUBDIVISION Rezone and Alternative Preliminary Plat Applications Location: South of SE 136' between 15e Ave. SE and 16e Ave. SE Applicant: US Land Development Assoc iationlCenturion, represented by Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 — 8"' Drive Southeast Bothell, WA 98021 �A Telephone: (425) 486-2563 Intervenors: Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell, represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 — 158" Avenue Southeast Renton, WA 98059 and Marsha Rollinger 15646 Southeast 1384 Place Renton, WA 98059 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services Land use Services Division, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-7055 Exkr N ftem No. R8C81Y8d — King Cw* Hewing F.xamifler L01 P0016IL01 TY401—Evende] 1 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION (REZONE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions Deny PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (70 LOT ALTERNATIVE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions Department's Final Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Deny PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (46 LOT ALTERNATIVE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner: EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing Opened: Hearing Closed: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Approve, subject to conditions (modified) March 6, 2003 March 10, 2003 Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. ISSUES/TOPICS ADDRESSED: • Comprehensive PIan Policies U-114, U-120, U-122 • Zone Reclassification Criteria • Changed Conditions or Circumstances • Neighborhood Compatibility • Tree Protection • Traffic Circulation and Impact Mitigation SUMMARY: Deny the application for a reclassification. Deny the application for the 70 lot subdivision as inconsistent with the current zoning. Approve the application for a 46 lot subdivision on 11.39 acres, subject to conditions_ FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: LO 1 P0016/1_0 I TY401—Evendel l REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION FINDINGS: GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner: Representative: Location: Acreage (Reclassification): Acreage (70 lot Plat): Acreage (46 lot Plat): Zoning: Proposed Zone: Proposed Use: Proposed Density(70 lot plat) Density (46 lot alternative): Lot Size (70 lot Plat): Lot Size (46 Lot Alternative): Sewage Disposal: Water Supply: Fire District: School District: Complete Application Date: Threshold Determination: Date of Issuance: King County Permits: Permit Contact: Community Plan: Drainage Subbasin: Section/Township/Range: Assessor Parcel nos.: U.S. Land Development Association P.O. Box 22200 Seattle, WA 98122 Michael Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8"` Dr. SE, Bothell, WA 98021 Phone: 425-486-2563 Facsimile: (425) 486-3273 e-mail: michael.j.romano@gte.net Lying south of SE 13e St. between 15e Ave. SE and 160`s Ave. SE. 13 acres 12.43 acres 11.39 acres R-4 R-6 Single-family residential 5.6 dwelling units per acre (7.4 per net acre) 4 dwelling units per acre (5.2 per net acre) 3,900 to 6,600 square feet 5,400 to 14,000 square feet City of Renton King County Water District #90 King County Fire District #25 Issaquah September 20, 2001 Mitigated Determination of Nonsigniiicance (MDNS) December 23, 2002 Rezone & Subdivision Karen Scharer, Project Mgr II, Current Planning, LUSD Phone no. 296-7114, e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov Newcastle Lower Cedar River SE 14-23-05 142305 9022 & 9009 2. The Subdivision Technical Committee (STC) of King County conducted an on -site examination of the subject property. The STC discussed the proposed development with the applicant to clarify technical details of the application, and to determine the compatibility of this project with applicable King County plans, codes, and other official documents regulating this development. As a result of discussions, the applicant presented the STC with a conceptual build out plan of the immediate neighborhood, revised plans for frontage road improvements, and submitted a revised traffic study. The conceptual build out plan provided by the Applicant to DDES does not reflect the intentions or desires of the current owners of the properties shown. L01 P0016/L01 TY401 Evendell 4 Copies of drainage claims which have been submitted to King County for problems in the area were provided to the applicant, and an updated Level 3 drainage report was submitted December 9, 2002. Under KCC 20.20.070, the request for rezone is not vested under regulations in effect at the time of complete rezone application_ Vesting to zoning can only occur after the zone classification becomes effective. The 76 lot plat application is based on the requested rezone to R-6; therefore the 76 lot plat application is not vested. The applicant's 46 lot alternative plat application is vested under the existing R-4 zone. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 4321C, the responsible official of the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) issued a mitigated determination of environmental non -significance (MDNS) for the proposed development on December 23, 2002. This determination was based on the review of the environmental checklist and other pertinent documents, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not cause probable significant adverse impacts on the environment if implemented with the required mitigation for the proposal. The MDNS applies to the proposed reclassification, 70 lot plat proposal, and alternative 46 lot plat proposal. Agencies, affected Native American tribes and the public were offered the opportunity to comment on or appeal the determination for 21 days. The MDNS was not appealed by any party, including the applicant, and is incorporated as part of the applicant's proposal. The MDNS states: The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of permit issuance. These mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules, or regulations designated by KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold determination is issued_ Key sources of substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed. A. East Drainage Basin: The 160th Ave SE downstream conveyance system shall be upgraded to provide for the 100-year storm capacity. Downstream driveway culverts/ditches and a cross - culvert under 160`h Ave. SE shall be improved as follows: Culverts P-117 and P-116 on the west side of 160`h Ave. SE, cross -culvert P-11.5, and culverts P-114 and P-113 on the east side of 160'h Ave. SE shall be improved as needed. The culvert designations are according to the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering dated August 26, 2002. To address a related localized flooding condition, bank and channel stabilization are also required in the unopened right-of-way for 162"d Ave. SE, in the vicinity of the easterly line of Lot 12, Rich Lea Crest (address 16046 SE 142d Street). It is estimated that stabilizing and re -grading approximately 50 to 100 feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142"d Street, will be adequate to resolve flooding that has occurred in the past location. The culverts and channel described are located from the south site boundary to a distance of approximately 1,700feet downstream. Level 2 Flow Control design is required for the proposed stormwater detention facility. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. 1,01 POO] OILOITY401-----Evendell B. West Drainage Basin: The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed to the Level 3 Flow Control Standard as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As an option, Level 2 Flow Control with downstream improvements can be proposed according to Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shall be Level 2. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. [Comprehensive Plan Policies U-109, E-126, F-254 & F-255; RCW 58.17.110f A. Topography: The site is relatively level with a 20-foot difference in elevation from the north central area to the southwest and to the southeast corners of the site. B. Soils: Surface soils on this site per King County Soil Survey, 1973 include: AAgC - Alderwood gravely, sandy loam; 6-15 % slopes. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight_ This soil type has a moderate limitation for low building foundations due to a seasonally high water table, and severe limitations for septic tank filter fields due to very slow permeability in the substratum. C. Sensitive Areas: There is a Class II Wetland located on the northeast portion of the site. The 17,162-sq. ft. wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated and as palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded. Road improvements to SE 136`h Street would require filling of 200-sq. ft of . wetland, for which 400-sq. ft. of wetland enhancement is proposed as mitigation. Road improvements will also impact 6,989-sq. ft_ of wetland buffer. Additional buffer area in the NE corner of the site could provide mitigation at a ratio equal to or greater than 2 to 1. Improvements to the downstream drainage system will have to be reviewed to ensure that no wetlands are being drained or flooded as a result, no streams placed in pipes, and no streams damaged by increased flows. Enlarging culverts in sensitive areas, if any, requires clearing and grading permit(s). D. Hydrography: A preliminary June 15, 2001, technical information report was prepared by Haozous Engineering, P.S. on June 15, 2001. Subsequently a Level 3 Downstream Analysis was submitted August 26, 2002, and a Level Three Addendum was submitted December 5, 2002. The site is within the Orting Hills subbasin of the Cedar River watershed_ Flooding has occurred in the past along downstream conveyance structures from the site on 160`h Ave. SE, on 156"' Ave. SE, and on nearby properties. These drainage issues are documented in the Level Three Downstream Analyses and Addendum and are addressed by mitigating conditions established in the MDNS. E. Vegetation: The westerly 2.5 acres is mostly covered by pasture with some trees. More than half of the easterly 1 l acres is wooded with a conifer upland forest, primarily Douglas fir_ The far south of the parcel is developed with pasture; the north central area has been partially cleared as yard area associated with the home LO1 POO 1 6/LOITY401---Evendel I 6 fronting 156'h Avenue SE. The south central area includes deciduous trees and native shrubs. F. Wildlife: A wildlife study of the site was undertaken in conjunction with the wetland evaluation and delineation in 2001. A large variety of small birds and animals were observed on site. Black tail deer and ruffed grouse, both "Priority Species" of Washington State, were observed. A single "State Candidate" species, the pileated woodpecker, was observed to utilize the forested wetland area along with adjacent upland forested area onsite. None of the species identified in the applicant's report are required to be protected in the urban designated area of the County. However with preservation of the wetland and a 50-foot buffer, some habitat will be retained on the site. Additional investigation was made by DDES environmental scientists and the Applicant's consulting biologist in March, 2003, to review the site in response to assertions that a red tail hawk nest exists on the site. The preponderance of the evidence is that there are no red tail hawk or other raptor nests on the subject property. 6. The subject property is within an area east of Renton known as Brierwood, in the southern portion of the Newcastle Community Plan area. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council serves the area under the King County Citizen Participation Initiative. The area within which the property is located is designated "urban residential, 4-12 dwelling units per acre", by the King County Comprehensive Plan. The zoning for the subject property and the surrounding area, generally extending from SE 128'h on the north to SE 144h and beyond on the south, and from Renton on the west to 168'h Avenue SE and beyond to the east, is zoned R-4. The principle exception is the plat of Highland Estates, 60 lots on 8.67 acres lying between 152od Avenue SE and 154'h Avenue SE, on the south side of SE 136h Street. Highland Estates was reclassified from R-4 to R-8 in 200t. Its northwest corner is adjacent to 218 lots under development within the plat of Maplewood in the City of Renton. The southern portion of the plat of Maplewood, which is the portion nearest to Highland Estates, was zoned R-8 by Renton. In 2001, it was being developed with an average lot size of 4,500 square feet in the area closest to the Highland Estates property. Directly west of the Highland Estates site is an undeveloped King County park. Parcels lying to the north were sparsely developed in 2001, and were expected to convert to urban densities. The Examiner in that case also found a potential for higher urban density redevelopment of parcels lying east and southeast of Highland Estates. The neighborhood lying to the south of Highland Estates contained newer residential properties, which were found unlikely to redevelop in the near future. Most of those properties are approximately'/n acre in size. Impact on the properties to the south was mitigated by not opening 152rid Avenue SE, so as to insulate the lower density neighborhood to the southwest from the impacts of higher density associated with Maplewood and Highland Estates. totPOO16/LO1TY401—Evendell Maplewood brought sewer into the neighborhood, which could be extended to serve Highland Estates, and road and traffic requirements for the two plats were found to be interconnected. The developer of the subject property proposes to build a sewer pump station, dedicate right- of-way, construct roads, and make drainage improvements in conjunction with the 70 lot proposed plat, all of which will facilitate urban development in the area_ Comprehensive Elan policy U-122 supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone or through density transfers when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water, parks or open space deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. DDES relies primarily on Policy U-122 as justification for recommending reclassification of the property to R-6. Most of the same improvements also would be built to support the 46 lot alternative plat proposed under the existing R4 zone classification. The impacts from development of 46 lots require similar sewer and surface water drainage improvements, which address major concerns in the area. Recreation and open space deficiencies are met in the same manner by both proposed plats, with only proportionate differences, based on the fewer number of lots in the 46 lot alternative. Neighborhood traffic circulation is the one urban infrastructure concern which is addressed differently by the two plat proposals. The King County Department of Transportation and DDES have identified a need for an east -west street connection from 156"' Avenue SE to 160"' Avenue SE, between SE I28`h Street and SE 144h Street. SE 136`}' Street is the most viable option for that connection because of its existing 30 foot wide public right-of-way from 156'h Avenue SE to 1601h Avenue SE. The Applicant would agree to provide additional right-of-way , varying from 18 feet to 25 feet, and improvements that would open SE 136h Street from 156'h Avenue SE to 160'h Avenue SE, if the 70 lot plat is approved. If the zone reclassification and 70 lot plat are denied, the developer objects to any requirement for dedication of right-of-way or construction of improvements to provide plat access and neighborhood traffic circulation by way of SE 136'h Street. DDES nonetheless recommends dedication of 18 feet of right-of-way for SE 136`h Street along the frontage of the 46 lot plat, and the Examiner also recommends improvements to the right-of-way to mitigate the impacts of that plat (see finding no. 2 at page 10). 8. KCC 21A.44.060 provides that a zone reclassification shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal complies with the criteria for approval specified in KCC 20.24.180 and 190, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable: community and functional plans. 9. KCC 20.24.180 addresses the requirement for hearing examiner findings and conclusions generally, including a requirement for a conclusion that the examiner's recommendation "will not be unreasonably incompatible with or detrimental to affected properties and the general public." KCC 20.24.180. 10. KCC 20.24.190 addresses applications for reclassifications specifically. it requires that an Examiner recommendation for reclassification of property include findings that support at least one of the circumstances described in that section. The portion of the section applicable to this proceeding is subpart "D", which provides: "The applicant has demonstrated with substantial evidence that: I. Since the last previous area zoning or shoreline environment designation of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private L01 P0016/L01 TY401—Evendell development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change not anticipated or contemplated in the subarea plan or area zoning; 2. The impacts from the changed conditions or circumstances affect the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity such that area rezoning or redesignation is not appropriate; For the purposes of this subsection, "changed conditions or circumstances" does not include actions taken by the current or former property owners to facilitate a more intense development of the property including but not limited to changing tax limitations, adjusting property lines, extending services, or changing property ownership; 3. For proposals to increase rural residential density, that the proposal meets the criteria in Comprehensive Plan policies R-205 through R-209; 4. For proposals to increase urban residential density, that the proposal meets the criteria in Comprehensive Plan policies U-118 through U-123; and The requested reclassification or redesignation is in the public interest. (Ord. 14047 § 12, 2001: Ord. 4461 § 10, 1979). IL R-4 is the zoning applied to this area by the King County Council. The 1994 Comprehensive Plan and 1995 Area Zoning changed the zoning in this vicinity from SR-15,000 to R-4. That zoning was reaffirmed in 2001 with the adoption of the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments. "Official zoning ... is contained in the SITUS file and is depicted on the official zoning maps, as maintained by the Department of Development and Environmental Services." Ordinance 14044, Section 3, February 12, 2001. The current R-4 zone classification is consistent with the Urban Land Use policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 12. Existing development in the area surrounding Evendell is generally on lots ranging from 15,000 square feet to 1 114 acres, with a few smaller and a few larger. Redevelopment and infill will occur over time in much of the area, creating smaller lots, but a substantial portion of the area will remain as currently developed for the indefinite future. The general character of existing development is individually built homes, with yards, gardens, trees and some pasture area and outbuildings, generating an overall impression of a suburban or somewhat rural area. The density of development permitted by the R4 zone classification is greater than that which presently exists in the area. The existing R4 zone classification provides a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and allows a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre. Maximum impervious surface allowed for a development within the R-4 zone is 55%. The R-6 zone classification requested by the Applicant provides a base density of 6 dwelling units per acre, a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre, and maximum impervious surface of 75% of the site. 13. Since the last previous area zoning, the approval and commencement of construction of the proposed plats of Maplewood and Highland Estates have brought sewer closer to the subject property. An additional road connection has been opened to the west and north, by way of L01 P0016/LO 1 TY401--Evendel l SE 136" Street, which now connects to SE 128" Street at 1481h Avenue SE. The subject property, however, has three pre-existing direct connections to SE 128`h Street, by way of 156'h Avenue SE, 158"' Avenue SE and l Wh Avenue SE, which have remained unchanged. The greater proximity of sewer service allows for development of the subject property at the R-4 permitted density, as well as at the higher density requested by the Applicant_ The King County Comprehensive Plan requires that property in the R-4 zone classification be developed with sewers, indicating that the Council's adoption and retention of the R-4 zone classification anticipated the availability of sewers in the area. There is no evidence that the closer proximity of sewers was not anticipated at the time of the last area zoning, or that it affects the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity. CONCLUSIONS: The Applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change since the last previous area zoning which were not anticipated or contemplated by that area zoning. The applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that impacts from any conditions or circumstances that have changed since the last previous area zoning affect the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity. Any reclassification of the subject property should be considered legislatively in conjunction with consideration of the appropriate zoning for the area within which the subject property is located. 1 The proposal partially meets the purpose of Comprehensive Plan Policy U122 that supports increases in density to help resolve traffic circulation deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. However, reclassification of the subject property to R-6 would be inconsistent with policy U-120, which provides that, "King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase density within the urban area unless: The development will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood; ... " 4. Reclassification of the Highland Estates property is distinguished from this application by the facts of that case, particularly its location adjacent to the development of 4,500 square foot lots in the City of Renton, the interconnection and overlapping of the road improvements necessary for the development of Maplewood and Highland Estates, and the greater separation of Highland Estates from fully developed properties on larger lots. Reclassification of the property under consideration in this case would result in 13 acres of R- 6 zoned property entirely surrounded by R-4 zoned property. The application for a reclassification of the subject property should be denied. RECOMMENDATION: DENY the application for reclassification. L01 P0016/L01 TY401—Evendell IR, APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (70 LOT PROPOSAL) FINDINGS: 1. To the extent applicable, the findings set forth above with respect to the application for reclassification are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The Applicant proposes to develop 70 lots on 12.43 acres, with a density of 5.63 dwelling units per acre. The base density of the R-4 zone permits development of not more than 4 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 50 units, unless augmented by density bonuses or development credits transferred from other sites. No such augmentations are incorporated in the proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed plat exceeds the density allowed for the site by the King County Zoning Code. 2. The application for preliminary plat approval should be DENIED. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application for preliminary approval of the proposed plat of 70 lots, received March 26, 2002. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (46 LOT ALTERNATIVE) FINDINGS: To the extent applicable, the findings set forth above with respect to the application for reclassification are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The proposed development of 46 lots on IL 39 acres is bounded by SE 1361h Street on the north (from 158`s Avenue SE to 160`h Avenue SE), and 160h Avenue SE on the east. SE 136" Street is an unimproved, 30 foot wide, county right-of-way between 1566 Avenue SE and 160`h Avenue SE, with a paved area abutting the proposed plat at the intersection with 158`' Avenue SE. 160`h Avenue SE is a two lane neighborhood collector that runs from SE 125h Street to SE 140 Street. The roadway width is approximately 24 feet, with a paved shoulder on the east side of the roadway. It is unstriped. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The existing construction of Me Avenue SE is a rural design. 158`h Avenue SE is also a two-lane neighborhood collector, similar to 16e Avenue SE, but with little or no dirt shoulders on either side of the roadway. The posted speed limit on 158'" Avenue SE is also 25 mph. Traffic to and from the proposed development is proposed by the Applicant to have access only to 16& Avenue SE. The intersection of 160`' Avenue SE and SE 128'h Street, a 1,01 POol6/1.01'1Y401—Evendell II principle arterial, would be the principle route for traffic to and from this plat to the north and west. Level of service at SE 128`h Street and 160"' Avenue SE was projected to be "E" for north bound left turns during peak hours for the 70 lot plat, which would have had an alternative route through a signalized intersection (150 Avenue SE and SE 1281h Street) to the north and west_ The level of service for that traffic movement for this proposal during the AM peak hour does not appear to have been analyzed_ Traffic circulation to and from the subject property, and neighborhood traffic circulation, would be improved by the provision of alternative routes (158"' Avenue SE currently and 156" Avenue SE in the future), so that residents of the site could avoid using 160`h Avenue SE for congested traffic movements_ Dedication and improvement of right-of-way along SE 136`h Street adjacent to this plat will provide for the enhanced safety and welfare of the residents of this plat and the public. Dedication and improvements consistent with King County Road Standards for an urban subcollector would be proportionate to the impacts of this plat. The Applicant should have the opportunity, if he chooses, to modify the traffic circulation within the plat to provide a direct access to SE 136'h Street, as well as 160'h Avenue SE. As properties in the area are developed or redeveloped to urban densities, improvement of street frontage to urban standards is a reasonable and proportionate requirement to provide traffic circulation for the increasing population of the area. The King County Road Standards, Section 1.03, provides that any land development which will impact the service level, safety, or operational efficiency of serving roads ... shall improve those roads in accordance with these standards. The subject subdivision will be served by the Issaquah School District, which has adopted capacity figures which indicate their ability to accommodate additional students. Students living in the proposed plat would be bussed to and from all schools. The Issaquah School District has adopted a fee of $3,924 for each new single-family residential unit, as a school impact fee. Forty six dwelling units would be added by the proposal to the Issaquah School District. 4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: This proposal has been reviewed under the criteria in King County Code 14.70, Transportation Concurrency Management; 14.80, Intersection Standards; and King County Code 14.75; Mitigation Payment System. King County Code 14.70 - Transportation Concurrency Management: The Transportation Certificate of Concurrency indicates that transportation improvements or strategies will be in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years, according to RCW 36.70A_070(6). b. King County Code 14.80 - Intersection Standards: If an alternative route to SE 128`h Street, other than 160"' Avenue SE, is provided, the existing arterial system will accommodate the increased traffic volume generated by this proposal. If 160 h Avenue SE were to be the only route to SE 1281h Street, there is not sufficient information in the record to determine whether or not the intersection of 160`b Avenue SE and SE 128 h Street would meet county standards during the AM peak hour with this proposed development. 1,01 P0016J1_0I TY401—Evendell 12 King County Code.14.75 - Mitigation Payment System: King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), requires the payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee (MPS fee) and an administration fee for each single family residential lot or unit created. MPS fees are determined by the zone in which the site is located. This site is in Zone 452 per the MPS/Quarter section list. MPS fees may be paid at the time of final plat recording, or deferred until building permits are issued. The amount of the fee will be determined by the applicable fee ordinance at the time the fee is collected. 5. The nearest public park is located on the southwest corner of 152"d Avenue SE and SE 136`' Street. The Applicant has proposed on -site recreation in combination with the on -site detention facility at the southeast corner of the property, and a separate recreation tract adjacent to the north of the combination detention/recreation tract. The details of improvements will be designed and submitted for approval prior to recording the final plat. The area contained in proposed tracts E and F appear sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of KCC 21A.14.180. 6. Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 90 indicates that water is presently available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy King County Fire Flow Standards. Prior to final recording of the plat, the water service facilities must be reviewed and approved per King County Fire Flow Standards. 7. Sewage Disposal: A Certificate of Sewer Availability, dated May 18, 2001 indicates the city's capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment 6). A sewage pump station will be constructed on the southeast corner of the plat as the property currently can not be served by gravity flow. By providing a pump station, approximately 37 acres in the immediate area will have sewer available. The existing sewer line will be extended east along SE 136`h Street to the subject property to provide connection to Renton's sewer system. 8. Water Supply: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision with water from Water District 90. A Certificate of Water Availability, dated May 30, 2001, indicates this district's capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment 7). 9. Neighbors on adjacent lots to the west of the proposed plat expressed concerns that trees on their lots would be affected by development activity on the site of the proposal. A 50-foot wide buffer area was requested by the neighbors; an easement protecting the drip line of affected trees near the property line was recommended by the Department. No authority was cited to the Examiner which supports the imposition of a burden on the Applicant's property to protect trees on adjoining properties. CONCLUSIONS: 1. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water L01P0016/1-01TY401> vendeu 13 supply, sanitary wastes, parks and recreations, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and safe walking conditions for students who only walk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest. 3. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recommended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonable and necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat, and are proportionate to the impacts of the development. 5. This proposal is subject to the mitigated determination of environmental non -significance issued December 23, 2002. The conditions of that MDNS must be implemented as conditions of this preliminary plat approval. The impacts of the culvert and channel improvements required in the east drainage basin, for a distance approximately 1,700 downstream from the plat, together with the change in flow volume resulting from development of the subject property, should be analyzed by the Applicant and reviewed by DDES to determine the impacts, if any, downstream from the improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed of Evendell, 46 lot alternative, received March 26, 2002 subject to the following conditions of final plat approval: Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Cade. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. 3. The plat shall comply with the base density (and minimum density) requirements of the R4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R4 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger. The plat layout may be revised to provide vehicular access to SE 136"` Street as well as 1601h Avenue SE. Other minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Department of Development and Environmental Services. 4. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187, as amended (1993 KCRS), except to the extent that variances from those standards are approved by the County Road Engineer. 5. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.O8 of the King County Code. 1-01 P0016/1-01 TY401—Evendell 14 6. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identified the following conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements. All other applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also be satisfied during engineering and final review. a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King County. DDES approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat: All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings # on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file." d. The stormwater detention design shall comply with the Level 2 Flow Control requirements per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). C. The storm water control facility shall be located in a separate tract and dedicated to King County unless portions of the drainage tract are used for required recreation space in accordance with KCC 21A.14.180. 7. Drainage adjustment L02V0024 is approved for this project. All conditions of approval for this adjustment shall be met upon submittal of the engineering plans. 8. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the 1993 King County Road Standards(KCRS): a. SE 137t' St. shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. b. The internal loop road(158" PI SE, SE 138`s ST, and 159`" PI SE) shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standard. C. The short cul-d-sac road off SE 137`h ST shall be improved to the urban minor access street standard, unless this street is extended to SE Be Street, in which event it shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. d. FRONTAGE: Eighteen feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the plat frontage on SE 136`" Street (from 158`s Avenue SE to 160"' Avenue SE). The frontage along SE 136`h Street (south side only) and 160a' Ave SE (west side only) shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard. LO1 P0016/LO t TY411—Evendel l 15 The SE 1361h Street frontage from 158"' Avenue SE to 160`h Avenue SE shall be improved to the urban'/z street standard, except that no sidewalk shall be required to be constructed on the north side. Tracts A, B, and D shall be improved to the joint use driveway standard per Section 3.01 of the KCRS. f. Tract C shall be improved to the private access tract standard per Section 2.09 of the KCRS. g. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS. 9. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 160`h Ave. SE from those lots, which abut this street. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and final plat. The Applicant may redesign the plat to allow direct access to SE 136"` Street for those lots which abut SE 136`h Street and do not abut the internal street system. (Joint use driveway tracts and pipe stems shall not be considered as abutting the internal street system) 10. (See condition 8 above) 11. Off -site access to the subdivision shall be over a full -width, dedicated and improved road that has been accepted by King County for maintenance. If the proposed access road has not been accepted by King County at the time of recording, then said road shall be fully bonded by the applicant of this subdivision_ 12, All utilities within proposed rights -of -way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to final plat recording. 13. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration fee as determined by the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either: (1) pay the MPS fee at final plat recording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the first option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required by King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application. 14. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in KCC 21A.24. Preliminary plat review has identified the following specific requirements that apply to this project. All other applicable requirements from KCC 21A.24 shall also be addressed by the applicant. a. This site contains a Class 2 wetland. The wetland will be protected from alteration during and after construction, with a 50-foot wide buffer around the wetland boundary. An additional 15-foot building setback is required beyond the edge of the buffer. b. A maximum of 200 square feet of wetland will be filled for construction of SE 136' Street. Mitigation shall consist of at least 400 square feet of wetland enhancement to L01 P0010/1-0 1 TY401—Evendel W degraded portions of the existing wetland. Road improvements for 160"' Avenue SE and SE 136"' Street will eliminate an area of wetland buffer. Mitigation shall consist of providing at least an equivalent area of buffer added to the northeast portion of the site. C. Downstream drainage improvements to existing culverts and stormwater conveyances required through the SEPA MDNS shall cause no adverse alteration to existing wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the drainage improvements. d. Critical Areas staff shall review engineering plans for the plat for conformance with these requirements. 15. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat: RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer_ This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law. The common boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area of development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of King County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer. The required marking or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed. No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 16. Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements KCC 21A.14.180 and KCC 2IA. 14.190 for providing sport court[s], children's play equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc. a. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.) shall be submitted for review and approval by DDES and King County Parks prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall comply with Ordinance # 14045. b. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to recording of the plat. LO 1 POO 16/LO1 TY401—Evendel l J7 17. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of DDES which provides for the ownership and continued malowflance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 18. Street trees shall be included in the design of all road improvements, and shall comply with Section 5.03 of the KCRS and KCC 21 A.16.050: Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all roads. Spacing may be. modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and intersections. b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards, unless King County Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located in the street right-of-way. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of- way line. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners association or other workable organization unless the County has adopted a maintenance program. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded plat. e. The species of trees shall be approved by DDES if located within the right-of-way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit -bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or stoma sewers, or that is not compatible with overhead utility lines. f. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval. g. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted prior to recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the time of inspection, if the trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES has completed a second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The inspection fee is subject to change based on current County fees. School Mitigation Fees 19. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A.43, which imposes impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and LO l P00 ] 61LO1 TY401--Evcndel I 18 collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance. SEPA 20. The following have been established by SEPA as necessary requirements to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this development. The applicants shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval. East Drainage Basin: The 160th Ave. SE downstream conveyance system shall be upgraded to provide for the 100-year storm capacity. Downstream driveway culverts/ditches and a cross - culvert under 160d' Ave. SE shall be improved as follows: Culverts P-117 and P-116 on the west side of Wh Ave. SE, cross -culvert P-115, and culverts P-114 and P-113 OD the east side of 16(0 Ave. SE shall be improved as needed. The culvert designations are according to the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering dated August 26, 2001 To address a related localized flooding condition, bank and channel stabilization are also required in the unopened right-of- way for 162"d Ave. SE, in the vicinity of the easterly line of Lot 12, Rich Lea Crest (address 16046 SE 142"d Street)_ It is estimated that stabilizing and re -grading approximately 50 to 100 feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142"d Street, will be adequate to resolve flooding that has occurred in the past location. The culverts and channel described are located from the south site boundary to a distance of approximately 1,700 feet downstream. Level 2 Flow Control design is required for the proposed stormwater detention facility. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. b. West Drainage Basin (if applicable): The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed to the Level 3 Flow Control Standard as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As an option, Level 2 Flow Control with downstream improvements can be proposed according to Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shall be Level 2. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. Additional Drainage Consideration: 21, The applicant shall provide additional analysis, to be reviewed and approved by DDES, to assure that downstream improvements, in conjunction with additional runoff volume from the site as developed, will not exacerbate drainage and flooding problems between the termination of the required downstream culvert and ditch improvements and SE 144 h Street. ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2003 s N. O'Connor ine Examiner Pro Tern I.01 P00I 6IL0 I TY401—Evendell 19 TRANSMITTED this 28th day of March, 2003, to the parties and interested persons of record: 4 Creeks UAC Scott D. Baker Marshall Brenden Attn: Claudia Donnelly 7018 47th Ave. NE 18225 SE 128th P.O. Box 3501 Seattle WA 98116 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Ronda Bryant Marilyn Carlson Ronald Coffin 15406 SE 136th Street 13616 - 156th Avae. SE 16015 SE 135th PI. Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059-6828 Michael Rae Cooke Robert Darrow Shirley Day 13125 1581h Ave. SE Haozous Engineering 14412 - 167th PI. SE Renton WA 98059 15428 - 45th Court Renton WA 98059 Mukilteo WA 98275 Roger Dorstad Michelle Hagerman Stephen & Yvonne Hanson Evergreen East Realty 13710 156th Ave_ SE 15611 SE 138th PI. PO Box 375 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Redmond WA 98073 Mark Heckert Valerie Hemnes Victor & Gwendolyn High Habitat Technologies 15627 SE 139th PI_ 13405 - 158th Ave. SE 606 E Main St. Renton WA 98059-7422 Renton WA 98059 Puyallup WA 98371-1088 Edward & June Hill Edward & Nancy Hilton Kurt Hughes 13527 156th St_ SE 13414 - 158th Ave. SE 19112 NE 146th Way Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Woodinville WA 98072-6361 Fred & Helga Jaques Leonard J. Johnston Diana Kazele 13114 - 158th Ave_ SE 16016 SE 135th 15657 SE 137th PI. Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Don Kezele Joann Lee Tim & Gina Lex 15657 SE 137th PI_ 13802 - 160th Ave. SE 13116 - 158th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Rebecca Lind Steve Lyman Jerry Marcy 1055 S. Grady Way 14505 - 160th Ave. SE P.O. Box 575 Renton WA 98058 Renton WA 98059 Seattle WA 98111 Heckert, Mark Fred & Gloria Martin Linda Matlock Habitat Technologies 13019 - 160th Ave. SE WA State Ecol. Dept./WQSW Unit 606 E Maine St. Renton WA 98059 PO Box 47696 Puyallup WA 98371-1088 Olympia WA 98504-7696 Jim McDougal Bill Mokin Eleanor Moon 14502 167th Pl. SE 14404 - 162nd Ave. SE KC Executive Horse Council Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 12230 NE 61st Kirkland WA 98033 Steven & Peri Muhich John Nanney Sally Nipert 13420 - 160th Ave. SE 16169 SE 146th Pt. 14004 - 156th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Gary Norris Florence Nott Dave Nyblom Gary Struthers & Associates 15915 SE 134th Pl. 13606 - 158th Avenue SE 3150 Richards Road #100 Renton WA 98059-6832 Renton WA 98059 Bellevue WA 98005 LO1 P0016/LO 1 T Y 401—Evendell 20 Richard & Anita Oliphant Dave Petrie David Petrie 16519 SE 145th St. 811 S 273rd Court 811 S. 273rd Ct. Renton WA 98059 Des Moines WA 98198 Des Moines WA 98198 David Platt David Rockabrand Marsha Rollinger 510 Panoramic Dr. Four Creeks UAC 15646 SE 138th Pl. Camano Island WA 98282 11427 162nd Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Mike Romano Geneva Scholes Curtis Schuster Centurion Development Services 12924 - 158th Ave. SE KBS Ilt, LLC 22617 8th Drive SE Renton WA 98059 12505 Bel -Red Rd., Ste. 212 Bothell WA 98021 Bellevue WA 98005 Charles & Viola Scoby Karen & Jeffrey Sidebotham Daniel B. Slaton 13112 - 158th Ave. SE 13004 - 158th Ave. SE 15315 SE 133rd Court Renton WA 98059-8531 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Howard Stansbury Peggy Streit Penny Thorbeck US Land Development Association 13512 - 160th Ave. SE 15650 SE 138th P1. 22617 - 8th Dr. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Bothell WA 98021 David Waller Alex Weitz Mr. & Mrs. Bob Wilmot 15635 SE 138th Pl. 15646 SE 138th PI. 13900 - 160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Kurt Wilson Alvin Wolberg Harold & Eleanor Zeek Harbour Homes 16021 SE 136th St. 16612 SE 145th St. 1010 South 336th Street 4305 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Federal Way WA 98003 Greg Borba Laura Casey Kim Claussen DOES/LUSD DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Wetland Review Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 Kristen Langley Carol Rogers Karen Scharer DDESJLUSD LUSD/CPLN DDES/LUSD Land Use Traffic MS OAK-DE-0100 Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 Larry West Bruce Whittaker DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD Geo Review Prel, Review Engineer MS OAK-DE•0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal mast be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $250.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before April ll, 2003. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before April 18, 2003. Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal. LO I P0016/LOI TY401—Evendel l 21 Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 102.5, King County Courthouse, 516 Yd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6 AND 10, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. LOIP0016 AND LOITY401 James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Karen Scharer, Kristin Langley, Bruce Whittaker and Laura Casey, representing the Department; Mike Romano, representing the Applicant; Marsha Rollinger and Gwendolyn High, representing the lntervenors; and Mark Heckert, Gary Norris, Scott Baker, Michael Rae Cooke, David Rockabrand, Dave Petry, Michelle Hagerman, Sally Nipert, Diane Kazele, Alex Weitz, Fred Jaques, Jim McDougal, John Nanney, Bill Makin, Anita Oliphant, Vanessa Bums, June Hill, Rhonda Bryant, and Kristy Hill. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No. I DDES combined file 1_01TY401 & LO1P0016, application filed and dated July 6, 2001 Exhibit No_ 2A DDES application for land use permit(s) LOITY401 & LO1P0016, application dated July 6, 2001 2B Zone reclassification application and justification questionnaire with revision received September 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 3A DDES preliminary report prepared 02/20/03 with attachments as follow: L Map of rezone from R-4 to R-6 2. Reduced copy of R-6 -- 70 lot preliminary plat 3. Reduced copy of R-4 — alternative 46 lot plat 4. Density calculations for R-6 plat 5. City of Renton January 20, 2003, letter 6. City of Renton June 15, 2001 letter 7. Certificate of water availability dated May 30, 2001 8. School information dated July 12, 2001 9. SWM adjustment approval for L02V0024 dated October 17, 2002 3B DDES addendum report with corrections and additional information regarding schools serving the property, prepared 02/27/03 Exhibit No. 4 Revised environmental checklist received October 14, 2002 Exhibit No. 5 Mitigated determination of non -significance dated December 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 6 Affidavit of posting indicating posting dates of October 3 and 4, 2001. Exhibit No. 7A Site plan (70 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 7B Alternative site plan (46 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 8 Assessors maps (4) for SE 14-23-05 revised 02/23/95, NE 14-23-05 revised 04/05193, NW 14-23-05 revised 10/92, and SW 14-23-05 revised 07/07/97 Exhibit No. 9 Traffic impact analysis by Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. dated June 28, 2001 Exhibit No. 10 Traffic memo dated January 29, 2002, from Garry Struthers Assoc., Inc. Exhibit No. 11 Preliminary technical information report dated June, 2001, by Haozous Eng., P.S. Exhibit No. 12 Level 3 downstream drainage analysis by Haozous Eng., P.S., dated August 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 13 Addendum (6 pages plus cover) to the level -three study dated December 5, 2002 LO 1 Poo 16/L01 TY401—Evendel 1 22 Fxhibit No. 14 Wetland evaluation and delineation report, wildlife habitat evaluation and compensatory wetland mitigation plan by Habitat Technologies, dated May 15, 2001 Exhibit No. 15 Addendum to wetland/stream/wildlife report dated October 28, 2002 Exhibit No. 16 City of Renton three -page certificate of sewer availability dated 6/15/01 Exhibit No. 17 Jaques, Fred & Helga email dated November 1, 2001 Exhibit No. 18 Carlson, Marilynn letter dated November 7, 2001 Exhibit No. 19 Revised alternative R-4 plat density calculations received 3/26/02 Exhibit No. 20 Petition from Gwendolyn High (8 pg. + cover), received September 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 21 City of Renton letter received January 22, 2003, with attachments (4 pgs.) Exhibit No. 22 Letter from G. High & M. Rollinger for Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) dated April 5, 2002 with attachments (60 pgs. + cover) Exhibit No. 23 G. High and M. Rollinger, CARE petition to intervene filed on 2/18/03 Exhibit No. 24 DDES planning map (created 711/2003) prepared 2/20/2003 showing new development planned in the immediate vicinity Exhibit No. 25 Letter from Greg Zimmerman, City of Renton, dated March 05, 2003 (2/12/03 memo attached) Exhibit No. 26 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency received July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 27 Topographic map provided by City of Renton (aerial photography taken Winter, 1996) subject property in conjunction with Highland Estates Exhibit No_ 28 Article from King County Journal, "Give Us Some Space, Firefighters Say..." 02/27/2003 Exhibit No. 29 Transportation service areas 2000 map — KCDDES, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 30 Community action strategies sub -area priority ranking map — KCDOT, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 31 Assessors map of East Renton/Briarwood area with coloring Exhibit No. 32 Proposed but not entered into the record — area map showing nesting sites Exhibit No. 33 Online permit details — DDES website printouts (18 pg) Exhibit No. 34 Notice of application for the Bales Annexation and pre -zone application, dated January 15, 2003 — City of Renton Exhibit No. 35 Letter from Scott D. Baker, Consulting Arborist dated 2/8103 Exhibit No. 36 Tree retention/protection buffer site plan alternatives Exhibit No. 37 C.A.R.E. households list (2 pg) Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 39 Tree loss and possible ground water contamination depiction Exhibit No. 40 Sign -in and time donation sheet (3 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 41 Transportation concurrency diagrams for 2001, 2002 & 2003 Exhibit No. 42 a Letter (2 pg) from Don & Janice Milbrath dated March 3, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Kristy J. Hill dated March 6, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Edward and June Hill dated March 6, 2003 d Letter (1 pg) from Charles W. Scoby, Viola M. Scoby, and Geneva D. Scholes dated March 1, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Laurie A. Hindes dated February 26, 2003 f Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 g Letter (1 pg) from Eloise and Claude Stchowiak dated March 6, 2003 h Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby dated Feb. 21, 2003, and March, 6, 2003 j Letter (1 pg) from Richard Savage (undated) Exhibit No. 43 Letter (1 pg) from Dan & Lynn Peterson, also signed by Fred & Helga Jaques (undated) Exhibit No. 44 a Letter (1 pg) from John Nanney dated March 6, 2063 b Letter (1 pg) from Linda Williams dated March 5, 2003 c Letter (1 pg) from Rodney S. Stewart dated March 5, 2003 LO1 POO] 61LOITY401—Evendelt 23 d Letter (1 pg) from Edward A. Schultz dated March 4, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) fron3 Joseph Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 f. Letter (1 pg) from Brenda Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 45 a Letter (1 pg) from Richard & Anita Oliphant dated March 5, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Jeff & Karen Sidebotham (undated) d Letter (1 pg) signed by Nancy & Edward Hilton dated March 6, 2003 e Memo (4 pg) from Michael Rae Cooke dated March 4, 2003, with attached resident survey sheet, error notes, and April 3, 2002, memo and attachments (8 pg) to King County Surface Water and Land Management The following items were entered at the March 10, 2003, continued hearing: Exhibit No. 46 Exhibit No. 47 Exhibit No. 48 Exhibit No. 49 Exhibit No. 50 Exhibit No. 51 Exhibit No. 52 Exhibit No. 53 Exhibit No. 54 Exhibit No. 55 Exhibit No. 56 a b c d e f g h i Exhibit No. 57 Exhibit No. 58 JNO:gaolep LO ] POO] 6 LO 1 TY401 RPT Photos (9) provided by Anita Oliphant with commentary (undated) Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoody dated February 21, 2003 Letter (I pg) from Marilynn Carlson dated March 9, 2003 Letter (2 pg) from Kristy Hill dated March 6, 2003 Letter (I pg) from Marsha Rollinger (undated) Letter (1 pg) from Joseph Bostjancic dated March 5, 2003 Memo (1 pg) from Nick Gillen dated March 7, 2003 Copy of table #3 from the 2002 Issaquah school plan showing "Projected Capacity to House Sudents" Memo (1 pg) from Mark Heckert, Habitat Technologies, dated March 10, 2003 Gwendolyn High's testimony of March 6, 2003 with cover letter dated March 10, 2003 noting correction Letters from: Donald & Diane Kezelle (2 pg) - undated Vanessa Burris (1 pg) Carolyn Ann Buckett (I pg) Ronda Bryant (3 pg) dated March 10, 2003 Michael Rae Cooke (7 pg) dated 3/8/02 Marsha Rollinger (I pg) undated Sally Nipert (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Shirley Day (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Bill and Donna Mokin (2 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Photos of hawk (2) DDES revised recommendation/additional conditions dated 3/10/03 Proposed No. 2003-0032.2 KING COUNTY Signature Report July 1, 2003 Ordinance 14694 Sponsors Sullivan 1200 King County Courthouse 516'rhird Avenue Sealtle, WA 98104 1 AN ORDINANCE denying the appeal by U.S. Land 2 Development/Centurion and concurring with the 3 recommendation of the hearing examiner to deny the 4 request for reclassification of certain property located on 5 the south side of SE 136th Street, between 1561h Avenue SE 6 and 160th Avenue SE, as particularly described in DDES 7 file no. L01TY401. E:3 6 10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 11 SECTION 1. This ordinance does hereby adopt and incorporate the findings and 12 conclusions contained in the March 28, 2003 report and recommendation to the King 13 County council by the hearing examiner and adopts as the decision of the council the 14 recommendation by the hearing examiner to deny the application for reclassification of 15 certain property located on the south side of SE 136"' Street, between 156h Avenue SE 16 and 16e Avenue SE, as requested by US Land Development Assocation/Centurion in 17 DDES file no. L01TY401. ExhWt No. It 9 item No. fiewi ed 1 Ordinance 14694 18 SECTION 2. The April 18, 2003 appeal by U.S. Land Development 19 Association/Centurion is denied. 20 Ordinance 14694 was introduced on 2/3/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 6/30/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 9 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr_ Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Constantine; Mr. Gossett, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 3 - Ms. Lambert, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Hammond Excused: 1 - Ms. Hague KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sullivan, Chair ATTEST: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Attachments Hearing Examiner Report dated March 28, 2003 2 14694 March 28, 2003 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 Telephone (206) 2964660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL ON APPLICATION FOR REZONE AND ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File Nos. L01P0016 & LOITY401 Proposed Ordinance Nos. 2003-0031 & 2003-0032 EVENDELL REZONE AND SUBDIVISION Rezone and Alternative Preliminary Plat Applications Location: South of SE 13e between 156`' Ave. SE and 160`h Ave. SE Applicant: US Land Development Association/Centurion, represented by Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 — 8`' Drive Southeast Bothell, WA 98021 Telephone: (425) 486-2563 Intervenors: Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell, represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 —158"' Avenue Southeast Renton, WA 98059 and Marsha Rollinger 15646 Southeast 138' Place Renton, WA 98059 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services Land use Services Division, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-7055 L01 P0016IL01 TY40I—Evendell 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION (REZONE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (70 LOT ALTERNATIVE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions Deny Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Deny PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (46 LOT ALTERNATIVE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions Department's Final Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing Opened: Hearing Closed: March 6, 2003 March 10, 2003 Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. ISSUES/TOPICS ADDRESSED: • Comprehensive Plan Policies U-114, U-120, U-122 • Zone Reclassification Criteria • Changed Conditions or Circumstances • Neighborhood Compatibility • Tree Protection • Traffic Circulation and Impact Mitigation SUMMARY: Deny the application for a reclassification. Deny the application for the 70 lot subdivision as inconsistent with the current zoning. Approve the application for a 46 lot subdivision on 11.39 acres, subject to conditions. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: L01 POO 16/L01 TY401—Evendell REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION FIIVDINGS: GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner: Representative: Location. - Acreage (Reclassification): Acreage (70 lot Plat): Acreage (46 lot Plat): Zoning: Proposed Zone: Proposed Use: Proposed Density(70 lot plat) Density (46 lot alternative): Lot Size (70 lot Plat): Lot Size (46 Lot Alternative): Sewage Disposal: Water Supply: Fire District: School District: Complete Application Date: Threshold Determination: Date of Issuance: King County Permits: Permit Contact: Community Plan: Drainage Subbasin: Section/Township/Range: Assessor Parcel nos.: U.S. Land Development Association P.O. Box 22200 Seattle, WA 98122 Michael Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8`' Dr. SE, Bothell, WA 98021 Phone: 425-486-2563 Facsimile: (425) 486-3273 e-mail: michael.i.romano@gte.net Lying south of SE 136"' St. between 156`h Ave. SE and 1600' Ave. SE. 13 acres 12.43 acres 11.39 acres R-4 R-6 Single-family residential 5.6 dwelling units per acre (7.4 per net acre) 4 dwelling units per acre (5.2 per net acre) 3,900 to 6,600 square feet 5,400 to 14,000 square feet City of Renton King County Water District #90 King County Fire District #25 Issaquah September 20, 2001 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) December 23, 2002 Rezone & Subdivision Karen Scharer, Project Mgr 11, Current Planning, LUSD Phone no. 296-7114, e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov Newcastle Lower Cedar River SE 14-23-05 142305 9022 & 9009 2. The Subdivision Technical Committee (STC) of King County conducted an on -site examination of the subject property. The STC discussed the proposed development with the applicant to clarify technical details of the application, and to determine the compatibility of this project with applicable King County plans, codes, and other official documents regulating this development. As a result of discussions, the applicant presented the STC with a conceptual build out plan of the immediate neighborhood, revised plans for frontage road improvements, and submitted a revised traffic study. The conceptual build out plan provided by the Applicant to DDES does not reflect the intentions or desires of the current owners of the properties shown. LOl PO016/LO 1TY401—Evendell 4 Copies of drainage claims which have been submitted to King County for problems in the area were provided to the applicant, and an updated Level 3 drainage report was submitted December 9, 2002. 3. Under KCC 20.20.070, the request for rezone is not vested under regulations in effect at the time of complete rezone application. Vesting to zoning can only occur after the zone classification becomes effective. The 76 lot plat application is based on the requested rezone to R-6; therefore the 76 lot plat application is not vested. The applicant's 46 lot alternative plat application is vested under the existing R-4 zone. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the responsible official of the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) issued a mitigated determination of environmental non -significance (MDNS) for the proposed development on December 23, 2002. This determination was based on the review of the environmental checklist and other pertinent documents, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not cause probable significant adverse impacts on the environment if implemented with the required mitigation for the proposal. The MDNS applies to the proposed reclassification, 70 lot plat proposal, and alternative 46 lot plat proposal. Agencies, affected Native American tribes and the public were offered the opportunity to comment on or appeal the determination for 21 days. The MDNS was not appealed by any party, including the applicant, and is incorporated as part of the applicant's proposal. The MDNS states: The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of permit issuance. These mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules, or regulations designated by KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold determination is issued. Key sources of substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed. A. East Drainage Basin: The 160th Ave SE downstream conveyance system shall be upgraded to provide for the 100-year storm capacity. Downstream driveway culverts/ditches and a cross - culvert under 160`h Ave. SE shall be improved as follows: Culverts P-117 and P-116 on'the west side of 160`h Ave. SE, cross -culvert P-115, and culverts P-114 and P-113 on the east side of 16YQ Ave. SE shall be improved as needed. The culvert designations are according to the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysts by Haozous Engineering dated August 26, 2002. To address a related localized _flooding condition, bank and channel stabilization are also required in the unopened right-of-way for 162"d Ave. SE, in the vicinity of the easterly line of Lot 12, Rich Lea Crest (address 16046 SE 142d Street). It is estimated that stabilizing and re -grading approximately 50 to 100 feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142d Street will be adequate to resolveflooding iooding that has occurred in the past location. The culverts and channel described are located from the south site boundary to a distance of approximately 1, 700 feet downstream. Level 2 Flow Control design is required for the proposed stormwater detention facility. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. LO 1 PO016/LOl TY401—Evendcl l B. West Drainage Basin: The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed to the Level 3 Flow Control Standard as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As an option, .Level 2 Flow Control with downstream improvements can be proposed according to Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shall be Level 2. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. (Comprehensive Plan Policies U-109, E-126, F-254 & F-255; RCW 58.17.1101 A. Topography: The site is relatively level with a 20-foot difference in elevation from the north central area to the southwest and to the southeast corners of the site. B. Soils: Surface soils on this site per King County Soil Survey, 1973 include: AQC - Alderwood gravely, sandy loam; 6-15 % slopes. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil type has a moderate limitation for low building foundations due to a seasonally high water table, and severe limitations for septic tank filter fields due to very slow permeability in the substratum. C. Sensitive Areas: There is a Class II Wetland located on the, northeast portion of the site. The 17,162-sq. ft. wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated and as palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded. Road improvements to SE 1360' Street would require filling of 200-sq. ft of . wetland, for which 400-sq. ft. of wetland enhancement is proposed as mitigation. Road improvements will also impact 6,989-sq. ft. of wetland buffer. Additional buffer area in the NE corner of the site could provide mitigation at a ratio equal to or greater than 2 to 1. Improvements to the downstream drainage system will have to be reviewed to ensure that no wetlands are being drained or flooded as a result, no streams placed in pipes, and no streams damaged by increased flows. Enlarging culverts in sensitive areas, if any, requires clearing and grading permit(s). D. Hydrography: A preliminary June 15, 2001, technical information report was prepared by Haozous Engineering, P.S. on June 15, 2001. Subsequently a Level 3 Downstream Analysis was submitted August 26, 2002, and a Level Three Addendum was submitted December 5, 2002. The site is within the Orting Hills subbasin of the Cedar River watershed. Flooding has occurred in the past along downstream conveyance structures from the site on 160`s Ave. SE, on 156`s Ave. SE, and on nearby properties. These drainage issues are documented in the Level Three Downstream Analyses and Addendum and are addressed by mitigating conditions established in the MDNS. E. Vegetation: The westerly 2.5 acres is mostly covered by pasture with some trees. More than half of the easterly 11 acres is wooded with a conifer upland forest, primarily Douglas fir. The far south of the parcel is developed with pasture; the north central area has been partially cleared as yard area associated with the home L01 Poo 161L01 TY401—Evendell 6 fronting 156"' Avenue SE. The south central area includes deciduous trees and native shrubs. F. Wildlife: A wildlife study of the site was undertaken in conjunction with the wetland evaluation and delineation in 2001. A large variety of small birds and animals were observed on site. Black tail deer and ruffed grouse, both "Priority Species" of Washington State, were observed. A single "State Candidate" species, the pileated woodpecker, was observed to utilize the forested wetland area along with adjacent upland forested area onsite. None of the species identified in the applicant's report are required to be protected in the urban designated area of the County. However with preservation of the wetland and a 50-foot buffer, some habitat will be retained on the site. Additional investigation was made by DDES environmental scientists and the Applicant's consulting biologist in March, 2003, to review the site in response to assertions that a red tail hawk nest exists on the site. The preponderance of the evidence is that there are no red tail hawk or other raptor nests on the subject property. 6. The subject property is within an area east of Renton known as Brierwood, in the southern portion of the Newcastle Community Plan area. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council serves the area under the King County Citizen Participation Initiative. The area within which the property is located is designated "urban residential, 4-12 dwelling units per acre", by the King County Comprehensive Plan. The zoning for the subject property and the surrounding area, generally extending from SE 1280' on the north to SE 144`h and beyond on the south, and from Renton on the west to 168"' Avenue SE and beyond to the east, is zoned R4. The principle exception is the plat of Highland Estates, 60 lots on 8.67 acres lying between 152°d Avenue SE and 1541h Avenue SE, on the south side of SE 136't' Street. Highland Estates was reclassified from R4 to R-8 in 2001. Its northwest corner is adjacent to 218 lots under development within the plat of Maplewood in the City of Renton. The southern portion of the plat of Maplewood, which is the portion nearest to Highland Estates, was zoned R-8 by Renton. In 2001, it was being developed with an average lot size of 4,500 square feet in the area closest to the Highland Estates property. Directly west of the Highland Estates site is an undeveloped King County park. Parcels lying to the north were sparsely developed in 2001, and were expected to convert to urban densities. The Examiner in that case also found a potential for higher urban density redevelopment of parcels lying east and southeast of Highland Estates. The neighborhood lying to the south of Highland Estates contained newer residential properties, which were found unlikely to redevelop in the near future. Most of those properties are approximately '/a acre in size. Impact on the properties to the south was mitigated by not opening 152nd Avenue SE, so as to insulate the lower density neighborhood to the southwest from the impacts of higher density associated with Maplewood and Highland Estates. LO 1 POO 16/LO 1 TY4O1—Evendel l 7 Maplewood brought sewer into the neighborhood, which could be extended to serve Highland Estates, and road and traffic requirements for the two plats were found to be interconnected. 7. The developer of the subject property proposes to build a sewer pump station, dedicate right- of-way, construct roads, and make drainage improvements in conjunction with the 70 lot proposed plat, all of which will facilitate urban development in the area. Comprehensive Plan policy U-122 supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone or through density transfers when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water, parks or open space deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. DDES relies primarily on Policy U-122 as justification for recommending reclassification of the property to R-6. Most of the same improvements also would be built to support the 46 lot alternative plat proposed under the existing R4 zone classification. The impacts from development of 46 lots require similar sewer and surface water drainage improvements, which address major concerns in the area. Recreation and open space deficiencies are met in the same manner by both proposed plats, with only proportionate differences, based on the fewer number of lots in the 46 lot alternative. Neighborhood traffic circulation is the one urban infrastructure concern which is addressed differently by the two plat proposals. The King County Department of Transportation and DDES have identified a need for an east -west street connection from 1561' Avenue SE to 160ffi Avenue SE, between SE 128`h Street and SE 144 h Street. SE 1360'Street is the most viable option for that connection because of its existing 30 foot wide public right-of-way from 1566' Avenue SE to 160`h Avenue SE. The Applicant would agree to provide additional right-of-way , varying from 18 feet to 25 feet, and improvements that would open SE 136's Street from 156 h Avenue SE to 160`s Avenue SE, if the 70 lot plat is approved. If the zone reclassification and 70 lot plat are denied, the developer objects to any requirement for dedication of right-of-way or construction of improvements to provide plat access and neighborhood traffic circulation by way of SE 136d' Street. DDES nonetheless recommends dedication of 18 feet of right -of --way for SE 1360, Street along the frontage of the 46 lot plat, and the Examiner also recommends improvements to the right-of-way to mitigate the impacts of that plat (see finding no. 2 at page 10). 8. KCC 21A.44.060 provides that a zone reclassification shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal complies with the criteria for approval specified in KCC 20.24.180 and 190, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable community and functional plans. 9. KCC 20.24.180 addresses the requirement for hearing examiner findings and conclusions generally, including a requirement for a conclusion that the examiner's recommendation "will not be unreasonably incompatible with or detrimental to affected properties and the general public." KCC 20.24.180. 10. KCC 20.24.190 addresses applications for reclassifications specifically. It requires that an Examiner recommendation for reclassification of property include findings that support at least one of the circumstances described in that section. The portion of the section applicable to this proceeding is subpart "D", which provides: "The applicant has demonstrated with substantial evidence that: Since the last previous area zoning or shoreline environment designation of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private LO1 P00161LOI TY401—Evendell development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change not anticipated or contemplated in the subarea plan or area zoning; 2. The impacts from the changed conditions or circumstances affect the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity such that area rezoning or redesignation is not appropriate; For the purposes of this subsection, "changed conditions or circumstances" does not include actions taken by the current or former property owners to facilitate a more intense development of the property including but not limited to changing tax limitations, adjusting property lines, extending services, or changing property ownership; 3. For proposals to increase rural residential density, that the proposal meets the criteria in Comprehensive Plan policies R-205 through R-209; 4. For proposals to increase urban residential density, that the proposal meets the criteria in Comprehensive Plan policies U-118 through U-123; and 5. The requested reclassification or redesignation is in the public interest. (Ord. 14047 § 12, 2001: Ord. 4461 § 10, 1979). 11. R-4 is the zoning applied to this area by the King County Council. The 1994 Comprehensive Plan and 1995 Area Zoning changed the zoning in this vicinity from SR-15,000 to R4. That zoning was reaffirmed in 2001 with the adoption of the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments. "Official zoning ... is contained in the SiTUS file and is depicted on the official zoning maps, as maintained by the Department of Development and Environmental Services." Ordinance 14044, Section 3, February 12, 2001. The current R4 zone classification is consistent with the Urban Land Use policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 12. Existing development in the area surrounding Evendell is generally on lots ranging from 15,000 square feet to 1 1/n acres, with a few smaller and a few larger. Redevelopment and infill will occur over time in much of the area, creating smaller lots, but a substantial portion of the area will remain as currently developed for the indefinite future. The general character of existing development is individually built homes, with yards, gardens, trees and some pasture area and outbuildings, generating an overall impression of a suburban or somewhat rural area. The density of development permitted by the R4 zone classification is greater than that which presently exists in the area. The existing R4 zone classification provides a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and allows a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre. Maximum impervious surface allowed for a development within the R4 zone is 55%. The R-6 zone classification requested by the Applicant provides a base density of 6 dwelling units per acre, a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre, and maximum impervious surface of 75% of the site. 13. Since the last previous area zoning, the approval and commencement of construction of the proposed plats of Maplewood and Highland Estates have brought sewer closer to the subject property. An additional road connection has been opened to the west and north, by way of 1 01 P0016/LOlTY401—Evendell 9 SE 136`h Street, which now connects to SE 128'h Street at 148°i Avenue SE. The subject property, however, has three pre-existing direct connections to SE 128'h Street, by way of 156'h Avenue SE, 15r Avenue SE and 160'h Avenue SE, which have remained unchanged. The greater proximity of sewer service allows for development of the subject property at the R4 permitted density, as well as at the higher density requested by the Applicant. The King County Comprehensive PIan requires that property in the R4 zone classification be developed with sewers, indicating that the Council's adoption and retention of the R-4 zone classification anticipated the availability of sewers in the area. There is no evidence that the closer proximity of sewers was not anticipated at the time of the last area zoning, or that it affects the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity. CONCLUSIONS: The Applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change since the last previous area zoning which were not anticipated or contemplated by that area zoning. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that impacts from any conditions or circumstances that have changed since the last previous area zoning affect the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity. Any reclassification of the subject property should be considered legislatively in conjunction with consideration of the appropriate zoning for the area within which the subject property is located. The proposal partially meets the purpose of Comprehensive Plan Policy U122 that supports increases in density to help resolve traffic circulation deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. However, reclassification of the subject property to R-6 would be inconsistent with policy U-120, which provides that, "King County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase density within the urban area unless: a. The development will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood; ... " 4. Reclassification of the Highland Estates property is distinguished from this application by the facts of that case, particularly its location adjacent to the development of 4,500 square foot lots in the City of Renton, the interconnection and overlapping of the road improvements necessary for the development of Maplewood and Highland Estates, and the greater separation of Highland Estates from fully developed properties on larger lots. Reclassification of the property under consideration in this case would result in 13 acres of R- 6 zoned property entirely surrounded by R4 zoned property. 