No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-05-124June 20, 2006 Ken Weaver Project Manager Development Services 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Weaver. LOll " !:,'.I I am writing to request that I be made a Party of Record on City of Renton File Number LUA05-124, known as Highlands Park Prelim Plat. Thank you. Sincerely, LOZIER HOMES CORPORATION ~~~ Jennifer McCall land Acquisitions Assistant cc: file LOZIER HOMES CORPORATION 1203 114TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST BELLEVUE,WA 98004 425·454·8690 LOZIEHC315MM FAX 425·646·8695 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 18th day of May 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: Application, Petition or Case No.: Highlands Park SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA 05-124, ECF, PP The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON May 18,2006 REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS: CONTACTS: LOCATION: Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Gwendolyn High Bumstead Construction 1215 120th Ave NE Bellevue, W A David Halinen Halinen Law Offices 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place Bellevue, W A 98007 File No.: LUA 05-124, ECF, PP 115 Vesta Avenue NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Administrative Appeal filed by C.A.R.E. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 4, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, Apri14, 2006, at 9:04 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Zanetta Fontes, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton Jennifer Henning, Development Services David Halinen, Attorney representing Bumstead Construction, Inc. Ron Hughes, Bums~ead Construction Gwendolyn High, Appellant representing C.A.R.E. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEP A documents, and Staff analysis for the ERC, and the Staff report on the Plat. Exhibit No.3: Ms. High's 21-page packet presented at the hearing. Exhibit No.5: Extracts from Washington Environmental Policy, Green Book, p 13-57 Exhibit No.7: Packet dated 4/3/06 to Kayren Kittrick from Core Design to Mr. Hughes with attachments. Exhibit No.9: Omitted Exhibit No. 11: Resume of David Cayton Exhibit No. 13: Schepper resume Exhibit No.2: Letter dated January 11,2006 from David Halinen to City of Renton Exhibit No.4: Aquifer Protection Map dated 9/05 Exhibit No.6 Map plat showing SE 2nd Place and the water problems during the road construction Exhibit No.8: Letter dated 4/3/06 from Terra Associates to Kayren Kittrick Exhibit No. 10: March 20, 2006 response to Statement of Appeal. Exhibit No. 12: Small neighborhood detail map. David Halinen stated that he was representing Bumstead Construction and as a preliminary matter he would like to present a motion to dismiss CARE's SEPA appeal, all parties received a copy of the Motion. Bumstead brings the motion because there was an initial SEP A threshold determination issued which was appealed by the CARE group and a subsequent determination issued in February which had its own appeal period which closed without any appeal being filed by CARE or anyone else. The second revised determination superceded the first, changes were made to some of the mitigating measures, there was an obligation by CARE to file a new appeal in order to appear today. There is no jurisdiction with respect to the original appeal because it was superceded. In the alternative they are asking that issues 4,5 and 6 of CARE's appeal be dismissed if the Examiner determines not to dismiss the entire appeal. These issues were part of the appeal filed by CARE on December 28,2005. Zanetta Fontes stated that on the motion to dismiss the appeal in total, the City's position is that that would be inappropriate, CARE was informed that the appeal filed in December 2005 would be a place keeper. They do have a legitimate appeal pending. Gwendolyn High stated that they do believe the appeal is still pending due to correspondence received from Ms. Weaver stating that the appeal would be heard today. Mr. Halinen stated that with respect to the motion to dismiss the entire appeal, statements that may have been made by City staff members cannot provide the jurisdiction for the Examiner. It is unfortunate that those statements were made, nevertheless they do not provide jurisdiction for this particular case. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-l24, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 3 Zanetta Fontes stated that she disagreed with Mr. Halinen's statement. An appeal has been made, notice was given and to confer jurisdiction as it relates to matters that have not been mooted or addressed in the revised MDNS, jurisdiction was not lost as a consequence. In anticipation of subsequent argument regarding issues that were addressed in the revised MDNS, it appears that that jurisdiction has been lost. Mr. Halinen stated that in the alternative, statement of appeal issues 4, 5, and 6 should be dismissed from this appeal. In CARE's December 28,2005 lO-page appeal there were issues of concern on the first page and this matter concerns issues 4, 5, and 6. #4 states that the ERC report recommends phase clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water quality impacts. They are referring to mitigation measure #6 in the initial MDNS which stated that clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage is limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities. Which in essence agrees with CARE's statement #4. There is no challenge, and so no appeal of mitigation measure #6 is necessary. In the revised MDNS what had been #6 has been eliminated and so no appeal issue .. #5 states the tree retention plan that preserves at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan. Bumstead Construction also filed an appeal of the SEP A threshold determination in response to the initial MDNS. After that was filed there was discussion with City staff concerning mitigation measures 6 and 7 and alternative mitigation measures 6 and 7 were proposed and rejected by the ERe. However, a tree retention plan development was suggested to deal with the issues of clearing and grading and tree retention. The plan was finalized, a tree survey was done and the plan submitted to the City on January 26, 2006. The Examiner asked if the parties had any objection to dropping these parts of the appeal. If conditions 4, 5 and 6 have been addressed then there may be no reason to continue this line and can move ahead with the appeal. Ms. Fontes stated that the City would be joining in the motion as it relates to 4, 5 and 6. Ms. High stated that they do object, the main purpose of their statement is the distinction between the submitted preliminary tree retention plan and the final detailed tree retention plan. There is also a standing objection to the grading plans as submitted. Mr. Halinen continued that the January 26, 2006 tree retention plan was submitted to City staff and they forwarded it to the ERC, which considered it and then issued a revised Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated, the original mitigation measures 6 and 7 were eliminated and a single substitute #6 was added. That revised measure said that clearing and grading activities would comply with the tree retention plan in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. The issues in the statement of appeal related to mitigation measures in the first MDNS and when the revised MDNS came out, mitigation measure #6 is a tree retention plan and the requirement relates to that plan. CARE needed to file a new appeal to deal with the particulars of that and CARE did not do so. Like issue 4, numbers 5 and 6 should be dismissed leaving issues 1-3 before the Hearing Examiner today. Ms. High stated that they had filed their appeal, paid the fee and they have not had their hearing on these issues. The Examiner reviewed the ERC's current determination contained in the Staff Report on page 4. The tree retention plan is required by City Code as well as part of the plat requirement. Jennifer Henning stated that the tree retention plan is not yet within code, but part of an interpretation or determination that has been made by the Development Services Director that 25% of significant trees on a site Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 4 need to be retained. Those trees need to be at least 8" in diameter as measured at a certain height above ground for coniferous trees and 12" in diameter for deciduous trees. This is being applied to plats and was applied in this case. It is likely to become code in the next docket cycle. The Examiner stated that at this point the 25% issue is out at this point, anything dealing with tree retention is most likely off the table at this point. Both issues 5 and 6 will be dismissed from the table. Ms. High stated that issue 4 has to do with the specific impacts that are anticipated to downstream and adjacent property owners due to site preparation. It does not have anything to do with the tree retention plan. The Examiner clarified that he would deal with erosion and water issues since that was raised in this appeal. To dismiss in total was denied, issue 4 is still on the appeal. Ms. High may begin with an opening statement or with her testimony. Ms. High stated that the packet she submitted is a combined SEPA and plat, she would focus strictly on the SEPA appeal issues. This new packet is based on the original document presented in December, the new information is presented in the boxes. Issue #1 concerning the kinds of habitat considerations that need to be reviewed and applied not only are concerned with the Red Hawks but various other hawks and woodpeckers. These birds are listed on the Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program. These birds are protected under the Renton Regulations. Issue #2 states that a drainage level 3 analysis should be required. The Renton Code states that the permit application should be supplemented by any plan, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the administrator. Renton has the authority to require additional mitigation to protect the public interest. The applicant states that the citations listed refer only to the Renton Aquifer Protection Zones Map, however, this area is newly annexed into the City of Renton and the Aquifer Protection Map has not been updated to include reference to the area in question today. The requested analysis should be done in order to insure that no changes of this Highlands Park Plat should negatively impact the Category 2 Aquifer Recharge Area that was previously identified. There were many historical complaints by adjacent properties. Their concerns are for the impacts to the septic systems of the surrounding properties. During construction of the Evendell plat, which did achieve a higher drainage mitigation standard of Level 3, the drainage issues have caused damage to the adjacent properties. There is a danger of significant impact to existing septic systems. The Evendell drain field and septic system was completely flushed out and flooded a neighbor's garage. Downstream septic site impacts do happen, they want to be sure that the site and project adequately mitigates for these events. All drainage related comments support the basic concern that the downstream impacts to natural surface and ground water, constructed downstream drainage conveyances as well as private septic systems have not been sufficiently studied and therefore mitigation could not have been appropriately required. In an environment known to have recurrent and widespread drainage issues, the existing public and downstream interest cannot be protected by detention and water quality systems that must be bypassed twice a year as a proposed system will be bypassed by a six month evept, this is listed in the staff report (pg. 8). Mr. Halinen stated that that was an error in the staff report, there is no requirement for the bypass and none has been proposed. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-l24, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 5 Ms. Fontes stated that the City had an objection to the letter by June Hill, it is dated April 4, it states that "recent information indicates", which means the information was not available to the ERC and it would be inappropriate to have an effect on the determination in this matter. The information is hearsay, there is no basis for the knowledge of what happened in the Qwest communication vault. Ms. High stated that the quote "recent information indicates" was taken from the original appeal filed in December and was recent at the time of the original submission of the appeal. After discussion, The Examiner determined that the attachment was okay and Ms. High continued with her testimony. Ms. High continued with the statement that their focus in regard to the Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone is intended to highlight the fact that there was insufficient study of the anticipated downstream impacts of the proposed plat, specifically in regard to the six-month bypass of the detention and water quality system that has been proposed. Additional drainage analysis should be performed to insure that no change resultant of the Highlands Park plat would negatively impact the Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. Issue #3 refers to the forest practices application and that they should be required. Issue #4 concerns the phased clearing and grading that must be specifically required. The applicant has failed to address 75% of what is currently a forested parcel that will be stripped bare. The Preliminary Tree Retention Plan gives an estimate of over 500 mature trees that will be removed. That conservatively means that up to 200 gallons per day can be pulled up from the local groundwater system by those existing trees. Add that to the removal of 3-8 inches of topsoil and the scale of the drainage impact is very obvious. Recent experience of site clearing rules has proven to be insufficient in their community, they are requesting the strongest possible site preparation mitigation measures to be required for this application. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. High stated that they have not hired any professionals to do any studies on the property nor have studies been done by CARE to indicate that a Level 2 study and mitigation would not be sufficient. The Kezele property is located in the Orting Hills Drainage Basin where the off site flow from Highlands Park will drain. This information was stated in the King County Hearing Examiner's Report and also from statements of the applicant showing which drainage basin this particular site would fall into, that being the Orting Hills Drainage Basin. Mr. Halinen asked for a IO-minute recess. Re-convened at 10:28 am Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. High stated that according to the Priority Habitats and Species list from the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Merlin Hawks should be protected in the areas where breeding takes place, all regions of Washington State are listed as potential locations for breeding. She stated that she was not a wildlife expert and has done no studies to determine if this site is indeed a breeding site. They have however asked that a study be done to determine if the site is a breeding site for the Merlin Hawks. The same is true with the Pileated woodpeckers. The Aquifer Protection Zones map was printed the morning of the hearing in the Development Services Department and did not show the new annexation area for East Maplewood. Mr. Halinen did present a new map dated September 2005 and it did show the East Maplewood Annexation Area as being within the City of Renton. Concerns of the impact on the septic systems of the surrounding properties lies solely with the site preparation and the effect it would have on those properties. It is anticipated that the sheet flow would be increased and new Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 6 small stream flow, as seen in comparable locations, directly to the adjacent sites. This will cause disruption to the predictable functioning of the septic systems on the site. Once the Highlands Park site is developed the stormwater from the developed portions of the site will be routed to the detention pond, however they still feel that that is insufficient if it is only being designed to a six-year event with a bypass, whether that exists or not, or even to the two-year event, these are insufficient and they are requesting a Level 3. The Examiner inquired how far appellants must go in proving or bringing in expert testimony as opposed to raising questions about the adequacy of the review. Are they required to hire the same experts as the applicant, to determine how much storm water is going to flow off the site with the trees, without the trees, do they need a wetlands biologist in some cases, or a wildlife biologist, or can they just raise questions and require the applicant to answer the questions under the environmental check list. Ms. Fontes stated that if you start with the ERC's determination and it is accorded a great weight and can be reversed for only a clear error. It is the appellant that bears the burden of meeting those standards, when that fact is put together with the facts of any given case, and in this case in particular, there have been studies done by the applicant, wildlife studies, drainage issues have all been looked at by experts. The appellant must prove that something is amiss with the DNSM, it is unclear whether they are asking for an EIS or they are just saying that more mitigation should be done. If they are asking for an EIS, that standard is very clear, they must show that there is, not speculation, but that there is a significant adverse environmental impact. It is their burden to bear. They must have something to at least beat the body of evidence that is already in the record. Ms. High stated that they were not talking about disproving what has been studied, they are saying that the science and context in which this parcel sits, this is a newly annexed area it is extends out into an area that is surrounded entirely by a different jurisdiction and the circumstances that have been raised have not been adequately considered by the City of Renton. They are asking for consideration under existing regulations and the discretion of the department head, the Hearing Examiner and the City Council to require appropriate mitigation based on the actual site. Ms. Fontes stated that the City would move to dismiss. She quoted from Mr. Settle's Washington Environmental Green Book, page 13-57. Since the appellants are not seeking an EIS, all they are doing is challenging the sufficiency of the mitigation measures and they have not offered any evidence that the mitigation as required by the City, would not be enough to address the validity of the determination that there would not be a significant adverse environmental impact, the City would now move to dismiss this appeal. Mr. Halinen stated that he would join in that motion. The Examiner stated that he was not prepared to dismiss this action at this point. He would like to hear all the issues in order to give him a basis to study the various issues. Mr. Halinen continued his questioning of Ms. High who stated that 75% of their concern is the site preparation and development and the remaining percentage is the long-term impact. They anticipate that the removal of the forest cover, duff and the topsoil during the construction will cause sheet flow and stream flow and other kinds of water runoff that has not happened historically because of the environmental situation on the site. The folks down stream can and do expect adverse disruption of their septic system. They do not expect that this will take place without some control measures imposed by the City of Renton. The standard practices which have been used in the area have proven to be insufficient. The best practices in erosion control have proved to be insufficient. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 7 In one instance, water came in and flushed an entire septic systems' worth of septic material out into the yards including a garage. She was not sure if it was ground water or what caused the event to take place. Ms. High commented on the new aquifer zone map that was introduced, she noted that there was a date shown on the map, but it does not state what was updated. Since the boundaries of the aquifers have not apparently changed, it seems that the only changes are to the City limits. It seems to use that map without determining what the update revisions were about still leaves the question open as to whether the materials available to staff were up to date when they reviewed them. The SEPA appeal does have to do with the anticipated downstream impacts and the circumstances of a new annexation in an area which staff is not personally familiar with, has not processed applications in this area and for which the staff reference materials are not up to date, it gives a good indication that the mitigations required have not been sufficiently studied and it can be anticipated to not sufficiently minimize undue impact. Ms. Fontes questioned Ms. High regarding the aquifer map and the lower section in blue noted as Panther Lake. She stated that the majority of that section was not within the City of Renton. She is not aware ofthe processes used by the City of Renton in determining its aquifer protection zones, nor was she familiar with the Federal regulations relating to the creation of aquifer protection zones. Ronda Bryant, 6220 SE 2nd Place, Renton, 98059 stated that there had been a lot of discussion regarding water and water runoff. People keep telling her that the SEPA determinations and rules of Level 2 are sufficient. She does not have a problem with the surface water management, somewhere it states that there will be drains and that homeowners must clean these drains yearly. Her concern is with ground water, it has been stated that a mature conifer will drink up to 200+ gallons of water per day. At this time there are wet patches in her yard, there has not been significant rainfall for almost three weeks or more, there is running water and a pond bordering on her property. The road construction crew had to re-work the area several times due to the running water. Her property abuts proposed Lots 61-66 on the south side of Highlands Park and her concern is with the ground water and not the surface water. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Bryant stated that she does not have a severe flooding problem on her property, she does have a French drain, that was installed by the previous owner, on the east, north and west sides. She further stated that there is a wetland in the southwest comer of Highlands Park that was created by the logging done in that area. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. Bryant stated that the road that was cut through was SE 2nd Place. It was originally a dead end dirt road and when Highlands Estates and Maplewood were developed, they were required to upgrade that road, the trees were cut down and the road was blacktopped. The problem to her property lies with the removal of a significant number of large trees will increase the ground water due to the fact that the trees are no longer present to drink up the excess water. The stormwater system that is being put in will take the surface water, but will not take the ground water. Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Ms. Kittrick stated that the City of Renton in regard to new developments on the east Plateau uses the 2005 King County Surface Water: Design Manual as a standard for development. This manual has Levels 1 through 3 for flow control standards, which covers both surface and ground water. There are set criteria in order to determine if they are going to use the Level 2 or Level 3 standards on a site that does not have a severe flooding problem, they would use Level 2. To date there has been no indication from staff or surrounding property owners that there is a severe flooding problem. There has been no information that would warrant imposing a Level 3 flow control. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 8 m regards to Exhibit 4, a color-coded aquifer protection map dated September 2005, Panther Lake is not in the City of Renton. The blue area on the map indicates Aquifer Zone 2 and the green area is the Aquifer Zone 1 and a small portion of Zone 1 is in the City of Renton. All of Zone 2 is outside the city limits but does feed into the city. The subject site is not in an aquifer zone and does not feed into the aquifer and therefore is not of primary or secondary importance. During the plat review if it became evident there were additional drainage problems or more drainage problems the City Council could ask whether a Level 3 would be required, but prior to that the Development Services Staff would be asking the same question. Level 3 flow control is intended to mitigate water level changes in certain volume sensitive water bodies such as lakes, wetlands, closed depressions where severe flooding has been documented, these natural bodies are flow dampeners. There is a wetland but it is proposed to be filled and none of the other criteria is in existence in this area. The King County Surface Water Design Manual Level 2 requires that the site be considered under historic, pre- developed or a set standard. This plat is historical and pre-developed as a forest, therefore it is the strictest conditions that can be placed on this area, any flow that comes off the site has to meet the forested condition, meaning no more water comes off the site but no less water comes off either. Downstream all wetlands, lakes, streams, etc must be protected. The City of Renton chose the DOE Manual for this site for erosion control because it is the stricter of the two. DOE can always step in and require additional measures. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Ms. Kittrick stated that she had reviewed Exhibit 7, the April 3 letter from Core Design. On discussions with her staff and materials available they did concur with the information in that letter. She also had reviewed the April 8 letter from the Terra Associates and found no exceptions to the letter. Upon questioning by Ms. High, Ms. Kittrick stated that there has been no information presented that would indicate severe flooding on this site. The primary source for the aquifer maps is most likely based on State and Federal maps. Renton staff did extensive comparison of geology and the soils on this site. The geotech information is always being updated. The site is not designated as being directly contributory to the aquifer. Lunch recess was taken at 12: 10 pm and reconvened at 1 :31 pm. Ms. Fontes renewed her motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that administrative appeals such as this are not appropriate when all that is being looked at is the thought that the mitigation is insufficient, there is no evidence that shows that it is The Examiner stated that all those statements were viable as to why the appellant should not prevail in their appeal, but he was not ready to dismiss the appeal at this time. Mr. Halinen stated that the applicant does concur with Ms. Fontes and urged the Examiner to dismiss this appeal. They have not made their prima facie showing and therefore, it should be dismissed. Scott Brainard, Wetland Resources, mc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Ste. 106, Everett, WA 98208 stated that he is one of the owners of Wetland Resources, Inc. and that he has been with them for 12 years. He is a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist and as such conducts stream surveys, fisheries analysis, wetland analysis and wildlife analysis. Regarding the Highlands Park site, he was contracted to do a wetland reconnaissance on the site to verify previously delineated wetland boundaries. During that investigation he was asked to further conduct a wildlife study. m that study he evaluated the canopy to determine if there are any nesting structures within the canopy, identify potential habitat trees where nesting or foraging occurs and then look on the ground for pathways or Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 9 trails that wildlife may use. In general this site is very typical to an urban or suburban forested property. No threatened or endangered species were observed at the time of the investigation. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Brainard stated that he had reviewed the December 28, 2005 appeal that was filed by CARE. He did prepare a letter that responds to the points within the topic of wildlife that are listed in that letter. The hawk photos were identified in the December 2005 letter from the Bryant's, in that letter on the second page, last paragraph, the first sentence identifies the photo of a juvenile hawk that was taken in the Bryant's' back yard. No Redtail Hawks were observed when he was investigating the site, there were also no Redtail Hawk nests observed. Redtail Hawks are not listed on the Fish and Wildlife priority habitat species. Redtail Hawks are also not typically regulated by any of the surrounding jurisdictions. Historically, King County has been the main regulator of Redtail Hawks. King County has adopted a policy that in urban growth areas, they are not regulating Redtail Hawks any longer. He continued by reading the conclusion of his letter (Exhibit 10) into the record. Merlin Hawks are listed according to the priority habitat species as a candidate for breeding sites only. That means prior to nesting or laying eggs, the trees or areas that these hawks utilize are protected. He found no Merlin Hawk nests or individuals were observed during the site investigation. The same is true of the Pileated Woodpecker, no nesting sites were observed during the site investigation. Based on lack of observable nests, no further investigations would be necessary. Upon questioning by Ms. High, Mr. Brainard stated that he has testified as an expert witness previously in similar matters. He felt that he never missed a species. Merlin Hawks and woodpeckers generally breed in early spring. He visited the site on August 25,2005, there were no breeding behaviors at that time, but nesting structures would have been visible. David Cayton, Core Design, 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101, Bellevue, W A 98007 stated that he is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Washington with 15 years experience. He is a Principal in the firm and is a Senior Project Engineer for various land development projects in King and Snohomish Counties. They started work on the Highlands Park project in 2001 and he is in charge of the engineering design for this project. Upon questioning by Mr. Halinen, Mr. Cayton stated that he had reviewed the statement of appeal filed by CARE and that he had written a response to certain aspects of that appeal. This project is in a Level 2 flow control area which is what the City is requiring. A Level One Downstream Analysis had been submitted as part of the preliminary storm drainage report. They have provided the City with the downstream complaints obtained from the King County Land and Water Resources Division, they found no problems down stream. After reviewing approximately 14 complaints, they were all related to a clogged culvert where trash was blocking the maintenance ditches. Those issues are all closed, they were addressed through routine maintenance by the County. This project is fairly straight forward, they are proposing a combination wet pond/detention pond in the southwest comer. There are no variances proposed or required, no split basins. There are no bypass systems proposed for this project nor required. Typically a bioswale is designed to treat a 6-month storm, but you would bypass larger storms and the purpose of that would be to keep the 100-years storm from flushing pollutants back out of the bioswale. This is not proposed here nor is it related in any way to this project. It appears that there was a staff error on that particular issue. There was a letter regarding the Evendell project and some water flowing over in a septic system. That was irrelevant to this project, it was in no way connected to this project. Evendell is still under construction and it appears that that issue was a construction issue not a design issue and is no way related to flow control issues for that project. In this particular area the septic systems have been prone to failure, mostly due to the shallow soils. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May IS, 2006 Page 10 This project will reduce the problems with the septic systems. It will take water away from heading towards their site. Mr. Cayton showed a County map, attachment D in his letter dated April 3, 2006, that had been used to distinguish the basin areas that are being considered for treatment of Level 2 versus Level 3 detention. The map is part of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual and it is how they select what level flow control is required. Level 1 flow control is not seen very much, it is basically associated with land that is close to the water. Level 2 flow control covers most of the county areas. There was a lot of discussion as to how this map showed the various Level flow areas. Upon questioning by Ms. Fontes, Mr. Cayton stated that he did not know the boundaries of the Orting Hills drainage basin, he can show where the drainage boundaries lie, but he does not know where the name Orting Hills came from. A map was given to Mr. Cayton who stated that this was part of the downstream analysis showing the Highlands Park site, which he outlined with a red marker. The arrows on the southwest side indicate the path of flow of the storm water from the site through Maplewood Park and into a 30" storm system at the north end of 14Sth Place where it gets routed down through the Brier Hill development in pipes and comes to the intersection of 149th Place and SE 142nd where it turns east and runs down approximately 100' and continues south next to an existing storm pond. There is a ditch along SE 2nd and the water in that ditch funnels into the same waterway that comes off the southwest comer of the site. Upon questioning by Ms. High, Mr. Cayton stated that the ground water on the Highlands Park plat came partially from rain and probably a tributary stream from uphill. He did not know how much water was going into the ground water system on the site that actually came from rain. Ground water will not enter the pond system, the pond will be lined, the pond is only intended to handle water that comes to the site from the sky, it is not intended to deal with the ground water. The existing conditions, working with the forest soil, is working as a natural detention of the rainwater that hits the ground, the pond is simulating that natural detention of the ground. Ms. Fontes objected to this line of questioning. Mr. Cayton stated that ground water is very difficult to calculate, the elevation varies from about a foot below surface to 14-15-feet below the surface. There is no way one can calculate that. The system has been designed to a two year up to 50-year storm event. Ted Schepper, Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Ste. 101, Kirkland, W A 9S034 stated that he has been a geotech engineer for 26 years and deals with ground water flow rates and volumes. This site is an upland glacial site, very common in the Puget Sound area. The soil commonly has surface vegetation followed by forest duff and a weathered till zone that my extend down to a depth of two to three feet, followed by cemented glacial till soils which are very hard and dense being consolidated by miles of thick glacial ice, because of that there is a very low permeability. Characteristic of sites such as this are the development of a shallow perched ground water table, which manifests itself during the wet weather season. That water table is directly related to rain fall and it will reach maximum levels during and following the wet weather season and then actually diminishes and becomes totally absent during the dry season. In his preliminary report for this site, he did make a recommendation that the pond would need to be lined. In the glacial setting that is present on this site, septic systems do not perform very well because the till impedes the vertical migration of the water. Septic systems are very susceptible to problems during the wet winters because natural rainfall on the site saturates the soils, those systems back up and all kinds of problems arise and the systems fail. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 11 The development of this site will actually improve the performance of downstream septic systems simply by the fact that the site is going to be developed with impervious surfaces which is going to prevent infiltration of direct rainfall on the site, which contributes to the inner flow component. The shallow perch ground water that exists on the site is a direct result of precipitation. In the design of the stormwater systems that is taken into account based on the hydrologic soil group, there are Type A, B, and C soils and depending upon which type of soil conditions you have at the site. Type A soils would be expected to have very little runoff so the stormwater retention system would be designed accordingly to make sure that the release rates from the pond match the existing flows. The site soil erosion hazard as defined by Renton Municipal Code is actually a low erosion site. Even though the site has a low erosion rating, once the site is cleared and the soils are exposed, if it rains on them they can erode. This needs to be taken into consideration in the development of this site and make sure that best development practices and an adequate temporary erosion and sedimentation control system is in place along with site construction activities. Organic soils are weak and they cannot support buildings and so it needs to be pulled off. With respect to phased clearing and grading, it is actually more detrimental to have phased clearing and grading on the site than to go ahead and prepare the site in one construction season. Ms. High stated that they appealed to ensure the safety and interest of the public, adjacent property owners and downstream property owners and to establish the record should future events require future legal action. They have endured other impacts from other developments in the neighborhood and feel it is prudent to preserve their protections through administrative processes. They are still very concerned with the drainage issues, and site preparation itself. Temporary erosion control methods that have been cited as best practices have proven to be insufficient in their neighborhood and they do want to be sure the maximum amount of due diligence is undertaken during this construction. Mr. Halinen stated that the CARE group failed to make a prima facie showing with respect to the type of things necessary for a successful challenge. To show that the City's SEPA threshold revised decision was clearly erroneous. There has been no evidence of adverse impacts, only concern and fear. That is not the type of evidence for them to prevail. This appeal needs to be denied or dismissed due to the lack of filing of a second appeal. Ms. Fontes stated that the appellants' burden is to prove that there is a significant adverse environmental impact, they have failed in their burden. They have not asked for an EIS. Considering the fact that there must be great weight to the ERC's determination and look for clear error, none of which has been shown. The Examiner needs to uphold the ERC determination. The appellant is the one that needs to come forward with evidence to contradict the ERC decision, show where it was clearly erroneous and they have failed in that burden. The determination of the ERC should be confirmed and this appeal denied. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 3: 15 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 12 FINDINGS: 1. The Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (hereinafter CARE) Filed a SEP A (State Environmental Policy Act) appeal in conjunction with their filing of a request that the ERC (Environmental Review Committee) reconsider its determination. They appealed the decision of the ERC in regards to its decision on the proposed Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. 2. The applicant also initially appealed and sought reconsideration of the ERC's determination objecting to the ERC's clearing, grading and tree retention conditions. The ERC reconsidered and modified their decision resulting in the applicant withdrawing their appeal. 3. Care filed an appeal and paid the appropriate fee. They did not renew their appeal after the ERC's reconsideration changed some of the conditions and did not alter some conditions CARE had sought changed. There was an issue raised as to whether or not CARE should have refiled a new appeal after the ERC issued its modified conditions. CARE did not withdraw their original appeal nor did the City return their appeal fee. The City Attorney noted that CARE, appellants, were informed that their initial appeal was a "place keeper" and that it was not mooted by the ERC's issuance of a modified Declaration of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The ERC's reconsideration and subsequent alteration of their initial decision and the issuance of a new decision did not moot the original appeal. If the ERC's reissued decision did anything, it created a new appeal period which other parties may have exploited. It did not displace the original appeal. As will be seen below, the ERC's new decision did alter some of the appeal issues or led to the dismissal of some of those issues. 5. The CARE cover letter notes that they are concerned with protecting against physical damage to existing residences and properties as a result of site preparation, construction and use as a result of the Highlands Park plat. The specifically mention potential downstream flooding. In their "Statement of Appeal" they raised six issues. In summary, those issues are: 1. A new wildlife study is needed since hawks were photographed on the site. 2. Surface water runoff needs further analysis including a Level III study and mitigation, the 6- month storm event bypass system is insufficient and impacts downstream property due to changes in ground water hydrology. 3. A forest practices application is required. 4. Phased clearing should be required to minimize erosion and water quality impacts. 5. The tree retention plan preserving 25% of trees should be approved prior to plat review to determine the appropriate layout of the plat. 6. The tree retention plan and fencing and landscaping of the detention facility along with pedestrian access at Rosario should be integrated into the plat. The appellants noted in their brief "Final Note", Issue 7, that this property was recently annexed to the City and they want to make sure that the City handles development of this site and other sites in the area in an appropriate fashion, noting that they did not believe King County, the former lead agency, appropriately addressed various concerns. It is not a substantive issue. 6. Since this office would not dismiss the appeal, the applicant and City suggested that some issues raised in the appeal were not appropriate. It was suggested that some of the issues raised by the appellants were settled by the ERC's modified determination and that certain plans were clarified. It was Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 13 determined that the applicant would comply with any state forest practices regulations (Issue 3) and submitted appropriate tree retention and landscaping issues (Issues 5 and 6). Therefore, Issues 3, 5 and 6 were dismissed. 7. The appellants introduced photographs that showed a hawk and alleged that the wildlife study was insufficient. They note that the applicant's study does not deal with Merlin Hawks or Pileated Woodpeckers. The applicant submitted an initial assessment and follow-up study. Those found no evidence of any sensitive, endangered or threatened species nesting or living on the subject site. The wildlife study was based on transecting the site, walking a majority of the site, studying the forest canopy, what would be habitat trees, wildlife or game trails and animal spore. The site was classified as an urban/suburban forested property. There were no threatened or endangered species and no priority habitat was identified. No hawks or nests were observed and it is not on any state maps. It is not regulated for wildlife. 8. The appellants believe that a Level III analysis of stormwater needs to be done to assure that there will be no adverse impacts to downstream properties. Cited are various code sections dealing with protecting water sources: RMC 4-6-030: minimize water quality degradation, 4-7-130: protection of irreplaceable amenities. They noted historical complaints and the recent failure of a system for a new plat. There were concerns about perched groundwater flowing out of road cuts, filling power vaults and affecting adjacent property. The geotechnical report noted that the soils could erode during construction if left exposed. The geotechnical report recommended annual homeowner maintenance of foundation drains. 9. Erosion of exposed soils during construction is always a concern and always noted and generally accommodated during grading, filling or other soil disturbing operations. The Washington State Department of Ecology manual will govern erosion control as it sets a good standard. It was noted that most of the recommendations in the geotechnical report are standard issues including keeping foundations drains clear. 10. The appellants want a new surface water and downstream analysis to consider wider contexts of this development. They requested that the City require a Level III analysis. They noted that larger trees can draw approximately 200 gallons of water and that the loss of a mature forest would mean a lot of additional water runoff when those trees are gone. 11. The City explained that a Level III analysis is reserved for instances where there would be changes to the volume affecting lakes, wetlands and closed depressions and where severe flooding has been documented. They pointed out that in this case there is one wetland, that is exempt and will be filled, and so a Level III does not meet the review criteria. Instead the City noted that a Level II is required for this property. The review will consider the site's historic pre-development forested character and that requires the strictest conditions. The flow has to meet and cannot exceed the historic levels of what will be the prior forested condition of the subject site. The City noted that while there were about six complaints about flooding none of them were severe and none warranted doing a Level III analysis. 12. A question was raised about the aquifer protection zone being not updated or enlarged and that no changes that would impact long-term or short-term quality of aquifer are permitted. The City's response regarding the boundaries of the aquifer protection was that the subject site is not within either an area of primary or secondary importance as far as the aquifer protection goes. The maps are accurate and not in need of updating. According to the applicant there would be no need to alter the project even ifit were in the Aquifer Protection Zone. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 14 13. The appellant were concerned about a by-pass system for conveying stormwater. The concerns about what impacts a so-called by-pass system would create were removed when it was determined that such a system would not be necessary for the development of the subject site. There was also concerns about adversely affecting septic systems. Septic system problems are not related to this project and this project would not create any additional issues. An interceptor swale and the detention system will be constructed with initial clearing to minimize problems. An estimated 11.5 acres of surface runoff will be routed to the detention pond which should reduce septic systems. There may have been problems with the other recent plat that causes problems. The project will be designed, as normal, to handle the maximum storm event. The pond will be lined. The warning about clearing out footing drains is a normal admonition. The studies show that this site is not unique but demonstrated normal observations and patterns. 14. Phased clearing was an issue for both the applicant and the appellants. The geotechnical report noted that all vegetation, organic soils and other deleterious materials would be stripped from the site for foundation work, utility and roadwork. The ERC report noted clear-cutting 18 acres would impact neighborhood aesthetics and on-site erosion. The ERC originally proposed phased clearing for roads/utilities with further grading for building pads, drives, etc. Phased clearing was eliminated by the ERC's reissued DNS-M. The ERC required that clearing comply with the tree retention plan submitted by the applicant. The appellants seek detailed phasing plans for clearing the subject site. The applicant's witness testified that phased clearing could be detrimental since it is not possible to control drainage over the ungraded portions of the site. 15. The City noted no exceptions to the technical reports by either Terra Associates or Core Design. They appear to have adequately addressed the features of the site and provided guidance in working on the site to minimize problems and highlight potential issues. 16. The City challenged the appellants generalized fears and conjectures regarding impacts. The City argued that they did not provide any compelling evidence that the conditions imposed by the ERC were deficient or that additional conditions would be necessary for this project. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870,880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision ofthe ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEP A requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 15 A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a detennination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is detennined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. 5. Significance involves context and intensity ... Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 6. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the tenn "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 7. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-tenn and long-tenn effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c». Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d». 8. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development whether an office building or a single-family development mayor may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. In the current context, the site while largely untrammeled is in the midst of a developing suburban community. The appellants themselves live in or amongst suburban tracts. In other words, the scope of the impacts are not out of the ordinary in this location. The appellants did not identify any significant or environmentally threatened features. No threatened or endangered species or unique habitat was identified with any certainty. 9. As with any development or redevelopment, there is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood. A forested site will be cleared and 73 homes and their new residents will replace that forested open space. But that does not necessarily show that the ERC was wrong or failed to impose the necessary additional conditions needed to mitigate this development. The development will not alter in a significant way the character of the community. The development will be larger lot, detached single family in character just like the surrounding development. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code designate this area for urban densities. But the development will remain subject to all of the City's development regulations regarding stonnwater, erosion, tree retention and grading and filling. Controlling runoff from the site may actually reduce some problems with septic systems although this is not guaranteed. And unquestionably things can go amiss if unexpected events occur but under the nonnal situation the project has received mandated and adequate review. Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 16 10. The appellants obviously are concerned about their neighborhood and community. The acronym they chose, CARE, clearly indicates that. It would appear that their "Final Note" in their appeal letter sums up the issues. They want to make sure that development in this area receives appropriate scrutiny and develops appropriately, something that they believe King County failed to assure. As noted in the findings -It is not a substantive issue. They have noted impacts which they perceive will change the character of the area, substantially change the character of the subject site, and they believe harm adjacent properties. But mere allegations of harm are insufficient to meet their burden in this case. The harms they allege will result from developing the subject site are not unusual, unique or untoward. The appellants have not convinced this office that the decision below was either arbitrary and capricious or even clearly erroneous. In this case, the subject site will be subject to the normal standards for development that should control runoff, avoid downstream problems and not jeopardize other property or community assets. 11. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. There was a thorough review of various technical reports, and most of issues raised by the appellants are addressed by standard code compliance. 12. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision ofthe ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 18th day of May, 2006. ~q~F FREDJ.KA~ HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of May 2006 to the parties of record: Jennifer Henning 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Gwendolyn High CA.R.E. PO Box 2936 Renton, W A 98056 David Cayton Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 David Halinen 2115 North 30th Street, Ste. 203 Tacoma, W A 98043 Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, W A 98059 Ted Schepper Terra Associates 12525 Willows Road, Ste. 101 Kirkland, W A 98034 Zanetta Fontes Assistant City Attorney Renton, W A 98055 Scott Brainard Wetland Resources, Inc 9505 19th Avenue SE, Ste. 106 Everett, W A 98208 Kayren Kittrick Development Services 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Highlands Park SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 17 TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of May 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County J oumal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 1, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date ofthe Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 1, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. , -···i TFl41 ::===:---=:==::n SE 138th PI. \ ~ 139th PI. E 145th PI. SE 132nd St. S SE 138th SE 139th 142nd st. SE l=ol::" ~ F7 14 T23N R5E W 1/~1" t N I 9H'A~A./U • ON,NHr14 . ON'.~IHIOHI N!>lSiCJ~ ;::. , Ii Ill: I ./ // ,r \-- &tJOfJ6 ~ .. "Jf)ItJ111a io/7.>1r'""" '::'~ IOZ 31111S ";IN.>>v.ift' Hl.lKI 'IZJ IOID 7N1OI1r allQ NOllOnmSN(x) OtT3..LSNUnS $"S ","0,,-, I ~ ~ ... - ./ ~~(;; ~t //-:i:<~~ ~~-.--~ ... - 1/ j I, , I~ L !~ . ~.,. , 1~J -l$:~ ~ \ii;.! (,~.::~.\, ;.~ ,\,~:::': ..:;.:;.::..:.:.';: ... , ,,~,~ '~:' '".,' . __ .... _---- ~9' ~~~:. ) 'XI.:' ~~ ::~~. .: ~ 1M );; ... u; .. ~ .. ;:.~. -1."- '. ,:,:.: .... " ~ \: .. ' ~( ;..:: r"'''' ~·m ___ '1\" I' .•. 1\ I~'~ II L._~..J' , r~'~l\ \ ' t I . 10 '" I ,·1···. ~. I·' I ' .. "_. ....... c".. . . •• • • , .•. . "'''''. ....• '. "-.'''~. :. I . (I , ... " 1 __ ...J l:,\, __ l L,. -: . ....:1 it': .. ,.".,..J (,.. .. _ . ...J L...,,.,.. .... -' L _ . ..J I "\"~ ,11 ,~ .:".: \ ..:J L· J I I \ , .. I...' \ l! to."" .. . Co, , - -,.,.. -.. -----I':'. ~' - ---'14' l--~ --:.. ' , • "IU'. .. ,·}r'" ," ~ lIt· .. , . .. r--::: \ \ I r -. -""I-1""''' .. , r . -.: , ~ .; .. ,,. 1 r i r ·'r; ")'!, : ... 3d 1 .. r·-.-'r".,.......,r .. -c-....,I:--·l~ ....... ' .. 111 'j '1. I r"'T""r>-;-,r"''''''''r·~·''''·r-''''.''''r-''(--·-' I. ''''. "II} j I ."..!I'~ .. I t'·.· .. '·/~~-. 11 \.. .. I. \. I.i.. .\ ..1 • 1 . _.1 f. _"...~, '. ' .. , ......... " ··~I>~\a: ' ... 11. II .·'I·;"""'."li·" .~I .... " I. I II 11 It--. It 11\ 'jl .1': \1 el : L __ oo> =.?: ~/'\ . . I ~ ..... \ i I . • \1 .' t I A L ;:.J' .~.. {,... .... ...J\ 04• ,I I.. r I '... F I .., I .. a I... L ' .. --' -. __ J I III ". 1 .. \ ' ! ..... "'J I --Ii ..... ~ II ...... I r-'.' .. r.. ...., \ _. II ~ .. I \ ...... I) "'(:" II"·'" II ,,:"U 1\ ..,.,.w \ roo -. '--":1 ~I I .. " ...... \ .' l \ I.. . j I I I 1 • 1'..1 .. " tl ' ''ot I I I I I I . I L '.J L J L ' .. I I I I ~ 'J' '. I .... ,. J" ul ~ __ ""1L.._--J.L.. p!~... L~""'I' "JL.---...... \ -'--~Jt y~, . ., f ')\ .~~ ........ -.;.-~,ij)~~ ,. %--. -,-__ .• , .. :.--JI ___ J L_ ...... J:\ ~ ~ .. L:....J L ___ .. -------... -. ..J·L_. ---.. J. ;("0'" ·· .. ·.l·l~l~ , ____ woo.:M.iid-" l~.. ,~ " .. ,, _____ --<-ij. ~c .. ~ , --_,~a. . '. ----.... -~ .. "-.--. 'j' · • ..!'~w.1 ,I ,<tk" --*-"----.;.. , ' . . e,JI._ ,........ ..... c-~ .. __ ... ~-~ ~_;;;.;.. ~ .• ..... ~ ". -'oo .c~~ , ~.J .~ . ... _.=-en ... --.~. ,. -.~ J \ ;!I~~ . __ -:::::-...;,.' '-~::,'"~W~, ~ __ ~ --=-~ ------:---. --_:';;---<-Ir'::':ir -'r'--:.,-;~...::~. __ ...... _. -:.>" '" ~'~--'. 'J\i G. I I I 1 I I" I 111 ''1 rOo -. -1 1:-,'---11 1 .. _ .. -, : .. ..: I 1 I I I. I \ j I 1 I I i I I '. I I . I r. I i ~ .. ; \ \: ~ .. ~I'" .• , '\1 ,. ~I ... '\' .. 'II .1 hi" .'\1 " '\ .. fl'" j ... Ii'.... "I ." 'I ' .. '., 1 .. t' ., II .. ·1 . .,. ' I t ~ - -...... _...... ., ... "... _ .. i ... G .. ~" .., __ r,! 'I~.". U: ''''''~ '.'~" n: ~"" r ."... •........ ", ""","PO" ~('ft! .. '{ ",/0'" -IJ ..... ~. A "\01 •• 'I .~ .... fl ~ I '" .... ,.~ I -. I '1 1 If··.. I III' 11. 1 I I I, ·.Ii . til I. il 1 1\ 1 !..""':'.. J • .j." ..... ,,,,.' ~. Lo-.::iL._ .... ,J.L -.:-'--.: .J L ~ iJ\:'.~.~J 1..--:-=~7:~::;~i .. (.J L...:d \ __ :,:':. ~::'--.! ,~,:: ~J.~. :.~ ~::.J L =~ \~:J c. /, \ 1A!~ .. :\ ... ·;\l .. · --'~-'.-"·-·!:"1:' , ,2'. ., .,.'. .. IC"' c;>,~, Ii /' '~~·~-!l r~'t\~ .. ~~,I·." =~\rt;~:: ':,; !f'~~F~It,,~~ / "'.\ ", , V 4 l:", ll~\t .. ,.. ..... '" .. _~, _ ' __ ,_ 12 \"'4:\ :'~1)1\:~~:_~i.;',,::,,:/ . ','--'-.".7 __ ._ ....... w; ..... ~~-~.--'-~Tl--lt----,~.~;~-", .. \r/~~~;'~r~~:~~r~\:~,:\,~~ .. ::<\-,:", *'\"" '"\ " 1\ \ 1\ I .. ' ..... "'. "'. ...... ~-~~).) ~-~f ;~i, ' ·"""'~'''·'li~i'. " '... \.. ._ ..... '!.~ '.' ,> ""'. ". ' , "~" \ .'~'... i " \ \ (X~! .. , I~ I I \ .,.": 'fs .... ·~ 'F"+'''''~ t~~ :~~~. "_ ,·l: , t "~-"~ ,~ ~ . \, \ ' ;~ ,:'-,~7""~JiP' , " ,: ~ ":.:!:' .. ,,;~ . """. I' ___ .l---~~:\\I"lii ;'; h ~ .c} .. ' Ii . ~ ::' ------ SCALE: ,~ = 50' ,k \. LJ.-1 j ':\'n ' .. '..t\ I >FI nl i 'll ~ ! \ . ! " § I i ~3~ "I \I !: ! U)\ ~~ ~ rt ~ ~~ ~~l' i (fj ~~i ~Q a~1 ~~ Qi~ ~S ~§~ ~~ ~ Q, ~ i ~ c ..... ~-,,\i\.tn~. OJ.~ -------'---- OH' .... A.n' . !)H'HH"I~ • OH'."HIOH' _"' __ HfNSiCI~ ----;mna'~'" ~""-.r~'U7' _~..,. ~ NQi!JMHSVM :J(M.J1U9 IQZ ~1flS 3"11 :#It' HJOlI S"IZ/ NOLJ.:)flM.LSN(J:) OV3.J.SNHflS >-I~Vc:l SClN~I-I~/1-I NYTd 3dtr.JSONYT.A.HmIWI73Hd I--~=-",~~=--'l ~ ~6 IL~ !za: ....... ~c o~ ulo ~ c ~r 0-W (\ ~ ~ l w ~ '" CD 0 c::> = W ..... > = iii 0 CO w W LL a: I ! II . .; ~ ~ t t .; • iii t I ad ~ ~ SE V4. NW V4. SEC.:U. 7WP.:J3 N •• RG£. 6 £.. W.M • I, I .. )/' .fJ~ . .:..;'?~:~, .. : .. 22 I) ·•·• .. ~~:I~j "~, ....... ~ , .......... ~.\.~' " "II ,t!'~"" I EL A >. 2·'1/ : ." '. '.l~,,!': I' I .... i :" "~ I ~",_~l,:-:.t'~.;.,_~~ .... .'. .:\ . '/ I.... ,'.' /1 .. .,--.. \ ......... -, .... _ .... ,... . ' " DATUM ClfTOI'It!NTOoI .. Nol\oo1Dt!A eAeI$ OF eEARINGS ~~fIrCUCI~""CIoQ""CIINT""'HlQII .. T\oI .......... 8. ... t". ~ utt ... &a. o.fW aT • .,.., 6LlHotw M • .4& ~n!DM:II1 CfT'r Cf' NWrCN OCNrIIIc:IlI"'ONf M06. .. .-0 ,"I.I'CUC IN "'-ACI! NrC r>I6aaCro -.c. ~ CfT"\" t:1t' AINTClH ~JI,&, CON1'IIw::IIL ~ ~"'NOv.". Mo4. eENCHMARKS, 1""IntC:ITTC/I'~IU!IYI:TQ4Joi.A..'w'tII!MC>"1'\I1 NO. 1M' • )·t\. ... r~~ACCCt6C."T."..a: ~ "--"" ..... , AN .t. r-.e, I2M\o1tf J AAC> wtno! Ava. u:. IlL. ... ,." 01111.614 ~ NO, '101 • e~ ...".. tu~ DIte N 'he HTDIIMe"ON 01" &.!. 12.n.lltT . ......c .. 'W4..,. ... a . ...,~ n"'Ott ~'I'I!_, 3' ~: \.... ,.. ... ,. .,'. .', '.,.'. '11;t.'i::~; ~t' • ;.. T ,,;., If.L~ . \. . ; <~ 1 . CONCffC"r ~ ~»C'Al CfJINIIt ~T1rII '-: 5'j1 ,l : £:.. rHIf;K COleN! Ml£Nr ~ 41.J '~ ';:. -:.\.. !~ I" SECTIONA-A , . ~ ~ .,;1 , ON-SITE 42' H(W SECTION lli~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. ~ .. ~~.~'.;~~~~~.~~"fli\~:·· ,~ ~~~ <i) I !>O' • &1 '.,., . ':: • ~,f ',: .• 0 44 '. •• " .. !t1-It-i.-"'" ......... I e • " '" ,< "j'/' " , :Ii . ,. ~$; a.. i~; 'IN. i ,;"/Ij! S~~:::34UJ~;. I i .1> 0;4 '. ~I", V • .'., ..... !... 60 •• . .... I; ,; [.". <.".'~~' ~, ~. '..:::~':: I •. "" l'b I' , . ' j ',r~'l'I'I;' • . : ' .. " : :!iOWn 0' .,."" • '" .. .;,';. ' , "..·i /"',:, . . ~:,. ,"1· .... ' •.• " "Vff'" :!l?Ht O('lf' It or ,,"; . ~ : :;'" > .• :::~:::.: ,': : .... :i~: ,.", .. ~. llHC " ..•. 1,' I , i~~;~;,W;:'0:)i~'" , 11/: I .. ,,I' ,:", ,.")' t-+-"""'-___ ~ ~,. OOIlVf'J A41Q) 1DCD1 ()" -~.' , ~,.)I(~>:'4)/ ,1-~-';1' ""f>'~"I;' , • '-lo'~ H:rJfIfJ:ftDlOfotNlt • MIlO4/. ""tOI&1.IEmW J $' CD/Ofr ~ JlOItf (1ttIMSwrr ""IHQ"MlIIP[WfPS/0 lft1rlf!£fllDrJ .to'IIt"01S1.A.t:!llt'l.UDNO DJIlIIDC4","'"rD1A1t»IIKMJJIJf AMA ,., ~ A StnJIU ~st SECTION/)./) 156th AVENUE s,E. Nt> $tAU ~ 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' t;;U l' 1 ~ ~~! hi Jt' I,; , ~l ~~ ~ ~~:p~ ~~ ~~i 1lI1/)!rl~~ I~ ~;I ~~~~ i~~U ~~~ a: ~ qj 11:1 i iel ! ~I~ ~' !i i /}!l i ~I~ ~I 114 ~ al~ ~[j il ~ i 0 I r.' v. 0( ~ I ~ ~l~ ~ -~~T-i ~.- P"l),Jtc'""f Nl,JIoIDf.R 0:1.019 City of Renton P/8/PW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PREliMINARY PtA T PUBUC HEARING DATE: Apn74, 2006 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page40f9 Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on December 12, 2005, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 7 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 12, 2005 and ended on December 28, 2005. On December 28, 2006, Bumstead Construction (applicant) and Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) each filed an appeal and request for reconsideration. Bumstead appealed the DNS-M mitigation measures for clearing and grading, and for significant tree retention. CARE appealed on several issues, including wildlife protection, storm water, forest practices, clearing and grading, tree retention, and landscaping/pedestrian access. On January 26,2006, the applicant submitted a Significant tree retention plan and a revised landscape plan, which were reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on January 31, 2006, and were determined to be sufficient to justify revisions to the DNS-M regarding requirements for clearing and grading and significant tree retention. A revised DNS-M was issued on February 6, 2006, with the mitigation measures included in Section 3 below. A 14-day appeal period commenced on February 6, 2006, and ended on February 20, 2006. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES . . Based on an analysis of the probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures on February 6, 2006, with the revised Determination of Non-8ignificance -Mitigated (DNS-M): 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 2005, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single- family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control-Level 2) and water quality facilities. 6. Clearing and grading activities shall comply with the tree retention plan dated January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA: Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision: (A) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. The subject site is deSignated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The objective established by the RLD designation is to provide for development on land that is appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment, where land is either constrained by sensitive areas.or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance. are zoned Residential -4 (R-4). The proposed plat is consistent with the following Residential Low Density policies: Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 .I David L. Halinen, P .E. davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation McCarver Square 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397 January 11, 2006 VIA EMAIL (nwatts@ci.renton.wa.us) AND VIA FAX [AT (425) 430~]"1U>O City of Renton Environmental Review Committee c/o City of Renton Development Services Division Department of PlanningiBuildinglPublic Works 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Neil Watts, P.E., Director Tacoma: (253) 627-6680 Seattle: (206) 443-4684 Fax: (253) 272-9876 Re: Bumstead Construction Co.'s "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision and Pending SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal (LUA-05-124, PP, ECF) Burnstead's Proposed Substitute SEPA Mitigation Measures Dear Committee Members: I represent Bumstead Construction Co. ("Bumstead"), the preliminary plat applicant for the proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision in Renton. I understand that, tomorrow, you are scheduled to further discuss Highlands Park in view of appeals that have been filed by Bumstead and a group of individuals. I am writing on Bumstead's behalf to suggest the following two new SEP A mitigation measures as a substitute for mitigation measures 6 and 7 set forth in your December 8, 2005 SEP A Threshold Determination for the proposal (new text indicated by underlining): Substitute Mitigation Measure 6. Along the Vesta Avenue frontage of proposed Lots 52 through 55, prior to final plat recording landscaping and fencing shall be installed in accordance with the design set forth on the "Preliminary Landscape Plan" for Highlands Park prepared by Core Design, Inc. dated January 11, 2006. In addition, street trees must be installed in accordance with that plan either by the later of final plat recording or the end of any applicable bonding period. (Bonding is to be allowed to enable the street trees to be installed when individual lot landscaping is done.) Substitute Mitigation Measure 7. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant shall provide an arborist-prepared tree inventory and tree retention plan to the Development Services Division for review and approval. The plan must show W preservation of at least 25% of trees determined by the arborist to be healthy with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) and 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and {hl indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited. City of Renton Development Services Division Attn: Neil Watts, P.E., Director January 11,2006 Page 2 Let me put these proposed substitute mitigation measures into perspective. First, the original Mitigation Measure 6 is extremely burdensome to the applicant. By forcing lot grading to be done on a piecemeal basis independent of the construction of roads and utilities, it would (a) effectively preclude a rational cut/fill balancing program on the site, (b) unreasonably increase site construction costs and (c) greatly extend the amount of time that overall site construction would take, creating environmental risks of its own. This type of measure has breathtaking implications for subdivision developers in Renton. Such a new approach should not fairly be imposed on a project-by-project basis by the ERC. If the idea has merit, it should be considered through the City's legislative process where developers and all others affected can make their views known and all of the implications can be fairly sorted out. Third, Substitute Mitigation Measure 7 provides for needed recognition that the 25 percent of the site trees to be retained are to be healthy trees. To that end, we have proposed that an arborist determine which trees are healthy as part of the arborist's work in preparing a tree inventory and tree retention plan. Please note that copies of the drawing referenced in Substitute Mitigation Measure 6 are being hand-delivered to your office by Core Design this afternoon. Thank you very much for your anticipated review of this matter. If you have remaining questions or concerns that would prevent you from making the substitution of mitigation measures as set forth above (in place of original mitigation measures 6 and 7), rather than rendering a decision at your meeting tomorrow, I request that you communicate those questions or concerns back to me and my client through Development Services staff and continue the matter over to your next meeting to give us an opportunity to respond to you. Sincerely, P.S. To the extent that this letter is inconsistent with the revised clearing and grading design drawings submitted by Core Design on Friday, January 6, 2006, this letter supersedes those drawings. DLH cc: Bumstead Construction Attn: Ron Hughes Core Design Attn: Michael Chen C:\CF\2530\OOI \SEPA \Watts.LTl Dl.doc • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON CITIZENS' ALLIANCE FOR A RESPONSIBLE EVENDELL, Appellant, vs. CITY OF RENTON and BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION, Respondents. Proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision Renton File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION APPEAL I. RELIEF REQUESTED Bumstead Construction ("Bumstead") requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A") appeal filed by Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ("CARE") in its entirety. The appeal filed by CARE relates to a superseded Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (the "initial MDNS"). CARE failed to appeal the subsequently issued revised MDNS, which remains valid and unchallenged. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss it. In the alternative, if the Hearing Examiner does not dismiss the appeal in its entirety, then Bumstead requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 grading and the preparation of a tree retention plan (Issues 4, 5 and 6 in CARE's Statement of Appeal). Subsequent to CARE's appeal, Bumstead submitted to the City, and the City approved, a tree retention plan governing clearing, grading and tree retention. The revised MDNS requires compliance with this plan. CARE's appeal on clearing and grading and tree retention is based on outdated information. Therefore, CARE's issues 4,5 and 6 must be dismissed. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Bumstead proposes to develop a 73-lot single-family residential subdivision in the City of Renton (the "City") under the name "Highlands Park". The City's Development Services Division has assigned File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP to Bumstead's application for that proposed subdivision. The City reviewed the proposal under SEPA and, on or about December 6, 2005 or December 12, 2005 1, issued an initial MDNS with seven mitigation measures. Among other mitigation measures, Mitigation Measure 6 required that clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage be limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities. Mitigation Measure 7 required the submission of a tree retention plan prior to the issuance of construction permits. I The first paragraph of the December 8, 2005 letter from Renton Development Services' Keri Weaver to Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc. indicates that the Environmental Review Committee had "issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures." Sent with the letter was a "Report and Decision-Environmental Review Committee Report" that, on the upper portion of the first page indicates an "ERC Meeting Date" of December 6,2005. In view of (a) the letter's December 8, 2008 date and (b) the "ERC Meeting Date" of December 6, 2005, the exact timing of the issuance of the threshold determination seems to somewhat differ from the timing indicated in the statement in the first paragraph of page 4 of 9 of Renton Development Services' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, which indicates that the DNS-M was issued on December 12, 2005. However, both the December 8, 2005 letter from Ms. Weaver to Mr. Chen and the first paragraph of page 4 of 9 of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner are consistent in indicating that appeals of the environmental determination had to be filed on or before December 28,2005. BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30lh Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Keri Weaver, Senior Planner of the City of Renton Department of PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works' Development Services Division sent a letter dated December 8, 2005 to Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc., Bumstead's contact person for purposes of the Highlands Park preliminary plat application. The letter's first paragraph advised that the ERC had issued a "issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures" and referred to "an enclosed ERC Report and Decision". In bold face type, the start of the letter's second paragraph explained that "[a]ppeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28,2005." At the letter's lower left hand comer, the "cc:" section indicates that copies of the letter were sent to (among others) "James and Linda St. John, Mike Moran, Jack Pace, June Hill, Ronda Bryant, Gwendolyn High / Party(ies) of Record". (Emphasis added.) On December 28, 2006, CARE filed an appeal of the initial MDNS consisting of (a) a one-page "Request for Reconsideration and Appeal" letter addressed to "Fred Kaufman - Hearing Examiner", "Keri Weaver -Senior Planner", "Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner" and "Neil Watts -Director of Development Services" all at the City of Renton and (b) an attached 10-page Statement of Appeal. Both the letter and the Statement of Appeal were signed by Gwendolyn High as CARE President. CARE's December 28, 2005 Statement of Appeal included three issues relating to clearing and grading and tree retention. Specifically, Issue 4 stated that "the Environmental Review Committee's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts." Notably, this "issue" is merely a statement of agreement with -rather than an appeal of -the BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 3 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX phased clearing and grading required by the Environmental Review Committee in connection 2 with the issuance of the MDNS. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Issue 5 stated that the tree retention plan should be approved prior to the final plat. Issue 6 stated that the tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of a drainage facility and compatible with improvements for pedestrian access. Bumstead also appealed the initial MDNS. Subsequently, on January 26, 2006, Bumstead submitted a tree retention plan to the City for its review and approval. The City reviewed and approved the tree retention plan. In addition, in response to the tree retention plan, on either January 31, 2006 or February 6, 2006,2 the City issued a revised MDNS. The first five mitigation measures of the revised MDNS are the same as the first five mitigation measures in the initial MDNS. The revised MDNS eliminated the sixth and seventh mitigation measure that had been set forth in the initial MDNS and replaced them with a new Mitigation Measure 6 specifying that clearing and grading activities shall comply with the January 26, 2006 tree retention plan.3 2 The first paragraph of the February 2, 2006 letter from Renton Development Services' Keri Weaver to Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc. indicates that the Environmental Review Committee issued the revised MDNS on January 31, 2006. This statement differs from the statement in the second paragraph of page 4 of 9 of Renton Development Services' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, which indicates that the revised MDNS was issued on February 6, 2006. The February 6th date is consistent with the statement in the second paragraph of page 4 of 9 of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner that says that "[a] 14-day appeal period commenced on February 6, 2006, and ended on February 20, 2006." The February 20, 2006 date is indicated in the third paragraph of the February 2, 2006 letter from Ms. Weaver to Mr. Chen as the last day for appeals of the environmental threshold determination. 3 Bumstead acknowledges that the revised MDNS mooted its appeal. BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 4 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Keri Weaver sent a letter dated February 2, 2006 to Michael Chen of Core Design concerning the "Revised Environmental Detennination / Reschedule of Public Hearing." The letter forwarded copies of the revised MDNS and revised MDNS Advisory Notes. In bold face type, the letter's third paragraph explained that "[a]ppeals of the environmental detennination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006." At the letter's lower left hand comer, the "cc:" section indicates that copies of the letter were sent to Parties of Record. By virtue of both (a) CARE president Gwendolyn High having already been listed as a Party of Record on Ms. Weaver's December 8, 2005 letter to Mr. Chen and (b) CARE's appeal of the initial MDNS making CARE a party of record in its own right, Gwendolyn High and CARE were clearly parties of record when the February 2, 2006 letter was issued and they thus would have been mailed the February 2, 2006 letter and the enclosures thereto. No one appealed the revised MDNS. III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES The issues presented in this motion are whether: (1) The Hearing Examiner must dismiss CARE's appeal in its entirety because CARE failed to appeal the revised MDNS; or (2) In the alternative, the Hearing Examiner must dismiss the appeal issues relating to the phased clearing and grading issue (Issue 4 in the Statement of Appeal) and the tree retention plan issues (Issues 5 and 6 in the Statement of Appeal) because: (a) CARE never challenged either the initial MDNS or the revised MDNS with respect to the phased clearing and grading issue; BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPAAPPEAL 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) The tree retention plan issues raised in the appeal of the initial MDNS were raised in the context of Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 of the initial MDNS, mitigation measures that were subsequently superseded by Mitigation 6 of the revised MDNS; and (c) CARE never filed a timely appeal in regard to Mitigation Measure 6 of the revised MDNS and cannot file one now because the appeal period has already lapsed. IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON This motion relies on (1) Renton planner Keri Weaver's December 8, 2005 letter to Michael Chen and the accompanying "Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Mitigation Measures" and "Report and Decision-Environmental Review Committee Report" (collectively embodying the initial MDNS), (2) CARE's December 28, 2006 "Request for Reconsideration and Appeal" letter and "Statement of Appeal", (3) the February 2,2006 letter from Keri Weaver to Michael Chen and the accompanying "Revised -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Mitigation Measures" (collectively embodying the revised MDNS) and the accompanying "Revised -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Advisory Notes" and (4) the April 4, 2006 Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, copies of all of which are contained in the City's project file concerning the proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision Renton File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP, which is part of the record in this proceeding. BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX V. AUTHORITY 2 A. The Hearing Examiner should dismiss the appeal in its entirety. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Hearing Examiner should dismiss CARE's appeal in its entirety because CARE failed to timely appeal the revised MDNS. "[A]dministrative agencies are creatures of the legislature without inherent or common- law powers and may exercise only those powers conferred either expressly or by necessary implication." Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 636, 698 P.2d 1084 (1984). Thus, a hearing examiner's jurisdiction is strictly limited by the governing ordinance. Id. Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") 4-8-100.E unequivocally requires an appellant to file its appeal ofa DNS within 14 days of issuance of the DNS: 4. Time for Appeal: Any such appeal shall be filed III writing with the Examiner within the following time limits: a. Appeals of Environmental Determinations: Appeals of a final environmental determination under the Renton environmental review regulations shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of pUblication of notice of such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) i. A Final DNS: The appeal of the DNS must be made to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the DNS is final. "The use of the word 'shall' indicates a mandatory obligation." Parkland Light and Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health, 151 Wn.2d 428, 90 P.3d 37 (2004). Similarly, the term "must" is mandatory. Kelleher v. Ephrata School Dist. No. 165, 56 Wn.2d 866, 872,355 P.2d 989 (1960). When the language of a statute or ordinance is clear, it must be applied as written, even if the result appears harsh. State v. Sweet, 91 Wn. App. 612, 619, 959 BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 \0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P .2d 677 (1998) ("The courtS are required to apply the statute when the language is clear and unequivocal, although the result may seem unduly harsh. We do so because we assume that the Legislature 'meant exactly what it said. "') WAC 197-11-340(2)(f) requires the lead agency to reconsider a DNS based on timely comments. The agency may retain, modify or withdraw the DNS. Id. A DNS is final and binding subject to the provisions for modification or withdrawal. WAC 197-11-390(1). Here, CARE appealed the December 12, 2005 MDNS. Yet the City reconsidered the MDNS based on timely comments, including those by Bumstead. In response to information submitted by Bumstead, including the tree retention plan, the City's Environmental Review Committee decided to modify the MDNS. The Environmental Review Committee did so on either January 31, 2006 or February 6, 2006, issuing a revised MDNS. The revised MDNS superseded the initially issued one. The issuance of the revised MDNS rendered CARE's appeal moot. A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief. Orwick v. Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249, 253 (1984). In this case, even if the Hearing Examiner granted CARE's appeal with regard to the superseded MDNS, the revised MDNS would remain valid and unchallenged. See WAC 197-11-390 (threshold determination valid and binding on all agencies except in enumerated circumstances). Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner's ruling would have no practical effect. A moot case should not be considered. Id. A new appeal period followed the issuance of the revised MDNS. RMC 4-8-100.E. No party appealed. Under the plain language of the RMC, CARE was required to timely appeal the revised MDNS by either February 13, 2006 (if the revised MDNS was actually issued on January BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 8 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 31, 2006) or February 20, 2006 (if the revised MDNS was actually issued on February 6, 2006). 2 Id. In the absence of a timely appeal, the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction. RMC 4-8-100.E; 3 Chaussee, supra, 38 Wn. App. at 636. Because CARE failed to appeal the revised MDNS by 4 5 either of those dates, the exact date that the ERC issued the revised MDNS (i.e., January 31, 6 2006 or February 6,2006) is irrelevant and CARE's appeal must be dismissed. 7 B. In the alternative, the Hearing Examiner should dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and grading and the tree retention plan. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the alternative, if the Hearing Examiner does not dismiss the appeal in its entirety, then the Examiner should dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and grading and the tree retention plan (Issues 4, 5 and 6). These issues highlight the fact that the appeal of the original, superseded MDNS is no substitute for the timely appeal ofthe revised MDNS. In regard to Issue 4, CARE never challenged either the initial MDNS or the revised MDNS with respect to the phased clearing and grading issue and cannot do so now after the appeal period has run on the revised MDNS. In regard to Issue 5, CARE asserts in the Statement of Appeal that the tree retention plan should be approved before the final plat. This has already been accomplished, as Mitigation Measure 6 of the revised MDNS makes clear. Similarly, in Issue 6, CARE makes arguments about tree retention. CARE's arguments, however, are based on outdated information. Since the point in time that CARE submitted its Statement of Appeal, the tree retention plan governing clearing, grading and tree retention was submitted and approved. Of course, CARE's Statement of Appeal did not consider the tree retention plan because the plan simply did not exist when the December 28, 2005 Statement of BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPAAPPEAL 9 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Appeal was filed with the City. CARE did not, and cannot now, challenge this plan. RMC 4-8- 100.E. Because the facts upon which CARE's appeal was based have changed, the appeal is moot; any opinion by the Hearing Examiner would be an impermissible advisory opinion. See Grays Harbor Paper Co. v. Grays Harbor County, 74 Wn.2d 70, 74-75 (1968) (challenge to superseded statute dismissed as moot; court would not issue advisory opinion). For these reasons, Issues 4, 5 and 6 in CARE's Statement of Appeal should all be dismissed. VI. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Bumstead requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss CARE's appeal in its entirety. In the alternative, Bumstead requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and grading and the tree retention plan (i.e., Issues 4, 5 and 6 in CARE's Statement of Appeal). DATED this 4th day of April, 2006. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. c:\CF\2530\OO)\SEPA\Motion to Dismiss (F2).doc BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL By: 10 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighborS@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Plat Hearing Statement HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Original SEPA Issues of Concern: Applicant Response Staff Response 1. Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a Asserts that King County does None new wildlife study should be required. not protect Red-tailed hawks. 2. Maximum analysis of the surface water situation 15( and 200 points may have been Minimal and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. refuted by response from CORE comment. No • Level III study and mitigation facilities should design. We did not receive any change from the be required. documentation, and thus will Original Level II • The current mitigation requirement of a respond as best we are able at drainage bypass system to handle only 6 month storm the hearing. mitigation event is insufficient and should be increased. recommendation. • Extraordinary impacts to adjacent We rebut applicant response downstream properties due to disturbance of comments related to our 3rd point the naturally existing groundwater system on herein. the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 3. The Forest Practices Application must be required. None None 4. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's We rebut applicant response None recommendation for phased clearing and grading comments herein. must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. 5. The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least None None 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. 6. The sitewide tree retention plan should be None None developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest corner of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Plat Only Issues of Concern: 1. Pedestrian access improvements should be required along the roadway and easement of Rosario Ave NE. 2. Tract 998 pedestrian access concerns. 3. HOA oversight by Renton is needed. 4. Easement and boundary disputes. P~np.1 nf17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Exhibits: highlands_neighbors@hotmaif.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Request incorporation by reference the following Exhibits from Dec. 28 2006 CARE SEPA Appeal: 1. Hawk Photos and Statement provided by Frank and Ronda Bryant 2. Historical letter File: Drainage and Other Impacts Regarding 3. Annotated King County Hearing Examiner Decisions for Evendell (3a), liberty Grove (3b), liberty Grove Contiguous (3c) and Nichols Place (3d) 4. King County IMAP Drainage Complaints Map (4a) and listing (4b) of reported incidents 5. King County IMAP Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (local area (Sa) and zoom (5b) maps) 6. King County IMAP Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (local area (6a) and zoom (6b) maps) 7. The Greenprint for King County Figure 16. City Priority & Connectivity (full figure (7a) and zoom (7b) maps) New Exhibits 8. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsvert.htm#birds 9. Copy of Renton's AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES (Figure 4-3-05OQ) 10. Kezele Statement of April 4, 2006 11. Hill Statement of April 4, 2006 Statement Introduction: This document is submitted with the intent to: 1. Rebut the Applicant Response documents provided to CARE as of close of business April 3, 2006: Terra Associates, Inc. letter of March 31, 2006 Wetland Resources Inc. letter of March 20, 2006 2. Update the record and the Hearing Examiner with recent developments in the area subsequent to submittal of our original SEPA Appeal on December 28,2005 Our original SEPA Statement of Appeal forms the basis of this document. New text is presented in boxes for easy reference. P~nA? nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ISSUE #1: A NEW WILDLIFE STUDY SHOULD BE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. ANIMALS highlands_nelghbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • Argument: CARE has recently been provided copies of photos and a statement from an adjacent property owner detailing observed hawk activity on the project site. The applicant submitted no information in regard to the possibility of a protected avian species' presence. • Reference: Exhibit 1 • Requested: A new wildlife study must be required in order to ensure that the habitat of any protected species is correctly protected and any adverse effects are properly mitigated. The applicants' asserts that "CARE's issue 1 is groundless." On the contrary, our issue is valid. We reference Renton's standard wildlife checklist and is a required application document. We submit that applicant's submission of King County code is irrelevant. King County does not hold jurisdiction in this matter, and such policies have no bearing on consideration of this matter. Further, we offer the following: RMC 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULA TIONS: A. 5. Habitat Conservation: The primary purpose of habitat conservation regulations is to minimize impacts to critical habitats and to restore and enhance degraded or lower quality habitat in order to: a. Maintain and promote diversity of species and habitat within the City; and b. Coordinate habitat protection with the City's open space system, whenever possible, to maintain and provide habitatconnecuons;and c. Help maintain air and water quality, and control erosion; and d. Serve as areas for recreation, education, scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation. RMC Chapter 11: DEFINITIONS PRIORITY HABITAT AND SPECIES: Habitats and species of importance and concern as identified by the Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and SpeCies Program ... "Priority species" are fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. The Merlin Hawks and Pileated Woodpeckers referenced in the letter from Frank and Ronda Bryant (Exhibit 1) are indeed listed by the Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program (Exhibit 8) _____ ~-as~uch, these specie~ are_prot~cteJ:1 under Renton regulation ---.-------.----------t---- We request additional wildlife study and appropriate mitigation. P~nA ~ nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com YNIW.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL'" STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED RMC 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to promote and develop policies with respect to and to preserve the City's watercourses and to minimize water quality degradation by previous siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) G. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented bv any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable. irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULA TlONS: C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: 3. Finding of Conformance Required: a. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shall be a finding in any approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall be documented in writing in the project file. b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shall permits for development be issued if the Department finds that the proposed land use. activity, or business is likelv to impact the long-term. short-term or cumUlative quality of the aquifer. AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES: Figure 4-3-050Q1 (Exhibit 9) The applicants' response asserts that the citations above refer only to the Renton AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES map. The map is so out of date that it does not show the East Maplewood Annexation Area, within which the subject parcels are located, as being inside the Renton City Limits. This map in itself shows, as we originally expressed concern, that insufficient data was available for considered by staff in review of this application. This is exactly the situation that we suspected to be the case. The very recent annexation of this area has not allowed sufficient data to be acquired and considered by the Renton staff. In this case, the Department Director, the Hearing Examiner, the City Council and ultimately, the City of Renton are vested with sufficient authority under city and state law to require mitigation sufficient to protect the public and private interested that can reasonably be +-'"'Af-' .... ,ctedla..be negatively-impactedb}t lhaproposed applicatiorL____ -._. ---------- P::Ine 4 of 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Historical Complaints From Adiacent Properties Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Please review the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concerns expressed by the owner of one of the project parcels. The applicants response does not address our documented concern. The response posits that we have concern for the owners of the proposed new homes. In fact, our concerns are for the impacts to the septic systems of the surrounding properties. During the construction of the Evendell plat -which is detailed in Exhibit 3a of original appeal and for which higher drainage mitigation standards than are currently being recommended for this application where required, drainage issues have caused distinctly impressive damage to adjacent properties (Exhibit 10). This example is on a site with identical soil types, has comparable slope and geology, and is in the immediate vicinity of the Highlands Park site. The applicant repeatedly asserts that everything they propose is within the standard practices for the whole Puget Sound area. We have documented that these averaged-out- over-the-whole-area-rules-of-thumb have proven inadequate to mitigate the real-world impacts, especially off-site drainage impacts, of development in our community. We request additional drainage analysis to ensure that no change resultant of this Highlands Park plat shall negatively impact the existing downstream septic systems. Recent King County Hearing Examiner Decisions on Local Subdivision Applications In our letter of November 30, 2005 to the Renton Project Planner, we referenced the King County Hearing Examiner's findings and required drainage mitigation that came out of the recent subdivision applications in the area. The following applications were submitted to and processed by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services within the last four years: Evendell L01 P0016A and L03RE038 Liberty Grove L03P0006 and L03TY 403 Liberty Grove Contiguous L03P0005 and L03TY 401 Nichols Place L03DOO08 and L03TY 404 We understand from subsequent conversations with staff that the findings and requirements on these projects may have been disregarded due to difference of jurisdiction and local drainage basin, but we challenge this reasoning. These other projects are within 2 blocks of the subject project and the geological and current infrastructure capacity/condition/design are all directly comparable and provide valid context in which this project must be evaluated. We have provided annotated copies of these reports highlighting the required drainage mitigation details (Exhibits 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). Area Drainage Complaint History This heading may also have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional configuration currently in force. We have included printouts from the King County IMap application (Exhibits 4a and 4b that shows historical drainage complaint sites likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project. Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched JJroundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE 136 Street/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136th SU2nd had to be reworked And there were multiple incidents where workers were heard to exclaim 'We hit a pipe!!" when they had in --~a"""c--+taatitylJoTTctured-a-perched groandwaterconveyan~derabtEfvolumnlthrougnpot:----- - - - ---- - -------- P~np.!,\ nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_ neighborS@hotrnail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org The applicants' response asserts that "CARE provides no evidences in support of its assertion that "historical drainage complaint sites [are] likely to be impacted ... " We submit that the burden of proof is not ours to bear. The applicant and the City of Renton are responsible for implementation of the Highlands Park project in such a manner that the public interest is protected and reasonably anticipated negative impacts are adequately mitigated. All of our drainage related comments on this project support our basic concern that the downstream impacts to natural surface and groundwater, constructed downstream drainage conveyances, as well as private septic systems have not been sufficiently studied and therefore mitigation can not have been appropriately required. In a environment known to have a history of recurrent and wide-spread drainage issues, we believe the existing public and private downstream interests can not be protected by a detention and water quality system that we must expect to be bypassed twice a year, as the proposed system will be by-passed by any 6-month event. We request additional drainage analysis to ensure that no change resultant of this Highlands Park plat shall negatively impact any previously identified or reasonably anticipated Drainage Complaint. We also offer Exhibit 11 in an attempt to provide adequate documentation of the bullet points presented above. Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination We include in this package, for your consideration and for the record: 1) a map from the King County IMap application that shows that the location of huge Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area that borders the Cedar River for miles is within 25 vertical feet of the proposed storm water discharge location from the proposed drainage control facilities (Exhibits Sa and 5b), and 2) a map of the Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (Exhibits 6a and 6b) directly downstream and/or overlapping the Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The health and functionality of these natural systems are facing increased threat from the cumulative negative effects of development of the East Renton Plateau and appropriate mitigation and protection is Renton's responsibility. Once again, the applicants' response does not address our documented concern. We refer to our previous aquifer related comments as noted above, and reiterate that our focus in regard to the Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone is intended to highlight the fact that there was insufficient study of the anticipated downstream impacts of the proposed plat -specifically in regard to the 6-month event bypass of the detention and water quality system that has been proposed. We request additional drainage analysis to ensure that no change resultant of this Highlands Park plat shall negatively impact the CateQory 2 Critical AQuifer Recharge Area identified previously. Section 4.3 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 4 Erosion Hazard) "Regardless of the site classification, the site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. " This section indicates concern that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion and recommends full Best Practices implementation. We ask the precise level/standard to be specifically required by reference to the relevant manual and classification. Section 5.8 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 9 Drainage) "We recommern:linStallmg--col1tim1OoS\:lram-salOilglM OOfslCfe lower edge Ofin-e-penmeter DUifOlng fOundations ~-----­ All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year." This section makes clear the serious groundwater situation on the project site. If such extreme measures are required for the new construction, obviously, very serious mitigation measures must be required in order to protect the public interest as well as the private interests of adjacent and downstream properties. P~np. F; nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotrnail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: Drainage in the East Renton Plateau PM has been a chronic concem from the very first development in this area. Adequate analysis and mitigation of storm/surface/ground water impacts are of greatest concem to CARE and surrounding property owners. It appears to us that the location of Renton's City Limits relative to the project site may have limited downstream analysis so far performed. The current site sits within a very recently annexed (effective June 1,2005) eastward protrusion of Renton's border where staff has not previously reviewed projects. Thus much of the downstream impacts from this project will affect watercourses, protected Class II Aquifer Recharge Zone and properties that currently lie within King County jurisdiction with which staff may not be adequately familiar. However, Renton bears the responsibility for the public trust in the protection of the aquifer recharge area, and ultimately the lower Cedar River where all water-related impacts from this project will discharge. Our greatest interest is that this project will be adequately mitigated within appropriate real-world context. We believe that Level III analysis and mitigation per the 2005 King County Drainage manual is necessary. RMC 4.6.030.G.3 establishes the authority of the Administrator to impose these development conditions. • Reference: Exhibit 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10110/2005 • Requested: A new surface water and downstream analysis should be performed to consider the wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project site. We request a full Level III (per the 2005 King County Drainage manual) study and Level III mitigation facilities be required of this project. P~nA 7 nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evende" P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ISSUE #3: FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION MUST BE REQUIRED RCW 76.09.050 Rules establishing classes of forest practices Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotrnail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Class IV: Forest practices other than those contained in Class I or II: (al On lands platted after January 1. 1960. as provided in chapter 58.17 RCW. (b) on lands that have or are being converted to another use. (c) on lands which. pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended. are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development. (d) involving timber harvesting or road construction on lands that are contained within "urban growth areas. " designated pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW ... PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action pursuant to a Class N forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted. Letter from Lisa Spahr. Department of Natural Resources, dated 11/0212005 included in the ERCR Ms. Spahr's letter indicates two issues that could trigger the Forest Practices Application. Environmental Review Committee Report date 121061205 -Section 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." • Argument: The forest that currently covers the project site is vested as part of the establish character of our community. We understand that forest cover reduction is inevitable through (re)-development in this area, however, enabling and prescriptive/protectionary legislation has been adopted that covers this site and we request full consideration under the law. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/205 • Requested: A full review by the Department of Natural Resources and a full Forest Practices Application should be required. I Applicant offered no response. P::lnA R nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ISSUE #4: PHASED CLEARING AND GRADING MUST BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED Section 5.2 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 5 Site Preparation and Grading) highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org "To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of between 3 to 18 inches should be expected ... " Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/205 -Section 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/205 -Section 7 p. 5 'To maximize preservation of existing trees, clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage will only be allowed as necessary to construct roads and utilities. II • Argument: Both staff and third party experts acknowledge that this project will severely disturb the surface and subsurface geology of the project site. As previously discussed, this site is particularly subject to surface and groundwater issues. All reasonable efforts to phase these impacts so the immediate negative impacts can be imposed incrementally should be required. • Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/1012005 Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/205 • Requested: Detailed phased clearing and grading plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to final plat consideration. Applicants' response fails to address the fact that 75% of what is currently a forested parcel will be stripped bare. According to their Preliminary Tree Retention plan, that gives us an estimate of over 500 mature/Significant trees to be removed. They can be conservatively calculated to pull up to 200 gallons of water per day from the local groundwater systems. Add the negative impact of the sitewide removal of the 3" to 18" of surface duff and topsoil which directly affects the surface water systems, and you may begin to see the scale of drainage impact we antiCipate. The site clearing impacts are known to area residents. We have already been enduring them in recent years (Exhibits 10 and 11). While there may be no direct nexus by which we can expect mitigation measures under the law for the road-kill impacts or the mice and rat invasions preCipitated by site clearing, drainage mitigation requirements are many, varied and strong. The fact of the matter is that recent experience, as we have documented, indicates that site preparations according to the rules-of-thumb cited by the applicant have proved insufficient in our community. We request the strongest possible site preparation mitigation measures be required for this application. ----------------------- Pl"InA q nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #5: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT PLAN IS CONSIDERED Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/205 -Section 7 p. 5 "Prior to receiving construction permits, the aplicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree retention p,an for review and approval by the Development Services Division. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of the identified trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited." • Argument: The significant trees that will be retained due to this mitigation requirement serve much more than aesthetic purposes. On this site, subject 0 such serious groundwater and surface water concerns, retention of significant trees will further mitigate drainage issues. We are concemed that if the full tree retention plan is not required first, clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits will be vested without full and correct specification of the impacts of the tree retention plan. This will completely defeat the purpose of the tree retention plan mitigation requirement. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/205 • Requested: Detailed sitewide tree inventory and retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. I Applicant offered no response. PAm'! 10 nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighborS@hotmaiJ.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #6: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FENCING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND EASEMENT ON ROSARIO AVE. NE RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBIUTY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: " a subdivision is located in the area of an officiallv designed trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-wav or for easements to the City for trail purposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA TlONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000J RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns. protect groundwater supplv. prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F.IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads. and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. (Ord.4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. WALKWA YS: Where circumstances warrant. the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6'" in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBUC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees. watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved. thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD-16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. P::ln~ 11 nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10,11,12,13, and 14 violates CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 7 a and 7b, these lots are directly along the easement/street route shown between two the two King County Parks. The land for these parks were purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site. • Reference: Exhibit 7a and 7b • Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. I Applicant offered no response. P;:!nA 1? nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 New SEPA Related Data: Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org We wish to ask that the Hearing Examiner consider requesting a more complete statement from Diane Kezele (Exhibit 10). She was not able to join us today due to family obligations and offered her statement at the last moment because she hopes that her experience might save other families and property owners the distress, disturbance and expense that she and her neighbors have endured under circumstance very similar to the Highlands Park proposal. In regard to the Tree Retention Plan submitted in January: Observations: Several of the trees shown on the plan appear to be within the Hills' disputed boundary area and may very well not be within the final parcel/plat boundary. Owners of adjacent properties have reported that several trees that appear to be mapped in the plan to be retained are in fact dead, dying or otherwise not trees most worthy of retention. Of particular concern is the proposed retention of older hemlocks. Hemlocks do not have as long an anticipated healthy lifespan as other native trees and older ones should not be retained. When these specific concerns with the Retention plan were presented to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Chen at a community meeting on March 27,2006, we were told that the map is illustrative of concept only and not an actual representation of the specific trees to be retained. We are concerned that some of the healthy and mature trees on or very near to the plat boundary will be killed by site preparation. Requests: The detailed final Tree Retention Plan must be updated after resolution of the Hills boundary dispute in order to reflect the trees that will actually be retained and lost in the within the to-be-agreed legal plaUparcel boundary. The detailed final Tree Retention Plan must be accurately mapped to show exactly which trees are to be saved and which will be removed. This plan must be reviewed on-site and approved by the Renton Arborist or other independent third-party professional. Special care is warranted to ensure: The most healthy, long-liVed trees with the least chance of falling or dying soon should be given priority for retention. Where pOSSible, retained trees should be grouped in order to offer the most natural groupings with trees on adjacent properties. This will provide for a healthier urban forest system and minimize the risk to adjacent properties. P;:!nA 1~ nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 I Plat Only Issues of Concern: Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.high/andsneighbors.org 1. Pedestrian access improvements should be required along the existing roadway and easement of Rosario Ave NE. RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBIUTY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: " a subdivision is located in the area of an officiall'l. desiQned trail. I1,rovisions shall be made for reservation of the riQht-of-wa'l. or for easements to the Cit'l. for trail l1,urposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA TIONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to I1,reserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835. 3-27-2000) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA nON -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the l1,umose of this Section to I1,rovide for the I1,rotection of valuable. irrel1,laceable environmental amenities and to make urban deveiol1,ment as coml1,atible as I151.ssible with the ecoioQical balance of the area. Goals are to I1,reserve drainaQe l1,attems. I1,rotect groundwater sUQElI'l.. I1,revent erosion and to I1,reserve trees and natural vectetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All adlacent rights-of-wa'l. and new rights-of-wa'l. dedicated as l1,art of the Ellat. includinQ streets. roads. and alle'l.s. shall be graded to their full width and the l1,avement and sidewalks shall be constructed as sl1,ecified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. (Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. WALKWAYS: Where circumstances warrant. the Reviewing Official ma'l. r!9..uire one or more l1,ublic crosswalks or walkwa'l.s of not less than six feet (6"l in width dedicated to the Citv to extend entire/'l. across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBUC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees. watercourses. and similar communit'l. assets. Such natural features should be I1,reserved, thereb'l. addinQ attractiveness and value (0 cne IV. (VTU. ;)-'UV, 11--'-tr.lIVIf) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD-16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. P~nA 14 nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.o. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotrnail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 52, 53, and 54 violates CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 7 a and 7b, these lots are directly along the easement/street route shown between two the two King County Parks. The land for these parks were purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site. Additionally, Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation in regard to the James Jaques parcel. This vacation of public ownership conveys significant financial gain at public expense to this private party. In consideration of this boon, it is fair and prudent to require the pedestrian improvements we request. • Reference: Exhibit 7a and 7b Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. P~n~ 1~ nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 2. Tract 998 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Staff recommendation # 3 would require" a 6-foot paved pedestrian walkway connection, to be located within the existing recorded access easement" to be provided between Vesta Ave. SE. and the internal plat street. First, this is the easement previously identified to staff as being in dispute. Perhaps of significantly greater concern is the fact that this access is currently and actively used by the easement owner as a driveway. We find the dual use recommendation to be particularly troubling. We request that these uses be required to have separate and appropriately constructed facilities and suggest that resolution of this issue may be achieved through the on-going easement negotiations between the applicant and the easement owner. 2. HOA oversight by Renton is needed. Staff recommendation # 6 would require a Homeowner's association or maintenance agreement "in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway, stormwater and utility improvements." In light of the HOA evident performance along SE 128th St, we request that Renton retain performance oversight and that maintenance for shared landscaping and open space/park tracts be rf3quired as well. 4. Easement and boundary disputes. It has come to our attention that there are two outstanding ownership interest issues that have not yet been resolved in regard to the subject parcels. Per Halverson v. Bellevue (41.Wn. App. 457) and RCW 58.17.165 it appears that resolution of these issues to the satisfaction of all parties, as well as a certificate of dedication signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands to be subdivided is required before this final approval of this application can be rendered. Because resolution of these disputes are not wholly stand-alone, but in fact their outcomes will materially affect two areas of significant concern as recorded in this Statement -tree retention plan and the pedestrian access from Vesta Ave SE -we request that an additional public comment period be allowed before the final application decision is rendered. P~m'! 1R nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 FINAL NOTE: Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org CARE would like to make clear that this Appeal is intended to register a challenge in degree more than in fundamental protest. We are generally satisfied with the level of review and mitigation proposed by staff. Certainly, a greater respect for long-term consequences has been evidenced than what we have seen under King County jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we remain concerned that this is the first such Proposed Land Use Action to be considered by the City in this area. CARE has been very actively involved in similar Land Use Action applications in the vicinity, and we offer this appeal in the hope of protecting the quality of life and the character of our community. This application is, in a very real sense, a test case for the City of Renton to demonstrate wise planning in the real world to a surrounding community of over 3000 resident/owners as we consider our governance options in the upcoming Preserve Our Plateau annexation ballot measure. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter of grave concern to our community. Respectfully submitted, Gwendolyn High CARE president Aprif 4,2006 P::lnl~ 17 nf 17 WAtHlNG1'ON D&P~ OF fISH AND WJI.DI..IFI! Priority HabitBtI end Speel • • Back to PHS List 'riority Species List: Vertebrates: :ish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals) FISH 'or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC List. :OMMON NAME Scientific name SPECIES WASHINGTON Priority Area CRITERIA STATUS .amprey (Petromyzontidae) ~iver lamprey Lampetfa ayresi 1 State Listed or Any occurrence Candidate Species iturgeon (Acipenseridae) ireen sturgeon Aeipenser 2 3 Food fish Any occurrence medirostris Jhite sturgeon Acipenser 2 3 Food fish Any occurrence transmontanus lerring (Clupeidae) acific herring Clupea pallasi 1 2 3 State Listed or Breeding areas; regular Candidate Species; large concentrations Food fish ludminnows (Umbridae) Iympic mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi 1 State listed or Any occurrence Candidate Species linnows (Cyprinidae) 3ke chub Couesius 1 State listed or Any occurrence plumbeus Candidate Species 30pard dace Rhiniehthys 1 State Listed or Any occurrence faleatus Candidate Species matilla dace Rhiniehthys 1 State Listed or Any occurrence umatilla Candidate Species uckers (Catostomidae) ountain sucker Catostomus 1 State Listed or Any occurrence platyrhynehus Candidate Species atfishes (Ictaluridae) lannel catfish letalurus 3 Game Any occurrence punctatus melt (Osmeridae) 'l~gt:l9n __ ]baLe~hthy-s ______ 1 _ 2 __ 3 StateUsted_or . __ -Regular -concentrations- paeifieus Candidate Species; Food fish ngfin smelt Spirinehus 2 3 Food fish Breeding areas; regular thaleiehthys large concentrations Irfsmelt Hypomesus 2 3 Food fish Breeding areas; regular pretiosus large concentrations "". ~""I~" ... 2. Whi.""f'i.,.h .. u~ l~al""f'\nirlaQ' GEOGRAPHIC AREA (WDFW) Regions 1 4 5 6 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 6 4 5 6 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 -.-----4--5-6---- 4 6 4 6 alamander cascadae Candidate Species ;olumbia torrent Rhyacotriton State Listed or ,alamander kezeri Candidate Species )unn's salamander Plethodon dunn; 1 State Listed or Candidate Species ,arch Mountain Plethodon larsell; 1 State Listed or alamander Candidate Species 'an Dyke's Plethodon State Listed or alamander vandyke; Candidate Species REPTILES 'or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC List. :OMMON NAME Scientific name SPECIES WASHINGTON CRITERIA STATUS :agebrush lizard Sce/oporus graciousus tnakes(Squamata) :alifornia mountain ingsnake harptail snake Lampropeltis zonata Contia tenuis 1 1 1 State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species Any occun ... ,_e Any occurrence Any occurrence Any occurrence Priority Area Any occurrence Any occurrence Any occurrence triped whipsnake Masticophis 1 State Listed or Any occurrence taeniatu5 'urtles (Testudines) v'estern pond turtle C/emmys marmorata 1 Candidate Species State Listed or Any occurrence Candidate Species BIRDS or information on state listed or candidate speCies, see the SOC List. SPECIES WASHINGTON :OMMONNAME Scientific name CRITERIA STATUS Priority Area 'arine Birds merican white Pelecanus 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas; regular and 31ican erythrorhynchos Candidate Species regular large concentrations randt's cormorant Phalacrocorax 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas; regular and penicillatus Candidate SpeCies regular large concentrations rown pelican Pelecanus 1 2 State Listed or Regular concentrations in occidentalis Candidate Species foraging and resting areas assin's auklet Plychoramphus 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas aleuticus Candidate Species ommon loon Gavia immer 1 2 State Listed or Breeding sites, regular and Candidate Species regular large concentrations ommon murre Uria aalge 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas, regular and Candidate Species regular large concentrations astern Washington 2 Breeding areas 'eeding )ncentrations of: 5 6 5 6 3 4 5 5 6 GEOGRAPHIC AREA (WOFW) Regions 123 5 2 3 5 6 123 456 GEOGRAPHIC AREA (WDFW) Regions 1 2 3 5 4 5 6 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 6 1 2 3 O[lI!O!E'lr}!~ _ ------.-------~---------.---.--------------~----------------~------._ -__ --____ ---_. ____ " _________ 0-__ -~ ------------ astern Washington 2 Breeding areas 1 2 3 'eeding )ncentrations of: rebes astern Washington 2 Breeding areas 1 2 3 5 'eeding: Terns arbled murrelet BrachvramlJhus 1 2 State Listed or Anv occurrence in suitable 4 5 6 ihort-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus State Listed or Candidate Species -ufted puffin Fratercula cirrhata 1 2 3 State Listed or Vestern grebe Vestern Washington ,reeding oncentrations of: Ilcids Vestern Washington reeding oncentrations of: :ormorants Vestern Washington reeding oncentrations of: ;torm-petrels Vestern Washington reeding oncentrations of: erns Vestern Washington onbreeding oncentrations of: .Icids Ifestern Washington onbreeding :>ncentrations of: ormorants "estern Washington onbreeding Jncentrations of: ulmar, Shearwaters Jestern Washington Jnbreeding Jncentrations of: irebes /estern Washington Jnbreeding lncentrations of: Jons lestern Washington lnbreeding )ncentrations of: torm-petrels Aechmophorus occidental is lerons (Ciconiiformes) lack-crowned night Nycticorax ~ron nycticorax reat blue heron Ardea herodias late rfowl (Anseriformes) eUlIan Canada-·· Branta---- - -_._-1 lose canadensis leucopareia 3rrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica ant Branta bernicla 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -2 2 2 2 2 Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species 3 Game 2 3 Game large con rations Anyoccu _:e Regular concentrations; breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Breeding areas Breeding areas Regular concentrations Breeding areas Regular large concentrations in foraging and resting -. . 6 4 6 1 2 3 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 -_. -------"---~---'._--- 5 6 123456 4 6 ;ommon goldeneye Bucephala clangula -larlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus -looded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus ,now goose Chen caerulescens "rum peter swan Cygnus buccinator undra swan Cygnus Vaterfowl oncentrations columbianus Vestern Washington Bucephala onbreeding islandica oncentrations of: larrow's goldeneye Vestern Washington Bucephala albeola on breeding oncentrations of: :ufflehead 3 Game 2 3 Game 3 Game 2 3 Game 2 3 Game 2 3 Game 2 3 Game 2 3 Game 2 3 Game Vestern Washington Bucepha/a 2 3 Game onbreeding c/angu/a oncentrations of: :ommon goldeneye Vood duck Aix sponsa 3 Game lawks, Falcons, Eagles (Falconiformes) aid eagle erruginous hawk iolden eagle ~ orthern goshawk eregrine falcon Haliaeetus /eucocepha/us 1 Buteo regalis 1 Aquila chrysaetos 1 Fa/co columbarius 1 Accipiter genti/is 1 Fa/co peregrinus 1 pland Game Birds (Galliformes) ue grouse lukar Dendragapus obscurus A/ectoris chukar State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species 3 Game 3 Game Breeding s 1 234 5 6 Breeding areas, regular and 1 2 3 4 5 6 regular large concentrations in saltwater Breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 Regular large concentrations 4 Regular and regular large 1 2 3 4 5 6 concentrations Regular and regular large 1 2 3 4 5 6 concentrations Significant breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 and regular large concentrations in winter Regular large concentrations 4 5 6 Regular large concentrations 4 5 6 Regular large concentrations 4 5 6 Breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding areas, communal 1 2 3 4 5 6 roosts, regular and regular large concentrations, regularly-used perch trees in breeding areas Breeding areas, including 1 2 3 alternate nest sites. If breeding area is not known, approximate with a 7.0 km2 (4.35 mi2) area around known nest sites, foraging areas Breeding and foraging areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding areas, including alternate nest sites, post- fledging foraging areas Breeding areas, regular occurrences, hack sites Breeding areas, regular concentrations Regular and regular large concentrations in WDFWs Primary Management Zones for chukar 1 234 5 6 23456 1 234 5 6 123 5 ~ing-necked >heasant Phasianus co/chicus >age grouse Centrocercus urophasianus >harp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus I\Ijld turkey Meleagris gallopavo ;ranes (Gruiformes) iandhill crane Grus canadensis ;horebirds (Charadriiformes) :astern Washington ,reeding oCCurrences of: 'halaropes :astern Washington reeding ccurrences of: Stilts nd avocets ;nowy plover Ipland sandpiper Vestern Washington onbreeding oncentrations of: :haradriidae lI'estern Washington onbreeding :>ncentrations of: halaropodidae lestern Washington )nbreeding )ncentrations of: colopacidae Charadrius alexandrinus Bartramia longicauda igeons (Columbiformes) 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 Game 3 State Listed or Candidate Species; Game 3 State Listed or Candidate Species Game 3 Game Self-sust< . I birds 1 2 3 observed ,gular or regular large concentrations in WDFWs eastern Washington Primary Management Zone for pheasant Breeding areas, leks, regular 1 2 3 and regular large concentrations Breeding areas, leks, regular 1 2 and regular large concentrations, critical wintering habitat (riparian zones) Regular and regular large 1 2 3 concentrations and roosts in WDFWs Primary Management Zones for wild turkeys 5 6 State Listed or Candidate Species Breeding areas, regular large concentrations, migration staging areas 1 234 5 6 Breeding areas 123 Breeding areas 123 State Listed or Breeding areas 6 Candidate Species State Listed or Any occurrence 1 Candidate Species Regular large concentrations 456 Regular large concentrations 456 Regular large concentrations 456 and-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata 3 Game Breeding areas, regular 4 5 6 concentrations, occupied _______________________ ------------------------------------miAeralspnngs ----------------------------- uckoos (Cuculiformes) 3110w-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus wis (Strigiformes) 1 Jrrowing owl Athene cunicularia 1 State Listed or Any occurrence Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species Breeding areas, foraging areas, regular 1 2 4 123 5 ;potted owl Strix occidentalis ,wifts (Apodiformes) faux's swift Chaetura vauxi 1 'Voodpeckers (Piciformes) lIack-backed Picoides arcticus 1 loodpecker .ewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis 1 ~Ieated WOOdPecke.V Oryocopus 1 =:---pileatus Vhite-headed Picoides 1 (oodpecker albolarvatus 'erching Birds (Passeriformes) oggerhead shrike )regon vesper parrow 'urple martin ,age sparrow .age thrasher Lanius ludovicianus Pooecetes gramineus affinis Progne subis Amphispiza belli Oreoscoptes montanus lender-billed, white-Sitta carolinensis reasted nuthatch aculeata treaked, horned Eremophila Irk alpestris strigata 1 1 1 1 1 Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species MAMMALS or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC List :OMMON NAME Scientific name SPECIES WASHINGTON CRITERIA STATUS ihrews (Insectivora) lerriam's shrew Sorex merriami 1 State Listed or Candidate Species lats (Chiroptera) een's myotis Myotis keeni 1 2 State Listed or Candidate Species occurrenc Any occurr ~, ,~e 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding areas, communal 1 2 3 4 5 6 roosts Breeding areas and regular 1 2 3 5 occurrences Breeding areas 1 2 3 5 Breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding sites, regular 1 2 3 5 occurrences Regular occurrences in 1 2 3 5 breeding areas, regular and regular large concentrations Any occurrence Breeding areas, including used artificial nest features, feeding areas Breeding areas, regular occurrences in suitable habitat during breeding season Breeding areas, regular occurrences in suitable habitat during breeding season Any occurrence Any occurrence Priority Area Any occurrence Any occurrence 456 456 123 123 5 5 6 456 GEOGRAPHIC AREA (WOFW) Regions 123 6 oosting Eptesicus fuscus 2 Regular large concentrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 JAsernratiensef,;----------.-----_.--.. ---.------------iA-flatuFaHy-eeeuFfiflg-------.----.. --.-.----"-.-.. ig brown bat breeding areas and other oosting mcentrations of: yotis bats oosting Myotisspp. Antrozous pallidus 2 2 communal roosts Regular large concentrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 in naturally occurring breeding areas and other communal roosts Regular large concentrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 Modified 2 limits Figure 4-3-050Q1 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES o 3 -20.43 4-3-0500 10560' 1" = 1 MILE (Revised 6/05) Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 April 4, 2006 Re: LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Examiner, I am not able to attend the hearing today, but I would like to record my concerns in the hope that other owners and residents will not have to go through what I, my family and my neighbors have experienced. We, along with CARE, worked long and hard to get Level III drainage mitigation for the Evendell plat, which is directly adjacent to my property. Even this level of mitigation has proven insufficient. After the project site was re-graded, the surface grade of the Evendell parcel, which had historically been at a lower elevation to our own property, was raised so that the border area is now several feet higher than our property. Earlier this year, the resultant run-off, high volume sheet flow as well as three well defined streams, completely inundated our on-site septic system. It absolutely flushed our system out, causing the most noxious mix to flow across our property and into the two adjoining neighbors property, including the inundation of one structure. Several temporary emergency drainage ditches had to be dug across our property and that of the inundated owners' as well in order to convey this effiuent. The Highlands Park project is only 2 blocks away from Evendell. It has the same dirt and other features.The drainage and run-off issues in this area are well-known to those of us who have lived here for years. Future consequences are very reasonably expected from these new developments. At the very least, I hope that this letter may help to document the fact that the neighbors have warned Renton and the developers that st~ger drainage mitigation is necessary here. In the worst case scenario, at least this record may serve the community should legal remedy be required after some future event. Thank. you, I i / / IC,,;/kJLG Diane Kezele / :£ t, ;; 7 ,5£ /8 I C./~ /fJL. . /2$ /1 /;'71 ttl a . 7' J Cl .57 Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 April 4, 2006 Re: LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Examiner, This letter is to record that the following selection from page 5 of the CARE Highlands Park Hearing Statement is true to the best of our ability to relate the events that we witnessed: "Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE 136th Street/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136th St/2nd had to be reworked And there were multiple incidents where workers were heard to exclaim "We hit a pipe!!" when they had in actuality punctured a perched groundwater conveyance of considerable volumn/throughput." Thank you, ~!Jdv June Hill REPORT City OJ • ,enton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works & DECISION Revised -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERe MEETING DATE: January 31, 2006 Project Name: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Applicant: Burnstead Construction, 1215 120m Ave. NE, Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact: Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29m Place, Bellevue, WA 98007 File Number: LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Project Manager: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of a18.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. (cont. next page) Project Location: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 15200 Ave. SE) Exist. Bldg. Area SF: To be removed Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: N/A Site Area: 18.13 acres Total Building Area SF: N/A RECOMMENDA TlON: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ERCRPT 205-124 City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA T REPORT OF JANUARY 31,2006 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 2 of 7 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND CONTINUED An unregulated wetland approximately 700 sq. ft. in size is located in the southwest portion of the site and will be filled. A Category 3 wetland approximately 8,976 sq. ft. in size is located offsite to the west, across the partially improved right-of-way of Rosario Ave. NE. The existing site currently has a single-family residence and several accessory structures that are proposed to be removed as part of this plat. The plat will have two external access points, from the stub of SE 133rd Street at the north boundary of the site, and from Rosario Ave. NE at the proposed intersection of SE 2nd Street (to be constructed). Internal public streets will serve the proposed lots. As indicated in a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated October 10, 2005, the site is currently forested and primarily consists of a moderate slope that descends to the southwest at an average grade of 8-15 percent, with soils classified as glacial till. The applicant proposes grading for site preparation and road construction. The entire site will be cleared, which will require a Forest Practices Application to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan with trees and street frontage plantings in accordance with City code requirements. T TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures x DETERMINA TION OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 2005, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. 6. Clearing and grading activities shall comply with the tree retention plan dated January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA T REPORT OF JANUARY 31,2006 C. Environmental Impacts Environmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 3 of 7 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site is relatively flat to rolling, with a gentle slope from northeast to southwest. Surface grades are approximately 8-13%. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated October 10,2005, which addressed soil and groundwater conditions, geologic hazards, site preparation, foundations, retaining walls and slabs, storm water detention, drainage, utilities and pavement. Test pit soils generally consisted of 3-18" of topsoil and forest duff overlying moist, silty sand and gravel consistent with glacial till. The soils are mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Groundwater seepage was observed in 10 of 37 test pits, with conditions typical of a glacial till site. Moderate to heavy groundwater was observed in one test pit, at a depth of 1-6 feet. The geotechnical report indicates that the soils are suitable for the proposed construction with conventional foundations and footings, although not suitable for structural fill. The site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction, and therefore Best Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended by the consultant to prevent onsite erosion and sedimentation transport during construction. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10,2005, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water -Stormwater Impacts: The preliminary storm drainage report prepared by Core Design, Inc., dated October 10, 2005, proposes a storm water detention/water quality pond located in the southwest corner of the site, with connection of treated runoff to the existing storm drain system in Rosario Ave. SE. A bypass system will transfer offsite flows in excess of a 6 month storm event directly to the storm drain system. The site's downstream drainage is to the southwest to the Orting Hill sub-basin. Because staff is aware of downstream flooding and erosion problems, the applicant shall be required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to prevent additional downstream impacts. Mitigation Measures: The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County SWDM. 3. Wetlands Impacts: A wetland reconnaissance report prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., indicates that a Category 3 wetland approximately 625 sq. ft. in size is located in the southwest portion of the site. RMC 4- 3-050{B){7) exempts Category 3 wetlands of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from development regulation. The applicant proposed to fill this wetland. A Category 2 wetland approximately 8,976 sq. ft. in size is located offsite to the west, across the partially improved right-of-way for Rosario Ave. NE. The presence of this wetland has resulted in the location of the proposed plat access from Rosario Ave. NE on the southern portion of the site. Additionally, to avoid impacts to this wetland, the cul-de-sac of internal plat "Street C" will not be required to be extended through to Rosario Ave. NE, and the unimproved right-of-way on Rosario Ave. NE north of the plat entrance will not be improved. The proposed Highland Park development is outside the 50-foot buffer area for the offsite wetland. No impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC Critical Areas Regualtions City of Renton P/BIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA T REPORT OF JANUARY 31, 2006 4. Fire Protection Impacts: t::nvironmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124 PP ECF Page 4 of 7 Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provide required improvements and fees. As the proposal would add 73 new residences to the City, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of $488.00 per new single-family residence with credit given for 1 existing residence. The total fee is estimated at $35,316.00 (73 lots - 1 existing=7 x $488.00 = $35,316.00). Staff recommends that the payment of the fee be required prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. 5. Transportation Impacts: The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system; therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per new trip. Each new residence is expected to generate approximately 9.57 trips per day with credit given for 1 existing residence. For the proposal, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $51,678.00 (73 lots - 1 existing=72 x 9.57 trips x $75 per trip = $51,678.00). Staff recommends that this fee be payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527. 6. Parks & Recreation Impacts: The proposed development is anticipated to generate future demand on existing and future City parks, recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot. The fee is estimated at $38,745.48 (73 lots - 1 existing=73 x $530.76 = $38,745.48). Staff recommends that this fee be payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527. 7. Vegetation & Wildlife Impacts: The site is largely forested with mature coniferous and deciduous trees, and likely provides habitat for various wildlife species. The applicant submitted a wildlife study report by Wetland Resources Inc., dated October 7, 2005, which indicated that during the study period in August 2005, several common bird species were detected. No mammalian species were detected; however, the report indicates that animals such as deer, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, rabbits and coyotes utilize similar habitats and may exist onsite. No bald eagles or sensitive avian species were detected. The applicant initially proposed to clear the entire site of existing trees and vegetation to accommodate grading for roads and building site preparation. Clear-cutting of the 18-acre site would have impacted existing neighborhood aesthetics and could likely have resulted in onsite erosion from the large-scale earth and vegetation disturbance. RMC 4-7-130C.3 requires that a reasonable effort should be made to preserve existing trees. Additionally, RMC 4-4-0700.7 indicates that existing trees and other vegetation City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT Environmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF REPORT OF JANUARY 31, 2006 Page 5 of 7 on the site of a proposed development shall be used to augment new plantings where practical if the quality is equal to or better than available nursery stock. Retention of existing trees will also help to preserve neighborhood aesthetics and to minimize onsite erosion. The applicant has provided a tree inventory consistent with RMC 4-8-120 indicating that 929 trees are present on-site. Of these, 246 are within the right-of-way area and storm water facilities. The number of net trees on-site is 683; of these 173 or approximately 25% would be retained. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that a Forest Practices Permit may be required to clear the site. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan showing that two street trees (scarlet maple) will be provided for each residential lot. Consistent with RMC 4-10-11 OA, the applicant will also be required to provide 10 feet of landscaping along the improved frontage of Rosario Ave. NE, and along the frontages of SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave. NE. The required landscaping and street trees will provide aesthetic appeal for the post-development neighborhood and adjacent street frontages, and buffer established nearby neighborhoods from the new development. Mitigation Measures: Clearing and grading activities shall comply with the tree retention plan dated January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Subdivision Regulations D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. -1L Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA T Environmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF REPORT OF JANUARY 31, 2006 Page 6 of 7 Fire Prevention 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. 3. Dead end access roadways over 700 feet in length are required to have a secondary access. All lots on a dead end access roadway between 500 and 700 feet are required to be sprinklered. A secondary access would eliminate this requirement. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Plan Review -Storm water Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $715.00 x 72 new single-family lots. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $51,480.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. Applicant will be required to tightline all roof drains to the storm system. 3. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted and reviewed. The project will be required to comply with the standards and requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 5. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided along the proposed detention/water quality pond facilities area where it abuts the right-of-way. 6. The applicant shall comply with the preliminary geotechnical report by Terra Associates, dated October 10,2005, and its recommended conditions. Plan Review -Water 1. Fire flow requirement for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm. A hydrant is required within 300 feet of the furthest structure. If residences exceed 3,600 square feet, fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and an additional hydrant will be required. 2. A 5-inch Storz quick-disconnect fitting will be required to be installed on existing and new hydrants. 3. All plats shall provide a separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Separate permits for water meters will be required. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The project is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees will be collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 2. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $900.00 x 72 single-family lots. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $64,800.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 3. A sanitary sewer main extension to the furthest extent of the new interior street that will serve the plat will be required. The sewer main shall be installed at a slope that will allow it to serve the developments to the north by gravity, as far as possible. 4. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 5. Separate sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot prior to recording of the short plat. No dual side sewers are allowed. Minimum slope for side sewers shall be 2%. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including sidewalk, curb and gutter, street lighting, signage, landscaping and storm drainage are required to be installed along the frontage of the project site with Rosario Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave. NE, and along the new streets in the interior of the plat. 2. Dedication of 12 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. 5. A pedestrian walkway connection, with a minimum 6 feet of pavement, shall be provided from Vesta Ave. NE to the internal road in proposed tract 998 (park), to enable easier access for pedestrians. An access easement for this purpose shall be recorded with the final plat. 6. The applicant has requested a road modification for reduction of right-of-way width of internal streets to 42 feet. The road modification decision will be issued during review of the preliminary plat application. City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA T REPORT OF JANUARY 31, 2006 General: Environmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 7 of 7 1. Separate permits for the side sewer connections, water meters and storm drainage connections are required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with submittal. 4. A Forest Practices Permit from the Washington Department of Natural Resources may be required for the proposed clearing. The applicant will be required to provide detailed information regarding the percentages of hardwood, conifer and shrubs onsite, and the kinds and amounts to be removed and left. Contact: Lisa Spahr, Department of Natural Resources, (360) 802-7007. 5. A right-of-way vacation request has been submitted to City Council (VAC 05-004) for 5 feet along Rosario Ave. Citizens. Alliance for a I ""sponsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Plat Hearing Statement -April 11, 2006 HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT: LUA -05.124, PP, ECF Tree Retention Plan submitted in January: Observations: Several of the trees shown on the plan appear to be within the Hills' disputed boundary area and may very well not be within the final parcel/plat boundary. Owners of adjacent properties have reported that several trees that appear to be mapped in the plan to be retained are in fact dead, dying or otherwise not trees most worthy of retention. Of particular concern is the proposed retention of older hemlocks. Hemlocks do not have as long an anticipated healthy lifespan as other native trees and older ones should not be retained. When these specific concerns with the Retention plan were presented to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Chen at a community meeting on March 27,2006, we were told that the map is illustrative of concept only and not an actual representation of the specific trees to be retained. We are concerned that some of the healthy and mature trees on or very near to the plat boundary will be killed by site preparation. Requests: The detailed final Tree Retention Plan must be updated after resolution of the Hills boundary dispute in order to reflect the trees that will actually be retained and lost in the within the to-be-agreed legal plat/parcel boundary. The detailed final Tree Retention Plan must be accurately mapped to show exactly which trees are to be saved and which will be removed. This plan must be reviewed on-site and approved by the Renton Arborist or other independent third-party professional. Special care is warranted to ensure: The most healthy, long-lived trees with the least chance of falling or dying soon should be given priority for retention. Where possible, retained trees should be grouped in order to offer the most natural groupings with trees on adjacent properties. This will provide for a healthier urban forest system and minimize the risk to adjacent properties. HOA oversight by Renton is needed. Staff recommendation # 6 would require a Homeowner's association or maintenance agreement "in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway, stormwater and utility improvements. II In light of the evident HOA performance along SE 128111 St, we request that Renton retain performance oversight, require performance bonds and add requirements for maintenance for shared landscaping and open space/park tracts as well. Tract 998 Staff recommendation # 3 would require" a 6-foot paved pedestrian walkway connection, to be located within the existing recorded access easement" to be provided between Vesta Ave. SE. and the internal plat street. First, this is the easement previously identified to staff as being in dispute. Perhaps of Significantly greater concern is the fact that this access is currently and actively used by the easement owner as a driveway. We find the dual use recommendation to be particularly troubling. We request that these uses be required to have separate and appropriately constructed facilities and suggest that resolution of this issue may be achieved through the on-going easement negotiations between the applicant and the easement owner. Ps:lnI''! 1 nf4 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Easement and boundary disputes Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org It has come to our attention that there are two outstanding ownership interest issues that have not yet been resolved in regard to the subject parcels. Per Halverson v. Bellevue (41.Wn. App. 457) and RCW 58.17.165 it appears that resolution of these issues to the satisfaction of all parties, as well as a certificate of dedication signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands to be subdivided is required before this final approval of this application can be rendered. Because resolution of these disputes are not wholly stand-alone, but m fact their outcomes win materially affect two areas of signifICant concern as recorded in this Statement -tree retention plan and the pedestrian access from Vesta Ave SE -we request that an additional public comment · period be allowed before the final application decision is rendered. Groundwater concerns As was emphasized last Tuesday, negative impacts to the groundwater systems in this area are of critical .. concern to the residents. We have no wish to revisit the body of evidence previously submitted in great detan today. We must, however, insist that a couple of days of on-site inspection by any army of professionals must be . weighed against the decades of every day on-site practicat experience of responsibte home owners-and residents. These folks KNOW the characteristics of the environment in which we sit. They have years of intense site specific-exper:ier:lGe, Theircoocems·-ar..e well fOUf.ldedj .and now-they are well r.epresented.jn.this.Qff~ial. public record. Should adverse effects such as we have related here actually materialize in the future, CARE will · vigorously support any efforts for redress and compensation. We offer one final note on this issue. We would like to submit the full email thread of conversations investigating area-wide groundwater concerns in relation to the enormous landslide along the Cedar River Ridge in January. As we testified last Tuesday, this correspondence with King County Water and Land Resources staff assures us · that subdivisions being constructed in this area· are dealing with surface water, but not groundwater·which is the direct cause of this tremendous event. Appropriate mitigation is necessary to minimize reasonably anticipated ne ative·im -ts-to· . l;/blic afla· rivete r<t rties ilSweU as ·the ·hea~thof.natl;/ral s tems tn this ·comrrnmit . Pedestrian access improvements should be required along the existing roadway and easement of Rosario Ave NE. RMC 4-7-120 COMPA TlBIUTY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: " a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail. provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERAnON -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-20001 RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable. irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns. protect groundwater supply. prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. PAm'!? nf4 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: highlands_neighborS@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org All adjacent rights-ot-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part ot the plat. including streets. roads, and alleys. shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the PlanninglBuildinglPubiic Works Administrator or hislherdesignee. (Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: S. WALKWAYS: Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet f6") in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer'S cost. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBUC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: S. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses. and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved. thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD-16 ..• dlscourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layoutfor lots #10, 11, 12, 13, 14,52,53, and 54 violates CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 7a and 7b, these lots are directly along the easement/street route shown between two the two King County Parks. The land for these parks I were purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site. Additionally, Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation in regard to the James Jaques parcel. This vacation of public ownership conveys significant financial gain at public expense to this private party. In consideration of this boon, it is fair and prudent to require the pedestrian improvements we request. • Reference: Exhibit 7a and 7b Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and aI/ other plans and permits. Offered: CARE has begun the ground work with the intent of being able to offer jOint funding options for these improvements. We have already begun the community outreach -with overwhelming support from all so far contacted. The city of Renton's Neighborhoods Department has a wonderful grant program that could provide matching funds for this project. We have citizen representatives already lined up and ready to go. We have talked to the city staff, and so far have received nothing but encouragement toward application for the grant this fall. We believe that this project would be a benefit not only to the residents -both existing and newly arrived to Highlands Park but also to Bumstead as it will be a ver attractive feature of the final lat itself. Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Closing Tree Retention Plan Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighborS@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org The members of CARE very much approve of the requirement of the tree retention plan. As we have prepared for the major annexation effort going to election this fall, we have been meeting every month for over a year with residents of the larger community. We have conducted an on-going an comprehensive Quality of Life and Character of the Community survey. The #1 site-specifiC concern is tree retention. Large stands of mature big leaf maple and Douglas fir are consistently identified as the defining natural esthetic characteristic of this area and their preservation is of extreme importance to the community. However, the published plan and the comments of Bumstead's representatives in a public meeting have raised concerns about specifics of the plan. We trust these concerns should, can and will be addressed responsibly. HOA oversight by Renton is needed In general, the Maplewood development, also a Bumstead project, offers hope of better management of shared assets than some builders, but Renton has the authority as well as the vested interest in requiring better binding obligations within the areas of accountability assigned to HOAs formed under their direction. Even senior Renton staff in attendance at CARE meetings over the past year have agreed that the HOA charters for properties along the dismal NE 4th/128th corridor cry out for improvement. Tract 998 As you have heard, pedestrian improvements are a significant mission for CARE. We welcome the offer to create such an access across Tract 998. However, the details of the proposed access have raised obvious safety concerns. It makes no sense whatsoever to create a safety problem out of whole doth where one has previously never existed. Again, our request is for moderate and reasonable adjustments and we trust that these concerns should, can and will be addressed responsibly. Easement and boundary disputes The Hills and the Clairmonts, who presented their disputes last Tuesday, have given every indication that they intend to pursue their legal claims with all appropriate patience and vigor. CARE will support their daims vigorously, but again, we all hope for speedy and fair settlement to the satisfaction of all parties. We also appreCiate the Hearing Examiner's obvious understanding that Renton can not legally award final approval for this project until these disputes are indeed settled. Groundwater concems Regardless of the ultimate decision in CARE's SEPA appeal, we reiterate our request for the most stringent drainage facilities and site-specific design standards possible. This is the most conSistently cited and potentially most costly set of impacts about which our community has expressed concern. Renton bears the responsibility to protect the public interest in this matter -either today as an ounce of prevention, or in the future as a pound of cure. Pedestrian access improvements The pedestrian improvements we have requested in accordance with existing Renton code is of major importance to CARE. Residents, whether members of our organization or not, support these improvements and are willing to materially support their construction. This is a real opportunity for cooperation to the benefit of all. If the pedestrian improvements are not required, it is most likely that CARE will appeal the final decision on this plat application to the full extent of remedy allowed. I1hA~-4~ ~Hi9h CARE president P~m" A. nf A. MSN Hotmail -Page 1 of7 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Printed: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:20 PM From: Sent: Highlands Neighbors <highlands_neighbors@hotmall.com> Thursday, February 9,200610:13 AM Subject : CARE Update: Slide Questions Answered Hi Neighbors! Below you will find the full thread of questions and answers correspondence between me and the water and Land Staff from the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. I haven't really had a chance to ponder these answers carefully yet. please let me know if you have thoughts on the topic. Happy Thursday! g C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org From: "Highlands Neighbors" < highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> To: KenJohnson@METROKC.GOV CC: Curt.Crawford@METROKC.GOV, Mark.Isaacson@METROKC.GOV Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Good Morning, Mr. Johnson! we extend our thanks to you and your colleagues for your careful review and answer of our questions. I agree that there was indeed overlap in our questions. I hope you will understand that we felt the need to ask for some of the same information from mUltiple points of view in order that we might hope to triangulate on the actual data we sought. I will share this information with the community today. We may have some follow up questions. Thanks again! Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org From: "Johnson, Ken" <KenJohnson@METROKC.GOV> To: 'Highlands Neighbors' <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> CC: "Crawford, Curt" <Curt.Crawford@METROKC.GOV>, "Isaacson, Mark" <Mark.Isaacson@METROKC.GOV> Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:43:32 -0800 Ms High, http://by111fd.bay111.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-bini getmsg?curmbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/1012006 MSN Hotmail - Sorry for the delay. As I said before, I do not have the expertise in the specifics of many of the issues you raised, so have had to consult others here in Water and Land Resources Division. I myself haven't been to directly view the recent slide, but understand that it has gotten some attention from some of the drainage engineers, as is reflected in some of the responses. The following are your questions copied in: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) To what degree did the 4 most recently cleared subdivision sites (Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place) contribute to this event? A: Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichol's place all front on 160th Ave SE at or near the intersection with SE 136th St. All four of these projects have detention systems and do not infiltrate their runoff (they are located on relatively impervious soil layers). The outfall from these projects appears to flow south then southeast and eventually west in conveyance on SE 144th St with eventual discharge into the creek next to 154th pI SE. It is unlikely any of these projects contributed significant recharge to groundwater and to the landslide that occurred near SE 148th St and 158th Ave SE. In addition, the clearing of an area has a much greater effect on runoff than on recharge, and can actually reduce recharge because of the increase of impervious pavement and removal of shallow perched zones of groundwater, especially at the locations of these developments because of the nature of the subsurface in this location. See the response to question 11 for additional information. Also, you should note that some of the older houses in the area are (or were at one time) on septic systems --such drainfields contribute water to the shallow groundwater system. This is not the case for the newer construction such as the 4 subdivisions, which are on sanitary sewers. 2) What can be done to minimize future comparable events? A: The landslide at SE 148th St and 158th Ave SE was groundwater driven, in that there was no surface runoff until the groundwater expressed itself on the slope. We believe that this event was mostly a natural occurrence -- similar landslides probably occurred throughout history since the Cedar River cut its valley and left this slope. It is hard to work against natural phenomena, and such landsliding is mainly a problem for the property owner on top or beneath the landslides. King County, like other jurisdictions, tries to limit development in areas like this, through its landslide hazard critical area regulations. Our records indicate that there is some possible, but minor, human element in initiation of this slide. A reconnaissance of this drainage in 2003 documented trash and ·yard debris and other junk" in the area that failed. This trash may have contributed to the failure by restricting groundwater discharge, loading the slope, and by preventing establishment and growth of vegetation. So, general maintenance I cleanup of drainage channels and vegetation establishment could help forestall a landslide temporarily, but would have little effect against the deeper, overwhelming, natural driving forces that really cause these landslides. If property owners are concerned about landslides regarding a slope on their own property they should consult a Geotechnical Engineer for recommendations. Weathering, sloughing, and even collapse of slopes is an ongoing natural process. without site-specific information, it is unknown where the groundwater will express itself and thus initiate slope instabilities. Given such uncertainties, and the great expense to study and remediate a slope stability problem, it is probably better for some property owners to wait until there is a better indication that protection of the slope would in fact be necessary. 3) This slide occurred in a Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone. By what methodology and based on what datasets was the boundary of the Aquifer Page 2 of7 http://bylllfd.baylll.hotmail.msn.comlcgi -bini getmsg?curmbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 411 0/2006 MSN Hotmail - zone set? A: The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area was mapped using regional-scale maps of surficial geology and soils, estimates of depth to water, and protective designations such as Wellhead protection Areas and/or Sole Source Aquifers. The specific vicinity of the slide was mapped to be a Category 2 mainly because the surface soils are glacial outwash materials (Vashon Recessional Outwash or Qvr) that readily infiltrate water. With any regional scale mapping or interpretation, there are going to be errors about where exactly the boundaries from one zone to another should be drawn. There are methods for revising these mappings, and they are being revised on a long-term basis. You should note that at the hillside in question, the regional geologic map shows a dense geologic unit (Vashon Till or Qvt) underlying the Qvr which prevents much of the water from flowing to deeper zones, so this could be allowing (or forcing) the groundwater to flow out to the slope in this area, and thus make the slope more susceptible to landsliding. Some of our personnel, who examined the slope soon after the landslide, report that the Qvt is not present at the immediate location. However, they did report that the landslide slope does show a Qpf layer that is also a low permeability geologic unit (generally lying deeper than the Qvt) and which similarly limits the deeper infiltration of groundwater. You should also note that further north, away from the slope, the Qvt is mapped to be at the surface, including in the area of the four developments you discussed in Question 1. In this case these parcels probably contribute little recharge directly on their sites. If Qvt is at the surface, then there is no Qvr at the locations of the developments, so there may not be a near-surface aquifer way to communicate groundwater from these locations to the landslide area. We don't have the regional scale geologic map available on our web site, but you can see the best present King County geologic map via the UW area: http://geomapnw.ess.washington.eclu/index.php?toc=maintoc&body=services/maps. htm <http://geomapnw.ess.washington.edu/index.php?toc=maintoc&body=services/maps .htm> (The map is very large so you should have a high-speed connection to view it. ) 4) Has this event "pulled the plug" on the aquifer recharge zone? A: No, we do not think that this event has "pulled the plug" on the aquifer (this applies to the entire aquifer rather than just the recharge zone) -- i.e., we don't think that subsequent recharge will just flow out immediately without building up (such as happened at the High Rock site near Monroe) . As mentioned in the previous response, there is a layer of Qvt or Qpf that impedes deeper infiltration. When recharge reaches this nearly impervious layer the water above it moves horizontally, and usually flows out at lower elevations as springs along the hillside. The small amount of material that was lost due to this slide has not substantially reduced the storage capacity of the aquifer, nor has it opened up a major channel for discharge. Because the slide probably has not pulled the plug on the aquifer, a similar series of rainfall events will likely produce a similar result of infiltrated water seeking an expression on the Cedar River Valley slope as it did this time, and perhaps initiate further landsliding. 5) Is the aquifer recharge zone now at higher risk for settling and subsidence? Should property owners be aware of such a risk? What can they do to prepare for such occurrence? A: Subsidence should not be a problem on the top of the plateau as long as "piping" does not occur within the landslide scarp area. (Piping is the erosion out of soil materials by continued water flow from a hillside --it occurred in the big landslide that temporarily dammed the Cedar River a couple thousand feet west of this slide, after the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001 and local landowners had gravel "shot" into the widening hole to stop Page 3 of7 http://by111fd.bay111.hotmail.msn.coml cgi -bini getmsg? curmbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/10/2006 MSN Hotmail - the piping.) Our field personnel report that there had been evidence of piping that occurred immediately after the landslide, but these "pipes" were dry soon afterwards and no more erosion was taking place (the little bit of seepage that continued was occurring further down the slope). Note that subsidence is not an issue regarding the recharge zone further back from the cliff, but only a local condition above the slide area. A greater threat is the soil movement that can be a direct effect of landsliding, with the properties at the top of the slope starting to move along with the soil as it begins to fail (even if the houses do not fall down the hill). Property owners along and close to the bluff edge should be aware of the possibility of landsliding at some time in the future, and contract a geotechnical study of their property if they want to get some kind of reassurance. Again, this does not apply to the bulk of the aquifer recharge area, away from the bluff. 6) will the aquifer recharge zone be able to store future rainfall, or will the water continue to shoot out the side of the hill? A: The aquifer appears still able to store future rainfall. It is likely the short time and high rainfall amount was the cause of an overflow of the localized storage available underground. This is similar to having a bowl overflow when too much liquid is poured into it. When the groundwater has a chance to spread out it will reach the appropriate elevation for the flow from the slope to reduce or stop. But like a bowl, if you put too much water in it, it will overflow. (This question appears to be the same as Question #4.) 7) Under ideal circumstances, what can property owners in the aquifer recharge zone do to minimize future similar events? What development standards and practices could be set in place to minimize future comparable events? A: This landslide (like many others in the area, throughout history) appears to be a natural event driven by rainfall, soil type, soil geology, and erosion, rather than a mistake by anyone individual or group. It is a complex interaction and a concerned property owner may want to contact a Geotechnical Engineer for a more complete evaluation of their own property. Without knowing all the causes and interactions a conclusion for the best development standards and practices cannot be determined. 8) What are the exact locations of all the slides currently being monitored (or resulting from the same events as the largest slide)? A: We are aware of the following landslides in the vicinity and have investigated them but no monitoring plan is in place at this time. i. 14911 SE 145th p1 ii. 14217 SE 146th St iii. 13715 139th Ave SE 9) How may we correctly request maps of the drainage features upstream of each of these slide locations? A: For flow control and water quality facilities outside a highway Right-of-Way contact Dave Hancock at 206-296-8230. For drainage features inside a King County Right-of-Way contact the Department of Transportation at 206-296-8100. Page 4 of7 http://bylllfd.baylll.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-bini getmsg?curmbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/10/2006 MSN' Hotmail - 10) What is the communication model by which the lessons learned from these events are communicated to DDES so that future subdivision applications are reviewed with appropriate consideration of the circumstances that led to these events so that future negative events can be minimized? A: As in the answer to Question #7 (and other responses), we believe that this recent event was substantially natural. We already have regulations to avoid infiltration too close to the edge of a potentially unstable slope. In general, across the extent of King County, we want to encourage recharge / infiltration, to preserve the groundwater resources that sustain stream flows and fish habitat. However, we already try to avoid allowing infiltration too close to unstable slopes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Some precipitation is captured by re/detention ponds, some flows off as surface runoff and some soaks into the ground and becomes ground water, recharging aquifers. Clearing of vegetation accelerates the speed at which precipitation and some surface water soak into the ground because trees/vegetation slow this process and also capture some pf the water for their own use. I don't know how rapidly this occurs, but certainly there was a direct connection between massive volumes of rain and the huge increases in the groundwater that apparently precipitated the slide. I can't see the flaw in the logic that clear cutting acres and acres of ground may well have contributed to increased volumes of groundwater in the aquifers and that this happened much more rapidly than it did when the trees/vegetation were there. It seems to me that rain slowly seeping into the earth would spread the increase in the volume of groundwater over a greater amount of time and reduce the probability of a slide. A. In general, development of a site causes less water to infiltrate and more water to leave the site as surface runoff. Observation of these four projects is consistent with this generality because surface water was seen leaving the site from the flow control facilities long after the actual rainfall has ceased. The surface water that leaves these sites is conveyed as surface water to the stream along 154 PI SE. While a small amount of this water may infiltrate in the roadside ditches, the vast majority of surface runoff was safely conveyed away from any area where it could have contributed to this landslide, perhaps even all the way down to the Cedar River. It is correct that removing vegetation can affect the hydrology of a site. Usually, a vegetation-covered site will infiltrate a much larger percentage of rainfall than a cleared site. However, the top layer of soil under the vegetation, especially in forested areas, is much more important from a hydrologic standpoint. The variable ground surface, vegetation and ground litter slows the movement of runoff across the land giving it more time to infiltrate. The near-surface soil in the area of these developments is derived from till (Qvt) a soil type called Alderwood soils, and very different from the soil (Qvr, or Everett soils) that is present near where the landslide occurred. Alderwood soil has a very slow infiltration rate and tends to resist additional moisture. These four development sites capture nearly all runoff in the drainage catch basins and detention system. It is not immediately apparent that water infiltrating at these sites would even reach the landslide area. In short, because this landslide was a groundwater related incident it is unlikely that the mentioned developments had any influence on the cause of the landslide. Please feel free to share this e-mail with your members or anyone else. Also, feel free to contact me if you have further questions. Yours, --Ken Ken Johnson Page 5 of7 http://by111fd.bay111.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-binl getmsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 411 012006 MSN. Hotmail -, Water & Land Resources Division Dept. of Natural Resources & Parks 201 S. Jackson St., Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Internal mailstop (MS): KSC-NR-0600 Web: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/wq/groundwater.htm <http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/wq/groundwater.htm> Phone: (206) 296-8323 Fax: (206) 296-0192 -----Original Message----- From: Highlands Neighbors [mailto: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com <mailto: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> 1 Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:44 AM To: Johnson, Ken Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! Good Morning, Mr. Johnson! So sorry for the long delay. I have been saving up all the questions coming in to us, and today I am finally sending them along to you! please let me know if clarification is need on any of the following. You have an eager audience of hundreds awaiting your expertise! 1) To what degree did the 4 most recently cleared subdivision sites (Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place) contribute to this event? 2) What can be done to minimize future comparable events? 3) This slide occurred in a Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone. By what methodology and based on what datasets was the boundary of the Aquifer zone set? 4) Has this event "pulled the plug" on the aquifer recharge zone? 5) Is the aquifer recharge zone now at higher risk for settling and subsidence? Should property owners be aware of such a risk? What can they do to prepare for such occurrence? 6) Will the aquifer recharge zone be able to store future rainfall, or will the water continue to shoot out the side of the hill? 7) Under ideal circumstances, what can property owners in the aquifer recharge zone do to minimize future similar events? What development standards and practices could be set in place to minimize future comparable events? 8) What are the exact locations of all the slides currently being monitored (or resulting from the same events as the largest slide)? 9) How may we correctly request maps of the drainage features upstream of each of these slide locations? 10) What is the communication model by which the lessons learned from these events are communicated to DDES so that future subdivision applications are reviewed with appropriate consideration of the circumstances that led to these events so that future negative events can be minimized? And here is a snip of an email from one of our neighbors. She really captures the essence of the comments I have received from many folks. We would very much appreciate it if you could address these issues as well: 11) Some precipitation is captured by re/detention ponds, some flows off as surface runoff and some soaks into the ground and becomes ground water, recharging aquifers. Clearing of vegetation accelerates the speed at which precipitation and some surface water soak into the ground because trees/vegetation slow this process and also capture some pf the water for their own use. I don't know how rapidly this occurs, but certainly there was a direct connection between massive volumes of rain and the huge increases in the groundwater that apparently precipitated the slide. I can't see the flaw in the logic that clear cutting acres and acres of ground may well have contributed to increased volumes of groundwater in the aquifers and that this happened much more rapidly than it did when the trees/vegetation were there. It seems to me that rain slowly seeping into the earth would spread the increase in the volume of groundwater over a greater amount of time and reduce the probability of a slide. We look forward to hearing your analysis of these questions. Page 6 of7 http://bylllfd.baylll.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-bini getmsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 411 0/2006 MSN.Hotmail- I Thank you for all you assistance, Gwendolyn C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org <www.highlandsneighbors.org> >From: "Johnson, Ken" <Ken.Johnson@METROKC.GOV> >To: 'Highlands Neighbors' <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> >Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! >Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:34:40 -0800 > >Thank you for getting back to me. I have a meeting in Redmond at 4:00 so >will probably be unavailable in the late afternoon, but will be happy to >talk. If the issue is not pressing, perhaps next week will be easier to >do. > --Ken > >-----Original Message----- >From: Highlands Neighbors [mailto:highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com <mallto: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> 1 >Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:31 AM >To: Johnson, Ken >Subject: Thanks for your call! > >Good Morning, Mr. Johnson! > >I'm so sorry I haven't returned your call. I have been ill and am now >catchin gup on about a milliom threads. I hope to give you a ring this >afternoon to chat more about the groundwater situation on the North Cedar >River Plateau. > >Thanks! >Gwendolyn > > > >C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell > ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... >www.highlandsneighbors.org <www.highlandsneighbors.org> > Page 7 of7 http://by111fd.bay111.hotmai1.msn.comlcgi-binigetmsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOO00%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/10/2006 V A-C -05 -O{)'/ FE>,.-A: TIONFOR STREE::rVACATlvN"i. " : IN THE CITY'OFREN'TON "" i CITY,9f'~ENTON AUG 2 5 2005 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Renton Date 8-26~-DS-------~---=----------------RECEIVED Circulated By: jAAJ'IG5 J A-c tDu fdIf CLERK'S OFFICE 1055 S.GradY Way Renton, W A 98055 IJ • ., Of, Address: /2/ b p(J 351-'Sf Dear Ma)'or and Council Members: . Telephone: 'i~S:--2M /:.... "gb9 We, the und~~sigpe.d prqp~rty Qwn~rs [tbutting a certain portion of public Right-of-Way, respectfully requesrtlie vacation of the street or alleyway as d~scriped .. Qri;'ilie attached' "Exhibit A" and commonly known as:;CC02AR } D ItV;;:::;::..s::&" (Insert closest cross streets and reference the street name, i.e. NE Bog Street from Bicycle Alley to Slalom Avenue NE.) We request a time and place be fixed when this petition will be heard by the City Council. '.' Of the property owners abutting the area of this petition leO. % [213 or more required) of the lineal fronmgehave agreed anclindicated their joining this petition::with their signatures .f· below: SirJ~ . .... AMas .~ A-U)u 6S Cft./ I-~ ~ t-,q signature print name phone print name (2/b iii 3t'ffl S·~ R~IV wA address address property idep@QatiollJll,lmp~r property identific.atiQn.nuPlb~r Instructions: . 1. Insert name of street. (i.e. NE 4tK~; hll~yway east of Sunset Blvd.) 2. Attach complete legal description (i.e. metes and bounds, etc.) 3. Have the appliQable:propert:y\o~e~;provide the following: .. a) .. Sign name. (Sigmitui'es 'of owners' of 273 "of lirieaIffontage must sigii~ Spouses do not need to sigp. Owners in common must sign.) b) Print name and phone num:ber. phone c) List Property address and King County tax parcel identification number. 4. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries. 5. Attach a brief statement of the purpose to be served by the street vacation. 6. Submit $250.00 filing fee with application. SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, SEVENTH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL. If and when the City Councl1:approves the vacation at a public hearinc~. payment of a post- hearing processing fee of$250.00 will be required. signature signature print name phone print name phone address address property identification number property identification number -------------.------------------.-----------------.------------------.--------- signature signature print name phone print name phone address address property identification number property identification number ------------------------.---------------------------------.-------------------- signature signature print name phone print name phone address address H:\File Sys\PRM -Property Services Administration\Administrative\FormslStreet Vacation Petition.doc , EXHffiIT "A" STREET VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION A STRIP OF LAND 5 FEET IN WIDTH LYING ALONG THE EASTERLY PORTION OF 152ND AVENUE SE RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 152ND AVENUE SE AND SE 136TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 00°23 '56" EAST ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF 152ND AVENUE SE A DISTANCE OF 186.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°00' 19" EAST A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING' THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 88°00'19" EAST A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF 152ND AVENUE SE; THENCE SOUTH 00°23 '56" WEST ALONG THE SAID EASTERL Y MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 132.92 FEET TO A POINT ON CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, ARC LENGTH OF 38.57 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88°24'15" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY, BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH MARGIN OF SE 136TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 88°00'19" WEST ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 5.00 FEET TO A POINT ON CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET, ARC LENGTH OF 38.57 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88°24'15" TO A POINT OF TANGENCY; THENCE NORTH 00°23'56" EAST A DISTANCE OF 132.92 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SITUATED WITH THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTRY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON .~ I I I I f 1 /' \~ \Jl I III I~ 1 LOi 29 Q \ ~ $ ~ IV' :30' LOT 2B -J~ 0J Ol 5' N Ol N t<') --~ ~ UNPLATTED N 1/4 OF SEc-nON FND 3" BRASS SURFACE DISC (AUGUST. 2005) N 88"00'19" W 274.25' \SS1 ~ tid tid -~ H ttl ~ E t-3 H _ ~ -b!I '''V w \ ~ i~ \ ~ ~ W {g~ ~ ~ .& --j o. III '" }'-l LOT 1 OF KING COUN'TY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 484106, AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNB'T'I RECORDING NO. 7505170617. ;r, N r---If) w ~ = r" N~ 0 b ~§ Z~ r n ..,~ L() ~ Z 0 f~ "'~ \ ~ Z :30' I :30' R=25.00 I l;;38.57 31\-! Ton=24'8"24'15" Delto=8 '. ( SITUATE IN THE CI'T'I OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON R=2S.00 l=38.57 Ton=24.31 Oelto=88"24'15" 5.00' o "l N 88"00'19" W 249.94' N 88'00"9" W o "l .., ... ~ ~~ !.D "flr ~ It o o z ~ SE 136TH STREET l?€-?-"u<l)~y -- \ --:-2 T LO~ \ -:-, T LOT-5 - \ -----LOi 1 LOT £ TLOT-7 \ LOT B " HIGliLANO EST A itS i REC NO 2(I0¥,20SOO002J '" Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 April 4, 2006 Re: lUA~05-124, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Examiner, In order to preserve my rights under RCW 58.17.165, as affirmed in Halverson v. Bellevue (41.Wn. App. 457), I submit this letter and the attached copies of my deed paperwork regarding an easement recorded as King County recording number 7612100059. This documentation is submitted in order to place it in the official public record in the above referenced Land Use Application in the event that further action should become necessary. Preservation of my rights to the easement and the ingress/egress use of the property is my priority. While I have met with Mr. Ron Hughes, representing the applicant, no agreement has yet been reached. I believe that the final decision on the subject application must not be rendered until after such time that an agreement between me and the applicant is completed and duly filed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, '(MVlhUtlu-Clp.A,1((~ Kimberlie Clairmont 107 Vesta Ave NE aka 13407 lS6th Ave Sf Renton, WA 98059 206-271-6494 N -re ·-( -'ar. W!6 ---' 10 ,., 8 30 DECLARATION OF EASEMEN'l' DIRECTOR RECORDS L LLECnONS KING C-::~~.~·(. WA.!'-L GRANTORS, GEORGE H. BALES and ALICE C. BALES, :1i5 wife, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits of the parties, do hereby grant and convey to ANDREW H. FORRAS and NANCY L. FORRAS. his wife. GRANTEES. an easement for ingress and egress over the following described real estate situated in King County. Washington: That portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14. To~nship 23 North. Range 5 East. W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears North 87°58'50" W~st 30.01 feet and North 00°28'50" East 30.01 feet from the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the said Northwest quarter; thence North 00°28'50. Eagt 600.33 feet to the point of beginning7 thence continuing North 00028'50~ East 10 feetJ thence N~rth 88°04'29" West 152 feet: thence South 00°28'50' West 10 feet: thence South 88°04'29a East 152 feet to the point of beginning. hereinafter referred to as the easement property, subject to the following limita~ions and covenants: 1. Duration. The easement shall be perpetual. -2. Benefit. The easement shall be for the use and benefit of the Grantees, their successors and as~igns of the Grantee's interest to the following described property: A portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Town- • snip 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point yhich bears North 87°58'50" West 30.01 feet and North bo028'SO· East 30.01 feet from the Southeast corner of ~he Southeast quarter of said North- west quarter: thence North 00°28'50" East 5~6'54 feet to the pOint of b9ginning; thence North 88°04'29" West 152 feet; thencf: :torth 00°28'50" East 63.79 feet: thence South 88°04'29" East 152 fef:t: thence South 00°28'50. West 63.79 feet to the point of beginning, herein~~te~ referred to as the benefited property. 3. ~se. The easement property shall be used only for ingress and egress to the easement property and to the benefited property. Parking shall ~e prohibited upor. the ea~ement prope=~y. Page One " . ....... --:.:. :::. ~,:. _. - .;\~ "..v.\.:. }I~':.:".· I ,. "'!'! 4. Reservation~. Grantors reserve for Grantors, their heirs, successors. devisees and assigns, the right to use the easement pro- perty for all purposes not inconsistent with the use for ingress and egress from the benefited property. 5. M·:\intenance. Grantees, their successors and assigns, cove- nant and agree, at their sole cost and expense, to maintain the ease- ment property in its present condition or in such improved condition as may be attained in the future, except that the Grantees, their successors and assigns, will not be responsible for repairing or correcting any damage to or destruction of the easement property, or any part thereof, caused by other parties in conjunction with or as a result of services or work performed for the establishment of improvements, which ioprovements are contracted for, requested or accepted by the Grantors, their heirs, successors, devisees and assigns to the following described property; That portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.K. in King County, Washington, _described as follows: Beginning at a point whtch bears North 87·58'50· West 30.01 feet and North 0002S'SO" East 30.01 feet from the Southeast quarter of said Northwest quarter: Thence North 00°28'50" East 600.33 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 00°28'50. East 30.01 feet; thence North 88°04'29" West 1,248.44 feet; thence South 00°23'52" l'lest 157.07 feet; thence South 88 0 03'05" East 1,096.22 feet: thence North 0002S'SO· East 127.52 feet; thence South 88°04'29" East to the West margin of l56th Avenue Southeast, a distance of 152 feet, to the point of beginning_ DATEn tois day of November, rc=t(<<~&~ George H~>Ba1es . 1976. (' I {j : t. r-I,?a (L_ Alice C. Bales STATE OF WASHINGTON 5S. COm-,TY OF KING ~. a IryU. .) On this __ ~ __ day of November, 1976, before me, the undersigned, EXHIBIT "A" PARCEL A: That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point north 87 degrees 58'50" west 30.01 feet and north 00 degrees 28'50" east 30.01 feet from the center of said Section 14; thence north 00 degrees 28'50" east along the west margin of August Gerber Road 536.54 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 88 degrees 04'29" west 152 feet; thence north 00 degrees 28'50" east 63.79 feet; thence south 88 degrees 04'29" east a distance of 152 feet; thence south 00 degrees 28'50" west 63.79 feet to the true point of beginning; PARCELB: An easement for ingress and egress as set forth in instrument recorded under King County Recording No. 7612100059. This Space Reserved For RecorUcr's lise: Filed (or Record at Request o( CRAIG D, THIELBAR, ATTORNEY AT LAW AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: Name ______ ~SITliEV~E~N~BL_~&LAAL~E~,C~I~A~A~~ELUW~E~L~L~ __________ ___ Address 29723 -56th Gt, S, City. State. Zip Auburn. WA 98001-2371 Escrow number: 96E10014 DEED OF TRUST (For use i/I the State oJ Wasilillgloll Ollly) THIS DEED OF TRUST, made this '07 day of November KIMBERLIE J. CLAIRMONT and ARNOl~ M. HALL, both single persons whose address is 13407 ' 156th Avenue Southeast, Renton, WA 9B059 COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY whose address is 425 Pike Street, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98101 STEVEN B. ELWELL and ALECIA A. ELWELL, husband and wife ,19 96 ,hctwecn ,GRANTOR, , TRU~'TEE, , and , BENEFICIARY, wllose.'lddr"Mis 29723 -56Lh Court South, Auburn, lilA 9800~-2371 , ~ d T 51 Tr st, with power of sale, the followllJg WITNESSETI1: Grantor hereby harg,.ins, sells all conveys to ru cc I~ u , K' Counly Wa.~hlRgton: described rcal propcrty In lug '. E A PART HER"'OF LECAL DESCRIPTION IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND IS MAD ~ . ADDITIONAL COVENANTS: 1. The Note secured hereby contains a provision for late charges, 2. The Note secured hereby contains a provlslon prohibiting prepayment. 3, This property may not be sold, trnl1sferred or further encwnbered. Breach of this prOVision will resul t in all sums secured by this Deed of Trust becoming inunediately ,e J: d payable in full. INITIAL: which real property is nol used principally for agricultural or fanning purposes, together with all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances now or hereafter thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining, and the rcnts, issues and profits thereof. This deed is for the purpose of securing performancc of each agreement of grantor herein cOlltained, and payment of the sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND Fl VE HUNDRED DOLLARS Dollars ($ 124,500,00) AND NO/IOO with intcregt, itt act;ordallcc with tb lerms fir ,a prj~ntir;sor)l note of. CVC.1l dgtte herewith, payable to Beneficiary or order, and '\lade by Grantor, and all renewals, l\1oJ.ficatllms and extensIOns thereof, and also such further sums as may be advanced or loaned by Beneficiary to Grantor, or any of their successors or a'i.~igns, together with interest thereon at sucll rate as shall be agreed IIpon. To protect the security of this Deed of Trust, Grantor Covenants and agrees: ,1. To keep tbe property in good condition and rc air' to ' Imp~ovement being built or abollt to be built thcrton; 'to r~:r~;~t ~o waste thcre~r; ~o complete any building, structure or Wh;t!. ?I:ly ~ d~lI\agt:d or dcstroyc-d; and to comply with all t ~~Ptl~, any buddmg, 51~ucture or imprOVement thereon res nctlOns a ectlllg the property. a\lls, or mances, regulatIOns, L"Ovcnants, condiliolls and 2 'J0..;>ay before delinquent 31 encumbrances impairing the 15 taxes and assessments upon tbe property: to kL-~p U)C property rree f Ihi. Deed ofTtus!. " of all olher ehatges, liens or 3. To keep all buikJings now or hereafter erected on the properly described herejn C<"Il1tfnuo~ly insured against loss by fire or other hazards in aD amount nol less than the tolal debt lOCCu(cd by this Deed of TrusL AU policies shall be held by the RenerlCiary, and be in sueh companies as the Ilcncficiury may upprove and howe los.c;, payable first to the Bcncriciary. us its intcres1 ma,Y appenr, and then to the Cirantor. The amount collected under any insurance policy Dlay b~ applied upnn any indebtedness hereb~ secured In sUl"h order as the Ucneliriary shan detetmine. Such applk-Illion hy the Denefioary shall not L'3USC dlscontinuant'C of any p.rocecdmg& Lo foreclose Ihis Deed or Trust. [0 the event of foreclosure, all ngills of the (i,·anto .. in in~urancc. policies then in force shall pass to the purcbaS(!r at the rorctlo.~ure sale. 4. 'Ii. Ltdcnd uny m'liun Of J\nk·ct.tlin~ I'uqllirling to .arlcl'1 till' foct·unly helcn! Hr the ril!ht,; or rumc", of Bcncfichu'Y urTrustee, and 10 pay 1111 cnsls alUl eXl'enses, including l"tV.t 01 titlc !o:C.1rL'h and uUorney's fees ii' a reasonable amount, in any such 8clinn or proceeding. and in any ~uil brought by 1lcneflCiory 10 fored""" Ihi. Uccd of Trust. S. To l"'Y all coots, fees and expenses in conne.1ion with Ihis Deed of Trust. inclUding the expenses of the Trustee incum:d in enforeing the oblignllon secured hereby and Trustee's and attorney's fct.-s actually incurred. os provided by statute. 6. Should (irantor fall to pay whtn duc any taxc£, ilSSCQiIl1Cnts, insurance prc",iumlii, liens, encumbrances or other chargcs against the property hereinabove described, BenerlCiary may pay the sume, and the amuunt so paid, with illierest at the tate set forth in the note secured herebYl shall be added 10 and berome a ra't of Ihe dohl ,",cured in this Deed ofT,u,\. IT IS M UTUAlJ.. Y AGlllilID ·11IA"I", 1. In lhe evenl •• y portion of lhe property i. taken or damaged in an eminenl domain proceeding. Ihe enlire amount of lhe award OJ" such portion as may be nec .... ry to fully sali.fy lhe obligalion secured hereby, shall be paid 10 Beneficiary 10 be applied 10 said obligation. 2. 8y accepting paymcnt o( allY sum secutcd hClcby after ils due dale, Rcnefiri:uy docs not waive liS right to require prompt payment when due of aU other sums so .secured or 10 d~clarc default fOT failure 10 so pay. 3. The Trustee sholl reconvey all or any part of the property covered by this Deed of Trust 10 the JIC""''' entilled thereto. 011 wriUc" request of Ihe Gmntor and the Ilenefitl8ry. or upon salisfaction of Ihe obligalion secured and ... rillen request for ...,.,.,nveyana: made by lhe Benel1ciary or Ihe peroun enlilled Iherelo. 4. Upon default by Grantor in the payment of any indebtedness secured hereby or in the pcrformnnce nf any agreement contained herein, all sums secured hereby shall immediately become due and payable at the oplion of tbe Oc.neliciary. In such event and upon written -request of Beneficiary. Trustee shall sell the t.rust propcr1y, in acrordance with the Deed of Trust Act of the State of Washington, at puhlic auction to the highest bidder. Any pcmoo C:JCl~r.t Trmlcc nmy hid nt T ... aslee's sale. Trustee shan apply tbe proceeds or Ihe sale as rouows: (1) to the expense of the sale. including u reasonable. 1"rm;lcc's fee und ullnnlCY's fcc: (2) to the obligalion .s.ccurcd by Ihis Uecd or Trust; (3) the surplus. U eny. sball be distributed 10 the persons entitled lhcl·elo. 5. TNsiec shall deliver to the purchascr at the sale its deed, without warmnty, whirh shall convey to the purchaser the interest in the properly which Omntor had or had the power to convey at the time of his exccution of this need of Tru,;t, and such as he may have aquircd thereafter. Trustee's deed shall recitc the [aels showing that the sale was conducted in t.'()mpli.:.nce wilh all Ihe requirements of law and oC this Deed of Trust, which recital shall be prima ('l4;ie cvidcnc:c (If IWl·h t:ompliatl('c o.nd conclusive evidence thereof in f.:.vur or bona fide pu«haser and encumhrancers for value. 6. The power of sale ronferrctl bl'his l>eed of Tru", and by Ihe Deed of T ..... 1 Acl of lhe Slate or Washington is not an exdusiYC remedy; Benefiaaty may cause this Deed 0 Trust 10 be foreclosed as n mortgage. 7. In Ihe even. of the dCJ1lh, incapnl'ily. disability or resignation of Trustce, Beneficiary mlly' appoint in writing a 5ucte.~sor trustee, and upon the recording of such appoinlmcnl in Ihe HlortJ::agc rel'ord.1Ii. of Ihe rouniy in which this Decd uf l'rust IS recordedl 'he succCSSOr trustee Shllll be ve. .. ted with aU powers of thc.l,,"i~in .. llruslcc. The lrw.tce is nol obligated (u notify any Jlcu1y hereto of (lcnding sale under any other Deed of Trus( or of any action or proceeding .. which (i,aIlIO,., Trustee or Ilenefidary shall be a party unl ... such actioll or pro.:eeding is brought by the Trustee. 8. This Deed of Trust applies to, inures to the benefit or. and is binding not only on the parties hereto, but on their heirs, devisees. lCb'ilICt".5, administtalors, c~culo'" and assigns, The term Beneficiary shall mean the holder and owne .. of the note secured hereby, whether or not named as Deneficiary herein, STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KlliL __ ARNOLD M. HAL ------}ss ------- I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that KIMBERLIE J. CLAIRMONT AND ARNOLD M. HALL ~r~ the person_",._ who appeared before me. and said person _s __ acknowledged that ~ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be the i r free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this Instrument. Dated: 1/-llf-9'.6 ~I""""'.' __ _ II>.~~ ~G D. "It ",",-II>" q..tI ........... ,.~ .. ~ I Ci .... ~9810'" ;. ••• ~~ \ • -~o~ +..0-.. .".':. : {<i NotAFIY 'i!\;;g ~ : ~: : :~l :...-fA! ! :~\~""'alJC ! = ~~ •••• G'/i; p,'I.~~~ -::. (\' •• ••• '87 30. \~""AO ~ ' ... O,e-.......... ~" !O .. .. ~III WASl-I\ ...... ~ ..... ",',' ~~~. ~~ for the State of WASHINGTON Residing at FEDERAL WA'L _____ _ My appointment expires:~ta13_QL97 REQUEST FOR FUll. RECONVEYANCE Do 1101 record. robe IIsed oitly wllellllo/c lias bcelll'oid. TO: TRUSTEE. The undersigned is tbe legal Ilwner anti holder of tbe nule and all other indebtedness secured by the within Deed of Trust. Said note, lo/,<ether with all other indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust, bas been fully paid and sati~fied· and you are hereby requested and directed, on payment to you of any sums owing to you under tfte terms of said Deed of Trust, to cancel said note above menlioned, and all olher eviden(es or indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust delivered 10 you herewilh, together willi the said Dwd of TruMI and to reconvey, without warranty, to the parties designated by the terms of said Deed of Trust, alllhc estate now hela by you thereunder. Dated ______________ • 19. __ Filed at Request of and AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: Kimberlie CIairmont 13407 -156th Ave. S.E. Renton, WA 98059 QUIT CLAIM DEED THE GRANTOR. ARNOLD M. HALL, an unmarried person, for and in consideration of Love and Affection, conveys and quit claims to KlMBERLIE J. CLAIRMONT, an unmarried person, the following described real estate, situated in the County of King, State of Washington, including any interest therein which Grantor may hereafter acquire: PARCEL A: That portion oftbe southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 13 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point north 87 degrees 58'50" west 30.01 feet and north 00 degrees 28'50" east 30.01 feet from the center of said Section 14; thence north 00 degrees 28'50" east along the west margin of August Gerber Road 536.54 feet to the true point of beginning; thence north 88 degrees 04'29" west 152 feet; tbence north 00 degrees 28'50" east 63.79 feet; thence south 88 degrees 04'29" east a distance or 152 feet; . thence south 00 degrees 28'50" west 63.79 reet to the true point of beginning; PARCELB: An easement for ingress and egress as set forth in instrument recorded under King County Recording No. 7611100059. Tax Parcel No.: 142305-9082-04 DATED TIllS 15th day of April, 1999. ARNOLD M HALL STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) S8. Coun~ofKmg ) . d that ARNOLD M HALL is the person I certify that I know or have satisfactory CV1 enLedce ed that he 5ioned the instrument, and peared beD and said person acknow g . c-d who ap . '. ore me, free d luntarY act ot such party ~r the uses an purposes acknowled~ed It, .J:.O be the an vo \\ \\ mentioned In ~he ilrstr\.'Ul\ent. \. \ ~ ~ \. \ , " Signature ' 5" ....... ' \ <" :=c.. h.. ==tbfn: r . Notary Public in and fOUitate of W gtOD. ~. Residing at Auburn. My commission expires: June 28, 2001. _, !i'''~''r f;"';:; April 4, 2006 To: r~r. Fred Kaufman, HEARING EXAMINER From: Edward and June Hill He: Boundary Dispute between our property and Highlands Park Preliminary Plat (Project File #LUA-05-124, ECF. PP) Please find enclosed eleven (11) pages of correspondence between Edward and June Hill and Burnstead Construction Co. parties regarding the boundary dispute between the Southeast corner of Highlands Park preliminary plat and the northern boundary of the Hill property. I am requesting this corres- pondence be placed in the public record for this hearing to preserve our property rights. We have tried since August 6,2004· to get this issue resolved and nothing has been settled to date. It is imperative this issue 1s resolved before final approval of this project. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Edward and June Hill 225 Vesta Ave SE Renton, WA 98059 (425)226-9686 ·~lWn··~ IV August 6, 2004 HELSELL rETTERMAN A I 'mlt~tI IIII/""'y /'drthrr1h,p Mr. Frederick H. Burnslead Burnstead Construction Company 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Jane S. Kiker ,1//Ol'll".l· /\1 La \1' Re: Colony Homes, King County Parcel No. 1423059047; Edward and June Hill Dear }V1r. Burnstead: This office has been retained by Edward and June Hill, who own property and reside at 13527 -156th Avenue SE, in unincorporated King County. The Hills are in receipt of your company's May 12, 2004, letter requesting that they sign the annexation petition for the Maplewood East Annexation to the City of Renton. A copy of that letter is attached. Burnstead's support of the proposed annexation indicates that it may have plans to develop --in the near future --its property that lies adjacent to the I-Iills' on 156lh Avenue SE. The King County Assessor's office indicates that the record ovvner of the parcel is Colony Homes, Inc., which appears to be a division of your company. In addition, although King County's on-line information for this parcel does not reflect any current development permits, the Hills have recently noticed some clearing and other work occurring on the property. In light of these new developments, the Hills have instructed me to bring to your attention on an urgent basis --prior to signing the annexation petition --an apparent discrepancy in your respective property titles, requiring prompt clarification. As you know, there is a substantial hedge and a chain-link fence that separate the two properties. This fence (or a similar one in the same location) was installed by the Hills over 20 years ago, and has been maintained (and replaced, as necessary) consistently to the present date. The fence follows the adjacent evergreen hedge that was established even prior to the Hills' acquisition of the property in 1970. For the past 30 years the Hills have used the property up to the fence and/or hedge line for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to aliorse pasture, and, more recently, their vegetable garden. In addition, the I-Iills have constructed a small garden shed partially within the narrow strip of property between the surveyed property line and this long-standing fence line. /.tlW Offices 1001 fOURTl1 AVENUE. SUITE 4200' SEArTLE. WA 98154-1154' r.o. nux 2184(,' SEATTLE. WA 98111-3846 I'll: UOu) 2<)2-11<14 rx: !lO(,) 340 0')02 ['\tAI]' ij@'hrL.dl.colII llfWIil.f,eutll.mm Frederick H. Burnstead August 6, 2004 page 2 The strip of land at issue here is approximately two feet wide at the front, northeast corner of the Hills' property (at 156th Avenue SE), and gradually increases to approximately five feet in width at t.q.e rear (northwest) corner of the Hills' property. Thus, the strip is probably not more than 600 square feet in size, total. In light of the foregoing, prior to signing the annexation petition, the Hills seek Burnstead's agreement to a boundary modification reflecting that the Hills' property extends all the way to the chain link fence and hedge that run the length of the north side of their property. This modification could be achieved by means of a simple quitclaim deed from Burnstead. The Hills' surveyor is willing to prepare a legal description describing the strip of land for purposes of expediting the process. We emphasize that this is a matter which requires resolution regardless of the status of the annexation petition. We look forward to hearing from you on this matter of urgent importance to our clients, and thank you in advance for your cooperation in reaching an amicable solution. Sincerely, HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP ~'l'- Jane S. Kiker JSK/les cc: Edward and June Hill G:\G Drive\LU\HILL\Burnstead-080604.doc 225 Vesta Ave.S~ Renton "::iA 98059 October 3, 2005 i\eil 1':atts, Ievelopment Services Iirector 6th Floor -1055 S. ~rady \>Jay 3.enton, vlA 98055 He: Eaplewood East -LUA-04-114 A,RZ,ECF ~aplewood Estates -Division 3 It has come to our attention that the above pre- application was recently submitted to Renton. Part of this proposed development includes Parcel #142305-90b 7 belonging to the Burnsteads. We are concerned because our property, Parcel #142305-9059, shares a boundary line with it. That boundary line is in dispute. You can see from the attached attorney's letter that we have attempted for more than a year to re- solve this situation with Colony ~omes and, spec- ifically, the Burnsteads. They have been unrespon- si ve, Cur fenceline has existed unchallenEed in various forms for more than 25 years. Because of this cir- cumstance, we do not believe that the application process should ~e allowed to go forward until our concerns have been addressed to our satisfaction. cc: ?rederick ~urnstead 30bert T'.acOnie .6onni e \1al ton p.3 October 27, 2005 Edward and June Hill ~ 1.'"'HE YJURNSIFADS 225 Vesta Avenue Sf Renton, Washington 98059 RE: Highlands Park -Boundary Line Dear M:". end Mrs. !-fill, . I'm writing in regards to your letter dated October 3rd, to Neil Watts. We have submitted a preliminary plat application for the proposed Highlands Park development located north of your property. The boundary survey completed by Core Design, has located your fence which encroaches onto our site. We would like to resolve this conflict and move forward with our project. Would you please forward a copy of your attorney's letter to our office so we can address your concerns. I have enclosed a self addressed stamped envelope for your convience. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (425) 454-1900 extension 233. Sincerely, BURN~ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~tG Ron Hug es, PE Cc: Neil Watts, City of Renton M!chael Chen, Core Design " ". '. ow."· I,r,. ", -," (" ... ::'.~'" . "--"~' : J2JS 1 20th AveTlue N.E., See. 201 BeIlerLJe.> 11'11. 98005-2135 425454 1900 Fax: 425 454 4543 ,'" "', Mr. Frederick H. Burnstead Burnstead Construction Company 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Burnstead: 225 vesta Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 November 7, 2005 Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to ~O~ by our attorney, dated August 6, 2004. Here is a good explanation of our position. We have an adverse possession property claim to the 2.96' -5.28' strip of land by 150.13' long. The fence and hedge have been there more than 20 years. We would be amenable to a Boundary Line Adjustment provided you pay all costs relating to said adjust- ment. The lot line adjustment runs the entire length of hedge and fence, east to west, plus 1" on the north side of our property. This means a simple quitclaim deed from you. We have a prepared legal description of the strip of land for purposes of expediting the process. Please respond in writing at your earliest convenience. Edward J. and June B. Hill CCI Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton Ron Hughes Michael Chen Keri Weaver November 17, 2005 Edward and June Hill f7')J THE ~URNSfFADS 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, Washington 98059 RE: Highlands Park -Boundary Line Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hill, I have reviewed your letter dated November 71t'"', which included the letter from your attorney, and we want to proceed with the quitclaim deed. Please forward the legal description describing the strip of land which your surveyor has prepared. Once the surveyors are in agreement with the existing fence location, I will have Core Design prepare the quitclaim deed. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (425) 454-1900 extension 233. Sincerely, BURNST:AD jONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~~ Ron Hughes, PE Cc: Neil Watts, City of Renton Michael Chen, Core Design 1215 120th AvenU!~ N.F" See. 201 8eJlemt.', H~1 98005-2135 425454 1900 Fax: 425 454454] I , Mr. Frederick H. Burnstead Burnstead Construction Co. 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Burnstead: 225 Vesta Ave. SE Renton, lofA 98059 November 30, 2005 Please find enclosed the legal description of the strip of land in dispute per your request. We would be amenable to a lot line adjustment and quit- claim deed or RCW 58.04 to resolve the· boundary issue provided you pay all costs relating to said adjustment. Flease respond in v-Tri ting at your earliest convenience. T.ofe must have our lawyer review all legal paperwork. 7~:Pf$f Edward & June Hill cc: Ron Hughes, PE ", Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton Keri Weaver Legal Description Of Occupation Along North Side Of Hill's Property: Beginning at a point 30 ft North and 3{) ft West of the C1mter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WM, said Center of Section being marked by an existing 1 Yz" axle in a monument case; thence NO° 28' 50"E on a line 30 ft west and parallel with the East line of the NW % of said section a distance of 157.51 to the North East comer of a parcel of land owned by Edward and June Hill as recorded in survey under 20020131900005 Records Of King County, Washington, and the True Point Of Beginning; thence N8SO 01' 2211W along the north line of said parcel a distance of 150.05 ft to the North West comer of said parcel; thence NO° 28' SOliE a distance of 5.28 feet; thence 887 0 08' 11 "E along the north side of an existing meandering wire fence a distance of 1 50.13 ft; thence Soo 28' 50"W a distance of 2.96 ft to the True Point Of Beginning. Mr. Frederick H. Bur~ri~tead Burnstead Construoti-on Ceo, 1215 l20th Avenue NE. Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Burnstead: 225 vesta Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 March 6, 2006 We responded to your letter of November 17, 2005 with the legal descr1ption of the strip of land in dispute per your request. To date, we have received no further correspondenoe from you. After speaking with Karl Wea.ver. Senior Ple,nner at Renton City Hall. it 1s our understanding the Hearing EXaminer may well postpone the Highlands Park hearing if this dispute is not resolved before the April 4, 2006 hearing date. Since we are oertain you will want to avoid further delay, we wondered if poss1bly you failed to recelve our re- sponse of November JO, 2005. If this 1s the SituatIon, we can provide you with another copy of the necessary information. Sincerely, ~~o.J)/74 Edward & June Hill cc:Ron Hughes, PE 'Neil Watts Hobert 'MacOnie Bonnie Walton Kerl Weaver Michael Chen March 13,2006 rT5} THE YJURNSfFADS Via Regular and Certified Mail Edward and June Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton W A 98059 Subject: Boundary Line Encroachment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hill The purpose of this letter is to agree on how to resolve the boundary line encroachment of your fence, garden, shed, and any other personal property along the Bumstead's southeast property line of Parcel # 1423059047. This area in question is approximately 600 square feet. After reviewing and verifying the legal description on our deed for Parcel # 1423059047, the 600 square feet of property in question is clearly owned by Colony Homes, Inc., a subsidiary of Bumstead Construction Company. We purchased the property approximately 20 years ago and have always paid the property taxes on the property you are claiming. Moving forward, and rather than fighting about this matter in court, Bumstead Construction Company would like to offer the following two options to the Hill residence to resolve this issue. Option 1: Bumstead Construction Co will pay Edward and June Hill the sum of$5,000.00 dollars in exchange for releasing all claims to the disputed property and we will also move the encroaching fence, at no cost to the Hill's, back to the true property line currently defined in the legal descriptions for Parcel # 1423059047 and # 1423059059. The $5,000.00 will be paid in cash upon written receipt of the Hills accepting this as a permanent resolution and will be non- refundable. Option 2: Edward and June Hill reject Option 1 and will have, at no cost to Bumstead, a I :~~/ Boundary Line Adjustment and a Quit Claim Deed recorded by May 15, 2006. The Boundary 1\ Line Adjustment will be created using the leg~l descripti.on the Hill~ provide~ in their Ie.tter to (;!~~~ Bumstead dated November 7,2005. If you WIsh to obtam ownershIp to the dIsputed stnp that IS . not a part of your legal description and that we have paid taxes on for many years, it is only fair that you bear the costs of formally adjusting the boundary line. Please inform us on how you wish to proceed. This letter and its options will expire April 3, 2006. Please sign accordingly below and return in the addressed and stamped envelope enclosed. Ifwe do not hear from you, we will pursue our other options for resolving this matter. 1215 120th Avenue N.E., Ste. 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 425454 1900 Fax: 425 454 4543 l --. (, -' • r ,. , i r folO! Edward and June Hill March 13, 2006 Page 2 We look forward to hearing from you. Respectfully, Bumstead Construction Co. -I /r){r~Jt~ Mary Jane .glye President I, Edward and June Hill, have chosen to accept Option # . Ifwe choose Option #1, upon receipt of $5,000.00 from Bumstead Construction Co., we forever release any and all claims concerning the disputed strip of property described above that contains approximately 600 sq. feet and we agree to move all personal property to allow Bumstead Construction Co. to move the fence to the true boundary line. Accepted: Edward Hill Property Owner Accepted: June Hill Property Owner Enclosure(s) Dated: ----------------------- Dated: ----------------------- p-1\ \J'\ r0) ~ ; ~'. [~. i U n I i ~ I I Hl&HLAND~ fA~~~~L'MINA~Y PlAl w" 0;·11-\1.,,,,, eCF , . :'.', -c.. r • ~ TAJ, Y.s1A~:MJJ~:f'l ~SfJ.:l ';'<JHAJHelH ~~ ~ ,''1 .fJ.rI·C?~ AIJJ April 3, 2006 Kayren Kittrick f'75} THE Y-JURNSTFADS Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: Highlands Park Dear Kayren, Enclosed are two copies of the reports from the following consultants, which address the concerns of CARE's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal: • Wetland Resources, Inc • Terra Associates, Inc • Core Design This information is submitted for your review prior to the public hearing tomorrow. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (425) 454-1900 extension 233. Sincerely, BURNSTE:D CJNSTRUCTION COMPANY ~~ Ron Hughes, PE ,~-.. -----\"" .. , - Enclosures ,--, .• ~;: ',.:.J \ \~~' •• j .' "ex ~'" .. ''''' (~{ 1215 120thAvenueN.E., Ste. 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 4254541900 Fax: 425 454 4543 I I . " TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction Company 1215 -120lh Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005-2135 Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Subject: The Proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision, Renton, W A March 31, 2006 Project No. T-5668-1 Comments on CARE's December 28, 2005 Statement of Appeal (Concerning CARE's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal) Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Highlands Park, Renton, Washington, Prqject No. T-5668-1, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated October 10, 2005 Dear Mr. Hughes: As requested, we have reviewed the subject December 28,2005 Statement of Appeal prepared by the Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE). In this letter, we comment on the portion of Issue 2 of the Statement of Appeal dealing with alleged anticipated disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the HigWands Park site and CARE's related statements set forth in various subsections on page 4 of the Statement of Appeal. We also comment on Issue 4 of the Statement of Appeal, which deals with the subject of phased clearing and grading. Issue 2 of CARE's Statement of Appeal Page 1 of CARE's Statement of Appeal sets forth a list of "Issues of Concern", Issue 2 states: "Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. • Level ill Study and mitigation facilities should be required. • The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only [sic] 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkfand, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 .. Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction Company March 31, 2006 Page 2 • Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally e:dsting groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. (Emphasis added). In this letter, we comment primarily on the last of the three above~stated bullet points, doing so in the context of certain of the assertions that CARE makes on pages 3 and 4 in its attempt to support that bullet point. (We understand that your consulting civil engineering firm, CORE Design, is addressing the first and second bullet points in a separate letter.) CARE's Supporting Assertions Concerning Issue 2 and Our Comments on Them On pages 3 and 4 of CARE's Statement of Appeal, CARE has set forth a llumber of things under the heading "ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL m STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUlRED". On those two pages, CARE has broken down those things under a number of subheadings. We address below the subheadings that relate primarily to the third bullet point noted above. CARE's Reference to Renton Municipal Code Section 4-7-130A On page 3 of CARE's Statement of Appeal, CARE quotes the Purpose statement ofRMC Section 4-7-130, which is entitled "ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS". CARE fails to explain the relevance ofthat quotation in relation to the Highlands Park proposal. CARE's Reference to Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3-050C.3.a and b Also on page 3 of CARE's Statement of Appeal, CARE quotes subsections C.3.a (General) and C.3.b (Aquifer Protection Areas) of RMC Section 4-3-050, a section that is entitled "CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS". CARE does not explain the relevance of these quotations to the Highlands Park proposal. Note that the quotation to subsection C.3.b deals with special protection to Renton's sole source aquifer, which is afforded special protection under the Renton Municipal Code. The City's Aquifer Protection Zones map makes clear that the Highlands Park site is located nowhere near an aquifer protection area. CARE's Reference to "Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties" Further on page 3 of CARE's Statement of Appeal, under the subheading "Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties", CARE refers to "the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concerns expressed by the owner of one of the project parcels." We have reviewed those letters. They all deal with shallow ground water concerns related to percolation testing for septic systems. The shallow soil depth in this area is natural and is due to the glacial till layer that exist 3" to 18" below the surface. It is true that tItis soil condition is not conducive to standard septic drainfields and has been a problem for many of the parcels in the area. However, tile Highlands Park subdivision will not pose a problem in tltis regard because a public sewer main will be constructed to serve all of the proposed lots. CARE's Reference to "Area Drainage Complaint Historv" In addition to the section of the Statement of Appeal under the subheading "Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties", on page 4 CARE also includes a section under the subheading entitled "Area Drainage Complaint Project No. TM5668-l Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction Company March 31) 2006 Page 3 History". In that section, CARE asserts that this topic "may ... have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional configuration currently in force." CARE does not offer any evidence that that was in fact the case, however. Rather, CARE states the following: We have included printouts from the King County JMap application (Exhjbits 4a, 4b and 4c) that shows (sic] historical drainage complaint sites likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project. Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE 136111 Street/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repairedJremediated several times The drain at the jWlction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136111 St/2nd had to be reworked And there were incidents where workers were heard to exclaim "We hit a pipe!!" when they had in actuality punctured a perched groundwater conveyance of considerable volume/throughput. CARE provides no evidence in support of its assertion that "historical drainage complaint sites [are] likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project." Exhibits 4a and 4b are copies of the same King County map from the imap website. Exhibit 4b is merely an enlarged version of Exhibit 4a. They show areas south, east and north of the Highlands Park project site where the County has received drainage complaints. Rather than exacerbate problems of the sort that CARE expresses concern about, by virtue of the construction of the storm water control facilities proposed as part of the Highlands Park development, the development will to a large extent mitigate the drainage situations underlying the complaints. This will be particularly true in the area to the south and downgradient of the Highlands Park site, an area that is the largest area shown on Exhibits 4a and 4b. The mitigation will occur because the planned storm water control system will (1) capture and control currently uncontrolled runoff from the site and (2) attenuate fluctuations that currently occur in the shallow perched groundwater. CARE's Reference to "Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination" On page 4 of the Statement of Appeal, under the subheading "Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination", CARE states: We include in this package, for your consideration and for the record a map from the King County JMap application that shows that 1) the location of huge Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area that borders the Cedar River for miles is within 25 vertical feet of the proposed stormwater discharge location from the proposed drainage control facilities (Exhibits 5a and 5b), and 2) the Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c) directly downstream and/or overlapping the Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The health and functionality of these natural systems are facing increased threat from tbe cumulative negative effects of development of the East Renton Plateau. Appropriate mitigation and protection is Renton's responsibility. While the project site is within 25 vertical feet of the surface elevation of tIle area outlined as a critical aquifer recharge area by King County and shown on Exhibits Sa and 5b the site also lies approximately 500 feet north of this County-designated critical aquifer recharge area. Any stonn water that is contained in the detention pond that may infiltrate into tlle ground will have to seep through over 500 feet of soil strata before possibly joining the Project No. T-5668-1 Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction Company March 31, 2006 Page 4 growldwater regime within the Cedar River Aquifer. TIns very long path of natural seepage through relatively low permeable soils will effectively treat any potential contaminants contained within stormwater generated from this residential plat. In addition, note that, in order to greatly limit infiltration from the proposed pond and optimize storm water quality treatment prior to discharge from the pond, on page 8 of our Preliminary Geotechnical Report we have recommended that, in areas of the proposed pond where native glacial till is absent, the pond should be over-excavated and lined with a minimum of two feet of the onsite low permeability till soil. In sum, (1) the proposed detention pond is unlikely to leak much water into the ground, and (2) the very long path length of natural seepage through low permeable till soils would effectively remove contantinants from that water. CARE's References to Section 5.8 of Our Preliminary Geotechnical Report Near the middle of page 4 of the Statement of Appeal, CARE refers to portions of Sections 4.3 and 5.8 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report that we prepared for the Highlands Park project From Section 4.3 of that report, CARE quoted the following sentence: "Regardless of the site classification, the site soHs will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction". Immediately following that quotation, CARE states: "This section indicates cone em that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion and recommends full Best Practices implementation. We ask the precise level/standard to be specifically required by reference to the relevant manual and classification." (Emphasis added.) Contrary to CARE's allegation, Section 4.3 of our report does not indicate coneem that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion. As discussed in Section 4.3 of our report and as defmed in Section 4-3-050 J.l.c of the Renton Municipal Code, the erosion hazard classification for the site is low erosion hazard (EL). The purpose of the sentence quoted from Section 4.3 of our report statement was to advise Bumstead as our client and other members of the design teant that, although the site's soils have a low erosion hazard rating, the soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. As we also stated in Section 4.3, it is our opinion that properly applied and maintained Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion prevention and sedinlent containment, which will be required by the City of Renton, will adequately mitigate the erosion potential. Such BMPs are now also mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology in its publication Storn! Water Management ,Manual for Western 1:f'ashington and they are a standard of practice for all development sites withln the Puget Sound area. CARE's Reference to Section 5.8 of Our Preliminary Geotechnical Report From Section 5.8 of our Preliminary Geotechnical Report, CARE also quoted the following three sentences of recommendation concerning drains along perimeter building foundations and concerning associated cIeanouts: "We reco111mend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building fOllndations. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easy assessable locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once a year." Immediately following that quotation, CARE makes the following argument prennsed upon those recommendations: Project No. T-5668-1 · .- Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Constmction Company March 31, 2006 Page 5 "This section makes clear the serious groundwater situation on the project site. If such extreme measures are required for the new constmction, obviously, very serous mitigation measures must be required in order to protect the public's interest in healthy and functional ecological and hydrological natural systems as well as the private interests of adjacent and downstream properties." We dispute CARE's argument. The quote from Section 5.8 of our report in no way indicates a serious groundwater situation on the project site. Our quoted recommendations for installation of perimeter foundation drains with cleanouts are merely a standard of practice throughout the Puget Sound area, a rainy area. Foundation drains are installed on virtually all residential, retail and commercial development projects regardless of location or area geology. The purpose of the foundation drain is to intercept rainfall that may infiltrate the near-surface soil and prevent that infiltrated rainfall from entering the building envelope. Those recommendations are anything but "extreme measures". Issue 4 of CARE's Statement of Appeal Issue 4 on page 1 of CARE's Statement of Appeal states: "TIle Environmental Review Committee Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to mini1l1ize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts." In tlus letter, we comment primarily on Issue 4 in the context of certain of the assertions that CARE makes on pages 6 of its Statement of Appeal. CARE's Reference to Section 5.2 of Our Preliminarv Geotechnical Report On page 6 of the Statement of Appeal, CARE quotes the following two sentences from Section 5.2 of our Preliminary Geotechnical Report: "To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of about 3 to 18 inches should be expected ... " This quoted recommendation is strictly related to support of site infrastructure and residential constmction. Organic soils andlor vegetation that is covered by fIll material is 110t suitable for support of site infrastmcture or residential constmction because those materials are weak and compressible and, if not removed, would impact site infrastmcture and building performance. TIle two quoted sentences provide no basis for an argument for phased clearing and grading of the site. CARE's "Argument" Section We disagree with CARE's contentions in the "Argument" section of page 6 of the Statement of Appeal. First, we disagree with the contention that "[b]oth staff and third party experts acknowledge that this project will severely disturb the surface and subsurface geology of the project site." (Emphasis added.) While the portions of the site to be cleared and graded will have their surfaces disturbed, due to the till that underlies most of the site very little of the site's subsurface geology will actually be disturbed. Project No. T-5668-1 Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction Company March 31, 2006 Page 6 Second, we disagree with CARE's contention that "this site is particularly subject to surface and groundwater issues." The glacial til1 geology that is predominant at the site is very common in the upper plateau areas ofPuget Sound. Based on our study, the proposed development of the site poses no particular, unusual or undefined surface or groundwater issues. Finally, we disagree with CARE's contention that "[a]11 reasonable efforts to phase these impacts so the cumulative negative impacts can at least be imposed incrementally should be required." It has been our experience that phased clearing and grading can actually be more detrimental than initial comprehensive clearing and grading in regard to site erosion and off-site runoff impacts because of difficulties that phasing can create with proper implementation and maintenance of Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) facilities. Grading of the entire project site to establish proper drainage controls is important. Phasing of clearing and grading of project sites leads to piecemealing of TESC facilities, making it difficult if not impossible to properly implement those facilities. Phased clearing and grading does not allow for establishing proper site drainage controls which are paramount for mitigating soil erosion and sediment transport. In sum, after carefully considering the above-noted portions of Issue 2 as well the entirety of Issue 4 £i'om CARE's Statement of Appeal, we see nothing in them that suggests that the Highlands Park project will cause any probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Rather, as explained above, the project's proposed stoml drain system is likely to beneficially impact downstream drainage and groundwater conditions. We trust the information presented is sufficient to meet your current needs. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please let me lrnow. 3 -3/-0 &, Project No. T -5668-1 ~ CORE ~DESIGN Core Des;gn, 'nc. 14711 N.E.29thPlace,Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com April 3, 2006 Core Project No. 01019 Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes 1215 120th Ave NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 Subject: Preliminary Plat of "Highlands Park" -Renton File# LUA05-124, PP, ECF Our Comments in Response to the Drainage-Related Assertions Made in the December 28, 2005 Statement of Appeal nIed by Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) Dear Mr. Hughes: Per your request, we have reviewed the above-referenced Statement of Appeal prepared by the Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) and have the following comments concerning the storm drainage-related assertions made in it. CARE's Primary Assertions Concerning Drainage Matters On page 1 of CARE's Statement of Appeal, CARE sets forth a list of "Issues of Concern". Issue 2 asserts that: "Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. • Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. • The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month [sic] storm event is insufficient and should be increased. • Extraordinary impacts to adj acent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested." (Emphasis added.) In this letter, we comment primarily on the first of the three above- stated bullet points. The second bullet point statement's premise is simply false-no storm water bypass system is proposed by the developer or required by the City for the Highlands ENGINEERING· PLANNING SURVEYING 01019Ltr01 Bumstead.doc 7 Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3, 2006 Page 2 Park project.! Thus, the second bullet point statement is without any merit. We understand that the third bullet point is being addressed in a letter from Terra Associates. CARE's Supporting Assertions Concerning Drainage Matters Apparently with the intention to support those assertions, on pages 3 and 4 of the Statement of Appeal CARE sets forth a number of things under the heading "ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL ill STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED". We have generally categorized those things below that relate to the first bullet point of CARE's above-quoted statement and have provided our comments with respect to each one of those things. CARE's Quotations from Portions of the Renton Municipal Code Without any explanation, CARE quotes a number of things from the Renton Municipal Code. First, CARE quotes the Purpose statement of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-6- 030, which is entitled "DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS". Because the Highlands Park project is required to comply with all of the applicable City code provisions, it is unclear what CARE's point is in setting forth that quotation. Second, CARE sets forth a quotation from Subsection G.3 (Additional Information) of RMC 4-6-030. That subsection simply authorizes the Administrator of the Department of BuildingIPlanninglPublic Works to require additional information considered pertinent. CARE gives no explanation for this quotation. Third, CARE quotes the Purpose statement of RMC Section 4-7-130, which is entitled "ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS". As with the first two quotations, CARE gives absolutely no explanation of the relevance of the quotation to the Highlands Park proposal. 1 The second sentence of the "Impacts" paragraph under Section 2 (Water -Stormwater) of the December 6, 2005 Environmental Review Committee Staff Report states that: "A bypass system will transfer offsite flows in excess of a 6 month storm event directly to the storm drain system." That same sentence is included in the first paragraph under the subheading "Storm Drainage/Surface Water" on page 8 of 9 of the City of Renton Planning/BuildingiPublic Works Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner concerning the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. In both instances, that sentence is erroneous. No such bypass system is proposed or is needed. Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3, 2006 Page 3 Fourth, CARE quotes subsections C.3.a (General) and C.3.b (Aquifer Protection Areas) of RMC Section 4-3-050, which is entitled "CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS". Again, CARE gives no explanation of the relevance of these quotations to the Highlands Park proposal. The irrelevance of the quotation to subsection C.3.b (Aquifer Protection Areas) is particularly striking because it is clear from the City's Aquifer Protection Zones map (copy attached with the Highlands Park site outlined on it as Attachment A) that the Highlands Park site is located nowhere near an officially-designated Aquifer Protection Zone. CARE's Reference to "Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties" Next, under the subheading "Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties", CARE directs the reader to "review the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concerns expressed by the owner of one of the proj ect parcels. " We have reviewed those letters, all of which appear to address shallow ground water concerns related to perc testing for septic systems. The shallow soil depth in this area is natural and is due to the glacial till layer that exist 3" to 18" below the surface. This soil condition is not conduciv-e to standard septic drainfields and has been a problem for many of the parcels in the area. However, a public sewer main will be constructed to serve all of the lots to be created in the Highlands Park subdivision. Because no septic systems are proposed for the subdivision, the comments in those letters are irrelevant to the proposal. Note that, in response to a January 4, 2006 written request to us from the City's Development Services Division for a set of copies of drainage complaints filed with King County during the past 5 years relating to the area downstream of the Highlands Park project, we sought and obtained such a set from the King County Water and Land Resources Department and submitted it to the City on January 9, 2006. The set included 14 complaints. All of those complaints were associated with sediment deposits and/or trash blocking existing pond inlet or outlet pipes. All of those problems were resolved through maintenance and cleaning of the existing ponds, piping and ditches involved. The City also reviewed those complaints and concluded that (a) none of the complaints indicated that there was a problem downstream of the Highlands Park site that would be worsened by the proposed Highlands Park development and (b) SEP A mitigation measure #5 included in the DNS-M issued for the project on February 6, 2006 is an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for this project. (Please see the attached copy of the March 24, 2006 email message to me from Renton Senior Planner Keri A. Weaver, Attachment B.) CARE's Reference to "Recent King County Hearing Examiner Decisions on Local Subdivision Applications" Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3, 2006 Page 4 CARE's statement of appeal also refers to four other projects processed in unincorporated King County that were purportedly designed to a higher standard than the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Level 2 flow control standard that the City is requiring for Highlands Park.2 CARE contends that those four projects are located so close to the Highlands Park site as to somehow dictate a Level 3 standard for the Highlands Park project. Note that the KCSWDM requires that flow control facilities be designed to one of three primary flow control standards--Levell, Level 2 or LeveI3--based on the protection needs of the downstream system. The flow control standard selected in any given case is to be determined from the Flow Control Application Map included in the KCSWDM. The Level 1 flow control standard typically applies to areas where additional flow attenuation provides no additional benefit to downstream receiving waters. The Level 2 flow control standard, which is more restrictive than the Level 1 standard, is used in areas where significant flows need to be attenuated to maintain or reduce flow rates to mitigate for channel and streambank erosion. The even more restrictive Level 3 flow control standard is used in areas where "severe flooding" problems have been documented. King County also imposes the more restrictive Level 3 flow control standards as a condition of approval for drainage adjustments (variances from design standards). (See the attached copy of KCSWDM Section 3.1.2 (Flow Control Standards), Attachment C, for a more detailed description of the three levels of flow control.) The definitions section of KCSWDM defines severe flooding as "flooding of a finished floor area of a habitable building" or "flooding over all lanes of a roadway or sole access driveway". To our knowledge, no such flooding has occurred downstream of the Highlands Park site. The Level 2 Flow Control design criteria that Renton's Environmental Review Committee has imposed upon the Highlands Park proposal for detention design is the same detention design criteria that would have been required if this project was still located within unincorporated King County. It is the flow control standard indicated on the Flow Control Application Map for the Highlands Park site. (See the attached copy of that map with the Highlands Park site drawn on it, Attachment D.) The four other residential subdivisions recently completed in the area and cited by CARE are called Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place. These projects are located within unincorporated King County and lie east of the Highlands Park 2 Mitigation Measure #5 of both the original (December 8, 2005) and revised (February 2, 2006) SEPA Threshold Determinations (both of which were "Determinations of Non-Significance -Mitigated") issued by Renton's Environmental Review Committee for the Highlands Park proposal states: The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control-Level 2) and water quality facilities. Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3, 2006 Page 5 project. We have reviewed these four projects and offer the following explanation of each one. Evendell The Evendell project contained 2 separate stonn water runoff basins: a large basin draining east to 160th Ave SE and a much smaller basin that drains west to 156th Ave SE and eventually combines with the downstream runoff from Highlands Park approximately % mile downstream from the site. The applicant sought and obtained County approval of a drainage basin adjustment for the alteration of the boundary between those two stonn water runoff basins (i.e., a variance from the ordinary standards of the 1998 KCSWDM). As a result of the County's approval of that adjustment/variance, less area now lies within the east basin and more area now lies within the west basin than was the case under predevelopment conditions. Evendell's east basin was designed to Level 2 Flow Control as required in the 1998 KCSWDM and offsite stonn drainage improvements were required to mitigate for flooding problems known to exist downstream of the east basin's discharge. (The east basin is in a stonn water runoff basin that is separate from the basin that the Highlands Park site is located within.) Evendell's west basin was required to be designed to Level 3 Flow Controls as a condition of the Evendell preliminary plat approval. This flow control standard was applied based on the potential for flooding problems in 156th Ave SE discovered during Evendell's Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis report prepared by Haozous Engineering, P.S., an analysis that was perfonned in conjunction with the variance application. Page 4 of that report stated: "Based on modeling results and infonnation available, flooding problems in the westerly basin would likely be classified as nuisance problems by the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1998). We found no documentation indicating that 156th Ave SE or residential structures along the westerly drainage course have flooded in the past." (The area referred to in that quotation is within the 156th Ave SE right-of-way and is not downstream of the Highlands Park project.) In that circumstance of the Evendell west basin, the Evendell developer had the option to either design to Level 2 Flow Controls and construct any required downstream improvements or design to Level 3 Flow Controls with no downstream improvements. This option is clearly outlined in Section 3.3.5 of the KCSWDM (copy attached as Attachment E). The Evendell developer opted to utilize Level 3 Flow Controls for the west basin in lieu of constructing downstream improvements. Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3, 2006 Page 6 The fact that Level 3 Flow Control was used in Evendell's west basin is of no relevance to the Highlands Park project. We found nothing in the Highlands Park Levell Downstream Analysis that suggests any likelihood of downstream flooding or the need for the perfonnance of any higher level of downstream analysis. Further, unlike the Evendell situation, where a stonn water basin boundary adjustment was being sought, no basin boundary adjustment is being proposed in conjunction with the Highlands Park proposal. Liberty Grove The stonn water facility for the Liberty Grove project was designed to Level 3 Flow Controls as a condition of a stonn water variance approval. Storm water detention and water quality for this project was actually routed to a combined pond in the Liberty Grove Contiguous project. This project does not drain to the same basin as Highlands Park and the fact that Level 3 Flow Control was imposed as a condition of variance approval is of no relevance to the Highlands Park proposal where no variance is being sought. Liberty Grove Contiguous The stonn water facility for this project was designed to Level 3 Flow Controls as a condition of drainage variance approval for a stonn water basin boundary adjustment for discharge from the detention facility. (See the copy of the variance approval attached as Attachment F.) This combined storm facility receives runoff from the Liberty Grove and Liberty Grove Contiguous proj ects and is in a separate drainage basin than the Highlands Park project. Again, the fact that Level 3 Flow Control was imposed as a condition of variance approval for the Liberty Grove and Liberty Grove Contiguous projects is of no relevance to the Highlands Park proposal. Nichols Place The stonn water facility for the Nichols Place project was designed to a Level 2 Flow Control standard as required by the 1998 KCSWDM, not to the Level 3 Flow Control standard. This project also lies within a drainage basin that is separate from the drainage basin that the Highlands Park project site is located in. The detention standard required for the Nichols Place project in no way suggests that a higher detention standard should be required for the Highlands Park subdivision. In sum, from our careful review of the four projects in unincorporated King County cited by CARE, we have found nothing about them that suggests that Level 3 flow controls should be required as a condition of approval for the Highlands Park project. CARE's Reference to "Area Drainage Complaint History" Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3,2006 Page 7 In addition to the "Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties", CARE also includes a section under the subheading entitled "Area Drainage Complaint History". In that section, CARE asserts that this topic "may ... have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional configuration currently in force." However, CARE offers no evidence that that was the case. Instead, CARE refers to "printouts from the King County IMap application [sic] (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c [sic] that shows historical drainage complaint sites [that CARE argues are] likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project." However, CARE offers no evidence as to why those sites are likely to be impacted or what the impacts would be. CARE then goes on to assert that "[v]ery recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows." Apparently in support of that assertion, CARE then describes what it terms as "several unforeseen events" occurring "[ d]uring the reconstruction of SE 136th/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations)" that purportedly caused "repeated work stoppages". Even if the described events actually occurred, those events would provide no basis for "Level 3 study and mitigation facilities" as requested by CARE. rw e understand that Terra Associates, in its letter to you, is addressing the interflow issue further as well as the sections of page 4 of the Statement of Appeal dealing with the "Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination", "Section 4.3 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 4 Erosion Hazard)" and "Section 5.8 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 9 Drainage)".) CARE's Request for a Level 3 Downstream Drainage Analysis In the last paragraph of page 4 of CARE's Statement of Appeal, CARE requests that the City require the applicant to have a Level 3 downstream analysis performed to "consider the wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project". Bear in mind that the preliminary plat submittal for the Highlands Park project included a Level I downstream analysis that we performed, an analysis that is required by the 2005 KCSWDM. If problems had been identified in the Level 1 analysis (none were), then the City would have the option to request a more detailed Level 2 or Level 3 analysis. A Level 2 analysis would include a rough quantitative analysis of the downstream system while a Level 3 analysis is a more precise quantitative analysis of the capacity of the downstream system, including a field survey and solutions to discovered problems. Neither Level 2 nor Level 3 downstream analysis is justified under the circumstances relating to the Highlands Park proposal. (Note also that the 2005 KCSWDM does not require that a downstream analysis of Levels 1, 2 or 3 consider "a wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project site" as CARE had requested.) Bumstead Construction Co. Attn: Ron Hughes April 3, 2006 Page 8 Please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 885-7877 with any questions, requests for clarification or additional information. Sincerely, CORE DESIGN, INC. j)$5~ David E. Cayton, P.E. Principal-Senior Engineer Attachments cc: Ron Hughes, Bumstead Construction Co. (with copies of attachments) , ') I, ) 'l-» \ . \ I t I L__ -1 t I I I I r --..... \ \ '\ > > ( { AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES RriIn MlI1idpII Code ~,,<" d lane 1 f.f2;0;%J lane 1 ModIIIecI -; -lane2 ---ClyLknlla \ \ CORE -Dave Cayton From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Dave, Keri Weaver [KWeaver@cLrenton.wa.us] Friday, March 24, 2006 10:25 AM dec@coredesign.com Juliana Fries; Kayren Kittrick Highlands Park drainage complaints At your request, this is to confirm that Development Services staff reviewed each of the downstream drainage complaints that were prepared by King County and provided by the applicant as part of the Highlands Park preliminary plat application (LUA05-124). It was determined that there were no complaints indicating a downstream problem which would be worsened by the proposed Highlands Park development. Based on this review, as well as a review of other stormwater information submitted by the applicant and site inspection, staff concluded that SEPA mitigation measure #5 in the DNS-M issued 2/6/2006, which required the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual - Level 2 for both detention and water quality, was an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for preliminary plat approval. Please let me know if you have additional questions or need more information regarding this matter. Regards, Keri Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner, Development Services City of Renton tel (425) 430-7382 fax (425) 430-7231 kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us 1 FLOW CONTROL STANDARDS flow may not increase, but the amount of time that flow rate occurs may double. Therefore, stream systems, including those with salmonid habitat, which require protection from erosion warrant detention systems that control the durations of geomorphically significant flows (flows capable of moving sediment). Such detention systems employ lower release rates and are therefore larger in volume. 3.1.2 FLOW CONTROL STANDARDS Core Requirement #3 requires that flow control facilities be designed to one of three primary flow control standards or various modifications of these standards based on the protection needs of the downstream system. The three primary standards include Level 1 flow control, a peak matching standard; Level 2 flow control, a duration-matching standard; and Level 3 flow control, a duration-matching standard with an extreme peak-matching element added. Level 1 Flow Control Level 1 flow control is designed to control flood flows at their current levels and to maintain peak flows within the capacity of the conveyance system for most storm events. Specifically, Level I flow control requires maintaining the predevelopment peak flow rates for the 2-year and 1 O-year runoff events. This standard may be modified under certain conditions to only match the 1 O-year pe.ak flow as allowed in Section 1.2.3.IA. The Levell flow control standard is typically applied to basins where studies have shown that additional flow attenuation provides no significant benefit to the receiving waters. Level 2 Flow Control Level 2 flow control is designed to control the durations of geomorphically significant flows and thereby maintain or, in some applications, reduce existing channel and streambank erosion rates. A geomorphicaliy significant flow is one that moves channel bedload sediments. The flow that initiates transport of channel sediments varies from channel to channel, but one-half of the 2-year flow is considered a good general estimate of the erosion-initiating flow. More specifically, Level 2 flow control requires maintaining the durations of high flows at their predevelopment levels for all flows greater than one-half of the 2-year peak flow up to the 50-year peak flow. The predevelopment peak flow rates for the 2-year and IO-year runoff events are also intended to be maintained when applying Level 2 flow control. The predevelopment condition to be assumed for matching durations varies depending on the County's conservation/protection goals for the downstream drainage system. One of three different predevelopment conditions will be applied as specified in Section 1.2.3.1. They include existing site conditions, historic site conditions (forested), and 75/15/10 conditions (i.e., 75% forest, 15% grass, and 10% impervious surface). In most locations of the County, historic site conditions will apply. The use of historic site conditions is intended to provide a hydrologic regime that more closely matches the conditions to which local aquatic species have adapted. Level 3 Flow Control Level 3 flow control is intended to mitigate water level changes in certain volume-sensitive water bodies such as lakes; wetlands, closed depressions where severe flooding problems have been documented. It is the most stringent standard applied in this manual (see Section 1.2.3.1). Because such water bodies act as natural flow dampeners, it is difficult to detain collected stormwater beyond the natural residence time of these systems. Therefore, the increased volume of runoff from new development inevitably increases the water level fluctuations of these water bodies. The Level 3 flow control standard provides additional storage and increases the detention time to minimize these downstream impacts. This standard requires maintaining the durations of high flows at their predevelopment levels for all flows greater than one-half of the 2-year flow up to the 50-year flow and holding the lOO-year peak flow rate at its predevelopment level. The predevelopment peak flow rates for the 2-year and 1 O-year runoff events are also intended to be maintained when applying Level 3 flow control As with the Level 2 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 112412005 3-5 SECTION 3.1 HYDROLOGIC DESIG ,NDARDS AND PRINCIPLES standard, the predevelopment condition to be assumed for matching durations varies depending on the County's conservation/protection goals for the downstream drainage system. This standard is primarily applied in the contributing areas of specific water bodies with severe flooding problems, and which are known to be sensitive to flow volume changes. 3.1.3 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS USING CONTINUOUS MODELS The Need for Continuous Hydrologic Modeling This manual prescribes the use of a continuous hydrologic model for most hydrologic analyses rather than an event model. Event models such as the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method were used in previous versions of this manual for all hydrologic analyses. A continuous model was chosen because hydrologic problems in western Washington are associated with the high volumes of flow from sequential winter storms rather than high peak flows from short duration, high intensity rainfall events. The continuous hydrologic analysis tool prescribed in this manuai is the King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS), which is a variant of the Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) model. Continuous models are well suited to accounting for the climatological conditions in the lowland Puget Sound area. Continuous models include algorithms that maintain a continuous water balance for a catchment to account for soil moisture and hydraulic conditions antecedent to each storm event (Linsley, Kohler, Paulhus, 1982), whereas event models assume initial conditions and only address single hypothetical storm events. As a result, continuous hydrologic models are more appropriate for evaluating runoff during the extended wet winters typical of the Puget Sound area. The drawbacks of event models are summarized as follows: • Event methods inherently overestimate peak flows from undeveloped land cover conditions. The overestimation is due, in part, to the assumption that runoff from forest and pasture land covers flows across the ground surface. In actuality, the runoff from forests and pastures, on till soils, is dominated by shallow subsurface flows (interflow) which have hydrologic response times much longer than those used in event methods. This leads to an over estimation of predeveloped peak flows, which results in detention facility release rates being overestimated and storage requirements being underestimated. • A single event cannot represent the sequential storm characteristics ofPuget Sound winters. • Event models assume detention facilities are empty at the start of a design event, whereas actual detention facilities may be partially:full as a result of preceding storms. • Testing of event-designed detention facilities with calibrated, long-term continuous hydrologic simulations demonstrates that these facilities do not achieve desired performance goals. • Event methods do not allow analysis of flow durations or water level fluctuations. The benefits of continuous hydrologic modeling are summarized as follows: • A continuous model accounts for the long duration and high precipitation volume of winter wet periods characterized by sequential, low-intensity rainfall events. Continuous simulation uses continuous long-term records of observed rainfall rather than short periods of data representing hypothetical storm events. AB a result, continuous simulation explicitly accounts for the long duration rainfall events typically experienced in the Pacific Northwest as well as the effects of rainfall antecedent to major storm events. • HSPF has been shown to more accurately simulate runoff from basins with a wide range of sizes and land covers using the regional parameters developed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS). 1124/2005 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 3-6 ! " +,., . (it' ",0"';1' I -\ /.';, :! s (; i~ :, ;:i { ........ • ,-, v'" J Kil1j County Flow Control Applications Map Basin Boundary (thicker line designates areos witll published Basin PIons) -_._.-Urbnl1 Growth Area BoundCJry • ; '. KING COUNTY PIERCE COUNTY Basic Flow Control An _ Conservation Flow Co _ Flood Problem Flow C iT-rrAcJ1nRJV7 "E" SECTION 3.3 HYDROLOGIC DESIO: )CEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS 3.3.5 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING DOWNSTREAM PROBLEMS This section explains the rationale behind the problem-specific mitigation criteria summarized in Chapter 1, Table 1.2.3.A, and it presents acceptable options for addressing the three primary types of downstream drainage problems defined in Core Requirement #2. 1. Conveyance system nuisance problems 2. Severe erosion problems 3. Severe flooding problems. If one or more of these problems is identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will not create or significantly aggravate the problem. This may require additional analysis, onsite flow control, and/or offsite improvements sufficient to ensure no aggravation of these problems. To reduce the need for extra analysis and to aid in the selection of measures to prevent aggravation, a set of options corresponding to each of the three types of downstream problems is explained in this section. Each option details the extent to which additional measures are needed to prevent aggravation based on the flow control standard being applied to the project site. [J OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING CONVEYANCE SYSTEM NUISANCE PROBLEMS 1124/2005 Problem Description: Overflow from a downstream conveyance system has or is predicted to cause nuisance flooding/erosion of a yard, a pasture, or one side of a roadway for runoff events less than or equal to the 10-year event. The two options detailed 'below are acceptable measures for preventing the creation or aggravation of this problem. A combination of these two options may also be used if demonstrated to meet the same performance goals. Other options may be possible through a more rigorous design procedure using the point of compliance analysis technique described in Section 3.3.6 (p. 3-49). The extent of additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements needed depends on the minimum area-specific flow control standard already being applied to the proposed project per Section 1.2.3.1. Option 1-Additional Onsite Flow Control • If Level 1 is the area-specific flow control standard per Section 1.2.3.1, then expand its performance criteria to match the post-development discharge rate for the 10-year return period to the existing site conditions discharge rate for the return period Tr at which the conveyance system overflows. Note: Determining Tr requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Chapter 2. To avoid this analysis, a Tr of 2 years may be assumed. Intent: This criteria is intended to prevent creation or aggravation of the problem for runoff events less than or equal to the 10-year event by eliminating the project site's contribution to conveyance system overflows during these events. • If the Level 2 or Level 3 flow control standard is being applied onsite, no additional flow control is needed. The duration-matching criteria of these standards already prevent aggravating increases in overflow volume by maintaining, or in some cases reducing, the discharge volumes of existing site conditions for peak flows greater than 50% of the 2-year peak flow. Option 2-Offsite Improvements • If the Levell flow control standard is being applied onsite, then make improvements to the existing conveyance system per Core Requirement #4 (see Section 1.2.4). 3-46 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 3.3.5 DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ADD ING DOWNSTREAM PROBLEMS • If the Level 2 or Level 3 flow control standard is being applied onsite, no offsite improvements are necessary. [J OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING SEVERE EROSION PROBLEMS Problem Description: A downstream channel, ravine, or slope area has or is predicted to experience severe erosion and/or incision that poses a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or poses a landslide hazard by undercutting a steep slope. The two options detailed below are considered acceptable measures for preventing aggravation of this problem. The extent of additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements needed depends on the minimum area-specific flow control standard already being applied to the proposed project per Section 1.2.3.1. Option 1-Additional Onsite Flow Control • If Levell is the area-specific flow control standard, then apply Level 2 instead, assuming existing site conditions as the predevelopment condition per Section 1.2.3.1. This standard prevents aggravating increases in the durations of flow exceedance that contribute to erosion. • If the Level 2 or Level 3 flow control standard is being applied onsite, no additional flow control is needed. The duration-matching criteria of these standards prevent aggravating increases in the durations of flow exceedance that contribute to erosion. Note: If the proposed project's discharge is such that previously unconcentrated flows will be concentrated onto a highly erodible area, DDES may require a tightline system through the area regardless of the level of onsite flow control being provided. This should be addressed with DDES in a predesign meeting. Option 2-0ffsite Improvements • If the Levell flow control standard is being applied onsite, then make tightline, channel armoring, or bioengineered improvements to safely convey discharge from the project site through the severely eroded area. • If Level 2 is the required area-specific flow control standard, off site tightline or channel armoring improvements may, in some cases, be used to reduce this standard if those improvements drain by non-erodible manmade conveyance to a major receiving water listed in Section 1.2.3.1. In some cases, DDES may require a tightline if the risk of damage is high. • If Level 3 is the required area-specific flow control standard, off site tightline or channel armoring improvements may, in some cases, be required by DDES where the risk of damage is high. [J OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING SEVERE FLOODING PROBLEMS Problem Description: Overflow from a downstream conveyance system, or the elevated water surface of a downstream pond, lake, wetland, or closed depression, has or is predicted to cause a severe building flooding problem or a severe roadway flooding problem. Such problems, by definition, occur during runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. See Section 1.2.2.1 for a more detailed description of severe building and roadway flooding problems. The two options detailed below are acceptable measures for preventing the creation or significant aggravation of this problem. A combination of these two options may also be used if demonstrated to meet the same performance goals. Other options may be possible through a more rigorous design procedure using the point of compliance analysis technique descnbed in Section 3.3.6 (p. 3-49). The extent of additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements needed depends on the minimum area-specific flow control standard already being applied to the proposed project per Section 1.2.3 .1. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1124/2005 3-47 SECTION 3.3 HYDROLOGIC DESIGl CEDURES AND CONSIDERATIONS Option 1-Additional Onsite Flow Control • If Levell is the area-specific flow control standard, then apply Level 3 instead, asswning existing site conditions as the predevelopment condition AND comply with the special provision for closed depressions stated below, if applicable. Also, if the problem is caused by conveyance system overflows, the duration-matching criteria of Level 3 may be modified to match post-development discharge durations to predevelopment discharge durations for the range of predevelopment discharge rates between that which corresponds to the return period Tr of conveyance system overflow and the 50-year peak flow, assuming existing site conditions for the predevelopment condition. Note: Determining Tr requires a minimum Level 2 downstream analysis as detailed in Chapter 2. To avoid this analysis, a Tr of 2 years may be assumed Intent: The intent behind Level 3 flow control is described in Section 1.2.3.1. The modified version of Level 3 is intended to prevent aggravating increases in overflow volume, duration, and peak flow for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. • If Level 2 is the area-specific flow control standard (Le., the project is within a Conservation Flow Control Area), then apply Level 3 instead, assuming historic site conditions as the predevelopment condition AND comply with the special provision for closed depressions stated below, if applicable. • If Level 3 is the area-specific flow control standard, then comply with the special provision for closed depressions stated below, if applicable. Special Provision for Closed Depressions If the amount of impervious surface area proposed by the project is greater than or equal to 10% of the 100-year water surface area of the closed depression, then use the point of compliance analysis technique described in Section 3.3.6 (p. 3-49) to verify that water surface levels are not increasing for the return frequencies at which flooding occurs, up to and including the 100-year frequency. If necessary, iteratively adjust onsite flow control performance to prevent increases. . Intent: This provision is intended to be applied to those developments that are large enough to have a significant impact on the water surface levels of a closed depression. For such developments, the provision is intended to more closely examine the hydrologic characteristics of the depression to ensure no significant aggravation of the flooding problem. Characteristics such as the infiltration rate or the influence of groundwater fluctuations can be highly variable and difficult to measure, which may entail wet season monitoring for proper analysis. Option 2-Offsite Improvements • If the Levell or Level 2 flow control standard is being applied onsite and the problem is caused by conveyance system overflows, then make improvements to the existing conveyance system sufficient to prevent the severe flooding problem. If the problem is caused by the elevated water surface of a pond, lake, wetland, or closed depression, then make improvements to the live storage volume or discharge characteristics of the water body in question such that water surface levels for the frequencies at which flooding occurs are not increased, OR make improvements to elevate the flooding building or roadway above the 100-year water surface. • If the Level 3 flow control standard is being applied onsite and the special provision for closed depressions is applicable, then make improvements as described above for the Level 1 and Level 2 flow control standards. Otherwise, offsite improvements are not required. 1124/2005 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 3-48 ® King County Department of Development and Environmental Services 900 Oakesdale Avenue SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 December 4, 2003 Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development P.O. Box 146 Renton, W A 98057 1t77AcHI7~!V( \'-F I' Mel L. Daley, P .E. Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. 726 Auburn Way North Auburn, WA 98002 RE: Liberty Grove Contiguous Subdivision 1998 KCSWDM Adjustment and Shared Facilitv Plan Reguest (File No. L03V0065) Dear Applicant and Engineer: The Land Use Services Division, Engineering Review Section, has completed review of the adjustment request for the Liberty Grove Contiguous 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 and approval of a shared facility plan with -the Liberty Grove subdivision. Our review of the infonnation and a site visit provides the following findings: 1. The ~roposed Liberty Grove Contiguous subdivision is located between 160th and 162D Avenues SE, south ofSE 136th Street. The 36 lot, 7.9 acre, proposed Liberty Grove Contiguous subdivision is filed under Land Use Services Division (LUSD) file number L03P0005. The proposed Liberty Grove subdivision is located in the northwest quadrant of the 160th Avenue SE/SE 136th Street intersection. The 24 lot, 4.8 acre, proposed Liberty Grove subdivision is filed under Land Use Services Division (LUSD) file number L03P0006. 2. The Liberty Grove and Liberty Grove Contiguous subdivisions are located in the Orting Hills subbasin of the Lower Cedar River basin. The sites are subject to the Level Two flow control and Basic water quality requirements of the 1998 KCSWDM. 3. The Liberty Grove site slopes gently to the south and southeast, causing sheetflow to migrate to the south property line where it is intercepted by a well defined ditch. The ditch flows east to the west side of 160th Avenue SE into a well defined channel that proceeds south. Gentle slopes across the Liberty Grove Contiguous site direct sheetflow to the southwest. This results in the eastern portion of the site sheetflowing across the south property line where a constructed swale located on the adjacent parcel to the south carries flows to the midpoint of the common property line. Central flows migrate through an on-site wetland that allows excess flow to join intercepted eastern flows at the midpoint outlet. The drainage path from the defined outlet continues Liberty Grove Contiguouu . .o..JJ3VOO65 December 4, 2003 Page 2 of3 south through a defined open swale that bisects several parcels to the south and ultimately flows via stream channel south in the 162nd Avenue SE unopened right-of- way. Sheetflow from the western side of the site migrates to the southwest and eventuall y reaches the ditch system on the east side of 160th Avenue SE. Flow from this portion of the site flows south in the ditch system on the east side of 1 60th Avenue SE. Liberty Grove and western Liberty Grove Contiguous flows meet ~ mile south on 160th Avenue SE at a newly upgraded culvert crossing. Combined flows then cross parcel #145750-0110 to the east to rejoin eastern Liberty Grove Contiguous flows in the vicinity of the 1 62nd Avenue SE unopened right-of-way. Both sites have upstream tributary area of several acres. 4. The proposal is to collect most runoff from the Liberty Grove site and divert it to a single, combined detention and water quality facility located in the southwest comer of the Liberty Grove Contiguous site. Flows across the Liberty Grove Contiguous site will also be collected and diverted to the single, shared facility. The allowed release would then be proportionally split between the southern flows on the east side of 160th Avenue SE and the natural discharge path that runs south through the neighboring parcels. Nuisance flows across the south property line of Liberty Grove Contiguous would be significantz curtailed. A small reduction of flow would occur in the western ditch of 160 Avenue SE, offset by an increase in the eastern ditch. It is not clear if frontage improvements are included in the conceptual drainage plan. 5. No decOrative ponds or shallow wells have been identified thafwould be affected by the proposed diversion. 6. The Level One Downstream Analysis identified drainage complaints related to conveyance overflows at 14028 160th Avenue SE (BrendenlMyers) and in the southeast comer of the 145750-0110 parcel and adjacent neighbor (Gragg) to the south. Continuing to utilize the natural discharge path that traverses the center of the intervening parcels reduces the volume of total flows that would reach the problem conveyance area and would minimize the diversion of flows. The applicant has offered mitigation in the form of Level Three flow control in the on-site detention system and, via a combination of flow control and splitting outflows, maintaining predeveloped flowrates to parcel 145750-0110. Potential conveyance upgrades along any of the downstream paths will be addressed in the plat conditions. 7. Both sites are being developed by the same applicant who intends to build both projects at the same time. 8. A consolidation of facilities for the proposed subdivisions will be more economical in long term maintenance. Based on these findings, we hereby approve this adjustment to allow the diversion of runoff to a single, shared facility draining via flow splitter to two downstream paths with the following conditions: Liberty Grove Contiguolk, ....,03V0065 December 4, 2003 Page 3 of3 1. The release rates for the detention facility will be based on all of the tributary area to be developed being directed to the facility. 2. The volume for the detention facility will be based on all flows directed to the facility at full development under current zoning. The allowed release rate will be reduced by any undetained flows that would bypass the proposed subdivision drainage facilities. The detention volume shall be sized using the Level Three flow control standard in the 1998 KCSWDM. 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, recreation space tract with easement or storm drainage tract dedicated to King County. 5. Developed flows from Liberty Grove must be conveyed via tightline to the drainage facility located in the Liberty Grove Contiguous site. If not built concurrently, Liberty Grove Contiguous must precede Liberty Grove. 6. 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 Section, KCDNR Randall Parsons, P .E., Engineer III, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Bruce Whittaker, Engineer III, Engineering Review Section, LUSD Karen Scharer, ProjectlProgram Manager II, Current Planning Section, LUSD Mark Bergam, P.E., Engineer III, Engineering Review Section, LUSD j . I "~~' ~ ~I •• ~ j 0 I. H .T~~·~·: ,:.: :. ,::~ i -I "AI" I I I I I i i j '"~ I,~ II I~i "j j i ; z'HzAc * \1I~.r:J::/ , ~ -.;II ~ 0.... -PIla?--..-r.-__ .>.:.1 '-:V .5f~ "' ~~_m~~-~ ~ ~ g e ~.:::;.. . of t;' . 'tt . ::;>.!.~ .. l":FtH;:;~; ;G-=:'7;' ,~ .. ,/ Maplewood .... , N e i 9 h~! .. h~ ~ .. ..,..J."D r k ~ . ., .. -lHi~""'· tt j, AtLAS OF SEATILE KROLL MAP COMPANY.INC.,SEATTLE ii- .. [I) c /lUI 'I ~:~' U~ ~ Ill) lII'STIlE.Uf TRIBUTARY AREA .. DOWNS'IllEAM DltAINAGK ROUll!: t-,"1 ~..$1\~~ :-. - . .;~~:= S.E:~.-I44TH~. ,~, .. . -, :::r::: ':O'.:':'~2: :t\:~~: .. ~ iil MAPLEWOOD ESTATES DIV. J CORE PROJECT NO. 0101' /L (~J TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences THEOnqRE J. SCHEPPER, P .E. PRINCJPAL Professional Registration Registered Professional Engineer: Washington, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota Education B.S. Civil Engineering -University of North Dakota, 1978 Affiliations American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) American Society for: Testing and Materials (ASTM) . Skills • Commercial, Industrial, and High-rise Buildings • Excavations and Embankments • Pipelines and Transmission Lines • Tanks and Reservoirs • Waste Stabilization Ponds • .Construction Monitoring and Quality Control Summary of Professional EXperience , • Airports, Roadways, and Bridges • Slope Stability and 'Landslide Remediation • Pumping Stations and Substations • Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants • Landfills, Dams~ and Mining Facilities • Hydrogeologic Evaluation and Characterization Mr. Schepper has over 26 years geotechnical engineering experience and has provided construction and design recommendations for virtually all types of civil projects. He has conducted. studies for bridge construction and expansion projects, as well as large commercial and industrial complexes over soft ground involviIig pile foundations, instrumentation and settlement evaluation. He has also conducted studies and incorporated both conventional soldier piling and soil nailing shoring designs for high-rise structures with deep lower-level excavations. Over his career, Mr. Schepper has developed a complete understanding of drainage characteristics, including stream channel and surface erosion, piping potential, and sedimentation .. He has a thorough working knowledge of ASTM and AASHTO testing procedures and requirements for evaluating soil characteristics such as grain . size, consistency, unit weight, shear strength, deformation, and permeability. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 13 David C~on has more /(;;"p;..c than *years experience in land development engineering in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties. His experience has covered all levels of the planning, permitting, design and construction phases of site development including commercial, municipal, multifamily and single family residential projects. Dave specializes in design EDUCATION • B.S.C.E., University of Washington • M.B.A., Seattle University of municipal and private roads, sanitary sewer and water main systems, sewer lift stations, grading and stonn drainage systems. His Master of Business Administration degree has enhanced his project management skills by providing the background necessary to develop successful project teams. These teams focus on balancing project development costs with the /1 timeliness of project completion based on client needs. Dave has used his experience and skills to maintain an understanding of both the big picture and the details that can lead to successful developments. DAVID E. CAYTON, P.E. REGISTRATION • Professional Engineer, State of Washington Principal/Project Engineer AFFILIATIONS • American Society of Civil Engineers • American Society of Engineering Management • Professional Consultants of Snohomish County ENGINEERING. PLANNING. SURVEYING ,,/ I Wethnd l(esoHrces,lHc. ID .~~ Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat Creation / Permit Assistance . J. March 20, 2006 9505 19th Avenue S.E. The Burnsteads Attn: Ron Hughes 1215 120th Ave NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 -2135 RE: The Proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision, Renton Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 Comments on CARE's December 28, 2005 Statement of Appeal (Concerning CARE's SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal) Dear Mr. Hughes: Per your request, I have reviewed the above-referenced Statement of Appeal prepared by the Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) and have the following comments concerning it. What the Statement of Appeal Says Relating to Our Area of Expertise Page 1 of the Statement of Appeal sets forth a list of "Issues of Concern". Issue 1 states that: "Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. " (Emphasis added.) Issue 1 is the only listed issue lying within our area of expertise. On page 2 of the Statement of Appeal, CARE discusses Issue 1. Under the subheading "Argument" on that page, CARE states: CARE has recently been provided copies of photos and a statement from an adjacent property owner detailing observed hawk activity on the project site. The applicant submitted no information in regard to the possibility of a protected avian species' presence. Immediately following that Argument, the subheading "Reference" refers to Exhibit 1. At the bottom of page 1 of the Statement of Appeal, a six-point list of exhibits is set forth. Exhibit 1 is described as "Hawk Photos and Statement provided by Frank and Ronda Bryant". Following that reference is a request for a new wildlife study. Our Comments on Issue 1 of CARE's Statement of Appeal CARE's Issue 1 is groundless. The Bryants' letter1 (part of Exhibit 1 of the Statement of Appeal) refers to a photo of a Juvenal red-tailed hawk that the Bryants said they took in their 1 The Bryants' letter also criticizes our wildlife study because only one day was spent on site in relation to it. However. it is standard procedure for wildlife studies of urban area properties of this size and habitat type to be The Burnsteads Attn: Ron Hughes Page 2 backyard. The red-tailed hawk is not a protected avian species. In fact, red-tailed hawks have become so prevalent that, on October 13, 2003, the Metropolitan King County Council passed Ordinance 14775 to eliminate the red-tailed hawk from the list of "Raptors of Local Importance" and to eliminate regulatory protection for red-tailed hawk habitat found in King County within the Urban Growth Area2• (A marked-up copy of excerpts from Ordinance 14775 is attached hereto.) As a city, the entirety of the corporate limits of the City of Renton (including the Highlands Park site) lies within an Urban Growth Area. Of special relevance to this letter is the "Background Information" statement set forth on the third page of Attachment A to Ordinance 14775. Its first two paragraphs state: When Policy E-168 [or, more accurately, its predecessor policy, Policy NE 604] was adopted the state Department of Fish and Wildlife had been considering placing the red-tailed hawk on the state's Priority Species list. Since that time the red-tailed hawk has become the most common raptor in North America and the state is no longer considering its placement on that list." (Emphasis added.) Please let me know if any additional information or clarification is required. Sincerely, Wetland Resources, Inc. ~-? Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist Enclosure (marked-up copy of excerpts from King County Ordinance 14775) individual species may not be directly observed during the site visits, indications or "sign" such as spore, nesting features, runways, midden, etc. are evaluated to determine species' presence. In general, the emphasis of such investigations is to determine the likely presence of threatened or endangered species (i.e., species of concern) and provide a general inventory of species at the specific site and common to similar habitat types in the site's general vicinity. That is what our October 7, 2005 Highlands Park Wildlife Study did. 2 In the amendment to Policy E-168 of the King County Comprehensive Plan set forth on the second page of Attachment A to Ordinance 14775, the Council revised the last paragraph of that policy so as to only provide protection for red-tailed hawk habitat "found in King County outsjde of the Urban Growth Area." (Emphasis added.) By doing so, the prior Comprehensive Plan Policy's protection of red-tailed hawk habitat lying insjde of the Urban Growth Area was thereby eliminated. Wetland Resources, Inc. March 20, 2006 2 Highlands Park WRI Project #05321 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Proposed No. 2003-0383.2 KING COUNTY Signature Report October 14, 2003 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Ordinance 14775 .. , ... __ .------- Sponsors fIague AN ORDINANCE relating to comprehensive planning and zoning~ adopting the King County Comprehensive Plan 2003 amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 and area zoning, in accordance with the Washington State Growth Management Act; and amending Ordinance 263, Art. 2 Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.12.010. 9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCil.. OF K.1NG COUNTY: 10 SECTION 1. Findings. For the purposes of effective land use planning and 11 regulation, the King County council makes the following legislative findings: 12 A. King County has adopted the 2000 King County Comprehensive Plan to meet 13 the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act ("GMA"); 14 B. The GMA requires that the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations 15 be subject to continuing review and evaluation by the county; 16 C. The GMA requires that King County adopt development regulations to be 17 consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan; and . Ordinance 14775 18 D. The changes to zoning contained in this ordinance are needed to maintain 19 confonnity with the King County Comprehensive Plan, as required by the GMA. As 20 such, they bear a substantial relationship to, and are necessary for, the public health, 21 safety and general welfare of King County and its residents. 22 SECTION 2. Ordinance 263, Article 2, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 23 20.12.010 are each hereby amended to read as follows: 24 Comprehensive Plan adopted. A. Under the King County Charter, the state 25 Constitution and the Washington State Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW, . 26 the 1994 King County C,?mprehensive Plan is adopted and declared to be the 27 Comprehensive Plan for King County until amended, repealed or superseded. King 28 County has performed its first comprehensi ve four-cycle review of the Comprehensive 29 Plan. As a result of the review. King County amended the 1994 Comprehensive Plan 30 through passage of the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000. The Comprehensive 31 Plan shall be the principal planning document for the orderly physical development of the 32 county and shall be used to guide subarea plans, functional plans, provision of public 33 facilities and services, review of proposed incorporations and annexations, development 34 regulations and land development decisions. 35 B. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 36 Appendix A to Ordinance 12061 (King County Comprehensive Plan 1995 amendments) 37 are hereby adopted. 38 C. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 39 Attachment A to Ordinance 12170 are hereby adopted to comply with the Central Puget 2 Ordinance 14775 40 Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Decision and Order in Vashon-Maury 41' Island. et. al. v. King County. Case No. 95-3-0008. 42 D. The Vashon Town Plan contained in Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12395 is 43 adopted as a subarea plan of the King County Comprehensive Plan and, as such, 44 constitutes official county policy for the geographic area of unincorporated King County 45 defined in the plan and amends the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use 46 Map. 47 E. 'The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 48 Appendix A to Ordinance 12501 are hereby adopted to comply with the Order of the 49 Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in Copac-Preston Mill, Inc., et 50 al, v. King County, Case No. 96-3-0013 as amendments to the King County 51 Comprehensive Plan. 52 F. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 53 Appendix A to Ordinance 12531 (King County Comprehensive Plan 1996 amendments) 54 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 55 G. The Black Diamond Urban Growth Area contained in Appendix A to Ordinance 56 12533 is hereby adopted as an amendment to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 57 H. The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan Land 58 Use Map are amended to include the area shown in Appendix A of Ordiriance 12535 as 59 Rural City Urban Growth Area. The language from Section ID of Ordinance 12535 shall 60 be placed on Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map page #32 with a reference marker on the 61 area affected by Ordinance 12535. 3 Ordinance 14nS 62 1. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 63 Appendix A to Ordinance 12536 (1997 Transportation Need Report) are hereby adopted as 64 amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. . 65 1. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 66 Appendix A to Ordinance 12927 (King County Comprehensive Plan 1997 amendments) 67 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 68 K. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 69 the 1998 Transportation Needs Report, contained in Appendices A and B to Ordinance 70 12931 and in the supporting text, are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County 71 Comprehensive Plan. 72 L. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 73 Appendix A to Ordinance 13273 (King County Comprehensive Plan 1998 amendments) 74 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 75 M. The 1999 Transportation Needs Report contained in Attachment A to 76 Ordinance 13339 is hereby adopted as an amendment to the 1994 King County 77 Comprehensive Plan, Technical Appendix C, and the amendments to the 1994 King 78 County Comprehensive Plan contained in Attachment B to Ordinance 13339 are hereby 79 adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 80 N. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 81 Attachment A to Ordinance 13672 (King County Comprehensive Plan 1999 amendments) 82 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 4 Ordinance 14775 83 O. The 2000 Transportation Needs Report contained in Attachment A to this 84 Orctinance 13674 is hereby adopted as an amendment to the 1994 King County 85 Comprehensive Plan, Technical Appendix C. 86 P. The Fall City Subarea Plan contained in Attachment.A to Ordinance 13875 is 87 adopted as a subarea plan of the King County Comprehensive Plan and, as su~h, constitutes 88 official county policy for the geographic area of unincorporated King County defined in the 89 plan. The Fall City Subarea Plan amends the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan land 90 use map by revising the Rural Town boundaries of Fall City. 91 Q. The amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 92. Attachment A to Ordinance 13875 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County 93 Comprehensive Plan. 94 R,. The Fall City area zoning amendments contained in Attachment A to 95 Ordinance 13875 are adopted as the zoning control for those portions of unincorporated 96 King County defined in the attachment. Existing property-specific development 97 standards (p-suffix conditions) on parcels affected by Attachment A to Ordinance 13875 98 do not change except as specifically provided in Attachment A to Ordinance 13875. 99 S. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 100 contained in Attachment A to Ordinance 13987 are hereby adopted to comply with the 101 Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Decision and Order on 102 Supreme Court Remand in Vashon-Maury Island, et al. v. King County, Case No. 95-3- 103 0008 (Bear Creek Portion). 5 ._---_. __ .------------------------------------ Ordinance 14775 104 T. The 2001 transportation needs report contained in Attachment A to Ordinance 105 14010 is hereby adopted as an amendment to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, 106 technical appendix. C. 107 U. The amendments to the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan contained in 108 Attachments A, Band C to Ordinance 14044 (King County Comprehensive Plan 2000) are 109 hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. Attachment A 110 amends the policies, text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan. Amendments to the 111 policies are shown with deleted language struck out and new language underlined. The text 112 and maps in Attachment A replace the previous text and maps in the Comprehensive Plan. 113 Attachment B to Ordinance 14044 contains technical appendix A (capital facilities), which 114 replaces technical appendix A to the King County Comprehensive Plan, technical appendix 115 C (transportation), which replaces technical appendix C to the King County 116 Comprehensive Plan, and technical appendix M (public participation), which is a new 117 technical appendix that describes the public participation process for the King County 118 Comprehensive Plan 2000. Attachment C includes amendments to the King County 119 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The hmd use amendments contained in Attachment C 120 are adopted as the official land use designations for those portions of unincorporated King 121 County defined in Attachment C to Ordinance 14044. 122 V. The Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan contained in Attachment A 123 to Ordinance 14117 is adopted as a subarea plan of the King County Comprehensive Plan 124 and, as such, constitutes official county policy for the geographic area of unincorporated 125 King County defined in the plan. Attachment B to Ordinance 14117 amends the King 126 County Comprehensive Plan 2000 land use map by reviSing the Urban Growth Area for the 6 Ordinance 14775 127 City of Snoqualmie. Attachment C to Ordinance 14117 amends the policies of the 128 Comprehensive Plan. 129 W. The Snoqualmie Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan area zoning amendments in 130 Attachment D to Ordinance 14117 are adopted as the zoning control for those portions of 131 unincorporated King County defined in the attachment. Existing property-specific 132 development standards (p-suffix conditions) on parcels affected by Attachment D to 133 Ordinance 14117 do not change 134 X. The amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 contained in. 135 Attachment B to Ordinance 14156 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County 136 Comprehensive Plan. 137 Y. The amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 contained in 138 Attachment A to Ordinance 14185 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King 139 County Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the order of the Central Puget 140 Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in Green Valley et al, v. King County, 141 CPSGMHB Case No. 98-3-0008c, Final Decision and Order (1998) and the order of the 142 Washington Supreme Court in King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management 143 Hearings Board, 142 Wn.2d 543,14 P.3d 133 (2000). 144 Z. The amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 contained in 145 Attachment A to Ordinance 14241 (King County Comprehensive Plan 2001 146 Amendments) are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive 147 Plan. 148 AA. The amendment to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 contained in 149 Attachment A to «-tfti.s-e»Ordinance 14286 is hereby adopted as ~ amendment to the 7 Ordinance 14775 150 King County Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the Central Puget Sound 151 Growth Management Hearings Board's Final Decision and Order in Forster Woods 152 Homeowners' Association and Friends and Neighbors of Forster Woods, et al. v. King 153 County, Case No. Ol-3-0008c (Forster Woods), dated November 6, 200l. 154 BB. The amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 contained in 155 Attachment A to Ordinance 14448 (King County Comprehensive Plan 2002 156 Amendments) are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive 157 Plan. 158 CC. The amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan 2000 contained in 159 Attachment A to this ordinance (King County Comprehensive Plan 2003 Amendments) 160 are hereby adopted as amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan. 161 SECTION 3. The King County Comprehensive Plan 2003 zoning amendments 162 contained in Attachment A to this ordinance are adopted as the official zoning control for 163 those portions of unincorporated King County defined in Attachment A to this ordinance 164 in accordance with K.C.C. 20.12.050. 165 SECTION 4. Severability. if any provision of this ordinance or its application to 8 Ordinance 14175 166 any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the 167 . application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. 168 Ordinance 14775 was introduced on 8118/2003 and passed as amended by the Metropolitan King County Council on 10/13/2003, by the following vote: ATI'EST: Yes: 12 -Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Hammond, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague, Mr. Irons and Ms. Patterson No: 1 -Ms. Lambert Excused: 0 KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Anne Noris, Clerk of the Council APPROVED this 2:L day of Oen:>dcl(.2oo3. Attachments A. King County Comprehensive Plan 2003 Amendments as amended by Council, October 13, 2003 9 Ordinance 14775 Attachment A King County Comprehensive Plan 2003 Amendments As amended by Council, October 13, 2003 • Amendment to Policy E-168 C:: • • Amendments to the land use designation, zoning and development conditions for the ''Tanner Mill" properties within the North Bend Urban Growth Area - ~-~~~-.----~-~-~-------------------------------- Policy E-168 Amendment Policy E-168 is amended to read as follows: E-168 King County shall designate and protect, through measures such as regulations, incentives, capital projects or purchase, the following Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas fourid in 'King County: a. b. c. Habitat for federal or state listed Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species. Habitat for Salmonids of Local Importance; kokanee/sockeye/red salmon, chum salmon, coho/silver salmon, pink salmon, coastal residentlsearun cutthroat, rainbow irout/steelhead, bull trout, Dolly Varden, and pygmy whitefish, including juvenile feeding and migration corridors in marine waters; Habitat for Raptors and Herons of Local Importance: «red tailed hawk,» osprey, black-crowned night heron, and great blue heron; Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; Kelp and eelgrass beds; Herring, sand lance and smelt spawning areas; Wildlife habitat networks designated by the County, and < d. e. f. g. h. Riparian corridors. ~ King County shall also protect the habitat for the red-tailed hawk and for candidate species, as listed by the Washington Department of i:.and Wildlife, found in King County TOf the Urban Growth olicy E·168 Amendment Background Information When King County adopted Policy E-168, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife had been considering placing the redwtailed hawk on the state's Priority Species list. Since that time, the red~tailed hawk has become the most ~ common raptor in North America and the state is no longer considering it's placement on that list. The proposed amendment would continue to protect habitat fO}----- this species in the Rural Area, while providing additional flexibility for growth within the Urban Areas due to the dramatic recovery of the redwtailed hawk .. David L. Halinen, P .E. davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation McCarver Square 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397 January 11,2006 VIA EMAIL (nwaUs@ci.renton.wa.us) AND VIA FAX [AT (425) 430~J~O City of Renton Environmental Review Committee c/o City of Renton Development Services Division Department of PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Neil Watts, P.E., Director Tacoma: (253) 627-6680 Seattle: (206) 443-4684 Fax: (253) 272-9876 Re: Bumstead Construction Co.'s "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision and Pending SEPA Threshold Determination Appeal (LUA-05-124, PP, ECF) Burnstead's Proposed Substitute SEPA Mitigation Measures Dear Committee Members: I represent Bumstead Construction Co. ("Bumstead"), the preliminary plat applicant for the proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision in Renton. I understand that, tomorrow, you are scheduled to further discuss Highlands Park in view of appeals that have been filed by Bumstead and a group of individuals. I am writing on Bumstead's behalf to suggest the following two new SEP A mitigation measures as a substitute for mitigation measures 6 and 7 set forth in your December 8, 2005 SEP A Threshold Determination for the proposal (new text indicated by underlining): Substitute Mitigation Measure 6. Along the Vesta Avenue frontage of proposed Lots 52 through 55, prior to final plat recording landscaping and fencing shall be installed in accordance with the design set forth on the "Preliminary Landscape Plan" for Highlands Park prepared by Core Design, Inc. dated January 11, 2006. In addition, street trees must be installed in accordance with that plan either by the later of final plat recording or the end of any applicable bonding period. (Bonding is to be allowed to enable the street trees to be installed when individual lot landscaping is done.) Substitute Mitigation Measure 7. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant shall provide an arborist-prepared tree inventory and tree retention plan to the Development Services Division for review and approval. The plan must show W preservation of at least 25% of trees determined by the arborist to be healthy with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) and 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and (Q) indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited. ,. City of Renton Development Services Division Attn: Neil Watts, P.E., Director January 11, 2006 Page 2 Let me put these proposed substitute mitigation measures into perspective. First, the original Mitigation Measure 6 is extremely burdensome to the applicant. By forcing lot grading to be done on a piecemeal basis independent of the construction of roads and utilities, it would (a) effectively preclude a rational cutlfill balancing program on the site, (b) unreasonably increase site construction costs and (c) greatly extend the amount of time that overall site construction would take, creating environmental risks of its own. This type of measure has breathtaking implications for subdivision developers in Renton. Such a new approach should not fairly be imposed on a project-by-project basis by the ERC. If the idea has merit, it should be considered through the City's legislative process where developers and all others affected can make their views known and all of the implications can be fairly sorted out. Third, Substitute Mitigation Measure 7 provides for needed recognition that the 25 percent of the site trees to be retained are to be healthy trees. To that end, we have proposed that an arborist determine which trees are healthy as part of the arborist's work in preparing a tree inventory and tree retention plan. Please note that copies of the drawing referenced in Substitute Mitigation Measure 6 are being hand-delivered to your office by Core Design this afternoon. Thank you very much for your anticipated review of this matter. If you have remaining questions or concerns that would prevent you from making the substitution of mitigation measures as set forth above (in place of original mitigation measures 6 and 7), rather than rendering a decision at your meeting tomorrow, I request that you communicate those questions or concerns back to me and my client through Development Services staff and continue the matter over to your next meeting to give us an opportunity to respond to you. Sincerely, P.S. To the extent that this letter is inconsistent with the revised clearing and grading design drawings submitted by Core Design on Friday, January 6, 2006, this letter supersedes those drawings. DLH cc: Bumstead Construction Attn: Ron Hughes Core Design Attn: Michael Chen C:\CF\2530\OOl\SEPA\Watts.LTl Dl.doc § 13.01[4] WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 13-50 on the basis of new infonnation on a proposal's significant adverse impacts (as opposed to substantial changes in the proposal, misrepresentation, or lack of material disclosure) after a nonexempt license has been issued on a private project. 273 An agency with jurisdiction, dissatisfied with a DNS issued by the lead agency, may assume lead agency status,273a but only within 14 days of DNS issuance.273b A DNS may be issued after withdrawal and reconsideration of a DS because of significant changes in the proposal. When this occurs, notice of the DNS must be given to everyone who commented on the DS.273c In the 1988 SEPA Handbook, DOE set forth its interpretations ofSEPA's Determination of Non- significance provisions. These DOE interpretations are included as Appendix D, Part 5, of this book. [f]-Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance For a time there was serious doubt about the Validity of a DNS issued after impact-reducing modifications of a proposal preliminarily considered envi- ronmentally significant. In NOlWay Hill Preservation and Protection Associa- tion v. King County Council, 274 the court held that conditions imposed upon plat approval did not justify a DNS, reasoning that "the clear mandate of SEPA, and the purpose behind the environmental impact statement require- ment is consideration of environmental values before a decision is made."275 But then in Hayden v. City of Port Townsend,276 where the issue was squarely before the court, a DNS based upon modifications of a proposal through infonnal negotiations between applicant and the city was characterized as "eminently sensible" and upheld.277 The propriety of bringing a proposal 273WAC 197-11-340(3)(b). 273a WAC 197-11-6OO(3)(a). 273b WAC 197-11-340(2)(e). 273cWAC 197-11-360(4). § 13.01[4][g], infra. 274 87 Wn.2d 267, 279, 552 P.2d 674, 681 (1976). 2751d. ("Where the effect is significant, SEPA requires an environmental impact statement in order that full information is available before government action is taken, with or without the imposition of conditions. One of the purposes of this complete information requirement is to help the agency decide what protective conditions are needed. See Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates. Inc .• supra, 82 Wash.2d at 493, 496, 497, 513 P.2d 36"). 276 93 Wn.2d 870, 880-81, 613 P.2d 1164, 1170 (1980). 277 Id. ("While appellants challenge the procedure used by the City engineer, under the circumstances the procedure appeals to us as eminently sensible. Where it is feasible, it appears reasonable to resolve potential environmental problems before a (ReLlS-12I03 Pub.82760) I 13-51 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION § 13.01[4] below the significance threshold by informally negotiating project modifica- tions278 now has been embraced by the SEPA Rules and reined in by process requirements. 279 After completion of the environmental checklist, the lead agency, on its own initiative280 or in response to the applicant's request,281 may indicate whether a DS is likely and why. The applicant may then clarify or change the proposal to dispel misconceptions about, or actually reduce, its environ- mental impacts. 282 The lead agency may then consider such clarifications and changes in making its threshold determination.283 If the proposal, as fonnal application is made for a building pennit The pertinent question is whether environmental factors were adequately considered before a final decision was made"). For a similar result and reasoning by the Court of Appeals, see Murden Cove Preservation Assoc. v. Kitsap County, 41 Wn.App. 515, 704 P.2d 515 (1985). 278 Brown v. City of Tacoma, 30 Wn.App. 762, 766-67, 637 P.2d 1005 (1981). See Richland Homeowner's Preservation Ass'n v. Young, 18 Wn.App. 405,569 P.2d 818 (1977). 279 WAC 197-11-350. 280 WAC 197-11-350(3). See Levine v. Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 807 P.2d 363 (1991). 281 WAC 197-11-350(2). 282 WAC 197-11-350(2) and (3) FINAL SEPA COMMISSION REPORT, supra note 231, at 108 ("Subsection 2 creates an early notice provision, which allows applicants to request lead agencies to indicate whether a determination of significance (DS) appears likely. If so, the applicant may clarify or change features of the proposal to' respond to the agency's reasons for such an indication. The section intends for agencies to indicate, if requested, both whether a DS appears likely and for what reasons (what appear to be the significant impact(s) and why). The term 'clarify' is used, along with 'change,' because in many instances information or description provided on a checklist is in summary form, and additional clarification by the applicant or agency proposing the action will reveal that possible environmental impacts may not occur, or that adequate mitigation measures have already been provided for in the proposal or will be included in detailed designs. The lead agency must make a threshold determination based upon the clarifications or changes. The subsection also makes clear that, if a proposal continues to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact, even with mitigation measures, an EIS must be prepared"). 283 WAC 197-11-350(1); see Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn.App. 290, 936 P.2d 432 (1997); Levine v. Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 807 P.2d 363 (1991). Pease Hill v. County of Spokane, 62 Wn.App. 800, 816 P.2d 37 (1991); Foster v. King County, 83 Wn.App. 339, 348, 921 P.2d 552 (1996) (where, in deciding a DS appeal, the hearing examiner conditionally ruled that the DS must be withdrawn and a MDNS issued in its place if the proponents executed a covenant that they would not use the proposed irrigation pond for water-skiing). (Re1.15-IW3 i'Ub.82760) § 13.01[4] WASmNGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 13-52 explained or modified, no longer exceeds the significance threshold, a DNS, generally called a mitigated determination of nonsignificance (MONS), is issued; if the proposal remains significant, an EIS must be prepared. 284 The clarifications or changes may occur after MDNS issuance in response to comments on the MDNS.2848 The clarifications or changes must be stated in writing and made a part of the checklist. 285 However, this may be done by attachment or incorpora- tion by reference rather than preparing an entirely new checklist. 286 A similar process is authorized for clarification or modification of an agency's public project proposal. An agency may change its proposal to mitigate impacts as a result of internal review and planning and comments by other agencies or the public. If mitigating measures would preclude significant adverse impacts, an EIS is not required. 287 While it is permissible to avoid EIS preparation by altering proposals to reduce environmental impacts, a DNS may not be issued on the ground that a proposal's environmental, social, or economic benefits offset its significant adverse environmental impacts. 288 If a proposal has probable Significant adverse environmental impacts, an EIS is required regardless of its beneficial effects. They, of course, may properly be considered along with EIS disclosures and may ultimately prevail. 289 In the 1998 SEPA Handbook, DOE set forth its interpretations of SEPA MDNS provisions. These DOE interpretations are included in Appendix D of this book. In the 1998 SEPA Handbook, 289a DOE favorably characterizes the MONS process as conducive to avoidance of adverse environmental impacts. However, less sanguine commentators have stressed the potential for 284WAC 197-11-350(2). 2848 Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn.App. 6, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). 285 WAC 197-11-350(4). 286 Id. See Anderson v. Pierce County, supra note 32 ('The mitigated DNS process is not intended to reduce the amount of environmental review done on a project, but to reduce the papelWOrk needed to document the process" 86 Wash.App. at 304). 287WAC 197-11-350(5). 288WAC 197-11-330(5); ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 713-14, 601 P.2d 501 (1979). 289 WAC 197-11-330(5); Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 89, 569 P.2d 712, 718 (1977) ('The most important aspect of SEPA is full consideration of environmental values, RCW 43.21C.030(2)(b) and this policy is carried out by the EIS Procedure. However, the need for an EIS does not mean a proposed project cannot be built. It merely assures a full disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of the project."). 289a Appendix D at 2.8.1. (ReI.lS-12lO3 Pub.82160) I 13-53 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION § 13.01[4] abuse.289b They contend that agencies often are too willing to dispense proposals from full environmental review on the basis of illusory commit- ments. They stress that close judicial review of the efficacy of mitigating measures is essential to avoiding subversion of SEPA; that there must be a sufficient showing that the proposed mitigation would preclude any signifi- CaI1t impacts and would be enforceable. 289b.l MDNS critics refer, with dismay, to the West 514 v. Spokane County289c case. There the Court of Appeals upheld an MDNS for a suburban regional shopping center of more than a million square feet next to a "superfund" landfill site. The mitigating measures, which were held sufficient to support the County's DNS, were not substantive changes or conditions to the proposal. Rather, they were general commitments to study various areas of environmen- tal concern and to modify the project site plan, as appropriate, on the basis of the findings of the future studies. As previously noted,289d the West 514 case is complicated by the fact that the county simultaneously adopted an earlier EIS for a different proposal on the site and issued an MDNS. But for the EIS adoption, perhaps the court would have scrutinized the MDNS. Since the West 514 decision, MDNSs have become increasingly common and rarely have been successfully challenged. The courts have upheld an MDNS for a wood-waste landfill in an agricultural area of Spokane Coun- ty,289d.l MDNSs for expansions of commercial centers,289d.2 an MDNS for a conditional use permit application for a proposed soil bio-remediation facili- ty,289d.3 numerous MDNSs for residential subdivisions,289d.4 an MDNS for 289b See generally Eglick & Hiller, The Myth of Mitigation Under NEPA and the Washington Environmental Policy Act in NEPA AT 1WENfY (Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark College, 1989). 289b.l The enforceability of mitigation requirements may have been enhanced by a 1995 statute requiring local governments to monitor and enforce permit conditions. 1995 Wash. Laws ch. 347, § 420(3); RCW 36.708.160(3). See Appendix E.m.l. See also, Landau v. San Juan County, 2001 WL 244352 (Wash. App. Div. 1) (unpublished) where the court held that an MDNS on a proposed marina properly assumed that the mitigation requirements would be satisfied by compliance or enforcement. 289c 53 Wn.App. 838, 770 P.2d 1065 (1989). 289d Supra § 13.01[1]. 289d.l Pease Hill v. Spokane County, supra note 82a. 289d.2 Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn.App. 711, 47 P.3d 137 (2002); Indian Trail Prop. Owner's Assn. v. Spokane, 76 Wn.App. 430, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). 289d.3 Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wash.App. 290, 936 P.2d 432 (1997) ("Environmental review was not 'avoided' for the RPW Project. Rather, the need for an EIS was superseded by the MDNS. The 54 mitigation measures of the MDNS may provide more effective environmental protection than promulgation of an EIS, since an EIS does not automatically result in substantive mitigation. See Sisley, 89 (ReI.15-12J03 Pub.82760) § 13.01[4] WASmNGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 13-54 a marina in the San Juan Islands,289d.5 an MONS for a boat launch and park,289d.6 an MDNS for a sewer extension,289d.7 an MDNS for a 32-acre rock quarry, and an MDNS for an outdoor concert facility. 