5. The application for a reclassification of the subject property should be denied. RECOMMENDATION: DENY the application for reclassification. L01 P00161LOI TY401—Evendel l 10 APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (70 LOT PROPOSAL) FINDINGS: 1. To the extent applicable, the findings set forth above with respect to the application for reclassification are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The Applicant proposes to develop 70 lots on 12.43 acres, with a density of 5.63 dwelling units per acre. The base density of the R-4 zone permits development of not more than 4 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 50 units, unless augmented by density bonuses or development credits transferred from other sites. No such augmentations are incorporated in the proposal. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat exceeds the density allowed for the site by the King County Zoning Code. 2. The application for preliminary plat approval should be DENIED. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application for preliminary approval of the proposed plat of 70 lots, received March 26, 2002. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (46 LOT ALTERNATIVE) FINDINGS: To the extent applicable, the findings set forth above with respect to the application for reclassification are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The proposed development of 46 lots on 11.39 acres is bounded by SE Be Street on the north (from 158`h Avenue SE to 160'h Avenue SE), and 160'h Avenue SE on the east. SE 136`h Street is an unimproved, 30 foot wide, county right-of-way between 156h Avenue SE and 160`h Avenue SE, with a paved area abutting the proposed plat at the intersection with 1580h Avenue SE. 1600' Avenue SE is a two lane neighborhood collector that runs from SE 125`h Street to SE 144'h Street. The roadway width is approximately 24 feet, with a paved shoulder on the east side of the roadway. It is unstriped. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The existing construction of 1601 Avenue SE is a rural design. 158'h Avenue SE is also a two-lane neighborhood collector, similar to 160'h Avenue SE, but with little or no dirt shoulders on either side of the roadway. The posted speed limit on 158 h Avenue SE is also 25 mph. Traffic to and from the proposed development is proposed by the Applicant to have access only to 16& Avenue SE. The intersection of 160'h Avenue SE and SE 128'h Street, a LO 1 POO161L01 TY401—Evendel l 11 principle arterial, would be the principle route for traffic to and from this plat to the north and west. Level of service at SE 128's Street and 160a` Avenue SE was projected to be "E" for north bound left turns during peak hours for the 70 lot plat, which would have had an alternative route through a signalized intersection (156`h Avenue SE and SE 128a` Street) to the north and west. The level of service for that traffic movement for this proposal during the AM peak hour does not appear to have been analyzed. Traffic circulation to and from the subject property, and neighborhood traffic circulation, would be improved by the provision of alternative routes (158`r Avenue SE currently and 156'h Avenue SE in the future), so that residents of the site could avoid using 16e Avenue SE for congested traffic movements. Dedication and improvement of right-of-way along SE 136 h Street adjacent to this plat will provide for the enhanced safety and welfare of the residents of this plat and the public. Dedication and improvements consistent with King County Road Standards for an urban subcollector would be proportionate to the impacts of this plat. The Applicant should have the opportunity, if he chooses, to modify the traffic circulation within the plat to provide a direct access to SE 136`s Street, as well as 160`s Avenue SE. As properties in the area are developed or redeveloped to urban densities, improvement of street frontage to urban standards is a reasonable and proportionate requirement to provide traffic circulation for the increasing population of the area. The King County Road Standards, Section 1.03, provides that any land development which will impact the service level, safety, or operational efficiency of serving roads ... shall improve those roads in accordance with these standards. The subject subdivision will be served by the Issaquah School District, which has adopted capacity figures which indicate their ability to accommodate additional students. Students living in the proposed plat would be bussed to and from all schools. The Issaquah School District has adopted a fee of $3,924 for each new single-family residential unit, as a school impact fee. Forty six dwelling units would be added by the proposal to the Issaquah School District. 4. Adequacy of Arterial Roads: This proposal has been reviewed under the criteria in King County Code 14.70, Transportation Concurrency Management; 14.80, Intersection Standards; and King County Code 14.75; Mitigation Payment System. a. King County Code 14.70 - Transportation Concurrency Management: The Transportation Certificate of Concurrency indicates that transportation improvements or strategies will be in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years, according to RCW 36.70A.070(6). b. King County Code 14.80 - Intersection Standards: If an alternative route to SE 1280' Street, other than 1600'Avenue SE, is provided, the existing arterial system will accommodate the increased traffic volume generated by this proposal. If 160'h Avenue SE were to be the only route to SE 128`s Street, there is not sufficient information in the record to determine whether or not the intersection of 160`h Avenue SE and SE 128`s Street would meet county standards during the AM peak hour with this proposed development. 1,01 P0o16JL01 TY401—Evendell 12 C. King County Code 14.75 - Mitigation Payment System: King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), requires the payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee (MPS fee) and an administration fee for each single family residential lot or unit created. MPS fees are determined by the zone in which the site is located. This site is in Zone 452 per the MPS/Quarter section list. MPS fees may be paid at the time of final plat recording, or deferred until building permits are issued. The amount of the fee will be determined by the applicable fee ordinance at the time the fee is collected. 5. The nearest public park is located on the southwest corner of 152"d Avenue SE and SE 136"' Street. The Applicant has proposed on -site recreation in combination with the on -site detention facility at the southeast corner of the property, and a separate recreation tract adjacent to the north of the combination detention/recreation tract. The details of improvements will be designed and submitted for approval prior to recording the final plat. The area contained in proposed tracts E and F appear sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of KCC 21A.14.180, 6. Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 90 indicates that water is presently available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy King County Fire Flow Standards. Prior to final recording of the plat, the water service facilities must be reviewed and approved per King County Fire Flow Standards. 7. Sewage Disposal: A Certificate of Sewer Availability, dated May 18, 2001 indicates the city's capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment 6). A sewage pump station will be constructed on the southeast corner of the plat as the property currently can not be served by gravity flow. By providing a pump station, approximately 37 acres in the immediate area will have sewer available. The existing sewer line will be extended east along SE 136s Street to the subject property to provide connection to Renton's sewer system. Water Supply: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision with water from Water District 90. A Certificate of Water Availability, dated May 30, 2001, indicates this district's capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment 7). 9. Neighbors on adjacent lots to the west of the proposed plat expressed concerns that trees on their lots would be affected by development activity on the site of the proposal. A 50-foot wide buffer area was requested by the neighbors; an easement protecting the drip line of affected trees near the property line was recommended by the Department. No authority was cited to the Examiner which supports the imposition of a burden on the Applicant's property to protect trees on adjoining properties. CONCLUSIONS: 1. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water LO 1 P00I 611_O1 TY401—Evendell 13 supply, sanitary wastes, parks and recreations, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and safe walking conditions for students who only walk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest. 3. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recommended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonable and necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat, and are proportionate to the impacts of the development. This proposal is subject to the mitigated determination of environmental non -significance issued December 23, 2002. The conditions of that MDNS must be implemented as conditions of this preliminary plat approval. The impacts of the culvert and channel improvements required in the east drainage basin, for a distance approximately 1,700 downstream from the plat, together with the change in flow volume resulting from development of the subject property, should be analyzed by the Applicant and reviewed by DDES to determine the impacts, if any, downstream from the improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed of Evendell, 46 lot alternative, received March 26, 2002 subject to the following conditions of final plat approval: Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. 3. The plat shall comply with the base density (and minimum density) requirements of the R-4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R-4 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger. The plat layout may be revised to provide vehicular access to SE 136`, Street as well as 160'h Avenue SE. Other minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Department of Development and Environmental Services. 4. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187, as amended (1993 KCRS), except to the extent that variances from those standards are approved by the County Road Engineer, 5. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. LO 1 POO 16/L01 TY401—Evendell 14 6. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identified the following conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements. All other applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also be satisfied during engineering and final review. a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King County. DDES approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans. C. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat: All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings # on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file." d. The stormwater detention design shall comply with the Level 2 Flow Control requirements per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). e. The storm water control facility shall be located in a separate tract and dedicated to King County unless portions of the drainage tract are used for required recreation space in accordance with KCC 21A.14.180. 7. Drainage adjustment L02VO024 is approved for this project. All conditions of approval for this adjustment shall be met upon submittal of the engineering plans. 8. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the 1993 King County Road Standards(KCRS): a. SE 137`h St. shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. b. The internal loop road(1580Pl SE, SE 138`h ST, and 159 h PI SE) shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standard. C. The short cul-d-sac road off SE 137h ST shall be improved to the urban minor access street standard, unless this street is extended to SE 136`h Street, in which event it shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. d. FRONTAGE: Eighteen feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the plat frontage on SE 136ih Street (from 158 h Avenue SE to 160'h Avenue SE).' The frontage along SE 136i' Street (south side only) and 160'h Ave SE (west side only) shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard. LO 1 POO 16/LO 1 TY40 I—Evendel I 15 The SE 136"Street frontage from 158 h Avenue SE to 160'h Avenue SE shall be improved to the urban'/2 street standard, except that no sidewalk shall be required to be constructed on the north side. e. Tracts A, B, and D shall be improved to the joint use driveway standard per Section 3.01 of the KCRS. f. Tract C shall be improved to the private access tract standard per Section 2.09 of the KCRS. g. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS. 9. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 160"` Ave. SE from those lots, which abut this street. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and final plat. The Applicant may redesign the plat to allow direct access to SE 136" Street for those lots which abut SE 136`" Street and do not abut the internal street system. (Joint use driveway tracts and pipe stems shall not be considered as abutting the internal street system) 10. (See condition 8 above) 11. Off -site access to the subdivision shall be over a full -width, dedicated and improved road that has been accepted by King County for maintenance. If the proposed access road has not been accepted by King County at the time of recording, then said road shall be fully bonded by the applicant of this subdivision. 12. All utilities within proposed rights -of -way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to final plat recording. 13. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration fee as determined by the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either: (1) pay the MPS fee at final plat recording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the first option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required by King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application. 14. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in KCC 21A.24. Preliminary plat review has identified the following specific requirements that apply to this project. All other applicable requirements from KCC 21A.24 shall also be addressed by the applicant. a. This site contains a Class 2 wetland. The wetland will be protected from alteration during and after construction, with a 50-foot wide buffer around the wetland boundary. An additional 15-foot building setback is required beyond the edge of the buffer. b. A maximum of 200 square feet of wetland will be filled for construction of SE Be Street. Mitigation shall consist of at least 400 square feet of wetland enhancement to L,01 P00161LOI TY401—Evendel I 16 degraded portions of the existing wetland. Road improvements for 160`h Avenue SE and SE 136`h Street will eliminate an area of wetland buffer. Mitigation shall consist of providing at least an equivalent area of buffer added to the northeast portion of the site. Downstream drainage improvements to existing culverts and stormwater conveyances required through the SEPA MDNS shall cause no adverse alteration to existing wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the drainage improvements. d. Critical Areas staff shall review engineering plans for the plat for conformance with these requirements. 15. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat: RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law. The common boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area of development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of King County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer. The required marking or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed. No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 16_ Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements KCC 21A.14.180 and KCC 2IA. 14.190 for providing sport court[s], children's play equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc. a. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.) shall be submitted for review and approval by DDES and King County Parks prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall comply with Ordinance # 14045. b. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to recording of the plat. L01 POOMLo 1TY4ot—EvcnclelI 17 17. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of DDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 18. Street trees shall be included in the design of all road improvements, and shall comply with Section 5.03 of the KCRS and KCC 21A.1(.050: a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all roads. Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and intersections. b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards, unless King County Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located in the street right-of-way. C. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of- way line. d. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners association or other workable organization unless the County has adopted a maintenance program. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded plat. e. The species of trees shall be approved by DDES if located within the right-of-way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit -bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or storm sewers, or that is not compatible with overhead utility lines. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval. g. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted prior to recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the time of inspection, if the trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES has completed a second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The inspection fee is subject to change based on current County fees. School Mitigation Fees 19. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A.43, which imposes impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and Lol POO I6lLo 1 TY40 1—Evendell 18 collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance. SEPA 20. The following have been established by SEPA as necessary requirements to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this development. The applicants shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval. a. East Drainage Basin: The 160th Ave. SE downstream conveyance system shall be upgraded to provide for the 100-year storm capacity. Downstream driveway culverts/ditches and a cross - culvert under 160`h Ave. SE shall be improved as follows: Culverts P-117 and P-116 on the west side of 160`s Ave. SE, cross -culvert P-115, and culverts P-114 and P-113 on the east side of 160" Ave. SE shall be improved as needed. The culvert designations are according to the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering dated August 26, 2002. To address a related localized flooding condition, bank and channel stabilization are also required in the unopened right-of- way for 162ad Ave. SE, in the vicinity of the easterly line of Lot 12, Rich Lea Crest (address 16046 SE 142°a Street). It is estimated that stabilizing and re -grading approximately 50 to 100 feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142 d Street, will be adequate to resolve flooding that has occurred in the past location. The culverts and channel described are located from the south site boundary to a distance of approximately 1,700 feet downstream. Level 2 Flow Control design is required for the proposed stormwater detention facility. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. b. West Drainage Basin (if applicable): The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed to the Level 3 Flow Control Standard as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As an option, Level 2 Flow Control with downstream improvements can be proposed according to Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shall be Level 2. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. Additional Drainage Consideration: 21. The applicant shall provide additional analysis, to be reviewed and approved by DDES, to assure that downstream improvements, in conjunction with additional runoff volume from the site as developed, will not exacerbate drainage and flooding problems between the termination of the required downstream culvert and ditch improvements and SE 1446' Street. ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2003 James N. O'Connor Hearing Examiner Pro Tem L01 P0016/LO1 TY401---Evendell 19 r TRANSMITTED this 28th day of March, 2003, to the parties and interested persons of record: 4 Creeks UAC Scott D, Baker Marshall Brenden Attn: Claudia Donnelly 7018 47th Ave. NE 18225 SE 128th P_O. Box 3501 Seattle WA 98115 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Ronda Bryant Marilyn Carlson Ronald Coffin 15406 SE 136th Street 13616 - 156th Avae. SE 16015 SE 135th PL Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059-6828 Michael Rae Cooke Robert Darrow Shirley Day 13125 1581h Ave. SE Haozous Engineering 14412 - 167th PI. SE Renton WA 98059 15428 - 45th Court Renton WA 98059 Mukilteo WA 98275 Roger Dorstad Michelle Hagerman Stephen & Yvonne Hanson Evergreen East Realty 13710 156th Ave. SE 15611 SE 138th PI. PO Box 375 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Redmond WA 98073 Mark Heckert Valerie Hemnes Victor & Gwendolyn High Habitat Technologies 15627 SE 139th PI. 13405 - 1581h Ave. SE 606 E Main St. Renton WA 98059-7422 Renton WA 98059 Puyallup WA 98371-1088 Edward & June Hill Edward & Nancy Hilton Kurt Hughes 13527 156th St. SE 13414 - 1581h Ave. SE 19112 NE 146th Way Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Woodinville WA 98072-6361 Fred & Helga Jaques Leonard J. Johnston Diane Kazele 13114 - 168th Ave. SE 16016 SE 135th 15657 SE 137th Pl, Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Don Kezele Joann Lee Tim & Gina Lex 15657 SE 137th PI. 13862 - 160th Ave. SE 13116. 158th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Rebecca Lind Steve Lyman Jerry Marcy 1055 S_ Grady Way 14505 - 160th Ave. SE P.O. Box 575 Renton WA 98058 Renton WA 98059 Seattle WA 98111 Heckert, Mark Fred & Gloria Martin Linda Matlock Habitat Technologies 13019 - 160th Ave. SE WA State Ecol. DeptJWQSW Unit 606 E Maine St. Renton WA 98059 PO Box 47696 Puyallup WA 98371-1088 Olympia WA 98504-7696 Jim McDougal Bill Mokin Eleanor Moon 14502 167th PI. SE 14404 - 162nd Ave. SE KC Executive Horse Council Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 12230 NE 61st Kirkland WA 98033 Steven & Pert Muhich John Nanney Sally Nipert 13420 - 160th Ave. SE 16169 SE 146th PI. 14004 - i 56th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Gary Norris Florence Nott Dave Nyblom Gary Struthers & Associates 15915 SE 134th Pl. 13606 - 158th Avenue SE 3150 Richards Road 9100 Renton WA 98059-6832 Renton WA 98059 Bellevue WA 98005 LO 1 POO 16/LO I TY401—Evendell 20 Richard & Anita Oliphant Dave Petrie David Petrie 16519 SE 145th St. 811 S 273rd Court 811 S. 273rd Ct, Renton WA 98059 Des Moines WA 98198 Des Moines WA 98198 David Platt David Rockabrand Marsha Rollinger 516 Panoramic Dr. Four Creeks UAC 15646 SE 138th PI_ Camano Island WA 98282 11427 162nd Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Mike Romano Geneva Scholes Curtis Schuster Centurion Development Services 12924 - 15M Ave. SE KBS III, LLC 22617 8th Drive SE Renton WA 98059 12505 Bel -Red Rd., Ste. 212 Bothell WA 98021 Bellevue WA 98005 Charles & Viola Scoby Karen & Jeffrey Sidebotham Daniel B. Slaton 13112 - 158th Ave. SE 13004 - 158th Ave_ SE 15315 SE 133rd Court Renton WA 98059-8531 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Howard Stansbury Peggy Streit Penny Thorbeck US Land Development Association 13512 - 1601h Ave_ SE 15650 SE 138th PI. 22617 - 8th Dr_ SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Bothell WA 98021 David Water Alex Weitz Mr. & Mrs. Bob Wilmot 15635 SE 138th PI. 15W SE 138th PI. 13900 - 160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Kurt Wilson Alvin Wolberg Harold & Eleanor Zeek Harbour Homes 16021 SE 136th St. 16612 SE 145th St_ 1010 South 336th Street #305 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Federal Way WA 98003 Greg Borba Laura Casey Kim Claussen DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Wetland Review Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 Kristen Langley Carol Rogers Karen Scharer DDES/LUSD LUSD/CPLN DDES/LUSD Land Use Traffic MS OAK-DE-0100 Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 Larry West Bruce Whittaker DDES/LUSD DDES/LUSD Geo Review Prel. Review Engineer MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $250.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before April 11, 2003. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal trust be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before April 18, 2003. Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal. L01P0010/L01TY401--) vendell 21 Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 1025, King County Courthouse, 516 3rd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6 AND 10, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. L01POO16 AND LOITY401 James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Karen Scharer, Kristin Langley, Bruce Whittaker and Laura Casey, representing the Department; Mike Romano, representing the Applicant; Marsha Rollinger and Gwendolyn High, representing the Intervenors; and Mark Heckert, Gary Norris, Scott Baker, Michael Rae Cooke, David Rockabrand, Dave Petry, Michelle Hagerman, Sally Nipert, Diane Kazele, Alex Weitz, Fred Jaques, Jim McDougal, John Nanney, Bill Mokin, Anita Oliphant, Vanessa Burris, June Hill, Rhonda Bryant, and Kristy Hill. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1 DDES combined file L01TY401 & L01POO16, application filed and dated July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 2A DDES application for land use permit(s) LOITY401 & LOIP0016, application dated July 6, 2001 2B Zone reclassification application and justification questionnaire with revision received September 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 3A DDES preliminary report prepared 02/20/03 with attachments as follow: 1. Map of rezone from R-4 to R-6 2. Reduced copy of R-6 — 70 lot preliminary plat 3. Reduced copy of R-4 -- alternative 46 lot plat 4. Density calculations for R-6 plat 5. City of Renton January 20, 2003, letter 6. City of Renton June 15, 2001 letter 7. Certificate of water availability dated May 30, 2001 8. School information dated July 12, 2001 9. SWM adjustment approval for L02VO024 dated October 17, 2002 313 DDES addendum report with corrections and additional information regarding schools serving the property, prepared 02/27/03 Exhibit No. 4 Revised environmental checklist received October 14, 2002 Exhibit No. 5 Mitigated determination of non -significance dated December 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 6 Affidavit of posting indicating posting dates of October 3 and 4, 2001. Exhibit No. 7A Site plan (70 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 7B Alternative site plan (46 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 8 Assessors maps (4) for SE 14-23-05 revised 02/23195, NE 14-23-05 revised 04/05/93, NW 14-23-05 revised 10/92, and SW 14-23-05 revised 07/07/97 Exhibit No. 9 Traffic impact analysis by Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. dated June 28, 2001. Exhibit No. 10 Traffic memo dated January 29, 2002, from Garry Struthers Assoc., Inc. Exhibit No. 1 i Preliminary technical information report dated June, 2001, by Haozous Eng., P.S. Exhibit No. 12 Level 3 downstream drainage analysis by Haozous Eng., P.S., dated August 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 13 Addendum (6 pages plus cover) to the level -three study dated December 5, 2002 1_01 P00161L01 TY401—Evendell 22 Exhibit No. 14 Wetland evaluation and delineation report, wildlife habitat evaluation and compensatory wetland mitigation plan by Habitat Technologies, dated May 15, 2001 Exhibit No. 15 Addendum to wetland/stream/wildlife report dated October 28, 2002 Exhibit No. 16 City of Renton three -page certificate of sewer availability dated 6/15/01 Exhibit No. 17 Jaques, Fred & Helga email dated November 1, 2001 Exhibit No. 18 Carlson, Marilynn letter dated November 7, 2001 Exhibit No. 19 Revised alternative R4 plat density calculations received 3/26/02 Exhibit No. 20 Petition from Gwendolyn High (8 pg. + cover), received September 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 21 City of Renton letter received January 22, 2003, with attachments (4 pgs.) Exhibit No. 22 Letter from G. High & M. Rollinger for Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) dated April 5, 2002 with attachments (60 pgs. + cover) Exhibit No. 23 G. High and M. Rollinger, CARE petition to intervene filed on 2/18/03 Exhibit No. 24 DDES planning map (created 7/1/2003) prepared 2/20/2003 showing new development planned in the immediate vicinity Exhibit No. 25 Letter from Greg Zimmerman, City of Renton, dated March 05, 2003 (2/12/03 memo attached) Exhibit No. 26 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency received July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 27 Topographic map provided by City of Renton (aerial photography taken Winter, 1996) subject property in conjunction with Highland Estates Exhibit No. 28 Article from Kinky Journal, "Give Us Some Space, Firefighters Say..." 02/27/2003 Exhibit No. 29 Transportation service areas 2000 map — KCDDES, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 30 Community action strategies sub -area priority ranking map — KCDOT, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 31 Assessors map of East Renton/Briarwood area with coloring Exhibit No. 32 Proposed but not entered into the record -- area map showing nesting sates Exhibit No. 33 Online permit details -- DDES website printouts (18 pg) Exhibit No. 34 Notice of application for the Bales Annexation and pre -zone application, dated January 15, 2003 — City of Renton Exhibit No. 35 Letter from Scott D. Baker, Consulting Arborist dated 2/8/03 Exhibit No. 36 Tree retention/protection buffer site plan alternatives Exhibit No. 37 C.A.R.E. households list (2 pg) Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 39 Tree loss and possible ground water contamination depiction Exhibit No. 40 Sign -in and time donation sheet (3 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 41 Transportation concurrency diagrams for 2001, 2002 & 2003 Exhibit No. 42 a Letter (2 pg) from Don & Janice Milbrath dated March 3, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Kristy J. Hill dated March 6, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Edward and June Hill dated March 6, 2003 d Letter (1 pg) from Charles W. Scoby, Viola M. Scoby, and Geneva D. Scholes dated March 1, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Laurie A. Hindes dated February 26, 2003 f Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 g Letter (1 pg) from Eloise and Claude Stchowiak dated March 6, 2003 h Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby dated Feb. 21, 2003, and March, 6, 2003 j Letter (1 pg) from Richard Savage (undated) Exhibit No. 43 Letter (1 pg) from Dan & Lynn Peterson, also signed by Fred & Helga Jaques (undated) Exhibit No. 44 a Letter (1 pg) from John Nanney dated March 6, 2003 b Letter (1 pg) from Linda Williams dated March 5, 2003 c Letter (1 pg) from Rodney S. Stewart dated March 5, 2003 L01 Poo 1611.01 TY401—Evendel l 23 d Letter (1 pg) from Edward A. Schultz dated March 4, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Joseph Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 f. Letter (1 pg) from Brenda Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 45 a Letter (1 pg) from Richard & Anita Oliphant dated March 5, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Jeff & Karen Sidebotham (undated) d Letter (1 pg) signed by Nancy & Edward Hilton dated March 6, 2003 e Memo (4 pg) from Michael Rae Cooke dated March 4, 2003, with attached resident survey sheet, error notes, and April 3, 2002, memo and attachments (8 pg) to King County Surface Water and Land Management The following items were entered at the March 10, 2003, continued hearing: Exhibit No. 46 Photos (9) provided by Anita Oliphant with commentary (undated) Exhibit No. 47 Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoody dated February 21, 2003 Exhibit No. 48 Letter (1 pg) from Marilynn Carlson dated March 9, 2003 Exhibit No. 49 Letter (2 pg) from Kristy Hill dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 50 Letter (1 pg) from Marsha Rollinger (undated) Exhibit No. 51 Letter (I pg) from Joseph Bostjancic dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 52 Memo (1 pg) from Nick Gillen dated March 7, 2003 Exhibit No. 53 Copy of table #3 from the 20021ssaquah school plan showing "Projected Capacity to House Sudents" Exhibit No. 54 Memo (I pg) from Mark Heckert, Habitat Technologies, dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit No. 55 Gwendolyn High's testimony of March 6, 2003 with cover Ietter dated March 10, 2003 noting correction Exhibit No. 56 Letters from: a Donald & Diane Kezelle (2 pg) - undated b Vanessa Burris (I pg) c Carolyn Ann Buckett (1 pg) d Ronda Bryant (3 pg) dated March 10, 2003 e Michael Rae Cooke (7 pg) dated 3/8/02 f Marsha Rollinger (1 pg) undated g Sally Nipert (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 h Shirley Day (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 i Bill and Donna Mokin (2 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 57 Photos of hawk (2) Exhibit No. 58 DDES revised recommendation/additional conditions dated 3/10/03 JNO:gao/cp L01POO16 LOITY401 RPT Karen Scharer Dept. of Development & Environmental Services OAK-DE_0100 KING COUNTY 1200KingCountyCourthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Signature Report July 1, 2003 Ordinance 14695 Proposed No. 2003-0031.2 Sponsors Sullivan 1 AN ORDINANCE denying the appeal by the applicant and 2 concurring with the recommendation of the hearing 3 examiner to approve, subject to the conditions 4 recommended by the examiner, a preliminary plat of 5 Evendell, on certain property located on the south side of 6 SE 136 h Street, between 158`b Avenue SE and 16& 7 Avenue SE, at the request of U.S. Land Development 8 Association/Centurion, as particularly described in DDES 9 file no. L01P0016. 10 11 12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: 13 SECTION 1. This ordinance does hereby adopt.,and incorporate the findings and 14 conclusions contained in the March 28, 2003 report and recommendation to the King 15 County council by the hearing examiner and adopts as the decision of the council the 16 recommendations by the hearing examiner to deny the application for preliminary plat 17 approval of the proposed plat of 70 lots, received March 26, 2002, and to grant the I King County Hearing Examiner Ordinance 14695 18 application for preliminary approval, subject to the conditions recommended by the 19 examiner, of the proposed 46 lot alternative plat of Evendell, received March 26, 2002, in 20 DDES file no. L01P0016. 21 SECTION 2. The April 18, 2003 appeal by U.S. Land Development 22 Association/Centurion is denied. 23 24 Ordinance 14695 was introduced on 2/3/2003 and passed by the Metropolitan King County Council on 6/30/2003, by the following vote: Yes: 9 - Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Gossett, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 3 - Ms. Lambert, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Hammond Excused: 1 - Ms. Hague KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ATTEST: Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council Attachments Hearing Examiner Report dated March 28, 2003 2 14695 March 28, 2003 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 Telephone (206) 296-4660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL ON APPLICATION FOR REZONE AND ALTERNATIVE APPLICATIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File Nos. L01P0016 & L01TY401 Proposed Ordinance Nos.2003-0031 & 2003-0032 EVENDELL REZONE AND SUBDIVISION Rezone and Alternative Preliminary Plat Applications Location: South of SE 136s between 156 h Ave. SE and 161P Ave. SE Applicant: US Land Development Association/Centurion, represented by Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 — 8`s Drive Southeast Bothell, WA 98021 Telephone: (425) 486-2563 Intervenors: Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell, represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 —158`h Avenue Southeast Renton, WA 98059 and Marsha Rollinger 15646 Southeast 1386'Place Renton, WA 98059 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services Land use Services Division, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-7055 L01 P0016IL01 TY401—Evendell 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPLICATION FOR RECLASSIFICATION (REZONE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions Deny PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (70 LOT ALTERNATIVE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions Department's Final Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Deny PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION (46 LOT ALTERNATIVE) Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions Department's Final Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Examiner: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing Opened: Hearing Closed: March 6, 2003 March 10, 2003 Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. ISSUESlTOPICS ADDRESSED: • Comprehensive Plan Policies U-114, U-120, U-122 • Zone Reclassification Criteria • Changed Conditions or Circumstances • Neighborhood Compatibility • Tree Protection • Traffic Circulation and Impact Mitigation F*0111 • fkyj Deny the application for a reclassification. Deny the application for the 70 lot subdivision as inconsistent with the current zoning. Approve the application for a 46 lot subdivision on 11.39 acres, subject to conditions. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: LOI P001 NLOI TY401—Evendell REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION FINDINGS: 1. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner: U.S. Land Development Association P.O. Box 22200 Seattle, WA 98122 Representative: Michael Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8"' Dr. SE, Bothell, WA 98021 Phone. 425-486-2563 Facsimile: (425) 486-3273 e-mail: michael.j.romano@jzte.net Location: Lying south of SE 136`h St. between 156s Ave. SE and 16(P Ave. SE. Acreage (Reclassification): 13 acres Acreage (70 lot Plat): 12.43 acres Acreage (46 lot Plat): 11.39 acres Zoning: R-4 Proposed Zone: R-6 Proposed Use: Single-family residential Proposed Density(70 lot plat): 5.6 dwelling units per acre (7.4 per net acre) Density (46 lot alternative): 4 dwelling units per acre (5.2 per net acre) Lot Size (70 lot Plat): 3,900 to 6,600 square feet Lot Size (46 Lot Alternative): 5,400 to 14,000 square feet Sewage Disposal: City of Renton Water Supply: King County Water District #90 Fire District: King County Fire District #25 School District: Issaquah Complete Application Date: September 20, 2001 Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) Date of Issuance: December 23, 2002 King County Permits: Rezone & Subdivision Permit Contact: Karen Scharer, Project Mgr H, Current Planning, LUSD Phone no. 296-7114, e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov Community Plan: Newcastle Drainage Subbasin: Lower Cedar River Section/Township/Range: SE 14-23-05 Assessor Parcel nos.: 142305 9022 & 9009 2. The Subdivision Technical Committee (STC) of King County conducted an on -site examination of the subject property. The STC discussed the proposed development with the applicant to clarify technical details of the application, and to determine the compatibility of this project with applicable King County plans, codes, and other official documents regulating this development. As a result of discussions, the applicant presented the STC with a conceptual build out plan of the immediate neighborhood, revised plans for frontage road improvements, and submitted a revised traffic study. The conceptual build out plan provided by the Applicant to DDES does not reflect the intentions or desires of the current owners of the properties shown. Lo IPo03 6/LOI TY401—Eweadell Copies of drainage claims which have been submitted to King County for problems in the area were provided to the applicant, and an updated Level 3 drainage report was submitted December 9, 2002. Under KCC 20.20.070, the request for rezone is not vested under regulations in effect at the time of complete rezone application. Vesting to zoning can only occur after the zone classification becomes effective. The 76 lot plat application is based on the requested rezone to R-6; therefore. the 76 lot plat application is not vested. The applicant's 46 lot alternative plat application is vested under the existing R4 zone. 4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the responsible official of the Land Use Services Division (LUSD) issued a mitigated determination of environmental non -significance (MDNS) for the proposed development on December 23, 2002. This determination was based on the review of the environmental checklist and other pertinent documents, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal would not cause probable significant adverse impacts on the environment if implemented with the required mitigation for the proposal. The MDNS applies to the proposed reclassification, 70 lot plat proposal, and alternative 46 lot plat proposal. Agencies, affected Native American tribes and the public were offered the opportunity to comment on or appeal the determination for 21 days. The MDNS was not appealed by any party, including the applicant, and is incorporated as part of the applicant's proposal. The MDNS states: The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of permit issuance. These mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules, or regulations designated by KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold determination is issued. Key sources of substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed. A. East Drainage Basin: The 160th Ave SE downstream conveyance system shall be upgraded to provide for the 100-year storm capacity. Downstream driveway culverts/ditches and a cross - culvert under 160'h Ave. SE shall be improved as follows: Culverts P-117 and P-116 on the west side of 160'h Ave. SE, cross -culvert P-115, and culverts P-114 and P-113 on the east side of 1600 Ave. SE shall be improved as needed The culvert designations are according to the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering dated August 26, 2002. To address a related localized flooding condition, bank and channel stabilization are also required in the unopened right-of-way for 162"d Ave. SE, in the vicinity of the easterly line of Lot 12, Rich Lea Crest (address 16046 SE 142"d Street). It is estimated that stabilizing and re -grading approximately 50 to 100 feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142"d Street, will be adequate to resolve flooding that has occurred in the past location. The culverts and channel described are located from the south site boundary to a distance of approximately 1, 700 feet downstream. Level 2 Flow Control design is required for the proposed stormwater detention facility. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. LO 1 POO 161L01 TY401—Evendel I B. West Drainagoa Basin: The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed to the Level 3 Flow Control Standard as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As an option, Level 2 Flow Control with downstream improvements can be proposed according to Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shall be Level 2. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. [Comprehensive Plan Policies U-109, E-126, F-254 & F-255; RCW 58.17.1.10] 5. A. Topography: The site is relatively level with a 20-foot difference in elevation from the north central area to the southwest and to the southeast corners of the site. B. Soils: Surface soils on this site per King County Soil Survey, 1973 include: AgC - Alderwood gravely, sandy loam; 6-15 % slopes. Runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. This soil type has a moderate limitation for low building foundations due to a seasonally high water table, and severe limitations for septic tank filter fields due to very slow permeability in the substratum. C. Sensitive Areas: There is a Class II Wetland located on the northeast portion of the site. The 17,162-sq. ft. wetland is classified as palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded/saturated and as palustrine, emergent, seasonally flooded. Road improvements to SE Be Street would require filling of 200-sq. ft of . wetland, for which 400-sq. ft. of wetland enhancement is proposed as mitigation. Road improvements will also impact 6,989-sq. ft. of wetland buffer. Additional buffer area in the NE corner of the site could provide mitigation at a ratio equal to or greater than 2 to L. Improvements to the downstream drainage system will have to be reviewed to ensure that no wetlands are being drained or flooded as a result, no streams placed in pipes, . and no streams damaged by increased flows. Enlarging culverts in sensitive areas, if any, requires clearing and grading permit(s). D. Hydrography: A preliminary June 15, 2001, technical information report was prepared by Haozous Engineering, P.S. on June 15, 2001. Subsequently a Level 3 Downstream Analysis was submitted August 26, 2002, and a Level Three Addendum was submitted December 5, 2002. The site is within the Qrting Hills subbasin of the Cedar River watershed. Flooding has occurred in the past along downstream conveyance structures from the site on 160`s Ave. SE, on 156" Ave. SE, and on nearby properties. These drainage issues are documented in the Level Three Downstream Analyses and Addendum and are addressed by mitigating conditions established in the MDNS. E. Vegetation: The westerly 2.5 acres is mostly covered by pasture with some trees. More than half of the easterly 11 acres is wooded with a conifer upland forest, primarily Douglas fir. The far south of the parcel is developed with pasture; the north central area has been partially cleared as yard area associated with the home L011`0016/L01 TY40I—Evendell G fronting 156 b Avenue SE. The south central area includes deciduous trees and native shrubs. F. Wildlife: A wildlife study of the site was undertaken in conjunction with the wetland evaluation and delineation in 2001. A large variety of small birds and animals were observed on site. Black tail deer and ruffed grouse, both "Priority Species" of Washington State, were observed. A single "State Candidate" species, the pileated woodpecker, was observed to utilize the forested wetland area along with adjacent upland forested area onsite. None of the species identified in the applicant's report are required to be protected in the urban designated area of the County. However with preservation of the wetland and a 50-foot buffer, some habitat will be retained on the site. Additional investigation was made by DDES environmental scientists and the Applicant's consulting biologist in March, 2003, to review the site in response to assertions that a red tail hawk nest exists on the site. The preponderance of the evidence is that there are no red tail hawk or other raptor nests on the subject property. 6. The subject property is within an area east of Renton known as Brierwood, in the southern portion of the Newcastle Community Plan area. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council serves the area under the King County Citizen Participation Initiative. The area within which the property is located is designated "urban residential, 4-12 dwelling units per acre", by the King County Comprehensive Plan. The zoning for the subject property and the surrounding area, generally extending from SE 128"' on the north to SE 144 h and beyond on the south, and from Renton on the west to 168`s Avenue SE and beyond to the east, is zoned R4. The principle exception is the plat of Highland Estates, 60 lots on 8.67 acres lying between 152d Avenue SE and 1541h Avenue SE, on the south side of SE 136's Street. Highland Estates was reclassified from R-4 to R-8 in 2001. Its northwest corner is adjacent to 218 lots under development within the plat of Maplewood in the City of Renton. The southern portion of the plat of Maplewood, which is the portion nearest to Highland Estates, was zoned R-8 by Renton. In 2001, it was being developed with an average lot size of 4,500 square feet in the area closest to the Highland Estates property. Directly west of the Highland Estates site is an undeveloped King County park. Parcels lying to the north were sparsely developed in 2001, and were expected to convert to urban densities. The Examiner in that case also found a potential for higher urban density redevelopment of parcels lying east and southeast of Highland Estates. The neighborhood lying to the south of Highland Estates contained newer residential properties, which were found unlikely to redevelop in the near future. Most of those properties are approximately'/4 acre in size. Impact on the properties to the south was mitigated by not opening 152°d Avenue SE, so as to insulate the lower density neighborhood to the southwest from the impacts of higher density associated with Maplewood and Highland Estates. L01 POO 101L01 TY 401—Evendell Maplewood brought sewer into the neighborhood, which could be extended to serve Highland Estates, and road and traffic requirements for the two plats were found to be interconnected. 7. The developer of the subject property proposes to build a sewer pump station, dedicate right- of-way, construct roads, and make drainage improvements in conjunction with the 70 lot proposed plat, all of which will facilitate urban development in the area. Comprehensive Plan policy U-122 supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone or through density transfers when the proposal will help resolve traffic, sewer, water, parks or open space deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. DDES relies primarily on Policy U-122 as justification for recommending reclassification of the property to R-6. Most of the same improvements also would be built to support the 46 lot alternative plat proposed under the existing R4 zone classification. The impacts from development of 46 lots require similar sewer and surface water drainage improvements, which address major concerns in the area. Recreation and open space deficiencies are met in the same manner by both proposed plats, with only proportionate differences, based on the fewer number of lots in the 46 lot alternative. Neighborhood traffic circulation is the one urban infrastructure concern which is addressed differently by the two plat proposals. The King County Department of Transportation and DDES have identified a need for an east -west street connection from 1560' Avenue SE to 1600' Avenue SE, between SE 128t' Street and SE 1440 Street. SE 136" Street is the most viable option for that connection because of its existing 30 foot wide public right-of-way from 156t' Avenue SE to 1600' Avenue SE. The Applicant would agree to provide additional right-of-way , varying from IS feet to 25 feet, and improvements that would open SE 136"' Street from 15e Avenue SE to 160"' Avenue SE, if the 70 lot plat is approved. If the zone reclassification and 70 lot plat are denied, the developer objects to any requirement for dedication of right-of-way or construction of improvements to provide plat access and neighborhood traffic circulation by way of SE 136 b Street. DDES nonetheless recommends dedication of 18 feet of right-of-way for SE 1361s Street along the frontage of the 46 lot plat, and the Examiner also recommends improvements to the right-of-way to mitigate the impacts of that plat (see finding no. 2 at page 10). 8. KCC 21A.44.060 provides that a zone reclassification shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal complies with the criteria for approval specified in KCC 20.24.180 and 190, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan and applicable community and functional plans. 9. KCC 20.24.180 addresses the requirement for hearing examiner findings and conclusions generally, including a requirement for a conclusion that the examiner's recommendation "will not be unreasonably incompatible with or detrimental to affected properties and the general public." KCC 20.24.180. 10. KCC 20.24.190 addresses applications for reclassifications specifically. It requires that an Examiner recommendation for reclassification of property include findings that support at least one of the circumstances described in that section. The portion of the section applicable to this proceeding is subpart "D", which provides: "The applicant has demonstrated with substantial evidence that: Since the last previous area zoning or shoreline environment designation of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private L01 P4016/LO1 TY401—Evendell development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change not anticipated or contemplated in the subarea plan or area zoning; 2. The impacts from the changed conditions or circumstances affect the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity such that area rezoning or redesignation is not appropriate; For the purposes of this subsection, "changed conditions or circumstances" does not include actions taken by the current or former property owners to facilitate a more intense development of the property including but not limited to changing tax limitations, adjusting property lines, extending services, or changing property ownership; For proposals to increase rural residential density, that the proposal meets the criteria in Comprehensive Plan policies R-205 through R-209; 4. For proposals to increase urban residential density, that the proposal meets the criteria in Comprehensive Plan policies U-118 through U-123; and 5_ The requested reclassification or redesignation is in the public interest. (Ord. 14047 § 12, 2001: Ord. 4461 § 10, 1979). 11. R-4 is the zoning applied to this area by the King County Council. The 1994 Comprehensive Plan and 1995 Area Zoning changed the zoning in this vicinity from SR-15,000 to R4. That zoning was reaffirmed in 2001 with the adoption of the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan amendments. "Official zoning ... is contained in the SITUS file and is depicted on the official zoning maps, as maintained by the Department of Development and Environmental Services." Ordinance 14044, Section 3, February 12, 2001. The current R4 zone classification is consistent with the Urban Land Use policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan. 12. Existing development in the area surrounding Evendell is generally on lots ranging from 15,000 square feet to 1 1/4 acres, with a few smaller and a few larger. Redevelopment and infill will occur over time in much of the area, creating smaller lots, but a substantial portion of the area will remain as currently developed for the indefinite future. The general character of existing development is individually built homes, with yards, gardens, trees and some pasture area and outbuildings, generating an overall impression of a suburban or somewhat rural area. The density of development permitted by the R4 zone classification is greater than that which presently exists in the area. The existing R4 zone classification provides a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre and allows a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre. Maximum impervious surface allowed for a development within the R-4 zone is 55%. The R-6 zone classification requested by the Applicant provides a base density of 6 dwelling units per acre, a maximum density of 9 dwelling units per acre, and maximum impervious surface of 75% of the site. 13. Since the last previous area zoning, the approval and commencement of construction of the proposed plats of Maplewood and Highland Estates have brought sewer closer to the subject property. An additional road connection has been opened to the west and north, by way of L01 P0016/L01 TY401—Evendel l 9 SE 136'' Street, which now connects to SE 128"' Street at 1480, Avenue SE. The subject property, however, has three pre-existing direct connections to SE 128 h Street, by way of 156" Avenue SE, 158"' Avenue SE and 160'f' Avenue SE, which have remained unchanged. The greater proximity of sewer service allows for development of the subject property at the R4 permitted density, as well as at the higher density requested by the Applicant. The King County Comprehensive Plan requires that property in the R4 zone classification be developed with sewers, indicating that the Council's adoption and retention of the R4 zone classification anticipated the availability of sewers in the area. There is no evidence that the closer proximity of sewers was not anticipated at the time of the last area zoning, or that it affects the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change since the last previous area zoning which were not anticipated or contemplated by that area zoning. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that impacts from any conditions or circumstances that have changed since the last previous area zoning affect the subject property in a manner and to a degree different than other properties in the vicinity. Any reclassification of the subject property should be considered legislatively in conjunction with consideration of the appropriate zoning for the area within which the subject property is located. 3. The proposal partially meets the purpose of Comprehensive Plan Policy U122 that supports increases in density to help resolve traffic circulation deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. However, reclassification of the subject property to R-6 would be inconsistent with policy U-120, which provides that, "Ding County shall not approve proposed zoning changes to increase density within the urban area unless: a. The development will be compatible with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood; ... " 4. Reclassification of the Highland Estates property is distinguished from this application by the facts of that case, particularly its location adjacent to the development of 4,500 square foot lots in the City of Renton, the interconnection and overlapping of the road improvements necessary for the development of Maplewood and Highland Estates, and the greater separation of Highland Estates from fully developed properties on larger lots. Reclassification of the property under consideration in this case would result in 13 acres of R- 6 zoned property entirely surrounded by R-4 zoned property. 5. The application for a reclassification of the subject property should be denied. RECOMMENDATION- DENY the application for reclassification. L01 P00161L01TY401—EWDdell 10 APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (70 LOT PROPOSAL) FINDINGS: 1. To the extent applicable, the findings set forth above with respect to the application for reclassification are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The Applicant proposes to develop 70 lots on 12.43 acres, with a density of 5.63 dwelling units per acre. The base density of the R-4 zone permits development of not more than 4 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 50 units, unless augmented by density bonuses or development credits transferred from other sites. No such augmentations are incorporated in the proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed plat exceeds the density allowed for the site by the King County Zoning Code. 2. The application for preliminary plat approval should be DENIED. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the application for preliminary approval of the proposed plat of 70 lots, received March 26, 2002. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL (46 LOT ALTERNATIVE) FINDINGS: To the extent applicable, the findings set forth above with respect to the application for reclassification are incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 2. The proposed development of 46 lots on 11.39 acres is bounded by SE 136'h Street on the north (from 158"' Avenue SE to 16e Avenue SE), and 160O'Avenue SE on the east. SE 136" Street is an unimproved, 30 foot wide, county right-of-way between 156"' Avenue SE and 160'h Avenue SE, with a paved area abutting the proposed plat at the intersection with 1580'Avenue SE. 1600' Avenue SE is a two lane neighborhood collector that runs from SE 125"' Street to SE 144"' Street. The roadway width is approximately 24 feet, with a paved shoulder on the east side of the roadway. It is unstriped. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. The existing construction of 160°' Avenue SE is a rural design. 158'h Avenue SE is also a two-lane neighborhood collector, similar to 16CO Avenue SE, but with little or no dirt shoulders on either side of the roadway. The posted speed limit on 1581i Avenue SE is also 25 mph. Traffic to and from the proposed development is proposed by the Applicant to have access only to 1600' Avenue SE. The intersection of 160'b Avenue SE and SE 128`h Street, a LO 1 POO 161LO1 TY401—Evendell principle arterial, would be the principle route for traffic to and from this plat to the north and west. Level of service at SE 128`h Street and 16e Avenue SE was projected to be "E" for north bound left turns during peak hours for the 70 lot plat, which would have had an alternative route through a signalized intersection (156`h Avenue SE and SE 128'h Street) to the north and west. The level of service for that traffic movement for this proposal during the AM peak hour does not appear to have been analyzed. Traffic circulation to and from the subject property, and neighborhood traffic circulation, would be improved by the provision of alternative routes (1580, Avenue SE currently and 156'h Avenue SE in the future), so that residents of the site could avoid using 1600' Avenue SE for congested traffic movements. Dedication and improvement of right-of-way along SE 136 h Street adjacent to this plat will provide for the enhanced safety and welfare of the residents of this plat and the public. Dedication and improvements consistent with King County Road Standards for an urban subcollector would be proportionate to the impacts of this plat. The Applicant should have the opportunity, if he chooses, to modify the traffic circulation within the plat to provide a direct access to SE 136`h Street, as well as 160'h Avenue SE. As properties in the area are developed or redeveloped to urban densities, improvement of street frontage to urban standards is a reasonable and proportionate requirement to provide traffic circulation for the increasing population of the area. The King County Road Standards, Section 1.03, provides that any land development which will impact the service level, safety, or operational efficiency of serving roads ... shall improve those roads in accordance with these standards. 3. The subject subdivision will be served by the Issaquah School District, which has adopted capacity figures which indicate their ability to accommodate additional students. Students living in the proposed plat would be bussed to and from all schools. The Issaquah School District has adopted a fee of $3,924 for each new single-family residential unit, as a school impact fee. Forty six dwelling units would be added by the proposal to the Issaquah School District. 4. Adequacy of -Arterial Roads: This proposal has been reviewed under the criteria in King County Code 14.70, Transportation Concurrency Management; 14.80, Intersection Standards; and King County Code 14.75; Mitigation Payment System. a. King County Code 14.70 - Transportation Concurrency Management: The Transportation Certificate of Concurrency indicates that transportation improvements or strategies will be in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six (6) years, according to RCW 36.70A.070(6). b. King County Code 14.80 - Intersection Standards: If an alternative route to SE 128'h Street, other than 160`h Avenue SE, is provided, the existing arterial system will accommodate the increased traffic volume generated by this proposal. If 1601h Avenue SE were to be the only route to SE 128"' Street, there is not sufficient information in the record to determine whether or not the intersection of 160`h Avenue SE and SE 128" Street would meet county standards during the AM peak hour with this proposed development. LO 1 P00161L01 TY401—Evendell 12 C. King County Code 14.75 - Mitigation Payment System: King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), requires the payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee (MPS fee) and an administration fee for each single family residential lot or unit created. MPS fees are determined by the zone in which the site is located. This site is in Zone 452 per the MPS/Quarter section list. MPS fees may be paid at the time of final plat recording, or deferred until building permits are issued. The amount of the fee will be determined by the applicable fee ordinance at the time the fee is collected. 5. The nearest public park is located on the southwest comer of 152°d Avenue SE and SE 13e Street. The Applicant has proposed on -site recreation in combination with the on -site detention facility at the southeast corner of the property, and a separate recreation tract adjacent to the north of the combination detention/recreation tract. The details of improvements will be designed and submitted for approval prior to recording the final plat. The area contained in proposed tracts E and F appear sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of KCC 21A.14.180. 6. Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 90 indicates that water is presently available to the site in sufficient quantity to satisfy King County Fire Flow Standards. Prior to final recording of the plat, the water service facilities must be reviewed and approved per King County Fire Flow Standards. 7. Sewage Disposal: A Certificate of Sewer Availability, dated May 18, 2001 indicates the city's capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment 6). A sewage pump station will be constructed on the southeast comer of the plat as the property currently can not be served by gravity flow. By providing a pump station, approximately 37 acres in the immediate area will have sewer available. The existing sewer line will be extended east along SE 13e Street to the subject property to provide connection to Renton's sewer system. 8. Water Supply: The applicant proposes to serve the subject subdivision with water from Water District 90. A Certificate of Water Availability, dated May 30, 2001, indicates this district's capability to serve the proposed development (see Attachment 7). 9. Neighbors on adjacent lots to the west of the proposed plat expressed concerns that trees on their lots would be affected by development activity on the site of the proposal. A 54-foot wide buffer area was requested by the neighbors; an easement protecting the drip line of affected trees near the property line was recommended by the Department. No authority was cited to the Examiner which supports the imposition of a burden on the Applicant's property to protect trees on adjoining properties. CONCLUSIONS: 1. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision will comply with the goals and objectives of the King County Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Codes, and other official land use controls and policies of King County. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, this proposed subdivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water L01 P0016/L01 TY401—Evendell 13 supply, sanitary wastes, parks and recreations, playgrounds, schools and school grounds, and safe walking conditions for students who only walk to school; and it will serve the public use and interest. The conditions for final plat approval recommended below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environment. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recommended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonable and necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat, and are proportionate to the impacts of the development. This proposal is subject to the mitigated determination of environmental non -significance issued December 23, 2002. The conditions of that MDNS must be implemented as conditions of this preliminary plat approval. The impacts of the culvert and channel improvements required in the east drainage basin, for a distance approximately 1,700 downstream from the plat, together with the change in flow volume resulting from development of the subject property, should be analyzed by the Applicant and reviewed by DDES to determine the impacts, if any, downstream from the improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed of Evendell, 46 Iot alternative, received March 26, 2002 subject to the following conditions of final plat approval: 1. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code. 2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. 3. The plat shall comply with the base density (and minimum density) requirements of the R4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R4 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat, whichever is larger. The plat layout may be revised to provide vehicular access to SE 1360, Street as well as 160`s Avenue SE. Other minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the Department of Development and Environmental Services. 4. All construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance No. 11187, as amended (1993 KCRS), except to the extent that variances from those standards are approved by the County Road Engineer. 5. The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection Engineer for the adequacy of the fire hydrant, water .main, and fire flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. L01 Po0161L01 TY401—Evendell 14 6. Final plat approval shall require full compliance with the drainage provisions set forth in King County Code 9.04. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identified the following conditions of approval which represent portions of the drainage requirements. All other applicable requirements in KCC 9.04 and the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) must also be satisfied during engineering and final review. a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and applicable updates adopted by King County. DDES approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. Current standard plan notes and ESC notes, as established by DDES Engineering Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat: All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings # on file with DDES and/or the King County Department of Transportation. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection approval. For those lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, the systems shall be constructed at the time of the building permit and shall comply with plans on file." d. The stormwater detention design shall comply with the Level 2 Flow Control requirements per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). e. The storm water control facility shall be located in a separate tract and dedicated to King County unless portions of the drainage tract are used for required recreation space in accordance with KCC 2IA. 14,180. 7. Drainage adjustment L02V0024 is approved for this project. All conditions of approval for this adjustment shall be met upon submittal of the engineering plans. 8. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the 1993 King County Road Standards(KCRS): a. SE 1370' St. shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. b. The internal loop road(158 h PI SE, SE 138'h ST, and 159"' PI SE) shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standard. C. The short cut-d-sac road off SE 137" ST shall be improved to the urban minor access street standard, unless this street is extended to SE 1368' Street, in which event it shall be improved to the urban subcollector standard. d. FRONTAGE: Eighteen feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the plat frontage on SE 136`h Street (from 158"' Avenue SE to 160"` Avenue SE). The frontage along SE 136"' Street (south side only) and 160'h Ave SE (west side only) shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard. L01 PM 161LO I TY4o 1—Evendell WA The SE 136`h Street frontage from 158`' Avenue SE to 160a` Avenue SE shall be improved to the urban'17 street standard, except that no sidewalk shall be required to be constructed on the north side. e. Tracts A, B, and D shall be improved to the joint use driveway standard per Section 3.01 of the KCRS. f. Tract C shall be improved to the private access tract standard per Section 2.09 of the KCRS. g. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS. 9. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 160'h Ave. SE from those lots, which abut this street. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and final plat. The Applicant may redesign the plat to allow direct access to SE 136's Street for those lots which abut SE 136`' Street and do not abut the internal street system. (Joint use driveway tracts and pipe stems shall not be considered as abutting the internal street system) 10. (See condition 8 above) 11. Off -site access to the subdivision shall be over a full -width, dedicated and improved road that has been accepted by King County for maintenance. If the proposed access road has not been accepted by King County at the time of recording, then said road shall be fully bonded by the applicant of this subdivision. 12. All utilities within proposed rights -of -way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to final plat recording. 13. The applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code I4.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee and administration fee as determined by the applicable fee ordinance. The applicant has the option to either: (1) pay the MPS fee at final plat recording, or (2) pay the MPS fee at the time of building permit issuance. If the first option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the fee in effect at the time of plat application and a note shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads, "AIl fees required by King County Code 14.75, Mitigation Payment System (MPS), have been paid." If the second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the date of building permit application. 14. The proposed subdivision shall comply with the Sensitive Areas Code as outlined in KCC 21A.24. Preliminary plat review has identified the following specific requirements that apply to this project. All other applicable requirements from KCC 21A.24 shall also be addressed by the applicant. a. This site contains a Class 2 wetland. The wetland will be protected from alteration during and after construction, with a 50-foot wide buffer around the wetland boundary. An additional 15-foot building setback is required beyond the edge of the buffer. b. A maximum of 200 square feet of wetland will be filled for construction of SE 136, Street. Mitigation shall consist of at least 400 square feet of wetland enhancement to LO 1 P0016/L01 TY401—Evendell 16 degraded portions of the existing wetland. Road improvements for 160,' Avenue SE and SE 136h Street will eliminate an area of wetland buffer. Mitigation shall consist of providing at least an equivalent area of buffer added to the northeast portion of the site. C. Downstream drainage improvements to existing culverts and stormwater conveyances required through the SEPA MDNS shall cause no adverse alteration to existing wetlands or streams in the vicinity of the drainage improvements. d. Critical Areas staff shall review engineering plans for the plat for conformance with these requirements. 15. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat: RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS Dedication of a sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer conveys to the public a beneficial interest in the land within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, and protection of plant and animal habitat. The sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land subject to the tract/sensitive area and buffer the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer. The vegetation within the tract/sensitive area and buffer may not be cut, pruned, covered by fill, removed or damaged without approval in writing from the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law. The common boundary between the tract/sensitive area and buffer and the area of development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the satisfaction of King County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity on a lot subject to the sensitive area tract/sensitive area and buffer. The required marking or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed. No building foundations are allowed beyond the required 15-foot building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 16. Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements KCC 2IA. 14.180 and KCC 2IA, 14.190 for providing sport court[s], children's play equipment, picnic table[s], benches, etc. a. A detailed recreation space plan (i.e., landscape specs, equipment specs, etc.) shall be submitted for review and approval by DDES and King County Parks prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the engineering plans. This plan shall comply with Ordinance # 14045. b. A performance bond for recreation space improvements shall be posted prior to recording of the plat. L01 P0016/L01 TY401---EVendell 17 17. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction of DDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 18. Street trees shall be included in the design of all road improvements, and shall comply with Section 5.03 of the KCRS and KCC 21A.16.050: a. Trees shall be planted at a rate of one tree for every 40 feet of frontage along all roads. Spacing may be modified to accommodate sight distance requirements for driveways and intersections. b. Trees shall be located within the street right-of-way and planted in accordance with Drawing No. 5-009 of the 1993 King County Road Standards, unless King County Department of Transportation determines that trees should not be located in the street right-of-way. C. If King County determines that the required street trees should not be located within the right-of-way, they shall be located no more than 20 feet from the street right-of- way line. The trees shall be owned and maintained by the abutting lot owners or the homeowners association or other workable organization unless the County has adopted a maintenance program. Ownership and maintenance shall be noted on the face of the final recorded plat. e. The species of trees shall be approved by DDES if located within the right-of-way, and shall not include poplar, cottonwood, soft maples, gum, any fruit -bearing trees, or any other tree or shrub whose roots are likely to obstruct sanitary or storm; sewers, or that is not compatible with overhead utility lines. The applicant shall submit a street tree plan and bond quantity sheet for review and approval by DDES prior to engineering plan approval. g. The street trees must be installed and inspected, or a performance bond posted prior to recording of the plat. If a performance bond is posted, the street trees must be installed and inspected within one year of recording of the plat. At the time of inspection, if the trees are found to be installed per the approved plan, a maintenance bond must be submitted or the performance bond replaced with a maintenance bond, and held for one year. After one year, the maintenance bond may be released after DDES has completed a second inspection and determined that the trees have been kept healthy and thriving. A landscape inspection fee shall also be submitted prior to plat recording. The inspection fee is subject to change based on current County fees. School Mitigation Fees 19. Lots within this subdivision are subject to King County Code 21A.43, which imposes impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and L01 Poo I NU01 TY401—Evendell 18 collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance. SEPA 20. The following have been established by SEPA as necessary requirements to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this development. The applicants shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval. a. East Drainage Basin: The 160th Ave. SE downstream conveyance system shall be upgraded to provide for the 100-year storm capacity. Downstream driveway culverts/ditches and a cross - culvert under 160d Ave. SE shall be improved as follows: Culverts P-117 and P-116 on the west side of 16e Ave. SE, cross -culvert P-115, and culverts P-114 and P-113 on the east side of 160'h Ave. SE shall be improved as needed. The culvert designations are according to the Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis by Haozous Engineering dated August 26, 2002. To address a related localized flooding condition, bank and channel stabilization are also required in the unopened right-of- way for 162°d Ave. SE, in the vicinity of the easterly line of Lot 12, Rich Lea Crest (address 16046 SE 142'd Street). It is estimated that stabilizing and re -grading approximately 50 to 100 feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142°d Street, will be adequate to resolve flooding that has occurred in the past location. The culverts and channel described are located from the south site boundary to a distance of approximately 1,700 feet downstream. Level 2 Flow Control design is required for the proposed stormwater detention facility. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. b. West Drainage Basin (if applicable): The stormwater detention facilities shall be designed to the Level 3 Flow Control Standard as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). As an option, Level 2 Flow Control with downstream improvements can be proposed according to Core Requirement 2 of the KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shall be Level 2. A factor of safety of 5 to 15 percent, determined by the design engineer, shall be required for detention storage volumes. Additional Drainage Consideration: 21. The applicant shall provide additional analysis, to be reviewed and approved by DDES, to assure that downstream improvements, in conjunction with additional runoff volume from the site as developed, will not exacerbate drainage and flooding problems between the termination of the required downstream culvert and ditch improvements and SE 14,e Street. ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2003 James N. O'Connor Hearing Examiner Pro Tern L01 P0010LO I TY 401—Evendell 19 TRANSMITTED this 28th day of March, 2003, to the parties and interested persons of record: 4 Creeks UAC Scott D. Baker Marshall Brenden Attw Claudia Donnelly 7018 47th Ave. NE 18225 SE 128th P.O. Box 3501 Seattle WA 98115 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Ronda Bryant Marilyn Carlson Ronald Coffin 15406 SE 136th Street 13616 - 156th Avae. SE 16015 SE 135th PI_ Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059-6828 Michael Rae Cooke Robert Darrow Shirley Day 13125 158th Ave. SE Haozous Engineering 14412 - 167th PI. SE Renton WA 98059 15428 - 45th Court Renton WA 98059 Mukilteo WA 98275 Roger Dorstad Michelle Hagerman Stephen & Yvonne Hanson Evergreen East Realty 13710 156th Ave. SE 15611 SE 138th PI. PO Box 375 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Redmond WA 98073 Mark Heckert Valerie Hemnes Victor & Gwendolyn High Habitat Technologies 15627 SE 139th PI. 13405 - 158th Ave. SE 606 E Main St. Renton WA 98059-7422 Renton WA 98059 Puyallup WA 98371-1088 Edward & June Hill Edward & Nancy Hilton Kurt Hughes 13527 156th St. SE 13414 - 158th Ave. SE 19112 NE 146th Way Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Woodinville WA 98072-6361 Fred & Helga Jaques Leonard J. Johnston Diane Kazele 13114 - 158th Ave. SE 16016 SE 135th 15657 SE 137th PI. Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Don Kezele Joann Lee Tim & Gina Lex 15657 SE 137th PI_ 13802 - 160th Ave. SE 13116 - 158th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Rebecca Lind Steve Lyman Jerry Marcy 1055 S. Grady Way 14505 - 160th Ave. SE P.O. Box 575 Renton WA 98058 Renton WA 98059 Seattle WA 98111 Heckert, Mark Fred & Gloria Martin Linda Matlock Habitat Technologies 13019 - 160th Ave. SE WA State Ecol. Dept.AVQSW Unit 606 E Maine St. Renton WA 98059 PO Box 47696 Puyallup WA 98371-1088 Olympia WA 98504-7696 Jim McDougal Bill Mokin Eleanor Moon 14502 167th Pl. SE 14404 - 162nd Ave. SE KC Executive Horse Council Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 12230 NE 61 st Kirkland WA 98033 Steven & Peri Muhich John Nanney Sally Nipert 13420 - 160th Ave. SE 16169 SE 146th Pi. 14004 - 1561h Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Gary Norris Florence Nott Dave Nyblom Gary Struthers & Associates 15915 SE 134th Pl. 13606 - 158th Avenue SE 3150 Richards Road #100 Renton WA 98059-6932 Renton WA 98059 Bellevue WA 98005 L01 P0016/L01 TY401—Evendell 20 Richard & Anita Oliphant Dave Petrie David Petrie 16519 SE 145th St. 811 S 273rd Court 811 S. 273rd Ct, Renton WA 98059 Des Moines WA 98198 Des Moines WA 98198 David Platt David Rockabrand Marsha Rollinger 510 Panoramic Dr. Four Creeks UAC 15646 SE 138th Pl. Camano Island WA 98282 11427 162nd Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Mike Romano Geneva Scholes Curtis Schuster Centurion Development Services 12924 - 158th Ave. SE KBS III, LLC 22617 8th Drive SE Renton WA 98059 12505 Bel -Red Rd., Ste. 212 Bothell WA 98021 Bellevue WA 98005 Charles & Viola Scoby Karen & Jeffrey Sidebotham Daniel B. Slaton 13112 -158th Ave. SE 13004 - 158th Ave. SE 15315 SE 133rd Court Renton WA 98059-8531 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Howard Stansbury Peggy Streit Penny Thorbeck US Land Development Association 13512 '- 160th Ave. SE 15650 SE 138th Pl. 22617 - 8th Dr_ SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Bothell WA 98021 David Water Alex Weitz Mr. & Mrs. Bob Wilmot 15635 SE 138th PI. 15646 SE 138th Pl. .13900 - 160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Kurt Wilson Alvin Wolberg Harold & Eleanor Zeek Harbour Homes 16021 SE 136th St. 16612 SE 145th St. 1010 South 336th Street #305 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Federal Way WA 98003 Greg Borba Laura Casey Kim Claussen DDESILUSD DDESILUSD DDESILUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Wetland Review Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 Kristen Langley Carol Rogers Karen Scharer DDES/LUSD LUSD/CPLN DDES/LUSD Land Use Traffic MS OAK-DE-0100 Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100. Larry West Bruce Whittaker DDESILUSD DDESILUSD Geo Review Prel. Review Engineer MS OAK-DE-0100 MS OAK-DE-0100 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $250.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before April I1, 2003. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before April 18, 2003. Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal. EA 1 POO] 6/L01'£Y40I—Evendel1 21 Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 1025, King County Courthouse, 516 3`d Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6 AND 10, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. LOIPOO16 AND LOITY401 James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Karen Scharer, Kristin Langley, Bruce Whittaker and Laura Casey, representing the Department; Mike Romano, representing the Applicant; Marsha Rollinger and Gwendolyn High, representing the Intervenors; and Mark Heckert, Gary Norris, Scott Baker, Michael Rae Cooke, David Rockabrand, Dave Petry, Michelle Hagerman, Sally Nipert, Diane Kazele, Alex Weitz, Fred Jaques, Jim McDougal, John Nanney, Bill Mokin, Anita Oliphant, Vanessa Burris, June Hill, Rhonda Bryant, and Kristy Hill. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1 DDES combined file LOITY401 & LO1P0016, application filed and dated July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 2A DDES application for land use pernrit(s) LOITY401 & L01PO016, application dated July 6, 2001 2B Zone reclassification application and justification questionnaire with revision received September 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 3A DDES preliminary report prepared 02/20/03 with attachments as follow: 1. Map of rezone from R-4 to R-6 2. Reduced copy of R76 -- 70 lot preliminary plat 3. Reduced copy of R-4 — alternative 46 lot plat 4. Density calculations for R-6 plat 5. City of Renton January 20, 2003, letter 6. City of Renton June 15, 2001 letter 7. Certificate of water availability dated May 30, 2001 8. School information dated July 12, 2001 9. SWM adjustment approval for L02VO024 dated October 17, 2002 3B DDES addendum report with corrections and additional information regarding schools serving the property, prepared 02/27/03 Exhibit No. 4 Revised environmental checklist received October 14, 2002 Exhibit No. 5 Mitigated determination of non -significance dated December 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 6 Affidavit of posting indicating posting dates of October 3 and 4, 2001. Exhibit No. 7A Site plan (70 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 713 Alternative site plan (46 lot preliminary plat map) received March 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 8 Assessors maps (4) for SE 14-23-05 revised 02/23/95, NE 14-23-05 revised 04/05/93, NW 14-23-05 revised 10/92, and SW 14-23-05 revised 07/07/97 Exhibit No. 9 Traffic impact analysis by Garry Struthers Associates, Inc. dated June 28, 2001 Exhibit No. 10 Traffic memo dated January 29, 2002, from Garry Struthers Assoc., Inc. Exhibit No. 11 Preliminary technical information report dated June, 2001, by Haozous Eng., P.S_ Exhibit No. 12 Level 3 downstream drainage analysis by Haozous Eng., P.S., dated August 26, 2002 Exhibit No. 13 Addendum (6 pages plus cover) to the level -three study dated December 5, 2002 LO 1 P00161L01 TY401—Evende Il 22 Exhibit No. 14 Wetland evaluation and delineation report, wildlife habitat evaluation and compensatory wetland mitigation plan by Habitat Technologies, dated May 15, 2001 Exhibit No. 15 Addendum to wetiand/stream/wildlife report dated October 28, 2002 Exhibit No. 16 City of Renton three -page certificate of sewer availability dated 6/15/01 Exhibit No. 17 Jaques, Fred & Helga email dated November 1, 2001 Exhibit No. 18 Carlson, Marilynn letter dated November 7, 2001 Exhibit No. 19 Revised alternative R4 plat density calculations received 3126/02 Exhibit No. 20 Petition from Gwendolyn High (8 pg. + cover), received September 23, 2002 Exhibit No. 21 City of Renton letter received January 22, 2003, with attachments (4 pgs.) Exhibit No. 22 Letter from G. High & M. Rollinger for Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) dated April 5, 2002 with attachments (60 pgs. + cover) Exhibit No. 23 G. High and M. Rollinger, CARE petition to intervene filed on 2/18/03 Exhibit No. 24 DDES planning map (created 7/1/2003) prepared 2/20/2003 showing new development planned in the immediate vicinity Exhibit No. 25 Letter from Greg Zimmerman, City of Renton, dated March 05, 2003 (2/12103 memo attached) Exhibit No. 26 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency received July 6, 2001 Exhibit No. 27 Topographic map provided by City of Renton (aerial photography taken Winter, 1996) subject property in conjunction with Highland Estates ' Exhibit No. 28 Article from King County Journal, "Give Us Some Space, Firefighters Say..." 02/27/2003 Exhibit No. 29 Transportation service areas 2000 map — KCDDES, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 30 Community action strategies sub -area priority ranking. map — KCDOT, February, 2001 Exhibit No. 31 Assessors map of East Renton/Briarwood area with coloring Exhibit No. 32 Proposed but nat entered into the record — area map showing nesting sites Exhibit No. 33 Online permit details — DDES website printouts (18 pg) Exhibit No. 34 Notice of application for the Bales Annexation and pre -zone application, dated January 15, 2003 — City of Renton Exhibit No. 35 Letter from Scott D. Baker, Consulting Arborist dated 2/8/03 Exhibit No. 36 Tree retention/protection buffer site plan alternatives Exhibit No. 37 C.A.R.E. households list (2 pg) Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 39 Tree loss and possible ground water contamination depiction Exhibit No. 40 Sign -in and time donation sheet (3 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 41 Transportation concurrency diagrams for 2001, 2002 & 2003 Exhibit No. 42 a Letter (2 pg) from Don & Janice Milbrath dated March 3, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Kristy J. Hill dated March 6, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Edward and June Hill dated March 6, 2003 d Letter (1 pg) from Charles W. Scoby, Viola M. Scoby, and Geneva D. Scholes dated March 1, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Laurie A. Hindes dated February 26, 2003 f Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 g Letter (1 pg) from Eloise and Claude Stchowiak dated March 6, 2003 h Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby dated Feb. 21, 2003, and March, 6, 2003 j Letter (1 pg) from. Richard Savage (undated) Exhibit No. 43 Letter (1 pg) from Dan & Lynn Peterson, also signed by Fred & Helga Jaques (undated) Exhibit No. 44 a Letter (1 pg) from John Nanney dated March 6, 2003 b Letter (1 pg) from Linda Williams dated March 5, 2003 c Letter (1 pg) from Rodney S. Stewart dated March 5, 2003 LO 1 POO 16/LO 1 TY401----Evendell 23 d Letter (1 pg) from Edward A. Schultz dated March 4, 2003 e Letter (1 pg) from Joseph Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 f. Letter (1 pg) from Brenda Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 45 a Letter (1 pg) from Richard & Anita Oliphant dated March 5, 2003 b Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 c Letter (2 pg) from Jeff & Karen Sidebotham (undated) d Letter (1 pg) signed by Nancy & Edward Hilton dated March 6, 2003 e Memo (4 pg) from Michael Rae Cooke dated March 4, 2003, with attached resident survey sheet, error notes, and April 3, 2002, memo and attachments (8 pg) to King County Surface Water and Land Management The following items were entered at the March 10, 2003, continued hearing: Exhibit No. 46 Photos (9) provided by Anita Oliphant with commentary (undated) Exhibit No. 47 Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoody dated February 21, 2003 Exhibit No. 48 Letter (1 pg) from Marilynn Carlson dated March 9, 2003 Exhibit No. 49 Letter (2 pg) from. Kristy Hill dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 50 Letter (1 pg) from Marsha Rollinger (undated) Exhibit No. 51 Letter (1 pg) from Joseph Bostjancic dated March 5, 2003 Exhibit No. 52 Memo (1 pg) from Nick Gillen dated March 7, 2003 Exhibit No. 53 Copy of table #3 from the 2002 Issaquah school plan showing "Projected Capacity to House Sudents" Exhibit No. 54 Memo (I pg) from Mark Heckert, Habitat Technologies, dated March 10, 2003 Exhibit No. 55 Gwendolyn High's testimony of March 6, 2003 with cover letter dated March 10, 2003 noting correction Exhibit No. 56 Letters from: a Donald & Diane Kezelle (2 pg) - undated b Vanessa Burris (1 pg) c Carolyn Ann Buckett (1 pg) d Ronda Bryant (3 pg) dated March 10, 2003 e Michael Rae Cooke (7 pg) dated 318/02 f Marsha Rollinger (1 pg) undated g Sally Nipert (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 h Shirley Day (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 i Bill and Donna Mokin (2 pg) dated March 6, 2003 Exhibit No. 57 Photos of hawk (2) Exhibit No. 58 DDES revised reconunendation/additional conditions dated 3/10/03 JN0:gao/cp L01 PO016 LOl TY401 RPT 14700 June 6, 2003 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 850 Union Bank of California Building 900 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98164 Telephone: (206) 296-4660 Facsimile: (206) 296-1654 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE METROPOLITAN KING COUNTY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division File No. E02CT008 Proposed Ordinance No. 2003-0186 Open Space Taxation (Public Benefit Rating System) and (Current Use Assessment) for Timberland Application of TY HANSEN 23419 Southeast 217th Place Maple Valley, WA 98038 Location of Property: 172xx Southeast 352nd Street Auburn, Washington SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS PBRS: Department's Preliminary: Department's Final: Examiner: Department's Preliminary: Department's Final: Examiner: PRELIMINARY REPORT: Approve 3.3 acres for 50% of market value Approve 3.3 acres for 50% of market value Approve 3.3 acres for 50% of market value Approve 15.08 acres Approve 15.08 acres Approve 15.08 acres The Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division Report on item no. E02CT008 was received by the Examiner on May 14, 2003. E02CTW8-11ansen PUBLIC HEARING: Page 2 of 5 After reviewing the Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on item no. E02CT008 was opened by the Examiner at 9:44 a.m., June 4, 2003, in the Eighth Floor Conference Room, Union Bank of California Building, 900 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, and closed at 9:47 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the King County Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. General Information: Owner: Ty and Kathleen Hansen 23419 SE 217th Place Maple Valley, WA 98038 Location: See "SUBJECT" above Request: Timberland and PBRS HIGH PRIORITY PBRS RESOURCES Aquifer protection area Significant plant, wildlife or salmonid habitat area Please note: Due to property characteristics, the request and recommendation is to amend the original application and apply to PBRS for a portion of parcel #9002 Zoning: RA-5 Acreage: #252105-9002 Total acreage: 10.19 Requested Timberland: 6.89 Recommended Timberland: 6.89 Requested for PBRS: 3.30 Recommended Open Space: 3.30 #252105-9046 Totals 10.19 20.38 8.19 15.08 8.19 15.08 0.00 3.30 0.00 3.30 E02CTDW—Hansen Page 3 of 5 Please note: Following review of the property, it was determined that a portion of parcel #9002 could enroll in the PBRS program. The application has been amended and includes a request for the balance to enroll in the PBRS program. STR: NW-NE-25-21-05 2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in the King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division Preliminary Report to the King County Hearing Examiner for the June 4, 2003, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Copies of the said Report will be attached to the copies of this Report submitted to the King County Council. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Approval of current use valuation for 3.30 acres of the subject property, pursuant to the Public Benefit Rating System adopted by King County Ordinance No. 10511, as amended, would be consistent with the purposes and intent of King County to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in existence adequate open space lands and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social well-being of King County and its citizens. 2. Timely application has been made to King County for the current use valuation of the subject property to begin in 2004. Notice of said application was given in the manner required by law. The subject property contains priority open space resources and is entitled to bonus points pursuant to the King County Public Benefit Rating System, which justify a total award of 10 points. The resulting current use value is 50% of market value for 3.30 acres of the subject property. 4_ The property proposed for current use valuation meets the requirements of KCC 20.36.110, and the subject application for current use taxation as timberland should be approved. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE the request for current use valuation of 50% of market value for 3.30 acres of the subject property, subject to the conditions recommended in the Department of Natural Resources report for the June 4, 2003, public hearing, and APPROVE the subject request for current use taxation, "timberland" classification, for 15.08 acres, subject to the Applicant's compliance with the approved timber management plan and the State of Washington, Department of Revenue, Open Space Taxation Agreement Form REV 64 0022(8-27-99). Current use valuation shall be subject to all terms and conditions of RCW 84.34 and King County Code Chapter 2036, as the same may be amended from time to time, and all regulations and rules duly adopted to implement state law and county ordinances pertaining to current use valuation. E02C I008—Hanscn RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 2003. Stafford L. Smith King County Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 5 TRANSMITTED this 6th day of June, 2003, to the following parties and interested persons: Ty Hansen Susan Monroe, Department of Assessments 23419 SE 217th Place Ted Sullivan, Department of Natural Resources Maple Valley, WA 98038 Charlie Sundberg, Office of Cultural Resources Marilyn Cope, KCC — Committee Staff NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL ACTION REQUIRED In order to appeal the decision of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $250.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before June 20, 2003. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and six (6) copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council an or before June 27, 2003. Appeal statements may refer only to facts contained in the hearing record; new facts may not be presented on appeal. Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 1025, King County Courthouse, 516 3rd Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of this report, the decision of the hearing examiner contained herein shall be the final decision of King County without the need for further action by the Council. Action of the Council is final. The action of the Council on a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the action an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken. E02Cr008—Hansen Page 5 of 5 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4, 2003, PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FILE NO- E02CT008: Stafford L. Smith was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing and representing the Department was Ted Sullivan. No others participated in this hearing. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the hearing record: Exhibit No. 1 Not Submitted Exhibit No. 2 Not Submitted Exhibit No. 3 Not Submitted Exhibit No. 4b PBRS Staff Report for June 4, 2003 Exhibit No. 5a Affidavit of Publication received for June 4, 2003, hearings Exhibit No. 6a Notice of June 4, 2003, hearing from the Office of the Hearing Examiner Exhibit No. 7a Notice of hearing June 4, 2003, hearing from the PBRS Program Exhibit No. 8 Legal notice and introductory ordinance to Council Exhibit No. 9 Application Signed/Notarized Exhibit No.10 Letter to applicant re: received application and approval schedule Exhibit No. I I Assessor mp Exhibit No.12 Ding County Assessor's database Exhibit No.13 Arcview map and orthophoto Exhibit No.14b Site map submitted 4/16/03 Exhibit No.15 Timber Management Plan Exhibit No. 16 3/03 email chain regarding amending application, acreage, and agreement with report Exhibit No. 17 Email request for PBRS Exhibit No. 18 Order vacating report and recommendation of 3/24/03 s1s:►ns E02C X)08 2003-0186 RPT Attachment This document is provided for information only. DO NOT complete and return. A completed copy will be furnished to the Applicant(s) by the Office of the Hearing Examiner after an application has been approved by the Metropolitan King County Council. OPEN SPACE TAXATION AGREEMENT Chapter 84.34 RCW (To be used for "Open Space", "Timber Land" Classification or "Reclassification" Only) Owner(s) Granting Authority Legal Description _ Assessor's Property Tax Parcel or Account Number Department of Natural Resources File Number This agreement between hereinafter called the "Owner", and hereinafter called the "Granting Authority". Whereas the owner of the above described real property having made application for classification of that property under the provisions of Chapter 84.34 RCW. And whereas, both the owner and granting authority agree to limit the use of said property, recognizing that such land has substantial public value as open space and that the preservation of such land constitutes an important physical, social, esthetic, and economic asset to the public, and both parties agree that the classification of the property during the life of this agreement shall be for: Open Space Land Now, therefore, the parties, in consideration of the mutual convenants and conditions set forth herein, do agree as follows: 1. During the term of this agreement, the land shall be used only in accordance with the preservation of its classified use. 2. No structures shall be erected upon such land except those directly related to, and compatible with, the classified use of the land. 3. This agreement shall be effective commencing on the date the legislative body receives the signed agreement from the property owner and shall remain in effect until the property is withdrawn or removed from classification. 4. This agreement shall apply to the parcels of land described herein and shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assignees of the parties hereto. 5. Withdrawal: The landowner may withdraw from this agreement if, after a period of eight years, he or she files a request to withdraw classification with the assessor. Two years from the date of that request the assessor shall withdraw classification from the land, and the applicable taxes and interest shall be imposed as provided in RCW 84.34.070 and 94.34.109. 6. Breach: After the effective date of this agreement, any change in use of the land, except through compliance with items (5), (7), or (9), shall be considered a breach of this agreement, and shall be subject to removal of classification and liable for applicable taxes, penalties, and interest as provided in RCW 84.34.080 and RCW 84.34.108_ 7. A breach of agreement shall not have occurred and the additional tax shall not be imposed if removal of classification resulted solely from: a) Transfer to a governmental entity in exchange for other land located within the State of Washington. b) A taking through the exercise of the power of enrinent domain, or sale or transfer to an entity having the power in anticipation of the exercise of such power and having manifested its intent in writing or by other official action. c) A natural disaster such as a flood, windstorm, earthquake, or other such calamity rather than by virtue of the act of the land owner changing the use of such property. d) Official action by an agency of the State of Washington or by the county or city where the land is located disallowing the present use of such land. e) Transfer of land to a church when such land would qualify for exemption pursuant to RCW 84.36.020. 1) Acquisition of property interests by State agencies or agencies or organizations qualified under RCW 84,34.210 and 64.04130 (See RCW 84.34.108(5)(f)). g) Removal of land classified as farm and agricultural land under RCW 84.34.020(2)(d). h) Removal of land from classification after enactment of a statutory exemption that qualifies the land for exemption and receipt of notice from the owner to remove the land from classification. i) The creation, sale, or transfer of forestry riparian easements. j) 'The creation, sale, or transfer of a fee interest or a conservation easement for the riparian open space program under RCW 76.09.040. 8. The county assessor may require an owner to submit data relevant to continuing the eligibility of any parcel of land described in this agreement. 9. Reclassification as provided in Chapter 84.34 RCW. This agreement shall be subject to the following conditions: It is declared that this agreement specifies the classification and conditions as provided for in Chapter 94.34 RCW and the conditions imposed by this Granting Authority. This agreement to tax according to the use of the property may be annulled or canceled at any time by the Legislature. Granting Authority: Dated City or County Title As owner(s) of the herein -described land I/we indicated by my/our signature(s) that I am/we are aware of the potential tax liability and hereby accept the classification and conditions of this agreement. Owner(s) Dated (Must be signed by all owners) Date signed agreement received by Legislative Authority To inquire about the availability of this notice in an alternative format for the visually impaired or in a language other than English, please call (MO) 753-3217. Teletype CITY) users may call (900) 451-7985. REV 64 0022-2 (8-27-99) Page 1 o1' 1 Scharer, Karen From: Fred Jaques [fredjaques@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:05 PM To: karen.scharer@metrokc,gov 111 Cc: Highlands Neighbors Subject: Response to Evendell Plat Revision L03RE038. Dear Ms. Scharer, Can you please transmit this letter to the Hearing Examiner in charge of the Evendell Plat. Thank you Fred Jaques --------------- Response to Evendell_ Plat_ Revision L03.RE038, Dear Mr. Examiner, January 20, 2004 On March 28th, 2003, the original Evendell application from US Land was rejected by the Hearing Examiner. US Land appealed to the King County Council. However, the King County Council adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendations and rejected the application. An identical 70 lot plat is now being proposed by US Land through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). There is absolutely no difference between the original application and the present application. Since the original application was rejected for violating King County policies, it necessarily follows that the new application must be rejected also. TDRs have no bearing on the merits of the case. Even if TDRs are considered, this application should be rejected. The purpoa w f e IDRs program is to : "... encourage increased residential development density ecia Ty —inside cities, where it can Best commodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services... e E�enclel I development is not inside a city, and the roads and school infrastructure are inadequate to support increased residential density. For the reasons stated above, we strongly recommend that the Evendell Plat Revision Application L03RE038 be rejected. Fred and Helga Jaques 13114, 158th Avenue SE Renton, WA, 98059 Extgbft ICU Item No. LZ 3 9, ZN. Rived 01/21/2004 King County Hearing Eminer C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision — Application L03RE038 Dear Mt. Examiner: I live at 4102 NE 6th PL, which is within the city limits. The increased density of homes that have been constructed east of me impacts me. I support the actions of the Citizen Alliance for a responsible Evendell. I have lived in my residence for seventeen years and the increased congestion and noise on N.E. 4"' and Union Avenue N.E. has become intolerable. I am also very concerned with the destruction of the wetlands immediately east of me. The result of their destruction is the increased flooding that many homeowners are experiencing. I would like to see a plan whereby the infrastructure is upgraded to support the increase in commercial activity as well as the increase in residences. Thank you, Shirley a. Gaunt -Smith I 2 Exhibit No. Item No. Received King Couttqy Hearir>g iner SCHARER, KAREN L03P0005 PROJECT PLANNER DDES/LUSD KingCounty MS: OAK•DE-0100 Department of Developi....... ironmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated D ermination Of Non -Significance for Liberty Grove Contiguous, File No. L03TY401 & L03P0005 Date of Issuance: December 16, 2003 Project: Proposed rezone from R-4 to R-6 and subdivision of the site into 36 lots for detached single family residences and tracts for sensitive areas, recreation and drainage facilities. The applicant proposes to use 4 density credit transfers to plat the 36 lots, if the rezone is denied. Location: The site is located south of SE 136 b Street, between 160.`t' Ave. SE and 162"d Avenue Southeast King County Permits: Rezone and Formal Plat County Contact: Karen Scharer, Program/Project Manager II Phone: (206) 296-7114 e-mail — karen.scharer@metrokc.gov Proponent: Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development PO Box 146 Renton, WA 98057 (425) 228-9150 Existing Zoning: R-4 Exhibit No. Drainage Subbasin: Orting Hills subbasin of Cedar River item N0.JP Section/Township/Range: SE 14-23-5 Received Notes: King County Hearing Examiner A. This finding is based on review of the project site plan received March 11, 2003 for 36 lots; revised Environmental Checklist, dated September 3, 2003; Conceptual Drainage Plan; Level One Downstream Drainage Analysis, Revised July 11, 2003; Drainage Adjustment, approved December 4, 2003 (L03VO065); Wetland Report by Habitat Technologies, dated November 5, 2002; Addendum Wetland Report, H&S Consulting, July 18, 2003; Traffilc Impact Analysis, dated February 7, 2003; and other documents in the file. B. Issuance of this threshold determination does not constitute approval of the permit(s). This proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County policies, codes which regulate development activities, including the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, Road Standards, Surface Water Design Manual, and the Sensitive Areas Regulations. C. The density with this plat of 36 lots would yield an average density of 4.7 dwellings per acre (based on the net buildable area). This density requested is within the density range of 4-12 dwelling units per acre as shown on the Land Use Map of the King County Comprehensive Plan. The lots will mostly be Liberty Grove Contiguous Rezone and Plat - MDNS 1 December 16, 2002 .1 Page 2 5,600 square feet, but would range from 4,400 square feet to 8,700 square feet in area. Most lots would also have a width of 53 to 56 feet. D. The proposed project will send trips into th intersection of So th Avenue Southeast which has, as of June 2003, been placed upon King County DOT's High Accident Location list (1D: HAL #16). The recommended c[1YintermPactrrP is to construct both eas and`wes_t left turn channelization at the int. rsection. These improvement measures are appropriately required prior to King County approving further development that would reduce the level of safety by adding vehicles trips to this intersection. Therefore, due to the additional impacts, i ation of project im a Atthis intgrsection is necessag and could be accomplished with the recomen a roa wi ening and channelization, a ive y, mterr development impacts could be mitigated and improvements at the intersection could be de errs t another local access route would be provided. " The alternative local access route will be il SE 136`h St. between 1 'h E and 160'h Ave. SE. As a result of submittal of a major revision of the plat o Evendell, Southeast 136th Street is again proposed to be constructed by the Applicant oL y&ad,ell. Their proposed irrin InC1,1110e a ' - ' im rovement opposite the frontage of the provosed (L031?0006). Complelinn f the ba anee of the improvements by this Applicant of Liberty rove Contiguous could more HAL identTi ed by King County DOT. Typically, absent a direct connection to this roadway, improvements to Southeast 136th Street by the Applicant for the proposed plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous would not be required as a condition of plat approval. However, by completing the improvements to Subcollector Street (Urban) standards, project -generated trips of the plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous would have an alternative westbound access (towards the City of Renton) along Southeast 128th Street at the signalized intersection of 156th Avenue SE. Additionally, project -generated trips would have the alternative access to SR-169 from plat -generated trips by use of SE 136'h Street (in lieu of traveling northbound on 160`h Ave. SE., making the left turn at the intersection of 128`h Street — the HAL — and another left turn at the 156'h Ave. SE signal). E. Renton will provide sewer service. Extension of a 10" or 12" diameter sewer trunk will be located along SE 136'h St. and a sewage pump station will be required off site to provide service. Threshold Determination The responsible official finds that the above described proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment, provided the mitigation measures listed below are applied as conditions of permit issuance. This finding is made pursuant to RCW 43.21C, KCC 20.44 and WAC 197-11 after reviewing the environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency and considering mitigation measures which the agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal. The responsible official finds this information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of this proposal. Mitigation List The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of permit issuance. These mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules, or regulations designated by KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold determination is issued. Key sources of A Liberty Grove Contiguous Rezone and Plat - MDNS December 16, 2002 Page 3 substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed. Individually, or joint with other area developers, the Applicant shall design and construct improvements to Southeast 128th Street at 1601h Ave. SE to mitigate project impacts at the High Accident Location. Or, the Applicant shall reduce the project impacts at the High Accident Location by completing the remainder of the improvements to Southeast 136th Street (i.e. additional paving, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks), between 158th Avenue SE and 160th Avenue SE, and, revise the channelization at the intersection of 156th Avenue SEISE 136th Street to provide a southbound left turn lane. Comments and Appeals Written comments or any appeal of this threshold determination must be received by King County's Land Use Services Division prior to 4:30 PM, January 9, 2004. Appeals must be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing fee_ Please reference the file numbers when corresponding. Appeals must be in writing and state the perceived errors in the threshold determination, specific reasons why the determination should be reversed or modified, the harm the appellant will suffer if the threshold determination remains unchanged, and the desired outcome of the appeal. If the appellant is a group, the harm to any one or more members must be stated. Failure to meet these requirements may result in dismissal of the appeal. Comment/appeal deadline: Appeal filing fee: Address for comment/appeal: Responsible Official: 4:30 PM on January 9, 2004 $250 check or money order made out to the King County Office of Finance King County Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 ATTN: Current Planning Section Z O Greg Borba, Curr nt lanning Supervisor Date Sidned Current Planning Section Land Use Services Division Date Mailed: December 16, 2003 to Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 Notice of Hearing, Recommendation & SEPA Decision (SEPA Threshold Determination, Type 3 & 4) File No.. L03TY401 & L03P0005 Project Name: Liberty Grove Contiguous DDES Project Manager; Karen J. Scharer (206) 296-7114 or e-mail karen.scharer metrokc: ov Applicant: Wayne .tones Lakeridge Development. PO Box .146; Renton, OVA 98057 (425) 228-9750 Project Location: The site is located south of SE 136' Street, between 160' Ave. SE .and 162t' Avenue Southeast :Project Description: Proposed is Rezone from R-4 to R-6 and suibdivision. of the site into 36 lots for. detached single family;residences and tracts for sensitive areas, recreation and drainage facilities.. The. applicant proposes to use 4 density credit transfers to plat the. 36 lots if the rezone is denied. Permits: Requested: Rezone and Subdivision SEPA Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued December 16, 2003 Department Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner:. Deny Reclassification and Approve the Subdivision subject to conditions Public Hearing Date: February 10,. 2004 at 9:30 A.M. Location of Public Hearing: DDES, Hearing Room -- first floor 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-12:19 t-ommenvAppeai Procedure: Comments on this SEPA determination are welcome. This SEPA determination may also be appealed in writing to the King County Hearing Examiner. A notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Land Use Services Division (LUSD) at the address listed below prior to 4:30 p.m. on January 9, 2004, and be accompanied with a filing fee of $250.00 payable to King County Office of Finance. If a timely Notice of Appeal has been filed, the appellant shall also file a Statement of Appeal with DDES/LUSD at the address listed below prior to 4:30 p.m. on January 9, 2004. The Statement of Appeal shall identify the decision being appealed (including the file number) and the alleged errors in that decision. Further, the Statement of Appeal shall state: 1) specific reasons why the decision should be reversed or modified; and 2) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be based on matters or issues raised in the Statement of Appeal. Failure to timely file a Notice of Appeal, appeal fee or Statement of Appeal, deprives the Hearing Examiner of jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appeals must be submitted to DDES. DDES will issue a written report and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner two weeks prior to the public hearing, Persons wishing to receive a copy should contact DDES/LUSD. Following the close of the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written recommendation for the rezone and a decision for the plat which may be appealed to the Metropolitan -King County Council. Appeal procedures will be stated in the Examiner's written recommendation and decision. Any person wishing additional information on this proposed project should contact DDES/LUSD at the address and/or telephone number listed. Written comments may also be submitted to DDES. A public hearing as required by law will be held to consider the approval of this application. If the Renton School District announces a district -wide school closure due to adverse weather conditions or similar area emergency, the public hearing on this matter will be postponed. Interested parties will be notified of the time and date of the rescheduled hearing. Any questions regarding postponements and rescheduling can be directed to the Hearing Examiner's Office at (206) 296-4660. DDES--Land Use Services Division Attn: Permit Center 900 aakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 December 16 2003 Date Mailed If you have any questions regarding the appeal procedures, please contact the planner at the phone number listed above, If you require this material in braille, audio cassette, or large print, call (206) 296-6600 (voice) or (206) 296-7217 (TTY). AM f King County Department of Development and Environmental Services St nvironmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated etermination Of Non -Significance far Liberty Grove, File No. L03TY403 & L03P0006 Date of Issuance: December 16, 2003 Project: Proposed is a rezone from R-4 to R-6 and subdivision of the 4.6 acre site into 24 lots for detached single family residences and tracts for recreation and drainage facilities. The applicant proposes to use 5 density credit transfers to plat the 24 lots, if the rezone is denied. Location: The site is located north of SE 130 Street, between 158`' Ave. SE and 160a' Avenue Southeast King County Permits: Rezone and Formal Plat County Contact: Karen Scharer, Program/Project Manager II Phone: (206) 296-7114} e-mail — karen.seharer@metrokc.gov 1 Proponent: Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development PO Box 146 Renton, WA 98057 (425) 228-9750 Existing Zoning; R-4 Exhibit No. Drainage Subbasin: Orting Hills subbasin of Cedar River Item No. % Section/Township/Range: SE 14-23-5 Received • Notes: King County Nearing Examiner A. This finding is based on review of the project site plan received March 11, 2003 for 24 lots; revised Environmental Checklist, dated September 3, 2003; Conceptual Drainage Plan; Level One Downstream Drainage Analysis, Revised July 11, 2003; Drainage Adjustment, approved December 4, 2003 (L03VO065); Wetland Report by Habitat Technologies, dated November 5, 2002; Addendum Wetland Report, H&S Consulting, July 18, 2003; Traffic Impact Analysis, dated February 7, 2003; and other documents in the file. B. Issuance of this threshold determination does not constitute approval of the permit(s). This proposal will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable King County policies, codes which regulate development activities, including the Uniform Fire and Building Codes, Road Standards, Surface Water Design Manual, and the Sensitive Areas Regulations. C. The density with this plat of 24 lots would yield an average density of 5.2 dwellings per acre (based on the net buildable area). This density requested is within the density range of 4-12 dwelling units per acre as shown on the Land Use Map of the King County Comprehensive Plan. The lots will mostly be 6,000 square feet in area and have a width of 60 feet. Liberty Grove Rezone & Plat - MDNS December 16, 2002 Page 2 D. The proposed project will send trips into the intersection of Southeast 128th Street at 160th Avenue Southeast which has, as of June 2003, been placed upon King County DOT's High Accident Location list (ID: HAL #16). The recommended countermeasure is to construct both east and west left turn channelization at the intersection. These improvement measures are appropriately required prior to King County approving further development that would reduce the level of safety by adding vehicles trips to this intersection. Therefore, due to the additional impacts, mitigation of project impacts at this intersection is necessary and could be accomplished with the recommended road widening and channelization. Alternatively, development impacts could be mitigated and improvements at the intersection could be deferred if another local access route would be provided. The alternative local access route will be at SE 136`h St. between 156`h Ave. SE and 160`h Ave. SE. As a result of submittal of a major revision of the plat of Evendell, Southeast 136th Street is again proposed to be constructed by the Applicant of Evendell. Their proposed improvements include a 'half -street' improvement opposite the frontage of the proposed plat of Liberty Grove. Completion of the balance of the improvements by this Applicant of Liberty Grove could provide a more attractive alternative route for project -generated trips that would otherwise enter the HAL identified by King County DOT. Typically, absent a direct connection to this roadway, improvements to Southeast 136th Street by the Applicant for the proposed plat of Liberty Grove would not be required as a condition of plat approval. However, by completing the improvements to Subcollector Street (Urban) standards, project -generated trips of the plat of Liberty Grove would have an alternative westbound access (towards the City of Renton) along Southeast 128th Street at the signalized intersection of 156th Avenue SE. Additionally, project -generated trips would have the alternative access to SR-169 from plat -generated trips by use of SE 136'h Street (in lieu of traveling northbound on 160'h Ave. SE., making the left turn at the intersection of 128`h Street — the HAL — and another left turn at the 156`h Ave. SE signal). E. Renton will provide sewer service. Extension of a 10" or 12" diameter sewer trunk will be located along SE 136`h St. and a sewage pump station will be required off site to provide service. Threshold Determination The responsible official finds that the above described proposal does not pose a probable significant adverse impact to the environment, provided the mitigation measures listed below are applied as conditions of permit issuance. This finding is made pursuant to RCW 43.21C, KCC 20.44 and WAC 197-11 after reviewing the environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency and considering mitigation measures which the agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal. The responsible official finds this information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of this proposal. Mitigation List The following mitigation measures shall be attached as conditions of permit issuance for the plat. These mitigation measures are consistent with policies, plans, rules, or regulations designated by KCC 20.44.080 as a basis for the exercise of substantive authority and in effect when this threshold determination is issued. Key sources of substantive authority for each mitigation measure are in parentheses; however, other sources of substantive authority may exist but are not expressly listed. 0. Liberty Grove. Rezone & Plat - MDNS December 16, 2002 Page 3 Individually, or joint with other area developers, the Applicant shall design and construct improvements to Southeast 128th Street at 1601' Ave. SE to mitigate project impacts at the High Accident Location. Or, the Applicant shall reduce the project impacts at the High Accident Location by completing the remainder of the improvements to Southeast 136th Street (i.e. additional paving, concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks), between 158th Avenue SE and 160th Avenue SE, and, revise the channelization at the intersection of 156th Avenue SEISE 136th Street to provide a southbound left turn lane. Comments and Appeals Written comments or any appeal of this threshold determination must be received by King County's Land Use Services Division prior to 4:30 PM, January 9, 2004. Appeals must be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing fee. Please reference the file numbers when corresponding. Appeals must be in writing and state the perceived errors in the threshold determination, specific reasons why the determination should be reversed or modified, the harm the appellant will suffer if the threshold determination remains unchanged, and the desired outcome of the appeal. If the appellant is a group, the harm to any one or more members must be stated. Failure to meet these requirements may result in dismissal of the appeal. Comment/appeal deadline: Appeal filing fee: Address for comment/appeal- Responsible Official: 4:30 PM on January 9, 2004 $250 check or money order made out to the King County Office of Finance King County Land Use Services Division 900 OakesdaIe Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 ATTN: Current Planning Section i Greg Borba, Current Planning Supervisor Date Sigifed Current Planning Section Land Use Services Division Date Mailed: llenember 16, 2003 Notice of Hearing, Recommendation & LandDepartment Development and Environmental Services SEPA Decision Land Use Services Division 900 Qakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 (SEPA Threshold Determination, Type 3&4) File No.: L03TY403 & L03P0006 Project Name: Liberty Grove DDES Project Manager: Karen J. Scharer 206-296-7114 or e-mail karen.scharer metroke. ov Applicant: Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development PO Box 146, Renton, WA 98057 (425) 228-9750 Project Location: The site is located north of SE 136' Street, between 158`d Ave. SE and 160' Avenue Southeast Project Description: Proposed is Rezone from R-4 to R-6 and subdivision of the site into 24 lots for detached single family residences and tracts for sensitive areas, recreation and drainage facilities. The applicant proposes to use 5 density credit transfers to plat the 24 lots if the rezone is denied. Permits Requested: Rezone and Subdivision SEPA Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued December 16, 2003 Department Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner: Deny Reclassification and Approve the Subdivision subject to conditions Public Hearing Date: February 10, 2004 at 9:30 A.M. Location of Public Hearing: DDES, Hearing Room — first floor 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 uommenvAppeal Procedure: Comments on this SEPA determination are welcome. This SEPA determination may also be appealed in writing to the King County Hearing Examiner. A notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES) Land Use Services Division (LUSD) at the address listed below prior to 4:30 p.m. on January 9, 2004, and be accompanied with a filing fee of $250.00 payable to King County Office of Finance. If a timely Notice of Appeal has been filed, the appellant shall also file a Statement of Appeal with DDES/LUSD at the address listed below prior to 4:30 p.m. on January 9, 2004. The Statement of Appeal shall identify the decision being appealed (including the file number) and the alleged errors in that decision. Further, the Statement of Appeal shall state: 1) specific reasons why the decision should be reversed or modified; and 2) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be based on matters or issues raised in the Statement of Appeal. Failure to timely file a Notice of Appeal, appeal fee or Statement of Appeal, deprives the Hearing Examiner of jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Appeals must be submitted to DDES. DDES will issue a written report and recommendation to the Hearing Examiner two weeks prior to the public hearing. Persons wishing to receive a copy should contact DDES/LUSD. Following the close of the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner will issue a written recommendation for the rezone and a decision for the plat which may be appealed to the Metropolitan -King County Council. Appeal procedures will be stated in the Examiner's written recommendation and decision. Any person wishing additional information on this proposed project should contact DDES/LUSD at the address and/or telephone number listed. Written comments may also be submitted to DDES. A public hearing as required by law will be held to consider the approval of this application. If the Renton School District announces a district -wide school closure due to adverse weather conditions or similar area emergency, the public hearing on this matter will be postponed. Interested parties will be notified of the time and date of the rescheduled hearing. Any questions regarding postponements and rescheduling can be directed to the Hearing Examiner's Office at (206) 296-4660. DDES--Land Use Services Division Attn: Permit Center 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 December 16 2003 Date Mailed If you have any questions regarding the appeal procedures, please contact the planner at the phone number listed above, if you require this material in braille, audio cassette, or large print, call (206) 296-6600 (voice) or (206) 296-7217 (TTY)_ C.A.R.E. Response. Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 Who We Are Since November 2001, Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell has been meeting with and recording the concerns of the neighbors who will be most impacted by the subject application. C-A-R.E represents over 80 households and over 150 individuals whose residencies in our community range from one year to more than sixty years. Their contact information, including parcel numbers, is attached. (C-A_R.E- Households List) Gwendolyn High presents this documentation and will speak for C.A.R.E. in this hearing- She is a data analyst, programmer and information technology project manager. She is the elected district representative for this neighborhood on the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, where she serves as Secretary and Transportation Representative. In October 2002 she was appointed the only citizen representative on the King County Transportation Concurrency Advisory Committee. Ms. High is co-founder and current president of CA.R.E. What We Have Accomplished On April 5t', 2002, we delivered our first Response to the original Evendell applications. From the data reported in that submission and other communications with DDES staff, our concerns over drainage impacts were further investigated and found to be factual- The applicant was required to perform a Level III Downstream Analysis and additional drainage mitigation was subsequently required. On March 6th we attended the Public Hearing. Marsha Rollinger and Ms. High acted as Interveners on behalf of the residents of our community- Over 60 people sacrificed their entire day to join together and speak out against the Evendell proposal. There were so many people and so much testimony that the Hearing Examiner had to grant an extension. On the 10th of March, we came back and delivered our closing arguments. In the Report and Recommendation to the King County Council issued March 28th 2003, Hearing Examiner Pro Tern James O'Conner recommended that the application for Zone Reclassification be denied. When US Land appealed to the King County Council, C.A.R.E. submitted a written response to the appeal and participated as a party in the oral arguments before the Council. C.A.R.E.'s efforts were successful; the King County Council ultimately adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. U.S. Land subsequently filed a Land Use Petition in King County Superior Court. C.A.R.E. was named Intervener in the lawsuit and was represented by Peter Eglick of Helsell Fetterman at the Hearing on January 12, 2004. Judge Barbara Fleck is expected to issue a Memorandum of Decision within the week. What We Hope To Achieve The originally proposed 70 lot plat was found to be in violation of multiple King County Comprehensive Plan Policies and rejected. The identical 70 lot plat is now being proposed through the utilization of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). KCC .01 states that the TDR program is "intended to supp ent lagd WaTegulation ... and to encour a increased residential develo ent densimpacts on the natural environment and pu we services... C 21A.37.010 (2) further requires that the use of TDR must be "... ball-nded wifn o s ana policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of ea recetvi si e. The mechanism for achieving R-6 density (TDR instead of zone reclassification) is the only substantive difference between the original and the revised applications. The same Comprehensive Plan policies that precluded the approval of the rezone equally apply to the use of TDR. Additionally.Lpew datafrom the King County Department of Transportation, the Issaquah of ' I' and the City of e�only strengthen the body of evidence previously su i and conclusively indicates the atate of infrastructure 't in this community. The local infrastnucture can not support the requested density and there is no indication -that improvements will ever be constructed to supp; 'E We strongly urge the denial of the Evendell Plat Revision - Application 1-03RE038. EX19M No. Item N0. �-- F*ceiVed - -- Pana 1 of A King Courrty Hearing E=y*W C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 Introduction The argument has been made that the impacts on C.A_R.E. and its members are no different under the requested increased density (equivalent to R-&(gross)) than they are under the current R4(gross) density designation. This argument ignores reality. There is a difference between R-4(gross) and R-S(gross) and that difference is approximately 24 (more than 50% more) newly constructed houses in an area that is approximately the same size. The additio among other things, approximately.50°�b m ffic, and 5D96 rr�are_impervious_ surfaces, as wel! as additional emer enc res onses, and ad`�it�ana! noise. Significantty; is app ication �s approved, C.A.R.1=. an its rnem ers y� a_so like! suffer additional irn��ts in the future as new developers also request increased densities and refer to the ven eii�ecasion as supporting their requests. In particular, C.A.R.E. and its members are interestld in ensunn coordinated and responsible development of our community consistent with state and local zoning laws an regu ations that are aimed at ensuring that gIgglopme t does got Med infrastructure ca ci ,including transportation ca aci .Traffic congestion is already a major problem in this neighbornood. I ne entire plateau Vs served y just one north -south road, 156th Avenue SE. In addition, in light of its topography, substantial physical obstacles stand in the way of future transportation capacity improvements. The proposed Evendell development would add additional traffic to the area and the amount of additional traffic will be directly proportional to the size of the development. C.A.R.E, has serious concerns about the ability of King County and the City of Renton to provide adequate police and fire protection services for this area, either immediately or in the longer term, in the face of rampant new and denser development such as that proposed. C.A.R.E. and its members are alsQ CQ-cemed with otecti sical damage to existing residences and properties as a result of site preparation, construction, and use associated w a ve a ve opme7 -Sach impacts would harm C.A.R.E. members' interests in protecting their property values, along with their privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their property. Any one or more of these interests may be negatively impacted if increased density is allowed for the proposed Evendell development. A. The purpose of the transfer of development rights program is to provide a voluntary, incentive -based process for permanently preserving the rural resource and Urban Separator lands that provide a public benefit. The TDR provisions are intended to supplement lands use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and to encourage increased residential development density, especially inside cities, where It can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: 1. Providing an eftOry4and gredictable i s for rural, resource and Urban Separator land property owners to preserve lands with pu is benefit as describes in K.C.C. 21A.37.020; and 2. Providing an to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving sites are evaluated in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving site. Though the legislation regulating the TDR program supports increased density within the entire area of the Urban Growth Boundary, the statement of purpose e t not all parcels within t arga arn sai iallyble of supe2rtina such iUcreased density. With this documentation, C.A.R_E. will show that the subiect Rarcelis not ca bie of supporting the requests increased density and that approval of the rAn, a - multiple King County Comprehensive Plan policies that are mandated to be balanced when evaluating applications for utilization of the TDR pr . pang 9 of 4 C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision -Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 Infrastructure Capacity The attached ass releases from King County highlight the appropriate application of TDR by setting the receiving sites inside reco n n centers. (March and April 2 Evendell ar ear any urtbgn QgQtp; ith TM-e—sra-BI—shed capacity to meet the needs of the proposed eve opment. (Six Year Plan Maps owing Urban Centers) In July of 2003, the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force issued a Recommendations Report. (Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force) The Task Force report repeatedly cites the major impediment to cities' enthusiasm for annexation to be th critical i prated areas. The Suburban Cities Association responded with a Whi a aper (A Joint City Position) which also emphasizes a infrastructur efcit in Potential Annexation Areas such as the one in which the proposed Evendell is located. Despite the mutually acknowledged existence of significant infrastructure deficit, the Task Force has proposed, and the King County Ex iv as agreed, that not only should the unincorporated area property tax levy, which has always been dedicated to roads and transportation, be redirected to other uses; but that services in the Urban Unincorporated Areas should be reduced or eliminated. The Task Force Conclusions state (in part): "Despite several years of aggressive budget cuts by the County, unless continued steps are taken to trim programs, streamline operations, apply greater management rigor, challenge traditional service delivery mechanisms, shed remaining urban unincorporated areas to cities, and successfully logy the state for additional revenue tools, a steady decline in, the quality of County govemment services is unavoidable. Even if the County is able to make major progress in terms of efficiencies, ultimately it cannot achieve long-term financial stability without the assistance of the state and local governments in this region (particularly those who are stakeholders in annexation)." The King County Executive's Office and the DOT have issued several statements in support of limiting andlor eliminating expenditures within the Urban Unincorporated Areas. In fact, the proposed 2004 Budget includes the initial steps in that direction — specifically the deferral of four major roads projects in the PAAs totaling $5.7 million in 2004 alone. (July 2003 Message to Employees; Budget & Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Panel — 2004 CIP Budget Overview; In Transportation — Facing the Challenges) According to the KCDOT (Community Action Strategies — Subarea Priority Ranking Map), our area is in line behind at least four high priority areas and one medium priority area for any retrofit or new capacity improvements. Additionally, neither the Urban Retrofit nor the Capacity Improvements indicated on the Subarea Priority Ranking Map are either scheduled or funded. This indicates that even with the least impact from the implementation of the Task Force's recommendation, our bad situation will continue to get far worse before there is any attempt at correction. In July 2003, KCDOT updated the status of the intersection of SE 128 St at nue SE to the High Accident Locations Report from #90 to #16. (High Accident Locations epo . .RE. members passionately testified at the Public Hearing in March 2003 on the original Evendell application concerning the current conditions at this intersection. No mention was made of th+�L or this intersection's status on it at the original Public Hearing. These dangerous conditions exist now - before the unn cts of the EvoggW LW -7n unitsl_ Hamilton Place 126 units), Liberty traffic to The issuance of transportation concurrency certificates for densities in excess of the current zoning has artificially pushed the zone out of compliance and prevents any application for development in compliance with current zoning. (King County Concurrency Maps 2001, 2002 and 2003; Concurrency Detail Comparison Graphic) The QQU&area Status Map shows no improvemE driving a zone out of compliance. a single critical link from Since the original Evendell application, the Issaquah School District has amended their School Concurrency Certificate. Thq District Us determined that th tudents between the Evendell site and any of the local schools (Briarwoo nary, Maywood Middle School or Li arty High School) even though they are only blocks away. As a consequence, the District will be required to bus all children. Worse than that, the proposed Parsa 'A Af q C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 .January 22, 2004 development falls outside the standard radius of bus service, so additional funds, at taxpayer expense, are to be provided by the State_ Development Density New residential development in the Urban Growth Area44ould occur ghlrX facilitle REQYided at the lowest public cost and in a Growth varie of housing types and prices, including mobile home parks, multi -family development, townhouses an I - of since family development. presented by C.A.R.E. tes that ad2quate infrastructure capaciU does not be cans r. The requirement for additional taxpayer Tunas to 6us; 11 to schools merely blocks away also clearly violates the "lowest public cost" requirement. 1. Residential Densities The density of eight homes per acre expressed below is a long-term goal and would be an average density of single-family and multifamily developments. Single-family homes will continue to account for most of the land area used for new development in the County. This Ion s'n-gle-family homes more efficiently so are The latest data from King County illustrates that al ro t. (2403 Annual Growth Report - excerpts) 50% of the anticipated groI in King County for the entire 20 year planning cycle has been achieved in the first 38% of that cycle. Even more telling, the Unincorporated Area of the South Subregion, in which the proposed Evendell is located, has achieved 37% of its total 20 year goal in the last 2 years (9% of the total period). (King County Benchmark Report 2003. Land Use - excerpts) This rate far exceeds the anticipated and planned rate of growth, and the impacts are sorely felt in our community. Achieved Density on New Plats and Achieved Density on New Permits far exceeded the Average Planned Density for areas, such as ours, currently zoned 3-5 DU/acre in the South Subregion. Our area is more than meeting its growth targets and fulfilling the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for urban densities inside the UGB. There is no shortage of housing or of housing capacity. The Buildable Lands Evaluation Report 2002 has indicated no such shortage now or in the foreseeable future. (Buildable Lands Evaluation Report 2002 - excerpts) On page 183, the Residential Capacity Analysis for the South County urban unincorporated area, in which the proposed Evendell site is located, states. "The South County Urban Unincorporated Area has a total residential capacity of 17,283 units. Its remaining target to 2012 is 4,935 households. This amounts to a surplus capacity of 12,384 units greater than its target. It has achieved 53% of its target in the first eight years of the twenty year planning period! On page 9 the following summary conclusions are reported for the entire County: King County has well over the capacity needed to accommodate the growth that is expected to occur by 2012_ + Sufficient capacity exists to accommodate further growth beyond the 2012 planning horizon. • All the sub -areas of Fling County show adequate capacity for the target period through 2012, and beyond. The data clearly shows that we have much more than sufficient capacity in this area, and in all of King County, to meet all mandated targets — without approval of any application for densities higher than the current base densities anywhere in the County or at any time within the planning period. To achieve an average density within the Urban Zone, county wide, of up to eight houses per acre, there must be areas with density lower than that average. Where circumstances in a specific area, such as ours, make higher density inappropriate, this provision for the allowance of lower density makes it not only possible, but necessary to allow that lower density to be maintained. The Washington State Office of Financial Management sets the projected growth targets for all local governments. Its 2003 reports show that the rate of population increase has slowed sharply. There is a significant probability that all growth targets inside King County will be lowered as a result of these trends. (State, County, City Populations) PAnA 4 of 4 C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 In 2003 the City of Renton conducted a major study of the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area in which Evendell is located. Like King County's, Renton's Comprehensive Plan is a relatively recent legislative development - the result of the requirement of the Growth Management Act for local jurisdictions to plan for their share of anticipated growth. In 2003, Renton completed a review and update to its Comprehensive Plan. Interestingly, the Evendell, Liberty Grove and Nichols Place applications were critical motivations for these studies_ These applications brought to staffs attention the need to refine the zoning and development standards for this area to provide sufficient authority to ensure that the development of Renton's PAA would allow the achievement of core Comprehensive Plan Polices. (Renton Strategic Planning Department --- Staff Reports of June 3, September 23, October 1, October 10; Renton Planning Commission Recommendation of October 22; Ordinance 5026; and Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2003) As the acknowledged future local government for the East Renton Plateau PAA, the City of Renton is best qualified to evaluate the long term potential for development and the associated costs of such development. The results of their research were dramatic. The assumptions at the start of the process included the option of either confirming the extension of the city's standard base density of R-8(net) throughout the PAA or setting aside 2 limited bonus areas of up to R-6(net) within an area -wide designation of R-4(net). Ultimately, Renton determined that either standard would critically impede the implementation of other of its Comprehensive Plan Policies. The final action resulted in the entire PAA being designated as R-4(net) and new, more stringent, site and building design restrictions being added. Neighborhood Compatibility Compsidential Land Use 3. Increases of Zoning Density While King County supports higher densities in the urban areas, increased densities that would be incompatible with existing neighborhoods or cause significant impacts on roads, services and the environment are discouraged... This policy clearly invokes the "character and scale' criteria of other Comprehensive Plan policies to be applied to TDR applications. This text also includes the active indicator — "discouraged',which further supports C.A.R.E. request that this application be denied. shall not approve proposed an es to increase density within the Urban Area unless. a. The will be compatible with the character an sca a of the surrounding neighborhood: The issue here is the difference between Rural Character and Rural Zoning. This area may now be zoned Urban, but there are still such rural infrastructural configurations as mailboxes at the street - or worse - along only a single side of arterials. The U.S. Post Office refuses to allow any change to the current configuration. Within a two block radius of the subject parcel there are multiple flocks of ducks, geese, and goats as well as at least twenty (20) horses, six (6) cows, two (2) llamas, and at least three (3) roosts of chickens. The proposed development site is completeIX ,mounded by an existing well established neighborhood with a definite rural character. Many of the members of C.A.R.E. have purchased their homes fairly recently, as compared to our neighbors of thirty or more years. The most consistent factor in their decision criteria has been that this community ismne of the 140, olacesin Kind Go= that offs housin on large lots with large trees. Not only will the proposed de ve opment be immediately incompatible w with the c ara er of me exisflng-neignDoM, but the site plan itself completely prevents the possibility of growth of the species or scale of trees to ever mask its presence or mitigate its impact. It will remain an expanse of rooftops and blacktop forever_ The applicant asserts that the adjacent properties have not been developed at higher densities due to lack of services, but ourgr hb`ors, the majority of the owners of the land adjacent to these parcels, have disputed this assertion, and this disputation is in the record. The Kezeles, the Milbraths and the Hagermans have never been, are not now, and to develop at densitie -4. Further, the develoment pattern of the wider grounding neighborhood indicates a we er than R-4 devebpment that as been in p ace since the early 1960s. PAMSofG C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 In 2003, Renton gave notice of a proposed annexation between the subject parcels and the City Limits of Renton. The proposed annexation will maintain zoning comparable to that presently in force. This shows Renton's intent for the long term development of this area. (Hearing Examiner's Record - Applications L01 P0016 and L01TY401: No. 34) U120 defines the overriding criteria in this case. While the application under consideration is not a zone reclassification per se, it asks for significantly increased density, and thus U-120 must be applied in compliance with KCC 21A.37.010. In his recommendations for the original Evendell applications, the King County Hearing Examiner recorded the following in regard to U-120: "Existing development in the area surrounding Evendell is generally on lots ranging from 15,000 square feet to 1 % acres, with a few smaller and a few larger. Redevelopment and infill will occur over time in much of the area, creating smaller lots, but a substantial portion of the area will remain as currently developed for the indefinite future. The general character of existing development is individually built homes, with yards, gardens, trees and some pasture area and outbuildings, generating an overall impression of a suburban or somewhat rural area." These findings still characterize the surrounding area. No other policy may be applied that would violate U-120_ Character exists in every neighborhood, not just the wealthy ones, and by law must be protected. Approval of TDR will create an incompatible island of high density in an area topographically, jurisdictionally and fiscally isolated to such a degree that transportation and other infrastructure improvements will never be feasible. ... King County, when evaluating rezone requests for increases in density, shall notify adjacent cities, special purpose districts and local providers of urban utility service and should work with these service providers on issues raised by the proposal. The City of Renton provides fire protection services for this area of unincorporated King County. This constitutes a kind of functional interlocal agreement for which consideration of Renton's standards for the accommodation of emergency vehicles and zoning must be included in the evaluation of these applications. Renton requires additional site access and road network connectivity, wider and thicker road surfaces with larger turning radii. DDES failed to "work with these service providers" to address these issues even though they were communicated to the department via Renton's letters related to sewer service_ Evendell, and all applications for development in areas for which the City of Renton provides Fire Protection, should require these design standards. "... King County supports increases in urban residential density through a rezone or a proposal to increase density through the density transfer or the density incentive programs help resolve traffics water —_-._ __ _—__ _—___ --- __ ._ aL_ :__—J__a— ____LL_1 _-114 In his recommendations for the original Evendell applications, the King County Hearing Examiner recorded the following in regard to U-122: "DDES relies primarily on Policy U-122 as justification for recommending reclassification... Most of the same improvements also would be built to support the 46 lot alternative plat proposed under the existing R-4 zone classification. The impacts from the development of 46 lots require similar sewer and surface water drainage improvements, which address major concerns in the area." C.A. R.E. supports this finding and finds it directly applicable to the current application for the use of TDR. Traffic King County should seek to improve pedestrian safety both within residential areas and at arterials near pedestrian activity centers such as schools, retail centers, concentrations of housing, transit facilities and trails.... To foster safe walking conditions for students, King County should continue the School Walkway Program. C.A. R.E. strongly supports the recommendation of DDES to require the construction of safe walkways for use by school children. As stated above, Issaquah School District has amended their School Concurrency Certificate for this application. The District has determined that there is no safe walkway for students between Evendell site and any of the local schools (Briarwood Elementary, Maywood Middle School or Liberty High School) even though they are only blocks away. DDES has recommended a condition that requires additional facilities to accommodate school children. C.A.R.E. supports this recommendation. PnnpAnfA C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 US Land has offered only conjecture as to the efficacy of potential improvements to traffic flow to result from the construction of SE 136"' St. Absolutely no data or analysis has been presented to support this assertion. The Statement of Appeal for the original EvendelI made reference of the need for this new connection to improve neighborhood circulation "due to growth in other parts of the area". This assertion is in error. All recent development in the area which is now contributing traffic to the local system has been to the west, inside the Renton City Limits. No traffic from the new development flows to the east anywhere near the proposed S.E. 136'h corridor. According to the Traffic Analysis submitted for the Evendell applications, the vast majority of all traffic expected to utilize the opened S.E. 136th will be from the Evendell plat itself and will travel eastbound on that route. As previously testified in the Public Hearing, the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, in response to persistent public demand, has submitted repeated requests to KCDOT for North/South connectivity through our community. There is not a single request for EastlWest connectivity through our area in the entire archive of the Four Creeks UAC_ We do not need it, and the opening of S.E. 136"' will not provide it. In fact, the qpening of S.E. 136th onto 156th aye will exacerbate existing traffic -problems al. AjLefter option for road improvement would be the ad ' i rc light and St. 128th is a four lane arterial as opposed to 156th which is a two lane arterial, a designated Life tine Route and the only North/South access for the entire plateau. Addition of the intersection of 160th Ave. S.E and S.E_ 128th St. to the High Accident Locations Report makes this point quite convincingly. The eastern projection of the Urban Growth Boundary that surrounds the area of unincorporated King County from the City Limits of Renton to approximately Lake Kathleen, is isolated by topology and jurisdictional boundaries that prevent logical connection and improvements to the local street network. 156�' Ave SE is the only North/South connection serving this entire plateau_ There is no alternative route available to provide additional access or capacity due to the extreme changes in elevation, and the lack of formal interlocal agreements between King County and the City of Renton leaves our community caught between opposing finger -pointers. The Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council, through multiple correspondences with both jurisdictions has been assured by each that the other is responsible to provide transportation capacity_ The resultant situation is that we will never have the capacity available to bring this area back into LOS compliance. Sewer The assertion that construction of the sewer lift station "will result in greater compliance with the Comprehensive Plan" is erroneous. The requirement of sewer has been in place for all developments inside the Urban Growth Boundary since the 200O Comprehensive Plan Update. Special dispensation is not required in response to the proposal to build the lift station_ Such construction is a basic requirement for development of any parcel inside the Urban Growth Boundary. Any development of the proposed site at urban densities, which includes the current designation of R-4, will contribute to the addition of residential capacity within the Urban Growth Boundary as required by the Growth Management Act. A sewer lift station must be constructed regardless of the density to be developed on this parcel. These conditions apply to every property in the vicinity, thus, this parcel has no unique obligation in the regard of sewer availability. As we have previously testified, on -site sewer lift/pump stations are not the only alternative to bring sewer infrastructure to this area_ (Hearing Examiner's Record - Applications L01 P0016 and L01 TY401: No. 39 and No. 55) City of Renton Long Range Waste Water Management Plan / East Cedar River Basin Sewer Collection Report states that Option A (gravity lift station at the Elliot Bridge) is the best option for the following reasons: • Least requirement for force main pipe of all options considered • Lowest cost of all options considered -for both construction and maintenance • Better performance than pump lift station systems • More reliable than pump lift station systems - less chance of environmental damage due to failure If our community must bear an unequal burden in the name of the public interest that would be served by the provision of sewer infrastructure, we are entitled to a system that does not subject us to the potential consequences of an inferior infrastructure. Pane 7 of G C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 Protection of adjacent properties and residents from damage and iniurv: KCC 20,24070(13) The examiners recommendation may be to grant or deny the application or appeal, or the examiner may recommend that the council adopt the application or appeal with such conditions, modifications and restrictions as the examiner finds necessary to carry out the applicable state laws and regulations and the regulations, including chapter 43.21C RCW... In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: (a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations, (b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; presented additional co "ons during the Public Hearing for the original Evendell applications. (DDES Revised Recommendation E onalConditions) Item #21 states: 'Th&Mn line of trees off -site west of the proposed Lots 12-19 shalt be established and easement(s) shall be placed over the drip fine area(s) on the lots of the subject plat. Easement area within the drip line shall be left in a natural state and no grading, placement structures or other improvements shall be allowed. Establishment of the drip line area shall be completed at the time of the engineering review." The King County Hearing 24aminer originally declined to re uir this ninnglanp, citing kiduUdentificafion of 122kative 2AWk.by which to do so. a ieves that the above citations provide the necessary authority. Since submission of this recommended condition by DDES, events have transpired exactly as predicted by C.AR.E. and its expert witness, arborist Scott Baker. During the E..,r.,ar and fail oe owner of the easternmost Lw=delll parcel removed several significant maples a west er. In the wind storm of M _Q4MhQQ_9K VUM sMLTMTee—s7e_1t on and caused several thousands of dollars of damage to the homes on adjacent parcels. (Tree Damage to Kezale and I horback Homes) Diane Kezeie reports that in 30 years of residency there has never been an instance of trees falling is this area, much less precipitating damage on the homes. Nothing but random luck saved the occupants from injury or death" Pang R of Q C.A.R.E. Response: Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038 January 22, 2004 Conclusions The Evendell proposal for increased density is not in the public interest. On the contrary, the proposed while burdening the community I as the real present Over the past two years of steady effort, C.A.R.E. and its members have diligently educated ourselves in the laws of land use, zoning, environmental protection, transportation and sewer concurrency, as well as the protocols of citizen participation in the application of these laws right here in our own backyard. The process has been tedious and frustrating at times, but in the end, we are certain that we have played our part well_ We have participated as is our right and our duty - to ourselves and our neighbors. We now know that our government does hear us, and we are confident that the evidence and concerns that we present here will be considered fairly. of Renton, butt Unincorporated the specific requirements and �f both King County and the City annexations of the Urban We are the Public. Our interest is in protecting our horses, preserving our neighborhood, promoting fair and reasonable use of property to all land owners and preventing harm to our community. We strongly urge the denial of the Evendell Plat Revision - Application L03RE038. Pang 4 of 4 Tom- I O USA: H eL-N i S r First Last Address City state Zip Parcel # Tim and Gina Lex 13116 158th Ave SE Renton WA 9$059 306450E068 Danielle and Davis Ecicstrom 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Rhonda Bryant 15406 SE 136th Renton WA 98059 1423059Do6 Gary Stanford 13111 16M Ave SE Fenton WA 98059 36645WOU Laurie Hindes 14115160 Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059056 Rene and Lilly Threadwell 14005 133rd ST Renton WA 98059 892e000174 Mary Ann Huniu 15642 SE 139 PL Renton jWA 980591 1423059000 Debbie Erickson 16031 SE 135th ST Renton IWA 980591 2ooe00D210 Bob Elwell 16020 SE 130th St Renton WA 98059 1457500054 Roger Paulson 15657 SE 139 PL Renton WA 98059 942s2oo08Q Randy Homer 13404160 Ave SE Rentw. WA 98059 200SOOD03D Sally Nipert 14004156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 14230590- 7 Eloise Stachowiak 15652 SE 139th PL Renton WA 98059 1423o59m Leonard Johnston 16016 SE 135th ST Renton WA 98059 20DOW50 Ray Conwell 1300615M Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Bruce Os oodby Sr. 13456156 Ave Se Renton WA 98059 3W450=61 Esther Delp___12820156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3e$450o1e5 Wendy Downs 13825156th Avenue SE Renton WA 98059 1463400057 Shirlene Day 14412 167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 10812005M Kathleen Quimet 14038 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 14r.X)59= Kerrie Mason 13111 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Don and Diane Kezele 15657 SE 137 PL Renton WA 98059 1423959Ml Charles and Viola Scoby 13112 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 366450o071 Neal Speer 12914 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1so00Ds Bud, June and Kris Hill 13527156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059M Mark and Gail Costello 13012 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3eUSC0041 Jeff and Karen Sidebotham 13004158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36645500M Ed and Nancy Hilton 13414 15M Ave SE Renton WA 980591 38645001 Dave Petrie 811 S 273rd CT Des Moines WA 98198 David Kupcho 13110 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664WOWA Fredy and Helga Jaques 13114 158th Ave Se Renton WA 98059 36645000ee Michael Cooke 13125 158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3$r450Da10 Marilynn Carlson 13616 156th Ave SE Renton WA 198059 1419 K Sarquist 14204 16MAve SE Renton WA 98059 1457%M15 Don D. Milbrath 15624 SE 137th PL Renton WA M59 1423059M Richard Savage 129M 158M Ave SE Renton WA 198059 36645MI00 Geneva D. Scholes 12924158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36645MOM Dale and Don Fisher 13155158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 Bret Bowden 13814160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500096 Gloria Peters 13025158th Ave SE Renton WA 19WS9 366450D1 90 Penny, Dave and DJ Thorbec* 156W SE 13M PL Renton WA 98059 7418000080 Dan and L nn Peterson 13118158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664-NOO 3 Dorothy Riley 14525 167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1as120033D Martha Newton 14518167th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081 Delores Menid 13415163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98M 355900D003D Terri R. Williams 13421 163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3590000M mice Lee 16304 SE 135th Renton WA 98069 359OW0010 Robin and Donna Allred 13412163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 14575=4 Roxi and J.S. GrekW 13420163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 35900W= Warren and Sara Pape 13420162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 145750DO37 Constance and Richard Alen 113411 168rd Ave SE I Renton IWA 98059 Kenneth and Dorothy Olson 116210 SE 134th St I Renton IWA 9W591 146750Do25 Extlibit No. Item No.- Recived "c King County Hewing E=nkW Dave Olson 16206 SE 134th Renton WA 98059 1457500026 Donald Helms 13404 162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1457500036 Bill Mokin 14404 162nd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 108131D190 John and Sharon Nanney 16169 SE 146th PI Renton WA 98059 1081320090 Albert #Crush 14103 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059011 Roger and Shirley Anderson 15813 SE 141st Renton WA 96059 1423059048 Fred and Gloria A. Martin 13019 160th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 36645OW47 Harold and Roxaine Reynolds 13016 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3664500205 Jeff Casebeer 14051 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 5336700015 David Stevens 15910 SE 142nd St Renton WA I W059 1423OSDO52 Ka#nn Monroe 14131 16M Ave SE Renton WA 98059 1423059078 Caro Ann Buckett 16524 SE 145 ST Renton WA 98059 1081200WO Sally and Gary Williams 13204 156th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 3604500M Lona Crossfin 15430 SE 132nd ST Renton WA 99059 1423059116 Sam Tacher 15514 SE 132nd ST Renton WA 98059 1423059116 Brent Flatau and Doryan Jarcell 11453163rd Ave SE Renton WA 98059 14x116 Russ Waterhouse 12925158th Ave SE Renton WA 98059 366450Q161 Gerald Smith 8524 S. 125th Renton WA 98055 7961500020 Calvin and Barbara Chin 14517157th PI SE Denton WA 98059 Harold and Eleanor T_eek 16621 SE 145th Renton WA 98059 10812a0310 Jennifer Armstrong 16613 SE 145th ST Renton WA 98059 10012003D0 Gary and J.Y. Smith 14504 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200290 Michael S. OGs 14521 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 10812MI40 Barbara J. Thomas 14537 166th PI SE Renton WA 98059 1081200160 Richard and Anita Oliphant 16519 SE 145th Renton WA 98059 1081200120 David Ro aiski 16511 SE 145th St Renton WA 98059 10012001/0 .lames and Patricia McDougal 114502 167th PI SE I Renton IWA 98059 1081200590 Paula Chipman 114210171stAyeSE Renton IWA 98059 7ZZ98OD495 (S) King County News release Ron Sim KbV County Executive s H - Neves S d u IF.� March 28, 2000 First Transfer of Development Credits in NW celebrated King County Executive Ron Sims today celebrated the first successful transfer of development credits that will preserve rural areas, prevent sprawl and increase densities in cities. The public private partnership involves sales of 62 "development rights" from the 313-acres McCormick Forest to Port Blakely, the developer of the Issaquah Highlands inside the city of Issaquah. "To keep our rural areas rural, we have implemented effective incentives to compensate rural land owners who `trade' their development rights to ensure it is not developed," Sims explained. "In turn, cities like Issaquah can increase density within their city limits at a higher level than is currently allowed. This innovative transaction is not only the first success of our fledgling Transfer of Development Credits_ program, it is the first such interjurisdictional transfer in the Northwest." Port Blakely paid $2.75 million for the development rights and will be allowed to add 500,000 square feet of commercial space in the Issaquah Highlands. They will also contribute $1 million to Issaquah for construction of the southern central business district bypass. King County has acquired the remaining interest in the Mitchell Hill property for public forestry purposes. Sims said the King County program is modeled after programs in Montgomery County, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado, in which 44,0000 acres and 10,000 acres respectively have been preserved. King County will be just as aggressive in this King County Executive Ron Sims celebrates the first successful transfer of development credits that will preserve rural areas, prevent sprawl and increase densities in cities. Executive Sims recognizes the efforts of Issaquah Mayor Ava Frisinger, King County Councilmember Larry Phillips and Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands Jennifer Belcher in the development of the TDC program and the purchase of the 120-acre Mitchell Hill property. groundbreaking effort as those areas, Sims said. "The purchase of the Mitchell Hill property is finally a reality. After 15 years of work, it is great to see the fruits of our collective labor finally paying off. With the TDC program firmly in place, we have added yet another tool to our arsenal to fight sprawl and its associated negative impacts on our natural environment," said Metropolitan King County Councilmember Larry Philli _s. "Purchase of the Mitchell Hill connector is another shining jewel added to our stock of permanently protected open space to be enjoyed by generations to come. I am proud to have devoted my time and effort to this cause and look forward to seeing more successes in the future." Sims added that such innovative efforts could only be successful by outstanding working partnerships. He recognized the Mountains to Sound Greenway, the city of Issaquah, Port Blakely and the landowner of Mitchell Hill, the Hooker Family Trust. Sims said the Hooker family's patience with the complex public process required for completion of this transaction has resulted in " a permanent legacy for future generations." He also thanked Councilmember Phillips for his work on this project over the last 15 years. "It is projects like this that typify regional cooperation," said Issaquah Mayor Ava Frisinger. "When governments cooperate, much can be accomplished that benefit each partner.,, Sims announced that King County would complete an updated Forest Management Plan in partnership with Issaquah in 2000. The plan's top goal will be to increase biodiversity on site and speed the natural succession process to achieve a mature forest. The property is important for salmon habitat as it drains into the east fork of Issaquah Creek and Patterson Creek in the Snoqualmie River Basin. A soft surfaced trail will also be included. Acquisition negotiations on the adjoining 120-acre Mitchell Hill Partnership property will be completed within the next week. Enlarged view Executive Sims is pictured with the Hooker family; King County purchased the Mitchell Hill property from the Hooker Family Trust for public forestry purposes. "This utilizes Forest Legacy funding administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources," said Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands ,Jennifer Belcher. "The Forest Legacy grants have been a tremendously valuable tool to help us purchase the development rights on very expensive parcels of forest -- forests that are immediately at risk of being developed," said Belcher. "We wouldn't be able to protect key wildlife corridors, water quality and recreation in this area of high population growth without the Legacy program. The US Forest Service continues to be a significant partner with us in the Greenway." Updated: March 28, 2000 Executive's home j Executive's news Executive's schedule I Executive's e-mail King County I Executive I News I Services j Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. King County � News Ron Signs e lino Counter Executive Heine News e E-Mid April 10, 2000 Transfer of Development Credits Program gets a boost Ron Sims applauded the King County Council today for it's unanimous approval of the Denny Triangle Transfer of Development Credits (TDC) Interlocal Agreement. As part of the agreement, qualified rural landowners from the Cedar, Green and Snoqualmie River Basins may now sell their development rights to property owners in the Denny Triangle neighborhood of Seattle. New buildings inside the Triangle can achieve a 30 percent increase in building height only through the acquisition of rural development rights. In exchange for sale of their development rights, rural landowners accept a permanent conservation easement to preserve forest and farm lands, and preclude new residential development. "Today represents an historic leap forward for growth management in the Puget Sound Region," Sims said. "This is the first open-ended TDC agreement between two separate jurisdictions in the Pacific Northwest, allowing transfers of development credits between private rural and urban property owners. Rural forests and farms will be preserved and rural sprawl will be curtailed. I especially want to thank Councilmember. Larry Phillips for his tireless work to make the TDC program a reality." King County will contribute $500,000 for the design and construction of public amenities to make the Denny Triangle neighborhood a vibrant place to live. This will be matched by developer contributions based on the additional square footage acquired under the TDC Program. The interlocal agreement was unanimously adopted by the Seattle City Council in November of 1999. At today's King County Council meeting, Jim Cook, owner of 285 acres in the Cedar River Basin, urged the council to act. "This interlocal agreement is a win -win for everyone. I can sell 56 development credits, allowing me to preserve my 285-acre tree farm property. Without this program, I'm afraid would have had to sell my property to developers." Link to: Transfer of..Developme.nt.Credits.. ..i.lot Program Updated: April 10, 2000 }J L. r Vashon Isl an d to Covington Auburn Pacific :�c.rc C a�nh LEGEND A Day (�) Urban Center Transit Routes Q Manufacturing Center Peak -Only Transit Routes Rural King County N 1 0 1 Miles ® January 31 , 2002 Sample Network: South Subarea Appendix B-3 King County Metro Six -Year Transit Development Plan (February 2002) ,3-11190 Maple Valley Enumclaw l 15ng County be artmem of I TRANSPORTATION Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force to County Executive Ron Sims June 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION Task Force Mission, Process, and Report The general government services provided by King County are fundamental to the quality of life in our region. Criminal justice services, including the superior and district courts, prosecutor and public defender's offices, the sheriff's office, jail and detention facilities, ensure the public safety of our communities. Providing public health services and basic human services, as well as the day-to-day functions of public record keeping, issuing licenses, conducting elections, assessing property and providing treasury services are also County responsibilities. These essential functions comprise the basic governing services and structures that we all rely on, and which are often overlooked because they are so much a part of the fabric of our daily lives. The County's ability to continue to provide these essential government services is in serious jeopardy. Last year, a record $51 million in cuts to general government programs were required in order to balance the County Budget. County Executive Ron Sims indicated that this trend would continue because of the basic limitations of the County's revenue structure. In October 2002, the Executive created the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force ("Task Force"), to provide advice on this challenge. The Task Force is composed of 13 citizens (See Attachment A). The Executive recruited these Task Force members in order to secure a broad range of perspectives and experience. Task Force members come from backgrounds in government, business, labor and the non-profit sector. The mission of the Task Force, as presented by the Executive, is as follows: Examine the County's Current Expense (CA) Fund, programs, policies, processes and budgets, and make recommendations regarding policy and operational changes that may provide appropriate additional cost savings, as well as the need, if any, for additional revenues in support of CX programs. The work of the Task Force will include examination of general government functions and budgets, including but not limited to the courts, sheriff, jail, public health, human services, parks and central government EAM No, 1 Wn No. O FMCOW �_ —O King Gourfy Head firer functions. The Task Force will also review the 2003 budget process and make recommendations about 2004 budget cuts. The Task Force had its inaugural meeting in early November 2002. This was followed by a series of tours of many County general government functions in December. The Task Force then met every two weeks from January through June. All meetings were open to the public. Multiple stakeholder panels were held in order that the Task Force could bear not only from the Executive staff, but also directly from others in government and in the region, including mayors and city managers, judges, the King County Sheriff, the King County Prosecutor, the King County Bar Association, unincorporated area council representatives and County Councilmembers — among others. The Task Force identified three primary tasks for its work: I. Identify short-term and long-term direction/priorities for budget cuts. 2. Identify short-term and long-term operational and other changes to address CX shortfalls. 3. Determine whether there is a structural problem with the County's funding, and if so, are new funding sources required? What type offunding sources? This report presents the Task Force's assessment of the critical fiscal problems facing King County general government and a series of short and longer -tern recommendations to address those problems. We begin with a general description of the challenge. Then, we in turn address four key substantive areas: • Service Priorities for King County; • Administrative and Operational Efficiencies; • Aligning Services and Revenues; and • Revenue Options. In each of these substantive areas, we first present a challenge statement and analysis, then a list of recommendations, including: (1) County action steps (short term and long term); (2) State action steps; and (3) Regional dialogue recommendations. We have reviewed a tremendous amount of information regarding the various general service budgets, the statutory obligations of the County, the limitations placed on it by state law, the array of revenue authorities granted the County, and the policies and practices governing expenditure of those revenues. The complexity of the budget challenge, and the County organization itself, is such that despite our work over the last eight months, we believe it is neither appropriate nor possible for us to offer line -item budget cut recommendations that will erase the ongoing budget deficits facing King County. Rather, this report reflects our assessment of the current direction of the County, poses several questions for further inquiry, and recommends several policy directions and actions that we believe should guide County leaders in managing the budget crisis in the near and longer -term. 2 PART I: KING COUNTY GENERAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL CRISIS: PROBLEM STATEMENT King County's general government operations as currently constituted are not sustainable. Simply stated, the problem is that general revenues are growing at less than two percent per year and general service expenditures are growing at between 5Y to 6'/2. percent per year. Unless things change, County general fund budget cuts are a permanent, annually recurring event. It is important to understand the reasons for this situation, in order to identify solutions. We emphasize at the outset that the solution is not simply a matter of finding new revenue: while ultimately we believe new revenues are required, the County must also address certain basic operations and service delivery decisions. The County has undertaken major budget cuts in general government services in the last two years — together in excess of $90 million. (See Attachment B for a list of the 2001 and 2002 general government budget cuts, by program area). This is the cumulative equivalent of nearly 19 percent of 2003 general government service budgets. General government services are budgeted out of the County's "Current Expense ("CX") Fund," which receives a variety of general revenues sources. I The 2003 CX Fund budget is $492 million.2 The County budget office estimates that status quo Current Expense expenditures will outpace revenue growth by over $20 million each year in 2004 and 2005, with the gap dropping to approximately $15 million in 2006 and each year thereafter.3 Continued status quo service delivery means that the only way to balance the budget each year is to fire more County employees every year and reduce services to the public accordingly: an untenable outcome. We believe that other options must be identified and pursued in order to maintain an adequate level of public services. King County must be first and foremost a deliverer of quality public service. The causes of the current situation are varied, and defy simple resolution. In our work, we found no "easy wins" or "low hanging fruit" — the County has identified and addressed these. There is no "silver bullet" to resolve the problem. The County has clearly made many difficult decisions in the past two years to deal with a serious budget crisis. But further changes in the way services are provided, and managed, are necessary. Ultimately, however, the County cannot resolve this crisis alone. This portion of our report reviews some of the basic facts about general County services and revenues. These basic facts are not well understood by the public, but illustrate the sources of the budget crisis. The average County resident probably has little idea which 1 We use the terms "general fund" and "CX Fund" interchangeably in this report. Technically, the CX Fund is a sub -fund of the "General Fund," constituting over 99 percent of the General Fund budget_ Approximately $4 million in dedicated sales tax revenues is also included within the General Fund budget. 2 The sources of CX Fund dollars, and their application, are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. ' Passage of the May 2003 parks levy will reduce the amount of 2004 budget cuts needed by providing funding directly for regional parks. If approved by Council, the Executive's Solid Waste Initiative would provide additional CX dollars to further reduce the needed 2004 budget cuts. 3 services are provided by the County, or where the money to support these services comes from. The County is largely invisible to residents. However, both County government and the public must understand the current situation, its root causes, and the implication for our region if nothing is done to change the situation. Distinguishing the CX Fund from the Rest of the County Budget. It is important to understand that the County's fiscal crisis is within one small (in terms of percentage) but critical part of County budget. As shown in Table 1, the total County budget in 2003 is in excess of $3 billion. The County's general farad budget — or "Current Expense" (CX) Fund budget — is only about 16 percent of the total annual budget. The rest of the County budget is comprised of programs that are entirely fee supported or have dedicated tax revenues — so-called "enterprise funds" such as regional wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, transit service, and Boeing Field. Additionally, there are capital funds to which revenues have been pledged to pay debt service. These fee and revenue supported services and funds are not in crisis — although they do share some concerns as clients of the internal services that are budgeted out of the CX Fund. Actions taken to reduce the CX budget may, in some cases, have a beneficial "ripple" effect to these dedicated service areas (or, if overhead functions are not flexibly structured such reductions may actually increase central service charges to those agencies). Table 1 2003 Adapted Budget Public Health, roads, 911, i k`° !E''::.: >�� 5oiid Waste, Transit, EMS, Veterans, Mental (��t ( Wastewater, Airport Health, various grants EfiE € € 0sE€4E]r�"�€ e k � }}��;y�y�tre < E 3 - re% q�`Yi73y ,w � t Tt SSh Employee benefits, IT, facilities, finance, workers cmmnersastinn S �E � Debt Service $179.1 m (6%) �K, ' Facility Improvements: The CXfund is the largest sub -fund - within l unor Boeing Field ]ail Seneraidaccounrin Sf Harhoniew County roads ? 99°Gvfal7expenditures Hospital Parks Data source; King County Once of Managementand Badger The Role of the CX Fund. The CX Fund supports a disparate array of general government services, primarily services mandated by the state, as well as a few 9 discretionary services such as parses and human services. In addition, the CX Fund supports the basic internal operations of King County: the Council, Executive, human resources — general overhead functions. With a few notable exceptions ,4 these general government services are not self-supporting through fees: they require tax support. While utility funds contribute their share to support general overhead, there are clear prohibitions in state law preventing the diversion of utility dollars to pay for non -utility functions. Thus, CX programs such as the courts or parks cannot be supported by sewer fees, garbage disposal charges or bus fares. The CX Fund is supported primarily by: (1) a countywide property tax; (2) the County's share of sales tax, collected both inside cities and in the unincorporated areas; (3) fees for service, such as city sheriff contract payments; and (4) transferred revenues from other enterprise functions of the County in payment for services (typically overhead services) provided by CX agencies. Tables 2 and 3 detail the sources and application of revenues to the CX Fund. 4 Treasury services and public records not only cover the cost of operations through fees they generate several million dollars a year that are spun off to support other CX services. 5 Table 3 Parks CIP Miscellaneous ServicesAnternal Support Records, Elections $18m and Licensing Assessors $16 m Council $12 m Human Resources $ 6 m Budget & Finance $ 6 m Contingencies S 5 m Executive $ 3 m Executive Services S 2 m Property Services $ 2 m Business Relations $ 2 m & Econ. Develop. Internal Support $ 2 m Other * S 6 m * Other includes: Ombudsman, Tax Advisor, Board of Appeals, Boundary Review Board, Cable Communications, Auditor, and Hearing Examiner 2003 CX Fund Expenditures Healtb & Human Servioes Public Health $14 m Human Scrvices $ 8 m Children & Family S 4 to Set- Aside Mental Health/ $ 4 m Alcoholism Housing $ .5 m Work Training $ .6 m Memberships $ .5 m 6 ■ Capital Improvement ($9 m) a Miscellaneous Serviceslinternal Support ($84 m) Health & Human Services ($32 m) ■ Law, Safety & Justice ($352 m) 0 Parks, Open Space & DDES ($20 m) Data Source: King Caun(v Office of MNamgemeni mid Budges Law, Safety and Justice Adult & Juvenile $103 m Detention Sheriff $97 m Prosecuting $41 m Attorney Superior Court $32m Public Defense S29 m District Court $20 m Judicial Admin S14 m Contingencies S 7 m Internal Support $ Sot Courthouse $ 1 m Security lnmateWelfare $ 2m Emergency $ I m Management Parks Parks, Pools, King $16 m County Fairgrounds, Rae Programs DDES • $ 3 m Other $ .5 m ' DDES provides code enforcement, planning and fire marshal services for unincorporated King County Root Causes of the Fiscal Crisis. We now turn to a brief examination of what we believe to be the root causes of the current CX budget crisis: • Doing two jabs, defined by the state: The County has a set of expensive, but critical public services that it is required to provide by state law, including both regional and local mandated services. • Decisions made to provide discretionary services: The County has over time chosen to provide many discretionary services. • Service Costs --- which primarily consist of salaries and benefits, are growing each year. • The County has a limited revenue base, dependent upon capped property taxes. There are major limitations on County revenue authority imposed by state law and voter initiative. • Conflicting constituencies and multiple service obligations have led to misalignment of revenues and expenditures. • A complex, politicized, and fragmented organization suffering from a lack of healthy central systems and challenging corporate culture. We address each of these challenges in turn below. Doing two jobs, defined by the state. King County, like all Washington counties, is a creature of the state.-5 Although operating under a voter -approved charter, King County is required by the state to provide a wide array of public services. Whereas counties were originally envisioned to serve as the general government for an overwhelmingly rural population, over time a dual role has evolved, particularly in urbanized counties containing many cities. The County today has a dual role as the local government for unincorporated areas, and as the regional government for the County as a whole. King County provides a broad array of regional services to a population of 1.7 million. At the same time, it provides "city" local services to nearly 350,000 residents in the unincorporated areas — a population equivalent of the second largest city in the state. Even if all residents in the urban area were to incorporate or annex, the County would still be responsible for providing basic government services to rural residents (currently approximately 135,000 in number — equivalent to the second largest city in King County). The complexity of the County's task is made clear by examining a partial list of regional and local mandated service responsibilities: 5 That is, it was initially created by the state (as opposed to cities, which are created by citizen action)- 6 Unincorporated areas are defined as all areas of King County outside of city boundaries, including both rural and urban areas. See Attachment C for a pie chart expressing the current population divisions. 7 Table 4 Regional Service Mandates (*) per state law (+) service obligation approved/created by region's voters *Superior Court *District Court (certain case types) *Public Defender (all felony and some misdemeanors) 'Prosecutor (all felony and some misdemeanors) "Felony Jail "Treasurer *Assessor *Mental Health and Substance Abuse treatment *Sheriff (some statutory authorities) *Public Records *Elections Public Health +Sewage treatment +Transit +Automatic Fingerprint I.D. system +Emergency Medical Services Funding Table 5 Local (Unincorporated Area) Service Mandates (per state law) Roads District Court (misdemeanor offenses) Sheriff Fire Inspections Jail for misdemeanant offenders Prosecution and public defense of misdemeanant offenders Surface water management/storm drainage Building Permits/Zoning/Land-use King County is like a conglomerate that operates dozens of unrelated businesses. The merger of King County and METRO in the mid-1990s completed this picture, moving two very large fee and dedicated tax supported service structures — wastewater and transit — into the County. As noted above, however, the former METRO services are not the source of the CX Fund's budget problem. The mandated services provided out of the CX Fund have evolved significantly over time: • Public health responsibilities today are far more complex than was the case 100 years ago: simply consider the impact of SARS, bio-terrorism and AIDS. • The requirements of our modern judicial system are another example where we see significant evolution in the standards that must be followed, from "Miranda rights" to the dozens of foreign languages spoken by defendants for which translators must be daily provided. • New crimes are added to the books yearly by the state legislature, which increases the number of people the County must arrest, try, prosecute, defend, and provide detention. Major crimes pose a particular burden: the combined cost for investigation, prosecution, and defense of the Ridgeway murder trail will exceed $6.5 million in 2003. • Today, King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention spends over $19 million a year in jail health care for prisoners, including what is in essence the largest mental health care service program in the state. Table 6 shows how much of the available CX dollars are consumed by different CX agencies — and the level of fees and criminal justice sales tax dollars supporting such programs. In terms of dollars, law, safety and justice functions combined consume over 70 percent of the total CX revenue of the County — a percentage that has grown steadily over time. The state mandates these functions, but provides little in the way of financial support. For example, the state retains nearly 40 percent of revenue generated by district court fines and forfeitures but provides no direct financial support in exchange. The only state support of the superior court is to fund one-half of judicial salaries and all judicial benefits, as well as a portion of juvenile court programs. The number of district court judges is set in state statute — the County cannot alter these based on caseload changes absent consent of the state. Washington state ranks 49ih in the nation in providing financial support for the operation of its trial courts.' The state provides little direct funding for the operation of the County's jail function, the prosecutor and public defender offices. The County adult detention {jail) function is the largest single consumer of CX dollars — and each new crime put on the books by the state legislature impacts the average daily population of the County jails. Table b 2003 CX Funded Services: Fees and Charges for Services, CJ Tax Support, and CX Tax Support 5120 r-- - --- S 100 — -- sso - - --- $ so - — — - — —. _— I $ 2l1- �v a e`' o,�+° Gw`.��p 4.ldy�0�\{'�+� eO cle 0.1 kr \mob GHQ _. �o ./j�P � G <P �, � . Revenue -Backed Expenditures (fees and charges for service) * CJ Tax Supported Expenditures ■ CX Tax -Supported Expenditures 7 Source: Washington State office of Administration of the Courts, based on U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice statistics FY 1999 data. 9 Decisions made to provide discretionary services. Over time, the County has chosen to provide a number of discretionary services, in addition to its mandated services. Some of these services are extremely popular with the public, such as the regional parks and open space system. Human services, children and family services, and animal control are other examples of such discretionary services. As law, safety and justice budgets increase, budgets for discretionary services are being cut. The parks budget was slashed by over 30 percent in the last two years and now is preserved only because of passage this May of a special 4-year levy. The human services budget has been cut by similar percentages in this same period. Perhaps the decisions to enter into these service arenas were made without regard to the County's long-term fiscal capacity, perhaps they were an appropriate response to its mission of public service in an increasingly urbanized environment. Regardless, in a very real sense, the County's ability to continue to provide these services is at stake. Services Costs — consisting primarily of salaries and benefits — are growing each year. The fact is that CX Fund services are provided by people. Salaries and benefits constitute over 70 percent of the expenditure of CX Funds. Per employee salaries have been growing at a rate of five percent per year (after considering retirements, new hires, cost of living allowances, and longevity increases). During the past two years elimination of almost 10 percent of the CX workforce reduced the aggregate growth rate in salaries to less than 1 percent per year. However, it will take cuts of similar magnitude each year in the future to keep the growth rate to such level. County employee benefit costs over the last several years on average have grown at an annual rate of nearly 10 percent — on par with private sector experience across the country. However, for the next several years, this rate is expected to grow at around 15 percent per year (also on par with an expected increase in the national rates). While labor costs are a major challenge, the County is constrained by both state laws and County policies in tackling these costs. The County currently has 94 different union bargaining units operating under 66 different union contracts. Over two-thirds of CX program employees are unionized, and this percentage has grown steadily over time. State law requires interest arbitration for sheriff employees and jail guards (as well as transit workers, not a part of the CX budget) — sending wage and working condition impasses to binding arbitration. Most significantly, County labor policies discourage contracting out of work. State case law interprets portions of the County Charter as preventing contracting out in certain situations.8 Union leaders, we are told, much prefer budget cuts be taken through employee reductions — rather than salary or benefit cuts or contracting out of work. this forces the County to cut service levels in order to balance the budget. It must be acknowledged that the County has achieved significant cost savings in working with its unions. For example, the most recent benefits contract (jointly negotiated with the County by all unions), doubled employee medical co -payments, allowing a one-year reduction in growth of benefits to around 1 percent as compared to 8 Joint Crafts Council v. King CounM 76 Wash. App. 18 (1994). 10 the roughly 10 percent annual national average in recent years. Also, through agreement with unions, the County has for the last many years used a national cost of living allowance index for most employees9 that is lower than the regional Seattle -Everett metropolitan area cost of living index. State data suggests that County top managerial salaries lag significantly behind their public and private sector counterparts — an issue that we are told is having negative impact on the County's ability to attract high-level managerial employees. In aggregate, the cost of funding status quo CX services, after considering the cost of salaries, benefits, and all other factors (inflation, growth of service demand, regulatory changes, etc.) is growing at a rate of 5'/z to 61/z percent per year. The County has a limited revenue base, dependent upon capped property taxes. Although the services performed by the County have evolved over time, its fiscal resources to provide these services have changed little since its creation. The County's revenue tools are defined by state law. This includes two separate general property taxes (one levied countywide, the other in the unincorporated areas — currently dedicated by policy to roads), a share of sales tax (collected at one rate within cities, and a higher rate in unincorporated areas), some dedicated property and sales tax authorities (such as real estate excise tax and a share of a regional criminal justice sales tax). The County also has authority to impose a variety of fees (many of which, such as court and licensing fees, are fixed in amount by state law). The County's primary revenues sources for providing regional and local services are listed below in Table 7.13 This table illustrates the County's overwhelming dependence upon property taxes — taxes that have been capped by voter initiative" to an annual growth rate of one percent plus new construction. The revenue and expenditure gap in general County government is thus in the range of 4 percent to 5 percent a year: this is the amount that must be cut each year from CX budgets. To date, the budget gap has been filled primarily by cuts to internal government functions and discretionary services. Human services and parks — discretionary items — have been hardest hit, but all central internal service budgets (overhead functions) have also been targeted, in an effort to preserve regionally mandated services such as public health. The County's budget cutting priorities have been commendable and appropriate to date, but cannot resolve budget problems indefinitely. 9 Workers entitled to interest arbitration are not included in this: state law generally provides their salary increases are based on West Coast public sector comparable salaries. 1OAs noted in Table 7, many of these revenues are not part of the CX fund, Criminal Justice sales tax revenues are budgeted in a separate fund. Unincorporated area property tax levy is dedicated by policy to the County Road Fund. The Conservation Futures tax is dedicated by state law to acquisition of open space. Real Estate Excise Taxes are dedicated by County policy to fund park and recreation capital projects_ Surface water management fees are required by state law to be applied towards storm drainage and similar environmental projects benefiting unincorporated areas. 1 9 Initiative I-747, which went into effect January 1, 2001, caps the growth of property taxes without a vote of the people to 101 percent of the previous years' receipts, plus taxes on new construction. A simple majority of the voters can override this limitation. 11 Regional mandated services can no longer escape significant budget cuts, given current policies and revenues. Unlike cities, counties cannot impose utility taxes or business and occupation taxes. The heavy reliance on property taxes means that unlike cities, the County's revenue challenge does not resolve itself when the region comes out of recession. Should inflation return, the problem becomes even more intractable. Collectively, the County's CX Revenues are expected to grow at an aggregate rate of less than two percent per year for the foreseeable future. Table 7 Major County General Government Revenue Sources (" identifies those revenues included in the CX Fund budget) Revenues collected countywide: *Countywide property tax (maximum rate: $1.80 per $1,000 assessed value) *0.15% of sales tax generated in cities *Countywide special levies (EMS, AFIS) Conservation Futures tax Criminal Justice sales tax (regional allocation per state law) Revenues collected in unincorporated areas only -- Unincorporated area property tax (maximum rate: $2.25 per $1,000 assessed value) *1 % of sales tax generated in unincorporated areas Real Estate Excise Tax dollars collected in unincorporated areas "Gambling taxes collected in unincorporated areas Criminal Justice sales tax (per capital allocation based on unincorporated area population) Surface Water Management Fees Conflicting constituencies and multiple service obligations have led to misalignment of revenues and expenditures. The dual regional and local role of the County has led to confusion and conflict over time about what the County should be doing, particularly as more and more residents live in cities and no longer depend on the County for local services. With nearly two hundred local governments in King County, it is difficult if not impossible to generate consensus around public issues at the governmental level, let alone with the public. The Growth Management Act, and subsequently adopted Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) propose a long-term vision that apparently has substantial support from most of the governments in King County. At its essence, the growth management vision calls for a clear distinction between urban areas and rural areas. King County is to be the provider of regional services and the local government in the rural areas; cities are to be the providers of urban local services. Urban areas should receive urban levels of service, and rural areas should receive lower, rural areas of service. While the CPPs vision seems simple, in practice, it has proven difficult to achieve. As the region has taken steps towards achieving its vision, the results have been less than optimal for King County, Today we observe a major, but we believe largely resolvable, conflict between the County's regional and local responsibilities. 12 The primary challenge is in the County's role in local urban service delivery. While some full -service cities would prefer the County focus on regional mandates, many other cities rely heavily on the County to provide local services under contract.,, The County today has substantial resources dedicated to urban, in -city local service delivery -- although these efforts are largely "revenue -backed" by fees from cities. More significantly, over 210,000 people live in urban areas that are not yet part of cities — equivalent to the second largest city in the state. Thus, over a dozen years into implementing the Growth Management Act, King County remains heavily involved in delivering urban services to areas inside and outside of cities. Some urban unincorporated areas desperately want to be annexed; others want to be left alone. Some cities are interested in annexing neighboring territories; others are not. Annexation is dependent upon several things, chiefly. (1) cities agreeing to assume the territory; and (2) residents agreeing to be annexed.13 The County itself has been ambivalent towards the issue of annexation, sometimes finding it difficult to encourage constituents to turn to cities for services. And, special purpose districts — fire districts, water and sewer districts, among others — can pose significant challenges to annexation as it often means for them both loss of service territory and tax base. 14 The CPPs call for the remaining unincorporated areas to annex or incorporate (with a preference towards annexation) by 2012. Throughout the 1990s there was a wave of annexations and incorporations in King County, as nearly a dozen new cities were formed. Most of the remaining unincorporated urban areas (with notable exception of the Highline/White Center area) have been claimed by cities as part of their future territory — so-called "Potential Annexation Areas" (PAAs). However, the rate of annexation has slowed significantly in the last few years. And, the County has no legal authority to cause the remaining annexations to occur. Areas annexing or incorporating have included key commercial centers — areas that (together with their surrounding neighborhoods) can be self-sufficient as cities, and can provide urban services with a reasonable tax load. As a result, the County has been left with a patchwork of geographically separated unincorporated urban areas to serve — areas that consist primarily of residential areas and largely excluding commercial centers. See map of King County at Attachment D. These areas typically (although not universally) require tax subsidy in order to provide urban services — indeed, a city would typically subsidize these areas from its commercial center or downtown if these areas were annexed. 12 The magnitude of these contract services is significant, and includes areas such as road maintenance, district court, marine patrol, and police services, among others. The sheriff's department reports that over 40 percent of its budget is "revenue backed" from city and other government service contracts. 33 New state legislation appears to create an opportunity for annexation to now occur in certain "islands" of unincorporated territory simply through agreement between the City and County. This could create a major opportunity to accelerate the pace of remaining annexations. 14 A recent highly publicized case with statewide implications was the Grant Counjy Fire District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 145 Wn.2d 702 (2002), in which the District challenged the constitutionality of the petition method annexation — and won. The District sued in response to an effort by the City of Moses Lake to annex a portion of the Fire District. 13 Yn addition to its responsibilities for urban unincorporated area residents, the County is (and by law will remain) the local government for approximately 135,000 rural residents — a population equivalent to the second largest city in King County. The CPPs call for the rural area to receive lower, rural levels of service than are found in urban areas and, because development in rural areas is limited, the CPPs recognize that a regional subsidy is necessary to support local government services to these areas. In sum, the regional land use vision proposes that the County to provide subsidized services to rural areas. And, the practical result of GMA in the last 15 years has been to also leave the County with responsibility for a large urban area that generates relatively little sales tax (compared to commercial areas and high density residential areas in cities). Not surprisingly then, many of the County's local service budgets are subsidized through regionally -generated revenues. As the County Executive outlined in his 2003 Proposed Budget to the Council last Fall, the County proposed to spend nearly $42 million in regionally -generated revenues to provide local services to unincorporated area residents. Of this, $42 million, it is roughly estimated that $15 million is attributable to subsidizing the rural area, and the remaining $27 million to subsidizing the urban unincorporated area. 15 Excluding roads, unincorporated area residents are collectively receiving nearly twice the amount of services than their local taxes pay for. To date, County budgets have not tracked the change in this subsidy over time, nor pinpointed its size within various PAAs.16 The subsidy means that regional services and central government functions are being cut in order to fund local services. Nearly sixty (60) percent of the County's annual locally generated unrestricted revenues come from the unincorporated area property tax levy -- dedicated as a matter of policy since the early 1980s to roads and transportation purposes. This property tax is legally available for any unincorporated area purpose. Cities do not spend this high a revenue percentage on roads. Absent new revenues, as long as the unincorporated area levy remains dedicated to roads, the remainder of local services —particularly law safety and justice expenditures (if provided at any semblance of their current levels) — will be subsidized by regional revenues. Absent new revenues, re -allocating the unincorporated area property tax away from roads towards other local services is one of the only means for the County to avoid further cuts to regional services. But re -aligning "road" revenues cannot solve the problem for any length of time without devastating unincorporated area road programs. 15 The County's current financial system does not track rural versus urban expenditures — something we recommend addressing in the 2004 budget. The $15 million figure is based on inflating the only recent estimate of the rural subsidy, calculated in 1997 to be approximately $12 million. 16 For example, it is suspected — but difficult to prove — that local service budgets have not been cut commensurate with annexations and the subsidy has grown on a per capita basis over time, even accounting for inflation. 14 Ultimately, unless the region fundamentally revisits its growth management plans, the conflict between County's regional and local roles will continue and regional service budgets will suffer — until annexations or incorporations remove urban local service responsibility from the County and/or new revenues are made available to the County to meet these local service obligations. Annexations require city consent and resident support. The County is a necessary player, but does not control annexations. Fortunately, we are seeing unprecedented solidarity from cities as to the need to address the urban subsidy." Because the dollars associated with this revenue/expenditure misalignment are so significant, this is a major area for corrective action. A complex, politicized, fragmented organization suffering from a lack of healthy central systems and challenging corporate culture. King County is an extremely complex organization in terms of service delivery, governance, organizational structure, and culture. The diversity of County operations manifests itself most obviously in dozens of County offices spread throughout King County: County employees in different programs have little or no interface with one another on a daily basis. County employees work out of offices at Marymoor Park, sewage treatment plants in Magnolia and Renton, airport offices at Boeing Field, several sheriff precincts, County health clinics, courthouses in eight cities, and hundreds of buses, each day. The sense of a single, united government is lacking. There are 93 separately elected officials in King County government, some elected countywide, some by district. 18 The Executive and Council are elected on a partisan basis. The multitude of unions, bargaining units, and restrictive overlay of labor policies further complicates County management as we have noted earlier. Budget pressures have resulted in competition between departments for funding. Related to these factors, the County does not have a consistent set of business practices, processes, and systems across all departments and programs. This results in missed opportunities for efficiencies. Central governmental systems at King County suffer from a lack of investment, and a lack. of standard procedures. There is no unified financial system; no single human resources or payroll system; and no budget to achieve these goals. There is no uniform policy for computer hardware or software purchases. The County still relies on mainframe systems for core functions. With limited exceptions, no programs encourage employees to find efficiencies, or to work across government functions to identify possible savings. Recent initiatives to introduce managing for performance and benchmarking are relatively undeveloped, but their introduction, together with the Wastewater Division productivity initiative and unification initiatives sponsored by the Department of Executive Services, evidence a recognition of the need for change. Acknowledging success to date -- and the difcult path ahead. While we have concerns about the internal business functions and practices, we must also acknowledge that the budget cutting activity undertaken by the Executive and Council in the last two years has been significant. The over $90 million in CX fund cuts and savings accomplished in See Attachment F. a Comprised of 1 county executive, 13 county councilmembers, 1 county assessor, 1 county prosecutor, 1 county sheriff, 51 superior court judges, 25 district court judges. 15 these recent budgets has been painful and has required strong leadership. County government is facing up to its budget challenges. The fact is, however, that the budget cutting "degree of difficulty" increases every year: cuts and changes rejected last year as too painful are among the only options left on the table this year. At this point, we see no remaining easy fixes or "silver bullets." Managing the budget challenge this year and in the future will require many smaller actions, and patience. It will require challenging the way County government has traditionally managed and provided service. It will mean a commitment to sharing the pain in all areas, to finding efficiencies at all levels of County government. It means managing for the long-term, rather than the immediate crisis. PART U. WHAT IS THE COUNTY'S ROLE? SERVICE PRIORITIES, SERVICE LEVELS The Challenge: Facing a significant annually recurring gap between revenues and expenditures, what should be the County's service priorities? Are there services or programs that the County can no longer provide? For King County, the vast majority of services provided not only have their own constituency, they are mandated by the state. While specific aspects of programs may be eliminated, or provided in a different way, some actions are not tenable, for example, the County cannot stop operating superior court. Yet, the question: "what is the County's role?" has come up repeatedly throughout our deliberations. Analysis_. The County's mission, vision statement and goals provide little guidance in the quest for prioritizing or culling programs.19 Within the context of considering reductions in previous years' budgets, the County has employed sensible criteria for making budget reductions, which bear repeating: • Direct services prioritized over administrative functions (unless necessary to assure adequate oversight and control); • Mandatory services prioritized over discretionary services; • Regional services prioritized over local services; • Unincorporated services prioritized over in -city services (e.g., parks); • Raising fees prioritized over cutting services; • Full cost recovery for contracts; and • Limited subsidy of rural areas per GMAICPPs. ;9 King County's current adopted Mission, Vision statement and goals are: Mission: Enhance icing County's quality of life and support its economic vitality by providing high -quality, cost-effective, valued services to our customers. Vision: King County — Leading the region in shaping a better tomorrow. Goals: 1. Promote the health, safety and well being of our communities. 2. Enrich the lives of our residents. 3. Protect the natural environment_ 4. Promote transportation solutions. 5. Increase public confidence through cost-effective and customer -focused essential services. 16 These criteria are appropriate. But, given: the extent of budget cuts to date; the large number of mandated regional and local services that the County provides; citizen and city concern over discretionary service cuts (particularly in parks and human services); limits in state law and the market to further increasing many fees for service; and the fragile condition of basic County central government systems, these criteria will be less helpful in the future. The County must now determine if there are any services that can be completely eliminated, or significantly scaled back.20 And, new criteria must be developed to guide budget decisions. Our review suggests the following three general categories of activity in which the County is now engaged: (1) Regional activities around which there seems to be consensus that the County's role is appropriate; (2) Regional activities generating a number of possible questions/alternatives; and (3) Clearly local activities. We acknowledge up front that others will disagree with our categorization — indeed, this is inevitably a somewhat subjective exercise, which accounts for the ongoing disputes as to the appropriate role of the County. Beginning with the first category, there appears to be consensus, (except as noted parenthetically), that the County is the appropriate Regional Service Provider for: • Sewage treatment (not a direct CX issue. Note: service area covers only part of County); • Transit service (not a direct CX issue. Subject to discussion of multi -county delivery, consolidation of transportation systems); • Superior court (state mandate); • Public defender (state mandate); • Prosecutor (state mandate); • Felony jail (state mandate); • Treasurer (state mandate); • Assessor (state mandate); • Public records (state mandate); • Elections (state mandate); District Court (unique jurisdiction for small claims cases and certain other filings, per sate law); • Sheriff (regional jurisdiction on some matters defined by state law); • Public health (state mandate, and some discretionary services; service level issue); • Human services (discretionary; service level issue; lack of partnership funding from cities is an ongoing issue); • Regional parks (discretionary; service level issue); • Funding and oversight of Automatic Fingerprint I.D. system (funded through special periodic property tax levy); and • Funding and oversight of Emergency Medical Services (funded through special periodic property tax levy). It appears that questions exist as to County's appropriate regional role in: 20 Part III of this Report looks at the issues of providing services in different ways to gain efficiencies_ 17 • Specialized police services (K-9, Bomb Squads, SWAT teams, helicopters, marine patrol, etc.). Multiple service providers exist in King County. Some cities rely on the Sheriff's office for specialized police functions that the County makes available to the region; others prefer to provide their own services, or work in sub -regional coalitions that provide these services. It appears that significantly more resources are collectively dedicated to this area countywide than are necessary to meet the needs of the population)z 1; • Animal control (Currently there are several service providers within the County; the County's covers most of the geographical are of the County and is largely self supporting through animal licenses fees.); • District court (We understand there is a disagreement as to whether the County has the option to provide this service to cities; the question is whether providing the service at full cost can be achieved?); • Economic development (discretionary); • Regional transportation (discretionary); • Medic 1 services (These are provided by the County in south King County, and are provided elsewhere in the County by cities and fire districts. The service is almost completely funded by the EMS levy.); and • Airport. We do not here attempt to resolve the differences of opinion about the County's regional service role in the foregoing areas. That is beyond the scope of our work. We would simply note that these are all potential areas for continued regional dialogue. King County is the Local Service Provider in the unincorporated areas for the following services (mandated by state law except as noted with asterisked • Unincorporated area roads; • Courts of limited jurisdiction for misdemeanor crimes arising in unincorporated areas; • Building permits; • Fire inspections; • Local police services; • Jail for unincorporated area misdemeanor offenders; • Prosecution and public defense of misdemeanant offenses arising in unincorporated areas; • Human Services*; • Parks*; and • Surface water management/storrn drainage. * Not mandated by state law. Given the extent of mandated services, and the regional consensus around discretionary services provided by the County, we conclude that major savings are not achievable 21 See Attachment E for excerpt of recent state -funded report summarizing current number of such units funded and staffed across King County by numerous governments. 18 through "getting out of the business" in major service areas. However, what must be addressed is means of service delivery and level of service. We believe significant savings may be achieved by selectively eliminating various programs within service areas, changing the way services are provided, and in some cases reducing service levels. Generally, limited CX revenues mean that even if annexations enable local service budgets to shrink over time, regional CX service budgets cannot grow significantly. Growth and/or service improvements must be accommodated in large part through efficiencies. Absent new revenues, however, the public must anticipate eventual reductions in regional service levels. Specifically, it is not clear that local service budgets have been commensurately reduced as annexations have occurred in the last 15 years: this issue must be rigorously managed in the future — or annexations will have the ironic impact of worsening the County's fiscal situation. Recommendations: Near-Term/Immediate Actions: We identify no services that should immediately be eliminated. However, services and programs must be constantly reviewed for effectiveness and efficiency. And, restraint must continue in considering the establishment of any new programs. Specific recommendations include: Ensure discretionary contract services are full cost recovery. This must include not only consideration of overhead and operation costs, but capital costs as well. 2. Make budget decisions consistent with the County's growth management vision (as encompassed in the Countywide Planning Policies). Budget choices should promote annexation of urban unincorporated areas, and reflect a lower service level for rural areas than for urban service levels (acknowledging some rural subsidy will be appropriate.)22 Continue to use restraint in initiating new services and programs. These should not be initiated unless they (1) are mandated, or (2) if discretionary, are either demonstrably able to save money over a period of years (not necessarily immediately); financially self-sustaining; or serve a highly compelling public purpose and can be delivered at a sustainable service level without undermining other budget criteria. 22 We commend the work of the Metropolitan Parks Task Force in laying out a vision for the County's engagement in regional and local park and recreation that is based on, and consistent with, the County's growth management vision. 19 4_ Consider long-term fiscal impacts of decisions; exercise restraint in expending one-time savings or revenues. One-time revenues should not be used to support ongoing operations, and, it should be a priority to leveiize the rate of ongoing budget cuts (rather than have zero cuts one year and major cuts the next year). Where possible, the County should take actions now that can save money in future years. Commendable examples of steps taken to reduce costs in the long run include restructuring of the juvenile justice operations and renegotiated city jail contract. 5. Determine the impact of discretionary contract services on overhead. The clearest opportunities to get out of lines of business are in the area of discretionary contracts, such as road maintenance, sheriff service, and district court. The decision to continue these contracts must be based on sound fiscal policy, rather than popularity. The impact of these contracts on organizational overhead should be examined. Specifically, do such contracts provide relief to other County functions by supporting necessary overhead infrastructure — or do these contracts compel larger system investments, including capital investments (at the Department or Countywide level) than otherwise is required, thus driving up costs to the organization? b. Give basic service functions of government records, elections, property assessment — the necessary resources to operate in a highly reliable manner. Longer -Term Actions: Develop long-term funding plans for human services and parks, clearly delineating regional and local roles. Providing these services will become harder to justify if other regional mandates are constantly threatened by budget cuts and service reductions — as is the case today. Passage of the parks levy in May bought a temporary respite for parks. Although we are not here recommending the mechanism for doing so, action may be needed to preserve a similar baseline of regional human services funding. While we acknowledge there is some consensus emerging between cities and the County as to the County's regional human services role, we could not reach consensus on whether funding of human services is in fact a regional service or the responsibility of cities. And, despite the parks levy, funding parks operations remains a long-term challenge. The County simply cannot contribute significantly more to human services funding or parks unless new revenue sources become available. 8. Reduce the jail healthcare budget. While we lack the expertise to make specific recommendations here, a $19 million a year budget for jail health services — outstripping CX support for either parks or human services — calls out for an examination of potential service reductions. State Action: 20 9. Aggressively oppose additional state unfunded mandates. This must remain a major effort of the County in its advocacy work at the state level. Regional Dialogue: 10. Consolidate and restructure delivery of specialized police functions: The County should initiate a regional dialogue with cities, the port, and the state to examine this service delivery area. Within King County, there are reportedly 80 different specialty police units provided by at least 8 cities and the County.2 For example, there are three different marine patrol providers patrolling Lake Washington. There are multiple SWAT, Bomb, and K-9 teams. There is unquestionably excess capacity here. Can the County continue to afford an air patrol? The control issues here are formidable — but the dollars on the table are potentially very significant if a more rationalized service delivery mechanism can be agreed upon. We are not proposing necessarily that the cities get out of this business nor that the County do so: we believe duplication means the public is collectively paying much more than necessary for these services which creates the potential for significant savings to King County and other governments. On the one hand, a single service provider may provide the greatest opportunities for efficiencies; on the other hand, absent competition and operational reviews, a single provider may have little incentive to continually seek efficiencies. Perhaps the existing Emergency Medical Service (EMS) model is an appropriate place to begin discussion, in that it has multiple service providers but the total amount of services funded is based on a regional assessment of medic units required to meet agreed upon standards, and operations are regularly assessed for their cost and efficiency. PART III: ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND EFFICIENCIES The Challenge: King County is not as efficient as it could be. Causes include: The complexity of the County organization, including the broad diversity of services provided. A highly political organizational environment with a multitude of separately elected officials. This can make the internal governmental processes time consuming, duplicative, and unconstructive. 23 See Attachment E, Excerpts from "Study of Law Enforcement Specialty Services" commissioned by the State and completed in September 2001 by MGT of America, Inc. 21 • Labor policies discourage contracting services out to other service providers where such alternatives may be more efficient. • Recurring concern and confusion about overhead costs: the overhead model is complex and little understood by internal or external clients. • Lack of standardized practices, processes and systems for basic business functions. • Lack of funding to develop and maintain needed central systems, particularly information technology systems and financial and payroll systems. Analysis: Significant savings and efficiencies have been found in the last two budgets. But opportunities for greater efficiencies clearly exist. Sound management principles must continue to be reinforced in the government. We note with concern Governin Magazines February 2002 report card of King County giving weak grades in "Information Technology," "Managing for Results," and "Human Resources." It does not appear to us that the County has an internal culture that generally rewards efficiency or manages for performance. The County's future success requires that it is able to make the case that it is an efficient and effective steward of public tax dollars. We see two major challenges to the County's operations: the lack of strong central management systems and practices, and the labor environment. These issues have been outlined in Part I of this report. The multiple financial and payroll systems are particularly of concern, as is the disparity of operational practices and procedures. In recognition of the challenge, the Department of Executive Services has or is about to launch a series of "unification projects" that seek to balance the departmental desire for autonomy with the need for standardized rules and procedures — and holding departments accountable for compliance. This is a common practice in the business world, with notably positive results and should be encouraged within the County. Regarding the labor environment: the County's first job is to provide public service, not to employ people. New ways of providing service must be considered if they are the only ways to maintain service levels within available revenues. This may or may not suggest contracting out of services and programs — depending on the public service objectives and the opportunities to meet those objectives with fewer taxpayer dollars. Recommendations: Near Term/Immediate Actions. Create a stronger culture of efficiency within the organization. All branches, and all departments, of the County government must consider whether they are themselves efficient, and whether they are supporting efficiencies within the government as a whole. The County should not limit its efforts to addressing efficiencies only within CX agencies. An emerging culture of "haves" and "have- nots" within the County (distinguishing cash -strapped CX agencies from others) 22 is apparent and not positive for County government as a whole. Being "revenue - backed" is not a reason to ignore the need for efficiencies, particularly in the delivery of local services that are collectively being subsidized. Drawing from the input we received from department directors, we encourage the County to increase accountability at all levels of the organization. Managing for performance, benchmarking, and performance measures: these tools must become part of daily management practice at the County. Incentives should be put in place to help make this cultural change take place: examples such as the Wastewater productivity initiative should be replicated elsewhere in County government. Policies that arguably discourage savings — such as the budget office capturing all under -expenditures — should be eliminated. Duplicative processes and reporting requirements that waste time and resources should be streamlined. For example, we question the value of including over 140 budget provisos in the 2003 budget: the time required to respond to these provisos is significant, and it is not clear that the benefit of the reports outweighs the diversion of so much managerial time. 2. Implement additional efficiencies and control costs in the law, safety and justice arena, through pro -active work of the Criminal Justice Council. With over 70 percent of the CX Fund expenditures, unquestionably, law, safety and justice functions should not be immune from the need to become more efficient. The culture of autonomy within the separately elected areas of government — sheriff, prosecutor, district court, superior court — must be challenged: coordination and transparency are key to efficiency. The Criminal Justice Council must provide leadership to identify efficiencies and ways to control costs. Without their input, cuts will still have to be made — but perhaps in a less than optimal way. The Task Force respects the expertise of these groups to help identify the most appropriate efficiency tools. All law safety and justice agencies need to be actively engaged in this effort with the Executive. Are current means of providing services the most efficient and effective? Are specialty courts worth their higher operating costs because of other systemic savings provided? Is service delivery becoming more or less efficient on a per capita or caseload basis? Are service levels growing or declining? Questions such as these should be answered and tracked over time in a consistent manner. innovations that can streamline operations and save money must be aggressively sought out and implemented. Recent initiatives such as creating a Community Corrections Division with the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention are important steps, as is the work encompassed in the Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan and Adult Justice Operational Master Plan. Efforts to reduce the average daily jail population in the County's jails should also continue. As an initial step, we strongly encourage an investigation of the potential to save money through consolidating the administration of district and superior courts. Ultimately, consolidation of the courts themselves may also be needed to bring additional efficiency to operation (this would require state legislation). 