289d.8 An MDNS on a proposed snowmobile training course in Okanogan County did not survive judicial scrutiny.289d.9 Generally, the challenge of an MDNS would be categorized under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), as one of "application of law to facts" subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of judicial review.289d.10 However, which of LUPA's standards of review289d.ll are pertinent depends on whether a given MDNS challenge is based on a pure question of fact, application of law to fact. or pure question of law. 289d.12 NEPA decisions may be a fruitful source of persuasive authority. Numerous federal cases have ruled on mitigated FONSIs (findings of no significant impact). Virtually all have upheld the principle of mitigated FONSIs.2899 Wash.2d at 89 (An EIS merely assures a full disclosure and consideration of environmental information prior to the construction of the project.). . . The fact that the RPW Project is large and complex does not foreclose use of the MDNS process." /d., 936 P.2d at 440). See also the unpublished opinions in Davis v. Thurston County, 95 Wn.App. 1058 (l999) (unpublished opinion) (court upheld mitigated DNS for chicken farm); Gastineau v. City of Bothell, 1998 Wash.App. LEXIS 1785 (Wash.App. Div. 1) (unpublished opinion) (MDNS for senior housing project upheld). 289d.4 Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 141 Wn.2d 185, 4 P.3d 115 (2000); Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169,4 P.3d 123 (2000); Moss v. City of Bellingham, 2001 WL 1079603 (Wash. App. Div. 1) (Sept. 17, 2(01); Citizens for Natural Habitat v. City of Lynnwood, 2001 WL 950827 (Wash. App. Div. l) (unpublished opinion); Concerned Citizens for Buckley v. City of Buckley, 2001 WL 112322 (Wash. App. Div. 2) (unpublished opinion). 289d.5 Landau v. San Juan County, 2001 WL 244532 (Wash. App. Div. 1) (unpub- lished opinion). 289d.6 Erickson v. City of Camus, 2001 WL 567687 (Wash. App. Div. 2) (unpub- lished opinion). 289d.7 Citizens for Natural Habitat, supra note 289d.4. 289d.8 Evaline Community Association v. Good, 2003 WL 21235500 (Wash. App. Div. 2) (unpublished opinion); STAT v. Clark County, 2001 WL 898758 (Wash. App. Div. 2) (unpublished opinion). 289d.9 Edwards v. Okanogan County, 2001 WL 36438 (Wash. App. Div. 3) (unpub- lished opinion). 289d.10 Association of Rural Residents; Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n; Moss, supra note 289d.4; see § 20.08, infra. 289d.ll RCW 36.7OC.130(l). 289d.12 Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n, supra note 289d.4, 141 Wn.2d at 175-76. 2899 See, e.g., C.A.R.E. Now v. FAA, 844 F.2d 1569 (lith Cir. 1988); Jones v. (RcLlS-12lO3 Pub.82760) I 13-55 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION § 13.01[4] They vary greatly in the extent to which they scrutinize the credibility and efficacy of the mitigating measures supporting FONSls. 289f The Ninth Circuit has been quite demanding. 289& The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue. However, the distinctly permissive nature of its NEPA decisions, in general, and its casual review of the adequacy of EIS coverage of mitigation in Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council289h leaves little doubt that the Court would be deferential. There is no doubt that mitigating measures may be imposed as conditions to approval of a proposal under SEPA's broad substantive authority.289i But, it has been argued, they may not be imposed over the objection of the proponent at the threshold determination stage.2891 It is not surprising that the SEPA rules are silent on this question since the MDNS authorization of WAC 197-11-350 is generally deemed to be an accommodation to project proponents.289k It is surprising that proponents would seriously raise this issue since the acting agency may simply issue a determination of significance if the applicant is unwilling to incorporate mitigating measures in the proposal and later, after EIS completion, impose mitigating conditions on its approval of the proposal under clearly established SEPA substantive authority.2891 Gordon, 792 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1986); State of wuisiana v. Lee, 758 F.2d 1081 (5th Cir. 1985); Cabinet Mountains Wilderness/Scotchman's Peak Grizzly Bears v. Peterson, 685 F.2d 678 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("An EIS must be prepared only when significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed action. If, however, the proposal is modified prior to implementation by adding specific mitigation measures which completely compensate for any possible adverse environ- mental impacts stemming from the original proposal, the statutory threshold of significant environmental effects is not crossed and an EIS is not required. To require an EIS in such circumstances would trivialize NEPA and would "diminish its utility in providing useful environmental analysis for major federal actions that truly affect the environment") But see Sie"a Club v. Marsh, 769 F.2d 868 (1st Cir. 1985). 289f Compare C.A.R.E. Now v. FAA and Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, supra note 28ge, with Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. United States, 681 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 1982). 289& See, e.g., Conner v. Burford and Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, supra note 289f; Jones v. Gordon, supra note 28ge; Friends of Endangered Species v. Jantzen, 760 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1985); Steamboaters v. FERC, 759 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1985). See also Greenpeace v. Evans, 688 F. Supp. 579 (W.D. Wash. 1987). 289h 109 S. O. 1835, 104 L. Ed.2d 351, 57 U.S.L.W. 4495 (1989). 2891 RCW 43.21C.06O. 289j See Levine v. Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 807 P.2d 363 (1991). See also Donwood v. Spokane County, 90 Wn.App. 389, 957 P.2d 775 (1998). 289k Supra note 289b. 2891 RCW 43.21C.06O; WAC 197-11-660; see § 18(b), infra. See Foster v. King County, supra note 283. (Rel.1S-12lO3 Pub.82160) § 13.01[4] WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 13-56 The Supreme Court has addressed the issue, holding that mitigating mea- sures may be imposed over the objection of the proponent in connection with an MDNS.289m The court interpreted WAC 197-11-350 in conjunction with WAC 197-11-340 to allow the imposition of mitigating conditions, after the initial ONS was issued, in response to public comments on the ONS.289m.l While the court did not need to go further to resolve the issue before it, there is broader SEPA justification for the imposition of mitigating conditions over the applicant's objection. The agency has substantive authority to impose conditions unilaterally to mitigate identified adverse environmental im- pacts.289m.2 If the agency knows at the threshold determination stage that it will exercise its substantive authority to impose given mitigation when it decides upon the proposal, it is only sensible to so inform the applicant and issue an MONS rather than a OS. However, since substantive authority to impose mitigating conditions may be exercised at the time the agency makes its ultimate decision on a proposal, mitigating conditions may be imposed at that time which are in addition to those which were the basis for the MONS. Since mitigating conditions may be imposed over the objection of the proponent at the threshold stage and formalized through an MDNS, the propo- nent may seek to challenge the validity of the mitigation measures imposed. Such a challenge really relates to the propriety of the substantive mitigation required not the procedural threshold determination of nonsignificance. If an agency allows administrative appeals of substantive mitigating conditions, the appeal may not be heard prior to action on the underlying proposal. 289m.3 Where mitigation is imposed without the proponent's consent, SEPA's limitations on the exercise of substantive authority must be satisfied. 289m.3.1 But where the agency merely offers to change a OS to an MDNS if the proponent modifies the proposal to include specified mitigation, SEPA's limitations on substantive authority do not apply. The MDNS option is authorized by WAC 197-11-350, which does not contain or refer to the constraints on substantive mitigation imposed by RCW 43.21 C.06O and WAC 197-11-660. Of course, a SEPA Rule may not dispense with a statutory requirement. However, as the court reasoned in Foster v. King Coun- ty,289m.3.2 where mitigation is not imposed but merely offered as a 289m Supra note 289j. 289m. 1 Supra note 289j, 116 Wn.2d at 579. 289m.2 Supra note 2891. See Appendix D, SEPA Handbook, at 2.8.1. 289m.3 RCW 43.21C.075(3)(b); WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iii)-{v). See § 19.01, in- fra. 289m.3.1 RCW 43.21C.06O; WAC 197-11-660. See Levine v. Jefferson County; Don- wood v. Spokane County, supra note 289j. 289m.3.283 Wn.App. 339, 348-49, 921 P.2d 552 (1996). (ReLlS-12lO3 PUb.82760) I 13-57 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION § 13.01[4] prerequisite to withdrawing a DS and issuing an MDNS, if the proposed mitigation fails to satisfy RCW 43.21C.060, even assuming this provision applies, the result is invalidation of the mitigation, leaving the DS intact Opponents of proposals may seek to challenge an MDNS on the ground that the mitigation required is insufficient to bring all adverse environmental impacts below the threshold of significance. Since such a challenge raises the issue whether, as mitigated, the proposal would have significant impacts and require an EIS, it may properly be pursued as a procedural ONS adminis- trative appeal, and may be heard prior to action on the underlying propos- al.289m.4 Opponents, at times, challenge an MONS, not because required mitigation would fail to bring impacts below the threshold of significance but because the required mitigation does not go further and avoid even nonsignificant impacts where it would have been feasible to do so. Such a challenge is not proper in an administrative MDNS appeal because it does not address the validity of the agency's determination that the proposal, as mitigated, would not have significant adverse environmental impacts. 289m.5 Rather the chal- lenge may properly be asserted only through an administrative appeal of the substantive mitigating conditions imposed, if available. When a mitigating condition is not imposed but merely offered by an agency as a means of bringing impacts below the significance threshold and, thus, avoiding EIS (or SEIS) preparation, the offered condition may not be challenged under SEPA's requirements for the imposition of substantive miti- gating conditions. 289m.6 [g]-Determination of Significance (DS) The responsible official must document a positive threshold determination by preparing and issuing a determination of significance (OS)290 substantially in the form prescribed by the SEPA Rules.291 Since a positive determination acknowledges the requirement of intensified environmental review through EIS preparation, the OS commences that process. Thus, the OS, in addition to describing the proposal and its location, if site-specific, preliminarily identifies the main areas of environmental impact to be analyzed in the 289m.4 RCW 43.21C.075(3)(a); WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(iii). See § 19.01, infra. 289m.5 See Trout Unlimited v. State Department of Fisheries (also known as North- west Steelhead v. Department of Fisheries). 78 Wn.App. 778.896 P.2d 1292 (1995). 289m.6 RCW 43.21C.06O; WAC 197-11-660; § 18.01[2]. ilifra Kiewit Construction Group v. Clark County. 83 Wash.App. 133. 920 P.2d 1207 (1996). Foster v. King County. 83 Wn.App. 339. 348-49, 921 P.2d 552 (1996). 290WAC 197-11-360(1). 291 WAC 197-11-980. (ReI.1S-12103 Pub.82760) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON CITIZENS' ALLIANCE FOR A RESPONSIBLE EVENDELL, Appellant, vs. CITY OF RENTON and BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION, Respondents. Proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW REGARDING AN APPEAL OF A SEPA MDNS This matter includes an appeal of the City of Renton's ("City's") issuance of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") for the residential subdivision proposed by Bumstead Construction. This brief addresses the standard of review applicable to this State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A") appeal. SEPA requires that the City's threshold determination to issue the MDNS must be accorded substantial weight, providing: Decision of governmental agency to be accorded substantial weight. In any action involving an attack on a determination by a governmental agency relative to the requirement or the absence of the requirement, or the adequacy of a "detailed statement", the decision of the governmental agency shall be accorded substantial weight. BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RCW 43.21C.090. The Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") contains the same requirement. Specifically, the RMC provides that, in an appeal of an environmental determination to the Hearing Examiner: Substantial Weight: The procedural determination by the Environmental Review Committee or City staff shall carry substantial weight in any appeal proceeding. (Ord. 3891, 2-25-1985) The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City rendered pursuant to this Chapter/Title. (Ord. 4346, 3- 9-1992) RMC 4-8-110.E.7.a. Courts have interpreted the statutory mandate to accord substantial weight to the agency decision to require the application of the clearly erroneous standard in judicial review of threshold determinations and the exercise of substantive SEPA authority. Cougar Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 747-749, 765 P.2d 264 (1988). "Under the clearly erroneous standard of review, the court does not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body and may find the decision clearly erroneous only when it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Cougar Mountain, supra, 111 Wn.2d at 747, quoting Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 69, 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, the Renton Municipal Code makes clear that, when applying the clearly erroneous standard, the entire record is to be considered. In that regard, RMC 4-8-110E7.b states: BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30'" Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 h. Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Examiner may affirm the decision !lJ:. remand the case for further proceedings, !lJ:. it may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced because the decision is: i. In violation of constitutional provisions; or ii. In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or iv. Affected by other error oflaw; or v. Clearly erroneous in view ofthe entire record as submitted; or vi. Arbitrary or capricious. (Emphasis added.) The 1995 Washington legislature enacted the Integration of Growth Management and Environmental Review Act. That Act "seeks to avoid duplicative environmental analysis and substantive mitigation of development projects by assigning SEPA a secondary role to (1) more comprehensive environmental analysis in plans and their programmatic environmental impact statements and (2) systematic mitigation of adverse environmental impacts through local development regulations and other local, state, and federal environmental laws." Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 at 15; 31 P.3d 703 at _, quoting Richard L. Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis, Appendix E, p. 505 (1995). The Integration Act bears directly on the subject appeal. One of the Act's provisions, an amendment to the State Environmental Policy Act, has been codified in RCW 43.21C.240 (which was thereafter amended in 2003). It reads: § 43.21C.240. Project review under the growth management act BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW 3 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (1) If the requirements of subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, a county, city, or town reviewing a project action shall determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the county, city, or town's development regulations and comprehensive plans adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws and rules provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project action to which the requirements apply. Rules adopted by the department according to RCW 43.21C.110 regarding project specific impacts that may not have been adequately addressed apply to any determination made under this section. In these situations, in which all adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated below the level of significance as a result of mitigation measures included by changing, clarifying, or conditioning of the proposed action and/or regulatory requirements of development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW or other local, state, or federal laws, a determination of nonsignificance or a mitigated determination of nonsignificance is the proper threshold determination. (2) A county, city, or town shall make the determination provided for in subsection (1) of this section if: (a) In the course of project review, including any required environmental analysis, the local government considers the specific probable adverse environmental impacts ofthe proposed action and determines that these specific impacts are adequately addressed by the development regulations or other applicable requirements of the comprehensive plan, subarea plan element of the comprehensive plan, or other local, state, or federal rules or laws; and (b) The local government bases or conditions its approval on compliance with these requirements or mitigation measures. (3) If a county, city, or town's comprehensive plans, subarea plans, and development regulations adequately address a project's probable specific adverse environmental impacts, as determined under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the county, city, or town shall not impose additional mitigation under this chapter during project review. Project review shall be integrated with environmental analysis under this chapter. (4) A comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulation shall be considered to adequately address an impact if the county, city, or town, through the planning and environmental review process under chapter 36.70A RCW and this chapter, has identified the specific adverse environmental impacts and: (a) The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) The legislative body of the county, city, or town has designated as acceptable certain levels of service, land use designations, development standards, or other land use planning required or allowed by chapter 36.70A RCW. (5) In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the county, city, or town shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the county, city, or town shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws. (6) Nothing in this section limits the authority of an agency in its review or mitigation of a project to adopt or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements under other laws, as provided by this chapter. (7) This section shall apply only to a county, city, or town planning under RCW 36.70A.040. (Emphasis added.) In adopting that provision, the Legislature made the following extensive findings and statement of intent in the law: FINDINGS --INTENT --1995 C 347 § 202: "(1) The legislature finds in adopting RCW 43.21C.240 that: (a) Comprehensive plans and development regulations adopted by counties, cities, and towns under chapter 36.70A RCW and environmental laws and rules adopted by the state and federal government have addressed a wide range of environmental subjects and impacts. These plans, regulations, rules, and laws often provide environmental analysis and mitigation measures for project actions without the need for an environmental impact statement Q.!. further project mitigation. (b) Existing plans, regulations, rules, or laws provide environmental analysis and measures that avoid or otherwise mitigate the probable specific adverse environmental impacts of proposed projects should be integrated with. and should not be duplicated by, environmental review under chapter 43.21 C RCW. (c) Proposed projects should continue to receive environmental review, which should be conducted in a manner that is integrated with and does not duplicate other requirements. Project-level environmental review should be used to: (i) Review and document consistency with comprehensive plans and development regulations; (ii) provide prompt and coordinated review by government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable environmental BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A ProfeSSional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street. Suite 203 Tacoma. WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 laws and plans, including mitigation for specific project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development regulation level; and (iii) ensure accountability by local government to applicants and the public for requiring and implementing mitigation measures. (d) When a project permit application is filed, an agency should analyze the proposal's environmental impacts, as required by applicable regulations and the environmental review process required by this chapter, in one project review process. The project review process should include land use, environmental, public, and governmental review, as provided by the applicable regulations and the rules adopted under this chapter, so that documents prepared under different requirements can be reviewed together by the public and other agencies. This project review will provide an agency with the information necessary to make a decision on the proposed project. (E) THROUGH THIS PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS: (i) If the applicable regulations require studies that adequately analyze all of the project's specific probable adverse environmental impacts, additional studies under this chapter will not be necessary on those impacts; (ii) if the applicable regulations require measures that adequately address such environmental impacts, additional measures would likewise not be required under this chapter; and (iii) if the applicable regulations do not adequately analyze or address a proposal's specific probable adverse environmental impacts, this chapter provides the authority and procedures for additional review. (2) The legislature intends that a primary role of environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW is to focus on the gaps and overlaps that may exist in applicable laws and requirements related to a proposed action. The review of project actions conducted by counties, cities, and towns planning under RCW 36.70A.040 should integrate environmental review with project review. Chapter 43.21 C RCW should not be used as a substitute (or other land use planning and environmental requirements." [1995 c 347 § 201.] (Emphasis added.) CARE's appeal must be considered In VIew of these above-quoted proVISIOns. In Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 31 P.3d 703 (2001), the Washington Court of Appeals, in applying the clearly erroneous standard of review and taking into account the Integration Act, upheld an MDNS for a 172-10t, 79-acre subdivision on a sensitive, steeply sloping site "characterized by ridges and swales, with two creeks running through the property." BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Moss, 109 Wn. App. At 11-12. The Moss Court emphasized that even such a large subdivision does not require an EIS if appropriate mitigation is required through the MDNS process after taking into account the mitigating effects of applicable land development regulations, distinguishing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267,552 P.2d 674 (1976). DATED this 4th day of April, 2006. c:\CF\2530\00 1 \SEPA \Brief Std Review 01 (Final).doc BURNSTEAD'S BRIEF ON THE STANDARD OF REVIEW HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. BY:~~=--~=--=-~~~~~L David L. Hal' en, WSBA # 15923 Attorneys fo espondent Bumstead Construction 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street. Suite 203 Tacoma. WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands _neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Plat Hearing Statement HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Original SEPA Issues of Concern: Applicant Response Staff Response 1. Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a Asserts that King County does None new wildlife study should be required. not protect Red-tailed hawks. 2. Maximum analysis of the surface water situation 1 Sf and 2na points may have been Minimal and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. refuted by response from CORE comment. No • Level III study and mitigation facilities should design. We did not receive any change from the be required. documentation, and thus will original Level II • The current mitigation requirement of a respond as best we are able at drainage bypass system to handle only 6 month storm the hearing. mitigation event is insufficient and should be increased. recommendation. • Extraordinary impacts to adjacent We rebut applicant response downstream properties due to disturbance of comments related to our ard point the naturally existing groundwater system on herein. the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 3. The Forest Practices Application must be required. None None 4. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's We rebut applicant response None recommendation for phased clearing and grading comments herein. must be specifically required in order to minimize antiCipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. 5. The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least None None 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. 6. The sitewide tree retention plan should be None None developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest corner of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Plat Only Issues of Concern: 1. Pedestrian access improvements should be required along the roadway and easement of Rosario Ave NE. 2. Tract 998 pedestrian access concerns. 3. HOA oversight by Renton is needed. 4. Easement and boundary disputes. P::lnA 1 nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Exhibits: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Request incorporation by reference the following Exhibits from Dec. 28 2006 CARE SEPA Appeal: 1. Hawk Photos and Statement provided by Frank and Ronda Bryant 2. Historical Letter File: Drainage and Other Impacts Regarding 3. Annotated King County Hearing Examiner Decisions for Evendell (3a), Liberty Grove (3b), Liberty Grove Contiguous (3c) and Nichols Place (3d) 4. King County IMAP Drainage Complaints Map (4a) and Listing (4b) of reported incidents 5. King County IMAP Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (local area (Sa) and zoom (Sb) maps) 6. King County IMAP Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (local area (6a) and zoom (6b) maps) 7. The Greenprint for King County Figure 16. City Priority & Connectivity (full figure (7a) and zoom (7b) maps) New Exhibits 8. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsvert.htm#birds 9. Copy of Renton's AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES (Figure 4-3-OS0Q) 10. Kezele Statement of April 4, 2006 11. Hill Statement of April 4, 2006 Statement Introduction: This document is submitted with the intent to: 1 . Rebut the Applicant Response documents provided to CARE as of close of business April 3, 2006: Terra Associates, Inc. letter of March 31, 2006 Wetland Resources Inc. letter of March 20, 2006 2. Update the record and the Hearing Examiner with recent developments in the area subsequent to submittal of our original SEPA Appeal on December 28, 2005 Our original SEPA Statement of Appeal forms the basis of this document. New text is presented in boxes for easy reference. P::InA? nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 ISSUE #1: A NEW WILDLIFE STUDY SHOULD BE REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. ANIMALS highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com WNW.highlandsneighbors.org a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • Argument: CARE has recently been provided copies of photos and a statement from an adjacent property owner detailing observed hawk activity on the project site. The applicant submitted no information in regard to the possibility of a protected avian species' presence. • Reference: Exhibit 1 • Requested: A new wildlife study must be required in order to ensure that the habitat of any protected species is correctly protected and any adverse effects are properly mitigated. The applicants' asserts that "CARE's issue 1 is groundless." On the contrary, our issue is valid. We reference Renton's standard wildlife checklist and is a required application document. We submit that applicant's submission of King County code is irrelevant. King County does not hold jurisdiction in this matter, and such policies have no bearing on consideration of this matter. Further, we offer the following: RMC 4·3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULA TIONS: A. 5. Habitat Conservation: The primary purpose of habitat conservation regulations is to minimize impacts to critical habitats and to restore and enhance degraded or lower quality habitat in order to: a. Maintain and promote diversity of species and habitat within the City; and b. Coordinate habitat protection with the City's open space system, whenever poSSible, to maintain and provide habitat connections; and c. Help maintain air and water qualify, and control erosion; and d. Serve as areas for recreation, education, scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation . . RMC Chapter 11: DEFINITIONS PRIORITY HABITAT AND SPECIES: Habitats and species of importance and concern as identified by the Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and SpeCies Program ... "Priority species" are fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures andlor management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. The Merlin Hawks and Pileated Woodpeckers referenced in the letter from Frank and Ronda Bryant (Exhibit 1) are indeed listed by the Washington State Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program (Exhibit 8) ______ l-ancLas~Y.Cl1.Jb~~e sRe_cle~_an~ p(Qle~teJLlJrlder Fie_rIt.on regulatiQ~ ________ -_______ -.--.. -------.. -------- We reQuest additional wildlife study and appropriate mitigation. P~nA ~ nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL III STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED RMC 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to promote and develop poliCies with respect to and to preserve the City's watercourses and to minimize water quality degradation by previous siltation. sedimentation and pollution of creeks. streams. rivers. lakes and other bodies of water to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) G. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans. specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable. irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns. protect groundwater supply. prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULA TIONS: C. APPUCABIUTY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: 3. Finding of Conformance Required: a. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shall be a finding in any approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall be documented in writing in the project file. b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shall permits for development be issued if the Department finds that the proposed land use. activity, or business is likelv to impact the long-term. short-term or cumulative qualitv of the aquifer. AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES: Figure 4-3-050Q1 (Exhibit 9) The applicants' response asserts that the citations above refer only to the Renton AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES map. The map is so out of date that it does not show the East Maplewood Annexation Area, within which the subject parcels are located, as being inside the Renton City Limits. This map in itself shows, as we originally expressed concem, that insufficient data was available for considered by staff in review of this application. This is exactly the situation that we suspected to be the case. The very recent annexation of this area has not allowed sufficient data to be acquired and considered by the Renton staff. In this case, the Department Director, the Hearing Examiner, the City Council and ultimately, the City of Renton are vested with sufficient authority under city and state law to require mitigation sufficient to protect the public and private interested that can reasonably be ctedlQbane.gafu£eJ~ impactedb¥ ihapropasedapplicatiorL-______ --------------------->---- P::tnA 4 nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties highlands_neighborS@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Please review the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concerns expressed by the owner of one of the project parcels. The applicants response does not address our documented concern. The response posits that we have concern for the owners of the proposed new homes. In fact, our concerns are for the impacts to the septic systems of the surrounding properties. During the construction of the Evendell plat -which is detailed in Exhibit 3a of original appeal and for which higher drainage mitigation standards than are currently being recommended for this application where required, drainage issues have caused distinctly impressive damage to adjacent properties (Exhibit 10). This example is on a site with identical soil types, has comparable slope and geology, and is in the immediate vicinity of the Highlands Park site. The applicant repeatedly asserts that everything they propose is within the standard practices for the whole Puget Sound area. We have documented that these averaged-out- over-the-whole;..area-rules-of-thumb have proven inadequate to mitigate the real-world impacts, especially off-site drainage impacts, of development in our community. We request additional drainage analysis to ensure that no change resultant of this Highlands Park plat shall negatively impact the existing downstream septic systems. Recent King County Hearing Examiner Decisions on Local Subdivision Applications In our letter of November 30, 2005 to the Renton Project Planner, we referenced the King County Hearing Examiner's findings and required drainage mitigation that came out of the recent subdivision applications in the area. The following applications were submitted to and processed by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services within the last four years: Evendell L01 P0016A and L03RE038 Liberty Grove L03P0006 and L03TY403 Liberty Grove Contiguous L03P0005 and L03TY401 Nichols Place L03D0008 and L03TY 404 We understand from subsequent conversations with staff that the findings and requirements on these projects may have been disregarded due to difference of jurisdiction and local drainage basin, but we challenge this reasoning. These other projects are within 2 blocks of the subject project and the geological and current infrastructure capacity/condition/design are all directly comparable and provide valid context in which this project must be evaluated. We have provided annotated copies of these reports highlighting the required drainage mitigation details (Exhibits 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). Area Drainage Complaint History This heading may also have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional configuration currently in force. We have included printouts from the King County IMap application (Exhibits 4a and 4b that shows historical drainage complaint sites likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project. Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched ~roundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE 1361 StreeU2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136th SU2nd had to be reworked And there were multiple incidents where workers were heard to exclaim 'We hit a pipe!!" when they had in ------actaatity-pancturedcrperched groandwaterconveyance-orconstderabt~votarrrn1thToughPat.-------------------- P::Inf''! f\ nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org The applicants' response asserts that "CARE provides no evidences in support of its assertion that "historical drainage complaint sites [are] likely to be impacted ... " We submit that the burden of proof is not ours to bear. The applicant and the City of Renton are responsible for implementation of the Highlands Park project in such a manner that the public interest is protected and reasonably anticipated negative impacts are adequately mitigated. All of our drainage related comments on this project support our basic concern that the downstream impacts to natural surface and groundwater, constructed downstream drainage conveyances, as well as private septic systems have not been sufficiently studied and therefore mitigation can not have been appropriately required. In a environment known to have a history of recurrent and wide-spread drainage issues, we believe the existing public and private downstream interests can not be protected by a detention and water quality system that we must expect to be bypassed twice a year, as the proposed system will be by-passed by any 6-month event. We request additional drainage analysis to ensure that no change resultant of this Highlands Park plat shall negatively impact any previously identified or reasonably anticipated Drainage Complaint. We also offer Exhibit 11 in an attempt to provide adequate documentation of the bullet points presented above. Class 2 Critical Aguifer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination We include in this package, for your consideration and for the record: 1) a map from the King County IMap application that shows that the location of huge Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area that borders the Cedar River for miles is within 25 vertical feet of the proposed stormwater discharge location from the proposed drainage control facilities (Exhibits Sa and 5b), and 2) a map of the Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (Exhibits 6a and 6b) directly downstream and/or overlapping the Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The health and functionality of these natural systems are facing increased threat from the cumulative negative effects of development of the East Renton Plateau and appropriate mitigation and protection is Renton's responsibility. Once again, the applicants' response does not address our documented concern. We refer to our previous aquifer related comments as noted above, and reiterate that our focus in regard to the Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone is intended to highlight the fact that there was insufficient study of the anticipated downstream impacts of the proposed plat -specifically in regard to the 6-month event bypass of the detention and water quality system that has been proposed. We request additional drainage analysis to ensure that no change resultant of this Highlands Park plat shall negatively impact the CateQorv 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area identified previouslv. Section 4.3 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 4 Erosion Hazard) "Regardless of the site classification, the site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. " This section indicates concern that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion and recommends full Best Practices implementation. We ask the precise level/standard to be specifically required by reference to the relevant manual and classification. Section 5.8 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 9 Drainage) ._---~T~l'l'Imen(:rlrrstallmg-conttnaoo~"dralr1satong-ttfe oorslOelower ec:Ige OflflEq:>enmeter oOilCffngrounaallOn-s:-:-: ----_. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year." This section makes clear the serious groundwater situation on the project site. If such extreme measures are required for the new construction, obviously, very serious mitigation measures must be required in order to protect the public interest as well as the private interests of adjacent and downstream properties. P~m'! R nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.o. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands _neighborS@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: Drainage in the East Renton Plateau PAA has been a chronic concern from the very first development in this area. Adequate analysis and mitigation of storm/surface/ground water impacts are of greatest concern to CARE and surrounding property owners. It appears to us that the location of Renton's City Limits relative to the project site may have limited downstream analysis so far performed. The current site sits within a very recently annexed (effective June 1,2005) eastward protrusion of Renton's border where staff has not previously reviewed projects. Thus much of the downstream impacts from this project will affect watercourses, protected Class II Aquifer Recharge Zone and properties that currently lie within King County jurisdiction with which staff may not be adequately familiar. However, Renton bears the responsibility for the public trust in the protection of the aquifer recharge area, and ultimately the lower Cedar River where all water-related impacts from this project will discharge. Our greatest interest is that this project will be adequately mitigated within appropriate real-world context. We believe that Level III analysis and mitigation per the 2005 King County Drainage manual is necessary. RMC 4.6.030.G.3 establishes the authority of the Administrator to impose these development conditions. • Reference: Exhibit 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, Sa, 5b, 6a and 6b Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 • Requested: A new surface water and downstream analysis should be performed to consider the wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project site. We request a full Levell(( (per the 2005 King County Drainage manual) study and Level III mitigation facilities be required of this project. P~nF! 7 nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ISSUE #3: FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION MUST BE REQUIRED RCW 76.09.050 Rules establishing classes of forest practices Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Class IV: Forest practices other than those contained in Class I or II: (aJ On lands platted after January 1. 1960. as provided in chapter 58.17 RCW. (bJ on lands that have or are being converted to another use. (cJ on lands which. pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended. are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development. (eI) involving timber harvesting or road construction on lands that are contained within "urban growth areas. " designated pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW ... PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action pursuant to a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted. Letter from Lisa Spahr. Department of Natural Resources, dated 11/0212005 included in the ERCR Ms. Spahr's letter indicates two issues that could trigger the Forest Practices Application. Environmental Review Committee Report date 121061205 -Section 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." • Argument: The forest that currently covers the project site is vested as part of the establish character of our community. We understand that forest cover reduction is inevitable through (re)-development in this area, however, enabling and prescriptive/protectionary legislation has been adopted that covers this site and we request full consideration under the law. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12/06/205 • Requested: A full review by the Department of Natural Resources and a full Forest Practices Application should be required. I Applicant offered no response. -----------~--------"------------------------ P~m:~ R nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ISSUE #4: PHASED CLEARING AND GRADING MUST BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED Section 5.2 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 5 Site Preparation and Grading) highlands_neighbors@hotrnail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org "To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of between 3 to 18 inches should be expected ... " Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/205 -Section 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/205 -Section 7 p. 5 "To maximize preservation of existing trees, clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage will only be allowed as necessary to construct roads and utilities." • Argument: Both staff and third party experts acknowledge that this project will severely disturb the surface and subsurface geology of the project site. As previously discussed, this site is particularly subject to surface and groundwater issues. All reasonable efforts to phase these impacts so the immediate negative impacts can be imposed incrementally should be required. • Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 Environmental Review Committee Report -12/06/205 • Requested: Detailed phased clearing and grading plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to final plat consideration. Applicants' response fails to address the fact that 75% of what is currently a forested parcel will be stripped bare. According to their Preliminary Tree Retention plan, that gives us an estimate of over 500 mature/significant trees to be removed. They can be conservatively calculated to pull up to 200 gallons of water per day from the local groundwater systems. Add the negative impact of the sitewide removal of the 3" to 18" of surface duff and topSOil which directly affects the surface water systems, and you may begin to see the scale of drainage impact we anticipate. The site clearing impacts are known to area residents. We have already been enduring them in recent years (Exhibits 10 and 11). While there may be no direct nexus by which we can expect mitigation measures under the law for the road-kill impacts or the mice and rat invasions preCipitated by site clearing, drainage mitigation requirements are many, varied and strong. The fact of the matter is that recent experience, as we have documented, indicates that site preparations according to the rules-of-thumb cited by the applicant have proved insufficient in our community. We request the strongest possible site preparation mitigation measures be required for this application. Pl=lnl"! q nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #5: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT PLAN IS CONSIDERED Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/205 -Section 7 p. 5 "Prior to receiving construction permits, the aplicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree retention p,an for review and approval by the Development Services Division. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of the identified trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited." • Argument: The significant trees that will be retained due to this mitigation requirement serve much more than aesthetic purposes. On this site, subject 0 such serious groundwater and surface water concerns, retention of significant trees will further mitigate drainage issues. We are concerned that if the full tree retention plan is not required first, clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits will be vested without full and correct specification of the impacts of the tree retention plan. This will completely defeat the purpose of the tree retention plan mitigation requirement. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/205 • Requested: Detailed sitewide tree inventory and retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network deSign, utility location and all other plans and permits. I Applicant offered no response. Pl'ln~ 1n nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #6: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FENCING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND EASEMENT ON ROSARIO AVE. NE RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail. provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA TlONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-20001 RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or hislherdesignee. (Ord.4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. WALKWAYS: Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may reguire one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6"1 in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBLIC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses. and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD-16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. P::Inl'! 11 nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighborS@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 violates CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 7 a and 7b, these lots are directly along the easemenUstreet route shown between two the two King County Parks. The land for these parks were purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site. • Reference: Exhibit 7a and 7b • Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all dearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. I Applicant offered no response. P~nA 1? nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 New SEPA Related Data: Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com WNW.highlandsneighbors.org We wish to ask that the Hearing Examiner consider requesting a more complete statement from Diane Kezele (Exhibit 10). She was not able to join us today due to family obligations and offered her statement at the last moment because she hopes that her experience might save other families and property owners the distress, disturbance and expense that she and her neighbors have endured under circumstance very similar to the Highlands Park proposal. In regard to the Tree Retention Plan submitted in January: Observations: Several of the trees shown on the plan appear to be within the Hills' disputed boundary area and may very well not be within the final parcel/plat boundary. Owners of adjacent properties have reported that several trees that appear to be mapped in the plan to be retained are in fact dead, dying or otherwise not trees most worthy of retention. Of particular concem is the proposed retention of older hemlocks. Hemlocks do not have as long an anticipated healthy lifespan as other native trees and older ones should not be retained. When these specific concerns with the Retention plan were presented to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Chen at a community meeting on March 27,2006, we were told that the map is illustrative of concept only and not an actual representation of the specific trees to be retained. We are concerned that some of the healthy and mature trees on or very near to the plat boundary will be killed by site preparation. Requests: The detailed final Tree Retention Plan must be updated after resolution of the Hills boundary dispute in order to reflect the trees that will actually be retained and lost in the within the to-be-agreed legal plat/parcel boundary. The detailed final Tree Retention Plan must be accurately mapped to show exactly which trees are to be saved and which will be removed. This plan must be reviewed on-site and approved by the Renton Arborist or other independent third-party professional. Special care is warranted to ensure: The most healthy, long-lived trees with the least chance of falling or dying soon should be given priority for retention. Where possible, retained trees should be grouped in order to offer the most natural groupings with trees on adjacent properties. This will provide for a healthier urban forest system and minimize the risk to adjacent properties. P::Inp. 1~ nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 I Plat Only Issues of Concern: Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org 1. Pedestrian access improvements should be required along the existing roadway and easement of Rosario Ave NE. RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBIUTY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: If a subdivision is located in the area of an officiall'/. desig,.ned trail, ll.rovisions shall be made for reservation of the rig,.ht-of-wa'/. or for easements to the Cit'/. for trailll.umoses. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA TIONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to ll.reserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000J RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the ll.urll.0se of this Section to ll.rovide for the ll.rotection of valuable, irrell.laceable environmental amenities and to make urban deve/0ll.ment as comll.atible as tl!1.ssible with the ecolog,.ical balance of the area. Goals are to ll.reserve drainage ll.attems, ll.rotect g,.roundwater SUll.ll.IY.., ll.revent erosion and to ll.reserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All adlacent rig,.hts-of-wa'/. and new rights-of-wa'/. dedicated as ll.art of the ll.lat, including,. streets, roads, and alle'/.s, shall be graded to their full width and the ll.avement and sidewalks shall be constructed as sll.ecified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. (Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. WALKWAYS: Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing,. Official ma'/. reauire one or more ll.ublic crosswalks or walkwa'/.s of not less than six feet l6"l in width dedicated to the Cill!. to extend entire/'/. across the width of the block at locations deemed necessaa. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBUC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due reaard shall be shown to all natural features such as lame trees, watercourses, and similar communit'/. assets. Such natural features should be ll.reserved, thereb'/. adding attractiveness and value 10 me IJ'UIJ~' ~.,. (VTU • .,.UV, -. ,-,-I.vv.) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD-16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. P:::.nA 14 nf 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 52, 53, and 54 violates CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 7a and 7b, these lots are directly along the easement/street route shown between two the two King County Parks. The land for these parks were purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site. Additionally, Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation in regard to the James Jaques parcel. This vacation of public ownership conveys Significant financial gain at public expense to this private party. In consideration of this boon, it is fair and prudent to require the pedestrian improvements we request. • Reference: Exhibit 7a and 7b Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other J>lans and permits. PJ:lnl''! 1fi of 17 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 2. Tract 998 Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Staff recommendation # 3 would require" a 6-foot paved pedestrian walkway connection, to be located within the existing recorded access easement" to be provided between Vesta Ave. SE. and the internal plat street. First, this is the easement previously identified to staff as being in dispute. Perhaps of significantly greater concern is the fact that this access is currently and actively used by the easement owner as a driveway. We find the dual use recommendation to be particularly troubling. We request that these uses be required to have separate and appropriately constructed facilities and suggest that resolution of this issue may be achieved through the on-going easement negotiations between the applicant and the easement owner. 2. HOA oversight by Renton is needed. Staff recommendation # 6 would require a Homeowner's association or maintenance agreement "in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway, stormwater and utility improvements." In light of the HOA evident performance along SE 12Sth St, we request that Renton retain performance oversight and that maintenance for shared landscaping and open space/park tracts be required as well. 4. Easement and boundary disputes. It has come to our attention that there are two outstanding ownership interest issues that have not yet been resolved in regard to the subject parcels. Per Halverson v. Bellevue (41.Wn. App. 457) and RCW 58.17.165 it appears that resolution of these issues to the satisfaction of all parties, as well as a certificate of dedication signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands to be subdivided is required before this final approval of this application can be rendered. Because resolution of these disputes are not wholly stand-alone, but in fact their outcomes will materially affect two areas of Significant concern as recorded in this Statement -tree retention plan and the pedestrian access from Vesta Ave SE -we request that an additional public comment period be allowed before the final application decision is rendered. P~np 1R nf 17 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 FINAL NOTE: Highlands Park Plat Hearing Statement highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org CARE would like to make clear that this Appeal is intended to register a challenge in degree more than in fundamental protest. We are generally satisfied with the level of review and mitigation proposed by staff. Certainly, a greater respect for long-term consequences has been evidenced than what we have seen under King County jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we remain concerned that this is the first such Proposed Land Use Action to be considered by the City in this area. CARE has been very actively involved in similar Land Use Action applications in the vicinity, and we offer this appeal in the hope of protecting the quality of life and the character of our community. This application is, in a very real sense, a test case for the City of Renton to demonstrate wise planning in the real world to a surrounding community of over 3000 resident/owners as we consider our governance options in the upcoming Preserve Our Plateau annexation ballot measure. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter of grave concern to our community. Respectfully submitted, Gwendolyn High CARE president April 4, 2006 P~nl'! 17 nf 17 .. Back to PHS List 'riority Sgecies List: Vertebrates: ~sh, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals) FISH 'or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC list. SPECIES WASHINGTON GEOGRAPHIC :OMMON NAME Scientific name CRITERIA STATUS Priority Area AREA (WDFW) Regi~m8 .amprey (Petromyzontidae) :iver lamprey Lampetra ayresi 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 1 4 5 6 Candidate Species iturgeon (Acipenseridae) ireen sturgeon Acipenser 2 3 Food fish Any occurrence 4 5 6 medirostris Jhite sturgeon Acipenser 2 3 Food fish Any occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 transmontanus lerring (Clupeidae) acific herring Clupea pallasi 1 2 3 State Listed or Breeding areas; regular 4 6 Candidate Species; large concentrations Food fish ludminnows (Umbridae) Iympic mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 4 5 6 Candidate Species linnows (Cyprinidae) :Ike chub Couesius 1 State listed or Any occurrence 1 2 3 5 plumbeus Candidate Species ~opard dace Rhinichthys 1 State listed or Any occurrence 1 2 3 5 falcatus Candidate Species matilla dace Rhinichthys 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 1 2 3 umatilla Candidate Species uckers (Catostomidae) ountain sucker Catostomus 1 State listed or Any occurrence 1 2 3 5 platyrhynchus Candidate Species atfishes (Ictaluridae) lannel catfish Ictalurus 3 Game Any occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 punctatus melt (Osmeridae) Jlach9n Thaleicbttws 1 2_3 State Listedo[ -. Regular concentrations-----4 -56 pacificus Candidate Species; Food fish Ingfin smelt Spirinchus 2 3 Food fish Breeding areas; regular 4 6 thaleichthys large concentrations Jrfsmelt Hypomesus 2 3 Food fish Breeding areas; regular 4 6 pretiosus large concentrations .~ .. + ~ ... Irn~ ... 2. Whi+Afi~h .. u. 1~.::lII..,..,('\nin.::llo\ er cascadae Candidate Species , ul'nbia torrent Rhyacotriton State Listed or Anyoccu _ce 5 6 alamander kezeri Candidate Species )unn's salamander Plethodon dunni 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 5 6 Candidate Species .arch Mountain Plethodon /arselli 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 3 4 5 alamander Candidate Species 'an Dyke's Plethodon 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 5 6 alamander vandykei Candidate Species REPTILES 'or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC List. SPECIES WASHINGTON GEOGRAPHIC :OMMON NAME Scientific name CRITERIA STATUS Priority Area AREA (WOFW) Regionl :agebrush lizard Sceloporus 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 1 2 3 graciousus Candidate Species inakes(Squamata) :alifornia mountain Lamprope/tis 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 5 ingsnake zonata Candidate Species harptail snake Contia tenuis 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 2 3 5 6 Candidate Species triped whipsnake Masticophis 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 1 2 3 taeniatus Candidate Species 'urtles (Testudines) "estern pond turtle Clemmys 1 State Listed or Any occurrence 4 5 6 marmorata Candidate Species BIRDS or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC List. SPECIES WASHINGTON GEOGRAPHIC :OMMON NAME Scientific name CRITERIA STATUS Priority Area AREA (WDFW) Regions 'arine Birds merican white Pe/ecanus 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas; regular and 1 2 3 5 3lican erythrorhynchos Candidate Species regular large concentrations randt's cormorant Pha/acrocorax 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas; regular and 4 5 6 penicil/atus Candidate Species regular large concentrations rown pelican Pe/ecanus 1 2 State Listed or Regular concentrations in 6 accidenta/is Candidate Species foraging and resting areas assin's auklet ptychoramphus 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas 6 a/euticus Candidate Species ommon loon Gavia immer 1 2 State Listed or Breeding sites, regular and 1 2 3 4 5 6 Candidate Species regular large concentrations ammon murre Uria aalge 1 2 State Listed or Breeding areas, regular and 4 6 Candidate Species regular large concentrations astern Washington 2 Breeding areas 1 2 3 'eeding )ncentrations of: 0[11l0f~r}t§ ____ .. --~ -."-"-" ------~-------.----~ ----. ---------------~ --_. ---------- astern Washington 2 Breeding areas 1 2 3 'eeding mcentrations of: rebes astern Washington 2 Breeding areas 1 2 3 5 'eeding: Terns arbled murrelet BrachvramlJhus 1 2 State Listed or Any occurrence in suitable 4 5 6 -tailed albatross Phoebastria a/batrus State Listed or Candidate Species 'ufted puffin Fratercu/a cirrhata 1 2 3 State Listed or Vestern grebe Vestern Washington feeding oncentrations of: Ilcids Vestern Washington reeding oncentrations of: :ormorants Vestern Washington reeding oncentrations of: ;torm -petrels Vestern Washington reeding oncentrations of: erns I/estern Washington onbreeding oncentrations of: .Icids I/estern Washington onbreeding oncentrations of: ormorants "estern Washington onbreeding :mcentrations of: ulmar, Shearwaters Jestern Washington onbreeding Jncentrations of: febes lestern Washington :>nbreeding Jncentrations of: Jons lestern Washington Jnbreeding )ncentrations of: torm-petrels Aechmophorus occidenta/is lerons (Ciconiiformes) lack-crowned night Nycticorax ~ron nycticorax reat blue heron Ardea herodias laterfowl (Anseriformes) Candidate Species 1 2 State Listed or Candidate Species 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ----------~~ --- --- -- --------- --------leutian Canada Branta 1 State Listed or JOse canadensis Candidate Species /eucopareia arrow's goldeneye Bucepha/a is/andica rant Branta bernic/a 3 Game 2 3 Game large co :rations Any occu .. _ .. ce Regular concentrations; breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Breeding areas Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Regular large concentrations Breeding areas Breeding areas Regular concentrations Breeding areas Regular large concentrations in foraging and resting .. . 6 4 6 1 2 3 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 1 234 5 6 123456 5 6 1 234 5 6 4 6 goldeneye Bucephala 3 Game Breeding IS 1 2 3 4 5 6 clangula equin duck Histrionicus 2 3 Game Breeding areas, regular and 1 2 3 4 5 6 histrionicus regular large concentrations in saltwater -Iooded merganser Lophodytes 3 Game Breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 cucullatus ,now goose Chen 2 3 Game Regular large concentrations 4 caerulescens . rum peter swan Cygnus 2 3 Game Regular and regular large 1 2 3 4 5 6 buccinator concentrations undra swan Cygnus 2 3 Game Regular and regular large 1 2 3 4 5 6 columbianus concentrations Vaterfowl 2 3 Game Significant breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 oncentrations and regular large concentrations in winter Vestern Washington Bucephala 2 3 Game Regular large concentrations 4 5 6 on breeding islandica oncentrations of: :arrow's goldeneye Vestern Washington Bucephala albeola 2 3 Game Regular large concentrations 4 5 6 onbreeding oncentrations of: :ufflehead Vestern Washington Bucephala 2 3 Game Regular large concentrations 4 5 6 onbreeding clangula oncentrations of: :ommon goldeneye Vood duck Aix sponsa 3 Game Breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 lawks, Falcons, Eagles (Falconiformes) aid eagle Haliaeetus 1 State Listed or Breeding areas, communal 1 2 3 4 5 6 leucocephalus Candidate Species roosts, regular and regular large concentrations, regularly-used perch trees in breeding areas erruginous hawk Buteo regalis 1 State Listed or Breeding areas, including 1 2 3 Candidate Species alternate nest sites. If breeding area is not known, approximate with a 7.0 km2 (4.35 mi2) area around known nest sites, foraging areas iolden eagle Aquila chrysaetos 1 State Listed or Breeding and foraging areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ Candidate Species Falco columbarius 1 State Listed or Breeding sites 1 2 3 4 5 6 Candidate Species orthern goshawk ACCipiter genti/is 1 State Listed or Breeding areas, including 1 2 3 4 5 6 Candidate Species alternate nest sites, post- fledging foraging areas eregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 1 State Listed or Breeding areas, regular 1 2 3 4 5 6 Candidate Species occurrences, hack sites rairie falcon Falco mexicanus 3 _____ ~~~e.9~n51_a!~~s _________ 1 2 3 5 ._------------------------ -----------------------------------_._- Ipland Game Birds (Galliformes) lue grouse Dendragapus 3 Game Breeding areas, regular 1 2 3 4 5 6 obscurus concentrations hukar Alectoris chukar 3 Game Regular and regular large 1 2 3 5 concentrations in WOFWs Primary Management Zones for chukar ! .. ) Jf.;ked ..Int Phasianus colchicus 3age grouse Centrocercus urophasianus :>harp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 'Vild turkey Me/eagris gallopavo :ranes (Gruiformes) iandhill crane Grus canadensis ;horebirds (Charadriiformes) :astern Washington feeding ccurrences of: 'halaropes :astern Washington reeding ccurrences of: Stilts nd avocets ;nowy plover Ipland sandpiper Vestern Washington onbreeding oncentrations of: :haradriidae Vestern Washington onbreeding oncentrations of: halaropodidae Ifestern Washington onbreeding ::mcentrations of: colopacidae Charadrius a/exandrinus Bartramia longicauda 'igeons (Columbiformes) and-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 Game 3 State Listed or Candidate Species; Game 3 State Listed or Candidate Species Game 3 Game State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species 3 Game Self-sust g birds 123 observe( ~ular or regular large concentrations in WDFWs eastern Washington Primary Management Zone for pheasant Breeding areas, leks, regular 1 23 and regular large concentrations Breeding areas, leks, regular 1 2 and regular large concentrations, critical wintering habitat (riparian zones) Regular and regular large 1 2 3 concentrations and roosts in WDFWs Primary Management Zones for wild turkeys 5 6 Breeding areas, regular large concentrations, migration staging areas 1 234 5 6 Breeding areas 123 Breeding areas 123 Breeding areas 6 Any occurrence 1 Regular large concentrations 456 Regular large concentrations 456 Regular large concentrations 456 Breeding areas, regular 4 5 6 concentrations, occupied _. ________ ~ -----._. ---. -----mineralspungs---------------- --------- :uckoos (Cuculiformes) ellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 'wls (Strigiformes) 1 urrowing owl Athene cunicularia 1 State Listed or Any occurrence Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species Breeding areas, foraging areas, regular 1 2 4 123 5 1potted owl Strix occidenta/is ;wifts (Apodiformes) faux's swift Chaetura vauxi 1 'Voodpeckers (Piciformes) !lack-backed Picoides arcticus 1 foodpecker ,ewis' woodpecker Me/anerpes lewis 1 -~ 'Heated woodpeckey' Oryocopus 1 =:---pi/eatus Vhite-headed Picoides 1 roodpecker a/bo/arvatus 'erching Birds (Passeriformes) oggerhead shrike )regon vesper parrow 'urple martin ;age sparrow ,age thrasher Lanius /udovicianus Pooecetes gramineus affinis Progne subis Amphispiza belli Oreoscoptes montanus lender-billed, white-Sitta carolinensis reasted nuthatch acu/eata treaked, horned Irk Eremophila a/pestris strigata 1 1 1 1 1 Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species State Listed or Candidate Species MAMMALS or information on state listed or candidate species, see the SOC List. :OMMON NAME Scientific name SPECIES WASHINGTON CRITERIA STATUS ,hrews (lnsectivora) lerriam's shrew Sorex merriami 1 State Listed or Candidate Species lats (Chiroptera) een's myotis Myotis keeni 1 2 State Listed or Candidate Species occurren, Anyoccu _ce 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding areas, communal 1 2 3 4 5 6 roosts Breeding areas and regular 1 2 3 5 occurrences Breeding areas 1 2 3 5 Breeding areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 Breeding sites, regular 1 2 3 5 occurrences Regular occurrences in 1 2 3 5 breeding areas, regular and regular large concentrations Any occurrence Breeding areas, including used artificial nest features, feeding areas Breeding areas, regular occurrences in suitable habitat during breeding season Breeding areas, regular occurrences in suitable habitat during breeding season Any occurrence Any occurrence Priority Area Any occurrence Any occurrence 456 456 123 123 5 5 6 456 GEOGRAPHIC AREA (WOFW) Regions 123 6 ,oosting Eptesicus fuscus 2 Regular large concentrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 JAGentrationsof7--------------------------------------in-natuFaHy-eecufring-------------------- ig brown bat breeding areas and other oosting :>ncentrations of: Iyotis bats oosting Myotisspp. Antrozous pallidus 2 2 communal roosts Regular large concentrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 in naturally occurring breeding areas and other communal roosts ReQular large concentrations 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 Modified 2 limits Figure 4-3-050Q1 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES o 3 -20.43 4-3-0500 5280' 10560' 1" = 1 MILE (Revised 6/05) Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 April 4, 2006 Re: LUA-05-l24, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Examiner, I am not able to attend the hearing today, but I would like to record my concerns in the hope that other owners and residents will not have to go through what I, my family and my neighbors have experienced. We, along with CARE, worked long and hard to get Level III drainage mitigation for the Evendell plat, which is directly adjacent to my property. Even this level of mitigation has proven insufficient. After the project site was re-graded, the surface grade of the Evendell parcel, which had historically been at a lower elevation to our own property, was raised so that the border area is now several feet higher than our property. Earlier this year, the resultant run-off, high volume sheet flow as well as three well defined streams, completely inundated our on-site septic system. It absolutely flushed our system out, causing the most noxious mix to flow across our property and into the two adjoining neighbors property, including the inundation of one structure. Several temporary emergency drainage ditches had to be dug across our property and that of the inundated owners' as well in order to convey this effluent. The Highlands Park project is only 2 blocks away from Evendell. It has the same dirt and other features.The drainage and run-off issues in this area are well-known to those of us who have lived here for years. Future consequences are very reasonably expected from these new developments. At the very least, I hope that this letter may help to document the fact that the neighbors have warned Renton and the developers that st~ger drainage mitigation is necessary here. In the worst case scenario, at least this record may serve the community should legal remedy be required after some future event. Thank you, ; .II I" /L/;{ k-lLL- Diane Kezele /?t,57 /2&///;"/1 Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 April 4, 2006 Re: LUA-05-l24, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Examiner, This letter is to record that the following selection from page 5 of the CARE Highlands Park Hearing Statement is true to the best of our ability to relate the events that we witnessed: "Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE l36th Street/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136th St/2nd had to be reworked And there were multiple incidents where workers were heard to exclaim "We hit a pipe!!" when they had in actuality punctured a perched groundwater conveyance of considerable volumn/throughput." Thank you, ~~ June Hill . ' 12/28/2005 10:03 4259903490 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Kerl Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Prinoipal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 December 28.2005 Request for Reconsideration and Appeal: OURS Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, PAGE E:J2 hlghlands_nelghborS@hotmail.com www.hlghlandsneighbors.org Due to pressing time constraints of the Appeal deadline, the already scheduled next Environmental Committee meeting and the Public Hearing on this matter, we are filing our Request for Reconsideration and our Appeal simultaneously. We hope that our concerns will be adequately addressed through the Reconsideration process, in which event we anticipate immediate withdrawal of the associated Appeal. CARE, Its members and the larger community would be directly and adversely affected If the subject application is approved without adequate mitigation of adverse effects that we anticipate and for which we have provided extensive documentation to the Department of Development Services. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible development in our oommunlty consistent with state and local laws. We are particularly concerned with protecting against physical damage to existing residenoes and properties as a result of site preparation. construction, and use associated with the Highlands Park development, including the avoidance of potential downstream flooding as a direct result of the Highlands Park development. Such impacts would harm CARE members' Interests in protecting their property values, along with their privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their property. Additionally, we request that the Public Hearing for Highlands Park Plat application, currently scheduled for January 6, 2006, be re-scheduled to follow resolution 01 this SEPA reconsideration/appeal. Gwendolyn High will speak for CARE in this matter. The attached Statement of Appeal details our issues of concem. We request prompt notification if we make any procedural error, so that we may make corrections at once. Despite our best efforts we may err through lack of previous experience with Renton's process. We commend all staff for the conSistently patient and professional customer service we have experienced already, and look forward to a speedy and satisfactory resolution in this matter. Thank ygU for your time and consideration, ,.i/ " .. ·t-··'·/ .. /~:l1 .. {'~ _ /' J ,I -:-G~~~~I;~~i~~ I --~::J/i .. -- CARE president cc: Michael Chen -Core Design, Inc. Burnstead Construction 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903490 , ' " Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible Even de II P.O. Box 2936 RSl'lton, WA 98056 OURS Statement of Appeal REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT: LUA ~05-124t PP, ECF Issues of Concern~ 1. Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. PAGE 02 highlands_neighbors @hOImail.com www.hlghland9nelghbors.org 2. Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. • Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. • The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. • Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 3. The Forest Practices Application must be required. 4. The Environmental Review Committee Report's recommendation for phased olearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. 5. The site wide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former Is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. 6. The sltewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. 7. Final Note Exhibits: 1. Hawk Photos and Statement provided by Frank and Ronda Bryant 2. Historical Letter File: Regarding Drainage and Other Impacts 3. Annotated King County Hearing Examiner Decisions for Evendell (3a), liberty Grove (3b), Liberty Grove Contiguous (3c) and Nichols Place (3d) 4. King County IMAP Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination + Drainage Complaints (local area (4a) and 200m (4b) maps + Complaints listing (40» 5. King County IMAP Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (local area (5a) and zoom (5b) maps) 6. The Greenprint for King County Figure 16. City Priority & Connectivity (full figure (Sa) and zoom (6b) maps) Page 1 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903""'0 OURS PAGE 03 . ' Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evenden Highlands Park ERC Reeort Statementof.Appeal P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ISSUE #1: A NEW WILDLIFE STUDY SHOULD BE REQUIRED OEVEL OPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. ANIMALS highlands_nalghbors@hotmail.com www.nighlBndsnelghbors.org a. Circle anv birqs and anima's which have been observed on or near the site or are known 10 be on or near the sfte: Birds: hawk. heron. eagle. songbirds, other _______ _ d. . Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wlfdlifs, if any: • Argument: CARE has recently been provided copies of photos and a statement from an adjacent property owner detailing observed hawk activity on the project site. The applicant submitted no information in regard to the possibility of a protected avian species' presence. • Reference: Exhibit 1 • Requested: A new wildlife study must be required in order to ensure that the habitat of any protected species is correctly protected and any adverse effects are properly mitigated. Page 2 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903490 OURS PAGE 04 . ' Cltl:zens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park ERC Report Statement of Appeal P.O. 90)(2936 Renton, WA 96056 highlands....nalghborS@hotrnail.com WNW .highlllndanp.ighbors. org ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL III STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED RMC 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It Is the purpose of this Section to promote and develop policies with respect to and to preserve the City's watercourses and to minimize water quaflty degradation bJ! previous siltation. sedfme,nt8tion and pollution of creeks. streams, rivers. lakes and other bodies of water to protect property owners tributa'Y to developed and undeveloped 'and from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights~of~way. (Ord. 3174r 11M 21-1977) G. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: . 3. Additional Inlormation: The pgrmit appllcafion shall be supplemented by any p.Jans. specifications or other information consideted pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his dulv authorized representative. (Ord. 3174 .• 11-21-1977) RMC 4-7·130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purp.ose of this Section to provide for tbe protection of valuable. irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development ss compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to Dreserve drslnage "p'atterns. protect groundwater supplv. prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This Is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as s Whole, and fo the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-3-050CRIT/CAL AREAS REGULATIONS: C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT.. PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: 3. Finding of Conformance Required: B. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shall be a finding in any approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall be documented in writing in the project file. b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shaN permits for development be issued if the Departme.nt finds that the proposed land use, activity, or business is likelv to impact the long-term, short-term or cumulatiVe qualitY:, of the aquifer. !;Uatorlcal Complaints From Adjacent I!r.operties Please review the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concems expressed by the owner of one of the project parcels. RecerJt King County Hea~ing Examiner DeciSions on Local SubdiviSion Applications In our letter of November 30. 