23 3. Provide greater transparency in presenting the budget and budget and operating policies. The County budget should set forth separate regional service and local service budgets -- detailed by type of service and geography. The County should know how much it spends in each PAA on local service. This should be a priority in developing the 2004 budget. Clarity is particularly needed for the law, safety and justice budgets managed under direction of separately elected officials: budget and management information from these departments must be fully accessible to the Executive and Council. Uniform definitions should be developed and employed across the organization when presenting budget information — particularly in the area of departmental and division overhead. Effort should also be made to make the overhead model more understandable, as we heard considerable concern and confusion on this subject. 4. Streamline, simplify and standardize operations, practices and policies. Departments, separately elected officials, and union leaders must be willing to align operations practices and procedures for the benefit of the entire County organization. It is not possible for the Task Force to quantify the savings possible from these items, but our observations suggest that the savings could be significant, given adequate time and funding to implement these suggestions. Engaging all employees in a search for productivity improvements has had demonstrated effect in the business world, yielding as much as five percent annual savings on an ongoing basis. The Department of Executive Services (DES) initiative to make internal practices more uniform is potentially very important initiative. In addition, there should be an ongoing rigorous and comprehensive effort (again involving personnel at all levels of the organization) to find internal and external barriers to efficiency — outdated code provisions and policies — and to remove these barriers where possible. Invest in central systems: Technology investment in central systems is lagging and must be addressed. The price tag associated with these investments is significant. The County should make it a priority to direct one-time resources to fund these capital investments. Financial Systems Replacement Program (FSRP) should be a high priority. We also believe the timeline for replacement/acquisition of needed systems can and should be significantly accelerated. To truly realize the benefits of upgraded systems, the County must simultaneously implement greater standardization of basic business practices and procedures. As part of this whole effort, the County should review the experience of the City of San Diego that apparently outsourced much of its Information Technology (IT) function in a manner that preserved individual employee jobs by moving them to private employer. Longer -Tenn Actions: b. Secure efficiencies through new methods of service delivery: first seek employee ideas and actions; if necessary, contract out services to other 24 governments or to the private sector. Contracting out is not universally appropriate or cost effective. in particular, the ability to perform services may not exist in some cases outside government, and in all cases sunk investments and the interests of the public must be considered. The County has achieved significant successes through partnership with labor, and this should continue wherever possible. Employees may have the best ideas about how and where to find efficiencies in County operations — and should be actively engaged in this type of inquiry. In fairness, public employees should be given the opportunity to provide services at a competitive cost to private sector options before alternative service providers are engaged. But ultimately, the goal should be to preserve service levels to the public, not public sector jobs. Some specific ideas that we believe should be pursued include: a. Amend the County Charter and labor policies to expand the ability to contract out to both the public and private sector where it can preserve public service levels. b. Pursue "reverse contracting" with cities. For example, can the City of Bellevue provide equivalent police services as are currently being provided by King County in the neighborhood of Eastgate -- but at less cost? Can some cities provide maintenance of neighboring County parks at less cost than the County? The geographically fragmented service area of King County suggests there may well be such opportunities — and the lack of current examples is therefore somewhat surprising. The Task Force encourages the County to actively investigate this idea — where it can save public dollars. 7. Collaborate with other governments. We would emphasize the importance of maintaining positive dialogue with regional partners — cities, special purpose districts, other counties. King County does not exist in isolation, and we are convinced that the cooperation of other governments will be key to resolving the County's problems in the longer -term. For example, there may be savings achieved through joint purchasing agreements in areas such as fleet or insurance. We suspect there is a great amount of duplication in the delivery of public services as between the nearly 200 units of government within King County. Opportunities for more efficient service delivery through consolidation must continually be sought out. 8. Aggressively seek cost control of salaries and benefits. With these items consuming over seventy percent (70 percent) of the CX dollars, these areas must be a central consideration balancing the budget. The County must consider its employee benefits package. the County has yet to adopt innovations in this area that may assist in controlling annual cost increases. Work on this should begin now, even though the current benefits contract will be renegotiated in three years. Data from the state indicates that King County top managerial salaries lag behind both private and public sector comparables. While the County must continue to 25 be vigilant in controlling costs, this raises an underlying basic competitiveness issue: King County must be able to attract and retain good employees. 9. Examine options to reduce facilities costs. The County now rents nearly 300,000 square feet in downtown Seattle in numerous office buildings. Should the County buy some building instead? Or build them on land it owns? Should so many County services be in downtown Seattle, given real estate market, lower cost options elsewhere in County? Would greater efficiencies occur from having County functions physically consolidated? The County should undertake a comprehensive analysis of office space options. 10. Explore detention alternatives. The County should determine whether it would be less expensive to send its low risk prisoners (who otherwise do not qualify for alternative detention) to Yakima, as many cities have done. We understand that the County could only reduce costs on a marginal basis through such steps, so this may not result in savings (in which case, it should not be pursued). 11. Revise jail employment structures. In partnership with unions, the County should investigate whether operating efficiencies at jail could be achieved through broader — and far fewer — employee job descriptions than the current 64 separate job titles currently in place. State Action: 12. Advocate for greater flexibility in the labor area. In particular the County should seek changes to binding arbitration requirements in order to provide greater ability to control costs. 13. Seek changes in state law that will give cities and county tools to act together to achieve greater efficiency. Re Tonal Dialo e: 14. Sponsor "Best Practices" forums with other governments in the region. These may be helpful in identifying ways others have addressed common challenges of controlling cost of benefits, managing for performance, benchmarking, contracting out, and similar matters. PART IV: ALIGNING SERVICE EXPENSES AND REVENUES: ANNEXATION AND THE "URBAN SUBSIDY" 26 The Challen e: The current allocation of regional dollars to fund local service budgets is significant: over $40 million a year. While some rural service subsidy is necessary and appropriate under growth management principles, the Task Force believes that acting to address the urban area subsidy maybe the single most important step the County can take to address its fiscal challenges. If the "urban subsidy" is eliminated, it will create significant breathing space far regional service budgets for several years — although it will not eliminate the County's long-term revenue problem. Analysis: As noted in Part I of this report, the County has a number of regional service roles and local service roles. The County similarly has revenue sources that are collected regionally, and others that are collected only from unincorporated local service areas. As a policy matter there is consensus that, ideally, regionally collected dollars should be spent to support regionally provided services — thereby matching those who pay for, and those who receive, the service. Similarly, as a policy matter, unincorporated area dollars should support local services provided in the unincorporated areas. There is now general consensus between the Executive and cities as to which of the County's revenues are "regional" and which are "local," resulting in the calculation of the subsidy at approximately $42 million this year.24 Of this $42 million, an estimated $27 million is attributable to local service delivery in the urban unincorporated areas — areas that as a matter of regional policy (as expressed in the CPPs, which were developed in partnership between cities and the County) are to be annexed by cities. The County cannot force annexations to occur under current law. And, after over a dozen years of growth management, major annexations have not yet occurred. A key barrier for cities to annexing is the cost of providing service in these areas, and infrastructure deficits. Providing incentives to cities in service dollars or capital project funding has helped promote some annexations in the past. Citizen support has also been a critical component of successful annexations. The County has unsuccessfully sought to close the "subsidy" through new taxing authority. Specifically, an unincorporated urban area utility tax, similar in nature and amount to that currently authorized for cities, would generate an estimated $30 million a year. We endorsed this concept earlier this year in hopes the state legislature would pass authorizing legislation.'5 This single action could eliminate the urban subsidy in the short-term. We believe the County should no longer maintain current local service levels in urban unincorporated areas at the expense of regional service budgets. Urban unincorporated area residents must understand that their taxes do not support their current level of service and that the region's plans call for them to annex (or if viable, 24 The key change occurred when the County agreed to classify its sales tax collections from within cities as "regional" in nature. A further refinement has been to split the County's unincorporated area sales tax receipts into two categories: 85 percent of such receipts are considered local, 15 percent are considered regional. When the County previously considered all sales tax receipts to be "local" in nature, this meant there was no subsidy — "local" dollars fully paid for local services. 25 see Attachment I for a copy of our letter to state legislators on this subject. 27 incorporate). And, if cities are truly committed to having the County provide quality regional government services and ending the "urban subsidy," cities must work to complete the remaining annexations. The subsidy did not arise overnight, and will not be eliminated overnight. Currently, nearly 70 percent of the subsidy from regional dollars is being applied to fund local law, safety and justice expenditures. At the same time, the County is spending an estimated 60 percent of its local revenues on roads.26 The major local revenue sources — and key policy limitations in their expenditure — are as follows: • Unincorporated Area Property Tax (generally known as the "road levy"). This revenue source generates over $58 million a year. It is legally available for all general government purposes in the unincorporated area but as a matter of policy has been dedicated solely to roads purposes since the 1980s. There is a small penalty for "diversion" to other uses in the loss of some state revenue. Currently, significant road dollars are expended on transportation improvements within cities and otherwise classified as "regional" in nature. • Real Estate Excise Taxes (BEET). This tax raises about $13 million a year. Similar to the unincorporated area levy, this funding source is legally available for a broad array of capital purposes in the unincorporated area — but is limited by County policy to be spent entirely for parks and recreation purposes. • Surface Water Management Fees (SWM). SWMfees generate over $18 million a year in total revenue. These funds can be used to provide local surface water management and drainage projects, as well as projects with related environmental benefit. Unless the County is willing to make an explicit decision that local services to the urban unincorporated are more important than regional services then the County must actively take steps to reduce the subsidy of the urban unincorporated areas. However, until these areas are annexed, options to address the subsidy are limited .27 The County can: 26 See Attachment G, which sets forth the major sources of unincorporated area revenues. Excluding criminal justice sales tax dollars and surface water management fees that cannot legally be spent on transportation, over 60 percent of the remaining local revenues are currently allocated by King County to roads and transportation purposes. 27 With a remarkable degree of consensus, cities have proposed a set of solutions to this issue (and to the County's CX challenges, generally): Attachment F includes letters and a white paper submitted by cities. included in suburban city recommendations specific to the subsidy are: imposing a moratorium on all building in the UGA, diverting the road fund, promoting annexation, and reducing local service levels. We reject the first solution, and endorse the latter as described herein. Regarding the moratorium, it is probably true that residential development along the urban fringe exacerbates the urban subsidy in some places. The County should consider this fact in its development decisions. Rezoning to allow commercial development in some urban unincorporated areas may be appropriate if it would result in a better balance of expenditures and revenues for the County. Ultimately, a moratorium may not be legal. N► • Re -allocate revenue from all local revenue budgets to pay for more of these urban local services that are being subsidized by regional dollars, most notably, law, safety and justice expenditures. This would directly reduce the subsidy and increase the amount of regional dollars available for regional services --with corresponding cuts to those local service budgets. • Reduce services to match revenue levels; • Continue to subsidize local service budgets; or • Secure new revenue from state. Although it will be politically challenging, we believe the County should pursue all these options — while also working to promote the annexation of remaining urban unincorporated areas. We believe it is neither politically feasible, nor fair to urban unincorporated area residents, to simply slash services overnight in order to eliminate the subsidy -- particularly so long as cities have not annexed these areas, and so long as the CPPs require that these areas receive an urban level of service. Completely eliminating the subsidy by reallocating other local service budgets may be too devastating to those service areas — but the allocation of over 60 percent of local revenues to roads is no longer supportable in this crisis. The County has unsuccessfully sought new revenue from Olympia to address the subsidy, but we believe that effort must continue. In sum, the County must pursue a variety of options to reduce the subsidy and minimize the conflict between its regional and local service responsibilities. Recommendations: Near Term/Immediate Actions: Initiate a comprehensive strategy to simultaneously encourage annexation and reduce the "urban" portion of the local service subsidy. On a time -limited basis — we propose three years at the longest — the County should re -direct its local revenues to (1) encourage annexation and (2) reduce the subsidy amount. All local revenues — particularly the unincorporated area property tax levy, Real Estate Excise Taxes, and surface water management fees — should be made available in some degree to support this program. The goal is to focus as much money as feasible — on a time -limited basis — to secure annexation through agreements with cities and take immediate steps to reduce the subsidy by (1) reducing service levels and (2) reallocating local dollars to fund more of the local service budgets. At the end of this period, progress must be assessed, and new budget limits established to ensure that the subsidy thereafter does not get worse. This initiative should be launched as part of the 2004 budget. 29 The County must be unwavering in its commitment to publicly promote annexation. It must be willing to start to immediately reduce services and realign expenditures. In partnership with cities, the County must initiate public dialogue to build grass roots support in PAAs for annexation. Residents must understand that they will see service reductions — and that the only way this can change is if the County imposes new taxes on them or if they annex. Outreach efforts must be tailored to the needs and characteristics of individual communities. The County must be prepared to put substantial dollars on the table for cities (albeit far short of various estimates of `urban infrastructure deficit') to promote annexation. This initiative will require significant restructuring of current capital improvement programs and operating budgets for local service programs. It will also mean halting or scaling back plans to bond these revenues — since if the effort is successful, the tax base to repay such bonds will be transferred to cities. We believe this re -structuring, while painful, is well worth the end result of aligning County revenues and expenditures, transferring responsibility for expensive service areas, and achieving the regional land -use vision. In practical terms, the reallocation of local revenues can simply mean a delay, rather than cancellation, of projects. Given the magnitude of the budget problem the region must understand the urgency and importance of achieving these remaining annexations. Three important clarifications to this proposal must be clear: First, we are not proposing that the County "buy" its way out of the urban unincorporated areas by eliminating infrastructure deficits. There is woefully inadequate funding to do so. Frankly, we do not believe immediate infrastructure upgrades are required in an annexation. Portions of Seattle have been without sidewalks for decades since they were annexed. Eliminating infrastructure deficits using only unincorporated area dollars is not possible in any reasonable time frame, and eliminating infrastructure deficits using regional dollars is not a responsible action given the current pressure on those budgets. And, funding today is much tighter than it has been historically. Second, Cities cannot fairly insist that the County completely eliminate the subsidy if the urban areas do not in fact annex. Cities would themselves subsidize these areas. Service reductions are inevitable (and appropriate) absent new local revenue streams. But ultimately, if areas remain un-annexed, the cities cannot fairly continue to complain about the subsidy — and some nominal subsidy will, absent new revenue, be necessary to provide urban levels of service. Third, we are not proposing a "dollar -in dollar -out" approach to serving each individual PAA. Just as cities transfer tax dollars from their commercial areas to support residential neighborhoods, the County needs budget flexibility in directing its local service dollars. A few PAAs may now be net exporters of local service dollars: that may well be appropriate. 30 2. Identify the basis and targets for cutting from all local service budgets as annexations occur. Dollar -for -dollar budget reductions may well be impossible as tax base gradually disappears, leaving potentially even more diffuse geographic service responsibility for the County. However, every effort must be made to reduce local service budgets commensurate with the loss of local revenues. Work must begin immediately to map out the basis on which these cuts will occur. Quantify the current rural subsidy and rural service levels — and track them over time. Unless the region wishes to revisit its growth management vision, a rural subsidy is appropriate. But as part of the overall challenge of making the County budget more transparent, the rural subsidy and rural service levels should be quantified and tracked, so that the region can see that rural service levels are provided, and the price tag for doing so. As called for in the CPPs, rural service levels should be demonstrably lower than urban service levels. Longer Term Actions: 4. Consider seeking legislation to equalize taxing authorities as between cities and unincorporated areas. In the long-tenn, if annexations do not occur, and the County's revenue problems continue, such solutions may be dictated. We recognize that this would take major state legislation, and would probably be a more costly alternative for these areas than annexing to neighboring cities, but we do not think the County should continue to sacrifice regional service levels to fund its local service responsibilities. State Action: In addition to new revenues sources (outlined in Part V of this report), the County should: 5. Advocate for a change in state law that will provide for automatic transfer of local parks and recreation facilities to cities upon annexation. b. Advocate for changes in law that will streamline the annexation process. Regional Dialogue: 7. King County and cities should work in the immediate term to refine the annexation strategy we have outlined. Even absent consensus, we believe implementation of this strategy should begin in the 2004 budget. PART V: REVENUES 31 Challenge: The County revenue structure is inadequate to meet the demands of the County"s service obligations. While significant effort can be made to forestall or reduce service cuts by doing business differently, ultimately it will not be possible to maintain service levels for a growing population with revenue growth of less than 2 percent per year. Analysis: As was noted at the outset of this report, the primary cause of the revenue challenge is the heavy dependence of the County on property tax, and the absence of other viable revenue options. The County must provide local services but has far less revenue authority than cities enjoy. This inequity not only contributes to the regional subsidy of local services, it also creates a potentially significant barrier to annexation — urban unincorporated area residents observe that they will be subject to new types of taxation should they annex. As we have also seen, cities have expressed reluctance to annex because of the poor condition of urban unincorporated area infrastructure, a result of the County's limited revenue authorities. Even if our proposed strategy to accelerate annexation and reduce the subsidy succeeds, the slow growth of regional revenues — again, heavily dependent on property tax — will continue to be a problem for the County. The city mayors who spoke to us during our deliberations noted the importance to their jurisdictions of having a strong regional government. We concur: all residents have a stake in the County becoming fiscally stable and providing quality regional services. The lack of state support for courts, indigent defense, and handling of aggravated murder cases is a particularly frustrating aspect of the County's challenge. The legislature's rejection of the unincorporated area utility tax is similarly discouraging. Pressure must be brought to bear on the state to address these issues if the County is to achieve long- term fiscal stability. Absent additional state shared revenue, or revenue authority, the County has limited options to maintain regional service levels. We would not expect voters to approve general tax increases for the County. Rather, as we have seen in the past — with AFIS, EMS, and more recently, the parks levy — voters prefer to know where their money is going. Cities themselves routinely use special levies to secure program funding. For the County to do so as well is not inappropriate. At the same time, the more the County can convey about its priorities, its vision, its plans for providing all services over a several year period, the more concerns about "piecemeal" funding solutions can be answered. Recommendations: Immediate/Near Term: 1. Provide better public information about the County's roles and revenues. Lack of public understanding is a barrier to reform in Olympia, and a barrier to moving the annexation agenda. It is critical that the public better understand the implications for basic County services resulting from the current property tax WN limitations and annexation patterns. The County public television station could be a useful tool for this purpose. County elected officials need to become educators and advocates for the government: much could be accomplished if the County's 94 elected officials presented a united front. Z. Include a concise statement of the fiscal vision for the next several years in the annual budget. Will new taxes be necessary? If so, for what purposes? Are major new initiatives planned? Are major reductions planned? As noted, while the public generally is unlikely to grant generic "county purposes" tax increases, funding solutions will in all likelihood include periodic special purpose levies as there are limited options to otherwise avoid service cuts and secure wanted new programs. Special purpose levies are easier to justify, however, in the context of an overall plan for the government — so the public isn't wondering when the next request for tax dollars is coming. Secure full cost recovery on all contracts. This should include not only overhead and operating, but capital costs as well. This recommendation has been earlier stated, but bears repeating. It is illogical to undertake a major effort to annex areas in order to eliminate the subsidy of County local urban unincorporated area services — only to then continue to subsidize cities through contracts. 4. Impose fee increases where possible to avoid further service cuts. 5. Aggressively pursue grant opportunities. 6. Develop a long-term funding plan for parks and human services. State Action: The State must act to grant more revenue autonomy to counties, particularly in fee setting.z$ And, again, the State must refrain from enacting more unfunded mandates. Some specific proposals for state legislation follow: 7. Grant urban counties planning under GMA authority to impose a councilmanic utility tax in urban unincorporated areas, comparable to existing city authority in scope and amount. This is single most significant step the state could take (without impacting its own budget) to assist the County. Grant counties authority to raise district and superior court fees. We would propose full -cost recovery for some civil cases where for example large corporate parties are involved who can easily afford such fees. " SB 5659, Laws of 2003, was signed into law by Governor Locke as we concluded our deliberations. This legislation provides new voter -approved sales tax authority to the County, proceeds of which are to be shared on a 60-40 basis with cities. We have not had an opportunity to discuss how, or whether, the County should use this new authority and we make no reconvnendations in this regard. 33 9. Reduce the state's take from locally generated court fees. Over 40 percent of the fees generated at District Court now are remitted to the state for other programs: those dollars would make a critical difference in the County's ability to continue District Court programs. 10. Institute authority to impose Superior Court fees on a "per pleading" basis, as is done in California and numerous other states. 11. Increase direct state support for District and Superior Court. The state's sole current contribution — one half the salaries of Superior Court judges — puts it 491h in the nation in supporting courts, according to the State Administrative Office of the Courts. 12. Provide some funding support for indigent defense costs. 13. Increase legally permissible uses of the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This tax can only be spent for capital purposes. As was recommended by the Metropolitan Parks Task Force, some portion of this significant tax source should be available for maintenance purposes — for example to support the operation of capital improvements acquired with REET funds. A further change worth considering would be to allow larger portions of this tax — perhaps all of it to be applied to maintenance purposes in times of an economic downturn. 14. Continue to fund basic public health. 15. Provide state funding for a greater share of the extraordinary aggravated murder costs experienced by counties. These have reached such a magnitude in King County — even excluding the Ridgeway case — that they threaten the ability to maintain service levels throughout the County's criminal justice system. 16. Provide direct state funding to counties for defense costs in dependency and termination cases. It is inequitable for the state to pay for prosecution of these cases at several times the rate that counties are able to pay for defense of these matters. 17. Allow Counties to set public records and license fees at levels that will more closely approximate the full cost of service. Regional Dialogue 19. Work with other government associations to jointly develop and advocate legislative agendas. The "Tri-Association" agenda approach in which the cities, counties and public safety lobbying organizations all worked together in the 2003 legislative session is a potentially very powerful new initiative that should be continued. And, given the importance to the business community of a healthy 34 regional government, we would encourage the County to seek business community support of its legislative agenda where possible. PART VI: CONCLUSION King County general government is in a crisis situation. Current service delivery is not sustainable. The challenge before the County — indeed, the region — is daunting. After the few short months of our inquiry into general County government funding and operations, we are sobered by the complexity of the situation, and by the many steps that have already been taken to address this challenge. Despite several years of aggressive budget cuts by the County, unless continued steps ar taken to trim programs, streamline operations, apply greater management rigor, challeng traditional service delivery mechanisms, shed remaining urban unincorporated areas to cities, and successfully lobby the state for additional revenue tools, a steady decline in the quality of County general government services is unavoidable. Even if the County is able to make major progress in terms of efficiencies, ultimately it cannot achieve long-term financial stability without the assistance of the state and the local governments in this region (particularly those who are stakeholders in annexation). It is said that democracy has many attributes but efficiency isn't one of them. Yet, we are confident that the County can and will take important steps to improve its effectiveness and efficiency in delivering services. In so doing, citizen confidence in our government will improve. We appreciate the difficulty of the task ahead. We appreciate also the opportunity that the Executive has given us to provide him our assessment and recommendations. A strong regional government, and effective local government for the rural area, is in the interest of the entire region. We would offer as a Task Force to reconvene briefly in 2004 to assess progress on the agenda of work we here propose, and offer as well our continued services in advocacy for the betterment of County government. 35 A Joint City Position 18 The Cities' Suggestions for Inclusion in the King County Budget Advisory Task Force's Recommendations Introduction Actions have consequences; recent actions to resolve the County's budget woes have had significant negative consequences for cities and on the problem -solving environment. The cities of King County' have developed this joint position concerning solutions to the County's fiscal challenges and offer it for your consideration. As a matter of principle, the cities believe the following: • "Urban subsidy" revenue, the $41 million now agreed to represent a diversion of re- gional dollars into local unincorporated services, should be re -directed into regional service as soon as possible 2; • Motivating annexations past the present point of stalemate will require compromise and a shared responsibility for success, including the possibility of reducing the present service levels in urban unincorporated areas; • King County should refrain from delegating services to cities as a solution to its fiscal problems; this results in shifting the costs to another political subdivision representing the same taxpayers, risking the future relevancy of the County as a regional government; • King County should seek a way of actively collaborating with its cities in designing so- lutions; the current unilateral actions are negatively impacting services systems and dis- couraging regionalism. Cities are not mere stakeholders in King County's future; cities are peer political subdivisions with overlapping responsibilities and a shared revenue base. Cities are equally affected by revenue loss and much of the statutory inflexibility plaguing King County. To date, cities have created solutions to the county's jail cost issues, the regionally -created parks and pools cost issues, and now may be forced to create more municipal courts, if the County persists in the executive decision to cease providing a centralized court service. The `urban subsidy' and unincorporated services The County must take affirmative steps to extinguish the urban subsidy, returning regional revenues to the provision of regional service& At present, the County Budget Of, fire re- ports that the expenditures in unincorporated areas exceed revenues derived from these areas by $41 million, Le., the urban subsidy. These, funds should be returned largely to regional service delivery. ' Staff from several cities, including Bellevue, Seattle and member cities of the Suburban Cities Associa- tion Management Board, took part in the creation of this paper. 2 Definition of urban subsidy is consistent with the meaning, "expenditures for local services exceed local revenues," and with the Option I definition of revenues, contained in the Unincorporated Budget chapter from the Executive's Proposed 2003 Budget.hm Q1 KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01119lD4 . King C WY Haft EWWW 1. As a policy goal, the County should adopt the principle that revenues derived from all taxpayers, whether they are located in unincorporated areas or cities, shall be used to pay for services available to all county residents, by a certain date 2. The County should collaborate with cities in establishing an agreed level of service in rural areas, and the conditions on which that subsidy will be politically supported by cities, to assure future acceptance of this use of regional funds. 3. The County should collaborate with cities in establishing exactly how the $41 million will be extinguished, addressing whether those funds should be immediately redi- rected to regional services or should be directed to the improvement of infrastructure in the PAAs3. 4. The County should institute a moratorium on residential building in the PAAs unt such time that the unincorporated expenditures and revenues are balanced. 0 5. The County should continue to pursue revenue authority that brings parity to unin- corporated areas, such as the city -supported utility tax. This authority, if imposed at the existing city rate of 6%, could raise as much as $32 million in additional reve- nues. Regional service delivery The County's current expense fund must support a mix of regional services, delivered to citizens throughout the County. Cities find the categorization of services as mandatory or discretionary to be misleading, as these categories tend to distort practical realities about the levels of service and about the multiple roles of the County in an urban environment Focusing on mandated services, such as courts, corrections, records and elections, dis- counts the county's role as administrative agent for pass -through funds and the need for important programs like public health and human services. 6. The County should adopt a financial policy that allocates property tax revenue col- lected from the road levy, and 85% of the sales tax from unincorporated areas, as the revenue base for local services in unincorporated areas. All remaining property tax and sales tax revenue should be allocated to regional services. 7. Before dropping existing lines of services or adopting new ones, the County must consult with the cities. Eliminating court services or adding a solid waste export pro- gram are major decisions that impact other services, citizens and rate payers. These decisions call out for collaborative policy discussion among all affected governments. 8. The County should acknowledge that some actions have moved problem -solving downstream to cities, thus avoiding solution at the county level. Individually and in partnership, the cities solved the misdemeanant incarceration problem and the need for some one to take responsibility for County parks and pools operations. The char- acterization of these actions as County solutions misstates the true nature of the ac- tions taken and risks the relevancy of the County as a centralized, regional govern- ment. s PAA is a potential annexation area, an urban area within the Urban Growth Area that is expected to be annexed to an existing city or, in the alternative, incorporated as a new city. Under the Countywide Plan- ning Policies adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act, most of these areas were formally claimed by cities, indicating an affirmative policy of working toward absorbing these PAAs into the city. KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01/19/04 2 9. The County should examine mandatory services for duplication of specialized equipment and personnel when those services are provided by cities or could be pro- vided by the private sector. For example, certain limited use services, like the SWAT team, should only be provided by the County or the cities. The `urban subsidy' and annexation Approximately 198,000 residents live in areas targeted for annexation by cities. The Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies recognize the necessity of bringing these residents into cities. Providing local services to these areas is expensive for King County, but f nancially unaffordable for cities. However, the cities and County must pursue active collaboration to increase the likelihood of annexation in the near terra 10. The County should collaborate with cities in identifying economic incentives for an- nexations and in seeking legislative support for those incentives. These might in- clude removing restrictions on revenues such as the road fund, or increasing revenues in unincorporated areas to more closely match the cost of service, e.g., through the unincorporated areas utility tax. 1 i _ The County should remove existing labor policy obstructions that prohibit cities from contracting with the County to provide services in the PAAs. Adjacent cities can of- ten provide services to these areas more efficiently. 12. The County should consider adopting zoning and development plans and ordinances of the cities with adopted PAAs, so that development occurring prior to annexation is consistent with the cities' standards, and contracting with the city for planning and permit services. 13. The County should refrain from actions which hinder or discourage annexation, such as the recent introduction of SB 5689, which serves to reduce the motivation or abil- ity to annex these areas. 14. The County should refrain from characterizing cities as unilateral annexation agents. Rather, the executive and district councilmembers, together with city officials, should collaborate on how to create a political environment supportive of annexations. Budget strategies: Expenses and revenues The County has made sign giant progress in cost -saving initiatives in recent years and cities commend them for these efforts. Suggestions here are largely best practices applica- ble to all governments, this list is not exhaustive, Cities do believe that more work on services, service levels and policies is required to exhaust the potential of existing funds Any new revenue authority, including cost recovery considerations, requires consultation and agreement of cities, taking into account the overall tax burden and long term implica- tions of these choices on our governments' shared population. 15. The County should continue financial analysis of functional service areas, both man- datory and discretionary, and review the level of service, benchmarks and/or per- formance measures for these services. These performance expectations or levels rep- resent policies that may be subject to modification. KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01/19104 3 16. The County should provide transparency in its budgeting, to improve segregation of costs between incorporated and unincorporated areas and urban and rural areas. The separation and attribution of expenses will be critical to the cities' ability to support any subsidization of local services in rural areas. 17. The County must find motivational ways to save money, rewarding employees for cutting costs, rather than rewarding divisions or functions that see increased costs. 18. The County should continue to examine the role of overhead in the current expense fund, in the enterprise funds, and in the pricing of interlocal contracts. While steady improvement has occurred, this remains a concern especially in evaluation of interlo- cal contracts for service. 19. The County should continue to examine expensive discretionary services within mandated service areas, e.g., marine and air patrols, and pursue alternative service delivery ideas, such as contracting with cities. 20. The County should actively challenge obstructions to efficiencies, such as the labor contract provisions and internal policies limiting the ability to contract out services to cities. Where needed, the County should partner with its cities in seeking legislative corrections, and take on the hard task of discussions with its labor representatives re- garding the long term impacts of restrictions. 21. The County must seek the cities' agreement in seeking new revenue streams. Both cities and the County share the same taxpayers and tax bases. When that agreement is not first sought, County initiatives are unlikely to garner support. When that agreement is sought, it is more likely that the initiative will be successful. 22. The County should be cautious in seeking dedicated revenue streams for individual service areas. A primary component on the Tri-Association legislative agenda re- quests that the legislature reverse previous dedication or limitations on fund use. 23. The County should partner with its cities in resisting unfunded mandates, existing or new, from both the federal and state governments. Comprehensive analysis, governance and long term planning: Recent choices of action by the County in addressing fiscal issues concern cities'. Success- ful shared policy initiatives require hard work and multiple discussions among many con- stitnent bodies. The cities believe that a more comprehensive and systemic analysis of King County's future will better serve the county and its tide& 24. In the short term, the County must improve the processes governing executive and council work, placing more reliance on program staff and less on duplicative analysts. Also, duplicative media offices and strategic planning staff should be consolidated. 25. The County should tie its disparate task force and commission efforts into a compre- hensive effort. Single -issue recommendations need some congruence with other rec- ommendations. The inability to identify a shared strategic vision for the County and, most importantly, how these recommendations work together may further erode voter confidence in all local governments' ability to solve problems. KCBATF FINAL Mar 12 printed on 01/19/04 4 * King County �ES ==S Exec's home I News I Schedule I Site_map I E-.m. a_il July 9, 2003 General Budget Advisory Task Force recommendations Dear King County employees: The budget advisory task force I created last fall recently issued its set of recommendations at its final meeting. Co-chaired by Bob Wallace, a Eastside businessman and former chair of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and John Warner, a retired Boeing executive, this group of 13 citizens included former governors Booth Gardner and John Spellman, two retired judges, a former labor representative and several business people from both the for -profit and non-profit sectors. I asked them to come in and take a look at our budget, our operations, the regulations that guide us, our mandates, existing laws and anything else that affects and has an impact on our budget in hopes of getting a clean look and a fresh approach to keeping King County on strong financial legs. Like you, I read many of the task forte's recommendations in the newspaper and I have now received their full report. To our credit, the members found that we have done a very good job to date of finding efficiencies and prioritizing our efforts so that we are providing only core services to our public. However, as we all read, they found no "silver bullet." Many of their recommendations however bear looking into. They include looking at the urban unincorporated areas and what services we currently provide there. One recommendation is to promote annexations to nearby cities. Other recommendations include initiating a regional dialogue to rationalize delivery of specialized police services, seeking full cost recovery on contract services and encouraging all parts of the county to look at efficiencies. Key recommendations would require state action on both revenue enhancements and changes to existing laws that make our budgeting difficult. There are many other interesting suggestions as well, and the highlights of their recommendations can be viewed online, at http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/batf/news/062503.htm. Their full report to me is also available on the Budget Advisory Task Force Web site, at http--/./.ww.w..metrokc.gov/ex.ec/`batf/". This group spent untold hours reviewing our operations, our budget and our activities and I thank them. I want you to know that I will take the report very seriously and will likely be incorporating many of the recommendations of ?Z_ Wft No. Wn No. %MW King Cmity Hearing finer the task force when putting together the 2004 budget, which I will present to the Council in October. As the task force pointed out, this government faces severe budget shortfalls that will mean reductions year after year unless there are significant changes that result in more efficient ways of doing business at less cost and the task force offered many suggestions which we will follow up on. Thank you for your outstanding service delivery to our residents as we continue to move forward. I will keep you posted as we develop our budget over the summer. Sincerely, Ron Sims King County Executive Updated: July 9, 2003 Employee news Executive's home I Executive's news Executive's schedule I Exec utive's_e-m.ad. King County j Executive I News I Services I Comments j Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. U Metropolitan King County Council Budget &z Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Panel Tuesday, October 21, 2003 — 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, October 22, 2003— 9:30 a.m. Exhibit No. Item No. Received King CoU* Hearing Examiber Panel Members: Larry Phillips, Chair; Kathy Lambert, Vice -Chair; Carolyn Edmonds, Cynthia Sullivan, Dwight Pe1z, Pete von Reichbauer, Dow Constantine, .Steve Hammond, Larry Gossett, Jane Hague, David Irons, and Julia Patterson Lead Staff. Megan Smith 296-0345, William Nogle (296-1632) Panel.Staff. Olivia Aguilar (296-1691), Mike Alvine (296-0350), Rick Bautista (296-0329), Paul Carlson (296-1673), Carrie Cihak (296- 0317), Monica Clarke (296-1638), Peggy Dorothy (296-1658), Doug Hodson, (296-1668), David Layton (296-1679), Janice Mansfield (296- 1683). David Randall (296-1635). Mike Reed (296-1627), Lauren Smith (296-0352), Arthur Thornburr 296-1680 - INDEX I. Transportation — William Nagle Page No. 1. DOT director's office 1 -Doug Hodson 2. Roads 3 -Paul Carlson 4-Arthur 3. Roads. ClP / Roads construction transfer 7 -Paul Carlson 4• Stormwater decant. program. 11 -Peggy Dorothy 5• Transit operating 13 Thornbury and Doug Hodson 6. Transit CIP / Transit revenue vehicle replacement 16 Arthur Thornbury and Doug Hodson 7• Airport 19 -Mike Alvine $. Motor pool 22 - - Doug Hodson 9. Public works equipment repair and replacement (ER&R) 24 - - Doug Hodson 10. Wastewater ER&R 27 - - Doug Hodson II. Parks -- Megan Smith Page No. 1. Parks.. and. recreation - operating 29 - -Mike Reed 2. Parks -and recreation -_CJ 32 - -Mike Reed 3• Youth sports facilities grant 33 -Mike Reed 4. Parks and recreation.- CIP 36 -Monica Clarke . Cultural development 44 -Mike Reed III. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - William No le Pa a No. AGENCY: 0 Metropolitan King County Council Budget & Fiscal Management Committee MEETING 1 - OVERVIEW PANEL: I Capital Budget Roads ORD. SECTION: 63,122 FUND: 3850, 3860 PROGRAM NAME: Roads GIP PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE: 2004 CIP Budget DATE: October 21, 2003 PREPARED BY: Paul Carlson REVIEWED BY: William Nogle The Roads CIP consists of road, bridge, and related infrastructure projects in unincorporated King County, along with intergovernmental partnership projects that provide transportation benefits to the County. The 2004 appropriation request of $59 million is part of a 2004-2009 CIP that totals $402 million. Projects range from major corridor widening, bridge replacement, and intersection improvement projects to smaller scale improvements. Project scope and schedule vary widely. Proposed 2004-2009 Roads CIP 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 Total $59 170 000 1 $100 036 000 1 $51 334 000 1 $66,216 00Q 1 $77 886 000 1 $46,914,000 1 $401,556000 Note: Table includes County Road and Renton Maintenance CIPs FUNDING SOURCE: Funding sources include the Roads Construction Transfer from the Road Fund, Vehicle License Fee (VLF), bond revenues, federal and state grants, and developer fees. The Roads Construction Transfer is proposed for $29,788,813 in 2004. ISSUES and HIGHLIGHTS: Annexation Stratea The 2004 appropriation request includes two proposals to support the Executive's Annexation Strategy: One is the creation of a new project, RDCW 27, Agreements with Cities, with a 2004 appropriation of $5.6 million. Funds from this project will be available for use in the PAAs subject to interlocal agreements between the county and an annexing city. Funds for the project are derived from cost savings and cancellations. The Executive's 1/20/2004 11:13 AM Annexation Strategy refers to this as reprioritization of funds. Attachment 1, Part 1 shows projects cut or reduced to fund this new project. Second, four projects in PAAs totaling $5.7 million are deferred from 2004 to 2005. Funds attributable to a project would be transferred to a city if the area where a project is located is annexed within the deferral period. Projects with grant funding and safety projects were not considered for deferral. Attachment 1, Part 2 lists the projects that would be delayed. 2004-2008 Bondin The proposed 2004-2009 Roads CIP continues to rely on bond funding like previous CIPs, but the structure and interest payment assumptions are modified. Last year's budget included $40 million in bonds to be issued in 2004 for expenditure in 2004 and 2005, and another $40 million to be issued in 2006 for expenditure in 2006 and 2007. The 2004-2009 CIP proposes to issue $15,420,000 in 2004, $19,580,000 in 2005, $11,000,000 in 2006, $11,670,000 million in 2007, and $22,330,000 in 2008. By issuing bonds each year, the intent is to provide more flexibility in changing plans if annexation activity results in a loss of revenue or a change in projects. The repayment terms are also proposed to change. An annexation agreement could provide for an annexing city to assume the outstanding debt on bond -funded projects in its PAA. Otherwise, revenue raised in the remaining unincorporated areas will pay these debts. While much of the 2004-2008 bond revenue is earmarked for projects in the rural area (notably Novelty Hill Road and the Mount Si Bridge), a substantial share is allotted to projects in PAAs. These are typically regionally significant projects that benefit rural residents. As part of its review of the Annexation Strategy, the Council may want to evaluate the impact of the multi -year debt service on the remaining unincorporated areas. The Executive may address this issue in the supplemental work program required by Motion 11820, which is due by December 31, 2003. The bonds issued in 2004 will be used to fund the following projects: Projects Receiving 2004 Bond Revenue CIP # Name Total 2004 Appropriation Bond share of total Location 100389 NE 120 St. — Phase II 750,000 750,000 Rural 100799 Woodinville -Duvall Rd @ Avondale 2,025,000 2,000,000 Rural 101088 NE 132 nd St./NE 1281hSt. 5,870,000 2,950,000 Rural 400197 1401h Ave SE @ Petrovitsky Road 735,000 700,000 Faim—od PAA 400400 1 Petrovitsky Road ITS 1,102,000 850,000 Fairwood PAA 400698 Benson Road 0 Carr Road 7,074,000 4,470,000 Fairwood PAA 400898 Carr Road 2,598,000 1,050,000 Fairwood PAA 401288 Elliott Bridge #3166 1,314,000 1,300,000 Renton East PAA 999386 Cost Model Contingency 3,105,000 1,000,000 Countywide RDCW 07 Intelligent Transportation Management Systems ITMS 1,109,000 1,100,000 Countywide 101289 North SPAR savings -750,000 Total bond revenues 1 15,420,000 Each of the projects in the Fairwood and Renton East PAAs is regionally significant and would benefit unincorporated area residents, and each is partially grant -funded. V20/2004 11:13 AM Projcect cost changes The cost estimates for a number of projects have changed since the last CIP was adopted. Among the significant changes are: • Tolt Bridge #1834A (CIP #200394) was funded in last year's CIP at $10.6 million in 2003-2004 with 67% grant funds, now funded at $14.6 million in 2004- 2005 with 68% grant funding. • Mount Si Bridge #2550-A (CIP #200994) was funded in last year's CIP at $12.7 million in 2004-2007 of which 85% was grant -funded; now funded at $18 million in 2004-2009, with grant funds down to 47% of the total. • Benson Rd SE (SR 515) @ Carr Rd (CIP #400698), funded in last year's CIP at $9.3 million in 2004-2005 with 67% grant funding, and now at $16.2 million in 2004-2005 with 48% grant funding. Novelty Hill Road (CIP #100992 - $40.6 million in 2004-2009) and the South Park Bridge (CIP #300197 - $12 million in County funds 2005-2008, with non -County funds assumed for the project but not shown in the proposed CIP) are two major projects that pose scoping and funding challenges. Both are in the environmental review process. Retro/Rehab Proposal Modifications The 2004-2009 CIP modifies the Retro/Rehab proposal, first included in the adopted 2002-2007 CIP, which increases funding for the Countywide Overlay, Signal, 3R, Guardrail, and other projects. The Overlay program, which restores degraded arterials before their condition deteriorates enough to require more costly reconstruction, is scaled back by $690,000. It appears that the proposed $4.8 million funding level will allow about 60 miles of overlay work; staff is reviewing the project to determine if this is sufficient to meet the expanded program's goal of avoiding costly reconstruction. Countvwide Proiect Consolidation The budget proposes to create a new countywide project, RDCW 28, Non -Motorized, by combining three existing projects (RDCW 06, Countywide Pedestrian Safety and Mobility; RDCW 13 School Pathways; and RDCW 24, Neighborhood Road Enhancement Program). Funding for the new combined project in 2004-2009 is the same as the total for the three programs that would be consolidated. Vehicle License Fee (VLF The proposed budget assumes continued collection of the $15 Vehicle License Fee in King County. VLF revenues are allocated to the county and cities according to a population -based formula. For 2004-2009, VLF revenue is estimated at $27.9 million; these funds will pay a portion of the bond debt payments. During the next few weeks, the State Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Initiative 776, which sought to eliminate the VLF. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project changes and delays relating to Annexation Strategy V20/2004 11:13 AM (*V King County Facing the budget's challenges By Harold Taniguchi DOT Director King County Executive Ron Sims recently released his proposed annual budget — one that, like last year's budget, reflects declining revenues, a soft economy, and rising employee costs. We estimate that our department will have to cut 46 permanent positions because of declining revenues. We will have to focus on minimizing impacts to public services and projects by doing business differently. Na"d larjiguchl U� The proposed transit division operating budget of $404.2 million—$6.1 million less than last year —reflects continuing E weakness in sales tax and fare collections, along with increasing costs. This comes on top of more than $20 million in cuts taken since 2000. Because of the way we are managing these reductions, which support direct and indirect bus services, Metro Transit will be able to offer slightly increased bus service in 2004 to serve park -and -ride expansion. Transit also is projected to spend more than $157 million on capital projects and programs in 2004. The Road Services Division's proposed 2004 operating budget totals $64.4 million for 2004. Among the ways the division will meet its financial challenges is a range of efficiencies that will allow it to consume less electricity while cutting waste disposal and other miscellaneous costs. Road Services also will achieve staffing and program reductions by shifting workload and reducing maintenance work with contract cities. The 2004-2009 Executive Proposed CIP for Road Services is $401.6 million, with a new appropriation in 2004 of $59.2 million. Road Services has tailored its GIP budget to / encourage cities to annex remaining urban unincorporated Exhibit N , 7 areas —a key recommendation from the Executive's Budget Item No. Advisory Task Force —by setting aside $5.6 million in road Received—=-+ir- CIP revenues for annexation -agreement -related road King County Nearing infrastructure needs. Fleet Administration is proposing a status quo budget for 2004, continuing to emphasize clean air technology and partnerships with other government agencies. The division will continue purchasing hybrid electric vehicles to replace regular gas -powered vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life. Fleet estimates it will have over 50 hybrid vehicles next year, nearly 13 percent of the county's vehicle fleet. For our Airport division, still affected not only by the local economic downturn but by the aviation industry's 9/11-related downturn as well, the Executive's 2004 proposed budget is guarded. Safety and security continue to be key elements of the airport's business operations, with increased emphasis on trained personnel and infrastructure. The proposed budget supports a major division reorganization that establishes an Operations and Compliance Unit to meet FAA -mandated requirements. The airport's 2004 operating request maintains current staffing levels and shows an increase of approximately $800,000 to cover employee costs and significantly increased general utility costs. The 2004 revenue forecast includes approximately $584,000 of new revenues, with the largest increases reflected from lease adjustments implemented during 2003 and completed in 2004. The 2004 airport CIP includes money for South Pump House equipment, security improvements, new Lot 13 tie -downs, Duwamish clean-up, an airport survey, facility repair, and redevelopment, among other things. It is no secret to any of you that these are challenging times. But I believe we are meeting these challenges both collectively and individually, and I am proud of the work you are doing. Our 2004 budget, while lean, manages to provide good services to our constituents and to introduce efficiencies that benefit taxpayers while causing as little pain as possible to our workforce. It hasn't been easy, but the quality of employee we have in the Department of Transportation has made these solutions easier to find than they might have been. I want to thank all of you for your help, for rising to these challenges along with us in management, and for staying the course with us as we navigate through this downturn. Updated: November 4, 2003 DOT Home I In. Transportation King County I News I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County Web intranet pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. n n y C 4 o o • 4 - m d cv (Y) cu co� 0 d d U_ Rt d LO m d cz a) co O `^, V J rr L _U Cf) V J r_ � _U V J rr L _) CD rr L W Q V/ U • 7- I} M 'C O co co i O O co O M O �— O c� C L U) p L Q U o o N� c_ C/i fl) co W UU7( `V fn LLca r CL O :3 •S= Z) G E I �j I U al O F L j V I h Q Im � � r I i tr„i C3 LD CD U IM 1 - 4 qby �E � U q Ql I HAL NO. 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There were 12 accidents recorded at this location during the period 1998-2000_ The predominant accident patterns consist of left turn accidents and rear -end accidents. The intersection is stop sign controlled in the NB and SB directions. The 1998-2000 average accident rate is 0.64 acc/mev compared to a median average rate of 0.58 acc/mev for our 48 HAL locations. This location was No. 98 on the 1995 HAL list, with no recommended improvement due to lack of accident pattern. Analysis of the accident patterns indicates that injury accidents may be reduced by 44% and property damage accidents may be reduced by 12% by adding a left turn lane in the WB/EB directions. The estimated cost for these revisions is $362,000. The estimated public benefit/cost ratio for the improvement is 3.5, and the estimated net benefit of constructing this project is $894,000. Predominant Accident Patterns Primary Countermeasures . • Left Turn Add Left Turn Lane • Rear -End 160'h Ave SE / SE 128'h St soo o sao 1000 Feet Map data sasree: 10ag Co". 20C2. HALJHARS Analysis July 2003 King Ccurdy H:lg King County 2002 HAUHARS Update HAL Field Report Form; Page 1 of 2 HAL Number: 16 Location: 160TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST I SOtITHFAST 'I9ATH CTRGPT CIP No:. (#,N/A) NIA Signal Priority Array: (#,N/A) NIA Datellirne: 2.45 PM OCT 10, 2002 Engineer. PL Roadway 1 Roadway 2 160TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST SOUTHEAST 128TH STREET Posted S eed limit 25MPH 45MPH Traffic Control* STOP NONE Sidewalks/Shoulder YES YES Parking NONE NONE Pavement Condition ASPHALT - CRACKING CONCRETE - CRACKING Lighting EAST SIDE N LEG l 10VIEST SIDE S LEG NORTH SIDE E & W LEGS Horizontal Ali nment** approach TANGENT TANGENT at intersection TANGENT TANGENT Vertical Alignment:*** approach N LEG UPGRADE 1 S LEG DOWNGRADE W LEG DOWNGRADE / E LEG UPGRADE at intersection LEVEL W SIDE UP I E SIDE DOWN Obstructions NONE NONE Sight Distance**** ADEQUATE EB 6W I WB 5W -ASPHALT ROADWAYS (160TH AVE SEI ARE IN FAIR CNDITION WITH SOME PAVEMENT CREACKING. -CONCRETE ROADWAYS (SE 128TH ST) ARE IN FAIR CONDITION WITH SOME PAVEMENT CRACKING. -PAVING MARKINGS ARE IN GOOD CONDITION. ASSESS THE INSTALLATION OF LANE MARKINGS WITH STOP BARS ON 160TH AVE SE (N & S LEGS). "NB location and direction on A. WB SE 128TH ST AT 160TH AVE SE E. B. SB 160TH AVE SE AT SE 128TH ST F. C. EB SE 128TH ST AT 160TH AVE SE G. D. NB 160TH AVE SE AT SE 128TH ST IH. A9nafted. stop. yield. none _ " Approach: tangent, curved, skewed; At intersection. tangent, curved, skewed Approach: level, crest, sag; At intersection: level, crest, sag, steep down or upgrade Adequate, limited (visual estimate for limited) HAUHARS Analysis July.2003 King County 2002 HAL/HARS Update HAL Field Report Form; Page 2 of 2 Include on sketch: Roadway boundaries L Raised channelization Traffic control ✓ Posted speed limit ✓ Driveways Critical dimensions X, Crass walks Guardrail 4 Land .-. signals'/ E Parking [/ Limited sight distance I/ Shoulders L-" Signal .... •. (pageNorth ■�■■■■■NM z ■■■i■■i�!�1!�■ 1■■■■ -■r e■■� rAs e■■■er�■■ems eo��:le■e■ ■■■i�iliifii■■■■■��ilNi ' ■;aiIn���■ ■i■■■■■■■a w■ii� i■■r.�.■�■■ w■0 BENNORF.�■�;'!■iiiril�iii w�eMMIMM EMee� ewe=gnaw �w ■■■■��!■iF die■i■■■�■1■r!�■�! ■■�■■e■■■e■■ee■ ■■� ■■■1■i!�■■■r■■■e■■er .., - ■ell no IMMOMEW ■i■eMMrN■■N■w�■■■■eei■fii■� ■■■ "MOSIMIM�\■wig■��S r■■rime■■i■1■i■■ i�'■i■�r��®ell ■■1■■■■■■■■ 1■■'■■■■■e■■■MEN ■■■� ■■■N1, ■e■A!■�■■■■e■■■ ■i■■i■■■■E�■!il�e■■■�■■ ■■■r■■■■■■ No N�■■■!!;!�■� ■■■■i■■■■■ �l■■■■i■■■�■e■8 -_ 4 98-096569__� 0013337 9891(>4 98-1 i"i 1 �9 99-659302 98-061837� 99-103329� '5E ! M3 ST. 00-10M'8 FsOnce= acci ens wiffrinsuffictent d-aTa- Tor display �- Straight c-a Parked X Pedestrian - Fixed objects: �--� Stopped <�-.-• Erratic X -Bicycle ❑ General ® Pole �--- Unknown —,r Out of control 0 Injury ® Signal ® Curb Backing �,_ Right turn p Fatality Es Tree � Animal Overtaking .,o�­ Left turn p . Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe IT.7— U-turn va DUI Extra data I•- LU ffui VI a w IL U) Z O D W z LU a m o o o a o o CD e o 0 L. C Lo b 6 L •C 0 0 0 O - a LL. O O O LL�I O O O C LO O b C a o O Q O o ait 3 u n n n u �Nm -0 amc� R w w x Q' C�a'Q' E � m m m E 3 w J a � R m mE Q � m i 0 U T- cr ch d op i} m c m daoaQ00000ddbbo booaa0000000000 IQ o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 6 O o 0 0 0 C LL 4 C7 O O b O O b b o 0 0 0 0 o Q o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q Q a a a o �c o00000000bboboo :i ro p 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 o o a Q o 0 o Q Q a Q o 0 0 0 0 0 o c O O O O O Co O Q O O Q Q Q Q !;. LL o 0 0 0 o a°aao aaa�a C m� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q Q Q a a a- (9 p o0 o a a o C; CD C> o a s d 0 C b o b o b o o b o 0 0 0 0 0 ddoaaodoo 000 mLL o000o000000000 a U bb000000000000 o 0000 Ur Co oo 000 r C N Q Q Q r Q a O O O d d O Ep m p QQOQQaQoaaadpa o 0 0 0 0 o o b b b b O b �a o o m000 0000 0000 r O O O O O O O O O Q O O a a O O Q Q O O Q Q O O a a a 0 0 0 C' LL O O O O o 0 0 0 o 06 0 0 0 0 m _9 V Q� a a o O Q o a a a d o 0 d0000uroogd ob000u, 0 a c CV O66c; C5o000000ri m U 7 mp d d$ O O b b b b b b 0 0 0 o0 oov�00000000vf 0 �a o00ooC3C300 0oo04 eeeo o ao C>eaaa as �jbbbb �y 00000000 ca u U. u 3 a`a a as ° `aEaeE3 a oo e _ O Q O O C, O O a a a a a 0 e a Qeee° b O ' e -�GObb 4 y70000,gj ©O w 0 0 0 0 0 Q O Q Q Q Q Q o a o C LL 9 7 It OOrOtn O 0O00000m C O 90 0 ob M 0 -(D 000 o 00C)V a Q7 E E � oc �aUm � a cgO�o °�'§mw 0 aW E c yc ~ c2 Oo m m D zaF- a ��co ii a O f LL e ti Q 9 C 0, m LL. N 1 r LL rr e-- cn rr p 0 L O U f- LL = lL C o m O 0 � V 7 Cl : L w � CD m C C? C w U- 0 v R � aw. LL. C p m ;O a O 3 � 'O cL1 02 m F�- 12 U r DETAILED ACCIDENT SUMMARY HAL # 16 160t' Ave SE / SE 128`h St Pavement Conditions Number Dry 8 Wet 4 Grand Total 12 Entering Volume (vehicles/day): 17,070 Accident Rate: 0.64 (accidents/million entering vehicles) Lighting Conditions Number Dark 0 Dawn 0 Day 8 Dusk 0 Lights -on -night 4 Grand Total 12 Type of Accident Total *Total Accidents Reduced by Primpa Countermeasure s PDD Injury Fatality Total PDO Injury Fatality Total Left Turn 0 4 0 4 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Right Turn 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Right Angle 3 0 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Side Swipe 0 1 0 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Head On 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rear -end 1 3 0 4 0.5 1.5 0.0 2.0 Run -off -road 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roll-over 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Driveway 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 Parking 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pedestrian/Bike 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fixed Object 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Animal 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grand Total 4 8 0 12 0.5 3.5 0.0 4.0 * Number of accidents of type that will be reduced by recommended countermeasure. HALIHARS Analysis July 2003 Recommendation, Public Benefit, and Project Cost Intersection: HAL Number: 16 160th Ave SE & SE 128th St Total Number of Accidents at Intersection (3 Year Period from 1998 to 200Q): 12 Identified Concerns: WB left -turn and rear -end accidents are prevalent. There is no left -turn lane in the WB direction. Recommended Corrective Actions: Add left -turn lane in the WB/EB directions. Alternative Corrective Actions: Install signal. ACCIDENT REDUCTION ANALYSIS Accident Reduction Factor: Property Damage Only Accidents: 13% Probable Accident Reduction: Property Damage Only Accidents: 0.5 (Percentage of accidents of the type which will be reduced by recommended corrective action) Injury Accidents: 44% Fatal Accidents: 0% (Number of accidents of the type which will be reduced by the recommended corrective action) Injury Accidents: 3.5 Fatal Accidents: 0 INVESTMENT ANALYSIS Improvement Service Life Value of Accident Reduction Normalized (years): 20 Over 20 Years: BENEFIT20 $1,256,000 Approximate Project improvement Cost: Approximate Project Improvement Cost Normalized Over 20 Years: COST $362,000 COST20 $362,000 Benefit to Cost Ratio: 4 Net Present Worth: $894,000 ( Value of public benefit divided by public cost) (Value of public benefit miners public cost) HAUHARS Analysis Analysis Criteria: July 2003 2003 Cost Estimate, Present Value Based on 2% Discount Rate (interest Minus Inflation) COST ESTIMATE PROJECT: HAL #16 - 160TIl AVE SE I SE 128TH ST 2002 HAL / HARS UPDATE MADE BY: S3 DATE: 20-Dec-02 JOB NO.: W3X37702 ITEM# Ii17RIPIION UTi[1' Qif lFIlT1lC1� AA7OUi`..: 1 SIGNAL TIMING / PHASING (INCLUDES STUDY) L.S. 0 $5,000 $0 2 WARNING BEACON EACH 0 $25,000 $ 3 NEW SIGNAL L.S. 0 $100,000 $ 4 SIGNAL MODIFICATION L.S. 0 $75,000 $ 5 IMINOR SIGNAGE L.S. 1 $2,000 SZON 6 PAINT LINE L.F_ 3360 $l S1,68 7 PLASTIC WIDE LINE L.F. 0 $1 $ 8 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS HUND 0.4 $600 $252 9 FLEXIBLE GUIDE POST EACH 0 $25 $ 10 BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 1 L.F. I00 $25 $2,500 11 CLEAR AND GRUB L.F. 1 $1,500 $1,50 12 DEMOLITION / REMOVAL L.S. 1 $10,000 $10,00 13 TYPE C BLOCK TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 0 $13 $ 14 CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 400 Sty $6,000 15 ISIDEWALK S.Y. 226 $25 S5,65 16 GRAVEL BORROW INCL. HAUL TON 346 $20 $6,92 17 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE TON 230 $25 $5,75 18 ASPHALT TREATED BASE TON 255 $70 $17,85 19 ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT CL. B TON 128 $70 $8,9 20 CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT C.Y. 190 $250 S47,5 21 DRAINAGE L.S. 1 $19,000 $1910 22 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION / TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S_ 1 $50,000 $50,00 23 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL C.Y. 370 S20 $7, 24 UTILITIES L.S. 1 $6,000 $6,00 25 ILLUMINATION L.S. 0 $ SUBTOTAL DESIGN CONTINGENCY BID ITEM SUBTOTAL 30% $198,96 $59,68 $258,651 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION / MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 15% 5% $38,798 $12,933 $51,73 DESIGN ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL /PERMI"ITING TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE 15% 5% $38,79 $12,933 $362,111 NOTE: No cast is included for purchase of right of way HALIHARS Analysis July 2003 60- N a 0 0 C) N a) Nfft- j r- i a 4N m C E S Z N t F— = I-- L C {(C'� 1V N m Z ti :D -�D aEAI�In LK O LU R1}� ,,.,., •tom;, _ .�_ .rA 1 Transportation Concurrency Level of Service Standards Status .mueyrrn.esn.uaa,a.�r.A'lk�}RinA C,v,7 r4*tl� ./f+►�� ;� ,.,,.ems, kSOrch:n+k,gwrq a.we.�rw.��.gk.-i tri"^d 1��//y�ll�td24atiort�3er w-.�liy' .Rs;i ksn 8W'rd. >:�f��im��. may P^ti"•, wmJ drt{adrtdma0'A•vl rhymyueis '.P.Mf Ora�?t�OA aW.nrern �irad,mnw,[reldY.,f .bgdc,xtl flt.Ca .dnr a�a,orf:m. us.Wt.—�L 0.� a oT � � 1r as zs sW. Ikkrcrt 1, 20Q Exhibit No. Item No. ��C t ' Receive King Courity Hearing Ugend Urhdi Gmath Luis 2MO Za Nu.bWS Zone Bamdenes 4Ner TNMWXAd Q Near Th we twld ® Under Thngehdd T4 Transportation Concurrency Level of Service Standards Status dy a V aZI 24 15 CA Kift 0 Attachment A IBg@nd Urban Growth Line Z= Zone Numbers Over Threshold Near Threshold Under Threshold chapterl. Highlights 10 Capacity in Relation to Target: King County jurisdictions have permitted more than 68,000 housing units in Urban areas in the first eight years of the planning period. That amount is 36% of the Urban growth target of 188,000 households. As of 2001, the King County UGA has 263,000 units of residential capacity. This is more than twice the capacity needed to accommodate the remaining 2012 housing target of 120,000 units. There is a surplus of 143,000 units of capacity over and above the units needed to accommodate the 2012 target. Capacity in King County is somewhat unevenly distributed among sub -areas, with Sea -Shore having the largest share (more than 122,000 units). The capacity in Sea -Shore is the result of a fairly limited amount of land that is zoned for high multifamily densities. The development history of the sub -area indicates that it can achieve high densities in the future, even with the smallest land supply of the three urban sub -areas. Although South King County has more housing capacity numerically than the Eastside, the Eastside has a larger surplus of capacity over its current 2012 target. The South County has more of its current target still to achieve, and thus less surplus capacity (18,200) beyond that target. But sub -area differences in household size play a role. Although the South County achieved less of its housing target, it has accommodated much more than its share of population growth, because it is housing more people per housing unit. The original target allocation did not take this differential into consideration. In comparing the actual growth to targets, it is important to remember the cyclical nature of Puget Sound growth. Recent permits have exceeded the annualized targets all over King County. In the next few years, slower growth may balance this rapid growth period and bring us back to the 20—year forecasted trend. The Dural area forecast or cap was set at less than four percent of Countywide growth, an average of under 400 units per year. In the first few years after the target was set actual building construction in Rural designated areas was two to three times this annualized average. As a percentage of Countywide construction, Rural activity remains small: less than eight percent of new housing units, and down to 4% since 2000_ This percentage is well below the 13 to 15% of earlier decades, and far less than Rural growth in other Puget Sound counties. Further, the 2000 Census found fewer than 137,000 persons in Rural areas, only 8% of the Countywide population and 9% of the 1990-2000 population growth. Nevertheless, in the five years 1995 -1999, new housing construction is more than halfway (52%) to the 20-year target of up to 8,200 units in Rural areas. Much of this growth is due to the large number of pre-existing lots in rural areas. Rate of residential construction remains stable Despite the slowing population growth, residential construction dropped only slightly in 2002, demonstrated by construction of nearly 11,500 new residential units. Construction of single family homes was up to almost 6,000 new houses and mobile homes. Permits for single family construction have stayed remarkably consistent each year since 1991, at about 5,000 new houses in King County. Only one third of the new houses were permitted in unincorporated areas. Multifamily construction is often much more volatile, responding to changes in the regional economy. Again this year, multifamily construction decreased to about 5,500 new apartments and condominium units (half the 1998-2000 average). Total new construction is comparable to the mid- 1990s, but well below levels of the late 1980s and late 1990s. z0,000 18,000 C 14,000 A 12,000 w 10,000 8,000 6.000 x 4,000 n Multi -family Units ■ Single Family Unitsl 0- Eih*N1 Total Ne, Resident! Units Permitte, Single Family and Multifamil 1980 — 20t Item No. King County Hearing Annual Growth Report Chapter I. Definitions 11 Definitions King County Growth Terms Annexation - Adding or taking more land into a city's jurisdiction. Growth Tame - Policy statement indicating an approved number of new households and jobs to be accommodated in a jurisdiction during the 20-year Growth Management period. Incorporated - Within a city, or the city's jurisdiction. King County contains 35 whole incorporated cities and parts of four others. Rural Areas - Unincorporated areas outside the Urban Designated Area on which little residential or job growth is planned. Rural Cities - Cities in rural areas. There are seven in King County: Black Diamond, Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Skykomish, and Snoqualmie. Subareas - Grouping of King County by geographic areas. See subareas map on page 43. ■ Suburban Cities- The cities in King County excluding Seattle. Includes rural cities. Transportation Concurrent - requires that transportation facilities must be available to carry the traffic of a proposed development. A certificate of transportation concurrency is issued when a proposed development meets the county's adopted level of service standards. Concurrency is the first step in the permit process and concurrency approvals are an indicator of future development. Unincorporated - Outside any city and under King County's jurisdiction. . Urban Centers - Areas located in cities which are meant to accommodate concentrations of housing and employment over the next 20 years. Urban Growth Areas - Areas designated for urban use under the Growth Management Act with activities supported by . urban services and facilities. Economic Terms . Affordable Housing - Assumes that no more than 25% of a homeowner's income goes to mortgage payments (exclusive of tax and insurance costs), and that no more than 30% of a renter's income goes to rent payments. Affordability Gap - The difference between the average home sales price or apartment rental price and the affordable price. See pages 4041. Covered Em to ent- Workers covered by unemployment insurance. They make up approximately 90% of total employment. Covered employment excludes military, railroad, and self-employed persons. Household - An occupied housing unit; can consist of one person, unrelated persons, or a family, Income - Wage and salary income; self-employment income (farm or non -farm); interest, dividend, and rental income; Social Security income; public assistance; retirement and disability pensions; and other income. Mean - Same as average. The sum of observations divided by the total number of those observations. 