2005 to the Renton Project Planner, we referenced the King County HearIng Examiner's findings and required drainage mitigation that came out of the recent subdivision applications in the area. The following applications were submitted to and processed by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services within the last four years: Evendell L01 P0016A and L03RE038 Liberty Grove LOap0006 and L03TY403 Liberty Grove Contiguous L03P0005 and L03iY 401 Nichols Place L03DOOOe and L03TY 404 We understand from subsequent conversations with staff that the findings and requirements on these projects may have been disregarded due to difference of jurisdiction and local drainage baSin, but we challenge this reasoning. These projects are within 2 blocks of the subject project and the geological and current infrastructure capacity/condition/design are all directly comparable and provide valid context in which this project must be evaluated. We have provided annotated copies of these reports highlighting the required drainage mitigation details (EXhibits 3a. 3b. 3c, and 3d). Page 3 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903""0 OURS PAGE 05 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park ERC Report Statement of Appeal Area Drainage Complaint History hlghlands •.. nei!;1hbors G'hotmail.com www.highlandsnelghbors.org This heading may also have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional 'configuration currently in force. We have included printouts from the King County IMap application (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4C that shows historical drainage complaint sites likely to be impacted by the HIghlands Park project. Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the Immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reoonstruction of SE 13Sth StreetJ2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136~ Stl211d had to be reworked And there were incidents where workers were heard to exclaim "We hit a pipe!!" when they had in actuality punctured a perched groundwater conveyance of considerable volumelthroughput. CI_ 2 Critical Aquifer Recharqe Area and Ar:!2A...Susceptlble to Groundwater Contamination We include in this package, for your consideration and for the record a map from the King County IMap application that shows that 1) the location of huge Class 2 CritIcal Aquifer Recharge Area that borders the Cedar River for miles Is within 25 vertical feet of the proposed stormwater discharge location from the proposed drainage control facilities (Exhibits Sa and 5b), and 2) the Area Susceptible to Groundwater COiltamination (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 40) directly downstream and/or overlapping' the Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The health and functionality of these natural systems are faoing increased threat from the oumulative negative effects of development of the East Renton Plateau. Appropriate mitigation and protection is Renton's responsibility. Section 4.3 of the Prellmloary Geotechnical Report (p. 4 Erosion Hazard) "Regardless of the site classification, the site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction." This section indicates conoern that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion and recommends full Best Practices implementation. We ask the preCise leveVstandard to be specifically required by reference to the relevant manual and classification. §cetlon 5.9 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 9 Drainage) 'We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building foundations ... All drains should be provided with olean outs at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year." This section makes clear the serious groundwater situation on the project site. If such extreme measures are required for the new construction, obviously, very serious mitigation measures must be required in order to protect the public's interest in healthy and functional ecological and hydrological natural systems as well as the private interests of adjacent and downstream properties. • Argument: Drainage in the East Renton Plateau PAA has been a chronic concern from the very first development in this area. Adequate analysis and mitigation of storm/surface/ground water impacts are of greatest concern to CARE and surrounding property owners. It appears to us that the location of Renton's City Limits relative to the project site may have limited downstream analysis so far performed. The current site sits within a very recently annexed (effective June 1, 2005) eastward protrusion of Renton's border where staff has not previously reviewed projects. Thus much of the downstream impacts from this project will affect watercourses, protected Class II Aquifer Recharge Zone and properties that currently lie within King County jurisdiction with which staff may not be adequately familiar. However, Renton bears the responsibility for the public trust in the protection of the aquifer recharge area, and ultimately the lower Cedar River where all water-related impacts from this project will discharge. Our greatest interest is that this project will be adequately mitigated within appropriate real-world context. We believe that Level III analysis and mitigation per the 2005 King County Drainage manual is necessary. RMC 4.6.030.G.3 establishes the authority of the Administrator to impose these development conditions. • Reference: Exhibit 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 40, Sa, and Sb Preliminary Geotechnical Report· Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-110/10/2005 • Requested: A new surface water and downstream analysis should be performed to consider the wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project site. We request a full Level III (per the 2005 King County Drainage manual) study and Level III mitigation facilities be required of this project. Page 4 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903490 OURS PAGE 06 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Park ERe Report Statement of Appeal ISSUE 13: FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION MUST BE REQUIRED RCW 76.09.050 Rules establishing classes of forest practices highlands~,neighbors @hotmail.oom www.hlghlandsnefghbors.arg Class IV: Forest prs,cllces other than those sonta/ned In Class I or II: (s) O!llands platted after Januarv 1. 1960. as ero";d.,ed in chapter 58. 17 RCW, fbi on lands that have or are being converted to another use, {c} on lands which. pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended. are not to be reforested because of the Ilkellho.od of future conversion to urban development (d) involving timber harvesting or road construction on lands that are contained within "urban growth areas. " designated pursuant to chAAter 36.70A RCW ••. PROVIDED.. That nothing herein shslf be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entIty from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action pursuant to a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted. better from Lisa Spahr. Deeartment of Natural Resources. dated 11/0212005 Included In the ERCR Ms. Spahr's letter indicates two issues that could trigger the Forest Practices Application. Environmental Review Committe!!! Report date 12106J200S.:..Sec1;ion 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance. n • Argument: The forest that currently covers the project site is vested as part of the established character of our community. We understand that forest cover reduction is inevitable through (re)-development in this area; however. enabling and prescriptive/protectionary legislation has been adopted that covers this site and we request full consideration under the law. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/2005 • Requested: A full review by the Department of Natural Resources and a full Forest Practices Application should be required. Page 5 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903490 OURS PAGE 07 .. Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Highlands Park ERe Report Statement of Appeal P.O. Box 2936 Flenton. WA 98056 ISSUE #4: PHASED CLEARING AND GRADING MUST Be SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED Section 5.2 of the Preliminary Gegtechnlcal Report (p. 5.Site Preparation and Grading) highla rlds ..... neighbors@hotmail.com vvwvv.hlghland$nelghbors.org ''To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of between 3 to 18 inches should be expected ... I' Env:lronmental Revlew£,.ommittee Report date 12106/2005 • Section 7 p. 4 ·Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." Emdrprnnental Review Committee Report dAte 1210612005· Section 7 p. 5 "To maximize preservation of existing trees, clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage will only be allowed as necessary to construct roads and utilities:' • Argument: Both staff and third party experts acknowledge that this projeot will severely disturb the surface and subsurface geology of the project site. As previously discussed, this site is particularly subject to surface and groundwater issues. All reasonable efforts to phase these impacts so the cumulative negative impacts can at least be imposed incrementally should be required. • Reference: Preliminary Geoteohnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 Environmental Review Committee Report -1210612005 • Requested: Detailed phased clearing and grading plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to final plat consideration. Page 6 of 10 " 12/28/2005 11:12 42599031190 , . Citizens' Alllanoe for a Responsible Evendell P.O, Box 2936 Aenton, WA 98056 OURS PAGE 08 Highlands Park EAe Report Statement of Appeal highlands.J1eighbor8@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE ##5: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT PLAN IS CONSIDERED EnvlrODmemal Review Committee Report date 12/0612005 .. Section 7 p. 5 "Prior to reoeiving construction permits, the applicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree retention plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of the identified trees with a minimlJm diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited," • Argument: The significant trees that will be retained due to this mitigation requirement serve much more than aesthetic purposes. On this site, subject to such serious groundwater and surface water concerns, retention of· significant trees will further mitigate drainage issues. We are concerned that if the full tree retention plan is not required first, clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utlllty location and all other plans and permits will be vested without full and correct specification of the impacts of the tree retention plan. This will completely defeat the purpose of the tree retention plan mitigation requirement. • Referenoe: Environmental Review Committee Report ~ 12/06/2005 • Requested: Detailed sitewide tree inventory and retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint. street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. Page 7 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903'~0 OURS PAGE 09 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P,O. BOll 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Highlands Park ERe Report Statement of Appeal highland$ .. ,nelghbof!9 @hotmail.com ww.v.hlghl~md9nelghbors.org ISSUE #6: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FE'NCING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND EASEMENT ON ROSARIO AVE. NE RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REOUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: If 8 subdivision Is located In the Brea of an offlc/allv designed trail. Qcov;sions shall be made fpr reservation of the riqhtMof-'I'!sv or lor easements to the City for trail p'urposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REOUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27·200Q) RMC 4·7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It Is the purpose of this Section to provide for the..Rl'otection of valuable, Irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urbsa development as compatible as possible with the ecolggical balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion §nd to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the CIty In lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider In creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-07-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All ad/acent rlghts-of-wa~ lind new rights-ot-way dedicated as Rart of 'he plat. includiO!l streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks sball be constructed as speCified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/BuIldIng/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. (Ord. 4636, lJ..23-1996; Ord. 5158, 9--26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESiDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: S, WALKWA YS: Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (8") in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved tor their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord.5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBLIC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: S. COMMUNITY ASSETS: DHe regard shall be shown to all natural features such 8S large trees. watercourses, and similar communltv Bssets. Sucl1 natural features should be preserved. thereby addil19. attractiveness and value to the property. (Ord. 5100.. 11-1-2004) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD~16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Page 8 of 10 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903490 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O.60x2936 Renton, WA 98056 OURS PAGE 10 Highlands Park ERe Report Statement of Appeal tlighlands_neighbors @I hotrn~lI.com www.hlghlandsneighbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual In that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, oontaining 73 new homes, only approximately 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10, 11, 12, 13, and 14?tiolatef CO-' 6 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 6a and 6b, these lots are directly along the easement/street route shown between the two local King County Parks. The land for these parks was purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus. Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the projeot site. • Reference: Exhibit 6a and 6b • Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting. building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. Page 9 of 10 ... I 12/28/2005 11:12 4259903490 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 FINAL NOTE: OURS PAGE 11 Highlands Park ERe Report Statement of Appeal highlsnds._tleighbors @' hotrm~iI.com www.hlghlandsnelghbors.org CARE would like to make clear that this Appeal is intended to register a challenge in degree more than in fundamental protest. We are generally fairly satisfied with the level of review and mitigation proposed by staff. Certainly, a greater respect for long-term consequences has been evidenced than what we have seen under King County jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we remain concerned that this is the first such Proposed Land Use Action to be considered by the City in this area. CARE has been very actively involved in similar Land Use Action applications in the vicinity, and we offer this appeal in the hope of protecting the quality of life and the character of our community. This application is, in a very real sense, a test case for the City of Renton to demonstrate wise planning in the real world to a surrounding community of over 3000 resident/owners as we consider our governance options through the Preserve Our Plateau annexation ballot measure this spring. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter of grave concern to our community. Respectfully submitted, A~r~c-//~ Gwendolyn High CARE president December 26. 2005 Page 10 of 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON CITIZENS' ALLIANCE FOR A RESPONSIBLE EVENDELL, Appellant, vs. CITY OF RENTON and BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION, Respondents. Proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision Renton File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION APPEAL I. RELIEF REQUESTED Bumstead Construction ("Bumstead") requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") appeal filed by Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ("CARE") in its entirety. The appeal filed by CARE relates to a superseded Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (the "initial MDNS"). CARE failed to appeal the subsequently issued revised MDNS, which remains valid and unchallenged. Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss it. In the alternative, if the Hearing Examiner does not dismiss the appeal in its entirety, then Bumstead requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 grading and the preparation of a tree retention plan (Issues 4, 5 and 6 in CARE's Statement of Appeal). Subsequent to CARE's appeal, Bumstead submitted to the City, and the City approved, a tree retention plan governing clearing, grading and tree retention. The revised MDNS requires compliance with this plan. CARE's appeal on clearing and grading and tree retention is based on outdated information. Therefore, CARE's issues 4,5 and 6 must be dismissed. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Bumstead proposes to develop a 73-lot single-family residential subdivision in the City of Renton (the "City") under the name "Highlands Park". The City's Development Services Division has assigned File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP to Bumstead's application for that proposed subdivision. The City reviewed the proposal under SEP A and, on or about December 6, 2005 or December 12, 2005 1, issued an initial MDNS with seven mitigation measures. Among other mitigation measures, Mitigation Measure 6 required that clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage be limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities. Mitigation Measure 7 required the submission of a tree retention plan prior to the issuance of construction permits. I The first paragraph of the December 8, 2005 letter from Renton Development Services' Keri Weaver to Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc. indicates that the Environmental Review Committee had "issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures." Sent with the letter was a "Report and Decision-Environmental Review Committee Report" that, on the upper portion of the fIrst page indicates an "ERC Meeting Date" of December 6, 2005. In view of (a) the letter's December 8, 2008 date and (b) the "ERC Meeting Date" of December 6,2005, the exact timing of the issuance of the threshold determination seems to somewhat differ from the timing indicated in the statement in the fIrst paragraph of page 4 of 9 of Renton Development Services' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, which indicates that the DNS-M was issued on December 12, 2005. However, both the December 8, 2005 letter from Ms. Weaver to Mr. Chen and the first paragraph of page 4 of9 of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner are consistent in indicating that appeals of the environmental determination had to be filed on or before December 28,2005. BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30lh Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Keri Weaver, Senior Planner of the City of Renton Department of PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works' Development Services Division sent a letter dated December 8, 2005 to Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc., Bumstead's contact person for purposes of the Highlands Park preliminary plat application. The letter's first paragraph advised that the ERC had issued a "issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures" and referred to "an enclosed ERC Report and Decision". In bold face type, the start of the letter's second paragraph explained that "[a]ppeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28,2005." At the letter's lower left hand comer, the "cc:" section indicates that copies of the letter were sent to (among others) "James and Linda St. John, Mike Moran, Jack Pace, June Hill, Ronda Bryant, Gwendolyn High / Party(ies) of Record". (Emphasis added.) On December 28, 2006, CARE filed an appeal of the initial MDNS consisting of (a) a one-page "Request for Reconsideration and Appeal" letter addressed to "Fred Kaufman - Hearing Examiner", "Keri Weaver -Senior Planner", "Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner" and "Neil Watts -Director of Development Services" all at the City of Renton and (b) an attached 10-page Statement of Appeal. Both the letter and the Statement of Appeal were signed by Gwendolyn High as CARE President. CARE's December 28, 2005 Statement of Appeal included three issues relating to clearing and grading and tree retention. Specifically, Issue 4 stated that "the Environmental Review Committee's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts." Notably, this "issue" is merely a statement of agreement with -rather than an appeal of -the BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 3 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 phased clearing and grading required by the Environmental Review Committee in connection with the issuance of the MDNS. Issue 5 stated that the tree retention plan should be approved prior to the final plat. Issue 6 stated that the tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of a drainage facility and compatible with improvements for pedestrian access. Bumstead also appealed the initial MDNS. Subsequently, on January 26, 2006, Bumstead submitted a tree retention plan to the City for its review and approval. The City reviewed and approved the tree retention plan. In addition, in response to the tree retention plan, on either January 31, 2006 or February 6, 2006,2 the City issued a revised MDNS. The first five mitigation measures of the revised MDNS are the same as the first five mitigation measures in the initial MDNS. The revised MDNS eliminated the sixth and seventh mitigation measure that had been set forth in the initial MDNS and replaced them with a new Mitigation Measure 6 specifying that clearing and grading activities shall comply with the January 26,2006 tree retention plan.3 2 The first paragraph of the February 2, 2006 letter from Renton Development Services' Keri Weaver to Michael Chen of Core Design, Inc. indicates that the Environmental Review Committee issued the revised MDNS on January 31, 2006. This statement differs from the statement in the second paragraph of page 4 of 9 of Renton Development Services' Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner, which indicates that the revised MDNS was issued on February 6, 2006. The February 6th date is consistent with the statement in the second paragraph of page 4 of 9 of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner that says that "[a] 14-day appeal period commenced on February 6, 2006, and ended on February 20, 2006." The February 20, 2006 date is indicated in the third paragraph of the February 2, 2006 letter from Ms. Weaver to Mr. Chen as the last day for appeals of the environmental threshold determination. 3 Bumstead acknowledges that the revised MONS mooted its appeal. BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 4 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Keri Weaver sent a letter dated February 2, 2006 to Michael Chen of Core Design concerning the "Revised Environmental Determination / Reschedule of Public Hearing." The letter forwarded copies of the revised MDNS and revised MDNS Advisory Notes. In bold face type, the letter's third paragraph explained that "[a]ppeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006." At the letter's lower left hand comer, the "cc:" section indicates that copies of the letter were sent to Parties of Record. By virtue of both (a) CARE president Gwendolyn High having already been listed as a Party of Record on Ms. Weaver's December 8, 2005 letter to Mr. Chen and (b) CARE's appeal of the initial MDNS making CARE a party of record in its own right, Gwendolyn High and CARE were clearly parties of record when the February 2, 2006 letter was issued and they thus would have been mailed the February 2, 2006 letter and the enclosures thereto. No one appealed the revised MDNS. III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES The issues presented in this motion are whether: (1) The Hearing Examiner must dismiss CARE's appeal in its entirety because CARE failed to appeal the revised MDNS; or (2) In the alternative, the Hearing Examiner must dismiss the appeal issues relating to the phased clearing and grading issue (Issue 4 in the Statement of Appeal) and the tree retention plan issues (Issues 5 and 6 in the Statement of Appeal) because: (a) CARE never challenged either the initial MDNS or the revised MDNS with respect to the phased clearing and grading issue; BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 5 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) The tree retention plan issues raised in the appeal of the initial MDNS were raised in the context of Mitigation Measures 6 and 7 of the initial MDNS, mitigation measures that were subsequently superseded by Mitigation 6 of the revised MDNS; and (c) CARE never filed a timely appeal in regard to Mitigation Measure 6 of the revised MDNS and cannot file one now because the appeal period has already lapsed. IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON This motion relies on (1) Renton planner Keri Weaver's December 8, 2005 letter to Michael Chen and the accompanying "Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Mitigation Measures" and "Report and Decision-Environmental Review Committee Report" (collectively embodying the initial MDNS), (2) CARE's December 28, 2006 "Request for Reconsideration and Appeal" letter and "Statement of Appeal", (3) the February 2,2006 letter from Keri Weaver to Michael Chen and the accompanying "Revised -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Mitigation Measures" (collectively embodying the revised MDNS) and the accompanying "Revised -Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated Advisory Notes" and (4) the April 4, 2006 Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner, copies of all of which are contained in the City's project file concerning the proposed "Highlands Park" Residential Subdivision Renton File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP, which is part of the record in this proceeding. BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 6 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street. Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX v. AUTHORITY 2 A. The Hearing Examiner should dismiss the appeal in its entirety. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Hearing Examiner should dismiss CARE's appeal in its entirety because CARE failed to timely appeal the revised MDNS. "[A]dministrative agencies are creatures of the legislature without inherent or common- law powers and may exercise only those powers conferred either expressly or by necessary implication." Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 636, 698 P.2d 1084 (1984). Thus, a hearing examiner's jurisdiction is strictly limited by the governing ordinance. Id. Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") 4-8-100.E unequivocally requires an appellant to file its appeal ofa DNS within 14 days of issuance of the DNS: 4. Time for Appeal: Any such appeal shall be filed III writing with the Examiner within the following time limits: a. Appeals of Environmental Determinations: Appeals of a final environmental determination under the Renton environmental review regulations shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of pUblication of notice of such determination. (Ord. 3454, 7-28-1980) i. A Final DNS: The appeal of the DNS must be made to the Hearing Examiner within fourteen (14) days of the date the DNS is final. "The use of the word 'shall' indicates a mandatory obligation." Parkland Light and Water Co. v. Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health, 151 Wn.2d 428, 90 P.3d 37 (2004). Similarly, the term "must" is mandatory. Kelleher v. Ephrata School Dist. No. 165, 56 Wn.2d 866, 872, 355 P.2d 989 (1960). When the language of a statute or ordinance is clear, it must be applied as written, even if the result appears harsh. State v. Sweet, 91 Wn. App. 612, 619, 959 BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 7 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P.2d 677 (1998) ("The courts are required to apply the statute when the language is clear and unequivocal, although the result may seem unduly harsh. We do so because we assume that the Legislature 'meant exactly what it said. "') WAC 197-11-340(2)(f) requires the lead agency to reconsider a DNS based on timely comments. The agency may retain, modify or withdraw the DNS. Id. A DNS is final and binding subject to the provisions for modification or withdrawal. WAC 197-11-390(1). Here, CARE appealed the December 12, 2005 MDNS. Yet the City reconsidered the MDNS based on timely comments, including those by Bumstead. In response to information submitted by Bumstead, including the tree retention plan, the City's Environmental Review Committee decided to modify the MDNS. The Environmental Review Committee did so on either January 31, 2006 or February 6, 2006, issuing a revised MDNS. The revised MDNS superseded the initially issued one. The issuance of the revised MDNS rendered CARE's appeal moot. A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief. Orwick v. Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249,253 (1984). In this case, even if the Hearing Examiner granted CARE's appeal with regard to the superseded MDNS, the revised MDNS would remain valid and unchallenged. See WAC 197-11-390 (threshold determination valid and binding on all agencies except in enumerated circumstances). Accordingly, the Hearing Examiner's ruling would have no practical effect. A moot case should not be considered. Id. A new appeal period followed the issuance of the revised MDNS. RMC 4-8-100.E. No party appealed. Under the plain language of the RMC, CARE was required to timely appeal the revised MDNS by either February 13,2006 (if the revised MDNS was actually issued on January BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL 8 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 31,2006) or February 20,2006 (if the revised MDNS was actually issued on February 6,2006). 2 Id. In the absence of a timely appeal, the Hearing Examiner lacks jurisdiction. RMC 4-8-100.E; 3 Chaussee, supra, 38 Wn. App. at 636. Because CARE failed to appeal the revised MDNS by 4 5 either of those dates, the exact date that the ERC issued the revised MDNS (Le., January 31, 6 2006 or February 6,2006) is irrelevant and CARE's appeal must be dismissed. 7 B. In the alternative, the Hearing Examiner should dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and grading and the tree retention plan. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In the alternative, if the Hearing Examiner does not dismiss the appeal in its entirety, then the Examiner should dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and grading and the tree retention plan (Issues 4, 5 and 6). These issues highlight the fact that the appeal of the original, superseded MDNS is no substitute for the timely appeal of the revised MDNS. In regard to Issue 4, CARE never challenged either the initial MDNS or the revised MDNS with respect to the phased clearing and grading issue and cannot do so now after the appeal period has run on the revised MDNS. In regard to Issue 5, CARE asserts in the Statement of Appeal that the tree retention plan should be approved before the final plat. This has already been accomplished, as Mitigation Measure 6 of the revised MDNS makes clear. Similarly, in Issue 6, CARE makes arguments about tree retention. CARE's arguments, however, are based on outdated information. Since the point in time that CARE submitted its Statement of Appeal, the tree retention plan governing clearing, grading and tree retention was submitted and approved. Of course, CARE's Statement of Appeal did not consider the tree retention plan because the plan simply did not exist when the December 28, 2005 Statement of BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPAAPPEAL 9 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, WA 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Appeal was filed with the City. CARE did not, and cannot now, challenge this plan. RMC 4-8- 100.E. Because the facts upon which CARE's appeal was based have changed, the appeal is moot; any opinion by the Hearing Examiner would be an impermissible advisory opinion. See Grays Harbor Paper Co. v. Grays Harbor County, 74 Wn.2d 70, 74-75 (1968) (challenge to superseded statute dismissed as moot; court would not issue advisory opinion). For these reasons, Issues 4, 5 and 6 in CARE's Statement of Appeal should all be dismissed. VI. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Bumstead requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss CARE's appeal in its entirety. In the alternative, Bumstead requests that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the appeal issues relating to clearing and grading and the tree retention plan (i.e., Issues 4, 5 and 6 in CARE's Statement of Appeal). DATED this 4th day of April, 2006. HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. c:\CFI2530\00 1 \sEPA \Motion to Dismiss (F2).doc BURNSTEAD'S MOTION TO DISMISS CARE'S SEPA APPEAL By: 10 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation 2115 North 30lh Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 (206) 443-4684/(253) 627-6680 (253) 272-9876 FAX WASHINGTON I ---____ J L ___ ... I I I I I I I .....I o I LAKE YOUNGS 3000 I 6000 I AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES Renton Municipal Code "~ Zone 1 ~~~ Zone 1 Modified L ____ ... __ -.1 Zone 2 ---City Limits CITY OF RENTON DEC 28 2005 APPEAL -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE / .1,'.t1,a ..... RECEIVED .~,-~ITY CLERK'S OFFICE '-~ WRITTEN APPEAL OF A RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SEPA THRESHOLD ~ DETERMINATION DECISION TO THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER FILE NO. LUA 05-124, ECF, PP APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision of the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee dated December 8, 2005. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: Bumstead Construction Co. Address: 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005-2135 Telephone No. (206) 762-9125 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: David L. Halinen Address: 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403 Telephone No. (425) 454-8272 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: MITIGATION MEASURES (Please designate numbers as denoted in the ERC's Decision) No. §. Error: Contrary to WAC 197 -11-660(a), Mitigating Measure 6 is not based upon "policies, plans, rules, rules or regulations formally designated by the [Renton City Council] as a basis for the exercise of substantive SEP A authority and in effect when the DNS [was] issued." Contrary to WAC 197-11-660(b), the ERC's Decision fails to cite the particular Renton SEP A polic(ies) that are the basis of Mitigating Measure 6. Contrary to WAC 197-11-660(c), Mitigating Measure 6 is unreasonable. Further, in view of Isla Verde v. Camas. 146 Wn.2d 740. 755-56 (2002). the ERC failed to meet its burden under RCW 82.02.020 of establishing that Mitigating Measure 6 is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. In addition, Mitigating Measure 6 violates substantive due process by not being reasonably necessary and by being unduly oppressive. Correction: Mitigating Measure 6 should be stricken. No.1 Error: Contrary to WAC 197 -1l-660(a), Mitigating Measure 7 is not based upon "policies, plans, rules, rules or regulations formally designated by the [Renton City Council] as a basis for the exercise of substantive SEP A authority and in effect when the DNS [was] issued." Contrary to WAC 197-11-660(b), the ERC's Decision fails to cite the particular Renton SEP A polic(ies) that are the basis of Mitigating Measure 7. Contrary to WAC 197-11-660(c), Mitigating Measure 7 is unreasonable. Further, in view of Isla Verde v. Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740. 755-56 (2002), the ERC failed, to meet its burden under RCW 82.02.020 that Mitigating Measure 7 is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development. In addition, Mitigating Measure 7 violates substantive due process by not being reasonably necessary and by being unduly oppressive. Correction: Mitigating Measure 7 should be stricken. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The Hearing Examiner is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Modify the decision as follows: Strike Mitigating Measures 6 and 7. Bumstead Construction Co. By~-k0Jf= Mary ~ President AppellantlRepresentative Signature e.. ~: e.;./. y /l-I+of V7 ~y /V2.i I WO-l.{-!5 December 28, 2005 Date • CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o <;ash IJYCheck NO.--II!:.lrRo...ICt~L-'9L...-9_· __ Description: Funds Received From: '. Name o CjwyFee ~ppealFee Address Ka ,L4Ly' I?tI7L~~ --------- Receipt N!:! 466 Date o Notary Service 0 _________ _ I Amount $ 7.5 <1JJ. City/Zip L.~ zQ~ 'tity Staff Signature o.ff'~· ~ Y-,'-''.'-"' 'n',· ied"W(',v6?i:f""t Y"W"Y"""7"l¥"V t t"N "'OW"'C%,"'Wir1l'#'S%toM "I • 'nj'ti5i6 tr'"Ci" Ct'-ef "ht"h. is atiex tiQ"M't!t$O'ooi'W M'M*#N' fr"tHe" Citizens. Alliance for a Res. lsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Renton, WA 98056 www.highlandsneighbors.org Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 December 28, 2005 Request for Reconsideration and Appeal: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, CITY OF RENTON DEC 2 B 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE t}'.Ol tZ Wl -/{v..t'1 d~" tJe'. -t?cl Due to pressing time constraints of the Appeal deadline, the already scheduled next Environmental Committee meeting and the Public Hearing on this matter, we are filing our Request for Reconsideration and our Appeal simultaneously. We hope that our concerns will be adequately addressed through the Reconsideration process, in which event we anticipate immediate withdrawal of the associated Appeal. CARE, its members and the larger community would be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is approved without adequate mitigation of adverse effects that we anticipate and for which we have provided extensive documentation to the Department of Development Services. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible development in our community consistent with state and local laws. We are particularly concerned with protecting against physical damage to existing residences and properties as a result of site preparation, construction, and use associated with the Highlands Park development, including the avoidance of potential downstream flooding as a direct result of the Highlands Park development. Such impacts would harm CARE members' interests in protecting their property values, along with their privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their property. Additionally, we request that the Public Hearing for Highlands Park Plat application, currently scheduled for January 6, 2006, be re-scheduled to follow resolution of this SEPA reconsideration/appeal. Gwendolyn High will speak for CARE in this matter. The attached Statement of Appeal details our issues of concern. We request prompt notification if we make any procedural error, so that we may make corrections at once. Despite our best efforts we may err through lack of previous experience with Renton's process. We commend all staff for the consistently patient and professional customer service we have experienced already, and look forward to a speedy and satisfactory resolution in this matter. ThankXQu for you~ time and consideration, ~/ F .~ / / " ~G~ei~~;;;~ig:f~--~~54f~ CARE president CC: Michael Chen -Core Design, Inc. Burnstead Construction ~c '. C ify I'J!fOr' l1.ty /Jed tU4 tfs . ' Citizens' Alliance for a Res!-,vnsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Statement of Appeal REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Issues of Concern: 1. Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org 2. Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. • Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. • The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. • Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 3. The Forest Practices Application must be required. 4. The Environmental Review Committee Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize antiCipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. 5. The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. 6. The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest corner of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. 7. Final Note Exhibits: 1. Hawk Photos and Statement provided by Frank and Ronda Bryant 2. Historical Letter File: Regarding Drainage and Other Impacts 3. Annotated King County Hearing Examiner Decisions for Evendell (3a), Liberty Grove (3b), Liberty Grove Contiguous (3c) and Nichols Place (3d) 4. King County IMAP Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination + Drainage Complaints (local area (4a) and zoom (4b) maps + Complaints Listing (4c)) 5. King County IMAP Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (local area (Sa) and zoom (5b) maps) 6. The Greenprint for King County Figure 16. City Priority & Connectivity (full figure (6a) and zoom (6b) maps) Page 1 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsib P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 lendell ISSUE #1: A NEW WILDLIFE STUDY SHOULD BE REQUIRED Highlands P DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. ANIMALS RC Report Statement of Appeal highlands .. J16ighbors@hotrnaii.com www.highlandsneighbors.org a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron. eagle, songbirds, other ________ _ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • Argument: CARE has recently been provided copies of photos and a statement from an adjacent property owner detailing observed hawk activity on the project site. The applicant submitted no information in regard to the possibility of a protected avian species' presence. • Reference: Exhibit 1 • Requested: A new wildlife study must be required in order to ensure that the habitat of any protected species is correctly protected and any adverse effects are properly mitigated. Page 2 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsibl P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 endell Highlands Pa IC Report Statement of Appeal highlands ... neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL III STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED RMC 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to promote and develop policies with respect to and to preserve the City's watercourses and to minimize water guality degradation by previous siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks. streams. rivers, lakes and other bodies of water to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. (Ord. 3174, 11- 21-1977) G. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 3. Additional Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the Judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable. irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: 3. Finding of Conformance Required: a. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shalf be a finding in any approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall be documented in writing in the project file. b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shall permits for development be issued if the Department finds that the proposed land use, activity. or business is likelv to impact the long-term, short-term or cumulative quality of the aquifer. Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties Please review the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concerns expressed by the owner of one of the project parcels. Recent King County Hearing Examiner Decisions on Local Subdivision Applications In our letter of November 30,2005 to the Renton Project Planner, we referenced the King County Hearing Examiner's findings and required drainage mitigation that came out of the recent subdivision applications in the area. The following applications were submitted to and processed by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services within the last four years: Evendell L01 P0016A and L03RE038 Liberty Grove L03P0006 and L03TY 403 Liberty Grove Contiguous L03P0005 and L03TY 401 Nichols Place L03D0008 and L03TY 404 We understand from subsequent conversations with staff that the findings and reqUirements on these projects may have been disregarded due to difference of jurisdiction and local drainage basin, but we challenge this reasoning. These projects are within 2 blocks of the subject project and the geological and current infrastructure capacity/condition/design are all directly comparable and provide valid context in which this project must be evaluated. We have provided annotated copies of these reports highlighting the required drainage mitigation details (Exhibits 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). Page 3 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a ResponsibL __ 'endell P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Area Drainage Complaint History Highlands Pa RC Report Statement of Appeal highlands ..... neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org This heading may also have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional configuration currently in force. We have included printouts from the King County IMap application (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c that shows historical drainage complaint sites likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project. Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE 136th Street/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136th St/2nd had to be reworked And there were incidents where workers were heard to exclaim "We hit a pipe!!" when they had in actuality punctured a perched groundwater conveyance of considerable volumelthroughput. Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination We include in this package, for your consideration and for the record a map from the King County IMap application that shows that 1) the location of huge Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area that borders the Cedar River for miles is within 25 vertical feet of the proposed storm water discharge location from the proposed drainage control facilities (Exhibits 5a and 5b), and 2) the Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c) directly downstream and/or overlapping the Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The health and functionality of these natural systems are faCing increased threat from the cumulative negative effects of development of the East Renton Plateau. Appropriate mitigation and protection is Renton's responsibility. Section 4.3 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 4 Erosion Hazard) "Regardless of the site classification, the site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction." This section indicates concern that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion and recommends full Best Practices implementation. We ask the precise level/standard to be specifically required by reference to the relevant manual and classification. Section 5.8 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 9 Drainage) 'We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building foundations ... All drains should be provided with clean outs at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year." This section makes clear the serious groundwater situation on the project site. If such extreme measures are required for the new construction, obviously, very serious mitigation measures must be required in order to protect the public's interest in healthy and functional ecological and hydrological natural systems as well as the private interests of adjacent and downstream properties. • Argument: Drainage in the East Renton Plateau PAA has been a chronic concern from the very first development in this area. Adequate analysis and mitigation of storm/surface/ground water impacts are of greatest concern to CARE and surrounding property owners. It appears to us that the location of Renton's City Limits relative to the project site may have limited downstream analysis so far performed. The current site sits within a very recently annexed (effective June 1, 2005) eastward protrusion of Renton's border where staff has not previously reviewed projects. Thus much of the downstream impacts from this project will affect watercourses, protected Class II Aquifer Recharge Zone and properties that currently lie within King County jurisdiction with which staff may not be adequately familiar. However, Renton bears the responsibility for the public trust in the protection of the aquifer recharge area, and ultimately the lower Cedar River where all water-related impacts from this project will discharge. Our greatest interest is that this project will be adequately mitigated within appropriate real-world context. We believe that Level III analysis and mitigation per the 2005 King County Drainage manual is necessary. RMC 4.6.030.G.3 establishes the authority of the Administrator to impose these development conditions. • Reference: Exhibit 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, and 5b Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 • Requested: A new surface water and downstream analysis should be performed to consider the wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project site. We request a full Level III (per the 2005 King County Drainage manual) study and Level III mitigation facilities be required of this project. Page 4 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsib. __ vendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Highlands Pa ISSUE #3: FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION MUST BE REQUIRED RCW 76.09.050 Rules establishing classes of forest practices RC Report Statement of Appeal highlands .... neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org Class IV: Forest practices other than those contained in Class I or II: (a) On lands platted after January 1, 1960, as provided in chapter 58.17 RCW. (b) on lands that have or are being converted to another use, (c) on lands which, pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended. are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development, (d) involving timber harvesting or road construction on lands that are contained within "urban growth areas." designated pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW ... PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detailed statement must be prepared for an action pursuant to a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted. Letter from Lisa Spahr. Department of Natural Resources, dated 11/0212005 included in the ERCR Ms. Spahr's letter indicates two issues that could trigger the Forest Practices Application. Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/2005 -Section 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." • Argument: The forest that currently covers the project site is vested as part of the established character of our community. We understand that forest cover reduction is inevitable through (re)-development in this area, however, enabling and prescriptive/protectionary legislation has been adopted that covers this site and we request full consideration under the law. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12/06/2005 • Requested: A full review by the Department of Natural Resources and a full Forest Practices Application should be required. Page 5 of 10 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsibl ___ endell P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Highlands Pa ~C Report Statement of Appeal highlands .... .neighbors@hotmail.com WWW.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #4: PHASED CLEARING AND GRADING MUST BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED Section 5.2 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 5 Site Preparation and Grading) ''To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of between 3 to 18 inches should be expected ... " Environmental Review Committee Report date 12/06/2005 -Section 7 p. 4 "Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." Environmental Review Committee Report date 12/0612005 -Section 7 p. 5 "To maximize preservation of existing trees, clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage will only be allowed as necessary to construct roads and utilities." • Argument: Both staff and third party experts acknowledge that this project will severely disturb the surface and subsurface geology of the project site. As previously discussed, this site is particularly subject to surface and groundwater issues. All reasonable efforts to phase these impacts so the cumulative negative impacts can at least be imposed incrementally should be required. • Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 Environmental Review Committee Report -12/06/2005 • Requested: Detailed phased clearing and grading plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to final plat consideration. Page 6 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsib P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 endell Highlands Pc RC Report Statement of Appeal highlands_.neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #5: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT PLAN IS CONSIDERED Environmental Review Committee Report date 1210612005 -Section 7 p. 5 "Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree retention plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of the identified trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited." • Argument: The significant trees that will be retained due to this mitigation requirement serve much more than aesthetic purposes. On this site, subject to such serious groundwater and surface water concerns, retention of significant trees will further mitigate drainage issues. We are concerned that if the full tree retention plan is not required first, clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits will be vested without full and correct specification of the impacts of the tree retention plan. This will completely defeat the purpose of the tree retention plan mitigation requirement. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12/06/2005 • Requested: Detailed sitewide tree inventory and retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. Page 7 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsib vendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Highlands P RC Report Statement of Appeal highlands .. oeighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #6: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FENCING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND EASEMENT ON ROSARIO AVE. NE RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail. provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve eXisting trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835. 3-27-2000) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns. protect groundwater supply. prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat. including streets. roads. and alleys. shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the PlanningIBuilding/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. (Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. WALKWAYS: Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6/1) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessar~ Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord.5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBLIC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses. and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Renton Community Design Policies Policy CD-16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Page 8 of 10 ... Citizens' Alliance for a Responsibl P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 endell Highlands Pa tC Report Statement of Appeal highlands ... neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only approximately 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10, 11, 12, 13, and 14~iolatef CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 6a and 6b, these lots are directly along the easement/street route shown between the two local King County Parks. The land for these parks was purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site. • Reference: Exhibit 6a and 6b • Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. Page 9 of 10 . '. .... Citizens' Alliance for a Responsib vendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 FINAL NOTE: Highlands P RC Report Statement of Appeal highlands .. _.neighbors@hotrnaiLcorn www.highlandsneighbors.org CARE would like to make clear that this Appeal is intended to register a challenge in degree more than in fundamental protest. We are generally fairly satisfied with the level of review and mitigation proposed by staff. Certainly, a greater respect for long-term consequences has been evidenced than what we have seen under King County jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we remain concerned that this is the first such Proposed Land Use Action to be considered by the City in this area. CARE has been very actively involved in similar Land Use Action applications in the vicinity, and we offer this appeal in the hope of protecting the quality of life and the character of our community. This application is, in a very real sense, a test case for the City of Renton to demonstrate wise planning in the real world to a surrounding community of over 3000 resident/owners as we consider our governance options through the Preserve Our Plateau annexation ballot measure this spring. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter of grave concern to our community. Respectfully submitted, /A~;!tet;:f'-~~ Gwendolyn High CARE president December 28,2005 Page 10 of 10 · . Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Piineipal E?lanner Neii Watts.;; Director of Development Services Oity of Renton 1055 South Grady Way ~eriton WA gs056 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 8, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton OffiCials, , l/ I This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l!we endorse the following: Cl Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. Cl Maximum analysiS of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: Cl Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. Cl The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. Cl Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. Cl The Forest Practices Application must be required. o The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. (J The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. a The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, tJf:tc'~ ;1 " ~ .. /'~[,~ .' Signed: _______________________ _ Name (print): 'K L~-J07 G, c chi 0 t\ 8,.. i Address: '\ (0 C( ~ l Sf: \ 38 +"'-S t----Ke r\ 4-oV\ ci 15 OS-'l Phone: 4;).. S. ~55". 36?-1:> ~ate: / ?(P-~/6 .:>- .. _-.. ~ "-~ . .. ....::: ... ...:,: '" .. ..;.: .. ,.::;. .. ..:.:: ... ..:: !'~ ~. '" .. ...;: ... ..:.:: '" . ..,::; . ..,:: . ....::; .-.. ..::.; -. ... .:.:; -. .. ...:.:: :-::: Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application In the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA ~124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, . This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l/we endorse the following: ~Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. Cl Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: I!---!-evellll study and mitigation facilities should be required . . '121' The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient F and should be increased. ~xtraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are antiCipated and additional mitigation is requested. ~ Forest Practices Application must be required. f7i( !_h': Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be speCifically required in order to minimize antiCipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. tzf.. The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the Significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. ~itewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, ~ Signed: -+---i-"';;'-~-rJ-~t.---I-..p::.;';:;""::~---'7'F-'-:;'--1r;..-.....,.--...,.---~~~ ____ ~~~~~. ~&~.~(~?V~J Address:,I311'f.+-1St' Au=( $;C/ '{i?enbn ??~~ Phone: t/2 ~ ~ ~ tt?R 3 r I' Date: / I. /. 42()tJ~ Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner December 27, 2005 Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6,2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, ~YHI8rr I We are extremely worried about the level and scope of the storm water retention plan for this project. The Environmental Review plan calls for a Conservation Flow Control-Level 2. We feel that this does not, as far as I can find out, adequately address the existing ground water problem. There are underground springs in the area and in the winter/spring venerable ponds exist on the properties to the south of the projected development. Our property, which lies on the south side of the development midpoint on the east/west line, is completely French ditched on the east, north, and west sides. This was done to allow the lot to perk. When we purchased it in 1986, it was noted that, even though the water table allowed an acceptable perk, the ground showed extensive mottling from past saturation and a standard septic system would not be approved. We had to install a mound system. The French ditch that surrounds our property flows heavily in the winter/spring. The property to the east of ours has standing/running water on the north/east corner in the winter and spring. The property to the south of us has standing water in their yard all winter/spring. The property to the west of us has an open ditch at their northwest corner that has water in it all year. There must be substantial thought and planning taken to prevent our properties from being flooded due to development of Highlands Park. Addressing run off ofhardscapes and downspouts and footing drains addresses only the water coming down, not the water coming up. When the development of Willowbrook was built, the developers were apparently required to install a French ditch the entire length of the development on the south side to prevent flooding of the property to the south. We require at least as much consideration and mitigation as they received. We also take exception to the biologist portion of the Environmental Review Committee Report. (Part Two: Environmental Review, paragraph 7 Vegetation & Wildlife, Impacts.) There are several animals and birds living in the proposed Highlands Park development area. Just because the biologist did not see them does not mean they are not there. Animals and birds hide when humans come around and the vegetation in the area precludes seeing any distance. We have lived here for 17 years and have walked thru the area on numerous occasions. It would take more than a day (which I was told the biologist spent there) to really cover the entire area. There are a few trails down the middle of the area, left by, I assume, the logging done there years ago. , , The wetland in the southwest part ofthe parcel is in one of these trails and you can tell it was created by vehicles driving thru a wet spot. The majority of the area is densely overgrown by vine maple, devils club, huckleberries, fern, and, at the edges, blackberries Attached is a picture we took of a Juvenal red-tail hawk in our backyard three weeks ago. We have also had a barred owl in the yard in the last month. We frequently have a Merlin Hawk here, and have pleat~ wood peekers here during the summer. There is a three point buck and his family here frequently, and the other night we had five raccoons in the yard. Occasionally we get opossums traveling thru. There is a family of at least four coyotes living behind our house in the proposed Highlands Park development area. They set up a howl every time the fire sirens go off, and frequently go thru our back yard. There must be some consideration for these creatures. As we spread out more and more we are driving them out of their homes and loosing any opportunity for our children to see them in their natural state. JlI;~ {(~(A. 0'Of Frank and Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, WA 98059 / £:.XH 181T z.. April 14, 1983 Barbara Pettinger 15203 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA 98056 J. t.J ~ I· . p,.t~1' -,I'-M~. Liz Kuest ~V ~r~ C7,y ,....~"~ 4~t.- Fleld Representative ¥ King County Public Health (SE Div.) 3001 NE Fourth Renton, WA 98056 Dear Ms. Kuest: As you are aware, by your own inspection on April 12, 1983, and by my previ ous correspondence to you, an attJ~m~~ bei ng made to PERC the land located on the North side of 5E I32riCl Street. As a homeowner, rfvrn-g 'af-15Z0i"'SE -132nd Street,ramsTncerely concerned-about the _. legality and possible resultant health and sanitation hazards of said perc. - lng water. It ~ay interest the the residents of this stree have continual y ex erlence serlOUS ralna e I personnally ave put ln ralns in my yard to try to drain off otherwise standing water. In the crawl space of my home (rambler style), as well as under the homes of neighbors, there is standing water for several months every year. The land simply DOES NOT DRAIN. , > • - 2 - Please be advised that I am not an environmental protectionist "nut", nor am I "anti-development. n My husband and I own several properties and totally support investment in real estate ventures. It is, however, my firm belief that the aforementioned . not le alT , under inspections pass a perc test. -- Any expedient certification by your department that the aforementioned property passed II inaT" erc will I believe, create more heal ~n sanl a l0n drainage problems for residents. Should such a situation eventuate jn sRite of efforts thaj: have been made to inform you of past ~nd continuing drainage problems, I will take the legal actlons necessary to hold King County responsible for all ensuing health and sanitation repercussions. --- If you or your superiors need further information concerning the existing poor drainage, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this matter~ Sincerely, ---~ti~ c: Duane D. Kiel, Do n a 1 d son & K i e 1 Attorneys at Law 2819 Vandever Building Seattle, WA 98128 January 22, 1991 Gregg Kipp Manager, Building and Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Attention: Lisa Pringle RE: Willowbrook File No. S90-P0098 This letter is written in support of complaint No. 9012-015 recently filed with John Nicon of the King County Office of Citizen Complaint. We recently met with our neighbors to discuss what actions might be taken individually and/or collectively to question the processes followed to date in order to legally allow the proposed building of 20 or more homes (Willowbrook) on land which has not, for 17 years at a minimum, met requirements to be certified as "buildable.1I I have included my individual supportive data as an addendum to this general letter. (See attached and enclosed.) To our dismay we have heard from county employees that: 1. liThe plan is to hook up to the sewer on 156th .... 11 There is no sewer! 2. liThe soil tests are marginal but passable .... " What tests? Why would land that wouldn't IIPERC II for years and thus change owners who also wanted to develop the land but couldn't ... now II marg inally pass?1I Aren't tests to be more responsive to current environmental restrictions than less? We have very poor drainage. Multiple drains have been added. Water run-off creates (with the exception of late July and August) year round II streams ll and/or IIswamps" on our properties. Research into the history of this area will show that even a 3,100 foot long, 5 feet deep ditch dug uphill from the proposed Willowbrook Development did not successfully drain property to IIpass ll tests. Again what has possibly changed to allow for 20 or more .. , homes to be built on land that drains other land requiring 1-1/4 acres (1987) and five acres (1985) to IIpass ll one home. Please consider this letter to be a formal request to participate in the review process regarding Willowbrook File S90-0098. I request to be made a party of record on the plat of Willowbrook and, as such, request to be informed of all hearings, actions, decisions or appeal processes. I understand that under WAC 197-11-100 an applicant must prepare the initial envi ronmenta 1 checkl i st. I also note reference to a 1 ead agency. I woul d request written response to the following: 1. Which agency is the lead agency in the matter of Willowbrook? 2. Have there been reports prepared and submitted which verify the information in the environmental checklist? May I have a copy of any and all such reports? Mr. Gregg Kipp -2-January 22, 1991 3. Has the manger of B.A.L.D. set any deadlines for the submittal of information, studies or documents relative to threshold requirements? 4. Has the department mitigated any general K.C.C. health threshold requirements specifically regarding water run off? 5. Is an EIS required before plat approval is authorized? As you will note herein, we are concerned citizens. We are not anti development. We are concerned about the lack of drainage and our property; we are concerned about standing water in our yards and under some of our homes; we are concerned about sewer odors; we are concerned that current water run off is undercutting and washing away our road. We know the land cannot support 20 or more homes. Please read the enclosed January 31, 1990, article from the Valley Daily News in general support of our collective and specific concerns regarding Willowbrook. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I will be looking for your response in the near future. I would be happy to provide additional information if requested to do so. Sincerely, Sandra and Terry Taylor 15243 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Telephone: 228-5477 c: Mr. John S. Nicon Complaint Investigator King County Office of Citizen Complaints C-213 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Ray Hell er Program Manager King County Surface Water Management Division 730 Dexter-Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Larry Kirchner EHS Supervisor Seattle-King County Health Department 1404 Central Avenue South Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 15243 S.E. 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 October 27, 1991 King County Building and Land Development Attn: Hearing Examiner 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: #S90P0098 Willowbrook To Whom It May Concern: We have received the staff report on the proposed development of Willowbrook, and after reading through it, find little to make us feel any better about the addition of 20 houses. The problems that have existed for the 17+ years that we have lived here are still there and this new addition will just compound the problems. We find that many others have written stating many of the same concerns and problems of which we have tried to make you aware. For years, beginning with Mary Ryan's decision to semi- develop the land to the north of S.E. 132nd Street, we have tried, unsuccessfully, to make county officials aware of the problems we have had to deal with because of the poor soil drainage and high water table, such as standing water in our yards, erosion of the road, water coming in and under our homes, trees that are uprooted in high winds because the roots are saturated, and above all, the health hazards that exist because of poorly functioning septic systems. We can ~'lift the lid off our septic tank during very wet periods and actually see the water that is suppose to drain into the soil run back into the septic tank, the path of least resistance. We have also been told that underground springs exit which adds to the problem. We feel that our county officials who are suppose to have knowledge of these problems have ignored a situation that existed long before any of our homes were built. As more trees are eliminated and more stress put on the land more problems appear. We would like to believe that these officials are looking at the big picture of the future, and not just 10 acres at a time. It has been suggested that the neighbors get together to hire an engineer to further stress the problems that exist. We cannot see that someone who sees the land in question a couple of times would have any better knowledge of the problems that we have described than those who have lived here the number of years that we have. We would like to believe that those of you who will make the final decision will do so with true concern for those who may live in this new development as well as those of us who have made this area our home. As previously stated, the proposed development lies downhill and slopes away from the homes on S.E. 132nd street and will not only have to deal with the normal problems brought on by heavy rain and poor soil but also the water flowing from our yards as the natural flow of the land is toward them. The only area that would have little problem with this are the few lots at the top of the proposed development near 156th Street. After being informed of these problems we would hope that new housing projects would not be considered until proper sanitary facilities are in place. Another concern is the increase in traffic on the already busy 156th Street. It is the only North/South route between Maple Valley Highway and S.E. 128th Street (Cemetery Road). During heavy traffic periods it takes several minutes to even get out onto 156th Street. We hate to think of the possible accidents which may occur due to the overload and impatience. We would ask that this letter and the others we have sent in the past which concern this issue be made a matter of public record as work may make it impossible to attend the hearing. Sincerely, Sandra and Terry Taylor ", 9; , J C: ~' -I P rf 4: lj 2 CJ cI 3 0 , /7' ttl EN" .':~ f!: .~. r~.~ t ..... " !~(",' ~ ~I ll. , ... ,._ .• I hL UI'I.)iuh EXHIBTr 24 ~f KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT 935 Powell Ave. S.W. ,. Renton. WA 98055 Phone (206) 22&4867 joe Miles Engineering Review Unit King County Bui lding & Land Development EastPointe Plaza, Suite A 3600-136th Place Southeast Bellevue, WA. 98006 Re: Wi I low Brook, Fi Ie *S90P0098 Mr. Miles: August 7, 1991 According to the 1973 King County Soi I Survey, the above mentioned plat is underlain by soils of the Alderwood <AgC> series. Erosion problems are common on Alderwood type soi Is when disturbed by construction activities. This is due to the presence of a ti II layer at a shallow depth which increases runoff, and subsequently, the erosion potential. Corrosivity of Alderwood soils for uncoated steel and concrete is moderate to high. Proposed plat is 3/4 mi Ie to tributary *0307 according to WSASU Vol,.1 (Puget Sound> and erosion and landsl ide hazard zones according Sensitive Areas Map Folio. of Cedar River 3/4 mil e to to King C:)unty Please c.ontact assistance. our office if we can be of further Sincerely, A. Fatin Kara Water Resource Planner cc: Barbara Questad, SEPA Coordinator Fi Ie _ EXHIBIT 5 CONSERVATION. DrVELOPME~!7. SEU-C-OVER.'JMENT i I \ . " February 3, 1991 Gregg Kipp RECEIVED FE" I 1991 SUBDIVISIONS Manager, Building and Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA , 98006 ~- Attention: Lisa Pringle RE: Willowbrook File No. S90-P0098 \ .. '\ .,,' I .... ; '.,. --:",' .' . ~ . '.-"::: ~~'" ,.' .. r'. ." , ...... . I'm sure by this time you have received our letters regarding our concerns about the proposed home to be built in Willowbrook. As was stated, we met as a group and voiced our individual concerns about our alre~ exis1ini'.lta.ter.pr.o.bl~JDs and the effect 20+ homeswould -do to compound the problem. The letter was composed as a group and sent individually to further stress our joint concerns. In our home, we have had to deal with water seeping through the bricks of a downstairs fireplace. We have this problem despite the fact that we have put in 2 layers of drain pipe plus rock along the house to redirect the water away from the house. The outside walls were also tarred down to the footings. The downstairs toilet overflows whenever we have heavy rain, and washing, showering and, worst of all, flushing are out of the question. This has gotten worse as the area has developed. We pump our septic tank every 2-3 years trying to minimize the problem. I often wonder how homes could be built when these ~onditions are present. I read about cases like Sierra Heights and realize the system just doesn't work because the people whose job it is and who should be concerned are swayed by developers and builders whcrse only concern is how much money can be made. I would like to state just a couple of other concerns before 1 close. What is going to happen to the homes to be built when the water flowing off my yard and being directed away from my house ends up in their homes? If all the trees on tQ~:Wi I l'owbrook site ar..e removed ta~e..t .AsJDany-houseslnas possible, who will be responsible for the trees in my yard and others which have been protected from high winds by the windbreak provided by the trees on the Willowbrook? There is also the question of additional traffic, schools that are already full, and the extra load on utilities such as water? _ EXHIBIT 7 I ... ( • • I Feb r u a r y 2 7, _-~-9 9 1 Gregg Kipp Manager, Building and Land 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 RECFI\/ED Development - - MAR 0 4 1991 A t ten t ion :{Li'i;~~·S!r.iJgi~i SUBDIVISIONS RE: IHl16wb rook File No. S 9 0-P009 8 '0-_"_ . 0_. ; This letter is written in support of Complaint # 9012-015 filed last month with the King County Office of Citizen Camplaint. The proposed Willowbrook development seems particularly ill advised at this time. The reasons for nonsupport are based on problems of present homeowners in the area as well as ?rojected difficulties of any residents who might occupy homes were they to be built here. Our specific difficulties arise from poor drainage of the soil. a ~roblem which has been overlooked repeatedly in the ~ast by county staff ~embers. The runoff of surface waters has created problems for neighbors in that yards and planting areas become mushy/swamplike during the rainy seasons of the Year. We, ourselves. experience water under our home at times, and other neighbors on even higher ground have reported even worse situations than ours. The water runs from our area down into the proDosed development area. ~hat in the world happens to it there now. and what will happen in the future? The saturated ground does not readily absorb the normal rain :.ater let alone any excess if it is a "rainy" :·car. Additionally we have experienced dif~iculties with the ne1~n­ borhood septic systems. Despite ~rofessional care, problems continue: we, ourselves, have had to have our seotic system extended bccau~e of inadequacies-this, as you can ima~ine. caused undue eXDcnsc and difficulties, plus the extra work and Qxpense of thc land- scaping following the work. The record of the county is not good with regard to serving the ~eople of our neighborhood. We were told that our home was supposed to have been built four feet higher on our lot than it actually was-a fact somehow ignored by health authorities ~t :~~ critical time. In previous years. the land for the proposed Jc- velopment (Willowbrook) did not perc appropriately for any buildin~ to occur, and in fact, the land has ~nged ownership several ti~cs for that very reason. How is it that, suddenly, the property i5 now capable of supporting 20 or more homes? The Valley Daily News periodically includes articles regard- ing the sewage/sanitation and inadequate water runoff facilities extent in this and surrounding areas. These are mere echoes of our concern now, and for the future. Lest you think that my wife and I are antidevelopment, let ~c state than I have no objections to expanding the neighborhood--if and when sewers and adequate drainage for surface waters are avail- able. It does not appear that these necessities are forthcoming. EXHIBIT 8 ~or does it seem that the commonsense of the present residents has been heard. The history of "lost letters" to officials, and uncaring and even arrogant public employees who seem not to be responsible for their actions once they move on to "better jobs" does not support the trust we once had in County departments cre- ated for the public good. I am hopeful that this effort to explain the area's water problems will be read, understood and appreciated as an honest attempt to improve the quality of life in our immediate locale. I am hopeful, too; that you will appreciate the ongoing frustra- tion which has been engendered by county officials who are no longer with the department, and who, apparently, felt no ob- ligation to ensure that records would be kept and used. Sincerely, ~1:t.~ Gary G. ::ewbury 15251 S.E. 132nd St. Renton, ~A 98059 January 22, 1991 RECEIVED FEB 6 1991 --I '1 ,":' l' '."! Gregg Kipp SUBDIVISIONS ~, J Manager, Building and Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. ,I ,." Bellevue, WA 98006 Attention: Lisa Pringle '. ' RE: Willowbrook File No. S90-P0098 This letter is written in support of complaint No. 9012-015 recently filed with John Nican of the King County Office of Citizen Complain~. We recently met with our neighbors to discuss what actions might be taken individually and/or collectively to question the processes followed to date in order to 1 egally allow the proposed building of 20 or more homes (Willowbrook) on land which has not, for 17 years at a minimum, met requirements to be certified as "bui1dable.1I I have included my individual supportive data as an addendum to this general letter. (See attached and enclosed.) To our dismay we have .heard from county employees that: 1. "The plan i~ to hook up to the sewer on 156th ..•. " There is no sewer! 