2003 King County Annual Growth Report Benchrnarking as a Strategy for Change: King County Leads the Way Throughout the United States and Canada -even as far away as Japan - people are inquiring aboutthe King County Benchmark Program. As one of the first and most durable efforts at monitoring outcomes in the public sector, this program has provided an example to other government bodies. It demonstrates how measurement of broad quality -of -life outcomes can help determine if public policy and programs are making a difference. The purpose of King County's Benchmark Program is to provide the Growth Management Council and other users with a method for: • Evaluating the progress of the County and its jurisdiction in managing growth, and in • implementing the goals outlined in the Countywide Planning Policies It is a strategy fora change: it alerts us to what we are doing well, and to where we need to do better. As such, it is intimately connected to both the policy goals that it monitors, and to the strategic planning, programs, and services that (Continued on page sixteen) Highlights: Indicators Show Efficient Use of Urban Land; Protection of Rural Area • Within the urban area of King County, 53% of all new residential permits issued in 2002 were on redevelopable land. Thistrend is key to growth management, because it indicates that urban land is being used efficiently, and that sprawl is being contained through use of infill deveiopment. • Since 1996, the proportion of new development taking place in the rural areas has been cut in half - from about 8% in 1996 to 4% in 2002. • From 1999 to 2001, King County exceeded its goal that 25%of residential units would be located in Urban Centers. However, in 2002, only 18% of new units were in Urban Centers, and nearly all of it was in Seattle and Bellevue rather than in the suburban Urban Centers. • Urban sand is being consumed at about half the rate of urban population growth. • There has been marked improvement in the achievement of planned densities in King County's urban areas. • Parks acreage in urban King County has increased by about 8% since 1996, while the urban population grew by just 7%. • We are maintaining our resource lands. Total acres of forest and farmland remains about the same as in the mid-1990s Same Benchmarks, New Format The King County Benchmark Program is in its eighth year of publishing an annual report on progress in meeting the Countywide Planning goals. This year it comes to its readers in a new bi-monthly format. This format is experimental and will be evaluated in mid-2004. It will consist of five issues, of which this is the first. The Economic Indicators will be published in October, the Affordable Housing in December, with Transportation and Environmental Indicators to follow in February a nd Apri I of 2004. Indicator Flags There has been a long -berm trend in a positive direction, or most There has been a long-term negative trend, or the recent data shawl a market` improvement most recent data shows a significant downturn There has been litdesignificant movement Inthis indicator, orthe There is insufficient reliable data for this Indicator trend has been mixed A _......... ......... .m,-.___.,......,...,....:.............. ................ ..... �....._.._...._.�..._......,- -W..._..:...._,-_._._._.._�.,._._.,.._.........,..m......,.. Table of Contents Page Benchmarking as a Strategy for Change........................................................ ........ .............1 Highlights: Land Use Trends in 2003........................ 1 .The Land Use Indleators: 30: New Housing Units in Urban and Rural Areas and in Urban Centers .......................... ....2 s 31: Employment in Urban and Rural Areas, in Urban Centers and in Mfg,/Indust Centers ................... ...4 32: New Housing Units Built Through Redevelopment........................................................................ ,,,........... 5 33: Ratio of Land Consumption to Population Growth .......................... ...............6 4 34: Ratio of Achieved Density to Planned Density of Residential Development ..................... ..6 t= Map of King County Jurisdictions, Sub -Regions and Urban Centers .... .:................................ .................... ................ 9 i 35: Ratio of Land Capacity to 20-Year Job and Household Targets................................................................................10 36: Land with Six Years of Infrastructure Capacity .11 l 37: Acres of Urban Parks and Open Space....................................................................................................................12 38: Ratio of Jobs to Housing in Central Puget Sound and King County Sub -Regions .................................................... 13 39: Acres in Forestand Farm Land..................................................................................................................................14 € 40: Number and Average Size of Farms............................................................. ..... 15 1 Data Sources and Acknowledgments ........................... E Q i fti/Fri^FWr,i .,.,�..,.„,.,....,..<�.«.�«....,«,«,.._-,-...,.._.....«-.,-,.._....,�.............._. Rom- r-q-_�'prJ7 King C01113V H6MV E=Y*W @iY lr Y�iYllaPn nany vasaaaaa> VVa.a•a]v.Mr .......s.a.p . r"w v+vw �..--��-.-�-� � _ter --___ Encourage a Greater Share of Growth in Urban Areas and Urban Centers; Limit Growth in RuraVResource Areas Indicator 30: Percent of New Housing Units in Urban Areas, Rural Areas, and Urban Centers Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "The land use. pattern for King County shall pro- tect the natural environment by reducing the con- sumption of land and concentrating development. Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and resource lands shall be designated and the necessary imple- menting regulations adopted..... Urban. Centers are expected to account for...one quarter of the house- hold growth over the next20 years." (CPP. FW7,6 8 lii Also FW 9-10, LU-26, 40, FW 66 J Indicator 30 measures King County's progress in in- creasing the proportion of new housing that is built within urban areas, and reducing the proportion in rural areas. It also monitors residential development in the 14 designated Urban Centers of the County, two of which were designated in the past year. Key Trends Rural vs. Urban Growth • The percent of development in the urban area of King County has gradually increased to about 96% in 2002, with just 4% occurring in the rural/resource areas. In comparison to the 1996 -1998 period, the proportion of new development taking place in the rural areas has been cut in half. Fig. 30.1 Urban Housing Unit Permits as a Percent 120% � of All New Housing Unit Permits l06°k � ao% ! so% 40% 20% 1996.1999 logo 2000 2001 2002 ■ Urban ,ee Rural 1 Resource Countywide Growth and the New Target Fig. 30-2 Cumulative Net New Mousing Units 120.000 T Permitted in Relation to Ta 10o,00o i 80,000 - l]F:sirs�ble Gro h 60,000 (Fore detl T8rge 40,000 { Actual Growl 20,000 fxtended Target: ey 2022, s total of about 230,000 net new nousing units should be built in King County, including those built from 1983 - 2000 2 • Countywkde residential growth continues to meet or slightiy exceed the newly -adopted 22-year growth target. • Total new residential development increased about 2% over the 2001 level, atjust under 11,000 new units permitted. Despite the recession, permit levels have remained fairly consistent since 1996. (See Fig. 30.5 for city and sub -region detail). Growth in Urban Centers Urban Centers in Icing County are 'areas with concentrated housing and employment, supported by high capacity transit and... retail, recreational, public facilities, parts and open space." • From 1999 to 2001 King County exceeded its goal that 25% of new residential permits would be located in Urban Centers. In 2002, just 18% of new residential permits were issued for Urban Centers. Fig. 30.3 Urban Center Residential Development as a Percent of New Residential Permits Issued 555 40% 0% 1996-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ■Urban Center R All Units • Nearly all of the 2002 growth in Urban Centers was in Seattle's five Urban Centers and in Bellevue. • Bellevue's center had moderate growth with 252 new units, but centers in the suburban cities are not showing continued residential growth during this recession period. Fig. 30.4 Net Niew Units Permitted and Tola� Existing Units in Ufban centers , Seattle S2.006 54,414 1708 56,122 First HdViCa italHilt 23,53f 24,183 393 24,576 Downtown 12,852 14,344 1060 15,404 No to 3,650 3,665 15 3,680 untwers' 6,698 6,917 144 7.061 uptown 5,075 5,305 96 5,401 Auburn- 9D0 Bellevue 2,709 3,068 252 3,320 Federal tiifa ` 892 892 0 892 Kent ass 572 0 572 Kirkland/Totem Lake- 2,944 Redmond 1,324 1,324 0 1,324 Renton 1.015 1,051 -2 1,049 5eaTac 4,085 4,085 1 4 086 Tukwila 2 2 0 2 'Federal way has an urban core with no residential units. it has 892 units in its urban frame" which surrounds the urban core. "Two new urban centers ware designated in 2003: Totem Lake in KvNlarx(. and Downtown Auburn. The nurnberis an estimate ofresidential units existing in each centerat the 61 of designation. Fig. 30.5 Net New Housing Units Permitted in King County, 0000 ��}{ 7rrb3.,jf& f,7' 6l ...,.....'. 77 OMPN Lake Forest Park 9 11 20 538 4% Seattle" 3,824 3,261 7,085 51,510 14% Shoreline 63 104 167 2,651 60/0 i h Fn7e ° Total for SeaShore 3,990 3,450 7,440 56,369 13% y Nona 16 41 57 298 19% Auburn 165 78 243 5,928 40/c Bladk Diamond 7 4 11 1,099 1°/0 Burien 17 27 44 1,552 3% Covin 222 353 575 1,173 49% DesMoines 26 8 34 1,576 2% Federal Way 32 201 233 6,188 4% Kent 457 347 804 4,284 19% Maple Valley 166 341 507 300 1690/0 Milton 1 - 1 50 2% Normandy Pant 5 91 96 100 96% Pacific 14 99 113 9% 11 % Renton 658 619 1,277 6,198 21% SeaTac 20 35 55 4,478 1% Tukwila 42 51 93 3,200 30/6 a Total for South 2,545 3,407 5,952 42,355 14% 0. �,. aaux Arts 2 - 21 3 67° o Bellevue 509 381 890 10,117 9% Boltlell 26 121 147 1,751 8% Hill - - - 21 Cr/0Hunts Point 1 2 1 1 100% Issaquah 499 200 699 3,993 18% Kenmore 32 136 170 2,325 7°/0 Kirkland 225 195 420 5,480 80% Medina 2 3 5 31 -16% Meurer Island 63 82 145 1,437 10% Newcastle 67 109 176 863 201/6 Redmond 694 465 1,159 9,083 131% o WoodimiRe 51 134 185 1,869 100/0 Yarrow Pont - - - 28 0% 0 Total for East 3170 3095 6265 47,645 13% Carnation 0 1 1 1 246, 0° ° Duvall 208 86 294 1,037 28% EnurrC{aw 28 59 87 1,927 50/0 Mouth Bend 7 -1 6 636 1 % s omish 0 0 - 20 0% Snoqualmie 136 291 427 1,697 25% UKC/ Rural City UGA's 7 7 Total r Rural All Current Cities 8.753 8A59 17212 138,526 12% Urban Uninoorp KC 1,331 1,936 3267 13,405 24% ura 513 441 Al Unin KC 1,884 2,377 4,261 na The number in ffr.'s o3imn is the number reported bythe jurtsdc(ion for bu*kh 1e lards data lrnd . 8 may Mbrs,9* from the sum arfhe numbers repartad kx ft Annual Growth Report. "waffle neporrs net peanla fmaled rather then net pemras issued. "7hwe is no stated target for Rural King County. The numbergiven o Me 6trerenm befmw Hue urban aaa target and the overal CourNy to get Indicator 30 (continued) City and Sub -Region Progress The original 20 year residential target ran from 1993 to 2012. In 2002 that 20 year target was evaluated, and a 22 year target, running from 2000 to 2022, was adopted. The line on Fig. 30.2 shows the original target up through 2000, and the new target from 2001 on. It assumes an equal distribution of growth in each year of the target period. • Countywide we have achieved 14% of the newly -adopted residential target in the first two years of the 22 year period. • Although there is wide variation in the degree of new development in each city, there is considerable consistency from one sub -region to another. • Each sub -region has permitted between 13% and 15% of its 22 year target during these first two years_ Two years represents about 9% of the target period. What We Are doing • Preserving rural and resource areas from development through purchase of conservation easements for forest land that was slated for development. • Refining and enforcing rural development codes to limit development, protect environmentally -sensitive areas, and maintain rural character. • Allowing clustering of housing on constrained land, easing height restrictions, and providing other incentives to maximize net densities in appropriate urban areas. • Promoting transit -oriented development in urban centers through city -county and private partnerships. Providing 10 years of lax exemption for new residential units in Auburn's Urban Center. • Extending urban area targets to 2022 with an emphasis on sub -regional balance. Issues Residential development has slowed, or has never occurred, in most of the designated urban centers outside of Seattle_ Some of this has been the result of the slowdown in the economy just as plans were ready to be implemented. Tile County and cities need to continue to seek ways to stimulate development in those u rban centers, with the vision of bringing jobs, people, public transportation, and shopping into closer proximity in lively, pedestrian -oriented communities. 3 indicator34 (continued) Key Trends • There has been a marked improvement in the achievement of planned densities in 2002 when compared to the 1996 to 2000 period. • This improvement has occurred in both the creation of new plats, and in new development permitted on existing lots. • The improvement has happened in all sub -regions of the County with the exception of a few zone groups. • King County jurisdictions have surpassed planned densities in much of their multifamily development. As part of the five-year state -mandated report on buildable lands in King County, each jurisdiction reported the plat and permit densities they actually achieved in each zone for the 1996- 2000 period- Figures 34.1 - 34.3 show the average densities achieved for that five-year period (blue column) and the densities achieved in 2002 (green column). Plat Densities • In every sub -region except the rural cities, the average plat densities achieved in all zones were higher in 2002 than in the earlier period. Fig. 34, 1 Change in Achieved Densities on Plats: from 1996-2000* to 2002 7.0 1 6.0 6.3 5.8 6.4 6.0 e 6.0 i s.a 4.6 a 5.0 , 3.9 4.4 3.8 m 4.0 - � 3.0 a 2.0 0 1.0 1 , 0.01 SEASHORE EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN COUNTY COUNTY CMES AREA TOTAL a,: Avg. Plat Density: 1996-2000 ■Avg. Plat Density: 2002 `Biuecohems represent everage densities arheved am Um five-year period from 9M - 20M • The urban region as a whole averaged 6.0 lots per acre on its new single-family plats in 2002. Six lots per acre is considered a benchmark of urban density for single family lots. Permit Densities • Permits issued in single family zones in 2002 showed an increase in achieved densities in all regions of the County except for the Sea -Shore sub -region, which includes the already highly -urbanized areas of Seattle, Shoreline, and Lake Forest Park. Fig. 34.2 Change in Achieved Densities for Permits in Single Family Zones: from 1996-2000 to 2002 5 8 `0 6.0 i 5.2 5.3 a €' E: 4.9 4.r 5.0 4.2 3.8 0 4.0 - 3A Y 3.0 1.B 1.D 'i. 4.D i SEASHORE EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN COUNTY COUNTY CITIES AREA h; Avg. Permit Density In SF Zones: 1996.2000 TOTAL ■ Avg. Perm It Density In SF Zones: 2002 • In multifamily zones, however, Sea -Shore has increased its achieved density to an average of 77.7 dwelling units per acre in 2002, from 52.2 dwelling units per acre during the 1996 - 2000 period. Fig. 34.3 Change in Achieved Densities In Multifamily Zones: 1996-2000 to 2002 90 80 10 77.7 €tE Avg. Permit Density in MF Zones: 1996.2000 a Avg. Permit Density in MF Zones: 2002 SEA- EAST SOUTH RURAL URBAN SHORE COUNTY COUNTY CITIES AREA TOTAL Overall, the cities and urban areas of King County are showing a clear trend toward achieving higher densities and more efficient use of land within the urban areas. Zone by Zone Comparison When achieved density is compared to the planned density in specific zone ranges, the accomplishment is more mixed. Figures 34.4 - 34.7 (on the following page) show how achieved densities in each sub -region compare to the average planned density in that zone range. Because each jurisdiction has slightly different zones, zones have been aggregated in general density ranges for each sub -region of the County. For instance, the lowest density category includes zones with planned densities from one to three dwelling units per acre. Achieved densities in those zones are compared to an average planned density of approximately two dwelling units per acre. in general, newly -platted land (light blue column) has matched or exceeded the planned densities (green column) in each zone category. Newly - platted land is the best indicator of how successful current land use policies are in achieving efficient land use. Our success in developing new land at planned densities or higher is a positive signal for the future. 7 Indicator 34 (continued) The Sea -Shore sub -region (Fig. 34.4) has relatively small amounts of plat activity, but it has done well in platting new land in accordance with its planned densities. Its permit activity in 2002 however, shows infill development taking place at lower than planned densities in most single family zones'. forthe Rural Cities, where aggregated permit activity fell short of the overall planned density, despite the fact that planned densities were achieved or exceeded in all the zones designed for over three dwelling units per acre. A similar effect is evident in permit activity in the South Sub -Region. Fig. 34.4 Seattle -Shoreline Sub -Area: Achieved vs. 14 1 Planned Densities in Single Family Zones 4n the Eastside (Fig. 34.5), the picture is different. 12 - �Achieved Density on New Plate' Plat densities nearly matched, or exceeded, planned ff10 =Achieved Density on New Permits densities in three out of five zone ranges, as well as 8 - e Average Planned Density overall. In the lowest density zones, and in the seven 'Missing bar indicates that there vas 6 ne plat activty in this zone rae" to nine DU /acre zones, plat development was less 4 � atA dense than planned. 2 iiiiiiitililiil� The net densities achieved on new permits were slightly below planned densities in the low and mid- range zones, while in higher density zones (over seven DU per acre), permitted development occurred at higher than the planned density jurisdictions in the South sub -region (Fig. 34.6) achieved higher -than -planned densities on new plats in their low and high density single-family zones. But land was platted at slightly less than the planned density in their mid -range zones. The reverse was true with permitting activity in the South County, with the lowest and highest zones falling significantly short of planned density, but the mid -range zones building more densely than planned. When all the single family zones in the South sub- region are considered together, achieved density on plats surpassed planned density, while permit development nearly equalled the planned densities. The Rural Cities (Fig. 34-7) had very little plat activity in 2002. Permitted development occurred at higher densities than planned, with the exception of the lowest density zones. Countywide Conclusions Urban King County is making good progress on using urban land efficiently. In particular it has shown a marked improvement in 2002 over densities achieved in the 1996 -- 2002 period- It has been remarkably successful in building at or beyond planned densities in high density single-family zones and in multifamily zones. Issues The one area in which improvement could be made is in building at planned density in lower- and mid- range single family zones. When land that is zoned for 2.5 DUs per acre is built at one DU per acre, considerable land supply is lost for more intense development, and overall urban densities become more difficuttto achieve. This is evident in the result 1.3 DUf 3-5DU/ 5-7 DUI 7.0 DU1 9+13131 Acre Aggregated Acre Acre Acre Acre Single Family Planned Density Range Zones Fig. 34.5 260 n Eastside Sub -Area: Achieved vs. Planned Densities in Single Family Zones „20.0 - 'w c5 Q Achieved Density on New Plats' ■ Achieved Density an New Permits d 10.0` = e Average Planned Density Ards ¢'1 0.0 — - 1-3DUI 3.5DUI 5-7DU1 7-9DU1 9+DUI Acre Aggregated Acre Acre Acre Acre Single Fam ily Planned Density Range Zones Fig. 34.6 South Sub -Area: Achieved vs. Planned Densities in Single Family Zones 12.0 - _10.0 - Achieved Density on Now Plats' m 8.0 fS Achieved Density on New Permits s.0 a Average P ned Density a m i= a t m J - 4.0 Q 2,0 I 1-aDuf 3.5DU1 5-7DUI 7-9DU1 9+DulAcre Aggregated Acre Acre Acre Acre Single Family Planned Density Range Zones Fig. 34.7 Rural Cities Sub -Area: Achieved vs. Planned Densities in Single Family Zones r m c m r m a 12.0 1 'Missing bar 10.0 . Achieved Density on New Plats' icates that " a was no 8 .0 ■Achieved Density on New Permits tactivity in 6 Average Planned Density ''s zone range. B.0 - CO 1 � f 0.0 1 bE d II 1.3DU1 3.5DU1 5-7DU1 7-9DU1 9+DUI Aggregated Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Single Family Planned Density Range Zones Outcome: Accommodate Residential and Job Growth in Urban Areas Indicator 35: Comparison of Remaining Land Capacity to Household and Job Targets Countywide Planning Policy Rationale "The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate future urban development. Policies to phase the provision of urban services and to ensure efficient use of the growth capacity within the Urban Growth Area shall be instituted....The Urban Growth Area shall accommodate the 20-year projection of household and employment growth.' (CPP FW--12 & LU-26) The concern of Indicator 35 is whether King County has sufficient remaining land capacity to accom- modate the residential andjob growth that is projected to occur over the next 20 years. New targets for housing and jobs were established to extend from 2000 to 202Z a twenty-two year planning period. These targets supplant the original targets for 1993 - 2012. We have now completed the first two years of the new 22 year planning horizon. Fig. 35,1 shows 1) the number of housing units built during these two years, 2) the 22 year housing target, and 3) the remaining target for 2022. It also shows 4) the estimated remaining residential capacity as of the end of 2002, and 5) the estimated remaining capacity once the targets are met.. In the last column of Fig. 35.1 the remaining housing target is shown as a percent of the current remaining capacity. it is likely that more capacity will become available between 2012 and 2022, but that is not included in this measure. Capacity is illustrated in Fig. 35.2. Forthe 2002 King County Buildable Lands Re on Fig. 35.3 shows the new employment targets established for the 2022 jurisdictions studied their remaining land supply and planning horizon, by sub -region. It also shows the job capacity by sub - calculated the number of housing units and jobs that region, as determined for the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. There has could be accommodated on that land. Discounts been a net loss ofjobs in King County from 2000 - 2002, so overall capacity were applied for sensitive areas and for other land has increased. Employment data by sub -region is not yet available for constraints, including a market factor. 2002, so it is not possible to update the sub -regional capacity. 'Residential capacity as of the end of 2000 was caiculated by each city for the 2002 Buildable Lands Report. The estimated remaining capacity is arrived at by subtracting the new units permitted during 2001 and 2002 from the capacity reported at the end of 2000. However, zoning changes and other events may affect the actual capacity of each jurisdiction as time goes on. The "remaining capacity" will necessarily be an estimate until a new study of capacity is undertaken. "Or capacity remaining whenever the 2022 targets are achieved. Key Trends Residential Capacity • Countywide, 54% of the remaining residential capacity will be needed to meet the 2022 housing target. This leaves considerable room for growth beyond 2022. • 73% of the capacity on the Eastside will be consumed to meet the 2022 target, while just 43% of the Sea -Shore capacity will be used up. • Since the available housing capacity was calcu- lated only for land likely to be available by 2012, it is probable that more housing unit capacity will emerge between 2012 and 2022, as market conditions make more land available, and redevelop- ment becomes a more cost-effective alternative. 10 • In the entire urban area there is currently capacity for 111.000 more units than will be needed to meet the 2022 household growth target. Fig. 35.2 Sub -Regional Residential Capacity in Relation to Sub -Regional Targets 140.000 -I 120000 114,900 Remaining 2022 Household Target 100,000 � �=Est Remaining Capacity 1 80.000 {I M..=... �i�;; 56,5063,039 - t3 60,000 48,92" �s 41,38f3 40,00D 20,000 E V u. 4,741 8,355 SEASHORE EAST COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY RURAL CITIES Unincorporated South King County Residential Land Supply After deducting constraints, the South County urban unincorporated area has about 5,240 net acres of vacant and redevelopable land. With an adjustment for market variables, and the removal of the portions of redevelopable parcels that have an existing unit, about 3,216 acres of this land is potentially available for development during the planning period. In single-family zones, there are approximately 4,960 net acres, with about 3,000 acres of this land potentially developable during the planning horizon. In multifamily zones, there are about 280 net acres, with about 215 acres of this land potentially developable during the planning horizon. Residential Capacity The South Unincorporated Urban Area has capacity for 17,283 new housing units given its current land supply and zoning. There is capacity for 13,442 units in single-family zones and 3,841 units in multifamily zones. The largest amount of its land supply is in the R-4 zone with capacity for over 7,500 units. Residential Capacity Analysis The South County Urban Unincorporated Area has a total residential capacity of 17,283 units. Its remaining target to 2012 is 4,935 households. This amounts to a surplus capacity for 12,348 units greater than its target. It has achieved 53% of its target in the first eight years of the twenty-year planning period. 4!25_ _. - Residential Capacity in Relation to Target Net New 20 Year Surplus or Units: 1993 Housing Percent Remaining Current Deficit in 2000 Target Achieved Target Capacity Relation to Tar et 12,34R 5,565 19,500 53% 4,935 17,2831 hm NO. �-b King COUr ty H 183 Buildabblle Laands�Report 08/29/02 King County Buildable Lands Report Conclusions King County has been successful in accommodating strong population and employment growth from 1993 - 2000. • King County has well over the capacity needed to accommodate the growth that is expected to occur by 2012. • Sufficient capacity exists to accommodate further growth beyond the 2012 planning horizon. • However, the supply of vacant land is limited, especially of large parcels for single family development. The remaining supply must be used efficiently. • Densities of recent residential and commercial / industrial projects indicate efficient use of the land supply. • All the sub -areas of King County show adequate capacity for the target period through 2012, and beyond. A few individual cities have a potential shortfall with respect to their target. • The remedy phase of Buildable Lands is not addressed by this report. Capacity issues at the city level are being addressed in part by the targets review now underway. • Density issues will be addressed by jurisdictions individually. Caveats This work is not a market feasibility study. While it includes an inventory of "buildable lands", it does not answer the question of what land is "available" for development, either now or in the future. Availability depends on many market factors and individual decisions that are beyond public control, and difficult to predict a decade ahead. Nor is this study an infrastructure capacity analysis. There may be a need for further work on the adequacy of current infrastructure, including transportation and utilities, to support future growth, and on plans to provide that infrastructure, but those topics are not addressed in this report Although the Buildable Lands program provides data on remaining residential land supply, it does not answer questions about housing affordability. Land supply is one factor on the cost side of housing. There are many other factors, on both the supply side and the demand side that affect the cost of housing. Related to that is the cautionary note that Buildable Lands is not a prediction of the economic climate over the next 12 to 20 years. When the economic climate is positive, E BL Ch1 3Final 08/29/02 STATE, COUNTY, CITY POPULATIONS h�F' STa�t os PART o State, County, City Populations ayy 189% Aa OPULATION TRENDS provides demographic data for the state, counties, cities, and towns as of April 1, 2003. Population determinations contained in this document were developed by the Office of Financial Management (OFM) and represent the official state population figures. Annual population figures for Washington's cities, towns, and counties have been developed and released for over three decades. These estimates are cited in numerous statutes using population as criteria for fund allocations, program eligibility, or program operations and as criteria for determining county participation in the Growth Management Act. The 2003 population estimates for cities and towns presented in Table 4 will be used in the allocation of selected state revenues beginning January 2004 (RCW 43.62.020). Population estimates for counties are used to allocate revenues as specified in RCW 36.13.100. Revenue allocations to counties using the 2003 figures will begin with liquor profits in September 2003 (RCW 66.08.200). Summary of Population Trends Washington State population growth is still slowed by economy. Washington State's population continues to grow, but at a much slower rate, reflecting the state's weak economy. Annual population estimates prepared by the Office of Financial Management snow the state's rate of growth has dropped from about 1.5 percent in the late 1990s to a cuzxent low of 0.9 percent. Washington's population reached 6,098,300 on April 1, representing annual growth of 56,600 for 2003 compared to an increase of 66,800 for 2002 and 80,800 for 2001. The slower population growth is consistent with the weak economy and with the OFM state forecast released in fall 2002. When the economy rebounds, so will the state's population growth. Migration has always been driven by economic opportunity and is a major component of Washington's growth. But for now, slower growth is expected to last through 2004 and into 2005. Thus, population growth will really depend upon how fast Washington's economy recovers and how that recovery compares to what other states have to offer in terms of job opportunities. 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 -25,000 1980 OFM Forecasting, State of Washington Figure 1. State Growth Continues to Slow 1985 1990 1 96 M 2000 mn No1�l1--A King Could Heaf# Ew*Br STATE, COUNTY, CITY POPULATIONS The Census 2000 population count marks the baseline for tracking a new decade of population change in Washington. The majority of growth since 2000 remains concentrated in Western Washington with the largest gains including increases of 42,254 in King County, 32,882 in Pierce County, 31,476 in Snohomish County and 27,062 in Clark County. The fastest growing counties — in terms of percentage change — are Franklin County (8.6 percent), Clark County (7.8 percent), Benton County (6.4 percent) and Kittitas County (5.5 percent). East-West growth trends change. Until 2003, annual growth in Eastern Washington had not outpaced that in the West since 1996. This year, Eastern Washington population grew 0.96 percent over last year. This compares with 0.93 percent for the West. Figure 2. Percent Population Growth by Region Percent Change from Prior Year 5-----------------..-------------- --------- - - - - -- - - -- - 4 r=----- ---- --- - - - - - -- - ----- 3-----=--,`-----_ - - - - -�-=-----------:'-'`----- - -- - -- �� West ` 2 - - --- ---- - ---- '------------- - 1 - --- --- --- - - - - -- --` -- - ------- --� --- - - -- - East 0 1-------- _-------------------- - - - - -- - - - 2- - - - - --------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 April 1 Office of Financial Management July 2003 Growth in Western Washington has been slowly declining, from over 3.0 percent in the early 1990s, to 2.0 percent in 1995, and to 0.93 percent in 2003. Annual growth is at its lowest since 1983. Based on Census 2000, 22.2 percent of the state's residents live east of the Cascades. This proportion has been relatively stable over the last ten years. In 2003, the Eastern Washington share is 22.0 percent. Washington's population in cities and towns reached 3,736,468 by April 1, 2003, up 117,861 over the last year. Of this increase, almost 84,000 were due to annexation and incorporations. Incorporating at 80,693, Spokane Valley accounted for the largest chunk of the increase. Only five other cities annexed over 100 population: Issaquah (1,699), Pasco (796), Lynden (161), Auburn (139), and Washougal (116). Detailed information on the April 1, 2003 population estimates for cities, towns and counties is contained in this publication and on the Office of Financial Management web page at 11'4S'l1>.ctm.ti, a.�c�1-. 2 OFM Forecasting, State of Washington ON Growth Management Population Projection Tracking Report Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division January 2004 In January 2002 the Office of Financial Management (OFM) released a new series of county population projections for the Growth Management Act (GMA). This projection series started with the Census 2000 tabulations as a base and used actual growth trends through the 1990s and prior historical periods to develop county growth expectations. This tracking report shows how annual county population estimates for 2001 through 2003 line up with the 2005 GMA projections. Since the series only produced growth expectation by five-year intervals, annual population change through 2005 for this report was developed by linear interpolation. The following table shows OFM's April 1, 2003 population estimate for each county compared to the intermediate GMA population projection. The general findings are summarized below. -One-third of the counties are tracking closely, within one percent, of their intermediate projection. This includes large counties like Clark, King, Snohomish, and Spokane —and small counties like Garfield, Lincoln, and Pacific. -All but two counties, Franklin and Pend Oreille Counties, are tracking within the high and low projection range. Franklin County's 2003 population estimate is 310 persons above their high projection series. Pend Oreille County's 2003 population estimate is 14 persons less than their low projection. -About 70 percent of the counties are tracking below their intermediate projection series. This largely reflects lower migration gains due to Washington's flat economy. More counties may drop below their low growth expectations before there is an upturn in the state's economy. population growth. The graphs that follow show the specific tracking status for each county. If you have any questions, please contact Theresa Lowe at 360.902.0588. This tracking document is also on the OFM web page at: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/index.htm#growth Comparison of Office of Financial Management Growth Management Population Projections with 2003 Population Estimates GMA Proiections Estimate Low Medium High Diff. from Medium Projection 2003 2003 2003 2003 Number Percent Washingion 6,098,300 5,918,936 6,097,655 6,330,296 645 0.01 Adams 16,600 16,522 17,046 17,638 -446 -2.62 Asotin 20,600 20,456 21,100 21,828 -500 -2.37 Benton 151,600 142,821 147,903 155,722 3,697 2.50 Chelan 67,900 67,394 69,348 71,312 -1,448 -2.09 Clallam 65,300 62,537 64,653 66,671 647 1.00 Clark 372,300 360,177 372,854 386,059 -554 -0,15 Columbia 4,100 3,814 3,974 4,156 126 3.17 Cowlitz 94,900 93,186 96,438 102,201 -1,538 -1.59 Douglas 33,600 33,381 34,795 36,367 -1,195 -3.44 Ferry 7,300 7,260 7,645 8,143 -345 -4.51 Franklin 53,600 49,666 51,324 53,290 2,276 4.43 Garfield 2,400 2,312 2,420 2,536 -20 -0.84 Grant 77,100 76,536 79,317 82,222 -2,217 -2.80 Grays Harbor 68,800 64,627 66,772 68,916 2,028 3.04 Island 74,000 70,439 73,466 76,493 534 0.73 Jefferson 26,700 26,372 27,504 28,637 -804 -2.92 King 1,779,300 1,727,765 1,766,895 1,805,490 12,405 0.70 Kiisap 237,000 224,701 234,629 259,133 2,371 1.01 Kittitas 35,200 32,749 33,933 35,400 1,267 3.73 Klickitat 19,300 19,105 19,867 20,782 -567 -2.85 Lewis 70,400 68,013 71,243 75,316 -943 -1.18 Lincoln 10,100 9,781 10,131 10,706 -31 -0.30 Mason 50,200 49,857 52,035 55,101 -1,835 -3.53 Okanogan 39,600 39,357 40,700 42,168 -1,100 -2.70 Pacific 20,900 20,352 20,968 21,848 -68 -0.32 Pend Oreille 11,800 11,814 12,300 12,825 -500 -4.07 Pieroe 733,700 707,050 724,831 755,168 8,869 1.22 San Juan 14,800 14,350 14,919 15,543 -119 -0.80 Skagit 106,700 105,340 109,073 114,062 -2,373 -2.18 Skamania 9,900 9,822 10,239 10,806 -339 -3.31 Snohomish 637,500 622,949 642,451 661,952 -4,951 -0.77 Spokane 428,600 418,915 431,816 449,150 -3,216 -0.74 Stevens 40,600 39,881 41,289 44,321 -689 -1.67 Thurston 214,800 214,421 223,374 236,364 -8,574 -3.84 Wahkiakum 3,800 3,723 3,873 4,023 -73 -1.89 Walla Walla 55,800 54,488 56,557 59,195 -757 -1.34 Whatoom 174,500 169,725 175,003 183,395 -503 -0.29 Milman 41,000 39,167 40,563 43,876 437 1.08 Yakima 226,000 218,111 224,406 231,479 1,594 0.71 OFM Forecasting Division, January 2004 2 f 17900,000 1,850,000 1,800,000 1,750,000 1,700,000 1,650,000 1,600,000 1,550,000 1,500,000 Tracking the 2002 GMA Projections King County 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 290,000 - 270,000 250,000 230,000 210,000 190,000 170,000 Kitsap County Census/Est Medium ••••• High ••••••• Law 150;00Q 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 OFM Forecasting Division, January 2004 CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: Tune 3, 2003 TO: Planning Commission FROM: RebeccknV, Planning Manager STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, (X6581) SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau CPA Land Use Alternatives Initial Background Briefing ISSUE: Whether the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations for specific areas within the study area are still appropriate? • What is the desired residential character and density within the East Renton Potential Annexation Area (PAA)? • Which areas should be Single Family Residential (RS) with R-5 or R-8 zoning, and which should be Residential Rural (RR) with R-5 zoning? • Should a plat and density pattern with larger lots be allowed to encourage upper income and/or higher quality developments in portions of the study area? • Does the concept of having a transition zone between rural designations outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and more intense zones such as the R-8 zone still make sense? Whether current zoning classifications adequately address the desired character and development patterns for the study area or whether revised or new zoning would be more appropriate? • Does the R-5 zone as currently configured still fulfill its intended purpose as a transition zone between lower density rural designations such as R-1 and more intense zones such as the R-8 zone? Should a new zoning designation, such as R-4, be co red if it was more compatible with much of the study areacter than the existing R-5 zoning designation? ItBm No. _ King Cour ty Hoft filer June 3, 2003 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: • Continue analysis and study of these issues. Specific recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission at subsequent meetings. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The East Renton Plateau CPA study area is defined as the area within Renton's PAA north of Maple Valley Highway, east of 13e Avenue SE (Bremerton Avenue NE) to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to the east, and SE May Valley Road on the north. The area is approximately 2,730 acres in size. Comprehensive Plan Designations and Zoning RPntnn Plan Currently the study area is designated both Residential Rural (RR) and Residential Single Family (RS) on the City's Comprehensive Plan land use map (see Figure 1). The RR designation represents 28 % of the study area and allows three different zones: Resource Conservation, R-1 and R-5. Resource Conservation and R-1 are applied to lands with significant environmental constraints. Lower densities ranging from one unit per 10 acres to one unit per acre are allowed in these two zones. Within the RR designation, the R- 5 zone with density at five units per net acre, is only applied to lands that do not include significant sensitive areas. Development may be clustered in small lots with a minimum lot size of 4,500 sq. ft., but typical lots are 7,200 sq. ft. or larger. There is no minimum density in the R-5 zone. The RS designation represents 72 % of the study area and allows two zones, R-5 and R-8. In the RS designation, R-5 zoning can only be applied within one-half mile of the Urban Growth Boundary. The provisions of the zoning are the same as in the RR designation. The R-8 zone allows residential densities ranging from five units per net acre (minimum density) to as high as 9.7 units per net acre (the latter on pre-existing lots of less than 1/2 acre in size). It typically encourages small lot single-family development with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. These smaller lots usually are developed with two-story houses and an attached garage. Most of the study area is not yet designated with one of Renton's zoning designations. Renton's Comprehensive Plan applies outside the City within the PAA, but zoning is applied either upon annexation or upon adoption of a pre -zoning ordinance. Ding CounV Plan The study area is designated Urban Residential (4-12 units per gross acre) on King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The wide range allows the flexibility to rezone land before the King County Hearing Examiner. Currently, most of the area is zoned R-4 with a small amount of land zoned R-6 near the existing City of Renton boundary. King County uses gross density, which allows approximately 20% greater density than the net density June 3, 2003 Page 3 system used in Renton. Consequently R-4 zoning in King County is roughly equivalent to R- 5 zoning in Renton. Services Renton Fire currently provides service in this area under contract with Fire District #25. The study area is primarily within Water District 90's service area. Renton is the sewer provider within the study area. In the late 1990s, the City Council decided to allow out -of -city sewer service if proposed development within the study complied with Renton's Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan was silent on the issue of whether R-5 or R-8 zoning was appropriate. At that time the City agreed to provide sewer to single family projects at densities up to 8 units per net acre because this was the maximum density allowed under the Plan. Because a number of projects approved by King County in the study area do not conform to City road, lot dimension, emergency access and other development standards, as well as the prospect of full development at R-8 zoning, the Administration became increasingly concerned. Due to its inability to reach agreement with King County on development standards for new plats, the City Council changed policy and stopped providing out -of -city sewer service to this area early 2002. A number of parcels are still vested for Renton sewer service, but additional service requests are currently not being processed within the study area. Growth Targets Under GMA, cities receive a growth target based on their zoning and land area, as does unincorporated King County. The PAA targets are established based on County zoning and development trends. When Renton annexes land, the City target is amended based on a predetermined formula and a percentage of the unincorporated area target is added to the Renton target. The growth target assigned to the East Renton PAA is quite low based on current R4 (gross) zoning. Based on the municipal boundary as of July 2002, the East Renton PAA had 955 units of capacity on vacant land, and 867 units of capacity on redevelopable land for a total of 1,822 units. The unincorporated area target for 2022 is 35 % of capacity or 638 units. Within the Renton city limits, capacity is 10,620 units and the 2022 target is 6,198 units. Character of Existing Development Development in the study area is exclusively single family. There is no existing multi -family or commercial development and no zoning that allows it in the future. Most of the area still retains a rich vegetative cover throughout. Platted lots are in the 7,200 square foot to 21,000 square foot range and there are a significant number of parcels over one acre (see Figure 2). The area is served by two major arterial roads, NE 4' (128' St_) and 156"' St. (the major north/south connection to the Maple Valley Highway). The study area includes four schools Planning Commission Issue Paper #3.doe June 3, 2003 Page 4 and one developed park. King County owns several undeveloped park lands in the area and another developed park out of the study area. (See Figure 3.) Development in this area is characterized by suburban style housing on larger lots often with large front yard setbacks. Housing styles are typical of the architectural styles from the 1960s through the present. More recent development along the NE 4`h corridor conforms to the Renton R-8 standards. Figure 4 shows the location of new development within the recently annexed portions of the study area compared with older development that reflects a larger lot development standard. Recent applications within both the recently annexed area, and on larger parcels within the unincorporated area,propose plats at approximately 8 du/acre net or 6 du/acre gross. Two of these new plats are illustrated on Figure 4. The type of housing most recently built on plats of this type is also shown. City of Renton Land Use and Housing Policies Both the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan provide policy direction for single family development within the RS and RR designations. Several policies, summarized in Figure 5, are relevant to the issues under review for this study area. The City Council has expressed an interest in having some opportunities for larger lot development in order to attract a wider range of housing stock. The policies adopted in the Housing Element generally call for 30 % of Renton's new housing to be upper income units, and support development on lots larger than 7,200 square feet to accommodate upper income development. The question is whether the market and the current growth management policy framework will support land use policy that allows new larger lot single family plats. In the Growth Management era, urban is defined as a minimum density of four dwelling units per net acre. Consequently, one -acre or one-half acre zoning can not be allowed to promote higher income housing types and/or a different type of life style. Many surrounding suburban cities already have a significant number of recent plats with larger lots (greater than 7,200 sq. ft.), but this type of development is noticeably absent in Renton. Renton has been an urban city since its beginning and has many smaller lot neighborhoods with older housing stock. With the present land development and platting patterns in Renton, there are few places where larger plat develop is an alternative. Some adjacent lower density housing areas, such as Newcastle, which might have annexed to Renton, have incorporated into separate cities. The study area is one district where larger parcels of vacant and under-utilized land are still available, and there is the potential for a range of housing options. At present there is significant market demand for R-8 style small lot (4,500 sq. ft.) single-family development in this area as well as the slightly larger R-5 form of new development (7,200 sq_ ft.). Under present policies it is reasonable to expect the eventual development of remaining parcels in this area at the higher densities. Planning Commission Issue Paper #3.doe June 3, 2003 Page 5 Conclusion The East Renton Potential Annexation Area Land Use Study provides an opportunity for the City to debate significant policy issues that will direct both the type and density of future development in this area. Through land use, zoning and sewer extension policies, Renton can determine the future development pattern of much of this area. The larger question is: Is it desirable for a city like Renton to have a residential district that continues to allow the large lot form of single family development, or should this form of development remain only outside the UGB, and as vested in pre-GMA cities? cc: Mayor Tanner Jay Covington Alex Pietsch Planning Commission Issue Paper 43.doc CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 2003 TO: Natalie Dohrn, Chair Planning Commission FROM: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Department STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson (x-6581) SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensirve Plan Amendments ISSUES: • Whether redesignating much of the area for lower net densities would further City objectives while still allowing future development to meet County established growth management housing targets • Whether there is a market for large lot single family detached housing in the study area? • Whether redesignating much of the area for lower net densities would leave sufficient economic incentive for developers to extend and develop sewer infrastructure throughout the area? • Whether redesignating the area to a lower density will make it more or less costly for the City to provide services to the affected areas if annexation occurs at some future time? • Whether new subdivisions fronting on major community arterials such as SE 128'h Street should be required to provide landscaped setbacks along and adjacent to the public right of way, provide more attractive unit design for units seen from these arterials. RECOMMENDATION: Retain RS designation with R-8 potential zoning for 540 acres. • Support revisions to Renton's current land use designations reducing the area's overall allowed density from R-8 to R-4 for 1,818 acres. • Allow a density bonus of two dwelling units per net acre in two designated areas: 1) 158 acres along NE 4`�/128"' Street; and, 2) 94 acres west of Liberty High School. • Adopt new land use policies for creating a new Low Density Residential zoning designation with a base of four units per net acre and increased density up to six units per n xhib4 Nacre as a bonus for o Item No. Received 4 IF KInn [:rmmity ► n!!,a m, C.00krN i..AM East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 2 improved architecture (materials, articulation, fenestration, etc.) and landscaping within above two designated areas. STUDY UPDATE: Since last meeting with the Commission on June 3, 2003, staff has been continuing gather input from residents of the study area and to refine the alternatives and evaluate them. We have also begun to look at possible implementation tools. Over the last few months City staff have held an open house in the area and met with the Four Creeks Community Council. In addition we have received numerous phone calls and letters from residents expressing their opinions about future land use options for the 2,700-acre area. There clearly is opposition to the City's Residential Single Family land use designation because of the resulting R-8 zone densities that occur. Not only is it the density of these new developments but often their very different development patterns that residents in this area are opposed to. Table 1. Existing Development Standards Affecting Area As we saw earlier, the predominate lot size in the study area was over 10,880 square feet with front yards of 40 feet or more. Moderate density urban single -fancily zoning in both King County and Renton allow development patterns at odds with the current prevalent development patterns in the study area. County/City Yard Setbacks King County Urban Residential Development Standards — R-1 through R-48 City of Renton Residential Single Family Development Standards — R-5 and R-8 R-5 Zone R-8 Zone Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 25 feet 20 feet Minimum Lot Size 3,000 sq. ft. 7,200 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft_ Minimum Lot Width 30 feet 60 feet 50 feet These existing development standards, whether County or City, do not reflect the established character of the majority of the area. Implications of Alternatives in Meeting County Established Growth Targets for Area As noted above the PAA growth targets established for this area are based on County zoning and development trends. When Renton annexes land, the City target is amended based on a predetermined formula and a percentage of the unincorporated area target is added to the Renton target. The growth target assigned to the East Renton PAA is quite low based on current R4 (gross) zoning. As of July 2002, the East Renton PAA had 1,822 units of capacity with a target of only 638 additional units to be achieved by 2022. King County's Buildable Lands Report indicates that there are approximately 367 developable acres remaining in the study area. Staff has narrowed the previous five land use scenarios down to four. These include the City's existing land use designations as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. These four scenarios are as follows: PC Issue Paper.doc East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 3 Scenario A reflects Renton's current land use designations with predominantly Residential Single Family (RS) and R-8 zoning. 72%u of the area is currently designated RS with R-8 zoning potential and the remaining 28% is Residential Rural (RR) with primarily R-5 zoning. Assuming development of the 367 acres identified for development in the King County Buildable Lands Study, future capacity under this scenario is 2,212 units. Scenario B revises Renton's current land use designations of Residential Single Family and Residential Rural within the study area. Under this alternative Residential Rural, with R-5 zoning, would comprise approximately 87% of the area and Residential Single Family, with R-8 zoning, would comprise approximately 13% of the area, practically reversing the existing ratios. Scenario C, the preferred alternative, revises Renton's current mix of land use designations. Within the RS designated areas (20%) R-8 zoning would continue to be the underlying zone. The RR designation is changed to represent approximately 80% of the study area under this alternative. In lieu of R-5 zoning a new R-4 zone would be developed which would have an underlying base density of 4 units per net acre. A 158-acre portion along SE 128"' Street and a 92-acre portion west of Liberty High School, where new sewers are anticipated, both in the RR designation, would qualify for a density bonus of two units per net acre. The 2-du/net acre bonus would be for quality design for such features are improved architecture, landscaping, product diversity, and the like. Scenario D was developed at the recommendation of the development community. It is similar to Scenario C but would allow a density increase up to 6 units per net acre throughout the R4 zone for improved building design (articulation, modulation, materials, etc.), site planning, and landscaping. This scenario could, theoretically, accommodate 14,688 units at an average density of 5.44 units per acre. Staff analyzed these four scenarios in terms of their transportation and fiscal impacts from new development occurring on the 367 acres of remaining buildable lands, as identified by King County. The following tables summarize these findings. Table 2. Comparative Traffic Impacts: Land Use Alternative Potential New Units Potential New AWDTE Density w/o bonuses Density w/ bonuses Bonusable Acres Scenario A 2,060 19,714 NIA N/A NIA Scenario B 1,841 17,618 5 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 252 acres (125 dev ac) Scenario C 1,509 14,441 4 du/net ac 6 dulnet ac 252 acres (125 dev ac) Scenario D 1,987 19,016 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 367 acres From this analysis it is clear that Scenario C comes closest to satisfying City objectives for the East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. The potential number of new units under this alternative easily satisfies the County's target of 638 units by 2022. This alternative also has the least number of new vehicle trips and is some 5,273 fewer average weekday trips than under the existing City of Renton land use designations for this area. PC Issue Vaper.doc East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 4 Staff also looked at the fiscal impacts of all four land use scenarios in arriving at a recommendation. Interestingly, Scenario C ranked the most favorable of the four. The following table summarizes those findings. Table 3. Comparative Fiscal Impacts Land Use Alternative Potential New Units Estimated Revenues Estimated Costs Net Annual Fiscal Impact Onetime Parks & Recreation Costs Scenario A 2,060 $3,090,681 $2,947,363 $143,318 $1,259,659 Scenario S 1,841 $3,059,715 $2,812,384 $247,331 $1,143,137 Scenario C 1,509 $2,945,236 $2,483,643 $461,593 $966,185 Scenario D 1,987 $3,195,967 $2,936,370 $259,597 $978,588 Housing Market Considerations Because Scenario C is predicated on larger lot development with new homes having an average assessed value of $550,000. Staff was concerned whether a market for large lot single family detached housing of this type existed. Over the last few months staff have conducted two meetings with developers to get their input on current obstacles to development and what could be done to improve the quality of development in the area. On the question of whether they believed there is a market for larger lot, higher income housing, the group response was positive, if the City intervened to ensure that certain things having a bearing on the market happened. These included improving the image along NE 4's Street./SE 128d' Street since this is a gateway access corridor that buyers of higher priced homes would drive through. There was a consensus that existing development was not adequately addressing the NE 4`h Street/SE 138'h Street edge and that new landscape treatments and buffering should be required of all new residential developments abutting the street. In addition, screening unsightly storm water detention facilities was felt to be desirable. The developers also indicated that in their opinion the absorption rate for these higher priced homes would be slower than that for more moderately priced housing in the R-5 and R-8 zones. Staff also believes that there is an opportunity to do a better job along community arterials such as NE 4`s/SE 128d` Street. The results of recent development are discouraging and do not create a positive image for the community. In addition to improved landscaping and screening staff believe that the City could be encouraging better unit design., particularly of the rear and side faqades of dwelling units visible from and abutting major streets. The staff is currently looking at the best way to achieve some of these objectives. The feeling is that improvements such as landscape buffers along community arterials should be required rather than bonused to ensure continuity of treatment. In regards to encouraging better and more diversified unit design staff believes that a bonus of up to two units per net acre could be provided within the two portions of the study area where there is likely to be the greatest concern. The first of these is the 158- acre rectilinear area along the south side of NE 4"°/SE 128 h Street between 152°d Avenue SE on the west and 169d' Avenue SE on the east. The second of these is the 94-acre square area west of Liberty High School between 158"' Avenue SE on the west and 164`s Avenue SE on the east, SE 136" Street on the north, and SE 142"1 Street on the south. The latter is an area that has been identified where sewers are to be installed by developer extension. PC Issue Paper_doc East Renton Plateau PAA 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Update September 26, 2003 Page 5 Sewer Extension Considerations One of the concerns about reducing the base density to four units per net acre in much of the area was whether it would make the extension and installation of sewers by the private sector less feasible. This is because the costs of extending sewer are the same, on a lineal foot basis, whether serving larger or smaller lots. With narrower lots the cost is spread out over a greater number of property owners. In those areas where sewer was likely to be extended, such as the area immediately west of Liberty High School, the design team recommended that a minimum density of six units per net acre be allowed if developers, rather than the public, were being asked to extend and install sewers in these areas. Staff believes that the best way to achieve this density increase from 4 units per net acre to 6 units per net acre is through bonus density for quality unit design, improved subdivision layout and design, and better landscaping. Examples of improvements that might be bonused include better unit modulation and/or articulation, the use of quality building materials, and improved landscaping and fencing that improves the appearance and overall quality of newer subdivisions occurring at these higher densities. CONCLUSION: The 2,700 acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation does not need to develop at the densities allowed under the City's current mix of land use designations. Land use Scenario A, Current Designations, would result in 2,060 additional units whereas Scenario C, Low Density Urban, would result in 1,509 additional units_ Scenario B, Low/Moderate Density Urban, results in 1,841 additional units, and Scenario D, Moderate Density Urban, results in 1,987 additional units. Although slightly less than the long-term growth target for this area, Scenario C comes the closest to it without exceeding it. Scenario C, also furthers City objectives and policies relating to providing a greater diversity of housing types in the community and in particular accommodating upper income residents in areas that can develop with larger lots. Few areas in Renton allow for such development because of pre-existing development patterns, including lot sizes and street layouts. Because of its pre-existing larger lots, underdeveloped street system, and difficulties in accommodating future sewer, particularly in the eastern third of the area, the East Renton Plateau lends itself to lower density larger lot development. Scenario C, also furthers City objectives in that it results in the lowest number of Average Week Day Trip Ends of the three new land use scenarios looked at and generates 5,273 fewer AWDTE than Scenario A, Current Designations. Scenario C also benefits the City by having the largest positive fiscal impact of the three new land use scenarios looked at. With an estimated $461,593 annual return for 1,661 units on the estimated 367 acres of remaining buildable lands, this scenario theoretically generates some $310,404 a year more than would occur under the City's current land use designations shown in Scenario A. It also generates more that $201,996 a year more than its closest rival, Scenario D. However, in order for Scenario C to come to full fruition, new tools will be needed to ensure that future subdivisions along NE 4"' Street/SE 128`h Street develop with quality landscape buffers and screening, that housing within these subdivisions, which is readably visible from such arterials is attractive, and that stormwater detention facilities are sited and designed to be attractive when viewed from the road. cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Don Erickson PC Issue Paper.doc PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ON THE EAST RENTON PLATEAU POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 6:00 PM, October 1, 2003 Renton City Council Chambers 7U' Floor, Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way The Renton Planning Commission will hold a briefing on the staff recommendation for changing the City's current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations for its 2,700-acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area. A public hearing on this item will be held on October 15, 2003 in the same chambers. Renton's Comprehensive Plan currently designates approximately 72% of this area as Residential Single Family (RS), with potential R-8 zoning upon annexation, with the remaining plus or minus 28% of the area as Residential Rural (RR), with potential R-1 to R-5 zoning, upon annexation. Potential Annexation Areas are areas that are designated "urban" on the County's Comprehensive Plan but located in unincorporated King County. By mutual agreement these areas have been assigned to adjacent cities which, it is hoped will eventually annex them. Because most annexations are initiated by residents outside a city petitioning to be brought into it, and because the process is inherently slow, it is unlikely that this whole area will be brought into the City at any time in the near future. Even though these areas may not be annexed into the City in the foreseeable future, the City can influence what happens in them through its sewer extension policies, which are based on current land use designations, and possibly interlocal agreements with the County for joint project review and the use of similar development standards. Staff reviewed in detail three new land use scenarios in addition to the City's existing Land Use Map designations for the 2,700-acre study area. These ranged from revisions to the current mix of land use designations using existing zones to a revised mix of designations with a new R-4 zoning designation. All three new land use scenarios would result in a fewer number of new units on the estimated 367 remaining acres of developable land in the study area. In addition, all three scenarios would result in fewer vehicular trips during the day. The table below is a comparative summary of the existing (Scenario A) and new land use scenarios staff looked at. Table 1. — Comparative Summary of Land Use Scenarios Land Use Alternative Potential New Units Potential New AWDTE Density w/o bonuses Density w/ bonuses Bonusable Acres Scenario A 2,060 19,714 NIA NIA NIA Scenario B 1,841 17,618 5 du/net ac 6 du/net ac ±125 acres Scenario C 1,509 14,441 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac +125 acres Scenario D 1,987 19,016 4 du/net ac 6 du/net ac 367 acres Staff are recommending that the Planning Commission endorse Scenario C, which would result in an estimated 1,509 new residential units at buildout. This land use scenario would change the (over) East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 2003-M-4 2 October 1, 2003 current land use designation mix so that approximately 80% of the 2,700-acre study area would have the Residential Rural (R-4 zone) land use designation and only ±20% of it would continue to have the Residential Single Family (R-8 zone) land use designation. Under this land use scenario there would be an estimated 5,273 fewer average weekday trip ends (AWDTE) than would be generated under the City's current land use designations on the estimated 367 acres of remaining developable land. In terms of their fiscal impacts on the City, Scenario C reflected a more positive cash flow to the City from new development than the other scenarios. This, presumably, is because this lower density (predominantly 4 du/net acre) alternative would result in larger 9,000 plus square foot lots with new housing on them assessed at more than $500,000 per unit. Such housing is consistent with the City's existing residential housing policies, which encourage both a mix and range of housing types and prices in the community. Staff are also recommending that the Commission endorse the development of mandatory community arterial street edge landscaping and buffering standards that would apply eventually along all community arterials* and at least initially, along NE 4`h /SE 128th Street. These would include planting strips with plant materials such as evergreen trees and hedges, durable decorative fencing, and irrigation systems, sufficient to screen abutting residential development. Staff is also recommending that the Commission endorse the development of optional bonus improvements in specified areas. A density bonus of up to two units per net acre (maximum 6 du/net acre) would be provided for improvements, which would result in higher quality of design and site planning. Such bonus improvements could include: improved landscaping, building design and mix of housing styles; the use of durable building materials such as wood, brick and masonry; and improved unit articulation through the use of modulation, and decorative fenestration and roof forms. Scenario A -- Existing Land Use Designations Scenario C — Low Density Urban Designation East Renton Plateau Study Area IWO ,DD,I t Scenario A -Current R-5 & Re Land Use Designations — �- ZONES ACRES . EXIST -UNITS NEW 11NITS RBI Vn. 1 140 48, Rom, Rxl 116 ae 40;1 R-, Yec. 2a 14e R-4Re&,j 7a 28 A59 L ; R-9 Vv . 1 2-1 148 I R-8. Retlev [r 26 170 -' 7CTOLS M7 152 1,509 East Renton Plateau Study Area Scenario C - Luw Density Urban {R-4,R-6'R-B} *includes "Principal", "Minor", and "Collector" arterials CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: October 10, 2003 TO: Natalie Dohrn, Chair Planning Commission FROM: Rebec a Lmd, U Planning Manager STAFF CONTACT: Don Erickson, Senior Planner SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendments Attached are the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element necessary for the implementation of a new land use sub -area, in the City's East Renton Plateau PAA. This sub- area is being proposed since it is believed that it would better reflect the existing character of the area than the current land use designations while providing opportunities for larger lot, higher - income, housing. Proposed changes that were discussed at the briefing on October 1, 2003, include: 1) A revision to the name of the Residential Rural land use designation changing it to Residential Low Density; 2) The creation of a Low Density Residential Sub -Area where many of the new policies apply; 2) A change in the base density within this new sub -area from 5 units per net acre to 4 units per net acre; 3) A proposed bonus overlay district within the new Low Density Residential sub -area applying to a 165-acre area along the south side of SE 128`h Street and a 89-acre area west of Liberty High School where the base density could be increased up to 6 units per net acre to offset the higher development cost of new infrastructure; and, 4) A list of proposed bonus criteria for higher quality housing, landscaping features and innovative site plans to mitigate the increase in density. Besides changing the name of the Residential Rural designation to Residential Low Density, the proposed new policies establish large portions of the East Renton Plateau as a land use sub -area shown in the Comprehensive Plan (see Figure 1). The proposed policies advocate for new suburban and estate -style housing. in order to contribute to the provision of a broad range of housing opportunities and lifestyle choices, particularly for higher income families. As noted above, the base density within the Low Density Residential Sub -area is changed from 5 units per net acre to 4 units per net acre and a bonus density is provided up to 6 units per net acre as an incentive for the provision of high quality housing and subdivisions with features to help mitigate their higher density. East Renton Plateau PAA Comprehensive Plan Amendments 10/10/03 K Bonus criteria encourage changes such as the provision of multiple compatible architectural styles on the same block fronts as a way of breaking up the monotony of overly repetitive housing styles found in some developments, and the provision of steeper decorative roofs, as well as decorative cornices, fenestration and trim. As provided is some housing overlay districts elsewhere in the City, the bonuses also encourage building modulation and the use of durable exterior building materials that have been tested over time. Bonus criteria also encourage the provision of landscape features that typically would not be provided, as well as innovative site planning. HAEDNSMomp PlanlAmendumtsl OM\East Renton Plateau CPATIanning CommissionTroposed E Renton Plateau Policies memo3.docl w Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies i Residential — Types Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in Real Residential Low Densitydesignations providing a more rural life style in environmentally sensitive, habitat -valuable, er agriculturally resource laden areas or in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Residential Density Policy LU-23. New development within all residential designations except Rural Residential Low Density should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24. New development within all residential designations except Real Residential Low Density should be platted in a way, which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. Residential n Low Density Objective LU-1: Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or -agricultural lands within the City or m areas rovidin a transition to the Urban Growth BoundaEy and King County Rural Designation. Policy LU-26. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential Low Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. Policy LU-27. Rural activities including agricultural and animal husbandry, should be allowed except where such uses would have negative environmental impacts which can not be mitigated. Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered in Residential ll-Low Density designations_ Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural residential areas should carry a notice reading "The adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts associated with rural lifestyles_ These uses are expected to continue and are given priority status over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots." Policy LU-30_ Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers_ Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. Policy LU-32. Residential R+w>-Low Density areas may be incorporated into community separators. 10/ 10/03 1 0/08M3 4:23 PM5 1-0P�, I Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use POlicies 2 Policy LU-33.1 Undeveloped portions of Residential R+*a4-Low Density afees-may be considered I as part of the private open space network Residential Low Density,- Low Density Residential Sub -Area Objective LU-1.2: Establish a new Low Density Residential Sub -area within the Residential Low Density Designation, as shown in Figure 1. as a means of contributing to the provision of a full range -of housingopportunities and lifes le choices within the communiY. Objective LU4.3: Establish,a new Low Density Residential Sub area within the Residential Low Density Desi agn Lion, as shown in Figuure 1 in order to provide and protect suitable environments for suburban and/or estates le single family residential dwellin s. Policy LU-33.2. Within. the Low Density Residential Sub -area limit maximum base density to 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase upper income housing consistent with the Qy's Housing Element. Policy LU-33.3. Within the Low Density Residential Sub -area allow a bonus above the base densityn areas where additional density is needed to stimulate private investment in infrastructure improvements. Polio LU-33.5. A bonus of u2 to 2 units per net acre should be allowed in two sipecific areas: Policy LU-33.6. To ensurequalitv development, that will help mitigate the effects of increased density in areas eligible for bonus densities establish_ bonus criteria to address design and landsca in issues. Poll LU-33.7. Bonus criteria should encourage higher qualily housing through the provision of design amenities that normally would not be provided Criteria should include: 1D_ A variety of compatible housing styles making up block fronts; 2) Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices, fenestration and trim. 3 Buildine modulation,• and 4 Use of durable exterior materials such as wood masonry, stucco, or brick. Policy LU-28.3. Bonus criteria should encourage the provision of landscape features that typically would not otherwise beRrovided as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: 1) Attractive residential streetscapes with attractively landscaped front yards that are visible from the street: _ 2 Decorative landsca.pin& preferablywith draw ht resistant evergreen plant materials,• 10/ 10/0340A91�4:23 PM5 -., 10 PM Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies 3 3) Larger caliper street trees; 4) Irrigated landscape planting strips, 5 Low impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces, and, 6 Siggificant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. 10/ 10/031 "8,1034:23 PM-544 M Alk AWN , PLANNING COMMISSION RECON VViENDATION October 22, 2003 Exit No. Un No. Rec*ved _p King Cwrdy Hearing Examiner 2003-M-04 (LUA-01-168), East Renton Plateau CPA After having been briefed on these proposed amendments on October 1, 2003, having held a public hearing on October 15, 2003 on them at which time testimony was taken, after reviewing written testimony on them, and deliberating on October 22, 2003 on them, the Commission concludes that: • The character of the East Renton Plateau has changed over the last few years and that the name Residential Rural was a misnomer in that there really is very little rural land use in the areas where it is applied. As a result the name for this land use designation should be changed to Residential Low Density. • The recent King County Buildable Lands Report identified only 367 acres of land with significant future capacity for housing under current methodologies in the 2,700-acre area. • Based upon King County housing targets for the year 2022 only 638 units must be accommodated even though the capacity of the area is an estimated 1,822 new units. • Renton has not yet achieved its housing target for upper income housing (30%) identified in the Housing Element policies of the Comprehensive Plan, or those encouraging larger lot, higher income, estate style housing. • The East Renton Plateau, because of its existing development pattern of large lots, lends itself to future large lot development. • Larger lot development would produce a positive cash flow to the City for the 367-acres in question as well as result in a reduction of more than 5,200 AWDVT over the level of development that could occur under the current Comprehensive Plan land use designations for this area. • Since Renton is the sewer service provider for this area, and since sewer certificates must be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular densities achievable under current land use designations, higher density development at up to 6 units per net acre will occur until the City's land use designation for this area is reduced. • Because sewer certificates are unlikely to be issued in the area without annexation there is no longer a need to provide density bonuses to compensate for the extension of sewer to the area by developers. Recommendation: L Support changing the name of the Residential Rural (RR) land use designation to Residential Low Density (RLD), noting that few areas having this designation are rural in character; 2. Support redesignation of the City's 2,700-acre East Renton Plateau Potential Annexation Area so that a majority of the area currently designated RS with concurrent R-8 zoning at the time of annexation is changed to RLD with concurrent R4 zoning (see attached figure); Planning Commission Recommendation, #2003-M-04 10/22/03 2 3. Retain the current RS land use designation with concurrent R-S zoning at the time of annexation in the areas outside of the City west of 144h Avenue SE; 4. Support new land use policies that create a new Residential 4 du/net acre Overlay District within the RLD land use designation that will be applied in the East Renton Plateau PAA, as shown on the attached exhibit; 5. Support new land use policies that encourage new development within the Residential 4-du/net acre Overlay District to develop as higher quality residential developments through the use of revised development standards that encourage innovative site planning, the use of durable exterior materials, the modulation of building masses, the provision of quality landscaping, and similar attributes that help ensure attractive and healthy neighborhoods; 6. Support revised development standards for the R-4 Overlay District that increase the minimum lot size, provide for more flexible lot widths, and increase the minimum front, side, and rear yard requirements over those provided for in the R-5 zone; and, 7. Support new policies grandfathering in parcels that were granted sewer availability certificates Z or to October 9 Eric Cameron, Vice -Chair 1`I cc: Rebecca Lind Don Erickson PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT.docl Rev 01102 bh Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies i Residential -- Types Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in ll Residential Low Density designations providing a more rural life style in environmentally sensitive, habitat -valuable, or agriculturally resource laden areas or in areas ploviding a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Residential Density Policy LU-23. New development within all residential designations except ll Residential Low Density should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24. New development within all residential designations except Rufal Residential Low Density should be platted in a way, which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. Residential l Low Density Objective LU-1: Preserve open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential development in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, o+-agricultural lands within the City, or in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King Counly Rural Designation. Policy LU-26.-Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential ILow Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. Policy LU-27. Rural activities including agricultural and animal husbandry, should be allowed except where such uses would have negative environmental impacts which can not be mitigated. Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered in Residential 1-Low Density designations. Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural residential areas should carry a notice reading "The adjacent lot may be expected to have impacts associated with rural lifestyles. These uses are expected to continue and are given priority status over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots." Policy LU-30. Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of accessory buildings and barns to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. Policy LU-32. Residential 11-Low Density areas may be incorporated into community separators. 10/22/031-WO8/0311:12 AM3 1-0 PM r Suggested 2003 CPA Revisions to Residential Rural Land Use Policies 2 Policy LU-33.1 Undeveloped portions of Residential R+Hig-Low Density aFeas-may be considered as part of the private open space network Residential Low Density -,Residential 4 du/ac Overlay Objective LU-1.2: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Density designation, as shown in Figure 1 as a means of contributing to the pLovision of a full range of housing o rtunities and lifestyle choices within the cormnuni1y. Objective LU-L3: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Densi Designation, as shown in Figure 1 in order to provide and Motect suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single family residential dwellings. Polio LU-33.2. Within the Residential 4 du/acre overlay area limit maximum density to 4 units er net acre to encourage larger lot develo meat and increase the smmlv of u r income housing consistent with the Ci 's Housing Element. Polio LU-33.3. Ensure guality develo meat by establishing development standards that address building design and landsca2ing issues, Polio LU-33.4. Development standards should encourage higher qualily housing through provisions that encoura 1 A variely of con atible housing styles making u block fronts, 2 Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs roof overhang, and/or decorative cornice& fenestration and trim. 3) . Building modulation; and, 4 Use of durable exterior materials such as wood masomy. stucco or brick. Polio LU-33.5. Development standards should encourage the movision of landscape features that Wically would not otherwise be provided as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: I)-- Attractive residential streetsca s with attractively landsca d front yards that are visible from the street: 2 Decorative landscgpingpLqferably with draught resistant ever een pjant materials,• 3 Larger caliper street trees,• 4)_. Irrigated landscape plantiM strips; 5 Low im ct development using landscaped buffers o n spaces, and other Mrvious surfaces; and, 6 Significant native tree and ve etation retention and/or re iacement. 10/22/031 W09AD311:12 AM M Revised 11/19/03 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-26. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential Low Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. ORDINANCE NO. 5026 associated with rural lifestyles. These uses are expected to continue and are given priority status over more intensive urban uses on adjacent lots.', Policy LU-30. Minimize impacts of animal and crop raising on adjacent residential uses and critical areas such as wetlands, streams, and rivers. Policy LU-27. Rural activities including agricultural Policy LU-31. Control scale and density of and animal husbandry, should be allowed except accessory buildings and barns to maintain where such uses would have negative environmental compatibility with other residential uses. impacts, which cannot be mitigated. Policy LU-28. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered in Residential Low Density designations. Policy LU-29. Deeds of lots adjacent to rural residential areas s should carry a notice reading, "The adjacent lot may be expeeted to have impacts Residential Low Density — Residential 4 dn/ac Overlay Policy LU-32. Residential Low Density areas may be incorporated into community separators. Policy LU-33. Undeveloped portions of Residential Rural areas may be considered as part of the private open space network. Policy LU-33.1. Undeveloped portions of Residential Low Density may be considered as part of the private open space network. Objective LU-I.2: Establish a new Residential 4 du/acre overlay area within the Residential Low Density designation, as shown in Figure 1, as a means of contributing to the provision of a full range of housing opportunities and lifestyle choices within the community. Objective LU-M.- Establish a new Residential 4 dufacre overlay area within the Residential Low Density Designation, as shown in Figure 1, in order to provide and protect suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single family residential dwellings. Policy LU-33.2. Within the Residential 4 du/acre overlay area limit maximum density to 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Policy LU-333. Ensure quality development by establishing development standards that address building design and landscaping issues. Policy LU-33.4. Development standards should support higher quality housing through provisions that encourage: a. A variety of compatible housing styles making up block fronts; b. Additional architectural features such as pitched roofs, roof overhangs, and/or decorative cornices, fenestration and trim. c. Building modulation; and, Use of durable exterior materials such as wood, masonry, stucco, or brick. Policy LU-33.5. Development standards should support the provision of landscape features that typically would not otherwise be provided as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: a. Attractive residential streetscapes with attractively landscaped front yards that are visible from the street; b. Decorative landscaping, preferably with draught resistant evergreen plant materials; c. Larger caliper street trees; d. Irrigated landscape plantin strips; � NO. ' it n No. H:IEDNSP1Cuf T P1aW-&=nd=1kW20031Finaf Land Use Policks12003 Final Land Use Policies (11-19).doc mecerm '-9 King Cou" Kean EWiller Revised 11/19/03 CITY OF RENT'ON LAND USE ELEMENT e. Low impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces; and, Rezidmfial Low Derislly Lend Use Designation & me* RR) ♦ice w o«W ]` Residential Single Family ORDINANCE NO. 5026 f. Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. Objective LU-J: Protect and enhance the Residential Single Family areas, encourage re -investment and rehabilitation resulting in quality neighborhoods, improve opportunities for better public transportation, and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-34. Net development densities should fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet should be allowed in single-family residential neighborhoods except when flexible development standards are used for project review. Policy LU-36. Allow development at 9-7 dwelling units per acre on infill parcels of one acre or less as an incentive to encourage single-family small lot development on 4,500 sq. ft. lots. Policy LU-37. Maximum height of structures should generally not exceed 2 stories in single- family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-38. Development standards for single- family neighborhoods (e.g. lot size, lot width, building height, setbacks, lot coverage) should encourage quality development in neighborhoods. Policy LU-39. Development standards for single- family neighborhoods should address transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods and compatible boundaries between neighborhoods. H:IEDNSPIComp Plat lAmendments120031Fina1 Land Use Policiesl2003 Firwl Land Use Policies (11-14).doe I-10 N a UWIMO I LIM W-1 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting November 24, 2003 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER, Council President; TERRI BRIERE; KING COUNCILMEMBERS PARKER; DON PERSSON; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; DAN CLAWSON. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney, BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; LYS HORNSBY, Utility Systems Director; ALEX PIETSCH, Economic Development Administrator; ELAINE GREGORY, Fiscal Services Director; SYLVIA DOERSCHEL, Finance Analyst Supervisor; JILL MASUNAGA, Finance Analyst; DON ERICKSON, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; COMMANDER KENT CURRY, Police Department. PUBLIC HEARINGS This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Budget: 2004 Annual City of accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing Renton to consider the proposed 2004 City of Renton Budget. Sylvia Doerschel, Finance Analyst Supervisor, reported that the total proposed 2004 Budget for the City of Renton is $145,700,500, a 2.3 percent increase above the 2003 Budget. She noted that the General Governmental Funds, which represent the general services offered to citizens, are in the amount of $65,920,600. Ms. Doerschel indicated that the proposed 2004 Budget maintains the 2003 levels of service, and staffing changes add 8.1 full time equivalent (part time/temporary) employees due to the opening of the Henry Moses Aquatic Center. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Annexation: Falk, S 47th St & This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in 102nd Ave SE accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Tanner opened the public hearing to consider the proposed annexation and R-S (Residential - eight dwelling units per net acre) zoning of 6.43 acres, including the abutting 102nd Ave. SE right-of- way, bounded by S. 47th St. to the north, SE 185th Pl. to the south, and 102nd Ave. SE to the east (Falk Annexation). Senior Planner Don Erickson reported that the first public hearing on this matter was held on January 27, 2003; subsequently, the Boundary Review Board approved the annexation on April 11, 2003, and voters unanimously approved the annexation, R-8 zoning, and acceptance of the fair share of the City's debt at the Special Election held on September 16, 2003. Mr. Erickson stated that the subject site contains two single-family dwellings, and noted that the essentially flat site hosts a seasonal stream along the eastern property line. WAR No. Pointing out that the site is within the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and ftem No. L z1 is served by Fire District #40, Mr. Erickson indicated that roadway and ReceiM King Colmty Hea " Fxa *W I November 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 428 7. Make amendments to definitions in Renton Municipal Code Title IV. 8. Amend existing urban center design overlay standards and guidelines to establish a new District C, encompassing the Urban Center -North. Provide guidance to accomplish quality urban scale development, define pedestrian streets, and achieve gateway entry features into the redevelopment area.* Responding to Council President Keolker-Wheeler's inquiry, City Attorney Larry Warren confirmed that the recent Planning Commission recommendations were included in the related ordinances. *MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See pages 432 to 435 for ordinances.) Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding Committee the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. The Committee met on Comprehensive Plan: 2003 October 30, November 6, and November 13, 2003, to consider the Amendments recommendation of the Planning Commission for the 2003 Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones. The Committee recommended approval of the Planning Commission's recommendations with modifications, as appropriate, as shown on the matrix entitled "Attachment A - 2003 Comprehensive Plan Amendments" dated November 24, 2003, listed as follows: 2003-M-I — City of Renton applicant; S. Talbot Rd. and S. 43rd St. (WSDOT) 2003-M-2 — City of Renton applicant; King County Public Health Department; NE 4th St. (on hold until 2004 amendment cycle) 2003-M-3 -- City of Renton applicant; 1-405/Cedar River Trail (WSDOT); on hold until 2004 amendment cycle 2003-M-4 — City of Renton applicant; East Renton Plateau 2003-M-5 — City of Renton applicant; Frys Electronics 2003-M-6 — City of Renton applicant (withdrawn) 2003-M-7 — City of Renton applicant (holdover - 2004 update) 2003-M-8 — City of Renton applicant; SR 900 LLC (Merlino) 2003-M-9 JDA Group LLC applicant; Rainier Ave. N. 2003-M-10 — JDA Group LLC applicant; NW 5th St. 2003-M-11 — JDA Group LLC applicant (on hold until 2004 amendment cycle) 2003-M-12 — James Dalpay applicant; NE 12th St 2003-M-14 — Liberty Ridge LLC (Tydico) 2003-T-3 — The Boeing Company applicant (on hold until 2004 amendment cycle) MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See pages 432,435 & 436 for November 24, 2003 Renton City Council Minutes Page 432 general fund cannot be put into the utility fund to pay for capital improvement projects. Council President Keolker-Wheeler acknowledged the importance of fully funding the utilities, and expressed her support to raise the rates in a nominal amount this year. Mayor Tanner confirmed that the City will not have to defer a single project if the rate increase is not approved; however, a larger rate increase will be necessary next year. He stated that although he is not proposing a rate increase, he is not opposed to one. In response to Councilwoman Nelson's inquiry regarding the dollar amount of the increase, Mr. Zimmerman stated that the average residential customer would see an increase of approximately one dollar per month. *ROLL CALL: FOUR AYES: KEOLKER-WHEELER, BRIERE, NELSON, CLAWSON; THREE NAYS: PARKER, PERSSON, CORMAN. MOTION CARRIED. (See page 435 for ordinance.) ORDINANCES AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and advanced for RESOLUTIONS second and final reading: Comprehensive Plan: 2003 An ordinance was read adopting the 2003 amendments to the City's 1995 Amendments Comprehensive Plan, maps, and data in conjunction therewith, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING, CARRIED. Ordinance #5026 Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY Comprehensive Plan: 2003 BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Amendments ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Planning: Urban Center -North An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Zoning Designations Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to add the Urban Center -North zoning designations, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED, Ordinance 45027 Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY Planning: Urban Center -North BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Zoning Designations ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Planning: Urban Center -North An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Zoning, Addition to Processes Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 3, Environmental & Procedures Regulations and Overlay Districts; Chapter 8, Permits and Decisions; Chapter 9, Procedures and Review Criteria; and Cbapter 11, Definitions; of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code by adding regulations implementing the Urban Center -North zoning to Citywide processes and procedures, and updating names of City site plan processes, and declaring an emergency. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING, CARRIED. Ordinance #5028 Following second and final reading of the above ordinance, it was MOVED BY Planning: Urban Center -North CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Zoning, Addition to Processes ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. DDES Revised Recommendation/Additional Conditions L01P0016 / Evendell 70 Lot Plat 21. Lots within this subdivision east of 1581h Ave. SE are subject to King County Code 21 A.43, which imposes impact fees to fund school system improvements needed to serve new development. As a condition of final approval, fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees due for the plat shall be assessed and collected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The balance of the assessed fee shall be allocated evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shall be collected prior to building permit issuance. 22. The drip line of trees off -site west of proposed Lots 12-19 shall be established and easement(s) shall be placed over drip line area(s) on the lots of the subject plat. Easement area within the drip line shall be left in a natural state and no grading, placement structures or other improvements shall be allowed. Establishment of the drip line area shall be completed at the time of engineering review. 23. A pedestrian access easement between 158'h Place SE and 160"' Ave. SE shall be provided over either Tracts H or L (Tracts as shown on Exhibit 7a.). The easement shall have a minimum 10 foot width and be improved with a 5 foot wide ail-� surface. 3/10/03 q.-I Exhibi# No item No. �- RecOved King County HWng Wminer .,i . .k.. AL V. Ir is to • � " ,' ' 1 - �' - rry� ' ��"Ff • fF' 7S' - •� C'R'w '�L � r � �I Thy. y. r w s p •ir�^p d No f" �I.: � +l,: �r+�T { , .. +* -� � ./IDS•} .. � �r�nr � ��M ,-7s .� toil` 601 64 T _ s +i � ••,� �, � ;. mil. ' .- .�+ ' �k ; � � � r r. �� look r~ lo ^� _. ���' .- � ''•tw.s �.' » �" yQ ?r .ter. � �i - • ,� - f� . 1 4 ' t �del ;• . #.or t � / � �� � .f ;/ �=-r�- Ot ti tAO . it- : A 41 tit ic r Q ti, Aib . . *. Aw • x F _ 13527 156 Ave 8E Renton, WA 98059 Mr. James O'Connor Hearing Examiner Re:EVENDELL Revision - L03RE038 Almost a year since first appearing before the Hearing Examiner in March 2003, C.A.R.E. and its members continue to oppose any upzone for the current R-4 density zoning. Remaining areas of concern include the dniangtream flgg=g from the .Even e ` 67FLlopment, J&greased traffic, and public safety. A fire in one house endangers the FEE= if there"mis not adequate space between structures to allow for ladders to reach upper floors of buildings. The city of Renton has voiced displeasure with the development In recent years of the quality of new homes creeping toward our area from inside city limits. Since enton is the designated sewer service provider for the plateau, asked for our input regarding growth in our neighborhood when they conducted a study for their new PAA. They also contacted developers)to see if there was a need/requests for executive styl0homes on large lots com- patible with th96ighborhood as it is and were assured there was that need. Their,,f nal adopted proposal included R-4 density in their plans aLr the r out in the urban growth boundary and QTT" they" will not issue sewer certificates to development applications .Mr- H:4 densIty. U.S.Land Development Association continues to argue its need to develop at a higher density (R-6). They continue to appeal decisions contrary to their requests for higher than R-4 density in their application and revision even though there has been no change in circumstances. This latest request to allow R-6 devel- opment through TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) would leave an unsightly pocket of higher density development and would be out of place in an R-4 developed area.. If US Land Development Association feels they cannot afford to develop at an R-4 density, perhaps they should not. Development will continue on the East Renton Plateau, but it will continue with developers who do not find R-4 a financial burden. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Edward and June Hill Exhibit No. Item No. k+ Received 62i- �p King County Hearing ,Examiner Kristy J. Hill 13527 156 Ave, SE Renton, WA 98059 January 21, 2001E Mr. James p'connor Hearing Examiner Re: Evendell Plat Revision -Application L03RE038 When first appearing before the Hearing Examiner on March 6 and 10, 2003, those of us currently living in the vicinity of this proposed development were strongly opposed to a rezone request for R-6 den- sity. For a1k►'of the same reasons, %A rAyMjn adaman&ly oppos2to the attempt to achieve higher than R-4 de sitX byUjins of Ihe TDR program'. This development (at R-6) does not, nor will it ever, fit the'"char- acter and scale of the surrounding neighborhood" (U-120). On March 6, the representative for U.S.Land Development Associates stated that this neighborhood.does not have an established character and won't until they develop it. Those of us who have lived here anywhere from one year to 60+ years, deny the validity of any such assertion. We do not stand alone in this point of view. Renton (the sewer service provider for this area), wherpdating its own comprehensive plan, recognized the value of the established character of this neighbor- hood and incorporated it into the PAA plan for the East Renton Plateau. Many of our original concerns were also concerns addressed by Renton. They (staff) saw a need for large lot development, a variety of architectural styles and sizes compatible with each other and the pre-existing houses, tree retention and replacement, etc. They also recognized a need for a clear transitional zone between the highest levels of density nearer the urban center and the lowest levels of density in rural development. That is the pattern of development already established in this area. Renton, as the sewer service provider for all new developments in the East Renton Plateau, including the area in question, has expressed dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of recent developments approaching our location. This dissatisfaction led to the rapid re- view and revision of the comprehensive plan for the East Renton Plateau. The stated is to refuse sewer certificates to any is not in fs R-4 zonin s'XTM9 TnSTTWthat densTty transfers to the sub- ject proper y will create an island of high density development not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This should not be allowed. Respectfully, Kristy J. Hill Sexx'eta.ry-Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (425'226-9686.) Exhibit No. %� Item No,if Received King County Nearing Examiner - January 22, 2004 Dear Mr. Examiner: My husband and I are very much opposed to the use of density credits for the Evendell development. We are already on record for the reasons we oppose high density, so I will not repeat them. To transfer these density credits to this are area would be an injustice to all of us who live in the community. US Land Development and Centurion Development Services want to be the first to put in high density in our area. Well, we don't want them here and feel they can take their pioneering ambitions to another location. One of the developers arguments has been that since 1995 when the site was rezoned there have been conditions and circumstances that have changed starting in the year 2000. One of them being that the City of Renton had an R-b designation for this site. Since their first a eal in June 2003, there have also been many more changes. One of them being the: City pf Renton has c ed hensive Plan to an R-4 net for the entire area. They say we do not n density in this area. in Iact, they would like to see several developers work together to put different style homes on a site, so we do not look like we have government housing. The community doesn't like cul-de-sacs. They want regular roads which make more sense for pedestrians and vehicular connectivity, like the traditional grid in Seattle. Since the public hearings the developers have made more than one appeal. The King County Hearing Examiner heard us as a community and agreed. The King County Council heard us and agreed. The decision from Judge Flack of Superior Court on Jan. 12'h of this year has yet to be rendered. Without even waiting for a decision from Judge Flack, the developers, in November of 2003, negotiated and committed to purchase from, 4A Development in Bellevue, 20 Total Density Credits. At this point and what has gone on, such as rulings in the communities favor, these density credits constitute no more than an attempt try to buy a rezoning from and R-4 to an R-G in this area. This is unfair to all of us and the people who represent us. On `� 003 the City of Renton, after listening to the members of the community, jd°� om rehensive P P1liev th that the zoning for the entire East Renton Plateau at R-4 net, which is lower than the Counties R gross. ng County wants the City of Renton to annex this entire plateau, I think it would behoove the County to deny these density credits. As stated in Chapter 2IA. 37, titled "Transfer of Development Rights" under its "Purpose" section 2IA. 31.010, it states "density credits are to encourage increase residential development density, especially in cities, where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural and public services. The intended purpose of density credits is for cities, where high density is needed, not in urban King County where we are already ahead of the proposed growth plan and have an established community. j� Exhibit No. - LO Item No. L Received King County Hearing 'cwi finer In my husbands and my opinion, with a decision already on record of this parcel of land to remain zoned at R-4, with a 46 unit capacity, it is not in the best interest of this community, the City of Renton or the Council members to let a developer, with the exchange of money , be able to buy a zone change from and R-4 to an R-6. These density credits should be left in the TDR bank where they can be transferred for better use where they are really needed and not desecrate an already established community. The Hearing Examiner beard us, the County Council heard us, the City of Renton heard us and we are confident you will hear us too and deny the transfer of any density credits. Anita and Richard Oliphant 16519 SE 145111 Street Renton, Wa. 98059 425-271 -9825 (9) King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 95055-12I9 Project No. LCCX SUBDIVISION and SHORT SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO RECORD Interoffice Momo DATE: ZS - Za a TO:. %/!yi C `1e aXu Ai _ Land Use Inspection Section RE: Project Name: 67 y c m' e� f r i Project No.: C- d( P O O Project name as shown on recording document: Final Activity No.: G O SF/Z O / 7 Inspection Activity No. 4 D T Y/ I St Please inspect the above -referenced project for the following items: The Land .Use Inspection Section does not recommend recording if any item is nuwked No KCC 9.04.490(c): Are those portions of the drainage facilities necessary to accommodate the control of flows discharging from the sites constructed and in operation, per public RID rule? Yes No N/A 2. Are water mains and hydrants installed? ( also be approved by Fire Marshall) Yes No NIA 3. Are roadways graded to all lots capable of pro 'ding access by passenger vehicles? Yes No 4. Are specific site improvements required by preliminary approval installed? Yes No N/A 5. Is sensitive area to remain undeveloped de ' led? Yes No NIA 6. Is temporary control monuments set by Land Surveyor? �L Yes No NIA 7- Are all safety hazards addressed? Y- Yes No S. Do you recommend the recording of this vision? If you have checked No, indicate the reason(s) in the comments section below. Yes No 9. If there any building lots on this plat which should have further review or engineering prior to building construction, identify those lots in the comment section below and describe concerns along with suggested final plat note(s). 10. Minimum Performance Financial Guarantee required for recording is S 5" L o't . 00 Restoration Financial Guarantee may be used if a Performance Agreement to C I form is completed 11.. Minimum Landscaping Financial Guarantee amount required for recording is: $ 12, Minintlnn Recreation Financial l Guarantee amount required for recording is: $ 13. Minimum Street Trees Financial Guarantee amount required for recording is: $ '3 + o + i . COMMENTS: o Sxt! o rl T"A I i t Arl. . �41' ilk �. {a I.W MA1..J-r-A .J r.Iz .n ,_... .M Inspector's signature and date: Project Manager's signature and date: iB RETURN TO: ,c, , Engineering Review Section 5/Formre./CCT MMfrFORMs.RegtoR+oc_pmMt.03.09.05 Original: Platting Engineer Copy 1: FGMU Copy Z: Inspeapa DEC.27.2005 9:14AM CORE DESIGN INC NO.664 PA com �'�DESiGN December 22, 2005 Core Design, Inc. Project No. 04009 Tim Cheatum King County Inspector King County D,D.E.S. 900 Dakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Subject: Entering Sight Distance Verifleation Plat of Evendell-Road Variance L04VO056 King County Project Number: LOIPOOI6 & L04SR024 Dear Mr Cheatum: Care Design, fne. 74771 N.E.291hPlace, Suite 107 9elbvue, W=Wnglun 98007 425.895.7877 Fax425,0617MS w ww.eoredesignine.eem As required as a condition of approval of Road Variance L04VO056, we have verified that the entering sight distances addressed in the variance letter meet the minimum requirements of the variance. The entering sight distance froin westbound SE 13e Street looking north on I Se Ave, SE was measured to he 572 feet, which is greater than the 500 foot minimum requirement, The entering sight distance from the existing driveway on the north side of SE 136* Street at approximately STA 4+00 looking west on SE 13661 Street was measured to be 410 feet, which is greater titan the 390 foot minimum requirement. Therefore, I certify that the entering sigh distances stated above have been verified per the 1993 King County Road Standards Section 2,13. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call gate at (425) 885-7877. Sincerely, CURE DESIGN, INC. David E. Cayton, P.E. Principal/Senior Project Engineer L E"M&G-12- to 1 m-az-o9' ENGINEERING . PLANNING - SURVEYING 01/07/2005 14:58 2535390514 SOUNDSUILT HOMES PAGE 01 SBI i)EVFL0?ING 1-L.0 P O, B C X 7 3 7 9 p 'UYALLVP alti 93373 P NON E . 253-3 18-0.520 -AX1 253 539-051 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SNEE7 TO: FROM: PAX NUMBf-0. 70 P` Zia` -71-7L4 SUBWrAL—H RDCOf?yTO FQiLQw. y X07W/CQWU&gTs, TOTAL NO.0V PAtE-9 FNtl.UTJING covrA. co ALL f C� ` A C r 45-3-t4o5--oW( 01f0712005 14:58 2535390514 9 16 King County Road Services Division Department of Transponahon KS,C-TR-0222 2oI $oath )Sckson sveet Seethe, %FJA 96ID4-3656 December 23, 2004 David E. Cayton 1471.1 NE 29'h Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, WA 98007 SDUNDBUILT HOMES or ca>'k Ste,+ 3 b f L, RE: Road Variance L04'VO056 — Evendell.Plat — Rclat ile LQ IP_0016 Acar W Cayton: PAGE 02 It Thank you for submitting your application for road variances from. the Icing County Road Standards (MRS), You requested variances firom' Sections 2. I€l, 5.11 and 2.13 of the KCRS concerning the intersection orris radius, clear zone and entering sight distance (ESA) at the intersection of SE 136s' Street and 5e Aveiwe SE. We have reviewed your proposal and agree that the proposed 500 feet of ESD to the north (right) at the intersection will be acceptable. The 500 feet of ESD is the Am oAican Association of State Highway and Transportaiion Officials (AA SHTO) manual minimum Por the ten over, posted deaigtt speed of 45 MPH, The proposed 25-foot curbs return radius at the northeast 'corner of the intersection is also acceptable given the property constraints. A 25-foot radius was previously allowed at the noidiwest corner of the intersection by a prior, road variance. I approve a variance to allow the proposed 500 het of ESD (to the north) with the condition that the applicant's engineer must certify. that the 500 feet of ESD has been provided prior to construction approval. I Also approve a variance to allow the 25-foot intersection curb return radius. The proposed minimum separation ofthree feet from the 25-foot inside turning radius to a short keystone wall at the northeast corner of the interjection is necessary due to property constraints. No sidewalk is required for this development along the north side SE 136`h Street but a sidewalk wM be provided along the south side. The existir* five foot graved walk on the east aide IS& Avenue SE will be maintained. When the property abutting the northeast comer subdivides, a minimum 35-foot radius can be provided and the retaining wall moved to 5.5 feet from face of vertical curb. I approve a variatace for the rooter of the retaining wall at tbree feet from the intersection curb line. Note that the curb cannot be extended all the way around the northwest corner because the five-foot paved walls would be obstructed. The reduced 25-foot curb radius should mend as a stripe from the half delta to the edge of traveled way along 156� Avenue SE. 01/07/2005 14:58 2535390514 SOUNDBUILT HOMES PAGE 03 David E. Cayton December 23, 20W Page 2 The variame request for she 390 feet of westward ESD for the driveway at STA 4+00 on SE Be Street is also approved wkh the condition that the applicant's engineer =at certify that 390 feet ofESD has been provided pdor to construction approval. The 390 feet meets 2001 AASHTTD for the design speed of 35 MPH. A copy of staffs analysts, findings and conclusions is enclosed. If you have any questions, please feel frwae to carnact Crag Comfort, Road Variance Engineer, Traffic Enginew ing Section, at 206-263-6109. S/iocemly, Paulette Now P.E. County Road Engineer PN:CC:kc CC' James Sanders, F.E., Dewloprnent Erx veer, Land Use Services Divieion (LVSD), DepwUnent ofDevelopment and Environmental Services (DDES) Pete Dye, P-R, Senior Engineer. LUSD, DDES Lynda Dougherty, Division DiRder, Road Services Division (RSD), Department of Transportation (DOT) MatOmw Nohm RE', Corry Traffic Fmgiaeer, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD, DOT ' Fatin Rare, P.E., Sup avising 8egineer, Traffic Engineering Section, RSD, DOT Kris L4ngiey, Senior E ngiaetr, Tnfi o Engineering Section RSD, DOT Craig Coa&rt, P.E., Road Variance F.ttginew, Traffic E &eerin$ Section, RSD, DOT 01/07/2005 14:58 2535390514 SOUNDSUILT HOMES PAGE 04 Read s vi= Divibm iJOP-t t d tr_V_" _ Mm� mei+"M ewtsm 201 sn"th J40MA Srs6 3estda, WA 9610d TO: Variance File FN . Craig Comfort, P.E., Road Variance Engineer, Tmffrc Engineering Section Rl~, Road ' ac V0056 —RZ0dgfl File LO 1 . lice 's4reser l�r: Evencicll is an approved 534ot prelimio plat south of SE 130 Stet and east of 150 Avenut SE. The plat froauw on SE 13 Street starts 197 fee east of 156th Avenue 5E. The plat conditions require that SE 136 feet be improved to u rbso neighborhood Collector standards and connected to 156 h Avenue SE. %dewalk is only required on the south side of SE 13d`r` Street. Prosently, SE Be Sorest is an unopeW right -of -'Way (ROW) for several hundred fbet east of 150 A.vente SE. 2. Then is insu#SCk t ROW at ft northeast coraw ofthe i eeti of 1560s Avemue SE and SE 136h Street to provide the minimuto 3 Mom radius requbrd by the Icing Cuunty Road Standards (KCRS). An s:xlsting iretak ing well worth of fire intersection will be movW a fbw feet back (to dw eag) 90 that a minimum of500 ibot of entering sWA distance (ESD) can be provides!. A short two -foot keystone wall will be provided drs m a propovd cmxreta retairitsg wall around the inuxaection radius. 1M sigklines can extend over the taro -foot wall. The SOD feet of ESD is the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) mininwm of the 45 MPlI1< design speed on Be Avenue SE (10 over pasted speed limit of 35 MPH). A 23-4bot curb line radius is necessary because there are inw fieiemt property rights to install the maim mum 354001 radius. The appliramt has unsuccessfully made an attempt to secure the necessary ROW to cor amct dte 35-foot radius. A power pole at the kdwectioo will be moved 5.5 fbct behind the curb lime. 3, A 25400t curb litre radius was installed at the northwest oonm by a recent davelopnwa. The 25•finat radians was necessary due to property conwaims. A road variance was proe med to re&= the minimum radius from 35 feet to 25 feet. 4. A cut -retaining wall is proposed aloog the north side of SE 136* guest. ' Them vMl be 5.5 feet from the face of vertical curb to retaining will along SE Be Street but only 3 feet of clew mme, can be provided from the curb line to the wall at the inter3wtiosn. No sidewalk is required on the north side of SE 136* Strad. The existing 5 foot paved walls along the east 01/07/2005 14:5B 253539E514 SnHNDBUILT HnMES PAGE 05 Variance File December 23, 2004 Pogo 2 side of 156* Avenue SE ran be maintained. A variance is requested for the clear zone that is less than 5.5 feet. 5. A variance is requested for 390 feet of ESD looking to the wee ftm a proposed driveway on the north side of SE 13e Street at STA 44-00. A rockery along the entry to the driveway blocks sightline& s U"Upts lut 1. Concurrence with the applicant's presentation. 2. The design of the curb return at the northeast intersection should stop the conetete curb at, or prior to the half delta so thM the 5400t paved walls along the easy We of 15e Avenue SE is not blocked. A pavement ships can extend MOM the 23 foent radius from the end of curb to the existing edge of traveled way an 156* Aveme SE. 3. The applicant bat wordirmed with the property owner at the nortitcast comer of the intersection to move a retaining wall eastward onto the property. 'i'ltia will enhance sightlines for F-SD. However a short wall less than two feet tall will remain at ww nid three 'feet from the ewb return radius. 01/07/2005 14:59 2535390514 SOUNDBUILT HOMES PAGE 06 September 27, 2004 Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby 13456 1.50h Ave, SE Renton, WA. 98055 Dear Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby: Confirming our conversation today, you. grant SB3 Developing,LLC and its contractor to enter your property for the purpose of reconstructing a keystone wall located at the Soutl1wcst corner of your property, As discussed, we will step the wall back to your fence. Your signature below indicates your agreement to grant SBI; Developing and its contractor per mission to perform the work described above. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, furt Wilson Land Acquisition Mgr. .� Bruce Osgoodby *tosgoodby Wong, Wylie From: Dye, Pete Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:39 AM To: Wong, Wylie Subject., FW: Enendell Road variance LO4VO056 fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Comfort, Craig Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 11:37 AM To: 'dec@coredesigninc.com'; 'kurt@soundbuilthomes.com' Cc: Nolan, Matthew; Perrin, Henry; Dye, Pete Subject: Enendell Road variance L04VO056 Dave and Kurt. I did not take your project to the variance committee last week as only three projects were discussed. However, l did meet with Henry Perrin last Thursday and Matt Nolan (KC Traffic Engineer on the variance committee) this morning. The variance can not be processed until the issue on the turning movements for the channelization is resolved. Your proposal does not align the through movement through the intersection. This is a road variance issue. When I discuss the matter with Mr. Perrin, who is patiently waiting for a resubmittal of the channelization design that addresses his comments, he stipulates that the applicant has not demonstrated that the projected traffic turning movements at the intersections justify a left turn/through lane and a right turn only lane. Mr. Perrin would prefer a left only lane and right/through.lane configuration. This is true especially if the through movement will not have lanes aligned on opposite sides of the intersection. Mr. Perrin is also looking to have the west leg of the intersection and the east leg moved if possible to obtain better lane alignment for the through movement. You should consult with Henry Perrin at (206) 263-6138 and resubmit the channelization so that the variance can proceed. A determination needs to be made on the channelization because the ESD would be measured from the right lane if there is a through movement. Please provide a plan view of the northward ESD on 156th Avenue SE of sufficient scale that the full 500 foot sightline can be shown. It would also be desirable if a profile of the sightline could be provided. Your plans show that the lot owner to the immediate north of the intersection will be moving the wall from the property line to the east on his property. This will greatly improve sightlines. Can the keystone radius connecting your concrete retaining wall be tied into the end of the relocated keystone wail to the north? I know I talked about trying to get a minimum 3-4 foot offset between curbline and wall when we met, but 1 was assuming that cooperation with the northerly property owner was not possible. Your plans show a 2 foot offset between the 25 foot tuning radius/curbline and the keystone wall. Craig Comfort _OC Pagel of 3 Wong, Wylie .... From: Dye, Pete Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 1:10 PM To: Wong, Wylie Subject: FW: Road Variance Application L04VO056 FYI - Looks like the road variance for Evendell has some design problems. -----Original Message ----- From: Comfort, Craig Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 11:51 AM To: 'CORE - Dave Cayton' Cc: Dye, Pete; 'kurt@soundbuilthomes.com' Subject: RE: Road Variance Application L04VO056 David: The plans have been routed to Al Corwin (DOT Supervising Engineer of Soils Lab) to look at the proposed 10 foot high rockery. I discussed the guardrail with Dan Dovey, our guardrail expert_ He feels that the proposed guardrail (and the rockery) would be a safety hazard with respect to traffic on the arterial - 156th Avenue SE. The inside turning radius terminating in the guardraillwall is also not acceptable. The inside turning radius/arc is needed now with your design and can not be put off and installed when the lot to the north develops. There should be sufficient shoulder behind the radius for pedestrians. The power pole is a roadside hazard and should be relocated to 5.5 feet beyond the vertical curb. With the aforementioned significant design problems at the northeast corner of the intersection, I suggest that you seriously consider acquisition of the property rights adjacent to this intersection in order to provide a design that is safe and meeting KCRS. Road variances are not approved unless the result.is safe and in the public interest. The entering sight distance (ESD) issue for traffic exiting SE 136th Street and entering 156th Avenue SE should be added to the variance proposal. Please amend the submittal and clearly show proposed ESD distances on a map. Your email shows a 25 MPH speed limit yet I recall a 35 MPH posed speed north of SE 138th Street. 620 feet of ESD is needed for the the 10 over posted 45 MPH design speed. Will the redesign of the opening with rockery radii provide the requisite 490 feet of ESD onto SE 136th Street? -----Original Message ----- From: CORE - Dave Cayton [mailto:dec@coredesigninc.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 5:02 PM To: Comfort, Craig Cc: kurt@soundbuilthomes.com Subject: RE: Road Variance Application L04VO056 Craig, Thanks for the comments/questions regarding our road variance request. I made a site visit on Wednesday to review some of the issues you mentioned and measured the entering site distance north on 156th Ave SE from SE 136th Street. My comments/responses to each of your questions are as follows: 1. The existing power pole in the northeast corner of the intersection of 156t�' Ave SE and SE 136M 09/21 /2004 soc Page 2 of 3 Street appears to be shown correctly. The pole is about 2' south and 4' east of the property corner. The detail also shows the luminaire mounted on the pole extending west towards 156th Ave SE., about 8' west of the power pole. The detail also shows the proposed location of a new pole approximately 5 feet south of the existing pole. 2. The 25' curb line radius is shown such that if the arc was extended, it would match the existing extruded curb. The plan is to stop the new curb short to maintain the existing opening in the extruded curb for pedestrian access, i.e. if we extended the vertical curb to the existing extruded curb, we would have to create an opening for access. Note there will be no sidewalk constructed on this side of the road. 3. We will revise the guardrail as requested to provide a smooth, curved transition around the corner. 4. We will revise the proposed rockery near the driveway 370' east of the intersection to provide a rockery radius on both sides of the driveway. This will open up the view, increasing the sight distance for the entering vehicles. 5. We have measured the current entering sight distance north to be 340'. Substantially less than the required 490'. We have estimated that reconstructing approximately 15' of the existing keystone wall, moving it back 2', would increase the entering sight distance to around 470'. Further measures could be taking to mitigate the sight distance issue, including replacing the keystone wall with a thinner concrete wall and installing signage warning southbound traffic of limited sight distance ahead. 6. The proposed rockery is 5' from the back of curb to allow future sidewalk construction. Thanks again for your comments_ Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or need additional information. David E. Cayton, P_E_ Core Design, Inc. -----Original Message ----- From: Comfort, Craig[mai Ito: Craig. Comfort@ M ETROKC. GOV] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 12:24 PM To: CORE - Dave Cayton Cc: Dye, Pete; Perrin, Henry Subject: Road Variance Application L04VO056 David Clayton: 1 looked at the submittal yesterday and went to the site. I need better information in order to process this road variance: 1 _ The detail for the intersection improvements at 156th Avenue SE and SE 136th Street has inaccuracies. The pole shown at the northeast corner of the intersection is 5.5 feet from the property line (on plan) yet in the field it is 2 feet from the property line (there is a property corner stake near the pole). 09/21/2004 $OC Page 3 of 3 2. The plans show the curb line radius (25 feet) extended into the rock wall to the north. This radius should extend into the edge of traveled way (fog line) roughly 6 feet to the west of the wall. 3. The guardrail as designed with the 90 degree angle point is unacceptable and is hazard. I will consult with our guardrail specialist concerning this design. 4. There is a driveway cut in the rockery 370 feet east of the intersection that will have deficient entering sight distance (ESD). 5. is there sufficient ESD to the north from SE 136th Street onto 156th Avenue SE? Does the rock wall block ESD sightlines when measured 10 feet back from the traveled way? Please note that the proposed westbound through lane in your channelization plan does not appear to line up with the lane in the west leg of the intersection and might have to be moved northward. 6. What is the distance between the rockery along the north side of SE 136th Street and the face of vertical curb? This clear zone reduction also must be part of the variance. Please provide the requested information. I and Henry Perrin would be willing to meet with you to go over these concerns. Craig Comfort (2060 263-6109 09/21/2004 King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 October 17, 2002 Mike Romano Edward J. McCarthy, P.E. Centurion Development Services Haozous Engineering, P.S. 22617 Eighth Drive SE 14816 SE 116' Street Bothell, WA 98021 Renton, WA 98059 RE: Evendell Subdivision SWM Adjustment Request File No. L02V0024 Dear Applicant and Engineer: The Land Use Services Division, Engineering Review Section, has completed review of the adjustment request for the Evendell subdivision. You are requesting approval for an adjustment from the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Core Requirement No. 1, Section 1.2.1, Discharge at the Natural Location. Our review of the information and a site visit provides the following findings: 1. The proposed Evendell subdivision is located west of 1601h Avenue SE and south of SE 136' Street. The 75 lot, 11.7 acre, proposed Evendell subdivision is filed under Land Use Services Division (LUSD) file number LO1P0016. 2. The Evendell subdivision is located in the Orting Hills subbasin of the Lower Cedar River basin. The site is subject to the Level Two flow control and Basic water quality requirements of the 1998 KCS WDM. 3. The site consists of two adjoining, rectangular areas south of SE 136t' Street split by 158th Avenue SE. The smaller, western rectangle is 1.9 acres in size, while the larger, eastern rectangle is 9.8 acres. A common ridgeline passes approximately north- northwest to south-southeast through the two areas with the majority of the site draining to the east. The western subbasin sheetflows in a southwest direction through large, single family Parcels and is eventually intercepted by a ditch drainage system on the east side of 156` Avenue SE and flows south. The eastern subbasin sheetflows to the southeast and is eventually intercepted by a ditch system on the west side of 160`h Avenue SE and flows south. Both downstream drainage paths eventually recombine in an unclassified tributary of the Lower Cedar River. Most upstream flow is intercepted by ditches on the north side of SE 136`11 Street and is bypassed around the project site or through the wetland area in the northeast corner of the site. Evendell/L02V0024 October 17, 2002 Page 2 of 3 4. The proposal is to collect most runoff from the project site and direct it to two facilities designed to separately accommodate drainage from the western and eastern areas of the site. The result is that 0.58 acres of the eastern subbasin will be diverted to the flow control vault and bioswale of the western rectangle of the site; and 0.73 acres of the western subbasin will be diverted to the combined wetpond/detention pond serving the eastern rectangle of the site. In the developed condition, the net effect is that 0.15 acres of the western subbasin will become tributary to the eastern subbasin's downstream drainage system. As a result, controlled outflows from the western area will be released farther upstream in the ditch system of 156th Avenue 5E reducing nuisance sheetflow through the intervening parcels. The release location from the eastern subbasin will remain the same. A negligible shift in flows in the two downstream drainage paths will result. The current conceptual drainage plan indicates that a significant amount of frontage improvement drainage will bypass the planned RID facilities. 5. No decorative ponds or shallow wells have been identified that would be affected by the proposed diversion. 6. The Level One and Three Downstream Drainage Analyses identified conveyance restrictions and nuisance flooding problems associated with both of the proposed downstream discharge locations. Although this adjustment is not addressing the potential for increased flow control standards as a result of the downstream drainage problems, the net impact of the proposed diversion will have a negligible impact on either downstream drainage path. Based on these findings, we hereby approve this adjustment to allow the diversion of on -site runoff between the two drainage subbasins to two separate facilities ultimately draining to their natural discharge locations with the following conditions: 1. The release rates for the detention facilities will be based on the natural and diverted tributary areas being directed to the facilities. 2. The volume for the detention facility will be based on all flows directed to the facilities at full development under current zoning. The allowed release rates will be reduced by any undetained flows that would bypass the proposed subdivision drainage facilities. A 10 to 20 percent volumetric factor of safety must be applied to all storm events requiring detention. The design Technical Information Report shall state the factor of safety selected and the basis of that determination. 3. Water quality facilities must be sized based on the entire proposed subdivision draining to the facilities including any required frontage improvements. 4. All onsite or offsite drainage facilities must be located in a public right-of-way or storm drainage tract dedicated to King County. Evendel1IL02V0024 October 17, 2002 Page 3 of 3 Additional storm drainage requirements identified by SEPA or the plat hearing review will apply to this project. If you have any further questions regarding this KCSWDM adjustment or the design requirements, please contact Mark Bergam at (206) 296-7270. Sincerely, James Sanders, P.E. Development Engineer Engineering Review Section Land Use Services Division Jim Chan, P.E. Supervising Engineer Site Engineering and Planning Section Building Services Division cc: Curt Crawford, P.E., Managing Engineer, Stormwater Services, KCDNR Randall Parsons, P.E., Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Bruce Whittaker, Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Karen Scharer, Planner 11, Current Planning Section, LUSD Mark Bergam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Engineering Review Section, LUSD King County Department of Development And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avr nue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Project Name: DDES File No. DDES Engineer/Planned Name: Evendell Plat LOIP0016 Bruce Whittaker, P.E. Project Address: Design Engineer (submitting variance): Phone: Portions of Sections 25, 36 of T23N, ME Edward J. McCarthy, P.E. 425 235-2707 Applicant: Phone: Signature: Hate: 2125102 Mr. Mike Romano (425) 486-2563 - ledWQr Signature:. Date: Engineering Firm Name: Haazous Engineering, P.S. IJi54 LA` Z�/ Z Address: Address: Centurion Development Services 14816 S.E. 1 l6, street 22617 8d Drive SE Renton, WA 98059 Bothell, WA 98021 DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST: x Standard Request We request that the design of the stormwater facility that manages stormwater from developed portions of Evendell be allowed to divert drainage from a net area of 0.15 acre from the west basin to the east basin on the site. APPLICABLE SECTION(S) OF STANDARDS: The adjustment request is applicable to Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location, Section 1.2.1 of the Surface Water Design Manual (King County Department of Natural Resources, 1998). JUSTIFICATION (see o e-page attachment): AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES: DDES DirecWtDesignee Determination: _ Approval Al diti n App val (see below) _ Denial DDES Approval Signed: Date: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: ` N See attached memo dated: kolilJOIn DDES, Land Use Services Division, Engineering Review Supervisor: I DDES, Bldg. Serv. Div., Site Engineering 8 Planning Supervisor: Date: {R 11�, r / I Signed: Ifn''"v/ Date: ,�� I+(� — IMAR 2 8 2002 ��. King County Department of Devclopment And Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Evendell — Diversion of Drainage - Adjustment Request JUSTIFICATION: Description of Site The Evendell Plat project is a proposed residential development located within the Renton Highlands area of unincorporated King County. The proposal for development includes buildint 75 single-family dwellings on approximately 12 acres. Road improvements along SE 136 Street are also proposed. The site is located within the Orting Hills subbasin of the Cedar River watershed (King County Department of Natural Resources, 1999). The site and area of offsite improvements consist of two basins. The east basin consists of 9.84 acres under existing conditions. The topography of the east basin generally slopes from the northwest to the southeast_ The west basin consists of 1.92 acres under existing conditions. The topography of the west basin generally slopes from the east to the west. The southwest corner of the site has an area of 0.73 acre that is included in the westerly subbasin. Runoff from this subbasin sheet flows to adjacent yards of single-family residences to the southwest. Stormwater Design Under developed conditions, stormwater from the site and offsite road improvements will be collected and treated onsite to basic water quality standards_ A combined wetpondldetention pond will be used to manage runoff in the easterly basin. A vault followed by a biofiltration Swale will be used to manage runoff in the westerly basin. Level 2 RID standards are required by the King County Flow Application Maps and are recommended by Lower Cedar River Basin and Nonpoint Action Plan_ Under developed conditions, the 0.73-acre area in the southwest comer of the site will be diverted from the westerly basin and collected in the onsite stormwater system in the easterly basin. To compensate for this diversion of drainage, an area of 0.58 acre in the northwest portion of the site will be diverted from the east basin to the west. The net result will be a diversion of 0.15 acre from the west basin to the east basin. Managing runoff with the proposed diversions results in the following features: Two stormwater facilities will be constructed. A larger combined wetpondldetention pond will manage runoff in the easterly basin and will discharge to the ditch system along 160`h Avenue SE. A vault will be used W to manage runoff from the smaller westerly basin and will discharge to the ditch system along 156"' Avenue SE. The discharge locations from each basin will be to an engineered conveyance system. The net diversion of 0.15 acre is not anticipated to cause any problems in either of the two basins. References King County Department of Parks, Planning, and Resources, 1990. ,Sensitive Areas Map Folio. King County Environmental Division, 1990. Wetlands Inventory Notebook Volume 1 East. King County Department of Natural Resources, 1998. Surface `ace Water Design Manual. King County Surface Water Management Division, 1993a. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. NV ld N91S30 zo W z •to/st/lD d am 9 P131SAS MI MAHOIS zo/gz/Z '�o/s�/s :31Va GMVW3 j(033NW0rS,3001 OF 0 Oc NOIDNINS'/M AINnOa `%M ZL9S—Sti. Szt9LZ96 YM `03il�l N UnOO HLS* Liu M37I06 „P 9NIMNIOM IWO 11f1d ll3aN3A3 .S.d P2uzaaauzBuH snOTIONd i m 1 v� pq \ •` v I M a� Q � — a o a �. _L _ I ar�u BST we 11dsl .cn ovo�s 6 1 i3 I I I awta : E T�! � � I ° ' — � 0] 0 u) N 04 0 0) m r[V 11 x �i• \ \ t L I o \V Xf a Lo L) � , ! ?i ) cn 3 wQ N 000,p 60 Lo I I co 00 si c a� ng�QIIII Ul � O 3 W 1t- xis � I o _ a ti a f, dH Aq Lti 0 737 70 730 dH riV 09 Sf 80 ZOOZ 9Z ZO 'P ZO-9Z-Z sap Ms u+15- Bergam, Mark From: Whittaker, Bruce Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:50 AM To: Bergam, Mark; 'Michael.Romano@gte.net' Cc: Scharer, Karen; Foley, Steve Subject: Evendell L01P0016 (adjustment L02V0024) Mark, Per our discussion today, I found downstream problems from this site that need further evaluation_ Therefore, spoke to Mike Romano today and told him I am requiring a Level 3 Downstream Analysis on both subbasins for this project. As a result, i am requesting that the adjustment(L02VO024) be placed on hold pending receipt of the new info. Karen: I made it clear to Mike that this is to give him advance notice of the Level 3 requirement, not a complete rescreening list. Thanks, Bruce Whittaker Page 1 0 King County Department of Development and Environmental Services Land Use Services Division 900 Oakesdale Ave. S6uthwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 April 15, 2002 Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 Eighth Drive SE Bothell, WA 98021 Edward J. McCarthy, P.E. Haozous Engineering, P.S. 14816 SE 116Ih Street Renton, WA 98059 RE: Evendell PrelimiriM Plat L01P0016: KCSWDM Adjustment No. L02VO024 Notice of Complete. Application Dear Applicant/Engineer: The purpose of this notice is to inform you that on April 15, 2002 the Land Use Services Division, Engineering Review Section staff has determined this September 1998 KCSWM adjustment application is COMPLETE under the requirements of King County Code (KCC) Title 20. This determination establishes the beginning of the 120 day time period for your application processing. For future reference, always include a Level One Downstream Analysis (not included) along with a conceptual drainage plan (included) with the adjustment application. Our goal is to process your application within 120 days. However, the complexity of your project, level of analysis required, the quality of your submittal and available resources will affect the actual review time. The time line can be impacted by one or more of the following actions which will stop the 120 day clock: • Any request made by the Engineering Review Section staff for additional information. • Changes or revisions requested by the applicant(s). • . Mutually agreed upon request to stop the 120 day clock. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (206)-296-7270 and FAX (206)-296-6613 Si cerely Mark J. erga E., Senior Engineer Engineering Review Section/Land Use Services Division Page 1 of 1 soc Page 1 of 1 DDES King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, Washington 98055-1219 April 15, 2002 Summary of Charges and Payments Applicant: U S LAND DEVELOPMENT Activity Number: L02VO024 P.O. BOX 22200 Project Number: L01P0016 SEATTLE WA 981220200 Development Number: Permit Type: SUBVAR 7261445 Status: PENDING Description Amount Counter Service Fees $93.50 Deposit Based on Est Hrs $1,980.00 HOURLY FEE: Engineering Plan Review $33.00 SUB TOTAL CHARGES: $2,106.50 Description Check # Checklogid Payee Date Entered Amount Suspense Account 233 46892 US LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES 4/15/2002 ($1,413.50) SUB TOTAL PAYMENTS: ($1,413.50) BALANCE: $693.00 The fees shown above represent current charges as of this date and are an estimate based on the information provided to DDES at the time of application. For services that are rendered on an hourly basis, the cost of those services will be based on the actual hours worked. Hourly fees are charged at the rate in effect at the time of service, and will be billed monthly, along with any other outstanding fees. Fees that have been posted prior to permit issuance will be collected at that time. Fees subsequently posted will be billed to the applicant. All fees must be paid in full before DDES issues Final Approval, T.C.O. or C.O. 7 M. 64 16 1A X U 3L I US t I ME. V., J Ile A: 141 X _04 \;JX X X .44 L j 159'. 14k s, 4W - - k Ga 01 4 .1 D 4i I A 154,05M 'or _N_1 X tts. 1$Z t I X 1,% 4. N &S.Ca .1 1 j \. N X, lw_ 164 V 44! 167 1;; 042-1: 16 N-1 336 1"4 X Ar U 4A,19 X ;6i.44 i 3 -4� . . I - - — - . W.. let -T. X Af I *d 16QA_t LrLi - — — — — — - cm St Zn-d,,St- X e C, 0 M V S 14 F, 1% 4?. — — — — — — Lj — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 154,* Dr 40 t 05-if E.* 13 th \4 U 0 Nvate 4k Ck 7 z 4q C4*) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --_TAEr—_.— '7'- LJ z - - - - - - - - - - Private ive I s 0 1 14 1' .4' tD > El 4< OPP 16\ L cis r ED IdL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LI/ \41 r > 0 CU. 14, 4. Rj / 4 er, V > 16 114 < V Is r L 4 dF %J 144t 1 �Y- 411. 1 0 I Exhibit No. G7 23 T23N R5E TECHNICAL SERVICES 0 200 400 + + P Item No. -L Lo n LANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS Aerial Photography. taken in. Wi ter 1996 Received VU14/98 1*2 400 Compiled b Walker & Associat s 1996 & 1997 King Gount H Y Y, oaring Examiner Renton City Limits Contour Interval 0.5 or 1 Meter. .................... --------------- ............ ­----------------- ........................... ................... .......... ........... ----------- ................................................... ............................... ........ ........... ................ ........ I ................ ............... ............. ............ ............ .......... ......... ..................................... ............ .............. .............. Urban Growth Boundary Renton City Limits Proposed Evendell Development Bales Annexation to Renton R-4 Neighborhoods ,sc CD C CD �CD z o rn to r rn ,c 3 CD OMM �69k�,- 5 IN M -R .-A 07 0 in, ME, SO mp-p—m w 01 W 2 M V IN9 729 Pi� -M-*� 712 w YM '14 0 K ,sj dML 1.4 M gmg mr 901. M ALI, M -.51 �l Vs 59M powl, Foll SPA CLA A= M, `7!1,7 .30 P 43"p-7. 0`0WIl" 7 �N WIM 755 w, F I El .8-06 Ri Al 75 x n� RE 7 MiA6�-. 59 mmz-&g Mile wpm lg 0 AL MkI6, AOL At, Ap� 0 OWL A� Am=- 879- Jo& AIN& 'Aft =�A Xlll`�llV---- i, -FO�7 MIMI' au SUP" Ow W. ft" g --g �]F' gl -p, &V6 40 �l IR K MM—R AN g 54- 0- A 4� 4-4 4%0 -A 1. �2 7 1 i 'N 0. -4 ............. -m ppz T M ",T I�RhR M� Fl, ISM 15' IN Maps obtained from King County Website: http:/twww.metr c. v ome for informationaVpresentation pu M ok go /h rpose only -=F 1�7o--,s7F I ;I I cur I :., _r *mr 70'Ydt 111 fil .�'k=:� � - �r'�'-� _ . i��-_�T_s '�C..y.. _ f.l.� ai�� ys. .•: __-. � �� �? Act� t .S � - _ '� _ ._ -�i -,-� �..-��_ < �,. �i�� �k...�_-_ -�-_- � �� � -. / �'-'-rS� !- ,., �� � . �.., u� �v,�.�@� ! �-.',,.�...—,. �_.� � � �. i .a s � a • Y� . a a .� . ,.,,„: '. Z •. - "�"'� i' s. - :. - �'e. .q : -_ - -... �:.ri, c•6 .r-fir,. .. .. e - - " Indian Reservation w ree ete n t� o n/ rwotect� o n u er Adjacent properties' trees WILL suffer damage unless an existing tree buffer is allowed to remain,, Here are our suggestions for revising the proposed plats to keep the.same number of lots (add an extra onelto the R4 plat) and leave an adequate 50' buffer to prevent unnecessary and avoidable damages to current residents' properties. } !0 I Tree Retention/Protection Buffer Adjacent properties' trees WILL suffer damage unless an existing tree buffer is allowed to remain. Here are our suggestions for revising the proposed plats to keep the same number of lots (add an extra one to the R4 plat) and leave an adequate 50' buffer to prevent unnecessary and avoidable damages to current residents' properties. ` Southeast 13t5th Street _ ., .� 4 � ' � � F .� a4 � Z.�-dr: t_ l ' �tA• G - ' y! Ind �.'� I °so ao rp 1-7 w-iT — — .--..,....— — -. — � — j 41q a'C.ad- i "I vtzz� t4=.K R:•t.tt -c.rwn..d� e_a�.ra.•JJR'. .. p���..-.-...,-��•5� q/ 7"JCEET s 4 � ���.... ------------- �$ A mm 39 � ni`._37 �.;� �P�'� J��µ[' p ¢•�v � �� I �H=lv —♦�f) xSw 1 °r Jr- 9 1',41 �- } I ys I .�� Rd�tcnr+a�✓ rsncY k, I 7^'I •Lr f y fryry Tl' Irv, i IS'a Ab S.r' 99.Q_ I ^w l ljyj{{ n I r ;,s• " OE7y s it �ECLu�N+7ic i.. _ I • _ I 1 I LiJ Z '' ��--------------..__.. _src maw =--_ 1 Original Plat Original Play Our Redesign Our Redesign 8 P061Rim, t-amty Hwflng Examiner Tree Loss and Possible Ground Water Contamination The development in the East Renton area is causing the area to lose massive tree canopy and is creating high percentages of impervious surfaces. The Cedar River is directly below the numerous developments, and we are concerned that polluted stormwater runoff will eventually contaminate it. The entire area above the Cedar River is an area "highly susceptible to ground water contamination" according to King County data (see map below)* Tree Loss and Development of Impervious Surfaces Proposed Evendell Development Area Highly Susceptible to Ground Water Contamination Ajt �. IteM ISO, .-h1ftULii44 Received ^. —al King CouEkty Hearip-9 Examiner King County Department of Transportation Transportation Conc rrenc Y .._. tram _ Cnanty_.__.._�for ._______ Exhibit No. Item No. Received 0 King County Hearing Examiner This section should be completed only if the proposal includes application of residential density incentives (K.C.C. 21 A.34) or transfer of density credit (K.C.C. 21A.36 or 21A.55). Maximum density is calculated by adding the bonus or transfer units authorized to the base units calculated in Section 111, of this worksheet. The maximum density permitted through residential density incentives is 150 percent of the base density (see Section H.) of the underlying zoning of the development or 200 percent of the base density for proposals with 100 percent affordable units. The maximum density permitted through transfer of density credit is 150 percent of the rase density (see Section Il.j of the underlying zoning of the development. 0 base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section 11.) X 150% = 0 maximum density 0 maximum density ir1 dwelling units per acre X 12,42956841 site area in acres = 0 maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density incentives (K.C.C. 21 A.34) 0 base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section I1.) X 200% = 0 maximum density 0 maximum density in dwelling units per acre X 12.43 site area in acres = 4 maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density incentives with 100% affordable units (K.C.C. 21A.34) 4 base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section U.) X 150% = 6 maximum density 6 maximum density in dwelling units per acre X 12.4295664.1 site area in acres = 74.57741047 maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density transfers (K.C.C. 21A.36 or 21A.55) Calculation: 50.00 base allowable dwelling units calculated in Section 111. + 0 bonus units authorized by K.C.C. 21 A.34 + 20 transfer units authorized by K.G.C. 21A.36 or 21A.55 70,00 total dwelling units (cannot exceed maximums calculated above) Situ area ilia glueria fs-N) is tho grm I` odzo 1ta1 area of the pr 'fl Sit, I R�bmwoed lando as degDad by K.C.C. 2 IkM5.1 5, and sire �gflich arg rqulred to �& dedicate On tho pwfmsaor d a prof °! $its for Public sqwre feet In Gubmg 'Ian d (any land b8im th� � ?iYar� ii�l� wslt - a me KC.0 21A.0&21,) Y - _ ��� �Of / _,aql,eoe feet �.'nE V'sO?' vAlch mil3 be 4requlmd to to e'4060 (a,ma 130 foal tom Winter 11no of ram) 0siladabon: 2�I *a0'I 6ot1 subpIgrgeo C,an4s and ohtsasf Tway 544/, -9W m)e araa ir, aquare feat i 0TE: To ocrifts cormxt A6,3rea In square ¢kit 0RjGs by by 43,= /2.'Y,3 SiNe area ip ao7es L Rua ®gnRy QKC X. 211A2.00N A as * kbb-,3)o The Man, donsl Isudater(hined b 8 ZWO dNigM101(8) `GT rho, M. ddaae Tha Visa nui nber of ftalli1g 1016A h RIOkM �y mQA0ipl`yhQ ft am, by 1a W* d.-Paitj in dvialling Anita psr acre (from KQC. 21A.12. 3Q ? ,> 1 1 )e /2. 5t.3 NO alloa In am (a skTion 6,) X L/ base den*, (Saa 8m/Ilor, O1.1 5 /. J%Z5EN Ie ' 1 51 ifs ( �+D1�fJF� C)! ?a �'{/ f/ • y Imi 64,q calmlawns rmqR ill a fr &n' 10 hotion iz rowided io the inea t hole, numVsf as fellevn-': 1. ba wundM up; and 20 Fmddo ` b&vi .46 Mail t* roundA dale , Fql This sedcn musl b-e a1mpbqd only if M plopo I is a re&anVal davelo a rn arvI of mre than four dwelling 0%, in 18 U R arld R xm,1 , vv4nd-aIon e town hous s in the H3 z 0 n a on pMpey d A nated C. 0 M nt o rcial 0 &da of Csntoir i)' m0re then fwr unity or aqy rriyted u&a development V i re ftn four unk Pweaft apace moat be con, p1ASA by mtlldpi inq &6 rweagnn spa�a raqukwnsnt par unit t p 4y tl proposed numbsr of such &,, llina uph. (C,, 21A.14.180). NOTE: ding Couritky has tie d1exelion t0 accapt a fee In liau of all or e peAm e3 tho mquired r r tion apace r K,=. VAJ4.185. Aparhvents and tmm illm do I* ,st a darLzily greeter than ek3hIS unitspar seas, and mbied use must pfq�ywa rm*;tail space as Mlm 00 square tNt X pmp ed numbee of *dio and one Wixom mib _ lag �quar@ feat X bedra units 170 Square felt X propmd fiumbw a CAM or MiN.9 b adrom ul Remstirm Spa upquirament o Residenflal wb6*1m and townhoum dev&,pd al a dasnai�E of eVht wlt3 a lieu, psi ac-m must pmlde mresT al sps as folbws: 3M squam feet X 70 proposed riumtoT o? uPIN M ftlf P hme paft "lanl prvevd , recreate"Onal splfm as 1011cws: 454 L, -;�rn Concrete Dl-ivewav' IE12"RCP: 452.27--_>'.. S � IE12"RCP: ..-.,-..�..�..�- .A-.� �Q ol a 260 square feet X �d proposed nwrl ts —_.�- - - - This zwkn is Ir d for computing mininium nnkl� and must 6a comploted only if Die site Is I ted cn tihq R 4 thioug ti R-4 ,,y�pp�rt�� and��p�f � � d,��ignai U(ca n big ft NRg10ounty Compmhaaek Ram The W b0da area h6 the ash area (,o Sr* areas wMin a prq*1 .sfta NANO are aqulred to be d i t fir publiw rights-okej in ax= of -sixty fit (69) of Aft -- 76,130 _ egneifi Ora are% and ftllT buftm, to t.�10 rxtar1t fty am regikod by K, inn cwnt',/ 10 roma"M ul V010p�-0 . .51b, z-' 5C �mas foquked f0f a 'ja ground athm ter AWI Wilidos indudlr , b1A not Ikited to, r f rlt r d �n l pods, bio*atican s a and soleska `dam su i ponds and oaks _ /3 (2 >50 areas requfod by King County to ba deMica ion w-mrved ao im-slt w_ndsfian anon, Nduct area w ir>I if requesting maeaft sRm OWNWaftwedby K00 21A,14 . iss* &won P4) 0 roglow 014 rddrom, and 4 olW auras, orAtAin of &L, requirA by ring Count/ to amain uindyeloped / 3 -0 , o .3Tote Paduefts Calculation., 130,03(o Tatmi reductions 1///, 3 �F6 net buiIdabb area In square feet DOME: c4fiveA 948 area in aquarefeet to acim by dieing by 43,NO 9, y"7" net hwld&� area 61 am M. 9wirumm uftu ir11V° V�`�I' UmkC Wwky (�I(l1nVoC' 211A.1L5401) Tina miniatuom &mty requirmint applim onk, to the R4 through 11,48 Zrjr-818, Mini,== OI* is d'eteninsd bay r uVd- lying the base dews�E in dwelling Omits peT sire (na 8a-don Ot.) 4y 6a Qset bulldab?e area of the ee in ace (see Bien V.) surd then muItplying the 1e;?`sfing proud by to minimum derzi4f pe n�ag� fmm &a K.C.C. 21ki2.030 table. The 6inimum denWo soquiremerlts may bophased or waived by ring C=V h mile -In tea, 3" KC-C' NAJ2.0. Calculation: '% /7V not bulldabFa area In acr&q (M 8-_ eft= V.) _ 37,1761 _ X mintmum dcjn % sot f6A in K.C.C. 21A,12.0030 -or as Austad in SWIN M0. APPL10*1T: PROJECT ONAGER: SECTION, TO 918HIP A PO4NGE: ACREAGE: TOTAL NU ER OF LOTS: SFD: TOE MOUSE: ZONHNG: CURRENT PPOP08ED PROPOSED USE: MIME MSPOSAk: %NATER SYSTEM: SCHOOL MSTRICCT: PIKE DBTRICT: TELEPHONIC SERVICE: POWER ,`ATUPAL GA& CABLE TV: U.S. Lard Deve5l pient lAndlates SIP""weal? Ula P.O. Box 22200 8'ofllo, F A O 22-0200 C'entu9 "011r De-WopmeInt Seri L s 130c asl J. Rome 617 89th Dr, SE. Botha-11, V�JA S021 (25) 486-2563 SE N 8144723 HRSE IM EVENDE....TL PRELIMI.NI-A-RY PLAT SE 11"'4 S14—T23N—R5E SCALE: 1 " = 100' 100 0 100 200 Pip v M45-�17S S1641 ' -19167-4 C5 I jETL.A 14.0 �MPA6T`S r %r�"o "S" /.36 7"- f e�"L/M/�4,e1V -90AD . 17 " 0 � u' P,�,AN SE I38-tb PLAGE � 4 E INGMEER: Hamm Engh-a-gyring, P.S. Robe 11 Damn 1'34284% ot. M-ukilteo, INA 98275 (425) 7 = SURT,1EYOR: Dryw surm Lam Sargot 12714 Valla anuq East 8umacr, %1A 9983G0 (2531820 300 70 0 >�_q (wtT_ *7_,&Vvs� �0 DE:N51TY 6CW1rS� SINGLE FMNILY RESIDENTIAL OIT"f OF RENTOII KING COUNTY �ffiffER 0TWT W RENTONUMA,QUIAH Nil'%'33 >COUHT)f FIRE MSTRICT 925 PUGET SOUND ENEROY PUGiET 8OUH0 ENERGY AT&T %10ADRAND ix- c;oncret� Drivewy W CAI jE S 1 36TH ST 00 W Cn W SE 1 28TH STI w 4 T" All LEGAL DESCRIPTION MCINdy AP PARCEL -A (See- No�e� THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY p MARGIN OF 156TH AVENUE SE AS DEEDED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 1094243; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY 199 FEET THEREOF, AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 156TH AVENUE SE, LYING.SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF, AND EXCEPT A PORTION OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: o COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH '%z OF THE NORTH '/z OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, 78 THENCE SOUTH 00007'38" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 30.01 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE NORTH 88017'07" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE 597.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88017'07" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 25.69 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF 156T" AVENUE SE; THENCE SOUTH 00009'25" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 25.09 FEET TO A POINT OF ' CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 89050'35" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91033'35"; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE. TO THE RIGHT, A DISTANCE OF 1't 39.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 142.87 SQUARE FEET. i SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. I. � 1 TOGETHER WITH ANON -EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS ,x THE NORTH 15 FEET OF THE WEST 187 FEET (AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD RIGHT- moo"" RIGHT- OF-WAY) OF LOT 2 OF SHORT PLAT NO. 878133, RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8002250639, 60 RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. ri / ALSO TOGETHER WITH.A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND —4'i (.J I ACROSS THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE EAST 22 FEET OF THE WEST 199 FEET, AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY `{u1ARGl_N._OF.SAID 156TH AVENUE SE, OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1l2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 466 114 OF THE NORTH�lUEST 1/4 OF THE SE�UTHEASi 1/4`Oi-�SEC� TON f4;­�f"OWNSI�i1PS=?3 1�4�?TH;`RANC.E`5 `EAST,-WA1,� I 464 LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 156TH AVENUE SE. I PARCEL B THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, 462 RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID EAST HALF € OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 460 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AS THE POINT OF TRUE BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00"25'21" EAST 523.99 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF ►— SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 881 07'58" WEST 58' 6.53.61 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 00027'05" WEST 525.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 88017'35" EAST 653.84 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST `° HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; h oo` EXCEPT COUNTY ROADS. g LEGEND —EXISTING LEGEND ---PR P SED MONUMENT FOUND THIS SURVEY ® WATER METER 0 FOUND PROPERTY CORNER AS INDICATED SET REBAR & CAP LS# 6228 WATER 1/AL VE A SET PK & TAG LS# 5228 FIRE HYDRANT Q ELECTRIC METER F.H. POWER POLE WATER TEE UTILITY POLE W/ CONC. BLOCKING r" _ >---- GUY ANCHOR CA TCH BASIN h ® PHONE OR CABLE PEDESTAL MANHOLE C FIRE HYDRANT ® CLEANOUT CONSTRUCT 8' PAVED SH.OULD.ER.,& a WATER VALVE E CAP 1. 49M WETLAND FILL = 7-2.5 SQ. FT. RELOCATE DRAINAGE.DITCH ALONG w WATER METER PROPERTY LINE (PROPOSED) 1 7H AVE. SE PROJECT FRONTAGE CATCH BASIN OR -INLET 2, BUFFER DISTURBANCE GAS METER LOT LINE (PROPOSED) A. BY R.O.W. = S, 70G SQ.. FT. DECIDUOUS AS DESCRIBED v Qv B. BY LOTS = 0 SQ. FT. E— OVER HEAD ELECTRIC LINES -- EDGE OF PAVEMENT 3, BUFFER. REPLACEMENT/AVERAGING AREA 15,495 SQ, FT. X CHAIN LINK OR WIRE FENCE © -- WOOD FENCEP'r' W WATERLINE .,, ' SD ' STORM DRAIN S.A.T. A. BUFFER AREA = 51, 1615 SQ. FT. B, WETLAND AREA 1G,g62 SQ. FT. PERIMETER ROW AREA = 24,807 SQ. 'FT. STORMWATER DETENTION TRACT "N" AREA = 4,421 SQ. FT, STORMWATER DETENTION TRACT "M" AREA = 35,835 SQ. FT. RECREATION TRACT "L" AREA 151aSg SQ, -FT. AREA OF TRACT "M" OUTSIDE OF 100 YEAR WATER SURFACE LEVEL = 1 1,808 SQ. FT ; BUILDINGS S T �) C CULVERT 45 EAU 454caNTOUR LINE � Item No, ''j��j��TTjOTEY.7CC; �I EXISTING LOT LINE/ROW *.. .. 1•• • SVII. 03P King C I. BUILDINgS D WITH AN * WILL BE DEMOLISHED. H I r TOPOGRAPHY BY 2. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WILL BE REQUIRED AFTER GEORGE W. DRYSDALE, P.L.S. PRELEV"ARY PLAT APPROVAL IN ORDER TO CREATE TBE EXCEPTION TO THE PLAT IN PARCEL DRYCO `A' AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT MAP. DRYCC Surveying & Mapping 3. gzvj'seZ ro 70 LOTS r)� 4 70 xnr&vpe L #A e 9lzylo � � 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST , SUMNER WASHINGTON 98390 ;z: •,��UiS���J .Ta : sib ': c,o � s.. ,. z/zyfb z �r� (253) 826-0300 FAX (253) 826-9703 i PLAT OF EVENDELL SCALE: 1"=100' # 70 LOT PRELIMINARYPLAT DATE: E. 5/29/01 REvlsE PREPARED FOR: U.S. LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 22200SEATTLE WA 98122- 0200 ION T'U__`)1r_r_"Vn"L0PMEN1T 'ERV CEN''UTD L - ECES 22617 — 8TH DR. SE., BOTHELL, WA 98021 (425) 486--2563 OFF, 425 486-3273 FAX SHEET 1 OF 1 1 - _ _. _ . _ .. _.__._. , t• - t� - ' i y! i 4t 4 L _. r*! :y....t• ''. �` �:. i. i:. I at{t it i L r..ae ...w MR. �»�-~ ! T}I. �'� __ Ri!_t Nt-..._.,,,_„� SC/I(, '" �� + ■ , "� ,S 4 , ' ; i ' i L ♦ +....,si 'OW 13-23-5*".%! a • • e • t' - • } r 1 WPM Fee Air .. ' 1 t "" t � 1 R / •I� r � � ' ` - ! ! � ! I . *. � ] � !. � w: �A� la�wr�i+iri��! , - . � «c.�� � i r Junior High/ !01 :. •, ,o ©„ C E _l '� Aar AP__.- _ _ ' ` } Hi h School �� r _ ,M a Bus Stop � LW r ,,, - C • '� : `� .� .�.. .• t I s ,� . i Nigh School ti, Icy. ,�1 _ r» X� Bus Stop ,� • � w r ' w_ f r -�J - No Shoulder r ? .,.� _,ILA&ANIIII ■ i t.. ■� ole L Junior High _ rr a! t ET tAi �- Bus Stop ! , {_ I 1 {a. ■r uR ! ifs . e +� . Jell`r r f y w .rr ♦ • • l ' f I %' 00. 11r lrst w, . -loop ® i��F rw ■ I, All AN t I - _ _ if+llt . a, a.1 .- J1w r = �. mn--- , wur..ww •t!.• w!w s` _ • ' a!r____-;-� /" f # r z r . .r �.+ . l'J 41 rB • a ' e "••t 06 , Z , } r ♦ C R r •tj' # j j r • - f, -.... f 1 I!♦ r / ' .,. .' ; J O of III At OrArAEMI 0 I� Rat • e� • # ■ issi w • w• r • wj+ w ; '/ � + �+• • . ! • •� ! �► � ,r, 'j � rt _ _ �•� ,,�' - � =� , • ' • � � � • ' � � it 1r � l' /V� ."}R' / ,� ` _+r � _' � • i � � M � '� f at tAcr, 7t . s AOt► • .(t' x / fi 1MtA !x 1 t (x ► ! hiA tttt. % JI `� tI �•► ! Briarw t fRA •r� • R r� e • •_rI• •� • • t st i � �:; ' _ ''7t... w _.. r® x /l ood � Raw• � T' f � � r � '� •� � � 1� � r ��� 1� , � ` �, r /AI Elementary---+ � rers�/e�r■. r■nitrorer :••- - ---. • i s `'LJ � t i NO 010 00" NII AN mom I ' r Air w. nu i•]1 s • i t #!P—`sx�• _ _••ww • AN. IN `_'_"Tr,, a--^•- I•t:�L �,• * ! wr, Ai 0" a• O I • ! Mir 1 r 4r 1 � •i�Trj r rNOW dfp it .11, AR ca • A � on_ sr ru mot �r►n•anr • 3 _ • f w ` - _ • 11/ M /T �• ` WWW— d'� I Iresr •.,IQ! r•osrre•rs �•`- �• -a « * Proposed Bus Stop i ✓► 4 ! L►� .�/ A•r A ass ! ♦wr / + :. _ _AOL ,,, `. e{�r • '� 9 Ewa " © �M . �1`f . +" • • -- is r x ' .R' `� f[ 1 ryl� rAw.+w r.w • -� r ■ e w r Q a to d i �' Grovel Road w/ ii f �Zi1t, t. r•If r r ' +'!.!Y _ _.,lit �" • � . � � '! t •M M'A AN �f £ - - of onstru .� Grass � � � "W • AR / "°' n- jLINK- ,~e.:.. r r ted --�*• r . lie„• !r !� so 11 •+M '�� _ Elementary `- !� I _,� Wv"N» Bus Sto -- --�,19 r� r• IN a 7 i!, • � ♦ � � � � / � vn t � ter .em � ,w,c, � ~ � • M _ a� A # r M r •New ,� — •wti M •NNO !#'. r H !� L__� kv h School r: � 4«--J � _ E • --Z_3 . tls � • w+w A. A. r tt M+t+ ••.•+t• NI iil•tt� +rr r AV At 9 is rT10 Ari ONE �. Pei RC!► •!rM• . MO!■OOrO! w T - 40 r ` 'r' •r n • •� ,Ml ' _WIr "� �' s NOW no I it low, -- -- - --r 01,• _ - -- - -weadsIto —._ lei -you* All — � M • AM .. R, �s Elementary > • "" ,# ' SIP,, •! ! •■ :' SOr) MiY r 1iL + �I R t ,.� '% J • 1 u 5 Stop MLSy •40 r a4#0 t Of f I •I !Iff r ar' .! . >w • r • • fr w , [ R Ne • ■ �� ► >• r ;' ■■ tip • ! A R A! ramCr • L� R / moo 1 1.as �r I _ a • .► ■ ....................... AMIN .ter it 01 �� • � rl A � J■ i i � ` , �Or[!!R{ ��� 1 t � .R� 1_I r�r � • ■ � � Iwo � w � _• � �'• � � •� �L r � ` � w/ + 1r 1 jar 1 • jV j 07 to !r to is w s M # d # .r sr #% n. n ", r r � r �► r •r r f• t■ r a• + .A r tV• r r w ... wr • . 4410 new Brad"- PENIN"Wrm on 4. Map rAr 1 w dome Afth_ AI NO" lop LIBERTY GRAVE & LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS School Walking Route Analysis A field reconnaissance was conducted on July 2, 2003 to determine the existing condition of likely school walking routes. The location of existing school bus stops and preferred safe walking route standards was provided by the Issaquah School District. The analysis indicates that no safe walking route exists from the proposed preliminary plats of LG or LGC to any of the adjacent school facilities. Upgrading the existing bus stop at the intersection of SE 136th Street and 1 both Ave. SE is the only practical method of providing safe access for children to and from school. Kev 8' Asphalt Shoulder 5' Asphalt Shoulder Existing Bus Stop Proposed Bus Stop • ANnbT/�1�'D 61 7NI Stiff W/Co I `I ai' nmmm-5 F 9W Ut 10 4 — # 1 4 . owe, lip Ur ! 7 .NOW r • ! w #N NVW OW rat _ # S. :• we y ~• i t. • L M w w M M •' � • Ole A, aF�00 +M. woo _le .A wr Bill FIW SOU 11 wL■. >,� • i A'" ^ t• It»t0 iINOIrA ! t der,•o �"° • a� op jy —I.Z---_"'"9��r*'-�S�•_ xr''�i-�("•? JE.I�itr�M• M "" 7► ! � � �f t/ 1. {j� 4 •-' ? r __ Oltdw � lee All 4" l! r• r ,r■do all" PP'r All wrw rya•.. 00 Air. W. +� �~ ' st y M a ood 'do ri o - yW 0 • Middle School ,aw ---��' n f �� F ,,� �•• .ram n� „tom « x - ,, ,.r r' ,�.. .. ., r. , .� •�' t•, , `C -r 4W 00 its I ae me AF lr x a AS a ,1 ww Qi ! If tt0 I 00 w 00 OW � M ill !1 � � r. � ! _ •"1' *+• � I N •'•+A r .r . ` hr 4Z op�r F No it rr sr # r F ow NO OF -at 800 !r _ JRF - fA 41 �ir ` ••" 'v a. r � two .• L+� r �► rr iMrT A 1•ffi rr•s! a rw � • Is "00 INa Mew •� i.' '*t1' a .•1.Q _ a4 + wr Aiir6iy] 1 ,, �' •• r f*' lit 1 Oro M' r• _ 1 'r„ • � *Ir! -a-VIP � .r�� 1. ... 'fYR1rfRFr � �..#... ,7- Vlti. . This section should be completed only if the proposal includes application of residential density incentives (K.C.C. 21 A.34) or transfer of density credit (K.C.C. 21A.36 or 21A.55)- Maximum density is calculated by adding the bonus or transfer units authorized to the base units calculated in Section III of this worksheet. The maximum density permitted through residential density incentives is 150 percent of the base density (see Section 11 ) of the underlying zoning of the development or 200 percent of the base density for proposals with 100 percent affordable units The maximum density permitted through transfer of density credit is 150 percent of the base density (see Section 11.) of the underlying zoning of the development. 0 base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section 11.) X 150% w 0 maximum density 0 maximum density in dwelling units per acre X 12,42956841 site area in acres = 0 maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density incentives (K.C.C. 21A.34) 0 base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section II.) X 200% = 0 maximum density 0 maximum density in dwelling units per acre X 12.43 site area in acres = 0 maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density incentives with 100% affordable units (K.C.C. 21 A.34) 4 base density in dwelling units per acre (see Section 11.) X 150% = 6 maximum density 6 maximum density in dwelling units per acre X 12-4295684-1 site area in acres = 74.57741047 maximum dwelling units allowed utilizing density transfers (K.C.C. 21 A.36 or 21 A.55) Calculation 50.00 base allowable dwelling units calculated in Section 111 + 0 bonus units authorized by K. C. C. 21 A-34 + 20 transfer units authorized by K. C. C. 21 A.36 or 21 A.55 70.00 total dwelling units (cannot exceed maximums calculated above) lla Oka kw �K`V' a `V� a 21 AASA U U 2); - $tO 8Ma Qn SqUOLM is tO grM h0liZONPRI Mg Of ft pit , I'm Submwgead lands as d"rened by K.ca'C'1 1k06.1 5, and areaswbio are mquirvd b be dedWGd on the &Wara fat in submwged lard (any gaud ba-V&y the aodinar� hE�h w'08r niark . _ m C.Q 21A.0&82fl + _ 2-41901 _square W�, h psAmter rids -of w y vfhl ve,116 be mquiired b ba, t j (a.r 51 featihm canter 111ne e, row" Total 0a,IMIIa kA, S(06, 2 39 Crosooi� nt 1 � T Wl submtrged hds and r+ S'4�1,, 11-3Z , Me. area 1P square %4, NOITE: To m=&Ue ce lstio s, con,v%t sNe area III square feet to crams by dividing by 4300 12 • Y.3 Ske area !9 ages The ease densl� Is defy med �y'fie Zone d ignaft(s) for the lot. dule Ths ban numbsTaf lA, lli url �8 calw1abd by m0o ing to & wea by the haw densty in dwelling units per a (from K.QC. 2MJ2. -.040 Wb1m). /.Z. �.3 am In am (; a tlon i.) "A" L/ bmwpsity Iasa S-zdlor,10, wh8n l I ns TMR 1p a fm*n, to hdon rs munded to the neaivt tr oll number as f lawt: 1, F w, of SO or above sell be mIended up, and Z balow.50 siull t* roundad dowel. Ei if a i3`.. IJJQII Cid 00 a )Ul R L on `�J. a 2A. 16, 0�6 This se*n musi be wmpkM onily if the propomill is a midantiall day lopoment f MpC' than fair d i llifi um% in aa UR and R zones, stand-Mme towrnhown in the HE zone on ppe&y daeVnatad Corn msr aI auwida of Center k more than bur units, or any rnked uss devalopmwt iff more VW four Arlo- Rlnati&n'tps muat be- imputed by mulv*lr %,9 r eAsn space mplrwwt par unit typa by ft propow pumbsr of such &4l n' unk, (K' ZC. 2M.U. 180). NOTE: King Courity has the dls lion to amapt a fee k Nu of all cr a PA'on of the MqUirAd Wreagolt apace pf I C.C. 21&14.1 $5, Apeftetsand Wi lhou *fit a &rt)6ity grefi& than 004 unity t M, 8nd filed use wtust q'lids r rt� lspeco Ala ; 90 solvefest X pfoMd number et 0-ludio and one badio 1 w& 130 square felt X prWwd nvibw of hw Wroam unk 0 170 uara feat x propmd numb' of three or mw bedroom Wits 0 Rrmeation Spm Requirement t Residemdal bt l � and townho m dev&bwd 91 a dui ity of eI ht unit, orlen, W acm must provide rweawl at $pace as follows: Do squire ket X r%� propo d number of units 4 mohikk hme perks Shall prove; ° teal Spa"- as fall : 260 square fed X r%D promed numbv of grits p �o HGA UI 6"'.6h ° Q-& �K.Q Q 2t"�. .79711a This � n is mod for computing minimum d®nmand must be wrnplatedonly if ft site is.Iomted h ft R-4 fivough R-48 :pones grid diagmted Utah by the Khg County Co rprokoneW Ikea. The Ind buN arse i� the site arvi laden toy lw> tie folicivv1ng amw areas VOk a prepct lalte which are Mulred to be dedicated Cbr public h -wsy in axcm of sl Ay bd (W) 4 yjidth 1� _ 7b, l30 —sensitive arw and Mir bufars, to the Wont t, y are regWrad by King Cwnty b remain 4 fib, z�( areas roq.uW fw s jo gI pd storm§pater l facilities including, bit not lifi , _ .�. ..,.... rsWtardd9kntm prods, blo lhiion swaW and seft lks from su&po, and wra s 1� _ 1,3165'O �arreas required by King Cwi inty to ba dedicalod or I -Sr'on-its MMOM amen. duct set a w*in st wabr caritrol f ellty if raqussft poweation 9.pm aadN a alluwed by KCC 21A,14.1 80. (me won W ) 1� U ,r ial utility ev0dPoms, and *tar areas,exduft sebwks, requirsd by Wing County to ramain u d oloved _ 30, 03& _ToW I° ui2l s 5Y/, �.Z Sb =0in ZqUarq felt (ft 1eCkn I.) Total redudians ,°yet bu�ldaW area ih s u lie feat NOTE: omv,#A site amain t are het to rcby 41MIng by 43,0 The k lmum tbnik r-squilmm t appNa onkt to, the R4 hur gh R48 zones. Uini tan milky is Mennined by muiopyng the bass damsky In dwdling units per a e (we Sedon pia) by ibe Pet bvNdahe area of ft site In ems (m S%Ivn V.) and then multiplying the muing p*ud Icy te fWlnimum &rmlty pemenMgs from ft KC.C, 21Ok s130 table. The minimum dens requirements may boo phaW oT waived by Ong Coupf h li sh cam. S* KC-C, `fbass �It�j in dulac (SOS Selw II.) X 9. y4/ net bunch area h scm (R Ss� Ls�o V 8 .) 3 7, 7G X minhum dart* % sot kM in K,C,Q 21,A.12. 30 or as Rust in Station V11. Z :AZ-; 40 minimum &;alfing ur& require 4' Y Gravel��'o 'd a ist4- E454 C Mcrete Driveway� - IE12"RCP: 4752.27 1E12"RCP: 451 APPIG11IT, PROJECT MANAGER U.& Lmd Dave,Qoppioft� Assadates Ha,,ward Stsnabury(hA heal Lift P.0, Coax 22200 Seals, INA -12-0200 2 CentudonDC��t Sr�.0 fthaiael J. P0mang 2281 Ki OF, SE thaQl, INA 98021, SECTION, TOWNSHIP & RANGE: SE V4 S14-T2,,"d 1-R5E ACREAGE: 13,01 TOTAL A NU04 ER OF LOTS: ZOG NG: PROPOSED USE: SEWAGE DBPOS L: %,sV QTEf U SYSTEM. XHOOL DISTRICT. FIRE tMSTRICT: TELEPHONE SERVICE: POWER NATURAL GAS. CABLE TV, SE 1/4 S14-T23N-R5E W S'E I38� JVlAGE ENNEER, Hamus Empineeding, P.S. Robe3l 0swu i342845th Q. ��lukiQtea, WA 9,8275 (4 25) -45-72 SURVEYOR Dryco Survey Lary SoNmoont 12 14 `alley Avenue Easy Sim, no ,1 h 98380 OURREN d � PROPOSED ' �, W, M T AVV5iae!r, 0 DEN617-Y fjCjW/ 7--S) &NGLE FRALY RSIDENTAL 0TY OF RENTON KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 080 REN7011498SAOUAH1 rNR37 COUN'Pf FIRE [DISTRICT 25 QXJBEST PUGET SOUND ENERGY" PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0&T BROADBAND SCALE: 1 " — 100" 100 0 100 I04AN/ 717260 ►' �" /3, r`- PC1/tV,4,ey 9OAD �?�'o� " FLAW .} �1 200 Uon crete .+,; Driveway ®0 )? LLJ S 136TI-I ST 00 + ' SE 128TH ST W � + S 3PTH ST SITE 4- to rn W i� CID LEGAL DEscMMoN MCINITY MAP PARCEL. A (See Nape 2) -- THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY �p 00 MARGIN OF 156TH AVENUE SE AS DEEDED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING ..► NUMBER 1094243; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY 199 FEET THEREOF, AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 156TH AVENUE SE, LYING.SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF, ��o 1 AND EXCEPT A PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF 61 �� THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: O� COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH'% OF THE NORTH I/h OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, 178 THENCE SOUTH 00007'38" WEST, A DISTANCE. OF 30.01 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 FEET OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE NORTH 88017'07" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE 597.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 88017'07" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 25.69 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF I%TM AVENUE SE, THENCE SOUTH 00009'25" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 25.09 FEET TO A POINT OF ' CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH'THE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 89°50'35" EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91033'35"; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A DISTANCE OF hN, 39.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 142.87 SQUARE FEET. t SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE O. F WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER � OGE , , UNDER AND ACROSS � THE NORTH 15 FEET OF THE WEST 187 FEET (AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF COUNTY ROAD RIGHT - OF WAY) OF LOT 2 OF SHORT PLAT NO. 878133, RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 8002250639, o�� a RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. / w ALSO TOGETHER WITH,.A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND a ACROSS THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE EAST 22 FEET OF THE WEST 199 FEET, AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 156TH AVENUE SE, OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 112 OF THE NORTHWEST 466 1/4 OF THE. NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOU T HEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIPS 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. 464 LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 156TH AVENUE SE. PARCEL B s THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,. 462 RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID EAST HALF i OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: i BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST 40 QUARTER AS THE POINT OF TRUE BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°25'21" EAST 523.99 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF �-� SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 880 07'58" WEST a' 653.61 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, THENCE SOUTH 00027'05" WEST 525.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 88017'35" EAST 653.84 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EAST 456 � HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT COUNTY ROADS. <)9 LEGEIV —EXISTING LECENQ--PROPQSQ 0 MONUMENT FOUND THIS SURVEY ® WATER METER 0 FOUND PROPERTY CORNER AS INDICATED SET REBAR & CAP LS# 6228 ri WATER VALVE �s f A SET PK & TAG LS# 6228 < ESQ AL ELECTRIC METER E.H,FIRf HYDRANT POWER POLE WATER TEE -� UTILITY POLE W1 CONC. BLOCKING GUY ANCHOR CATCH BASIN Z PHONE OR CABLE PEDESTAL 0 MANHOLE (4 FIRE HYDRANT ® CL.EANOUT r_ _.:__........___..... N . _.._-_,.... ... � WATER VALVE CONSTRUCT 8' PAVED SHOULDER& E CAP 1. WETLAND FILL = 7�Z5 SQ. FT. RELOCATE DRAINAGE.DITCH ALONG � WATER METER PROPERTY LINE (PROPOSED) 16oTH AVE. SE PROJECT FRONTAGE CATCH BASIN OR INLET 2. BUFFER DISTURBANCE GAS METER LOT LINE (PROPOSED) A, BY R.O.W. = S, 706 SQ. FT, DECIDUOUS AS DESCRIBED B. BY LOTS = O SQ. FT. —E--- OVER HEAD ELECTRIC LINES --� EDGE OF PAVEMENT 3. BUFFER REPLACEMENT/AVERAGING AREA 151,495 SQ. FT. X CHAIN LINK OR WIRE FENCE o WOOD FENCE140 W— WATERLINE �., So STORM DRAIN r SAT. (© 116; A. BUFFER AREA =- 51,16$ SQ, FT. B. WETLAND AREA = 16,162 SQ. FT. PERIMETER ROW AREA = 24,807 SQ. ,FT. STORMWATE DETENTION TRACT "N" AREA = 4,421 SQ. FT, STORMWATER DETENTION TRACT "M" AREA = 35,835 SQ. FT. RECREATION TRACT :'L" AREA 15, DSg SQ. FT. AREA OF TRACT "M" OUTSIDE OF 100 YEAR WATER SURFACE LEVEL = 11,808 SQ. FT BUILDINGS C CULVERT 45 454 CONTOUR LINE � EXISTING LOT LINE/ROW LAW 1. BUILDINGS MARKED WITH AN * WELL BE DEMOLISB ED . TOPOGRAPHY BY 2. A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WILL BE REQUIRED AFTER GEORGE W. DRYSDALE, P.L.S. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL IN ORDER TO CREATE THE EXCEPTION TO THE PLAT IN PARCEL DRYCO `A' AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT MAP. DRYCO MappingSurveying & 3. ,ZZ visit T'� �O LpT� r� .7~41v o pta c� L �A' 9 i* to 12 714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST :Z SUMNER WASHINGTON 98390 - h/� , LG� � S. zfZ7%bz M.� � (253) 826 -0300 FAX (253) 826--9703 PLAT- OF. EVENDELL SCALE: t "_1 oo' 70 LOT PfELIMINARY PLAT DATE: 5/29/Ot DRAWN BY: n�uR REVISED: PREPARED Foy: U.S. LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES P.O. BMX 22200 SEATTLE WA 98122-0200 CENTUID I J i L"---. d R! �u FRUON"T"' V"L"PMENIT SERVECES 22617 — 8TH DR. SE., BOTHELL, WA 98021 (425) 486-2563 OFF. 425 486-3273 FAX, SHEET 1 OF 1 •yY M. A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON EqALE CRIFTION PARCEL A: >' ACCORDING TO SURVEY VT B OF KIN13 COL 1;TY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT N0. L03L0013,CORDEb ,JURY 23%' 2004 UNDER RECORDING NO. 20040723900002, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL 1i A. NON �XtLQ$IVE&SEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THE WORTH 1 T..OF,,THE WEST 187 FEET, AS MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF 156TH AVENUE : 5E, t:O� L0f ,..2 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 878133, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED FEPRUARY 25, l§8"d- UNDER RECORDING NO. 8002250639, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL C: NON X ' SI1/t EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH "5T Qf` .TI•IE EAST 22 FEET OF LOT A OF KING COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT Nq. L0�001l . ACCORDING TO SURVEY RECORDED JULY 23, 2004 UNDER RECORDING N0. 20040'23906002, 1N KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. r . L �r.1'r Sri"'� iliafk .ur rr w CIW ALA. P QPLE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF INTEREST IN THE LAND H, PI~®`� �zS061MIDED, HEREBY DECLARE THIS PLAT TO BE THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF E SUQbI.V�siON MADE HEREBY, AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER AFL S 1.,, UT ,„ANI)AVENUES NOT SHOWN AS PRIVATE HEREON AND DEDICATE THE USE THEREOF FdR AL.L PUgjj.C, �'URPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE THEREOF FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY pURPOS , 'AI, p . $ THE RIGHT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS UPON THE LOTS.00 MAC.TS SHOWN THEREON IN THE ORIGINAL REASONABLE GRADING OF SAID STREETS AND AVENUE$ A140.,,FURTHER DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC ALL THE EASEMENTS AND ACT ;SHOW,..ON �tHIS PLAT FOR ALL PUBLIC PURPOSES AS INDICATED THEREON, INCLUDING BUT I aT LIt�I G1. ib 4_'!A KS, OPEN SPACE, UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE UNLESS SUCH EASEMENTS OR t4Ct ARE:w 0P_0IF1CALLY IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAT AS BEING DEDICATED OR. CONVEYED TO A PERSON; �R 'I 4.,TY �}THER THAN THE PUBLIC, IN WHICH . CASE WE DO HEREBY DEDICATE SUCH STREETS; EASEMENTS; OR TRACTS TO THE PERSON OR ENTITY IDENTIFIED AND FOR THE PURPOSE STATEb . •"1,ItTHEf, 1 , ;UND 9SIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, WAIVE FOR THEMSELVES, ZEIR , H0R3_r M6. "A- §SIGNS AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DERIVING TITLE FROM THE UNDERSIGNED, Y AND -ALL CLAlI0S FOR DAMAGES AGAINST KING COUNTY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS WHICH MAY BE" "GCA5101 It6 ' BY THE ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION, OR MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND/0; tRA1_N,G §`YSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN CLAIMS RESULTING FROM WADEQUATE MAINTENANCE BY KING COUNTY. ',12THER` TH N SIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, AGREE FOR THEMSELVES, I�IR E RS;�Nb §IGNS TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD KING COUNTY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, NAR_ ML�S z FR _V AN}Y, DAMAGE, INCLUDING ANY COSTS OP- DEFENSE CLAIMED BY PERSONS WITHIN 0, WITHOUT• IIS SUBDIVISION TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY ALTERATIONS OF THE GROUND SURFACE, 11 GETATI. N�'I AINaGE, OR SURFACE OR SUB --SURFACE WATER FLOWS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION OR ,Y EsTABI,iS. OONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF., THE ROADS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. pROVIDEII) TH S WAIVER AND INDEMNIFICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS RELEASING KING COUNTY; ITs. UGC�SSORS OR ASSIGNS, FROM LIABILITY ;,FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING THE COST OF 7EI'ENSE,.,fSltiTiNC:,':IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF KING COUNTY, ITS SUCCESSORS.:4R ASSIGNS. k 1 THIS SUPD#V1SI01� DbICAT10N, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND AGREEMENT TO HOLD HARMLESS IS MADE WTH THE i Att' CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF SAID OWNERS. IN WITNESS WE HAVE SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS. SBI DEV�LOPII�.G LI.C�. A WASHINGTON L1M1 .. D LIABI COMPANY FRONTIER BANK S, rv40 �Y= r4 iq Y: IiS: °; .., ITS: �r , bAVID iyY Ld DEBRA ALBISO iLoo aBY: r CK1TaGMENTS 3 SPATE Or WAS fN.G,` ON ) f SS COUNTY,- :.CERTIFY TH A ' I 40W OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT IS ;THE `pES �iC' APPEARED BEFORE ME, AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLE GED THAT HE/SHE MTRU NED: fiHIS :S1�RUMENT, ON OATH STATED THAT HE/SHE WAS THORI ED TO EXECUTE THE MNT ANb ACKNOWLEDGED IT, AS THE Y OF 5pl DE. V L 1pI G,, .4 _O . TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY. CT SUCH PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOS S ME P11ONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. ?ATED: f 20. Q�] r 13 Y, PRINT NAME• � F NOTARYPUOUC IN `AND FOR THE Amh' p §LATE OF WASNIN1.T0N ib� , x008 MW-W Y COMMM00 ExP kEs RESIDING A1' \ • DOES: FILE, N.O. L0 1 P00 1 6 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (corrr�xvan) STATE OF WASHINGTON � ) SS COUNTY OF 4 tMt-11C�f-,S ) I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT L Cr IS THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME, AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE/SHE SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, ON OATH STATED TH , HE/SH WAS AUTHORIZE TO EXECUTE THE AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT, AS THE ,to - INSTRUMENT lfL� OF FRONTIER BANK, TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED: Iz - 20 PRINT NAME: u � '"`�00, NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND F THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES RESIDING AT STATE OF WASHINGTON I ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT b SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO BE HIS/HER FREE AND VOL TARY ACT FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED: STATE OF WASHINGTON 20_() SS COUNTY OF KING ) I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT AlSo SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT TO BE HIS/HER FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT, DATED: 2005 e. 8 Y: ,�a►� PRINT NAME: c • NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FORJIIE STATE OF WASHINGTON MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Z� •{ RESIDING AT ge.&AL>0 FINANCE DIVISION. CERT51CATE AXES ARE PAIp I HEREBY CERTIFY'' THAT ALL PROPERTY T , THAT THERE ARE NO DELINQUENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFIED TO THIS OFFICE FOR COLLECTION AND THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ' CERTIFIED TO THIS OFFICE FOR COLLECTION ON ANY OF THE PROPERTY HEREIN CONTAINED, DEDICATED AS STREETS, ALLEYS OR FOR ANY OTHER PUBLIC USE, ARE PAID IN FULL. 69 THIS DAY OF _...._ 20 RIO C9 LL4 C5 ' MANAGER, FINANCE DIVISION ' C 0 _• , �� C6-�; kplflly 6/ SHEET 1 OF 9 PG. APPROVALS DEP&RTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AN�ONMENTAL S€RVI ES PK NE PPROVED THIS DAY OF U 20� EX 7d MEW ENGIN D APPROVED THIS �+1 DAY OF 20AQ�r _-m� "%fm%wm*k — I_,Aa -A KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS ICUL DAY OF Srn-F-F Noble - KING COUNTY ASSESSOR EP ACCOUNT NUMBERS: 142305900904, 142305902207 UTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR 20DS KING COUNTY COUNCIL EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF 20----- ' ATTEST: CHAIRPERSON, KING COUNTY COUNCIL CLERK OF THE COUNCIL RECORDING CERTIFICATE FILED On AT TKF REQUEST OF THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL THIS DAY I CONFORMED COPY - , ,-, .: � ✓ f AS RECORDS OF KING AND , COUN' DIVISI­20050�� f. - 26000751. ODES DEPT. OF PLAT 85.00 - MANA PAGE001 OF 07/26/2005 009 10:52 CORDS KING COUNTY, WA RECORDING NO. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE_ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT OF EVENDELL IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M.; THAT ALL COURSES AND DISTANCES ARE SHOWN CORRECTLY THEREON; THAT THE MONUMENTS WILL BE SET AND THE LOT AND BLOCK CORNERS WILL BE STAKED CORRECTLY ON THE GROUND AS CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THAT I HAVE FULLY COMPLIE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE PL G REG TIO S. Oy dlD 01 KENKIC-TrJ W. SHIPLEY DATE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATE NO. 38488 STATE OF WASHINGTON CORE DESIGN, INC. 14711 N.�.29TH PLACE, SUITE #101 BELLEVUE, WA 98007 PHONF NO. (425) 885-7877 D-111'/ds •. • 01 era$ • • `o • •0 ls-ro-4- . ANAL Lim EMMs: 10/24/06 a r 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 ,C01!E 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885@7963 DESIGN y r ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING J C3 E3 N C3 R O40®S31 •.ra+��w.•�•�'enM1R•.rw W ��Y.�v. 0 Y PLAT PRIC-7 ONS 71 J >ST 1[ 3 1E] V Ej I I- IL A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1. TI-#IS.. SITE 1.$, SMEGt T THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, NOTES, EASEMENTS, AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED AND/OR DELINEAtD' ON I=ACE THE SURVEY RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9508099008, RECORDED IN VOLUME 105 OF SURVE`�, ;WAGE 3;, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 2. THIS Slf� I�, %8J C"�' TO o f TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS CONTAINED IN KING COUNTY BOU�0ARY, LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, L03L0013, RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 2004_01239{�OOg2. .00 3. ! 31.5, $ITE �S RJtC%F,TO ,THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN EASEMENT TO KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90'.I:OI s1�IlATE$7 ANb SEIMEk_; AINS AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 75flT17U5fi7 ANd., aHOW ._HEREON. r mks 3� 4! I, at-, ISM S_U�J�CT fd.,� THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN EASEMENT TO KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 . ;0# ; : ATL i.,y ANb.,,$NfI :MAINS AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 750�`� C 70a pN_Q A PARTIA z,`ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR SEWER MAINS AND APPUR AI+iCES; A$„ bESCRIfiED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 20040629000160, ANT ' AS SHOM HL"RtON! ` 5. 1% SITE I5 SU4C T THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN EASEMENT TO PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMMA Y FO��; t�k SIC.. tOANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDEI�,,�k CpUI �; RtCQI��JNG NO, 9502230476. THE DESCRIPTION CONTAINED WITHIN SAID INSTRUMENT IS INSuF1" BENT TO AC�UoAftLY PLOT SAID EASEMENT, f, t , 6. A I5 A PRIVATE 40INT USE DRIVEWAY TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE VV�IERS Lb 1r AND,,2 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 1 AND ,j. OWIINER. P OI=;LOTS 1 AND 2 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP fNTERESt IN TT Asfi A, �iNa ,M EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID TRACT. THE t WIENERS , OT 1:.t SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE SEWER FACIU11ES WITHIN SAID ACT.A(fJ,. ACTFIS . SUBJECT TO AN OVERLYING PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO ICING . COUNTY','.-. � ♦,4 ....- 7. TRAIT B 15 A _i*jYA% AC;LESS TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PRIVATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES FOR THE BENF13,.OF: p.J RS OFPLOTS 3 THROUGH 8 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE OWNERS OF SAID rLC Ts ,;•,TH OUGH 8. OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 3 THROUGH 8 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDEb, uQVyNSHII? :INTEREST IN TRACT B, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTEIANCE 0 AID. WC�:, THE OWNERS OF LOTS 4 THROUGH 7 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE: 0.;TIE . PIV'E SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID TRACT. THE OWNERS OF LOTS 3 4 7 AND 8 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE P0. THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID TRACT. 8. TRAGH C IS A p1VATE .JOINT USE DRIVEWAY TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF r THE OWNERS . 0 ;.,(QTS 5 ..AI O fi AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLA : TO THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 5 ANIr,Ei. OiVNf~RHIP OF;•LpTS 5 AND 6 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP INTERESfi, IN TRACT C, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID TRACT. 9. TRACT, D $ _A PR 01r A:COESS TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PRIVATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES FOR THE BENEpf bF TNt d ft` RS {' LOTS 50 -THROUGH 53 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE OWNERSr�QF S�Ml 1tS 5Q.TH.R000H 53. OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 50 THROUGH 53 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAND Ul7 OWIVE SHIP INTEREST IN TRACT D, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE 1�1=,;.5A b TRAM_ THE OWNERS OF LOTS 50, 51 AND 53 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE ' O . ^TH PRIVA SEWER AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID TRACT. THE OWNERS OF LOTS 50 THROUIM 52 OPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE F TEN NCE 0 THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID TRACT. 10. TRACT E 65 A _ A1VAtE ACCESS TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS OF L0 5.37 THRQU. N9 AN.b IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 37 THRO06H 39, 6Wl� SNIP Q�' LOTS 37 THROUGH 39 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP INTErkts1`.IN TRACT E, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID TRACt. 11. T17ACT F Is,..A 081YAtE ANT USE DRIVEWAY TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PRIVATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES FOR , THE BENEFIT ,.OEt ,THE b*f - ERS OF LOTS 38 AND 39 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE OWNER_ -,OF $AIb 38, ,AND 39. OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 38 AND 39 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDII"Jbr O#4 I ' II TER�ST IN TRACT F, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE .OP S ID fRkf a i 5 12. T>AOT; G • 1.$ A IVA-TE IMINT USE DRIVEWAY TRACT FOR INGRESS EGRESS PRIVATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES FOR OWNEiRS�,OF $A1.b.; L 0* UNDIV�C�I MAIN CEQ rb ks fVAN_,�; FACiI� IwS WITHIN Y� Py 13. TR CT H f FOR TIC BENM.T, I OWNER$# .OI= SAIb l UND` !)Eb OWNS MAINtR4NCE Or 4 y t 14, l� TR.YT I Is .. FOR BEN T..t OWNERS SAID L UNDI,4 A OW . EItS OF SAID} fiRAcdf. , HERS OF LOTS 67 AND 68 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE 1D 68. OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 67 AND 68 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND $T IN TRACT G, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSBIUTY FOR THE LOT 68 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE SEWER i. Y` RIVATE. ...NT USE DRIVEWAY TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PRIVATE DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES FIE O.MJERS OF LOTS 28 AND 29 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE i8 ANC. 29. OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 28 AND 29 WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND INTER. ST IN TRACT H, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE �Ib TRAC�. IIVA1 ANT USE DRIVEWAY TRACT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, PRIVATE DRAINAGE AND UTIU11ES THE OERS OF LOTS 19 AND 20 AND IS CONVEYED UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT TO THE ! 5• 19;, ! N 20. OWNERSHIP OF LOTS 19 AND 2b WITHIN THIS PLAT INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND IP IN' k§`T IN TRACT I, AND AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE No 15. TRACT FOR OS 0f OVATE TRACT FOR RECREATION AND PUBLIC STORM DRAINAGE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL LOT OWNERS -IN TI-�,I,S '1. iT, EA .,�. OF A LOT IN THIS PLAT (LOTS 1 THROUGH 70, INCLUSIVE) INCLUDES AN EQUA,,ND uVJVI,I. OWNE,SHIP INTEREST IN SAID TRACT L EXCEPT FOR THE PUBLIC STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES, THk EyENbtL qj yEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF TRACT L SHOULD THE OMEO EI S, ¢ SOCIATION FAIL TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN SAID TRACT L, THEN THE LOT OWNERS OF SHALL LOTS -,'THROUGH.: : 7I :E EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID A i, � TRACT. AN EASEMENT , .:...,: ,.. OVER, # I )ER AN0,, ,ACROSS ; ACT L IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO KING COUNTY FOR ACCESS AND FOR THE MAINTEI .ANCE,, RI=PAIR, CONS`fRUCT10N AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES CONTAII`IED TH E1Ns 1fi. TR CT N IS Old Yob KING COUNTY OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY FOR PUBLIC DRAINAGE PURPOSES, TOGETHER, WITH ,, AINTMANCE OBLIGATIONS UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT 17. �X _0 s Olt t A: STM.8119'�--AREA TRACT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL LOT OWNERS WITHIN THIS PLAT. EACH OWNEISIP OWNERSHIP 0Lf IV THa ..PLAT (LOTS 1 THROUGH 70, INCLUSIVE) INCLUDES AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED THE Q INERE, sSAl�3'RACT 1ITORI 0. THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR L VIOLATIONS 'OF SHOULD OF THE USES THIS TRACT ALONG WITH NECESSARY MAINTENANCE. H E� f5'� A S OCIATION ,:THE F b.:Q E .. AIL TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN SAID TRACT 0, THEN THE LOT OWNERS OF A LOTS I THROUGH. 70 SHALL. , E EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID TRACT. 18. THERE SHALL BE Mb bIRI CT VEHICULAR ACCESS TO OR FROM 160TH AVENUE S.E. FROM ANY LOT WITHIN THIS PLAT. Da FILEP0016 y.rL01 PLAT RESTRICTIONS (CONTINUED) 19. THIS PLAT IS SUBJECT TO KING COUNTY CODE 14.75, KING COUNTY ROAD MITIGATION PAYMENT SYSTEM (MPS). THE MPS FEES PLUS THE MPS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE SHALL BE PAID AT THE 11ME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AT THE RATE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. 20. SCHOOL FEES FOR LOTS 12 THROUGH 51 AND 53 THROUGH 70, INCLUSIVE: SAID LOTS ARE IN THE ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT. FIFTY PERCENT OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES WERE PAID AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH KING COUNTY CODE 21 A.43.050. THE BALANCE OF THE ASSESSED FEE, S2,498.00 PER LOT, TOGETHER WITH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION FEE, MUST BE PAID AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE. SCHOOL FEES FOR LOTS 1 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE: SAID LOTS ARE LOCATED IN THE RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT. SAID DISTRICT HAD NO REQUIREMENT FOR PAYMENT OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES AT THE TIME OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, SCHOOL IMPACT FEES SHALL BE EVALUATED, AND IF APPLICABLE, SHALL BE ASSESSED (USING THE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION) AND COLLECTED, TOGETHER WITH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR EACH LOT. 21. THE STREET TREES PLANTED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THIS PLAT ARE TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION UNLESS KING COUNTY OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY HAS ADOPTED A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. 22. THE ROAD AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLAN AND PROFILE PLAN NO. P#4018 ON FILE WITH KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (DOES). ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM � THE PROPER AGENCY, CURRENTLY DDES. 23. THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS ESTABLISHED ON JUNE 16, 2005. 24. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, .COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND/OR PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN AN EASEMENT SERVING SAID PREMISES AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9307161233 AND AS SHOWN HEREON. 25. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS" RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 20040811001633. 26. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND/OR PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN PUBUC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 20050707000727 AND 20050707000728, AND AS SHOWN HEREON. 27. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO TERMS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND/OR PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN PRIVATE INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 20050707000726 AND AS SHOWN HEREON. EASEMENT NOTES 1. A PRIVATE EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, THE CITY OF RENTON, PUGET' SOUND ENERGY, QWEST, ANC COMCAST, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, UNDER AND UPON TRACTS A, B, C, D. E,,.Fi G, H . AND. I, THE EXTERIOR 10 FEET, PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE STREET FRONTAGE, OF ALL LOTS AND TRACTS AND ' THE EXTERIOR 500 ' FEET, PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING SAID TRACTS A, B. C. D. E, F, G, H AND i, OF ALL LOTS IN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND PIPE, CONDUIT, MAINS, CABLES, WIRES, VAULTS AND PEDESTALS WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH SANITARY SEINER, WATER, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, GAS, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DATA TRANSMISSION, AND UTILITY SERVICE, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE. LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSE HEREIN STATED. THESE EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR THESE PURPOSES SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION BY THE UTILITY. NO LINES OR WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT, OR FOR TELEPHONE, CABLE TELEVISION, TELECOMMUNICATIONS OR DATA TRANSMISSION USES SHALL BE PLACED OR BE PERMITTED TO BE PLACED UPON ANY LOT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN CONDUIT ATTACHED TO A BUILDING. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURE SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE EASEMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM EASEMENT OWNERS. 2. THE 15.00 , DOT PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT A AND LOTS 1 AND 2 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO KING COUNTY. KING COUNTY IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES iNITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 1 THE 7,00 FOOT PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT H IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO KING COUNTY. KING COUNTY IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBUC STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 4. THE 15.00 FOOT PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT H IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90. KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90 IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT, 5. THE 10.00 FOOT PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 21 AND 22 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90. KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90 IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 6. THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT L AND WITHIN TRACT I AND LOTS 18 AND 21 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON. THE CITY OF RENTON IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 7. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 1 IS FOR. THE BENEFIT OF LOT 2. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. E. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACTS B AND C AND LOTS 3, 4 AND 5 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 3, 4, 7 AND 8 AND THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 9. THE 10x15 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 4 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 3. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 10. THE 10x15 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 7 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 8. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACIU11ES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 11. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT N AND LOTS 5, 6, 10 AND 11 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 5, 6 AND 9 THROUGH 11. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON, SHEET 2 OF 9 EASEMENT NOTES (CONTINUED) PG 12. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 13 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 12. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 13. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 15 THROUGH 17 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 14 THROUGH 16. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 14. THE 15.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT] AND LOT 21 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 18 THROUGH 20 AND THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 15. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 22 AND 23 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 21 AND 22. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 16. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 25 THROUGH 27 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 24 THROUGH 26. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE .OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 17. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 28 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 29. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 18. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 30 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 31. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON, 19. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 31 AND 32 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 32 AND 33. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 20. THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 34 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 35. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 21, THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACTS E AND F AND LOTS 36 AND 37 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 39, 40 AND 52 AND THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. ,THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT, 22. AN OVERLYING PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT UNDER, OVER AND UPON TRACT E IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 36. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE. 23. AN OVERLYING PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT UNDER, OVER AND UPON TRACT F IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 52. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE. 24. THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 37 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 38. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 25. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 41 THROUGH 43 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 42 THROUGH 44, THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 26. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 44 THROUGH 48 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 45 THROUGH 49. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACIUTIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 27. THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT D AND LOTS 50, 52 AND 53 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 50, 51 AND 53 AND THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 28. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 57 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 56. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 29. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 59 THROUGH 61 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 58 THROUGH 60. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT 071 !ps PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 30. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT 11IL r WITHIN LOTS 63 THROUGH 65 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ,,•poi !*i8 ,1 LOTS 62, 63, 65 AND 66. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS a SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. (CONTINUED ON SHEET 3) EUMEs:.10 z4 06 r 1,4711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 ,Coil;!E 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885,7963 DESIGN w ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING J t� B N r3. 01400SP A FOUND 1-1/2" BRASS CAP W/PUNCH IN CONC. *�T 1E I E VOLVq PG .,,DN. 1.2' IN CASE =:CITY OF PENTON NO. 2105. 1E VIE 11"" HELD FOI1;jCTR. SEC. 14-23-5 SEWER S- (MONUMENr DESTROYED DURING SANITARY SE A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. INSTALLATION) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON EASEMENT NOTES (CONTINUED) OUND 1"I.P. W/TACK IN F 31. THE 10'x15' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT G AND LOT 66 IS FOR 7 CASE. DN. 1.2 UNPLATTED LOT 2 LOT 1 JANET-rS RENTON O-3E X 0.8 S. FROM CALL 15 MON NOT SEARCHED FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 67, 68 AND 69 AND THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. b.'-488029 1 K.C.S.P�. �NO. 488029 K. C. S. P. NO. 488029 BOULEVARD TRACTS 1/16TH CORNER DERRYHVRST HELD POSITION PER DOWL ROS THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SEE NOTE* VOL. 66, PG. 74 SEE NOTE 5, THIS SHEET MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 55.73,,.--SEE N I MTH ST. N87'57'31 "W 2612.97 32. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 54 AND 70 IS FOR N87"55-28-W I rX3 THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 54 AND 55. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL 13E 73.31 B•2 Cn H PRIVATE DRAINAGE (173.38 LAI 3 8 9 1 1 13 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVA - -------------- 49 50 53 C? I \ 30 30 R=25-00 P5 CD FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE, AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE IN THE A=91 03!5'38* 4 7 10 38 MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN . *? . Cb - 48 30, COMMON. L=39.97 M V4 Lov8 TRACT N 5 6 TRACTO 199.07 (H) x 11 52 -A- 33. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 2 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF I �", ACT C 2 4 C I 47 LL- RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF LOT 1. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE LOT A 8 8 2 90 6 ((H)) (424.25 BLA) 37 THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. K.C. BLA NO. L03LOO13 46 REC. NO. 20040723900002 4 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 2 43 39 TRACT 1 34-. THE PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 3 AND K.C.S.P. NO. 878133 45 0 LOTS 4 AND 5. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REC. NO. 8002250639 TIES THEY HAVE: 42 41 40 MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES UO3 Q m LOT 1 -< W. LINE, E. 1/2, N.W. 1/4, 44 35 Q BENEFIT OF USE. S.E. 1/4, SEC. 14-23-5 3 PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 7 AND 34 5. THE P 8 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF SE. 137TH ST. LOTS 6 AND 7. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 22 MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES THEY HAVE wi L01 n 33 LO to 12 57 56 55 54 70 BENEFIT OF USE. UNPLATTED w 32 C--) 36. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 20 AND 21 IS FOR THE 13 r- BENEFIT OF LOTS 19 AND 20. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 14 58 68 69 29 28 HAVE BENEFIT OF MAINTENAUSENCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES THEY 1 . 30 1-0TRACT G 15 59 a. TRACT 2 37. THE 5.00 FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 39 AND *0 IS FOR THE Go 67 66 TRACT H BENEFIT OF LOTS 37 AND 39. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE UNPLATTED LO 01 FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES THEY. 16 60 65 HAVE BENEFIT OF USE. 06 17 — 62 63 r1r) 38. AN OVERLYING PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT UNDER, OVER AND UPON TRACT E IS 18 61 TRACT L 64 FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 36 AND 40. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE N88'07'31 "W RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES THEY HAVE N. LINE, S.E. 174-, N. W. 4 BENEFIT OF USE. TR T I 138TH ST, S.E. 1/4, SEC. 14- 23-5 3 4 5 7 39. THE 5.00 FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT WITHIN LOT 66 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF P4 -4- Q LOT 67. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT 67 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE LO Q3 BENEFIT OF USE. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -Lo OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES THEY HAVE L V-) CN - ROSE GARDENS 40. THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENTS SHOWN ON LOTS 9, 12, 23, 24, 44, 49 AND —.j VOL, 83, PG, 69 N88*07'31 mW 623.59 TRACT 3 TRACT L ARE HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC USE FOR PUBLIC SIDEWALK `FT 7- S: LINE CALCULATED PARALLEL TO N. --// � --_..__ I . ......... PURPOSES. LINE, S.E. 1/4., N.W. 1/4, S.E. 1/4, SEC. 41. AN OVERLYING PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER AND UPON TRACT H 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 14-23-5 PER SURVEYOR'S CORRECTED IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC USE FOR PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 106 9 1 *� Olzi PURPOSES. LEGAL AS SHOM ON K.C. BLA NO, LOT 8 �,Cv N LOT A o 1-03LO013, REC723 . NO. 20040900002 30' 42. AN OVERLYING PUBLIC EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT OVER AND UPON . .,�` �G• TRACT H IS HEREBY DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC USE FOR PUBLIC EMERGENCY VEHICLE UNPLATTED ACCESS PURPOSES. co C'4 U-) o c1q 43. THE 15'x40' PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT SHOWN ACROSS TRACT 0 IS HEREBY TRACT4 RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO OWEST TELEPHONE COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF VAULTS AND RELATED FACILITIES. 44. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN LOTS 20 AND 21 AND TRACT I IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 18. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE <D RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE AND SHALL EQUALLY SHARE WITH THE OWNERS OF LOTS 19 AND 20 IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PORTION OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES USED IN COMMON. 45. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT. G IS FOR THE 653.82 BENEFIT OF LOT 69. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 653-83 MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. N88'1730"W 1307.65 46. THE 10.00 FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT L IS FOR THE S. LINE, N, W. 1/4, S. E. 1/4, SEC. 14-23-5 BENEFIT OF LOT 27. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE O&M EASEMENT. MAINTENANCE U Irl PRIVATE DRAINAGE;rM%.o1UHr-,3 WITHIN 47. AN OVEBERLYING PRIVATE SANAND 7.ITARY SETHE OWWER EASEMENERSNOFT USAIDNDER LOTANS SHALL BED UPON TRACT C FOUND 3" X 3" CONC. MON IN MON NOT SEARCHED FOR IS FOR THE NEFIT OF LOTS 4 POSITION PER DOM- ROS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIVATE SEWER FACILITIES THEY HAVE BENEFIT OF USE. Y. CASE W/PUNCHED BRONZE PLUG HELD SEE NOTE 5, THIS SHEET J2 1308.86 N83137'27"W 2617.72 'TES SECTION SUBDMSION DIAGRAM ALLl II FQ CUlATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP HAS ,SEEN EXTRACTED 7ROM FIRST AM67--RICAN NOT TO "")CALE TLE INSU, #RM MPANY SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE ORDER NO. 4209-214,947, DATED JUNE 28 ? 9.O 5. .E Ap.- DESIGN H UUNUUUItU NO INDEPENDENT 1111-t.SEARCH DAL`�I;!3 IJJV rZ&AAJLi1VD !INTHIS MAP, OR w OR IS bt$1 AWARE OF ANY TITLE ISSUES AFFECTING THE SURVEYED PROPERTY OTHER NOTE* tN THAN OS --��ON THE MAP AND DISCLOSED BY THE REFERENCED FIRST AMERICAN TITLE N000281r-4E BETWEEN MONUMENTS NORTH LINE LOT A, K.C. BLA NO. AST AMERICAN'S REPRESENTATIONS OF FOUND IN PLACE AT THE SOUTH UARA WR. �'ESIGN HAS RELIED WHOLLY ON F L03LOO13 HELD 30' SOUTH OF AND 4 QUARTER CORNER AND CENTER OF 0iius-, �*0111PN TO PREPARE THIS SURVEY AND THEREFORE CORE DESIGN QUALIFIES THE PARALLEL WITH EXISTING MONUMENT �A'Pss XdW� Ar"6Y, AD COMPLETENESS TO THAT EXTENT. SECTION 14-23-5 PER HIGHLAND 0000 LINE OF SE 136TH ST BETWEEN 156TH ESTATES, ACCORDING TO PLAT - Aw RECORDED IN VOL. 212, PGS. 10-13, IN AVE SE AND 160TH AVE SE PER BLA ALL.- ANCES(4-A,kE. IN FEET, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. .. TH ii-fRAVERSE SURVEY. A LIETZ SET4C COMBINED ELECTRONIC 5 SECOND REFERENCES IZGE" t1-`E0q(?W'ji.:q',�h GRAL DISTANCE MEASURING METER WAS USED TO MEASURE THE ANGULAR b , X., � KING COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE ,N , _ ­�C�%NSHIPS BETWEEN THE CONTROLLING MONUMENTA11ON AS SHOWN. bj�-,T�,j Ct,� R ADJUSTMENT NO, L03LOO13 FkAl- -9,'QrTHE TRAVERSE MET OR EXCEEDED THOSE SPECIFIED IN WAC 332-130-090. (1) FOUND MONUMENT AS NoTEn REC. NO. 20040723900002 USURP 19 . tM�A�Qlki EQUIPMENT USED TO CONDUCT THIS SURVEY WAS COMPARED TO AN N.G.S. QUARTER SECTION AS NOTED (BLA) kJA ELINL VfltHIN.,U_ YEAROF THE DATE OF IN SURVEY. SECTION CORNER AS NOTED tNf-k- SHOWN AS FOUND WERE VISITED THE WEEK OF APRIL 17, 1995 UNLESS (BLA) AS SHOWN ON BLA NOTED". (H) HELD PER BLA 5`," SEC110 SUBDIVISION PER RECORD OF SURVEY PERFORMED BY DOWt ENGINEERS, RECORDED "IC TE UNDER ACING COON, I RECORDING NO. 9508099008 AND ROTATED 40" COUNTERCLOCKWISE TO PATCH iIGNLANb ATES, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOL 212, PGS. 10-13. (ROS) t j,,$, 't D D LS:I L01 P001 6 SHEET 3 OF 9 921 1 4 VA Ix L L nos: 10/ O�. 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 DESIGN ENGINEERING - PLANNING - SURVEYING J C) 13 NC) OAOO!9 0 .. is s _ _ A a v U4 IV) W I� , i FOUND 1-1 /2" BRASS CAP W/PUNCH IN CONC, IN CASE, DN. 1.2' CITY OF RENTON NO. 2105. HELD FOR CTR. SEC. 14-23-5 40 so p6' s. r1L1( L01 P0016 Nil A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON UNPLATTED Li rd LI L. LJ V, L-7J 11 sV ..jI-1 "01 A%di\ 4-.11•sr 0 FOUND CORNER AS NOTED • SET 1 /2" REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP "CORE 38488" FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED SET STANDARD KING COUNTY CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE 9 SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER "38488" AT FRONT CORNER OR ON PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED IN LIEU OF FRONT CORNER AS FOLLOWS: LOTS FRONTING S.E. 136TH ST. W. OF 158TH AVE. AT 8.75' OFFSET LOTS FRONTING S.E. 136TH ST. E. OF 158TH AVE. AT 6.75' OFFSET LOTS FRONTING 158TH AVE. S.E. AT 6.50' OFFSET, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE LOTS FRONTING EXTERIOR OF LOOP ROAD AT 6.00' OFFSET, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE LOTS FRONTING INTERIOR OF LOOP ROAD AT 1.00' OFFSET HOUSE ADDRESSING THE HOUSE ADDRESS SYSTEM FOR THIS PLAT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: ADDRESSES SHALL BE ASSIGNED FOR THE NORTH —SOUTH ROADS WITHIN THE RANGE OF 13600 — 13799 AND WITHIN THE RANGE OF 15600 — 15939 FOR THE EAST —WEST ROADS. INDIVIDUAL, ADDRESSES WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE PRINCIPAL ENTRANCE OF EACH RESIDENCE OR BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH KING COUNTY CODE 16.08. LOT 2 K.C.S.P. NO. 488029 SE. 136TH ST I LOT 1 K.C.S.P. N0. 488029 RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND..-. B.UFFERS DEDICATION OF A SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER CONVEYS TO THE PUBLIC A BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND WITHIN THE TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER. THIS INTEREST INCLUDES THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION FOR ALL PURPOSES THAT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, INCLUDING CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER AND EROSION, MAINTENANCE OF SLOPE STABILITY, AND PROTECTION OF PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT. THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER IMPOSES UPON ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF THE LAND SUBJECT TO THE TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER THE OBLIGATION, ENFORCEABLE ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC BY KING COUNTY, TO LEAVE UNDISTURBED ALL TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER. I -HE VEGETATION WITHIN THE TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER MAY NOT BE CUT, PRUNED, COVERED BY FILL, REMOVED OR DAMAGED WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. THE COMMON BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER AND THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MUST BE MARKED OR OTHERWISE FLAGGED TO THE SATISFACTION OF KING COUNTY PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING, GRADING, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OFF OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ON A LOT SUBJECT TO THE SENSITIVE AREA TRACT/SENSITIVE AREA AND BUFFER. THE REQUIRED MARKING OR FLAGGING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DEVELOPMENT... PROPOSAL ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SENSITIVE AREA ARE COMPLETED. NO BUILDING FOUNDATIONS ARE ALLOWED BEYOND THE REQUIRED 15—FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. TRACT NOTE A "TRACT" IS LAND RESERVED FOR SPECIFIED USES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, RESERVE TRACTS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE, SENSITIVE AREAS, SURFACE WATER RETENTION, UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCESS. TRACTS ARE NOT CONSIDERED LOTS OR BUILDING SITES FOR PURPOSES OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING CONSTRUCTION. (KCC 19A.04.330) THIS PLAT HAS TRACT NAMES THAT ARE NOT SEQUENTIAL. THIS PLAT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING TRACTS: A, S, Dt Do E, F, Go Ho I, L AND Ot SHEET 4 OF 9 DOWNSPOUT NOTE N87057'31 "W ,�-0.26 N. LINE, S.E. 1/4, SEC. 14--23-5 �a 00 CA r � z 10 INTERSECTION DETAIL ---� NOT TO SCALE C M SEE INTERSECTION DETAIL ABOVE co 1246.46 ---- ��_ _._622.96--- Cd1 Q IJ1 90 �'0 t_4d Zp � o CD Y f Wi 1.00 (n 5.50 W Ja I coo Q 20' '1' 21' ca -I I N m ) W r 'h l ALL BUILDING DOWN SPOUTS, FOOTING DRAINS AND DRAINS FROM ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SUCH AS PATIOS AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE PERMANENT STORM DRAIN OUTLET AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS NO. P#4018 ON FILE WITH KING COUNTY DEPT. OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (DDES) AND/OR THE KING COUNTY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION. THIS PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. ALL CONNECTIONS OF THE DRAINS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THE FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL. FOR THOSE LOTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR INDIVIDUAL LOT INFILTRATION SYSTEMS, THE SYSTEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PLANS ON FILE. ALL INDIVIDUAL STUB —OUTS AND INFILTRATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE LOT OWNER. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE RESTRICTION, LOTS 34, 35, 37 AND 38 SHALL DISCHARGE ROOF DRAINS DIRECTLY TO THE ADJACENT WETLAND WITHIN TRACT 0. THE EVENDELL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DISPERSION FACILITIES WITHIN SAI D TRACT. .10 ,CORE DESIGN o^► /tr/ot . • at • ��•• t. N�� LAB S:10/24/06 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425,885,7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING ,JC30 NO. O400J TV] W W c 11 V T\T ID I-EJ I Aj .1 IE A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SEE INTERSECTION DETAIL, SHEET 4 a 1246.46--- 1' } a7 I -� • a Q o '1 72.35 4500 SE. 136TH ST. N. LINE, S.E. 1 /4, SEC, 14--23-�-5 622.96 RIGHT -OF --WAY DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR ROAD PURPOSES UPON RECORDING OF THIS PLAT ''�76.00 sp . D 45.00 47,08 i 02 29 E ..� " P63.22 E� �w `'\\��s ,ti`'. oo° NO2' " FOUND 1" I.P. W/TACK IN CASE, ON. 1.2 0.3E X 0.8 S. FROM CALC 1 /16TH CORNER r.rr ..r YY'+ f`I IT i aLF- HV 1L', 1111. .J 0 n Q+ ,� , 1_�O Op � � ��`L I 17.12 �c9 `SD pp3-rj3 �� N15`13'44"W , �`,38�?� 420.18 9 50 TRACT D i CD I �' �► Q s► °'• z d N O �h v, «3 o o SEE REST. 9, SHT. 2 a 1 r 1 1 \ �1 ,[�00'O6'59" o ?� �9��y CIO L=0.65 U-' N87'57'31"yy �, .\ �cs 1 NO2 02 29 0 3 8 1 \ N89'32'S1"W $9.64 �o, 36.76 20.00 O ��� 11 � cc7 w 48 N N87'S7'31 „W ���LO z �`ti•o N87'57'31 "w N$7'S7'31 "W 1 ♦O 44.67 ��33.24 0 17.51 i _ \ ` 50' WETLAND S83'�4.,r "' � � � �, � \ BUFFER -r c,� N89 32 51 W 88.31 10.0 I co I ` \ Q 1 52 w� I TRACT 0 ` I u► �' S XISTING WOOD FRAME `' '' I N20'42'35"W \ o LU E •r I SENSITIVE AREA TRACT 4 % a 2 a', STRUCTURE TO REMAIN �'� I w 19.64 � Cn N ,', N87'57'31 "W 61.31 --' \ SEE REST. i 7, SHT. 2 1n p �, ON LOT 52 W 6' \ W � �i u1 20.00 41.31 1 88,100 01 . w 42423 �� _ N89'32'51 "W FOA R6M a O S 1 �� , � � � �° 8 W YELLow s6.Do \ \ PLAS,.1C C 60.00 " rn ,�; � sry 5D WETLAND \ APPROXIMATE N87'S7 31 W 114.48 N ems: �� BUFFER \ 100 YEAR xCD .\ LS 96 . 1 o N87'57'31 "W 86.25 o abESTRbY�D DURING; ,. ;; 20 21 88.23 FLOOD PLAIN 1 4 , CONS-M00h REPLACED I N \ „ � kf) _ N 3 7 ;KITH :t %2 I A w%YELLow TRACT F d 4- \ AP CO" E 8488" ,+ 4 3 3 9 SEE REST. 11, SHT.74N C 4. �' \ PLASfic C W N89 32 51 W , � 0,00 TRACT E �' I 86.00 z 7'31"W SEE REST. 10, SHT. 2 26.00 #) � Zo W Q N87'57'31 W 62.77 N87'57'31 "W 82.23 ,� cn a q O o N87'57 3l W 116.55 DC 1 O , Ln 40 w I `) o o 50,D0 45.00 50.00 � 50.00 66.55 �\ 5/1 \ \ Q; rn rn ; \ \ Q \ N v: cri N89 32 1 Go •4� 1 \ 1 i a LJLJ N c7 " � o ' o `�' ` \ O I` pQ 42Zq p 41 0 40�'� 36CDP \� 1 V5Ln LI LLi L!`�c9d,``Sp 10Qd POUND:; RERAN . W YELL01 03 �,�4=18'46' / I fi I.72 20.01 50.00 45.00 25.00 �' 50' o � PLASTIC AcAP �-�r.4& o� s o� 34a20.01 19 . 40 W 0.6E N87'S7'31"W 264.01 3cj o 9.64� ... _ 172.98 -�� �-- �-- _ ��oa o ,1 g.lE 66.c�� �\ N61'43 ll W SE. 137TH ST. a N3615 N �6 , , 3.91 20.57 N13'40'04"W 00 p'�� 6) 9.93 Flo K' 33 N36'08'24"W '1� 19.87 0 57 56 55 5�1 70 SEE SHEET 6 FOR CONTINUATION LEGEND BSBL BUILDING SET BACK LINE 0 FOUND CORNER AS NOTED • SET 1 /2" REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP "CORE 38488" SET STANDARD KING COUNTY CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE ® FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED Zt SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER "38488" AT FRONT CORNER OR ON PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED IN LIEU OF FRONT CORNER AS FOLLOWS: LOTS FRONTING S.E. 136TH ST. W. OF 158TH AVE. AT 8.75' OFFSET LOTS FRONTING S.E. 136TH ST. E. OF 158TH AVE. AT 6.75' OFFSET LOTS FRONTING 158TH AVE. S.E. AT 6.50' OFFSET, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE LOTS FRONTING EXTERIOR OF LOOP ROAD AT 6.00' OFFSET, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE LOTS FRONTING INTERIOR OF LOOP ROAD AT 1.00' OFFSET NOTE SEE SHEETS 7 THROUGH 9 FOR EASEMENTS OF RECORD AND EASEMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED. SHEET 5 OF 9 i Ld i I VOL, 30' PG A 30.01 30' 30' 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 DESIGN ENGINEERING • PLANNING - SURVEYING J a E3 N Cr. OAOOS) 4 r s�V:y.•: .r IEVIE I DEJ I I -A { A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4„ SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. = KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOUND �EO� R W�YELLOw - SEE SHEET 5 FOR CONTINUATION PLASfkC CAP LS #9634" ZoF ' 0,6E 20.01 �- # N87'S7'31 "W 269,01 z-- 34 _..., 111.04 - -- _ -� c`Qv 172.98 a, SE. 137TH ST.00 r�9 32.09 4a.aa 50.00 8.7 ` r 70.72 3 4- 52'01 „ I I t APPROXIMATE 1 a0 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN TRACT 0 SENSITIVE AREA TRACT SEE REST..17, SHT. 21 w h bt ,96, boy ,p 3 `-� o , m f,�ti 3� 3� o Q `? Q��� Sri `� N 58'36 44"W c_j1 2 16' 16, ,^a 2i, ?�,,o ,,5,-50 E 1�� 20.33 © `O 'sj �'{j �78 8 ' s j CD ro p G7 tv O ctic1q Q rn ' "' 57 N o 5 6 a o 5 5 �AJ.,. -`�' "sr y`�<S`- r}� �%~g �Y(y� I/� BC 6.45 41 ,--- N 1 d" • t,! •� `-' . L. \, 3 4. jam, • N89'32'51 "W r z z o rn % 0 d' d�3 ��'-Cri So b-, 50WETLAND r� - z R� `� 6' �'; BUFFER N70'57'30"W ' 13 0 CD _ N87'57'31 "W `� 21.66 r a- 6.33 99.29 n � N87'57'31 "Wlt ' jVUjj - 55.02 40.00 50. oa 45. a 0 , i `. _ , 28.06 C W.:lid;, /2, ; N.W. 1 /4, N89'32 51 W N87'57'31 "W 93.04 N87'S7'3l " 86.21 -P. °: z 5.. / SEC. 14 - 23-5 W . 0 03 N87 57 31 W 93.16 _ _ �- 31 '-------- 95.00 - UJ � 9 Sao (�=-09.56'S3' , 091 to 68 I g Q 5 c N o L=21.70 N87'57'31 "W � 1i 14 � � � U � TRACT G � � 29 28 o i o � „ SEE REST. 12, SH r. 2 R=1a.aa �k � 16' 16' 91.39 SEE P rn o N z N47 02 29 E A=-91 35 20 � z SPRINKLER � 0 14.14 4.76 84.75 L=15.99 i �; SPRINKLER a r NOTE BELOW NOTE BELOW " N87'5T31 "W N87'S7'31 "W 89.51 _ ' N89 32 51 W _ z N87'57'31 "W a 95.00 00 93.04 75.00 o R=5.00 � tn I _ L(7 N87'57'31 "W 90,62 i A=-88'24'40" V- ``� N42'57'31 "W 5.31 85.31 L-7.72 59 a o � a 85.14 85.1415 C o 14.14 R=10.00 W 45.00 51.32 " N87'S7 3„WLc) L A--88'2440181.46TRACTH o 7 N L=15.43 . c00 o 6 SEE RES T. 13, SHT. 2 NO ' " 'n N87'5731 "W 186.34 95.00 - N87'57'31 "W z o o i w 5.00 I 93.04 66 = _o 1 6 � i N87.57'31 "W 90.04 cy) Lij N87'57'31 "W c' 60 45.02 ? z CD � 45.0_ 95.04 cri o �'- cC N89'32'51 "W 95.00 i 65 CD `'''�� `- d N87'57'3? rrW eD \ .:t: . 17 a � 62 63 N8,� U'31"w 4- , 93.04 W o `n rn 4 95.04 o N89032'51 "W `'' 6 .) CD a i c� FOUND -RLBAR W/YELLOW 95.00 c N 64 CD PLASTIC CAP [ " i a � O. i wCD to 8 R=S.Oa r' l� �•6 ��; o A-= 85 44 2 3 � � � �pro �rZ L =7.57 . 0 03 `5 N55'04 53 E 4�� 52.67 6.07<���9, R�S� 4�.02 45.02 52.37h N89'32 51 W 99.95 ',q- 4`,g -,50��,, 50.00 Q 49.95 9y �� ?�� f. 20, 25 c .� 8� o � N550453 E `� �3 --$- - - _ _ SE. 138TH ST.- „ `2°4° N87`57'31"W 195.08 TRACT N89.32 51 W 56.33 �� j �� SEE REST. 1.4,710 2141 25.55 42.02 50.02 42.02 Lztz ., SHT. 2 � / 7 35.47 d h / L=5.54 CQ , 20 Uj 21 q 22 0to � L' �'D 19 Dm 23 24 25 25 27 r VOLN TRACT L SEE REST. 15, SHT. 2 N & DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND COVENANT FOR RECREATION TRACTS, SHT. 7 i i i i 30' I 30' PG. I •. •oi •AL8 � , ,., REPLACED WITH 1/2 REBAR „ W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP CORE 38488 p '•, .' 50.02 50.02 42.01 42. a � L L A 50.02 1 5a.02 42.01 41.01J. 41.01 FX� 21546 =S: 10 P4 08 - N8$ 07 31 . W fi 3.59 � � 30,01 I LEGEND SPRINMR NOTE - ....::: ... _ a BSBL BUILDING SET BACK LINE LOTS FRONTING S.E. 136TH ST. E. OF 158TH AVE. AT 6.75' FUTURE RESIDENCES ON LOTS 28 AND . � OFFSET 29 ARE REQUIRED TO BE SPRINKLERED O ,r ® FOUND CORNER AS NOTED r NFDA 13D. 1471 1 NE 29th Place Suite 101 • LOTS FRONTING 158TH AVE. S.E. AT 6.50 OFFS T UNLtbb 4 ,...,. 'CA SET 1/2" REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP "CORE 38488` SHOWN OTHERWISE LE - 40 .` SET STANDARD KING COUNTY CONCRETE MONUMENT IN LOTS FRONTING EXTERIOR OF LOOP ROAD AT 6.00OFFSET O 80 CASE UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE t, PERTY LINE OF LOOP ROAD AT 1 CJ0' OFFSET FOUND REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP - IS #29537" DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION - Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 DESIGN �y) -•rr.: SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER 38488 ON 0 LOTS FRONTING INTERIOR r IJ EXTENDED IN LIEU OF FRONT CORNER AS FOLLOWS: ENGINEERING PLANNING S U R V E Y I N G SHEET 6 OF 9 LOTS FRONTING S.E. 136�TH ST. W. OF 158TH AVE. AT 8.`75' J C) E3 N C o 0 4 0 0 D D E F I L. �. N� t �f L01 P O 01 OFFSET 11 SEAL-. 40 80 �DSI� lC L01 P001.6 A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4, SECTION '14,. TOWNSHIP .23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ALL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITHIN THIS PLAT, NOT SHOWN AS "PRIVATE", ARE HEREBY GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING, STORING, MANAGING AND FACILITATING STORM AND SURFACE WATER PER THE ENGINEERING PLANS APPROVED FOR THIS PLAT BY KING COUNTY, TOGEI HER WITH THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE ACCESS (INGRESS AND EGRESS), TO ENTER SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPECTING, OPERATING, MAINTAINING, REPAIRING AND IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES CONTAINED THEREIN. NOTE THAT EXCEPT FOR THE FACILITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN FORMALLY ACCEPTED FOR MAINTENANCE BY KING COUNTY, MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNED. THE OWNERS OF SAID PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE: REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PP!OR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM KING COUNTY PROPERTY SERVICES, AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS FROM THE KING COUNTY Dt�PARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING AND GRADING, PRIOR 10 FILLING, PIPING, CUTTING OR REMOVING VEGETATION (EXCEPT FOR ROUTINE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUCH AS LAWN MOVING) IN OPEN VEGETATED DRAINAGE FACILITIES (SUCH AS SWALES, CHANNELS, DITCHES, PONDS, ETC.) OR PERFORMING ANY ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, CONTAINED WITHIN SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THIS EASEMENT IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE REASONABLE ACCESS TO - HE DRAINAGE FACILITIES. THIS EASEMENT AND COVENANT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND IS BINDING UPON THE OWNERS OF SAID PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. MG COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND COVENANT FOR RECREATION TRACTS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND COVENANT OVER TRACT L, IS HEREBY GRANTED AND CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING, STORING, MANAGING AND FACILITATING STORM AND SURFACE WATER PER THE ENGINEERING PLANS APPROVED FOR THIS PLAT BY KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT FOR KING COUNTY, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, TO ENTER SAID. DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND COVENANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSPEG LING, OPERATING, MAINTAINING, REPAIRING AND IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES CONTAINED HEREIN. ONLY THE FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE TRACT WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR FORMAL ACCEPTANCE AND MAINTENANCE BY KING COUNTY. MAINTENANCE OF ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY SHALL 9E THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLc FOR THE COST FOR THE RESTORATION OF ANY. NON --DRAINAGE IMr'ROVEMF.NTS REMOVED OR ALTERED AS THE RESULT OF THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THE OWNERS OF SAID PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ANY REQUIRED PERMITS FROM THE KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY, FOR ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING AND GRADING, PRIOR TO FILLING, PIPING, CUTTING OR REMOVING VEGETATION (EXCEPT FOR ROUTINE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUCH AS LAWN MOWING) It' OPEN VEGETATED DRAINAGE FACILITIES (SUCH AS SWALES, CHANNELS, DITCHES, PONDS, ETC.), OR PERFORMING ANY ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, CONTAINED WITHIN SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THIS EASEMENT AND COVENANT IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE REASONABLE ACCESS FOR THE OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, '',EPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES. THIS EASEMENT AND COVENANT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND IS BINDING UPON THE OWNERS OF SAID PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. PUB111C DRAINAGE EASEMENT RESTRICTIONS STRUCTURES, FILL, OR OBSTRUCTIONS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DECKS, PATIOS, OUTBUILDINGS OR OVERHANGS) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED BEYOND THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE OF THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING SHALL NOT OF ALLOWED WITHIN THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY KING COUNTY DDES OR ITS SUCCESSOR AGENCY. SHEET 7 OF 9 z 0 10-4 z H z 0 0 w F•l THE OWNER(S) OF LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED DO HEREBY GRANT AND CONVEY TO THE OWNER(S) OF LOTS BENEFITED AS STATED IN THE EASEMENT NOTES OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE EASEMENT SHOWN AND THEIR ASSIGNS A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR THE STATED UTILITIES. THESE EASELOrNTS AND CONDITIONS SHALL BE A COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND SHALL BE BINDING ON THE SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND .ASSIGNS OF THE OWNER(S) OF LAND HEREBY BENEFITED. -THE OWNER(S) OF LOT BENEFITED AND ITS ASSIGNS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT WITHOUT PRIOR INSTITUTION OF ANY SUIT OR PROCEEDINGS OF LAW AT SUCH TIME AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ENTER UPON SAID EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING, REPAIRING, ALTERING, OR RECONSTRUCTING SAID UTILITIES OR MAKING ANY CONNECTIONS THERETO WITHOUT INCURRING ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY THEREFOR; PROVIDED THAT SUCH SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A MANNER THAT IF EXISTING PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DISTURBED OR DESTROYED THEY WILL BE REPAIRED OR REPLJ,CED TO A CONDITION SIMILAR AS THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS ENTERED UPON BY THE ONE BENEFITED. THE OWNER(S) OF THE BURDENED LOT SHALL RETAIN ' THE RIGHT TO USE THE SURFACE OF SAID EASEMENT IF SUCH USE DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE INSTALLATION OR, USE OF SAID UTILITIES. HOWEVER, THE OWNER(S) OF THE BURDENED LOT SHALL NOT ERECT OR MAINTAIN ANY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE EASEMENT. ALSO THE OWNER(S) OF THE BURDENED LOT SHALL NOT PLANT TREES, SHRUBS OR VEGETATION HAVING DEEP ROOT PATTERNS WHICH MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO OR INTERFERE WITH SAID UTILITIES. ALSU THE OWNER(S) OF THE BURDENED LOT SHALL NOT DEVELOP OR BEAUTIFY THE EASEMENT AREAS IN SUCH A WAY TO CAUSE EXCESSIVE COST TO THE OWNER(S) OF LOT BENEFITED PURSUANT TO ITS RESTORATION DUTIES HEREIN. PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT COVENANT THE OWNERS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THIS PLAT ENCUMBERED WITH DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHOWN AS "PRIVATE", HEREBY GRANT AND CONVEY TO KING COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THE .RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION TO CONVEY OR STORE STORM AND SURFACE WATER PER THE ENGINEERING PLANS APPROVED FOR THIS PLAT BY KING COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE ACCESS (INGRESS AND EGRESS), TO ENTER SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBSERVING THAT THE OWNERS ARE PROPERLY OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES CONTAINED THEREIN. THE OWNERS OF SAID PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATING, MAINTAINING AND REPAIRING THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES CONTAINED WITHIN SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AND ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ANY REQUIRED PERMITS, FROM THE KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, PRIOR TO FILLING, PIPING, CUTTING OR REMOVING VEGETATION (EXCEPT FOR ROUTINE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUCH AS LAWN MOVING) IN OPEN VEGETATED DRAINAGE FACILITIES (SUCH AS SWALES, CHANNELS, DITCHES, PONDS, ETC.) OR PERFORMING ANY ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES, CONTAINED WITHIN SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT. THIS COVENANT SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND . IS BINDING UPON THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. DESIGN ,11�TA Iait'� o• °NaL L� EUME3: 10/24/08 14711 NE 29th Place Suite I01 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING • PLANNING - SURVEYING G) ■ ,1' a 30' KtNG,,GOIINTf* WAko biI f C 9C3 s'. WATER,Sc SE R. FAIN ESM'T. REC -rho J507,1 Io570 & 200406290001:Q '-25.00, '4 r L=18.00 I $IDFt ALk SEE NOTE 0, + , SHT. 3 1 R-279.00 �- ' y A=02'27'52" 1 L=12.00 10' ORIVATE NAG1 DRAIE�SLM�NT=art SEE NOTE :11 8N1'.. 2: y N8800 01 WY 424.23 --- , r 00 Io t I cc V) Z - m a w 20' 0 A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 114, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON in' vimr. rni im ry WATER DISTRICT 90 WATER & SEWER MAIN ESM'T. REC. NO. 7507170567 SE. 136 TH ST. CO --N87'57'31 „W 1246.46-- - 41.50 ----- - 7i�-- _ -___ __=� �,�-10' UTIEIT`f ��� ,ems I ��--, -7------------- � �-R -t �-� _� _ ��- ---_____ � �-"''� �Ir EASEMENT ti I -I -------- _ -- _- ,--� � -= �- _---------.--- _�-�--�--� �----------- y ; EASEMENT SEE NOTE 1, 15 r--- TRACT D I _ -��-__-__-__=_ I 7 PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEME L , ) �t = - SEE NOTE 40, SHT. 3 SHT. 2 (TYP) 1 0 50 11 � 49 � N , N87.57'31 "w t PRIVATE # f i 19.5000 t� tt DRAINAGE EASEMEN f �L�U l 15 x40 PRIVATE SEE NOTE NOTE 27, SHT. 2 3 `�\ ` UTILITY EASEMENT --� t i /� SEE NOTE 43, SHT. 3 I 10' 48 I } \ t 5 UTILITY I i\- EASEMENT SEE NOTE 1, � �. � 50 WETLAND I L SHT. 2 (TYP) i \ BUFFER 51 52 E \ 47 I t PRIVATE \ I TN a DRAINAGE EASEMENT \ 10' UTILITY I \� SEE NOTE 24, SHT. 2 , I EASEMENT I Wt \ TRACT 0 SEE NOTE 1, 7 ` 5ENSITIVE AREA TRACT APPROXIMATESHT. 2 (TYP) 46,21' N34'18'49"E\ ���> 50' WETLAND' \ FOOD P100 LAIN 1 I t 10 PRIVATE z 3.89 �� BUFFER \ I t DRAINAGE EASEMENT � I I SEE NOTE 26, SHT. 2 TRACT F -� ,'I- [; 37 I 43 39 SEE NOTE 23, I SHE 2 T� rc::'l TRACT E.L' E NOTE 22, SHT. 2I NOTE 38, SHT. 3� 45 �._I00 I 7I I PRIVATEI 42 4 ' I NAGE I 40 I 14— EASEMENT I i I I SEE NOTE 21, 4 5 PRIVATE I I ! I SHT. 2 I 4 10' PRIVATE WATER I I N11 I PUBLIC SIDEWALK DRAINAGE EASEMENT i I 1 +� 12k00; --- i I I L C 10 UTILITY SEE NO I E 37, I I 5 UTILITY EASEMENT EASEMENT i 1 I I 35 I•` 1 \ SEE NOTE 40, SEE NOTE 25, EASEMENT SHT. 3� 1 Fes--- EASEMENT I � SEE NOTE 1, l SEE NOTE 1, SHT. 3 5 SHT. 2 Ns60s, =+ I I SHT. 2 TYP t \ I R=25.00 I ��_SHT. 2 (TYP) f > ) a=27'30'07" t f RIVATE t \ \ L=12.00 42.00 _ DRAINAGE EASEMENT t \ L1= � 0� 05 �"� 10.00 � I `� � SEE NOTE 20, SHT. 2 t 34 Zo SE. 137TH ST. �_ \ R-25.00 _`' �27'30'07" _----------_ - _ ___. _ _� _ _--.-__.-_--_ �� L-12.00 ___--__ if w PUBLIC SIDEWALK -- ���`�--'�=31'38'10" 10 UTILITY �_ \ 33 :Cm EASEMENT �1 ,' L=13.80 E EASEMENT \ �� I SEE NO iE 1, I ,,. SEE NOTE 40, I I !1 a~ SHT. 3 I 16 16 i SHT. 2 (TYP) I z ; ILd1 57 56 55 54 70 j 1 2 10 PRIVATE 32 SB( `� 1 I 10' PRIVATE I DRAINAGE EASEMENT 3 j SEE NOTE 28, 10' PRIVATE 10' PRIVATE { SHT. 2 DRAINAGE I DRAINAGE EASEMENT I -- I-- - -- - -- -_ _... _ SEE NOTE SEE NOTE 12, SHT. 2 I I - -- -- --. _ _ _ _ _. _ - LO I r— I I I i I I NOTE SEE SHEETS 4 THROUGH 6 FOR COMPLETE LOT DIMENSIONING 0 SEE SHEET 9 FOR CONTINUATION SHEET 8 OF 3 DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE NOTE 19, SHT. 2 1 1 1 1 10' 31 � I �\ I � I I �\ I \ I � I \ I ,COA!E �z DESIGN 30' I 30' I I w Uj I= CD r I I I I N Vi CU Sri � a � 0 7 zLij z I� 30' 30' I 14711 NE 29th Place Sulte 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING • PLANNING • SURVEYING a VOL.VIE] I:) IEJ T I -A PG. A PORTION OF THE NW 1 /4 OF THE SE 1 /4„ SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SEE SHEET 8 FOR CONTINUATION 34 SE. 137TH ST.' � 22.00 --j R=25.00 ` --- _ ____ -- _ L=12.00 w PUBLIC SIDEWALK ���`� --� A-- 3 1'38'10" o EASEMENT f' L=13.80 SEE NOTE 40, C'14 SHT. 3 + 16' 16' C) ! L-1 13 10' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE NOTE 12, SHT. 2 i i rLij k Vl 14 I � k ! n k T E-- i 100 15 k ! i i I ! i i 16 10' PRIVATE ! DRAINAGE EASEMENT k i SEE NOTE 13, SHT. 2 I { ! I k 17 k k k I ! ! I rn Lq cv k la' UTILITY iv tIMMIL 64 t , DRAINAGE 8 y EASEMENT EASEMENT SEE NOTE 1, SEE NOTE 30, SHT. 2 (TYP) SHT. 2 TRACT I F- - - - - - - - - - ---� 5' UTILITY ---; ' 2 5�,,. `�', r - -�--- _ _ S E , 13 8 TH S T. EASEMENT ► ` �`r -- SEE NOTE 1, � ` 1 —���' b.aa'�\ —�- 36µ25 SHT. 2 (TYP) L - _.�_`_ 15' PRIVATE ' r----- - _-.--_ ld' PRIVATE DRAINAGE ' _-__-- �-- -- ~---_----_ EASEMENT I 3'x14' PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT i i 10' PRIVATE FSIPEWALK EASEMENT SEE NOTE 36, 10PRIVATE SEE NOTE 14, i ' DRAINAGE 10' PRIVATE SHT 3 SEE NOTE 40, DRAINAGE DRAINAGE SHT. 2 EASEMENT SHT. 3 EASEMENT � E SEE NOTE 15, EASEMENT SEE NOTE 44, ; ; SEE NnTE 16, SHT. 3 I ' SFJ. 2 aH T. 2 � I 22 19 20 10' PUBLIC 23 21 — WATER 24 25 26 27 ry*--- EASEMENT 4' ---+ ' SEE NOTE 5, SHT. 2 NOTE SEE SHEETS 4 THROUGH 6 FOR COMPLETE LOT DIMENSIONING ,, N88'07'31 nW 623.59 � I � APPROXIMATE � I ` 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN I 33 ` TRACT 0 ! ! � R ` SENSITIVE AREA TRACT 1 G ` 10' PRIVATE 32 ,S�TQ DRAINAGE EASEMENT 50' WETLAND, SEE NOTE 19, SHT. 2 I co BUFFER �... ` ! Lri la ` f a) I I 31 I i ! I 29 28 16 16' 1 1 a' PRIVA T EF -15' W 0) L0 r DRAINAGE EASEMENT 5' UTILITY 10' PRIVATE i SEE NOTE 18, SHT. 2 EASEMENT DRAINAGE SEE NOTE 1, 30 EASEMENT I I SHT. 2 (TYP) SEE NOTE 17,1 SHT. 2 ! t-, ----__-____--------------------- __ '~ ------------a I �- TRACT H -___ �- _� -__ � ______- �.Y^� ____--__-.___r.�- SEE NOTES 41, 42, SHT. 3 �- -- --- !=15' PUBLIC `• j WATER EASEMENT. ��. � 7' PUBLIC; SEE NOTE 4, SHT'."-DRAIN4GE- EASEMENT ► I 3'x14' PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT " SEE NOT` 3, SHT. 2 SEE NOTE 40, SHT. 3 j 3' PUBLIC k k SEWER EASEMENT 10' UTILITY I a SEE NOTE 6, SHT. 2 EASEMENT 5' UTILITY SEE NOTE 1,I SHT. 2 (TYP) ! i 10' UTILITY EASEMENT EASEMENT SEE NOTE 1, 'IJ T SEE NOTE: 1, SHT. 2 (TYP) j ` I SHT, 2 (TYP) ! I I r ! � aq ' TRACT L v 10' PRIVATE ' DRAINAGE EASEMENT SEE NOTE 46, SHT. 3 30' ►' iI w Li LO Lj cv Cn o � o !Iz I� 1 30.01- 30' 30' 11 fes vy� l o ■�_ a . 0. ,7 o '*AL LAB F.1t YMES: 10/24/06 C CORE14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425-885.7963 DESIGN �o ENGINEERING PLANNING • SURVEYING SHEET 9 OF 9 ..! ,.� tJ �.3 N a C] . O40