2. "The soil tests are marginal but passable .... " What tests? Why would land that wouldn't "PERC" for years and thus change owners who also wanted to develop the land but couldn't ... now "marginally pass?" Aren't tests to be ~ responsive to current environmental restrictions than less? We have very poor drainage. Multiple drains have been added. Water run-off creates (with the exception of late July and August) year round "streams" and/or "swamps" on our properties. Research into the history of this area will show that even a 3,100 foot long, 5 feet deep ditch dug uphill from the proposed Willowbrook Development did not successfully drain property to "pass" tests. Again what has possibly changed to allow for 20 or more homes to be built on land that drains other land requiring 1-1/4 acres (1987) and five acres (1985) to "pass" one home. Please consider this letter to be a formal request to participate in the review process regarding Willowbrook File S90-0098. I request to be made a party of / record on the plat of Willowbrook and, as such, request to be informed of all hearings, actions, decisions or appeal processes. I understand that under WAC 197-11-100 an applicant must prepare the initial environmental checklist. I also note reference to a lead agency. I would request written response to the following: 1. Which agency is the lead agency in the matter of Willowbrook? 2. Have there been reports prepared and submitted which verify the information in the environmental checklist? May I have a copy of any and all such reports? _ EXHIBIT 15 Mr. Gregg Kipp -2-January 22, 1991 3. Has the manger of B.A.l.D. set any deadlines for the submittal of information, studies or documents relative to threshold requirements? 4. Has the department mitigated any general K.C.C. health threshold requirements specifically regarding water run off? 5. Is an EIS required before plat approval is authorized? As you will note herein, we are concerned citizens. We are not anti development. We are concerned about the lack of drainage and QY! property; we are concerned about standing water in our yards and under some of our homes; we are concerned about sewer odors; weare concerned that current water run off is undercutting and washing away our road. We know the land cannot support 20 or more homes. Please read the enclosed January 31, 1990, article from the Valley Daily News in general support of our collective and specific concerns regarding Willowbrook. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I will be looking for your response in the near future. I would be happy to provide additional information if requested to do so. Sincerely, k~'<-VYl"-]4 ~~S-r. Kenneth and Margaret Smith 15402 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Telephone: 206/226-4899 c: Mr. John S. Nicon Complaint Investigator King County Office of Citizen Complaints C-213 King County Courthouse , Seattle, WA 98104 \ Mr. Ray Heller Program Manager King County Surface Water Management Division 730 Dexter-Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Larry Kirchner EHS Supervisor Seattle-King County Health Department 1404 Central Avenue South Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 • " 1-•• '- ;"9.: ." t'" ;..- l/ !! ,"',.. .-. I' ... ' ; 1..' '.! ~ f" :. :-;: ~ j)) ./. -/- 130_ 156th Ave. 3.~. Renton, ;'ia. 9d059 .2I.ugust 16. 1991 King County Bqild ng and Land Development Division subdivision ~ectioni ~ RECFIVED ~600 116t~ ~l~ce§.~.- ~ell_evue, -Ja. 93006-1400 f-.JJi] 2 1 1991 Sentlemen: SUBDiViSiONS 'I'~~nk vou for including us in your list of property owne:!:"s to w~om yOU sent notices of public hea:!:"ing to consider the applica~ic~ for su~";.visi.on of the -·iillowbrool:. FLat f': 39')1'0098. T~e 1and in nuestion belonged to ;rt Zengrell in the 1950's in eJlJat lJe C"l.:' ~ed the "~.azv A ~ rtanch" • {hen he died the 80 acres was ~;vided into 10 and 5 acre t:!:"acts. The land had ~een used for ~orse ri~~~q ~nd hiking trails by Mr. Zengrell. It was good use beca~se the ~ajor nortion of the land was wetlands. King County wo~ld ~ot issue !"erc111at ion test s on t~e acreage for at 12a st 20 years. Then, a roadway (3.~. 132nd 3t.) was put in and in subsequent vears a whole street of houses was built. The requirement was that a bi.t of gravel should be "smeared around". The few rock.s that were ~dded to tlJe saturated soil didn't ma~e any difference. Just as~ the hOMeo~~ers who bought houses in dry weather and now can't sell. 30me of those ho~eowners, who are on the edge of the proposed deve~c?T.ent, have 9Xp:!:"es.sed the description of their hOr"'es as having "hot and cold runn 1.ng ,.rater in their firep2-aces". ;'later stands under their homes during most of the rainy season. 3ec3use of the impercability of land just to the north of those ho~es, reat estate woman Mary Ryan had a trench more than 6 feet deep in places dug and a drain pipe installed that runs from 156th ~ve. 3.~. (across the street fro~ our property) to the end of 3.8. 132nd 3t.,and then on to the back of the proposed plat flows the dratned water. ~ny­ O1"')e \.r" 6' did not see the drain installed would be una',Jare. The drainpipe drains about 4 bloc~s from 156th Ave. 3.E. to 152nd Ave. 3.S. if extended. \not~er concern is the traffic bac~ups already existent on 156th ~,ve. -;.:::. most of the day, but especially bad during "rush ~our traffic". "anv -=<.enton and TS3aauah School District school ;.)uses are routed on the ro~dway d~rin~ t~e school ve~r. The ~ing County ~ire ~istrtct 3tation ~1 ~s ~~~ediatet~ to the nort~ of the proposed development. Fire truc~s, police c~rs ~nd aid cars are leaving from or returning to the station ~ll day and night hours. Traffic i~pedes the emergency vehlcles'response t i_mes •. In addi t ion, property owners are endangered every time they have to trY to cross the road to collect mail and newspapers by the number of speeding vehicles, and by the increasing number of huge truc~ combinations which have found 156th Ave. 3.~. is a shortcut from the Maple Valley and ~airwood area to Bellevue and ~ighway 405 without having to buc~ ~enton traff~c jams. ~~ch traffic now also is being diverted to 144th Ave. 3.8. from 156th ~ve. s.s. because of congestion on 156th past the Renton School District Maplewood Heights Elementary School. Many children walk to school there. I EXHIBIT llQ I ,."ould like to b ed to the list to rece; e Hearing Examiners I report as a party-of-.K.ccord. I am enclosing the ".t-arty-of-Record request. Sincerely yours, ~C2~ ( /I.'r !..1 1:' <I.; s. ;-l.~. ) ~oxaine R. Reynolds \ August 28, 1991 GC: 2? 199! King County Environmental 'bivision Attn: SEPA Center 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: File No. S90P0098 Willowbrook G~~lemen: The undersigned is the owner of two 5~acre parcels located immediately south of the proposed plat of Willowbrook. My tax parcel numbers are 142305-9083-03 and 142305-9110-00. I have ·~wned this property for more than 20 years. I have made use of this property in my business and I am therefore on the property and have been on the property on a year-round basis. During the rainy season, which is approximately six (6) Jonths from October through March, there is a very strong odor of sep- tic tank effluent coming from my property. My ten (10) acres contains only one (1) single family unit. The odors are not coming from my premises. My real property is lower than the real property north and therefore, during the rainy seasons the ground water and surface waters flow from the north to the south across and within my property. There is a layer of hard- pan which prevents the water from percolating deep into the soil. Although I have never dug or excavated on the property to the north, it is my belief that not only the Willowbrook property but also property further north and to the east of Willowbrook also contain this hardpan layer. It is my opinion the winter rains permeate the soil in and around the residences north of my property and in turn, when this soil becomes saturated, the water flows down hill and crosses over my property either underground or on the surface. As a result, the septic tank effluent is carried from these residences to my property and other properties in the area. Based upon my years of experiencing this condition, it is therefore my opinion that further and additional residences should not be allowed to be constructed and served by septic tanks in the area. In the event the new residences were to be served by a sariitary sewer, I would have no objection to this Willowbrook Development. Due to my schedule, I will not be available at the public hearing and I therefore request this letter be made a matter of public record. EXHIBIT \i Georoe "-- -, ~-~ ..... \~l,,"': I "'Er I '.: :.1 . -. King County Environmental Division 3600 1,}6 pI SE Bellevue, Wa 98006-1400 RE: S90P0098 Willowbrook To~Uhbm it may Concern: -·'~I ";-.... ,~ , .. 1, .. .. " .,.' :' .i -':. 13204 156 Ave S.E. Renton, WA 98059 August 30, 1991 R ~(':!=~\Ir:' ~. t:. _ !'.-_ ~ ~. • SEP 04 198'l SUBDIVISlOf--. We have resided at 13204 156 Ave SE for nearly 20 years. We are concerned regarding the new development called Willowbrook. Actually, we are surprised this development has progressed this far. These are our concerns: 1. Much of the ground is very marshy, with standing water except for the dry summer months. Some houses along SE 132 which are higher than the proposed deve10pment have experienced septic failure in the short time they have been there. 2. The latest houses developed on the north side of SE 132 were required to have 1 acre lots. We don't understand allowing 19 lots on these 9 acres. We question how these lots could possibly pass the perc test? We would appreciate re-consideration for allowing that many lots to be developed in such a small portion of land. c.c. Building and Land Development Division Subdivision Section 3600 136 PI S.E Bellevue Thank you, t2d:~~..t""'( y .?7-~;?a<.t!r ZZ{.e ~~e'~~~"" Addison and Marge Williams EXHIBIT JtIff I~ ."", ... , ~~ . ,. • , , Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator ,- September 2, 1991 King County Environmental 3600 -136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Division ATTN: SEPA center File I S90P0098 "~ To whom it may concern: The City of Renton has reviewed the Determination of Non- ~Significance for the Loran Petersen/ESM for King Brothers, Const. 19 lot suburban subdivision. The City of Renton is concerned about the siting near its sphere of influence and that it comply with the Newcastle Community Plan. It copld have subsequent impacts on land use, transportation, andt environmental health. LAND CSE: The SR15000 zoning of this 'area establishes a minimum lot size of 15000 square feet. This zoning is often proposed for areas outsi~e of the sewer service area. There is no • information given on infrastructure incompatibility. , " Also, compatibility and impacts of all the "action" alternatives on surrounding land uses should be thoroughly discussed. TRANSPORTATION: Additional information & an impact analysis is needed on the extension of the roadway between 132nd and 134th. SENSITIVE AREAS: The addresses given makes it impossible to accurately locate the site(s) on a map. For this reason, the site location was estimated for the assessments made. For complete accuracy a site map would be needed. It appears the 132nd site lies within a Class III Landslide Area and half of the site lies within a Class III Seismic Area. The 152nd location might have a small portion of the South East corner within the Class III Landslide Area. These determinations were made from the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio - a difficult map to find an exact siting from. EXHIBIT" 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 \ King county Environmental Division September 2, 1991 Page 2 The City of Renton would like to be kept informed of the progress of the environmental review and if there are any mitigating factors determined. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Non-Significance on this project. have any questions you can contact, Teri A. Adams, Intern I, at 235-2552. ~":Sincerely yours, ~JL!!n:~ Principal Planner If you Planning ~. · . . , ." RECE!VEO r·!OV 1 1991 SEPA King County Building and Attn: Hearing Examiner 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: #S90P0098 Willowbrook T~Whom It May Concern: 15243 S.E. 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 October 21, 1991 Land Development RECrJ\J~o . -. OCT 2 0 ~391 "- :":' ...... . ... ..•. J We have received the staff report on the proposed development of Willowbrook, and after reading through it, find little to make us feel any better about the addition of 20 houses. The problems that have existed for the 17+ years that we have lived here are still there and this new addition will just compound the problems. We find that many others have written stating many of the same concerns and problems of which we have tried to make you aware. For years, beginning with Mary Ryan's decision to semi- develop the land to the north of S.E. 132nd Street, we have tried. unsuccessfully, to make county officials aware of the problems we have had to dealtwith because of the poor soil drainage and high water table, such as standing water in our yards, erosion of the road. water coming in and under our homes. trees that are uprooted in high winds because the roots are saturated, and above all, the health hazards that exist because of poorly functioning septic systems. We can lift the lid off our septic tank during very wet periods and actually see the water that is suppose to drain into the soil run back into the septic tank, the path of least resistance. We have also been told that underground springs e~it which adds to the problem. We feel that our county officials who are suppose to have knowledge of these problems have ignored a situation that existed long before any of our homes were built. As more trees are eliminated and more stress put on the land more problems appear. We would like to believe that these officials are looking at the big picture of the future, and not just 10 acres at a time. It has been suggested that the neighbors get together to hire an engineer to further stress the problems that exist. We cannot see that someone who sees the land in question a couple of times would have any better knowledge of the problems that we have described than those who have lived here the number of years that we have. We would like to believe that those of you who will make the final decision will do so with true concern for those who may live in this EXP..IBIT 22 ~ I '/ , f r t t. i new development ~s well as those of us who have made this area our home. As previously stated, the proposed development lies downhill and slopes away from the homes on S.E. 132nd Street and will not only have to deal with the normal problems brought on by heavy rain and poor soil but also the water flowing from our yards as the natural flow of the land is toward them. The only area that would have little problem with this are the few lots at the top of the proposed development near 156th Street. After being informed of these problems we would hope that new housing projects would not be considered until proper sanitary facilities are in place. An~her concern is the increase in traffic on the already busy 156th Street. It is the only North/South route between ~aple Valley Highway and S.E. 128th Street (Cemetery Road). During heavy traffic periods it takes several minutes to even get out onto 156th Street. We hate to think of the ·~ossible a~cidents which may occur due to the overload and impatience. We would ask that this letter and the others we have sent in the past which concern this issue be made a matter of public record as work may make it impossible to attend the hearing. Sincerely, /1 / . f.? 1 ' :~'I I ):~ .i~L Lt}i<-(" I \L.. ~'-' ;:.:..) ~ct:; Sandra and Terry Taylor l t I i r I I r . ~ r 1 i [ I, I I I .. willowbrook, S90P0098 Hearing, November 5, 1991 Drainage Complaints Dick and Barb Wright, 152433 SE 132nd . standing water in form of year round streams and/or swamps; water runoff undercutting and washing away SE 132nd street, sewer odors, soil percability. Sandy and Terry Taylor, 15423 S.E. 132nd Street Water seeping through bricks of downstairs fireplace, problems with water pressure, septic tank problems -have to pump out every two years. __ , ___ ___ ~ __ -.'-_ .-____ ... _ . ._~ ....... ___ "3_""'_ ... _ .. __.. __ ~-__ Gary G. Newbury, 15251 S.E. 132nd Street Poor drainage of soil, runoff, water under their home, difficulties with neighborhood septic systems, inability of willowbrook property to perc. Roxaine R. Reynolds, 13042 -156th Avenue S.E. Property a wetlands in 1950s. Houses built near S.E. 132nd street have water under homes during most of rainy season. A drainpipe runs from 156th Avenue S.E. to end of S.E. 132nd street and on to back of proposed plat drains about four blocks from 156th Avenue S.E. to 152nd Avenue S.E. if extended. Addison and Marge williams, 13204 -156th Avenue S.E. Ground is very marshy with standing water except for dry summer months. Some houses along S.E. 132nd have experienced septic failure. George Bales, 13427 -156th Avenue S.E. During rainy season very strong odor of septic tank effluent coming from the property. Property is lower than property north; ground and surface waters flow from north to south across and within his property. There is a layer of hardpan which prevents water from percolating deep into soil. When soil becomes saturated north of his property, water carrying septic effluent flows downhill and crosses his property either underground or on surface. REPORT AND DECISION OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 400 Yesler Way, Room 404 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 296-4660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 February 4,2004 SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services file nos. LOIP0016A and L03RE038 Proposed Ordinance No. 2003-0490 EVENDELL Preliminary Plat Revision and Proposal for Transfer of Density Credits Location: Lying South of Southeast 136th Street, between 1 56th Avenue Southeast And l60lh Avenue Southeast Applicant: U.S. Land Development Association/Centurion, represented by Michael Romano 22617 - 8th Drive Southeast Bothell, Washington 98021 Telephone: (425) 486-2563 Facsimile: (425) 486-3273 King County: Land Use Services Division, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, WA 98055-1219 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-7055 SUMMARY OF DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION: Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner's Decision: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Approve, subject to conditions (modified) EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing Opened: Hearing Closed: January 22, 2004 January 22, 2004 LOlPOOI6A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Fire District: King County Fire District # 25 Schoo] Districts: Renton & Issaquah Community Plan: Newcastle Drainage Subbasin: Lower Cedar River King County Permits: Subdivision Complete App]ication Date: October 27, 2003 Thresho]d Determination: Mitigated Determination of Non significance (MDNS) Date oflssuance: December 23, 2002 (Adoption Notice Nov. 10, 2003) Page 3 of21 KC Permit Contact: Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section, LUSD Phone # 296-7114 or e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov 2. Except as modified below, the facts set forti) in the King County Land Use Services Division's preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner for the January 22, 2004, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Said report is exhibit no. 60a in the hearing record. 3. Directly north, east and south of the eastern II acres ofthe subject property (proposed lot nos. 12-70) are three parcels proposed to be subdivided pursuant to the R-4 zoning classification. Those parcels are the subject ofDDES application nos. L03P0006 (Liberty Grove), L03P0005 (Liberty Grove Contiguous) and L03POOl5 (Nicho]s Place). The adjacent property to the west is developed with single-family residences on larger lots. There is no currently proposed or anticipated development of the property to the west. 4. King County's "Transfer of Deve]opment Rights (TDR)" program is governed by Chapter 21A.37 of the King County Code. The TDR program establishes a property right which is separable from the fee-simple title to certain lands within King County, and provides a method for the transfer and utilization of that new right, which is colloquially known as a development right or "density credit." A density credit has a substantia] market value. The underlying purpose of the TDR program is to allow for the movement of residential density from rural areas to urban areas of King County. The code is intended to provide, " ... an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that trimsfers 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." KCC 21A.37.01O.2. Receiving sites are required to meet the provisions ofKCC 2IA.37.030. Those requirements are that the receiving site: I. be within an unincorporated urban area, zoned R-4 or higher, or be within a potential annexation area; 2. be within a city where new growth is or will be encouraged, and where facilities and services exist or public investments in facilities and services will be made; or 3. be within RA-2.5 and RA-5 zoned parcels, subject to stringent criteria. The subject property is within the first category of eligible receiving sites listed in KCC 2IA.37.030. Sites within the unincorporated urban growth area are not required to have '. LOIPOO16A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page 5 of21 Avenue Southeast to Southeast 135th Street, then east to 166th Avenue Southeast, and then south to the north boundary of the Liberty High School property. Alternatively, a route within future right-of-way may become available along Southeast 1 36th Street east from 160th Avenue Southeast to 1 62nd Avenue Southeast, then south to "5-10t subdivision" (a.k.a. Dickenson Plat), that would enable a connection to the southwest comer of the Liberty High School property. Improvements to either route could accomplish the provision of safe walking conditions for students who will walk to school from the subject property. 8. Removal of trees from this or other property being developed commonly subjects trees on adjacent properties to stress and increases the windthrow hazard. Trees that remain in an area which is substantially cleared present an increased risk to persons and property on and off the site of the remaining trees. There is no King County regulation applicable to the subject property that restricts clearing or tree removal to protect trees on adjacent properties from increased stress or risk of wind throw. The environmental review of this proposal did not identify impacts of clearing or tree removal as a significant adverse environmental impact of the proposal. 9. The Applicant's proposal includes wetland buffer averaging to enable proposed road construction and possibly facilitate lot development. The area shown for the provision of additional buffer to mitigate impacts oflost buffer is in the northeast corner of the plat, adjacent to 1 60th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 1 36th Street. Replacement buffer is proposed at approximately a 2: 1 ratio to lost buffer area. This would provide additional protection to the class 2 wetland, as required by KCC 21A.24.320.B. CONCLUSIONS: I. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subdivision wiIl 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. Ifapproved 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 supply, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, 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 ofland 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 and adopted November 10,2003. There was no appeal of the MDNS or of its adoption for this proposal. Therefore, the conditions of that MDNS must be implemented as conditions of this preliminary plat approval. LOIPOOl6A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page 7 of21 R-6 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 density credit documentation to DDES prior to final approval to allow transfer of a maximum of 20 density credits to achieve a maximum of 70 lots on the subject property. 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), subject to any variances that may be approved by the King County Road Engineer. 5. A Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) shall be completed prior to final plat approval to except from the plat that portion of the 200 (approximate) feet on the far west that is not part of the proposed plat. Documentation demonstrating the resolution of boundary issues with the property to the south (Nichols Place) also shall be provided to DDES. 6. The Applicant must obtain the approval from 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 will provide access to Lots 28 and 29. Additionally, it is a future emergency vehicle access tract to and from 160tb Avenue 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 160tb Avenue 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 160tb Avenue 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 will have to be sprinklered NFPA 13D. These requirements concerning adequate fire and emergency access may be modified in a manner approved by the King County Fire Protection Engineer and King County Fire District no. 25. 7. 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 oflots 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. '. LOIPOOI6A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page90f22 The frontage from 158th Ave NE to 160th Ave NE shall be improved to the urban one-half street standard. Eighteen feet of additional right-of way shall be dedicated for this improvement. SE 136th Street frontage from the west side of J.V.D.T. 'A' boundary to 158th Ave NE shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard; EXCEPT that no sidewalk construction is required on the north side. Twenty feet of additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for this improvement. SE 136th Street from 156th Ave SE to J.V.D.T. 'A' shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard; EXCEPT that no sidewalk construction is required on the north side. Twenty-six feet of additional right-of-way shall be provided for this improvement. An additional 25-foot right-of-way radius is required at the southeast corner of 156th Ave SE and SE 136th Street. Striping for a second westbound lane shall be provided within the 150-foot widened section approaching I 56th Avenue SE, in a manner to be worked out at the time of submission of engineering plans. d. 160th Ave SE FRONTAGE: The 160th Ave SE frontage shall be improved with an 8-foot paved shoulder on the west side. Adequate provisions for road drainage shall be provided. e. Tracts A,C,F,G,H, and I shall be improved to the joint use driveway standard per Section 3.01 of the KCRS. Tract A shall include an easement to King County for the maintenance of the Tract N drainage facility. Tract A shall be owned and maintained by the owners of Lots 1 and 2. f. Tracts B, D and E shall be improved to the private access tract standard per Section 2.09 of the KCRS. g. The Applicant shall revise the channelization that has been constructed in conjunction with the plat of Highland Estates (LOOP0009). These modifications to the channelization shall incorporate a revision of the current proposed painted 'island' to a southbound left turn lane with at least 60 feet of storage for left turning vehicles to (a) encourage the use of 156th Avenue SE in lieu of 158th Avenue SE and 160th Avenue SE, and (b) mitigate the potential deficient condition that would result from southbound left turning vehicles making left turns from the southbound through lane, or using the painted island as a deceleration and refuge area while waiting for gaps in northbound traffic. Channelization and illumination plans must be submitted to King County Traffic Engineering Section for review and approval of the turn lane channelization. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS. . 11. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 160th A venue SE from those lots which abut this street. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and final plat. LOIPOOl6A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREAS AND BUFFERS Page II of22 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 IS-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 21A.14.l90 in 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. 17. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 18. Street trees shalI be included in the design of alI road improvements, and shall comply with Section 5.03 of the KCRS and KCC 21A.16.050: a. Trees shalI 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. LOIPOO16A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page 13 of21 re-grading approximately 50 to lOO feet of channel, east of 16046 SE 142nd 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: 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 ofthe KCSWDM. The minimum Flow Control Standard shaH be Level 2. A factor of safety of5 to IS percent, determined by the design engineer, shaH be required for detention storage volumes. The downstream impacts of the 1,700 feet of conveyance improvements shall be reviewed by the developer's engineer, and any recommendations necessary to prevent flooding or other damage from occurring as a consequence of the required conveyance improvements shaH be included with the plans for review by DDES. School Mitigation Fees 20. Lots within this subdivision east of ISSth Avenue SE 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 shaH be assessed and coHected immediately prior to recording, using the fee schedules in effect when the plat receives final approval. The balance ofthe assessed fee shall be aHocated evenly to the dwelling units in the plat and shaH be collected prior to building permit issuance. Schoo] Walkways 21. A pedestrian access easement between 15 Slh Place SE and 160th Avenue SE shaH be provided over either Tract H or L (as shown in Exhibit 62). The easement shaH have a minimum 10 foot width and be improved with a 5 foot wide paved surface. 22. The Applicant, individuaHy or in conjunction with other developers, shaH construct an off-site walkway to Liberty High schoo] from the site. The walkway shall be constructed within the right-of-way from 160th Ave SE, east along SE 135th Street to 166th Ave SE, and south to Liberty High Schoo] at SE 136th Street, or via alternative right-of-way and easements that become available and are approved by DOES. One acceptable alternative would be to use future right-of-way of Southeast 136th Street and 162nd Avenue Southeast to connect with the sidewalk improvement of "five Jot subdivision," and through the plat of "five Jot subdivision"ILOOP0023 to the southwest gate of Liberty High School. The walkway shaH be designed and constructed in LOI POOl 6A & L03RE038 -EvendeIl Revision Diane Kazele 15657 SE 137th PI. Renton W A 98059 Lakeridge Development Inc. Attn: Wayne Jones Jr. P.O. Box 146 Renton WA 98057-0146 Rebecca Lind City of Renton, EDNSP 1055 S. Grady Way Renton W A 98056 Fred & Gloria Martin 13019 -160th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Bill Mokin 14404 -162nd Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 John Nanney 16169 SE 146th PI. Renton W A 98059 Gary Norris Gary Struthers & Associates 3150 Richards Road # I 00 Bellevue W A 98005 Richard & Anita Oliphant 16519 SE 145th St. Renton W A 98059 David Rockabrand Four Creeks UAC 11427 162nd Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Geneva Scholes 12924 -158th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Don & Diane Kezele 15657 SE 137th PI. Renton WA 98059 Joann Lee 13 802 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Steve Lyman 14505 -1 60th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Linda Matlock W A State Ecol. Dept.IWQSW Unit PO Box 47696 Olympia W A 98504-7696 Eleanor Moon KC Executive Horse Council 12230 NE 61st Kirkland W A 98033 Kathy Nelson Transportation Dept. 805 -2nd Ave. S. Issaquah W A 98027 Florence Nott 15915 SE 134th PI. Renton W A 98059-6832 David Petrie 811 S. 273rd Ct. Des Moines W A 98198 Marsha Rollinger 15646 SE 138th PI. Renton W A 98059 Curtis Schuster KBS III, LLC 12320 NE 8th St., Ste. 100 Bellevue W A 98005 Page 15 of22 Duana Kolouskova Johns Monroe Mitsunga PLLC 1500-114th Avenue SE, #102 Bellevue W A 98004 Tim & Gina Lex 13116 -158th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Jerry Marcy P.O. Box 575 Seattle WA 98111 Jim McDougal 14502 167th PI. SE Renton W A 98059 Steven & Peri Muhich 13420 -160th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Sally Nipert 14004 -156th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Dave Nyblom PMB 129 4820 NE 4th St., Ste. 101 Renton W A 98059-4845 David & Georgia Platt 510 Panoramic Dr. Camano Island W A 98282 Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8th Drive SE Bothell W A 98021 Charles & Viola Scoby 13112 -158th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059-853 I LOIPOOl6A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page 17 of22 Filing requires actual deJivery 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 riot 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 fiJed 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. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 6 and 10,2003 AND JANUARY 22, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. LOIP0016 AND LOITY401; L03RE038 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 Hagennan, 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 Exhibit No. 2A 2B Exhibit No. 3A 3B Exhibit No.4 Exhibit No.5 Exhibit No.6 DDES combined file LO 1 TY 401 & LO 1 POO 16, application filed and dated July 6, 2001 DDES application for land use pennit(s) LOITY401 & LOIPOOI6, application dated July 6, 2001 Zone reclassification application and justification questionnaire with revision received September 6, 2001 DDES preliminary report prepared 02/20/03 with attachments as follow: 1. Map of rezone from R-4 to R-6 2. Reduced copy ofR-6 -70 lot preliminary plat 3. Reduced copy ofR-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 infonnation dated July 12,2001 9. SWM adjustment approval for L02V0024 dated October 17,2002 DDES addendum report with corrections and additional infonnation regarding schools serving the property, prepared 02127/03 Revised environmental checklist received October 14,2002 Mitigated detennination of non-significance dated December 23, 2002 Affidavit of posting indicating posting dates of October 3 and 4, 2001. LOIPOOl6A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page 190f22 Exhibit No. 43 c d e f g h j Exhibit No. 44 a b c d e f. Exhibit No. 45 a b c d e Letter (2 pg) from Edward and June Hill dated March 6, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Charles W. Scoby, Viola M. Scoby, and Geneva D. Scholes dated March 1, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Laurie A. Hindes dated February 26,2003 Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Eloise and Claude Stchowiak dated March 6, 2003 Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoodby dated Feb. 21,2003, and Mar, 6,2003 Letter (1 pg) from Richard Savage (undated) Letter (1 pg) from Dan & Lynn Peterson, also signed by Fred & Helga Jaques (undated) Letter (1 pg) from John Nanney dated March 6, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Linda Williams dated March 5,2003 Letter (1 pg) from Rodney S. Stewart dated March 5, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Edward A. Schultz dated March 4, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Joseph Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Brenda Matsudaira dated March 5, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Richard & Anita Oliphant dated March 5, 2003 Letter (2 pg) from Mark Costello dated March 4, 2003 Letter (2 pg) from Jeff & Karen Sidebotham (undated) Letter (1 pg) signed by Nancy & Edward Hilton dated March 6, 2003 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 Photos (9) provided by Anita Oliphant with commentary (undated) Letter (3 pg) from Bruce and Joyce Osgoody dated February 21, 2003 Letter (1 pg) from Marilynn Carlson dated March 9,2003 Letter (2 pg) from Kristy Hill dated March 6, 2003 Letter (1 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 (1 pg) Ronda Bryant (3 pg) dated March 10, 2003 Michael Rae Cooke (7 pg) dated 3/8/02 Marsha Rollinger (1 pg) undated Sally Nipert (1 pg) dated March 6, 2003 LO 1 POO 16A & L03RE038 -Evendell Revision Page 21 of21 Exhibit No. 78 Exhibit No. 79 Exhibit No. 80 Exhibit No. 81 Exhibit No. 82 Exhibit No. 83 Exhibit No. 84 Exhibit No. 85 Exhibit No. 86 Exhibit No. 87 Exhibit No. 88 Exhibit No. 89 Exhibit No. 90 Exhibit No. 91 Exhibit No. 92 Exhibit No. 93 Exhibit No. 94 Exhibit No. 95 Exhibit No. 96 Exhibit No. 97 Exhibit No. 98 Exhibit No. 99 Exhibit No. 100 Exhibit No. 101 Exhibit No.1 02 Exhibit No. 103 3/28 and 4/10/00 press releases re: Transfer of Development Credits Six-year transit development plan showing urban centers, dated February, 2002 King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force report, dated 6/25/03 A Joint City Position statement for the King County Budget Advisory Task Force Message to employees from King County Executive Ron Sims, re: budget advisory task force, dated 6/09/03 King County Council, Budget & Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Panel-2004 CIP Budget Overview Article entitled "Facing the Challenges -In Transportation" by Harold Taniguchi dated 11.94 Transportation Service Areas 2000 High accident locations report no. 16, dated July 2003 King County transportation concurrency maps 2001, 2002 and 2003 Transportation concurrency map, level of service standards status, dated 3/07/02 2003 Annual Growth Report -excerpts King County Benchmarks Report 2003: Land Use -excerpts Buildable Lands Report of 8/29/02 -excerpts State, county, city popUlations report from OFM Forecasting, State of Washington Renton Strategic Planning Department -staff reports of 6/03, 9/23, 10/01 and 10110/03 Renton Planning Commission recommendation of October 22, 2003 Renton Ordinance no. 5026 Renton City Council regular meeting minutes of November 24, 2003 DDES revised recommendations/additional conditions for file no. LOIPOOI6, 70-10t plat, dated 3/10/03 Photographs (5 color copies) of tree damage to Kezele and Thorbeck Homes No exhibit entered Photographs (4 color copies) taken by Diane Kezele Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Edward and June Hill (undated) Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Kristy J. Hill dated January 21, 2004 Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Anita and Richard Oliphant dated 01122/04 JOC:ms/gao LOIPOOI6A-L03RE038 RPT OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 400 Yesler Way, Room 404 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 296-4660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 February 23, 2004 REPORT AND DECISION SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File Nos. L03P00061L03TY403 Proposed Ordinance Nos. 2004-0004; 2004-0006 LmERTY GROVE Proposed Preliminary Plat and Proposal for Transfer of Density Credits Location: Applicant: North of Southeast 136th Street, between 160th Avenue Southeast and 15 8th Avenue Southeast Lakeridge Development Attn: Wayne Jones P.O. Box 146 Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: (425) 228-9750 Intervenor: C.A.R.E., represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 -158th Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington 98059 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-6613 SUMMARY OF DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION: Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner's Decision: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Approve, subject to conditions (modified) L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove 2 EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing opened: Hearing closed: February 10, 2004 February 10, 2004 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 • Transfer of density credits • Surface water drainage • Road improvements • Safe walking conditions SUMMARY Application for transfer of a maximum of 5 density credits, and approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 4.84 acres into 24 lots in the urban area, are granted preliminary approval. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General Information: Proponent: Representative: Intervenor: Wayne Jones, Jr. Lakeridge Development Inc. POBox 146 Renton, W A 98057 Phone: 425-228-9750 e-mail: joneswayne@qwest.net Mel L. Daley, P.E. Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. Auburn Way North Phone: 253-333-2200 Facsimile: 253-333-2206 c.A.R.E., represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 -158th Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington 98059 Location: Lying south of SE 136th St. between 160th Ave. SE and 162th Ave. SE. SectioniTownshiplRange: SE 14-23-05 Parcel # 3664500141 Acreage Plat: 4.84 acres L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove 3 Current Zoning: R-4 Number of Lots: Proposed -24 w/5 TDR Density: 5.2 dwellings per acre Lot Size: generally 6,000 square feet Proposed Use: single family Sewage Disposal: City of Renton Water Supply: Water District #90 Fire District: King County Fire District # 25 School District: Issaquah Community Plan: Newcastle Drainage Subbasin: Lower Cedar River King County Pennits: Rezone and Subdivision Complete Application Date: May 15,2003 (Date Plat Filed March 11, 2003 & Rezone May 7, 2004) Threshold Determination: Mitigated Detennination of Non significance (MDNS) Date of Issuance: December 16, 2003 KC Permit Contact: Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section, LUSD Phone # 296-7114 or e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov 2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in the DDES preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner for the February 10, 2004, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Said report is exhibit no. 4 in the hearing record. 3. The Applicant's request to reclassify the subject property from R4 to R6 was withdrawn prior to commencement of the hearing. 4. On February 4, 2004 the King County Hearing Examiner issued his report and decision granting preliminary approval for the revised plat of Evendell, based upon transfer of 20 density credits that would allow for development of 70 lots on 12.43 acres. This would provide a density of 5.6 dwelling units per acre on the Evendell property, which is directly south, across Southeast 136th Street, from the subject property. The Examiner's decision approving the Evendell plat revision, File No. L01P0016, is exhibit no. 33 in the hearing record of this proceeding. 5. Directly east, north and west of the subject property are suburban-sized lots, ranging from approximately 9,000 to 30,000 square feet in area. The maximum permitted density in the R4 zone classification is 6 dwelling units per acre, utilizing density incentives or transferred deVelopment rights. 6. King County's "Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)" program is governed by Chapter 21A.37 of the King County Code. The TDR program establishes a property right which is separable from the fee-simple title to certain lands within King County, and provides a method for the transfer and utilization of that new right, which is colloquially known as a development right or "density credit." A density credit has a substantial market value. The underlying purpose of the TDR program is to allow for the movement of residential density from rural areas to urban areas of King County. The code is intended to provide, " ... an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to L03P0006/L03TY 403-Liberty Grove 4 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." KCC 21A.37.01O.2. Receiving sites are required to meet the provisions ofKCC 21A.37.030. Those requirements are that the receiving site: 1. be within an unincorporated urban area, zoned R-4 or higher, or be within a potential annexation area; 2. be within a city where new growth is or will be encouraged, and where facilities and services exist or public investments in facilities and services will be made; or 3. be within RA-2.5 and RA-5 zoned parceis, subject to stringent criteria. The subject property is within the first category of eligible receiving sites listed in KCC 21 A.3 7 .030. Sites within the unincorporated urban growth area are not required to have any specific level of available facilities and services. Development approvals that utilize density credits must meet only those service criteria that apply generally to development of the number of dwelling units proposed on the site. King County Code chapter 21A.12 governs densities and development standards in residential zones. The R-4 zone in the urban residential area allows for a maximum density of six dwelling units per acre, which may be achieved only through the application of residential density incentives or transfers of development rights. KCC 21A.12.030.A. and B.I. When density credits are used, development shall comply with dimensional standards of the zone having a base density most comparable to the total approved density. KCC 21A.37.030.B. 7. The foregoing provisions of the King County Zoning Code are generally consistent with policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan governing residential land use. In particular, the Zoning Code provisions are generally consistent with: Policy V-113, that new residential development in the Vrban Growth Area should occur where facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely fashion; Policy V-114, that the County seek to achieve an average zoning density of at least seven to eight homes per acre in the Vrban Growth Area through a mix of densities, allowing for lower density zones to recognize existing subdivisions with little or no opportunity for infill or redevelopment; Policy V-122 that supports increases in urban density through a rezone or a proposal to utilize density transfer, when the proposal will help resolve traffic, utility, parks or open space deficiencies in the immediate neighborhood. This proposal will improve traffic circulation in the area, will extend sewer service further into the urban area, and will provide recreation facilities and open space available to future residents on the subject property. 8. The subject property is in the City of Renton's potential annexation area. The City is considering modifications to its comprehensive plan that would limit density on this property to a maximum L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove of 4 dwelling units per acre. However, those plan changes were not in effect at the time a complete application for this subdivision was submitted. 5 9. DDES and the Applicant have agreed upon right-of-way dedications and road improvements to mitigate the impact of traffic which this proposal will generate adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The dedications and improvements include additional right-of-way and construction that will open and improve the north side of Southeast 136th Street, from 160th Avenue Southeast to 158th Avenue Southeast. This dedication and improvement will be matched on the south side of 136th Street by dedication and improvements to be constructed by the plat of Evendell. Additional improvements that will be made to Southeast 136th Street from 158th Avenue Southeast to 156th Avenue Southeast will result in a new east-west route from 160th Avenue Southeast to 156th Avenue Southeast. This new route will divert traffic from the high accident intersection of Southeast 128th Street and 160th Avenue Southeast. The subject plat will also provide improvements to the west side of 160th Avenue Southeast along the plat frontage, to the urban neighborhood collector standard. These improvements will include a sidewalk from the north property line to Southeast 136th Street. 10. The Issaquah School District plans to operate a school bus stop for elementary school children at the intersection of Southeast 136th Street and 160th Avenue Southeast. The internal road improvements and frontage improvements on 160th Avenue Southeast will provide a safe route for children to use between the lots of this subdivision and that bus stop. 11. 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 oflots 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 [mal 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 [mal 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." L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove d. The stonnwater detention design shall comply with the Level 2 or Level 3 Flow Control requirements, as applicable, per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). (See SEPA conditions in condition no. 19.) e. The stonn 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. 6 12. A surface water drainage adjustment (no. L03V0065) has been approved for this proposal and the Liberty Grove Contiguous proposal (no. L03P0005). Stonnwater detention for the subject property will be provided on the Liberty Grove Contiguous property site that lies on the south side of Southeast 136th Street and east side of 160th Avenue Southeast. The level 3 flow control standard is required as a condition of the drainage adjustment for discharge from the surface water detention facilities. In addition, some downstream surface water conveyance improvements have been made by King County, and others are required to be made by this and other developments that are being proposed and constructed in this area. The downstream analysis and required improvements assure adequate conveyance of surface water for a distance greater than ~ mile from this plat. The level 3 flow control standard protects downstream properties from damage from surface water discharge from this development. 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 supply, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, 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 the development upon the environment. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as required for fmal plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the Applicant on September 3,2003, 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. The Applicant has negotiated for the purchase of development rights that would allow for an increase in the number of lots to be developed on the subject property to a total of 24. The development of 24 lots on the subj ect property will be within the maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre permitted in the R4 zone classification in the urban area, although it will be most comparable to the base density of the R6 zone classification. The proposed development of the subject property, utilizing up to 5 density rights, is consistent with all applicable development standards and other provisions of the king county code. Provisions of the City of Renton L03P00061L03TY 403-Liberty Grove 7 Comprehensive Plan concerning density of development on this property are not applicable to this proposal. 6. The road improvements proposed and agreed to by the Applicant, including those shown on the September 3, 2003 preliminary plat and set forth in the conditions below, will reasonably mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the proposed development. 7. Safe walking conditions for children who walk to school from the subject property will be provided by using one of the alternatives for improvements incorporated into this proposal and set forth in condition no. 22 below. 8. The conditions of approval of the surface water drainage adjustment L03V0065, and the conditions recommended by DDES and agreed to by the Applicant, incorporated into the conditions below, mitigate the impacts of surface water drainage from this proposed development. DECISION: The proposed preliminary plat of Liberty Grove, as revised and received September 3, 2003, utilizing up to 5 density credits (transferable density rights), is APPROVED, subject to the following conditions of final plat approval: 1. a. Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code. b. Prior to the recording of Liberty Grove, the plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous shall be recorded (as drainage facilities for Liberty Grove will be constructed off-site in the plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous). 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. a. The plat shall comply with the maximum density (and minimum density) requirements of the R-4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements ofthe R-6 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 Density Credit documentation to DDES prior to fmal approval to allow transfer of a maximum of five density credits. 4. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Health Department for abandonment of existing septic systems on-site serving on and off-site homes. 5. 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). L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove 6. The applicant must obtain the approval ofthe King County Fire Protection Engineer for the adequacy ofthe ftre hydrant, water main, and ftre flow standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code. 8 7. 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 oflots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identifted 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 satisfted during engineering and fmal 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 fmal 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 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.l80. 8. A drainage adjustment (L03V0065) is approved for this site and for the Liberty Grove Contiguous site (L03P0005). The adjustment allows combining the storm water from both subdivisions on the Liberty Grove Contiguous site; and routing post developed flows to 160th Ave SE. A flow splitter is proposed to maintain existing flows to the south. All conditions of approval for this adjustment shall be met prior to engineering plan approval. A Conceptual Drainage Plan showing the preliminary configuration was received March 11, 2003. 9. The stormwater detention facility shall be designed to the Level 3 flow control standard in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual(KCSWDM). The facility shall also be designed to meet the basic water quality menu. 10. The downstream drainage system along the east side of 160th Ave SE from the south plat boundary of Liberty Grove Contiguous to approximately 50 feet south ofthe culvert 29 (House # 14028); shall be improved to achieve adequate drainage capacity per the 1998 KCSWDM. Culvert 29 is approximately 900 feet south of the southwest comer of the LCG site and is shown L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove in the Levell Offsite Analysis received September 3,2003. Plans and supporting capacity analysis for this improvement shall be submitted with the engineering plans. 11. The 100-year floodplain for anyon-site wetlands or streams shall be shown on the engineering plans and the [mal plat per Special Requirement #2 of the KCSWDM. 12. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the 1993 King County Road Standards(KCRS): a. SE 135th PL shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standard. h. FRONTAGE: The frontage along 160th Ave SE shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard(west side only). 9 c. FRONTAGE: The frontage along SE 136th ST may be improved to the urban standards per the SEP A mitigation list. d. Tract A shall be improved as a private access tract according to Section 2.09 of the KCRS. The tract shall be owned and maintained by the owners of those Lots being served. Tracts C and D shall each be improved as a joint use driveway per Section 3.01 ofthe KCRS. The tracts shall be owned and maintained by the owners of those Lots being served. e. A RJW radius shall be dedicated at the northeast quadrant of 15Sth Ave SE and SE 136th St. (southwest comer of Lot 16), and a second radius shall be dedicated at the northwest quadrant of 160th Ave SE and SE 136th St. (southeast comer of Lot 24). f. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section LOS of the KCRS. 13. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to [mal plat recording. 14. 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. 15. 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: L03P0006/L03TY 403-Liberty Grove 10 Southeast 136th Street to the south of the project site mayor may not be improved prior to beginning construction on Liberty Grove. If road improvements are made or are in the process of being constructed, then no wetland conditions shall apply. If however the improvements are not made or are not under construction, then the extent of the buffer/wetland area shall be shown on the Plat of Liberty Grove and a Sensitive Areas Tract is required for the protection of the Class II buffer/wetland area for the wetland identified on the Plat of Evendell. 16. The following note shall be shown on the final engineering plan and recorded plat, if wetland buffer is necessary per condition 15 above: 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. 17. Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements KCC 21A.14.180 and KCC 21A.14.190 in 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. L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove 11 18. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 19. Street trees shall be included in the design of all road improvements, and shall comply with Section 5.03 of the KCRS and KCC 2lA.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. 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 iflocated 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. 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. 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. L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove Individually, or joint with other area developers, the Applicant shall design and construct improvements to Southeast 128th Street at 160th 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 1 60th Avenue SE, and, revise the channelization at the intersection of 156th Avenue SE/SE 136th Street to provide a southbound left turn lane. School Mitigation Fees 12 21. 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 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. School Walkways 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 Street to 166th Ave SE, and south to Liberty High School at SE 136th Street, or via alternative right-of-way and easements that become available and are approved by DDES. One acceptable alternative would be to use future right-of-way of Southeast 136th Street and 162nd Avenue Southeast to connect with the sidewalk improvement of "five lot subdivision," and through the plat of "five lot subdivision"1L00P0023 to the southwest gate of Liberty High School. 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. Any surfacing alternative from the King County Road Standards (KCRS 3.09) may be submitted for approval through a road variance application. ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2004. James N. O'Connor King County Hearing Examiner pro tern TRANSMITTED this 23rd day of February, 2004, to the parties and interested persons of record: William J. Bowen Bowen Revocable Living Trust 13644 -160th Ave. SE Wilma J. Bowen 13644 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Renton WA 98059 L03P0006/L03TY 403-Liberty Grove Renton WA 98055 Carolyn Ann Buckett 16524 SE 145th St. Renton WA 98059 Kathy Graves 13020 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Victor & Gwendolyn High 13405 -158th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Don & Diane Kezele 15657 SE 137th PI. Renton WA 98059 Leroy Nass 15713 SE 128th St. Renton WA 98059 Larry & Susan Oord 16013 SE 136th St. Renton WA 98059 Resident 13020 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Deborah Stewart 16207 SE 136th St. Renton WA 98059 Mr. & Mrs. Bob Wilmot 13900 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Greg Borba DDES/LUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Kristen Langley DDES/LUSD Land Use Traffic MS OAK-DE-0100 Steve Townsend DDES/LUSD Thomas Carlyle PO Box 581 Tacoma WA 98401 Brad & Julie Herrin 16202 SE 137th PI. Renton WA 98059 Wayne Jones Lakeridge Development Inc. PO Box 146 Renton WA 98057 Milton & Helen Lee P.O. Box 2574 Renton WA 98056 Kathy Nelson Transportation Dept. 805 -2nd Ave. S. Issaquah WA 98027 David & Georgia Platt 510 Panoramic Dr. Camano Island WA 98282 Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 226178th Drive SE Bothell WA 98021 Jesse Thatcher 13817 -162nd Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Kevin M. Wyman 16540 SE 149th St. Renton WA 98059 Kim Claussen DDES/LUSD Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 Carol Rogers DDES/LUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Larry West DDES/LUSD Melvin L. Daley DMP, INC 726 Auburn Way N Auburn WA 98002 Gwendolyn High P.O. Box 2936 Renton WA 98056 Edward June & Kris Hill 13527 156th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Rebecca Lind City of Renton, EDNSP 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98056 Richard & Anita Oliphant 16519 SE 145th St. Renton WA 98059 Guy Platz 13535 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Seattle KC Health Dept. E. Dist. Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue WA 98007 Mike Tull 16056 SE 136th St. Renton WA 98059 Gregg Zimmerman City of Renton-Planning 1055 S Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Nick Gillen DDES/LUSD Site Development Services MS OAK-DE-0100 Karen Scharer DDES/LUSD Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 Bruce Whittaker DDES/LUSD 13 L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove Land Use Inspections MS OAK-DE-0100 Gee Review MS OAK-DE-0100 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Prel. Review Engineer MS OAK-DE-0100 14 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 March 8, 2004. 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 March 15, 2004. 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 fmal decision of King County without the need for further action by the Council. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2004, PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NOS. L03P0005ILffiERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS (LGC) AND L03P00061L03TY403ILffiERTY GROVE (LG). James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Karen Scharer, Bruce Whittaker, Nick Gillen and Kristen Langley, representing the Department; Wayne Jones and Dave Casey, representing the Appellant; Gwendolyn High, Intervenor for C.A.R.E. and Anita Oliphant, Kristy Hill, Mary Brotherton, Diane Kezele, Rhonda Bryant, and Joann Lee. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1 LGC -DDES File L03P0005 Exhibit No.2 LG -DDES File L03P0006 Exhibit No.3 LGC -DDES Preliminary Report for L03P0005, Prepared January 26, 2004 with attachments as follows: 3.1 36 Lot Plat Design 3.2 Density Calculations R-4 w/4 TDRs 3.3 Issaquah School District 3.4 Certificate of Water Availability dated January 8, 2003 3.5 City of Renton Letters, including the Sewer Certificate 3.6 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency Exhibit No.4 LG -DDES Preliminary Report for L03P0006, Prepared January 26, 2004 with attachments as follows: L03P0006/L03TY 403-Liberty Grove 4.1 24 Lot Plat Design 4.2 Density Calculations R-4 w/5 TDRs 4.3 Issaquah School District 4.4 Certificate of Water Availability dated January 8, 2003 4.5 City of Renton Letters, including Sewer Certificate 4.6 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency Exhibit No.5 CorrectionslRevisions of Conditions to DDES Preliminary Reports (Conditions 7.d. & 12.d) dated February 9,2004 -Not Entered into the Record Exhibit No.6 LGC -Application for Land Use PermitIPlat L03P0005 Received March 11, 2003 Exhibit No.7 LG -Application for Land Use PermitlPlt L03P0006 received March 11, 2003 Exhibit No.8 LGC -Revised Environmental Checklist Received September 3, 2003 Exhibit No.9 LG -Revised Environmental Checklist Received September 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 10 LGC -Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance dated December 16,2003 Exhibit No. 11 LG -Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance dated December 16, 2003 Exhibit No. 12 LGC -Mfidavit of Revised Posting Indicating Posting Date of June 2,2003 And received June 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 13 LG -Affidavit of Posting Indicating Posting Date of June 2,2003 and received June 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 14 LGC -Revised Site Plan (36 Lot Preliminary Plat Map) received September 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 15 LG -Revised Site Plan (24 Lot Preliminary Plat Map) received September 3,2003 Exhibit No. 16 Assessors Maps (2) SE 14-23-05 Revised February 3, 2000 & NE 14-23-05 Revised February 28, 2000 Exhibit No. 17 Letter w/attachments to DDES from Wayne Jones; Re: Intent to sell TDR-Density Credits dated April 23, 2003 Exhibit No. 18 Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Gary A. Norris ofDN Traffic Consultants dated February 7,2003 and received March 11,2003 Exhibit No. 19 Revised Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Gary A. Norris ofDN Traffic Consultants dated June 24, 2003 and received September 3,2003 Exhibit No. 20 Walkway Study Prepared by DMP, Inc. dated August 18, 2003 Exhibit No. 21 LGC -Walkway Study Map Annotated by DDES prepared February 9,2004 Exhibit No. 22 March 10, 2003 email from Issaquah School District to Ted Cooper regarding School walkways to Liberty High, Maywood Middle and Briarwood Elementary School for plat conditions of LOOP0023 Exhibit No. 23 Level One Off-Site Analysis prepared by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. dated March 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 24 Revised Level One Off-Site Analysis prepared by Daley-Morrow-Poblete, Inc. Dated July 11, 2003 Exhibit No. 25 Conceptual Drainage Plan received March 11, 2003 Exhibit No. 26 Additional Downstream Information received November 25, 2003 Exhibit No. 27 LG -Letter to Wayne Jones and Mel Daley from James Sanders and Jim Chan Dated December 4, 2003 regarding drainage adjustment (L03V0065) Exhibit No. 28 Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report and Wildlife Habitat Evaluation By Habitat Technologies dated November 5, 2002 Exhibit No. 29 LGC -Letter to Wayne Jones from Mark Heckert ofH&S Consulting dated July 18, 2003; Addendum to the Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report Exhibit No. 30 LGC -Tributary Area Map Annotations by DDES; Prepared February 2004 Exhibit No. 31 Letter to Karen Scharer from Anita & Richard Oliphant dated January 29,2004 Requesting comments to LOIPOOl6 & L03RE038 be considered in this matter 15 L03P0006/L03TY 403-Liberty Grove Exhibit No. 32 Letter to Karen Scharer from Steven & Joann Lee dated February 2, 2004 Regarding claim of adverse possession along south property line of LGC Exhibit No. 33 Hearing Examiner Report & Decision for EvendellIL01P0016/L03RE038 Issued February 4,2004 Exhibit No. 34 Email from Shirley Day to Karen Scharer dated February 3, 2004 Exhibit No. 35 Email from Glenda Johnson to Karen Scharer dated February 10, 2004 Exhibit No. 36 Letter from Bill & Dona Mokin to Karen Scharer dated February 7, 2004 Exhibit No. 37 Photograph of driveway located at SE 136th/160 th on February 4,2004 Exhibit No. 38 C.AR.E. Response: Liberty GrovelLiberty Grove Contiguous Plat Applications L03P0006 & L03P0005 Exhibit No. 39 C.AR.E. Households List Exhibit No. 40 Community Map Exhibit No. 41 March and April 2000 Press Releases from King County Executive Ron Sims Exhibit No. 42 King County Metro Six Year Transit Development Plan, February 2002 Exhibit No. 43 Report of the King County General Government Budget Advisory Task Force To County Executive Ron Sims dated June 25, 2003 Exhibit No. 44 A Joint City Position -The Cities' Suggestions for Inclusion in the King County Budget Advisory Task Force's Recommendations dated March 12,2003 Exhibit No. 45 Message to Employees from King County Executive Ron Sims; General Budget Advisory Task Force Recommendations dated July 9, 2003 Exhibit No. 46 King County Council Budget & Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Plan, 2004 CIP Overview Exhibit No. 47 In Transportation -Facing the Budget's Challenges from Harold Taniguchi Dated November 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 48 High Accident Locations Report dated July 2003 Exhibit No. 49 Transportation Service Areas 2000 Exhibit No. 50 King County Concurrency Maps 2001, 2002 and 2003 Exhibit No. 51 Transportation Concurrency Detail Comparison Graphic Exhibit No. 52 City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (Excerpts) Exhibit No. 53 2003 King County Annual Growth Report Exhibit No. 54 King County Benchmark Report -2003 (Land use -excerpts) Exhibit No. 55 Buildable Lands Report -Dated August 29,2002 (Excerpts) Exhibit No. 56 State, County, City Populations Exhibit No. 57 City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department Reports (June 3, 2003; September 23,2003; October 1,2003; October 10, 2003) Exhibit No. 58 Renton Planning Commission Recommendation dated October 22,2003 Exhibit No. 59 City of Renton Ordinance No. 5026 Exhibit No. 60 Renton City Council Meeting Minutes dated November 24, 2003 Exhibit No. 61 C.AR.E. Member's Letters Detailing Adverse Impacts from High Density Development in this Community Exhibit No. 62 City of Renton Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Exhibit No. 63 Two Photographs of Intersection Exhibit No. 64 Two Photographs of SE 144th/62nd Ave. SE Exhibit No. 65 List of Individuals and Their Addresses in Attendance Exhibit No. 66 Letter to Karen Scharer from Claude R. & Eloise M. Stachowiak Dated November 16, 2003 16 L03P0006IL03TY 403-Liberty Grove Exhibit No. 67 Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Kristy J. Hill dated February 10, 2004 Exhibit No. 68 Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Edward & June Hill dated February 10, 2004 JOC:gao L03P0006/L03TY403 RPT 17 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 400 Yesler Way, Room 404 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 296-4660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 February 27, 2004 REPORT AND DECISION SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File Nos. L03P0005IL03TY401 Proposed Ordinance Nos. 2004-0003; 2004-0005 LIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS Proposed Preliminary Plat and Proposal for Transfer of Density Credits Location: Applicant: Intervenor: South of Southeast 136th Street, between 160th Avenue Southeast and 162nd Avenue Southeast Lakeridge Development Attn: Wayne Jones P.O. Box 146 Renton, Washington 98057 Telephone: (425) 228-9750 C.A.R.E., represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 -158th Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington 98059 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055-1219 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-6613 SUMMARY OF DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION: Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Examiner's Decision: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) Approve, subject to conditions (modified) L03P0005IL03TY401-Liberty Grove Contiguous Current Zoning: R-4 Number of Lots: Proposed -36 w/4 or 5 TDRs Density: 4.7 dwellings per acre Lot Size: 4,400 to 8,700 square feet Proposed Use: single family Sewage Disposal: City of Renton Water Supply: Water District #90 Fire District: King County Fire District # 25 School District: Issaquah Community Plan: Newcastle Drainage Subbasin: Lower Cedar River King County Permits: Subdivision Complete Application Date: April 8, 2003 (Dated Filed March 11, 2003) Threshold Determination: Mitigated Determination of Non significance (MDNS) Date of Issuance: December 16, 2003 KC Permit Contact: Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section, LUSD Phone # 296-7114 or e-mail at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov 3 2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in the DDES preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner for the February 10,2004, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Said report is exhibit no. 3 in the hearing record. 3. The Applicant's request to reclassify the subject property from R4 to R6 was withdrawn prior to commencement of the hearing. 4. On February 4, 2004 the King County Hearing Examiner issued his report and decision granting preliminary approval for the revised plat of Evendell, based upon transfer of20 density credits that would allow for development of 70 lots on 12.43 acres. This would provide a density of 5.6 dwelling units per acre on the Evendell property, which is directly west, across 160th Avenue Southeast, from the subject property. The maximum density permitted in the R4 zone classification is 6 dwelling units per acre, utilizing density incentives or transferred development rights. The Examiner's decision approving the Evendell plat revision, File No. LOIPOOI6, is exhibit no. 33 in the hearing record ofthis proceeding. 5. Directly north of the subject property are single-family dwellings on lots that are approximately 9,600-10,000 square feet in area. East, across 162nd Avenue Southeast, is the plat of Liberty Lane, with lots approximately 12,500 square feet in size. South of the subject property is a 2.24 acre parcel. 6. King County's "Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)" program is governed by Chapter 21A.37 of the King County Code. The TDR program establishes a property right which is separable from the fee-simple title to certain lands within King County, and provides a method for the transfer and utilization of that new right, which is colloquially known as a development right or "density credit." A density credit has a substantial market value. The underlying purpose of the TDR program is to allow for the movement of residential density from rural areas to urban areas of King County. The code is intended to provide, " ... an efficient L03P0005IL03TY401-Liberty Grove Contiguous 5 time a complete application for this subdivision was submitted, and the property is not presently within the City of Renton's jurisdiction. 9. DDES, this Applicant and the developers of other properties in the vicinity have agreed upon right-of-way dedications and road improvements to mitigate the impact of traffic which this proposal will generate adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The dedications and improvements to be provided by this proposal will include the east side of I 60th Avenue Southeast and the south side of Southeast 136th Street, along the plat frontage and north and west to the intersection of Southeast 136th Street with 160th Avenue Southeast. Improvements that will be made to Southeast 136th Street, from 156th Avenue Southeast to 160th Avenue Southeast, will result in a new east-west route that will divert traffic from the high accident intersection of Southeast 128th Street and 160th Avenue Southeast. Those Southeast 136th Street improvements may be made by other developers prior to the development of Liberty Grove, or may be made jointly by this plat in cooperation with other developers. 10. The Issaquah School District plans to operate a school bus stop for elementary school children at the intersection of Southeast 136th Street and 160th Avenue Southeast. The internal road improvements and frontage improvements on 160th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 136th Street will provide a safe route for children to use between the lots of this subdivision and that bus stop. Additionally, the Applicant will provide school walkway improvements pursuant to the requirements of condition no. 22 below, to provide safe walking conditions to the high school and middle school serving the area. 11. A surface water drainage adjustment (no. L03V0065) has been approved for this proposal and the Liberty Grove proposal (no. L03P0006). Stormwater detention will be provided on this property for the Liberty Grove property that lies on the north side of Southeast 136th Street and west side of 160th Avenue Southeast. The level 3 flow control standard is required as a condition of the drainage adjustment for discharge from the surface water detention facilities. In addition, some downstream surface water conveyance improvements have been made by King County, and others are required to be made by this and other developments that are being proposed and constructed in this area. The downstream analysis and required improvements assure adequate conveyance of surface water for a distance greater than V4 mile from this plat. The level 3 flow control standard protects downstream properties from damage from surface water discharge from this development. 12. Improvements to Southeast 136th Street along the frontage of parcels 0086-0088 will be constrained by the steepness of existing driveways on those three lots, particularly parcel 0086 at the intersection of 160th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 136th Street. It may be necessary to substitute a walkway for the curb, gutter and sidewalk required by the King County Road Standards through a portion of this area. If a variance is necessary, it can be addressed at the time engineering plans are submitted for review and approval. 13. The Applicant has agreed to provide sewer connections to serve the three properties fronting Southeast 136th Street that have drainfield easements on the subject property. The terms of the existing drainfield easements provide for their abandonment at such time as sewers are available and connections provided. Approval by the King County Health Department of the abandonment L03P00051L03TY 40 I-Liberty Grove Contiguous 9. The establishment of "Tract F" as a sensitive areas tract, and the conditions recommended by DDES and agreed to by the applicant, incorporated into the conditions below, preserve and protect the on-site Class 3 wetland in accordance with the requirements of the King County Sensitive Areas Code. DECISION: 7 The proposed preliminary plat of Liberty Grove Contiguous, as revised and received September 3,2003, utilizing up to 5 density credits (transferable density rights), is APPROVED, 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. a. The plat shall comply with the 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 ofthe 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 Density Credit documentation to DDES prior to final approval to allow transfer of a maximum of five density credits. c. Fence encroachment shall be resolved to the satisfaction of King County DDES LUSD or the encroachment area shall be conveyed to the adjoining property prior to the recording of the final plat. The Applicant shall document the impact on lot density by the exclusion of any encroachment area. 4. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Health Department for abandonment of existing septic systems on-site, including drainfields that serve off-site homes. 5. 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 as modified by variance. 6. 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. 7. 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 modifying the 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. L03P0005IL03TY401-Liberty Grove Contiguous 9 b. 162nd Place Southeast shall be improved to the urban subaccess street standard from SE 137th St to SE 136th St; and improved to the minor access street standard south ofSE 13ih St. c. 160th Ave SE from the south plat boundary to SE 136th St shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard (east side only). d. SE 136th St from 160th Ave. SE to 162nd Ave. SE shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard (south side only); except for the first 270 feet east of 160th Ave. SE. The first 270 feet can transition to a narrower width to avoid creating an adverse grade to the existing three driveways. Reverse slope driveways or other designs may be considered by DDES at engineering plan review stage. e. Tracts D and E shall each be improved as a joint use driveway per Section 3.01 of the KCRS. The tracts shall be owned and maintained by the owners of those lots being served. f. A RIW radius shall be dedicated at the southwest quadrant of 162nd Ave. SE and SE 136th St. (northeast comer of Lot 9). g. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS. 13. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to final plat recording. 14. 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 ofthe 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. 15. 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. The Class 3 wetland shall have a minimum 25-foot buffer of undisturbed vegetation as measured from the wetland edge. b. Buffer width averaging may be allowed by King County if it will provide additional protection to the wetland or enhance there functions, as long as the total area contained in the buffer on the development proposal site does not decrease. In no area shall the buffer be less than 65 percent of the required minimum distance. To ensure such functions are L03P00051L03TY 40 I-Liberty Grove Contiguous 11 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. 17. Suitable recreation space shall be provided consistent with the requirements KCC 21A.l4.180 and KCC 21A.l4.l90 including 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. 18. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 19. 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. L03P00051L03TY 40 l-Liberty Grove Contiguous 13 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 pennit issuance. School Walkways 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 Street to 166th Ave SE, and south to Liberty High School at SE 136th Street, or via alternative right-of-way and easements that become available and are approved by DOES. One acceptable alternative would be to use future right-of-way of Southeast 136th Street and 162nd Avenue Southeast to connect with the sidewalk improvement of "five lot subdivision," and through the plat of "five lot subdivision"1L00P0023 to the southwest gate of Liberty High School. The walkway shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the 1993 King County Road Standards and shown on the engineering plans for DOES review and approval. Any surfacing alternative from the King County Road Standards (KCRS 3.09) may be submitted for approval through a road variance application. ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2004. am s N. O'Connor K" g County Hearing Examiner pro tern TRANSMITTED this 27th day of February, 2004, to the parties and interested persons of record: William J. Bowen Wilma J. Bowen Marshall Brenden Bowen Revocable Living Trust 13644 -160th Ave. SE 18225 SE 128th 13644 -160th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98055 Carolyn Ann Buckett Thomas Carlyle Melvin L. Daley 16524 SE 145th St. PO Box 581 DMP,INC Renton WA 98059 Tacoma WA 98401 726 Aubum Way N Auburn WA 98002 Kathy Graves Brad & Julie Herrin Gwendolyn High 13020 -160th Ave. SE 16202 SE 137th PI. P.O. Box 2936 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 Victor & Gwendolyn High Wayne Jones Edward June & Kris Hill 13405 -158th Ave. SE Lakeridge Development Inc. 13527 156th Ave. SE Renton WA 98059 PO Box 146 Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98057 Don & Diane Kezele Milton & Helen Lee Rebecca Lind 15657 SE 137th PI. P.O. Box 2574 City of Renton, EDNSP Renton WA 98059 Renton WA 98056 1055 S. Grady Way Renton WA 98056 L03P0005IL03TY401-Liberty Grove Contiguous IS Ifa 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. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10,2004, PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NOS. L03P0005ILIBERTY GROVE CONTIGUOUS (LGC) AND L03P00061L03TY403ILIBERTY GROVE (LG). James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Karen Scharer, Bruce Whittaker, Nick Gillen and Kristen Langley, representing the Department; Wayne Jones and Dave Casey, representing the Appellant; Gwendolyn High, Intervenor for C.A.R.E. and Anita Oliphant, Kristy Hill, Mary Brotherton, Diane Kezele, Rhonda Bryant, and Joann Lee. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No.1 LGC -ODES File L03P0005 Exhibit No.2 LG -DOES File L03P0006 Exhibit No.3 LGC -ODES Preliminary Report for L03P0005, Prepared January 26, 2004 with attachments as follows: 3.1 36 Lot Plat Design 3.2 Density Calculations R-4 w/4 TDRs 3.3 Issaquah School District 3.4 Certificate of Water Availability dated January 8, 2003 3.5 City of Renton Letters, including the Sewer Certificate 3.6 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency Exhibit No.4 LG -DOES Preliminary Report for L03P0006, Prepared January 26, 2004 with attachments as follows: 4.1 24 Lot Plat Design 4.2 Density Calculations R-4 w/5 TDRs 4.3 Issaquah School District 4.4 Certificate of Water Availability dated January 8, 2003 4.5 City of Renton Letters, including Sewer Certificate 4.6 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency Exhibit No.5 CorrectionslRevisions of Conditions to DDES Preliminary Reports (Conditions 7.d. & 12.d) dated February 9, 2004 -Not Entered into the Record Exhibit No.6 LGC -Application for Land Use PermitIPlat L03P0005 Received March 11,2003 Exhibit No. 7 LG -Application for Land Use PermitIPlt L03P0006 received March 11, 2003 Exhibit No.8 LGC -Revised Environmental Checklist Received September 3, 2003 Exhibit No.9 LG -Revised Environmental Checklist Received September 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 10 LGC -Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance dated December 16,2003 Exhibit No. 11 LG -Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance dated December 16, 2003 Exhibit No. 12 LGC -Affidavit of Revised Posting Indicating Posting Date of June 2, 2003 And received June 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 13 LG -Affidavit of Posting Indicating Posting Date of June 2, 2003 and received June 3, 2003 Exhibit No. 14 LGC -Revised Site Plan (36 Lot Preliminary Plat Map) received September 3,2003 L03P0005IL03TY401-Liberty Grove Contiguous Exhibit No. 45 Message to Employees from King County Executive Ron Sims; General Budget Advisory Task Force Recommendations dated July 9, 2003 Exhibit No. 46 King County Council Budget & Fiscal Management Committee Capital Budget Plan, 2004 CIP Overview Exhibit No. 47 In Transportation -Facing the Budget's Challenges from Harold Taniguchi Dated November 3,2003 Exhibit No. 48 High Accident Locations Report dated July 2003 Exhibit No. 49 Transportation Service Areas 2000 Exhibit No. 50 King County Concurrency Maps 2001, 2002 and 2003 Exhibit No. 51 Transportation Concurrency Detail Comparison Graphic Exhibit No. 52 City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan (Excerpts) Exhibit No. 53 2003 King County Annual Growth Report Exhibit No. 54 King County Benchmark Report -2003 (Land use -excerpts) Exhibit No. 55 Buildable Lands Report -Dated August 29, 2002 (Excerpts) Exhibit No. 56 State, County, City Populations Exhibit No. 57 City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department Reports (June 3, 2003; September 23,2003; October 1,2003; October 10, 2003) Exhibit No. 58 Renton Planning Commission Recommendation dated October 22,2003 Exhibit No. 59 City of Renton Ordinance No. 5026 Exhibit No. 60 Renton City Council Meeting Minutes dated November 24, 2003 Exhibit No. 61 C.A.R.E. Member's Letters Detailing Adverse Impacts from High Density Development in this Community Exhibit No. 62 City of Renton Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Exhibit No. 63 Two Photographs of Intersection Exhibit No. 64 Two Photographs ofSE 144th/62nd Ave. SE Exhibit No. 65 List ofIndividuals and Their Addresses in Attendance Exhibit No. 66 Letter to Karen Scharer from Claude R. & Eloise M. Stachowiak Dated November 16, 2003 Exhibit No. 67 Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Kristy 1. Hill dated February 10,2004 Exhibit No. 68 Letter to the Hearing Examiner from Edward & June Hill dated February 10, 2004 JOC:gao L03P0005IL03TY401 RPT 17 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 400 Yesler Way, Room 404 Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 296-4660 Facsimile (206) 296-1654 March 2, 2004 REPORT AND DECISION SUBJECT: Department of Development and Environmental Services File No. L03P0015 Proposed Ordinance No. 2004-0013 NICHOLS PLACE Proposed Preliminary Plat and Proposal for Transfer of Density Credits Location: Applicant: West of 160th Avenue Southeast, south of Southeast 138th Street (if extended) at 13815 -160th Avenue Southeast u.S. Land Development Associates, represented by Michael J. Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 - 8th Drive Southeast Bothell, Washington 98021 Telephone: (425) 486-2563 Intervenor: C.A.R.E., represented by Gwendolyn High 13405 -158th Avenue Southeast Renton, Washington 98059 King County: Department of Development and Environmental Services, represented by Karen Scharer 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 Telephone: (206) 296-7114 Facsimile: (206) 296-6613 SUMMARY OF DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION: Department's Preliminary Recommendation: Department's Final Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions Approve, subject to conditions (modified) L03P0015 -Nichols Place Page 2 of14 Examiner's Decision: Approve, subject to conditions (modified) ISSUES/TOPICS ADDRESSED: • Transfer of density credits • Surface water drainage • Road improvements • Safe walking conditions • Tree preservation SUMMARY: Application for a transfer of a maximum of eight density credits, and approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide approximately 3.82 acres into 23 lots in the urban area, are granted preliminary approval. EXAMINER PROCEEDINGS: Hearing Opened: Hearing Closed: February 24,2004 February 24, 2004 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 & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General Information: Proponent: Representative: Location: SectioniTownshiplRange: Acreage Plat: Current Zoning: U.S. Land Development Association P.O. Box 22200 Seattle, WA 98122 Michael Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8th Dr. SE, Bothell, WA 98021 Phone: 425-486-2563 Facsimile: (425) 486-3273 Email: Michael.romano@verizon.net The site is located west of 160th Ave. SE, south of SE 138th Street (if extended) at 13815 160th Ave. SE SE 14-23-05 3.82 acres R-4 Parcels # 142305 9058 l1l3P0015 -Nichols Place Number of Lots: Density: Lot Size: Proposed Use: Sewage Disposal: Water Supply: Fire District: School District: Community Plan: Drainage Subbasin: King County Permits: Complete Application Date: Threshold Determination: Date of Issuance: KC Permit Contact: 23 proposed using 8 TDR's 6 dwellings per acre 4,320 square feet single family City of Renton Water District #90 King County Fire District # 25 Issaquah Newcastle Lower Cedar River Subdivision June 19,2003 Mitigated Determination of Non significance (MDNS) December 23, 2003 Karen Scharer, Project Manager II, Current Planning Section, LUSD Page 3 of 14 Phone no. (206) 296-7114 or email at karen.scharer@metrokc.gov 2. Except as modified herein, the facts set forth in the King County DDES preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner for the February 24, 2004, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Said report is exhibit no. 2 in the hearing record. The drainage detention area planned to serve the subject property will be sized to accommodate surface water drainage from the proposed development of Nichols Place only. The proposed plat of Even dell, adjacent to the north, will have a separate surface water detention facility. 3. On February 4,2004 the King County Hearing Examiner issued his report and decision granting preliminary approval for the revised plat of Evendell, based upon transfer of 20 density credits that would allow for development of70 lots on 12.43 acres. This would provide a density of 5.6 dwelling units per acre on the Evendell property, which is adjacent to the north ofthe subject property. The maximum density permitted in the R4 zone classification is 6 dwelling units per acre, utilizing density incentives or transferred development rights. The Examiner's decision approving the Evendell plat revision, file no. L01POOl6, is incorporated by reference in the hearing record of this proceeding. 4. To the east, south and west of the subject property are larger lots and parcels, ranging from approximately 12,600 square feet to 2.25 acres in size. 5. King County's "Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)" program is governed by Chapter 21A.37 ofthe King County Code. The TDR program establishes a property right which is separable from the fee-simple title to certain lands within King County, and provides a method for the transfer and utilization of that new right, which is colloquially known as a development right or "density credit." A density credit has a substantial market value. The underlying purpose of the TDR program is to allow for the movement of residential density from rural areas to urban areas of King County. The code is intended to provide, " ... an efficient and streamlined administrative review system 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." KCC 21A.37.0l0.2. L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 4 ofl4 Receiving sites are required to meet the provisions ofKCC 21A.37.030. Those requirements are that the receiving site: 1. be within an unincorporated urban area, zoned R-4 or higher, or be within a potential annexation area; 2. be within a city where new growth is or will be encouraged, and where facilities and services exist or public investments in facilities and services will be made; or 3. be within RA-2.5 and RA-5 zoned parcels, subject to stringent criteria. The subject property is within the fIrst category of eligible receiving sites listed in KCC 21A.37.030. Sites within the unincorporated urban growth area are not required to have any specifIc level of available facilities and services. Development approvals that utilize density credits must meet only those service criteria that apply generally to development of the number of dwelling units proposed on the site. King County Code chapter 21 A.12 governs densities and development standards in residential zones. The R-4 zone in the urban residential area allows fora maximum density of six dwelling units per acre, which may be achieved only through the application of residential density incentives or transfers of development rights. KCC 21A.12.030.A. and B.I. When density credits are used, development shall comply with dimensional standards of the zone having a base density most comparable to the total approved density. KCC 21A.37.030.B. 6. The foregoing provisions of the King County Zoning Code are generally consistent with policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan governing residential land use. In particular, the Zoning Code provisions are generally consistent with: Policy U-I13, that new residential development in the Urban Growth Area should occur where facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely fashion; Policy U-114, that the County seek to achieve an average zoning density of at least seven to eight homes per acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities, allowing for lower density zones to recognize existing subdivisions with little or no opportunity for infIll or redevelopment; Policy U-122, that supports increases in urban density through a rezone or a proposal to utilize density transfer, when the proposal will help resolve traffic, utility, parks or open space defIciencies in the immediate neighborhood. This proposal will extend sewer service further into the urban area, and will provide recreation facilities and open space available to future residents on the subject property. 7. The subject property is in the City of Renton's potential annexation area. The City is considering modifIcations to its comprehensive plan that would limit density on property in this area to a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. However, those plan changes were not in effect at the time a complete application for this subdivision was submitted, and the property is not presently within the City of Renton's jurisdiction. 8. DDES, this Applicant and the developers of other properties in the vicinity have agreed upon L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 5 ofl4 right-of-way dedications and road improvements to mitigate the impact of traffic which this proposal will generate adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The dedications and improvements to be provided by this proposal will include the west side of 160th Avenue Southeast. Improvements that will be made to Southeast 136th Street, from 156th Avenue Southeast to 160th Avenue Southeast, will result in a new east-west route that will divert traffic from the high accident intersection of Southeast 128th Street and 160th Avenue Southeast. Those Southeast 136th Street improvements may be made by other developers prior to the development of Nichols Place, or may be made jointly by this plat in cooperation with other developers. 9. The Issaquah School District plans to operate a school bus stop for elementary school children at the intersection of Southeast 136th Street and 1 60th Avenue Southeast. The internal road improvements and frontage improvements on 160th Avenue Southeast will provide a safe route for children to use between the lots of this subdivision and that bus stop. Additionally, the Applicant will provide school walkway improvements pursuant to the requirements of condition no. 22 below, to provide safe walking conditions to the high school and middle school serving the area. 10. Surface water from the adjacent property to the north (Evendell) sheetflows onto the subject property, which is divided into an easterly and westerly basin. The west basin is approximately 1.48 acres in area. Surface water from this basin currently sheetflows over the west and south boundaries, creating nuisance conditions on adjacent properties. A surface water drainage adjustment has been approved to divert surface water flow from the west basin to the east basin, where surface water detention will be sized to provide level 2 flow control. It is proposed to allow some undetained runoff from the southwest portion of the subject property to continue to sheetflow over the west and south property boundaries to maintain, but not increase, existing flows. The development of the plat of Evendell, together with Nichols Place, will control and divert surface water runoff away from Southeast 139th Place and 156th Avenue Southeast, where severe conveyance problems exist. Improvements that already have been made to the conveyance system on 160th Avenue Southeast, and additional improvements required as conditions of this and other developments in the area, are expected to provide adequately for the conveyance of surface flow as far as lot 6 of Cedar Park 5-acre tracts. Lot 6 -of Cedar Park 5-acre tracts has undersized culverts, identified as locations 50 and 51 in the level 3 offsite drainage analysis prepared for the plat of Evendell. Surface water backs up within a depressed area on that property where it causes nuisance flooding. However, the owner of that property has advised the Applicant that he will not grant permission to improve the existing conveyance channel through lot 6, and King County has advised the Applicant that it would not approve relocating that channel. The requirement ofthe surface water drainage adjustment that level 2 flow control be provided is sufficient mitigation, according to the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual, for the nuisance flooding impact that this development will have on lot 6 of Cedar Park 5-acre tracts. 11. It is anticipated that a sewage lift station will be located within the plat of Nichols Place. This facility is likely to be located in the southeast comer of the plat, within the area now identified as L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 6 ofl4 "detention/recreation." A separate tract may be required for the lift station. No part of the lift station tract will count toward the requirement for provision of onsite recreation area. 12. The size of the lots proposed by the Applicant generally does not allow for the retention of existing trees within the plat. Removal of trees from property being developed commonly subjects trees on adjacent properties to stress and increases the windthrow hazard. Trees that remain in an area which is substantially cleared present an increased risk to persons and property on and off the site of the remaining trees. However, there is no King County regulation applicable to the subject property that restricts clearing or tree removal to protect trees on adjacent properties from increased stress or risk of wind throw. The environmental review of this proposal did not identify impacts of clearing or tree removal as a significant adverse environmental impact of the proposal. 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, drainage ways, streets, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supply, sanitary waste, parks and recreation, 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 required below are in the public interest and are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of the development upon the environment. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as required for final plat approval or as shown on the proposed preliminary plat submitted by the Applicant on May 19, 2003, 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. The Applicant has negotiated for the purchase of development rights that would allow for an increase in the number oflots to be developed on the subject property to a total of23. The development of 23 lots on the subject property will be within the maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre permitted in the R4 zone classification in the urban area. The proposed development of the subject property, utilizing up to 8 density rights, is consistent with all applicable development standards and other provisions of the king county code. Provisions of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan concerning density of development on this property are not applicable to this proposal. 6. The road improvements proposed and agreed to by the Applicant, including those shown on the May 19,2003 preliminary plat and set forth in the conditions below, will reasonably mitigate the impacts of traffic generated by the proposed development. L03PO015 -Nichols Place Page 7 of14 7. Safe walking conditions for children who walk to school from the subject property will be provided by using one of the alternatives for improvements incorporated into this proposal and set forth in condition no. 20 below. 8. The conditions of approval of the surface water drainage adjustment L03V0036, and the conditions recommended by ODES and agreed to by the Applicant, incorporated into the conditions below, adequately mitigate the impacts of surface water drainage from this proposed development in accordance with adopted King County standards. 9 There is no applicable provision ofthe King County Code to restrict the removal of trees in the course of the development of the subject property, or to protect trees on neighboring properties from increased stress and risk of wind throw. DECISION: The proposed preliminary plat of Nichols Place, as received May 19, 2003, utilizing up to 8 density credits (transferable density rights) is approved, subject to the following conditions of fmal 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 fmal plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. 3. a. The plat shall comply with the maximum density (and minimum density) requirements of the R-4 zone classification. All lots shall meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the R-6 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 Density Credit documentation to DOES prior to final approval to allow transfer of a maximum of eight density credits. 4. The Applicant must obtain fmal approval from the King County Health Department for abandonment of existing septic systems on-site. 5. 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). 6. 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. 7. 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 oflots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. Preliminary review has identified the following L03PO015 -Nichols Place Page 8 of14 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 fmal 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 fmal 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 andlor 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 fmal 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. f. If a sewage lift station is located within the subject property, it shall be placed within a separate tract or easement area, that shall not be counted when computing the provision of onsite recreation area. g. When engineering plans are submitted for review, the owners ofthe adjacent property to the southwest (15652 Southeast 139th Place) shall be notified that the plans have been filed with DDES and that they are available for public review. 8. The drainage detention facility shall be designed to meet, at a minimum, the Level 2 Flow Control and Basic Water Quality menu in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). 9. (Condition no. 9 is deleted.) 10. A surface water adjustment (L03V0036) is approved for this subdivision. All conditions of approval for this adjustment shall be met prior to approval of the engineering plans. 11. The following road improvements are required to be constructed according to the 1993 King L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 9 ofl4 County Road Standards (KCRS): a. SE 139th St. shall be improved at a minimum to the urban subaccess street standard. b. FRONTAGE: The frontage ofthe site along 160th Ave SE (west side only) shall be improved to the urban neighborhood collector standard. c. Tracts A, B and C shall be improved as joint use driveways per Section 3.01 of the KCRS. These driveways shall be owned and maintained by the lot owners served. Notes to this effect shall be shown on the engineering plans and on the fmal plat map. d. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered according to the variance provisions in Section 1.08 of the KCRS. 12. There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from 160th Ave. SE from those lots which abut this street. A note to this effect shall appear on the engineering plans and fmal plat. 13. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King County Council prior to fmal plat recording. 14. 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. 15. Suitable recreation space shall be provided within one tract that may be separate or may be combined with the drainage tract in accordance with KCC 21A.14.180. Improvements shall be consistent with the requirements ofKCC 21A.l4.l80 and KCC 21A.14.190, including provision of 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. 16. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to the satisfaction ofDDES which provides for the ownership and continued maintenance of the recreation, open space and/or sensitive area tract(s). 17. 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: L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 10 of 14 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 detennines 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 iflocated 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. 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. 18. The following have been established by SEPA as necessary requirements to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of this development. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with these items prior to final approval. Individually, or joint with other area developers, the Applicant shall design and construct improvements to Southeast 128th Street at 160th 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. L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 11 of 14 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 SE/SE 136th Street to provide a southbound left turn lane. 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 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. School Walkways 20. 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 Street to 166th Ave SE, and south to Liberty High School at SE 136th Street, or via alternative right-of-way and easements that become available and are approved by DDES. One acceptable alternative would be to use future right-of-way of Southeast 136th Street and 162nd Avenue Southeast to connect with the sidewalk improvement of "five lot subdivision," and through the plat of "five lot subdivision"ILOOP0023 to the southwest gate of Liberty High School. 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. Any surfacing alternative from the King County Road Standards (KCRS 3.09) may be submitted for approval through a road variance application. ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2004. James N. O'Connor King County Hearing Examiner pro tern TRANSMITTED this 2nd day of March, 2004, to the parties and interested persons of record: Marshall Brenden 18225 SE 128th Renton W A 98059 Robert Darrow Haozous Engineering 13428 -45th Court Mukilteo W A 98275 Ronda Bryant 15406 SE 136th Street Renton W A 98059 Shirley Day 14412 -167th PI. SE Renton W A 98059-6828 Carolyn Ann Buckett 16524 SE 145th St. Renton W A 98059 Edward June & Kristy Hill 13527 156th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 L03PO015 -Nichols Place Kathy Graves 13020 -160th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Rebecca Lind City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton W A 98055 Mark & Barbara Nichols 13815 -160th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Roger Paulsen 15657 SE 139th Place Renton W A 98059 Seattle KC Health Dept. E. Dist. Environ. Health 14350 SE Eastgate Way Bellevue W A 98007 Penny Thorbeck 15650 SE 138th PI. Renton W A 98059 Laura Casey DDESILUSD Wetland Review MS OAK-DE-OI00 Karen Scharer DDESILUSD Current Planning MS OAK-DE-0100 Bruce Whittaker DDESILUSD Prei. Review Engineer MS OAK-DE-OI00 Victor & Gwendolyn High 13405 -158th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 James Mahoney 14011 -160th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Gary Norris Gary Struthers & Associates 3150 Richards Road #200 Bellevue W A 98005 Mike Romano Centurion Development Services 22617 8th Drive SE Bothell W A 98021 Claude & Eloise Stachowiak 15652 SE 139th PI. Renton WA 98059-7422 Kevin M. Wyman 16540 SE 149th St. Renton W A 98059 Kristen Langley DDES/LUSD Land Use Traffic MS OAK-DE-OlOO Steve Townsend DDESILUSD Land Use Inspections MS OAK-DE-OlOO Page 12 of14 Don & Diane Kezele 15657 SE 137th PI. Renton W A 98059 Kathy Nelson Transportation Dept. 805 -2nd Ave. S. Issaquah W A 98027 Richard & Anita Oliphant 16519 SE 145th St. Renton W A 98059 Vicki & Dale Roppe 14005 -160th Ave. SE Renton W A 98059 Howard Stansbury Centurion Development 22617 -8th Dr. SE Bothell W A 98021 Greg Borba DDESILUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Carol Rogers DDESILUSD MS OAK-DE-0100 Larry West DDESILUSD GeoReview MS OAK-DE-OlOO 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 March 16, 2004. 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 L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Page 13 ofl4 Clerk of the King County Council on or before March 23, 2004. 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. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2004, PUBLIC HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FILE NO. L03P0015. James N. O'Connor was the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Karen Scharer, Bruce Whittaker and Kristen Langley, representing the Department; Michael Romano and Duana Koluskova representing the Applicant; and Gwendolyn High, Kristy Hill, Claude Stachowiak, Gary Noris, Diane Kezele, Ronda Bryant, and Robert Darrow. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No.1 Exhibit No.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Exhibit No.3 Exhibit No.4 Exhibit No.5 Exhibit No.6 Exhibit No.7 Exhibit No.8 Exhibit No.9 Exhibit No. 10 Exhibit No. 11 Exhibit No. 12 Exhibit No. 13 Exhibit No. 14 Exhibit No. 15 Exhibit No. 16 DDES file no. L03P0015 DDES preliminary report for L03POOI5, with the following attachments: Lot plat design Density calculations (R-4 with 8 TDRs), dated 5/29/03 Memo from Issaquah School District, dated 5/23/03 Certificate of water availability, dated 6/18/03 City of Renton letters, dated 6/15/01, 1115/03 and 1114/04 City of Renton sewer certificate, dated 5/18/01 Certificate of Transportation Concurrency, dated 5/22/02 Corrections/revisions to the 2/24/04 Preliminary Staff Report Application for land use permit (no. L03TY404)-Nichols Place zone reclassification, received 5/19/2003 Environmental checklist, received 5119/2003 SEP A mitigated determination of non-significance, issued 12/23/2003 Affidavit of posting indicating a posting date of 6/30/2003, received 7/0212003 Site plan (23 lot preliminary plat map), received 5/19/2003 Assessors map (1) SE 14-23-05, revised 12/0312000 Density Credit Transfer Agreement for 5 TDRs, dated 2/2012004 Density Credit Transfer Agreement for 3 TDRs, dated 2/20/2004 Traffic Impact Analysis by Garry Struthers Assoc., received 5/19/2003 Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, received 11112/2003 Walkway study prepared by dmp, inc., dated 8118/2003 Walking Route Analysis, annotated by DDES, prepared 2123/2004 Email from Issaquah School District re: school walkways as related to plat L03POOl5 -Nichols Place Exhibit No. 17 Exhibit No. 18 Exhibit No. 19 Exhibit No. 20 Exhibit No. 21 Exhibit No. 22 Exhibit No. 23 Exhibit No. 24 Exhibit No. 25 Exhibit No. 26 Exhibit No. 27 Exhibit No. 28 Exhibit No. 29 Exhibit No. 30 Exhibit No. 31 Exhibit No. 32 Exhibit No. 33 Exhibit No. 34 Exhibit No. 35 Exhibit No. 36 JNO:ms L03P0015 RPT Page 14ofl4 conditions of LOOP0023, dated 3/10/2003 TIR by Haozous Engineering, PS, dated 5/18/2003 King County SWDM adjustment, no. L03V0036, dated 9/04/2003 Wetland and Drainage Corridor Site Reconnaissance Assessment by Habitat Technologies, dated 10/1112002 Tributary area map, annotations by DDES, prepared 2/2004 Haozous Engineering updatelresponse to screening letter, dated 10/27/2003 Hearing Examiner Report and Decision for Evendell (file no. L03RE038), dated 2/04/2004 Email from Shirley Day, dated 2/03/2004 Letter from Gwendolyn High for CARE, dated 112612004 Email from James Mahoney, dated 7/09/2003 Email from Claude & Eloise Stachowiak, dated 11116/2003 Letter from Bill & Dona Mokin, dated 2/07/2004 Letter from Anita & Richard Oliphant, dated 1129/2004 Statement from Diane Kezele, dated 2/09/2004 Statement from Anita & Rich Oliphant, dated 2/24/2004 CARE response, dated 2/24/2004 CARE updated household list Not used Sign-in sheet for 2/24/2004 hearing Revisions to traffic study from Gary Norris of Garry Struthers Assoc., dated 2/24/2004 Statement from Claude R. & Eloise M. Stachowiak, dated 212312004 ® King County ~ ..• ~wliit I. E·,,,j,,tmn ~ St l,t iii SI -'! ',f' -' ~, :,. "!:f ,,-;:r ,:1, c':l '., ',-£, ~ c" ---"Y " " "' ~'!~ 1 PW:'it'" h,:,':;";J':l'litl!d .:"ii'H .Z ' ... ·:f -. '.""" Legend LH<"'. ,n:J L;J";'r~ K.~'~ .4!o;:u:: S.J;;:;.-::;Jtt.l:)!'!.~ 1-:3 O~':JJ·I.:J ·'l'.~H!00· :::~~ltH:TI.'IHt ':"1~1 . .",'. :;-i? L ~- < Sl ; .:.~ 1 H :-.,! J!lJ Ptc>J£C,.T S r 7Y e information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. ng County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such rmation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, st revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on is ma is rohibited exce t b written ermission of Kin Coun . King County I GIS Center I News I Services I Comments I Search 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 ~ ~ Wi J:ilP{J. ItMj.IlIX thr. .. ag,. ; ' .• J r ...... ~ i' : ..•. J- ~'.~, J Legena h:~l:J':;",:II;Jd A',,;J A!f!"~'t S.J;;;::.i;';.tf:..HJ~'; t·:.z 8~~J~ld ,'lJ: .• h!t ~·.:Jt.!.:r~~! rH11":')~1 map sources f '~n King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such :nformation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, ost revenues or lost profits from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on D ramal c laints -S e \,;ompi 11M Reo Complaint No Status Problem Type Reo Date TB PADD PADD1 PADDSUF PIN NTB 1 1997-0056 CLOSED DITCH C 013197 35E5 13215 154TH AVE SE 1 657A2 2 1997-0056 CLOSED DITCH R 0/0197 35E5 13215 154TH AVE SE 1 657A2 3 1999-0609 CLOSED CONSTRUC C 7/11'J9 3505 14606 136TH ST 847100100 B56J2 4 1993-1085 OPEN DRNG E 1/4f9.4 35D2 14600 132ND ST 847100060 B56J2 52000-0430 CLOSED DCA FCR 51110C 14995 142ND ST 1072000400 B56J3 62000-0731 CLOSED WOD WOE 11/012000 14210 149TH PL SE 1072000430 657A3 Z 2000-0552 CLOSED DDM C 71310C 650 DUVALL AVE 2323059180 B56J4 NEAPT G714 8 1980-0117 CLOSED DRNG C 1/4180 35E5 1340!: 158TH AVE SE 3664500245 657A2 9 1983-0386 CLOSED DRNG C 811/8:3 35E5 1524:: SE 132ND ST 1442600060 657A2 10 1984-0222 CLOSED FLDG C 811/84 3506 1441 149TH PL SE 1079450400 B56J3 11 1986-0437 CLOSED CULVERT C 31418fJ 35E6 1525. 142ND PL 1 657A3 12 1987-0255 CLOSED FLDG C 110187 3505 14635 132ND ST 84710006C B56J2 13 199Q.{)2()9 CLOSED FLDG C 0l2I9O 35D5 14635 132ND ST 84710006C B56J2 1A 1990-1509 CLOSED EROSION C 1010190 42E1 1425C 154TH PLACE SE 107203052C 657M 15 1991-0812 CLOSED DRAINAGE C 812191 35D5 14635 132ND ST 84710006C B56J2 16 1991-0954 CLOSED FLOODING C 7/1191 35E6 1560E 143RD ST 139750011C 657A3 17 1993-1085 CLOSED DRNG ER 1112193 35D2 1460C 132ND ST 84710006C B56J2 18 1995-0107 CLOSED CULVERT? C 012195 35F6 15841 138TH PL 741800011C 65783 . 19 1996-0362 CLOSED FLDG C 110196 35D6 1421C 149TH PL SE 10 B56J3 . 2-0 1996-0362 CLOSED FLDG R 3I4I9E 35D6 1421C 149TH PL SE 1072OOO43C B56J3 21 1996-0362 CLOSED FLDG S1 5I2J9E 3506 14210 149TH PL SE 1072000430 B56J3 I 2-2 1996-1557 CLOSED CONSULT WQA 7/419E 35E5 13200 158TH AVE SE 14 657A2 I 23 1997-0318 CLOSED CLAIM CL 011197 35E6 1403E 58TH AVE SE 14 657A3 2-4 1997-0498 CLOSED KC PROPE C 1/4191 3506 1420:2 149TH PL SE 1072000440 B56J3 I 25 1997-0524 CLOSED EROSION C 21319 42E1 14631 156THAVE SE 10818OO25C 657M J r:l ::t -~ ..... ~ ® King County ~ ~ &ll;1Rt. e.1jiWf"'itl. ItS- "1,.,. ! i: ~;\J.l'lly S(J,JTl(jm~ K ~1';J !:nJ··I~:''' -/\:HI-it" R-:"~~:"Jtc::-t: l:l'l;...·~1r.:,1j)' !~~~:·H'.~ IMAP -Groundwater Pro~ram ; I f' L .J! 'lrJJilfl Legend r-.Jr .. · t·" PiC;.'.;, ,; LOI~"= ·in:1 LH';J;: R.i;'. .... { ; i , ; ~ The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such Information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, Indirect, incidental, or consequential damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map, Any sale of this map or information on Ittls map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. King County I GIS Center I News I ServiceS I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details .01 t ; I'Li \~,~: " I ; '. '.' 'j " rf ,r.~ ,.', ; • (. r '~'~~\' t'>} ··ll'. ,1,,1 •• : ' •• ' - ;";"IJ :~:,.,I·I:r ·NI,!·'." K':;!:},J1·;,~ 1· .... ,!:·;lt:rj' ;t",o-::-iJ:i iMAP -Groundwater Pro ~ ... l.;-.J /"1' f'~~~" . '~"'- c~ Le;.Jen::i "";,' J " ' \ <~. ~ .. _~ . ~:... .. .r--< " ~. --~ ", I " . . >~ .~ . 1:·~ l The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice, King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information, King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map, Any sale of this map or information on this ma is rohibited exce t b written rmission of Kin Coun , f<.jJ1g GOlJDty I ~I§ C~ntt;:I I Nl:!'M'_1 $J!Ptifes I t:'QtJ1[1l~nt§ 1.s~llt9n By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site, Jhe 0('19,::" The Greenprint for Kina County Figure 16. City Priority it COI'JMCtivity Maple \tilley, Auburn, Kent, Renton, Issaquah, Covington, Newcastle Ii Black Diamond RegIon • e-;<.U fA IT LDA Q (11 CD :J "'tJ ... _. :J ,.. ~ o 3 December 26, 2005 Keri Weaver James and Linda St. John 6009 NE First Circle Renton, Washington 98059-8562 425-235-2736 City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Dear Keri, As neighbors of this project, we support the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by c.A.R.E. as noted on the attached petition. There are two items in the staff recommendations in the Environmental Review Committee Report that concern us the most about this proposal. One was the possible extension of Rosario Avenue NE along the western boundary of the site. That road to the west of the site is only a half street and now both sides are fully developed. We are pleased to read in Condition #3 that the right-of-way will not be improved. A paved or soft surface pedestrian trail is desired through this location as it would provide additional opportunities for walking in the neighborhood, which is a very popular activity. Note that we have seen references to a trail along this right-of-way on King County Parks plans between the two unimproved parks. See Figure 16 in The Greenprint for King County dated March 2, 2005. Second, the site has many significant trees, especially in the northwest corner. We have observed deer, coyotes, and raccoons traveling the Rosario Avenue NE right-of-way and using the site as well as many woodland bird species. We support the appeal's request that a tree retention plan should be prepared prior to preliminary plat approval in order to meet the mitigation measures in Condition #7. We encourage the developer to consider clustering some of the homes on slightly smaller lots in order to have natural open-space tracts. We think that is what has made the Maplewood subdivision so special over the standard subdivision. We challenge Burnstead Construction to be creative in adjusting the lot layout and park sites to provide protection of these significant trees. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 1~i1 .. ? James and Lind . St. John Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l/we endorse the following: '\ 181 Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. 181 Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: ~ Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. 181 The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. a Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. a The Forest Practices Application must be required. a The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. a The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. IBI The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: -~(illI.f;.=~#/L~!-J~~~::::=:===---Uu.ll!l..Q'-J.b~~......:.-~'P Name (pri~: ~~~~d..!.!.l=!""",:!::!,:!:,~Jo:!,.......!:S~t:...o........!oJ~o,,-!h~n~ _______ ~ Address: __ ..:..6..:..0..:,0..:,9---:.N,;.;;E;:,.....;:F:...,:1.:;.:· r:;.:s::..t..:..-..:..C,;;;;i,;;;;r....:c....:l:...:e-!,-....:R..:..e:...:n ...... t..:..o..:..n~..:..9..:,8..:,0....:5..:,9_-....:8 ...... 5 ...... 6_2_ Phone: ___ 4_2_5_-_2_3_5_-_2_7_3_6 ______________ _ Date: ___ 1.;...;2=1'-'2;;;..1;....:1...;0;...;;5'---______________ _ Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, IIwe endorse the following: (:l( Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. ~ Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: )i( Level 11\ study and mitigation facilities should be required. Ag' The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. l»" Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. ~ The Forest Practices Application must be required. /W The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically , required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. A The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. J/f The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of con ery carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character ur COl1ln'H.l '!y. ~~.' /JI""--" .~. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of De,cember 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l/we endorse the following: ~ased on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. u;( Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: U Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. U' The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. IB" Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 9' The Forest Practices Application must be required. ~ The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. ' ~ The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the .)jnal plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. a The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: '-1't;1a~Nv '7?oi.At~,{)i Name (print): .... fA y Cit Po Ij? i €JoE Z- Address: IS 3sJ3 Sf:-133,-d cT Phone: ________________________________________________ ___ Date: ItL/;xi /05-I ; Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP. ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l/we endorse the following: \ [J Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. [J Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: [J Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. [J The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. [J Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. [J The Forest Practices Application must be required. [J The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. [J The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. [J The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concem very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed:~~~~~ __ ~~~~~~~ ______________________ __ Name (print): ~"-"'---"---''''---=--'-'''::'---""'''-,t,f------:~~----- Address: 15[1 (~ 5 E S \ Rp(. ~) ~iJA -trw:;'! Phone: ~?5 -;l.35 -') 1~~3 . ',/ Date: )Z.! Z iJ I O~~ I-I Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6. 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP. ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, Ilwe endorse the following: r;{ Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. ~ Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: CI level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. CI The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. CI Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing .J groundwater system on the site are antiCipated and additional mitigation is requested. E::::I. The Forest Practices Application must be required. a The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically J required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. ~ The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the Jfinal plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. B The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: -..;:.-=------------40.-::::;;----------- Name (print): L ~ -:v-":" V--o \. b CA-":2 Address: l 5 L( 0 t( 6 t:: 1-;:' ... -~ S~. Phone: '-1 d-.5' -' ct-5" 5" -'P~ ~;;l Date: LA/tO. ,I Dr; Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l!we endre the following: ~ ~ Aased on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. B' M~ximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - sp)!'!Cifically: !!:l /level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. ~Iil' I The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. ' Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 1,;,1 jThe Forest Practices Application must be required. [U' The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order: to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. :the sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approv, ad before the Inal plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. , The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: ____ ~.......;;;....w~;.......,:±_-\--L..J ...;.1--P_,'¥V __ J ___ /-+-___ ~- Name (print): _:Io.oIIic:~Uot.J~---l~--'-...:...-J::...L..---~-....&....:~~:....L--.....::...=--r Address: -----1'.....:;5;....3=_ .....l-\ ..... 5'---_~ __ ...J........;;~"'___=____.,;;...._---:...:::..L_ ___ _ Phone: ___ 4:.....'~.....;· ;..;:;;S~_.,...:t?'::;........,_' ....:;3:.-....;~_-__ --J.-..L.~-=-____ _ Date: __ ~I:...tI:l~I-",,~?'p~;....· +l....;::O~,1 ."...tS------------ Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l/we endorse the following: ~ased on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. ~aximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - sr:>egifically: (J./"Level '" study and mitigation facilities should be required. IJI/fhe current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient ~d should be increased. CW"ExtraordiOal'Y impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are aIlIticipated and additional mitigation is requested. rtV:The Forest Practices Application must be required. at"" The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. IlV'The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the , )inal plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. Ill' The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: ?£ti!'1'J ~u:.-t!J) Name (print): t. / '" ~l2/{r Address: lS:fa () se l.l? ttl e:r Phone: 1=-(~ 5-5 /7 ~ -(J) 71 Date: Ii Lid / tJ ~ I I Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l!we endorse the following: \ [J Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. [J Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: [J Level 11\ study and mitigation facilities should be required. [J The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. [J Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. [J The Forest Practices Application must be required. [J The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. [J The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. [J The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: ~ ... 'V ~ Name (print): Pel!N<A 11Qt2&E" Address: 1202~ S£-e;.1'411 ~f. f &;J,()Iv, tVA ~ec5q Phone: ~2S:· 2~ If· 1'i7"S Date: l2,/2tP,Lot£ Fred Kaufm£ln ~ Hearing Examiner Kerl Weaver ,. Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts· Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 . Request for Reconsiden.tlon _rut concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6. 2005 Highland. Park Preliminary PI.t: lUA "()S .. 124, pP. EeF Dear Renton Official:;;, This letter is submitted in $UPport of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, J/we endorse the following: Cl Based on the recently supplied h~ photos, a new wifdlife study should be required. o Maximl,lm analysis of the sl,Irface water Situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: CJ Level 11/ swdy and mitigation facilities should be required. [J The current mitigation requirement of a bypass systEJlTl to handle only 6 month storm event Is insufficient and should be increased. o Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. [J The Forest Practices Application must be required. o The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommenqation for phased dearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. CJ The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former i$ likely to directly impact the final plat layout. CJ The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping Of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Nam (print); SftMB:2 lO, !aIls I2ti_ . ,. hpJ 0/ A'~ j!!-&Ild'e:, 1 ~ Wit 2RP9i Phone: '/:2::£-&!6-if!Jk Date: '¥:J3fo~ Fred Kaufmll!n -Hearing Examiner Ke,ri Weaver ~ Senior Planner Jennifer Henning-Principal Planner Neil Watts ~ Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 ReqUe$t for Reconsideration and concurrem Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6. 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA ..oS-124. PP. ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in SlJpport Qf the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l!we endorse the following: Cl Based on the recently supplied h<.WJk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. Cl Maximum analysis of the sl)rfaee water situation and consequent mitigl;ltion is necessary for this site - specifically: CI level 11/ study and mitigation facilities should be required. CI The C1,IITent mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. Cl Extraordinary Impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. Q The Forest Practices Application must be required. Cl The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipatecl erosion and other water and water quality impacts. Cl The sitewide tree retention plan pre$ervlng at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final ptat layout CJ The sitewide tree retention plan shovfd be developed in conjunction with the fenCing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest corner of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NI; providing connectivity ~tween the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality oflita and the character of our community. Fred Kaufman ~ Hearing Examiner Kefi Weaver ~ Senior Planner Jennifer Henning· Principal Planner Neil Watts ~ Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Reqyf)St for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Applicatic:m in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Phlt: lUA -OS~124. pp, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, tlwe endorse the following: Q Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. Q Maximum analysiS of the sl,lrface water situation and consequent mitlQ$tion is necessary for this site - specifically: a level !II study and mitigation facilities should be required, Q The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insuffiCient and should be increased. a Extraordinary Impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. a The Forest Practices Application must be required. Q The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommenqation for phased dear1ng and grading must be speciftcelly required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts, (J The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the Significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout [J The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should. be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concem very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community, Sincerely, Name (print); 'B e. r oi. g, c, e L. f \{' 5 \ 0. b s:l Address; b 0 \ i{ N. E i 1 S!" c'. tx: ~ \e Phone: lj1 S" -~ ~ ~ -4 Ie S S- Date: D ~ (!.-; 2. 32 (:< c ;r . , ... .. · . Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, I/we endorse the following: Cl Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. Cl Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - speCifically: (J Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. (J The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. (J Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are antiCipated and additional mitigation is requested. Cl The Forest Practices Application must be required. Cl The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. Cl The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the Significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. Cl The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed:'~ Name (print): 1t.4k\ L ~,.N:;C-£ Address: __ 6'-O ...... i ..... 'i_S"--...;..JlA_~ __ /_ .... _C'_C_.=C::;;;..~_ ... _r-cLe ____ _ Phone: __ :Z?~b2-~S~---,a;s........::;....-=c :;....;:C"--. _-_O_O_'t&-y~ _____ _ Date: __ --'-~4_p_i6 __ /____T0'---z-z+h--6"""------7 7 · . F red Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way/ Renton WA 98055. . Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, I/we endorse the following: 'c [J Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. [J Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - specifically: lJ Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. lJ The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. lJ Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. [J The Forest Practices Application must be required. [J The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. [J The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. [J The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Phone: 4-2 Z -27 / -7j! Co Date: C:e;c ZZ, Zoo9 Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Request for Reconsideration and concurrent Appeal Application in the matter of: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, This letter is submitted in support of the Request for Reconsideration and Appeal filed by CARE. Particularly, l/we endorse the following: \ r!i'; Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. IJa Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site - sp,cifically: ~/Levelill study and mitigation facilities should be required. g The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient ( /and should be increased. !!:f Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing / groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. I!t .... The Forest Practices Application must be required. iii'" The Preliminary Geotechnical Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically . fiequired in order to minimize anticipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. ~T e sitewide tree retentio.n plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the Inal plat plan as the form~r is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest comer of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. Please consider these issues of concern very carefully. This project will directly and permanently impact our quality of life and the character of our community. Sincerely, Signed: ~~~~ Name (print): &74 0:1< ;t7t'fe,p • Address: 1S-.1! (}P • '1.17 kI( ~~ J; c Phone: ~,?(". ~3(J -t;-,.ar; Date: 1.2-.2;2 -~- /' o Cash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425·430-6510 Receipt N: 463 Date /2/Zr/{) r I I o Notary Service ~eckNo. 1{3 r, o C..2QY Fee ~ppea1Fee 0 __________ _ Description: H, dA lo-,J5 ~kllLjlit"JllLLJ/ ~l -:"I,,,r---'r--,-. LIJA-OS""' /zt./J III EcE ;t{~t7<4/ h~ -------, / ' I Funds Received From: Name C, If, fl, r {kt'I5fv f/;// 'J I Address P,O. &'X 2q36 City/Zip 1:< VI f~ w if 1f () S(::, , fmount $ 7:5: 0 :--I ;10 HIGHLANDS PARK RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RENTON Prepared for Mr. Ron Hughes BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1215 120th Ave. N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 Prepared by NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 10104 _111TH Ave. N.E. Kirkland, Washington 98033 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 October 4, 2005 Tra'l'@;x October 4, 2005 Mr. Ron Hughes BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1215 120th Ave. N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 10104 -111th Ave. N.E. Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 Re: Highlands Park Residential Subdivision -Renton, WA Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Hughes: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 73 lot Highlands Park Residential Subdivision located at the extension of SE 2nd St. between 152nd Ave. SE and 156th Ave. SE in an area recently annexed into the City of Renton. The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan, the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development, and conversations with City Renton and King County staff. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page five of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 is a close in area map showing the site location and surrounding street network. Figure 3 shows the preliminary site plan. The site lies in an area recently annexed by the City of Renton. The site is bounded on the east side by 156th Ave. SE, the west side by 152nd Ave. SE, the north side by the Willowbrook Lane plat and south side by other undeveloped parcels. The site's internal access streets will connect to existing streets on the west and north sides of the project site. The connection to the west will form the east leg of the SE 2nd St.! at 152nd Ave. SE intersection. The connection to the north is to SE 133rd St. currently stubbed at the north boundary of the site. Internal access streets will be improved to City of Renton standards. Development of the Highlands Park is expected to occur by the year 2007. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2007 is used as the horizon year. R0101 TIA.doc Page 1 Highlands Park Tra'l@;x TRIP GENERA TION AND DISTRIBUTION The 73 single-family units in the proposed Highlands Park Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Time Period Trip Rate Trips Trips Total Entering Exiting 349 350 Average Weekday 9.57 699 50% 50% AM Peak Hour 0.75 14 41 55 25% 75% PM Peak Hour 1.01 47 27 74 64% 36% A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. ' EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS The site is undeveloped. Street Facilities Figure 5 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes and other pertinent information. The primary roads in the study area are classified per the City of Renton and King County Comprehensive Plans are as follows: N.E. 4th St. 156th Ave. S.E. SE 2nd St. SE 136th St. SE 132nd St. SE 133rd St. R0101 TlA.doc Page 2 Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Local access Local access Local access Local access October 5, 2005 Highlands Park Tra'l@;;r Currently 152nd Ave. SE does not extend to the north beyond the intersection of SE 2nd Street We understand 152nd Ave. SE will not be connected to the north due to an existing wetland area. There is an existing sidewalk along the west side of 152nd St SE from SE 2nd St. to SE 136th St that continues on the south side of SE 136 St. terminating at 154th Ave. SE. From 154th Ave. SE to 156th Ave. SE there is a widened shoulder but no sidewalks on SE 136th Street There is a widened shoulder delineated with rumble bars along the west side of 156th Ave. SE and no sidewalks in the project vicinity. The streets in the existing Maplewood and Willowbrook Lane plats are respectively built to City of Renton and King County standards and include sidewalks. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 6 shows existing PM peak hour traffic volumes at the pertinent intersections affected by site-generated traffic. The traffic counts are included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and 0 are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated levels of service (LOS) for existing conditions at the pertinent street intersections. The LOS's were calculated using the procedures in the Transportation ResearchBoard Highway Capacity Manual 2000. The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF A B C 0 E INTERSECTION Signalized ~ 10.0 >10.0 and gO.O >20.0 and ~35.0 >35.0 and ~55.0 >55.0 and ~80.0 Stop Sign Control ~10.0 >10 and .:::15 >15 and ~25 >25 and .:::35 >35 and .:::50 Accident History We have field reviewed the site and nearby street system. Based on the field review and discussion with City of Renton staff, there are no readily apparent safety issues that will be left unresolved with the required project improvements to City of Renton standards. King County accident records for the most recent available three year period show there were two R0101 TIA.doc October 5, 2005 Page 3 F >80.0 >50 Highlands Park Tra'~ accidents occurring at the SE 136th St.l156th Ave. SE intersection and one accident at the SE 132nd St.l156th Ave. SE intersection. The King County accident data is included in the technical appendix. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 7 shows projected 2007 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts, traffic anticipated to be generated by the unbuilt portions of the Maplewood Divisions 1 and 2, and Evendale and Liberty Grove pipeline subdivisions plus background traffic growth. There were approximately 40 lots built in the existing Maplewood plat in May 2003 when the traffic count was taken at NE 4thSUNE Nile Ave. intersection. Therefore, anticipated traffic from the remaining 172 lots was added as pipeline traffic at this intersection. King County Public Works provided the pipeline traffic volumes generated by the Evendale and Liberty Grove plats at the 156th Ave. SE/SE 136th St. intersection. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. In addition to traffic generated by the aforementioned pipeline projects, an additional 2% per year annual background growth rate is added for each year from the date of the existing traffic count to the 2007 horizon year. King County historical traffic count data supports the 2% per year growth rate. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 8 shows the projected 2007 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 4 were added to the projected future traffic volumes shown on Figure 7 to obtain the Figure 8 volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with and without-project conditions at the pertinent street intersections. The study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS for future 2007 conditions including project-generated traffic. TRAFFIC MITIGA TION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of $75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. The net new daily trips due to this development are the 699 trips per day generated by the proposal. The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is thus $52,425 (699 daily trips X $75 per daily trip). Full width street improvements to City of Renton Standards including curb, gutter and sidewalk, are required on all internal plat streets. R0101 TIA.doc October 5, 2005 Page 4 Highlands Park TraF'&irt SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA T/ONS We recommend that the Highlands Park Residential Subdivision be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk in accordance with applicable City of Renton standards. • Contribute the approximately $52,425 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince@nwtraffex.com or larry@nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, ~~ Principal TraffEx R0101 TIA.doc PageS Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal TraffEx October 5, 2005 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY HIGHLANDS PARK RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERSECT/ON EXISTING 2007 WITHOUT 2007 WITH PROJECT PROJECT NE 4th St.lNile Ave NE A 9.2 B 11.8 B 12.3 SE 132nd St.l156th Ave. SE EB (C 15.2) EB (C 15.8) EB(C16.1) SE 133rd St.l156th Ave. SE EB(C18.1) EB (C 19.0) EB (C 20.4) SE 136th St.l156th Ave. SE EB (C 19.0) EB (025.8) WB (029.8) • Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the intersection as a whole, which determines the LOS for intersections per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (XX) LOS and delay for the worst approach or movement at an unsignalized intersection (EB) Eastbound approach R0101 TIA.doc Page 6 :;:;". "'l; ;:: 6 .". ..,. """"'f Highlands Park Vicinity Map -,.". ...... "" ... _-,-----L ~! Il Figure 1 SE eIR St 13 Highlands Park Area Map 132ND ST o o C"\J C".:; f-4 Figure 2 ::I: cO' w ;:::;: CD J2 Q) ::l "T1 wcO' r:: ~ :::r Q) ::l a.. (J) -C ~ '" I.l '-I:.: Ir.- I , I 'j .IE --_.-~----__ ¥ •• , ______ -.A _.-.,,, --_ .... _-_._- \\ /'_,--' C ").-,/ /,./ / : /' r-"'" l i .. , ... I r' --=<r.=:-7I·!.ft r-"-~t'i"· T-,~ . . :7.~ l:--:' ! .. ~ ! I ·" " I' r-·""1 -.'1l, 0 ,..1 J ! ,I ~ .... --'.1"-'· -", ..... ", --, r.~·"-i.---' .. tr-.'" "."r"-'--",' .... , ..... .... I.. ~. "" _. I I A ••. ~ , , '~ ., , ~, .,. ~J " ' . L~ ___ 'JI.:,,!.'I":'.lr' L .Jj' .. j':" ,.~ .. 1'··, " I)' " i.1 .. III " ill-"·(I:"'jl. '."i.I" II' I~ . f<-·~-·.~ . I' i"'., .• '7 ::-;;:::;="71 {.,-.:::'~0:'~-": il "!'"--I:~ ,.,. .• j; -.. !~ If,ht" ill, ~~!~ --~'ft ,~~~'Ji_ ...... ',\,.: ... B I -.:. .. j' l:~--JII I J,. ','>j' !~! • ; I Iii III Iii I! '/F;'" 11, ... 1;1 '1\1 .1' . L_.~_J k <", . I", _ .•. Ii ( ~. ! _/!...._.JL_-.l:L_J,---..Ii. '. J "i,.Ii!I:1 . I >-f i'~-. .. '--'I. -,.-... _..t, ~ - -_J / .... -;£ 1 ~ .L ~, ,-..J/,-._ .. 't-_ :;jl ) ' •• ~ ~~'. [-=~~=-A-:-' '-' --~~~~~~~-'-_±:: ~ ~ ::~.>~ -~~'. ~~:S~;-'1H' -=! 1 d: 1----\'" .. /," D=I-")~\ li'r--]lr ---'/1-'-"'-"Ii-Il:---if,---yr-'l[2:-" ___ ,~ 'l"';iiMi~"';;"''7-', t:!-I 1"""~"", )"11'-1' " 1'1 II, I I 'fll\l:l;'l.l'_ ! .... l: ~. I ,/ • ." I 'Q.!~.' ,~ lSi ' ,11 ' r II! I to ... : iJCl" "'"lOt J; ""'tACt ItM f ~ ..... "'iII' t .1110.... i'~ . :w I JI.r. .'::f. " I ~ ',j I" ',. ,[I ,. I J ... II .. 1'1 " I I ~ ; 8'''' I til i~ , L __ . --i ',..!... .............. ->-.::.. :", .... 19:_"" I _,.. I _v.I'" Ii ~. '.u.J.. L .._ __ ..1 J .~ ·::::-';::-=-~'-==:!::.TI-~rl I r--:='--~ ~J -J ,r: /l ,1, qr,' 'C, _ '-"-~ ~-.... .. ... 1 ~ I·"e r 10 "'".s,'I'/ 1 r i 1)1 I JI :/'1 ),1 1,1 I' '/' fll '1'1' " ~ \ ~ I .. ~. ;l; "~. 11' : ",;'.;, ': ~.,! lL--JI-.._...JIL_--l!L_..J;L_ J,'-_'-IL_.-I' I .. ;:~ ': 9 "I I,. ~~"'=-~:~I· __ ~J f '-t~"7"'7'-=-'--'---!-~:::-:"!::::;~1 w '~H~--""----+-.. ~~O:::'!: "::;"1 ';''::~:: ~_ r--, -I I 1 j I It,; I'~ ,i r--+----oIr--1,:---1. , •. I) ~I ., I Jr--:I'---lr----1;t--I,---:Ir----~lr-11 I ~~ I. Ii, .:.:. I i I ~" I~ I, ,)1 Ilf !( I --I "/.. j I .,.,", I Ii ;! Ji II III II I U' I I ., t L ______ I I ~ I....:. 1.,,!. .. 'I"'!.-~111 ·.t '----'--Iii ... =-=.=.;:,J~I .. ~, .. ~' ... -/1" '1'1., r'l .. ~I .. _ L-:::.=---.::::L_ ~ -F='=-r--I I II' IJI I, -I r.... ,1 ~ I r ---, 'I --! I -·1, _. I : ~'., ,-" 1/' --II -" I :--"" -I J I' ~ " '.' l I I III I ' 'I· I ~.. ~ I .. I' ' I 1'1 Ii J I I I ,.., _. "-'-i . ..J'L_-'L " I, _. I' 1-" ',,-_-,,L __ ~_..J:"_ .; "':: .. ,' ~ ______ : 1ilu 'e. 1,---,,-I '--~'Il d L. J I I, I 1 -,I--"'I~~~~ ,J...-",~_ ~I~j-..J l / I ! ~!'_''---'''''--==:-_ I~~ ~ .... -'"'-"-"1. ,-.. ---~.J ~ '-----,~-1--,,_ . .l---', '--------'-~:ill J>' . ~.~ J ----~-~ .... --_,, __ ~-L-u--' .. _~ .' .. A.,....!!-_'"' I ~u-~ rs ~!= ~ ~"'-, .e lNO' ,~,,~ .~":::'!..,,, ' ~ iE"~ If -• --~----crw -'of ~~ -----.----w-~-~,~ r"~ .::". ~ .... ;, ~~~1~'-·~~ _., .~,{~>..~ ~cl~.~ ~::.~, ~_ ~!I; .... ~ ;&-~ .. ,_., -" I r ' , I 1:r i:r-'"' iO 1'1,/ ",~, ';'''~''-_ ~ ( .;1" -:] '. -I:, -;r;=·~IIr--·~I,-::·Jr ---,'r--l'r If: :/i ii, ~.;I ~II --J;-rlr--,/r ':r~~, J I ~ I I II: I I "I I' iii . I , 1 PI I ' . : . . ! 1 1'1 Ii i; , . i'. 'L ----. J I ~ '" ",!..'..,'.,': _' ..' •• ' .. I' oi ': ~ ': •• :.. ' .. , ., 'I .. I' 00 11 QI", I ~--r~ .. _j ,,~ .. kl _. !II ._. ~I _ .• 1.1 _. ~I _. J, _. :1 -->jl_". ~'.I -". Pi,l_ .. '_ .• ' .. ' _ ... !/.i wU ~I. _ .. 1:/ ~ •• Ii. _ .. I~ _.'!. ~ , 11 Iii N: II' 1'1 1:1 ~, , 'I' "I 1:1 1:/ ~i :1' ill 'il 1'1 --.:..... ; ill __ J!L __ lll __ ..JIL _...JL_ ..IL-__ 'L_.JL_..J:L_ -..JL-:-1/L---JL_ ....• l" __ .JiL __ .J/l .. _-.lL ........ J:..... J!L-... _-" .,. II J ' ------_.J--a. I.. ~ I' ''''''O~'. >.,..'" / j ,. / !, i , I r -!: ~-" .. J ~,~;,:-r~'.': .' ~t~~ f' :"'I)~~~~ LN:: , ,~... ·a; i i\" , --._~!: I , ~ • J I R.».ao·" r---'-"fO ' Q, I_ •• l 4:""~"" ,II:':\"-==: 1\ j2: ~:=-------.-.---, -'T" -~ ---= Jt I /?-rl--~·-r-n-I '\ '~' ! 1 '~ ., j r, I" , ", I;, I ~--. ~ »' Ll' '';'/1 ,,--J: \; SCAlE: 1· = 50' H-$-_ .......... -r ,., 28% 7 13 8% 4 2 ;z fT1 36% 9 17 PM Peak Hour Traffic Vd ume Enter 47 Exit 27 Total 74 NE 4th StlNile Ave SE 133rdl156th Ave SE I.() o 0 0 ... .J I ... '-0 0-0-0 0"' 'I t r r 0 00)0 SE 132nd/156th Ave SE SE 136thf156th Ave SE Highlands Park N.E. 4th Sl. 32% 15 9 S.E 132nd St 32% 15 9 Project Site 9 S.E. 136th SI. 9 15 01 g! 32% :T ~ !" V> fT1 Legend 15% Percentage of Project Traffic 15 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution Figure 4 35 MPH 5 lanes N.E.41hSt. S.E. 2nd St. Highlands Park Existing Conditions 25 MPH 2 lanes S. E. 132nd Sl 25 MPH 2 lanes S. E. 133rd Sl 25MPH 2 lanes S. E. 136th st. - Signal Legend Lane Use and Direction Signalized intersection Stop Sign Contrd Figure 5 5121/03 1.0 I'-CD CD 1.0 74 .. / I \ .. 34 1050 -CD -639 29 .... "'\ t ,r5 N ("') v NE 4th st/Nile Ave 1.0 r--t:o 3..1) I 1,. ... 0 0-0-0 1 .... "'\ I ,r 0 ("') C) C) v ("') SE 133rd/156th Ave SE 9121/05 S.E.2ndSt. 9/21f05 1.0 ~ ("') I'-C) 3..1.J , 1,. .... 0 0-0-0 8 .... "'\ I ,r 0 ("') I'-0 N ("') SE 132ndl156th Ave SE I'-I'-~O 3..1) , 1,. ... 0 0-0-0 6 .... "1 I ,rO 1.0 0 0 en N SE 136thl156th Ave SE 2109/05 Highlands Park N.E.4thSt. s. E. 132nd St S.E. 133rd Sl S.E. 1361h st. Trafj NORTHWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS Legend 15 PM Peak Hour Traffic Vol ume Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 6 NE 4th StlNile Ave SE 133rd/156th Ave SE S.E.2ndSI. SE 132nd/156th Ave SE SE 136th/156th Ave SE N.E. 4th SI. ~ <.l'1 '" ::l 0. S. E. 132nd Sl ~ S.E. 133rd Sl ~ ~ rn S. E. 136th St. Legend 15 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Highlands Park Future Without Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 7 o <D N r--C'? <D 80 J.J I I. ,-37 1136 -(]) -692 167 ...... t ,r27 "'""" co ..-r--..-N NE 4th StlNile Ave <0 ~;::!:o 12J.J I 1..,-0 0-0)-0 1'" "\ I ,.r 0 C'?;:go C'? SE 133rd/156th Ave SE S.E.2ndSI. m <0 C'? r--0 3J.J I 1.,-0 0-0-0 8 ...... I ,r 0 ("') C'? 0 <D (") SE 132nd/156th Ave SE ..- r--f:2co 3J.J I 1..,-29 0-0-0 15 ...... t ,.r 8 o m <D N ..-C'? SE 136th/156th Ave SE Highlands Park N.E. 4th SI. S.E. 132nd SI. S. E. 136th SI. ~ 01 g! :::r ?? !'" $/> rn Legend Project Site 15 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Future With Project PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure 8 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877 Turning Movement Diagram ~ 00. Q.l ;> < W .c ... \D II'l .... SE 132nd Street 3 ~ 00. GJ Q.l ;> < .c ... \D II'l .... Intersection: 156th Ave SE @ SE 132nd Street Location: Renton Date of Count: Wed 9/21105 Peak Period: 4:30 P 5:30 P Checked By: CMW Prepared For: Traffex GJ EB WB NB SB Intersection Check In: Out: %HV PHF 0.0% 0.69 nla nla 1.8% 0.91 0.8% 0.91 1.I% 0.91 1059 1059 TM02p05b 1 06 ./ " I Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877 Turning Movement Diagram SE 133rd Street 3 r.il 00 GJ QJ ;. -< .c: .... \0 on ..... Intersection: 156th Ave SE @ SE 133th Street Location: Renton Date or Count: Wed 9/21/05 Peak Period: 4:30 P 5:30 P Checked By: CMW Prepared For: Traffex GJ EB WB NB SB Intersection Check In: 1069 Out: 1069 %HV PHF 0.0% 0.33 nla nla 1.5% 0.90 0.7% 0.91 0.9% 0.92 TMOlp05b106 • Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877 Turning Movement Diagram SE 136th St o 7) 6 Intersection: SE 136th St @ 156th Ave SE Location: Renton Date of Count: Wed 2/912005 Peak Period: 5:00 P 6:00 P Checked By: CMW Prepared For: TraftEX EB WB NB SB Intersection o o o Under Construction Check In: Out: 968 968 %HV PHF 0.0% 0.45 nla n/a 0.0% 0.92 0.3% 0.93 0.2% 0.93 TM05b022p 11 Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: (425) 861-8866 FAX: (425) 861-8877 Vehicle Volume Summary Intersection: SE 136th St @ 156th Ave SE Date of Count: Wed 2/9/2005 Location: Renton Checked By: CMW Time From North on (SB) From South on (NB) From East on (WE) From West on (EB) Interval Interval 156th Ave SE 156th Ave SE Under Construction SE 136th St Total Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R 4:15 P 3 a 162 a 2 1 64 a a a a a a a a 2 229 4:30 P 0 a 169 1 1 2 70 a a a a a a 2 0 2 246 4:45 P 1 a 150 2 1 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 234 5:00 P 1 0 161 0 1 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 223 5:15 P 0 a 161 1 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 245 5:30 P 0 0 163 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 229 5:45 P 1 a 175 4 0 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 261 6:00 P 1 0 158 2 0 4 69 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 233 6:15 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 6:30 P a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 a 6:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 7:00 P a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 a Total Survey 7 0 1299 10 5 9 563 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 13 1900 5:00 P to 6:00 P Peak Hour Summary Total 2 a I 657 I 7 a I 5 I 290 I a a I a I a I a a I 3 I a I 6 968 Approach 664 295 a 9 968 %HV 0% 0% n/a 0% 0% PHF 0.93 0.92 n/a 0.45 0.93 PEDESTRIANS ACROSS: North South East West Intv'l Sum Interval: 1 a 2 a Legend: T: Number of heavy vehicles (greater than 4 wheels) 3 a L: Left -Turn 4 a S= Straight 5 a R= Right-Turn 6 a HV= Heavy Vehicles 7 a PHF= Peak hour Factor {Peak hour volume / {4*Highest 1~ 8 a Ped Totals: a a 0 a 0 Prepared For: TraffEX TMOSb022p 02/08/2005 15:04 FAX 425 430 7376 RENTON TRANS. SYS. T .. 'RENTON, WASHINGTON \ _ NILE AVE NE (148TH AVE SE) '4THST '~ l3P DKS03l29TMl NILE AVE NE (148TH AVE SE) From North i lIl",t I 1In I Le!t I Tructl ! Aw. Slat\1lnIe TIIIaI faalllr 1.0 I 1.01 1.01 1.01 04:00PM 13 2 14 0 29 \ 04:15PM 11 3 11 0 25 04:30PM 19 4 17 1 40 04:45PM 1& 2 16 0 32 Total 5& 11 57 l 128 05:00PM 12 1 11 0 24 _." 05:15PM 18 2 21 0 41 05:30PM 20 1 10 0 31 05:45PM 21 1 14 0 36 Total 71 5 58 0 132 TRAFFICOUNT, INC. 4820 YELM HWY 8-195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 ..,.,r" 360-491-8116 f 1OIJ1l6 -G Printed PRIMARY NE4THST NILE AVE NE (148TH AVE From East SE) From South 111&1111 1bN I left I TNClI I App. III&Irt I 11n I Le. I Truck I App. TN! Total 1.0 I 1.01 1.0 1 1.0 I 1.0 1 1.01 1.0 l 1.0 I 8 138 1 2 147 3 1 7 0 11 11 1&' 3 1 188 3 1 1 0 & 2 146 1 1 148 1 2 4 0 7 10 151 1 2 182 1 1 1 0 3 31 589 8 8 628 .. 5 13 0 28 S 157 1 2 163 0 0 2 0 2 1 170 2 1 1711 3 1 4 0 8 12 t81 1 0 174 0 1 S 0 8 1 153 1 2 181 0 3 2 0 6 31 841 5 5 871 3 5 13 0 21 NE 4TH ST From West IIlCIIll nllU J Left I Tntd< I 1.0 I 1.01 1.01 1.0 I 1 227 16 3 1 247 15 6 2 261 18 5 11 257 1& 3 21 982 81 11 4 281 17 3 4 298 22 2 10 234 20 2 12 210 25 3 30 1003 84 10 ~004 fileName: DKS14113P Site Code ; 00000013 Start Date : OS/21/2003 Page No : 1 App. ~~I ~'I Int.I TN! Total loWi ToWi 1 1 1 24t 5 438 441 283 7 481 488 2118 7 485 472 283 & 480 485 1084 24 1842 1888 282 5 471 476 324 3 552 65& 284 2 475 477 247 & 449 454 1117 15 1947 1882 . GraM Talal 128 Apptdl '" 60.0 TOIaI" 3.4 16 113 1.2 43.8 004 3.0 25&\ 4~ ~~ 1.8 1.tI 32.5 11 0.8 0.3 11 13031 11 10 28 23.4 21.3 55.3 34.4 0.3 0.3 0.7 o 47 t 51 1985 145 .2.3 91.0 6.B 1.2 1.3 52.4 3.8 27 2181\ 57.B 38 3789 1.0 99.0 I 57 128 34 838 Ii 678 4 3 12 19 29 1050 74 1153 1918 4.1 44.11 5.0 94.2 0.7 21.1 1&.8 63.2 2.& 91.1 8A \. 05:1& Volume 2 21 41 7 170 2 17. 3 4 • 4 2'8 22 324 652 ,JlI", PelkFadD. O.88a '--'" HI&hIftt. 05:15PM 05:15PM 06:15PM 06:16PM \IaIlIIM 18 2 21 41 7 170 2 178 3 4 • • 298 22 324 p_f_ 0.780 0.147 0.594 0.890 Pull H_Flo.., 04:00 PM 11105:46 PM· Peek 1 of 1 8yAppraaatl 04:30PM 04:46PM 04:00PM 04:30PM VoIUIM 64 9 84 137 34 838 & 878 • 5 13 28 21 1081 10 11&8 '_l 48.7 U 48.7 5.0 94.2 0.7 30.8 18.2 60.0 1.8 92.1 8.0 Hlihlllt. 05:15PM 05:15PM 04:00PM 05:11PM Volutne 18 2 21 41 7 170 2 178 3 1 11 4 298 22 324 'MkfeclDr 0.835 u.s47 0.581 0.894 ) 02/08/2005 15:04 FAX 425 430 7376 lENTON, WASHINGTON tiLE AVE NE (148TH AVE SE) .:·c 4TH ST ,:-.-'.;tt l3P DKS03l29TMl RENTON TRANS. SYS. TRAFACOUNT, INC. 4820YELM HWY B~195 LACEY, WASHINGTON 98503 360-491-8116 ~ T ~ ~ Out . In T DIal T GlI005 RleName : DKS14113P Site Code : 00000013 Start Date: OS/21/2003 Page No :2 Accident listing 01/01/2000 -12/31/2003 156th Ave Se & Se 136th St Sorted by <DATE;TIME;ACC#> QUADRANT CASE ID DATE TIME ACC SEVERI1Y PED AGE WEATHER LIGHTING ROAD COLLISION T¥PE D1STAN STREET 1 STREET 2 4 00-89102802/05/2000 4:15 Injury Acc 0 4 00-89103203/31/2000 23:50 Property Damage 0 01/01/2001 -12/31/2003 156th Ave Se & Se 132nd St Sorted by <DA1'E;T1ME;ACC#> Raining Dark no street li Dry Veh overturned o 156TH AVE SE SE 136-11151' Clear/Partly Clou Dark street light Dry Veh strikes fixed obj o 156TH AVE SE SE 1361'11 ST QUADRANT CASE ID DATE TIME ACe SEVERI1Y PED AGE WEATHER LIGHTING ROAD COLLISION TIPE DlSTAN STREET t STREET 2 4 03-63573 t 08/08/2003 t 1 :00 Property Damage 0 ST Clear/PartIy Clou Daylight Dry SD both straight one stop RE () 156TH AVE SE SE 132ND ~ HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th St & Nile Ave NE Lane Configurations Ideal.fclow(vp~pl) 1900. 1900 19pO 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 To~rlo$ttime (s) 4.0 .Ito 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 ftt 1;00 1.00 1 .. 00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd,cfJow(~rot) 171.0 3401 .' 1770. '3;396. Fit Permitted 0.32 1.00 0.22 1.00 S~ ~f·t ..... ..:..&iti 9W :R~rro 1 " '.' Q'91,:;'1,4IlZ; . '!~~,;~;; ,~,t '41ft .3395 Volume (vph) 74 1050 29 5 639 p~li.t,:,flGfir:factor,'PftF O.eS ···~:~~i« 0;89 0.95 '0.95 , e<:,-',. ,,~, , .' ",,,,,',, Adj. Flow (vph) 83 1180 33 5 673 llan:S·Gt4>lif· ;Flow tv" h) ..... • NV"'<O A ..J;). .' . J~ .. . .. 83 .121~;;\·· ; .•••. Q 5 709 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Rrqt~ctElQ~~~S~S: . ,:4'7~ . /:~ ;.;,.~-::;: ' 3: 8 Permitted Phases 4 8 eI "if~'~ G ( ) ~.~ .• !J9tEt;.~·.::,.r;~en.· ...... ~.::; 2f~7 19:6 '1:~:5 .18 .. 0 Effective Green, g (s) 21.7 19.6 18.5 18.0 t t. 1900 1 QOO. 1900 12 11 12 4.0 1.00 0.91 0.95 1.00 11:10.:·.19~~ 0.70 1.00 '~~ l300.· .. 16!13'· ,.> 34 12 3 4 O~95 '0.59 ;,0.59 '" ,:."\ ,.,. ·0,59" 36 20 5 7 .0 : 20' 1;2. 0 , Perm 2 : TS .r7f8 7.8 7.8 A9tua~~~~gl~ Ratio'. 0;54 Q:49 0:'46 : 0.45 .0:20 .0.20 .. · Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 VebicleJiX!en~lol'J ($) .3:0 ..•.. 3;0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 383 1674 v/s:R.~t.!perO't cO.01 <::.0:36 vIs Ratio Perm 0.11 v/tiRatjo 0'.22 .-0,72 Uniform Delay, d1 4.5 8.0 Ptpgf~sstQn~~~tOJ . 1.()0 ·;tiJ)O< Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 1.6 ee!lay( 5)'11" ;'?<>; , '/" ~, ; '. ,$ , 4~a; . \c;~;6 Level of Service A A t\pproaettD~I~Y;($) . 9:3 Approach LOS A HCM Average Control Delay 9.2 H~~;~()IUrl1:t:!tQ~~9~p<;1City ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 39.9 h:~fei$~pt1~tl~apabitYUtfliz~ti()rt. .c;', .f;lNl%. c Critical Lane Group 4.0 3;0 209 0.00 0.01 0.02 6.1 '1.00 0.0 6.2 A 4.0 4.0 3.0 .'3;0 1532 254 0.21 0.02 0.46 (to.8 7.6 13.1 1.00 1,0'0 0.2 0.1 '7:8 13~2 A B 7.8 A HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (s) ICU Level of Service 4.0 >3:0 321 0;01 0.04 13.0 1.00 0.0 13.1 B 1~;2 B A 12.0 A Existing PM Peak 2/17/2005 lIj 1900 12 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.770 0.75 13~)'r. 57 0;78 73 73 Perm 6 7.8 7.8 0.20 4.0 3.0 273 0.05 0.27 13.6 1.00 0.5 14.2 B 1+ 1900 11 4.0 1.00 0.86 1.00 1554 1.00 1SS4 6 0.78 8 91 6 7.:? 7.8 0,20" 4.0 3.0 . 304 cO.06 0.30 13.7 1.00 0.6 14.3 B 14.2 B 1900 12 65 0.78 83 0' Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th St & Nile Ave NE Future Without Project PM Peak 2/17/2005 t Lane Configurations Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 1900 12 ~ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 12 11 TotaILosttime(s) 4.0 4.0- Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00 0.95 Fft ·:tOOO;98 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 s~td,:;P.1~W'(pmtt '::f1Z;o ··33J:iO Fit Permitted 0.30 1.00 ~atd,;fl~w(pel'm} . ..... 5§a' .. 33~Q Volume (vph) 80 Peak-hC;lul:factor; PHF . -0,89 . Adj. Flow (vph) 90 Lan~~rotftrfIQw:(vph). -~O Turn Type pm+pt Pr~\~tteQ'.(!>t:!a$E{$.; ./.,7' Permitted Phases 4 Actuated Green.G'(s) 2T5 Effective Green, g (5) 27.5 Actuated.gtG/Ratio . 0,58 Clearance Time (5) 4.0 VehicJEretcteri~j(.>o tS)J .. 3: 0 1136 0:89 1276 1449. 24,9. 24.9 0.52 4.0 3;0 . 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1:00· 0.99. 1.0(JO,91 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 17:7:0~'q~95;? \; 177JJ 1~§ 0.17 1.00 0.67 1.00 .~~6\\;3~~~.;;,;ii~-) .·1454· ·.16~P' 154 27 692 37 64 16 0.8.9 0.95 O,;9~'0;9.~ . 0:59 0:'59 173 28 728 39 108 27 "'0 .' 28.167 .',0 'tOB .....•.•. El3 pm+pt c.;' .:3 "?:;;\~: 8 ·24.9.·2~.6 24.9 23.6 0:52 0,50: 4.0 4.0 ·3;0 .i~;O Perm 2 9.4' .9;4 9.4 9.4 0.20' 0.20 4.0 4.0 2.3:0 .3!0 248 325 I" '. ~ 1900 1900 12 12 4.0 1.00 1.00 0.95 '17l0 0.72 1;~34 21 62 0.59 0:78 36 79 0 79 Perm 6 9:4 9.4 0.20. 4.0 3,0 263 ! ~ 1900 11 4.0 1.00 0.90 1.00 .1615; 1.00 16.15 32 0.78 41 131 6 9.4 9.4 0,20 4.0 3.0 319 1900 12 70 0.78 90 o Lane Grp Cap (vph) 389 vIs Rat!q;ptOf t: ., 'C<}",01 vis Ratio Perm 0.12 vIc RatioO:~3 1758 00.4;3 205 1683 ·0:00 'Q;23~ 0.07 0.0.4". ·.0,08 Uniform Delay, d1 4.7 Ptogression l7actpr 1;00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 Delay (5) 5.0 Level of Service A Ai-<' 'roachD.ellf"{s)·' ~p ........ y .. . Approach LOS '0:82. 9.5 1.00 3.3 12.8 B 12.3 B HCM Average Control Delay 11.8 HeM. Volume. toG~l>acityratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (5) 47.6 Intet$~p~iqn 'C~p~city Utiliiation. .' \';' 7.1.1 % c Critical Lane Group 0:14 6.9 1.00 0.3 7:2 A OA6 7.8 1.00'. 0.2 "'8:0 A ";a:-O;' A cO.09 (jA4 16.8 1.00 1.2 18.0 B HCM Level of Service Sum of lost time (5) ICU'l1evel·1>fService. ;,~,} ¥ ,~c C .', u,< "." " 0.19 15.9 1:00 . 0.3 16:2 B 17.3 B B 8.0 ·'.:>C ... 0.06 0.30 0.41 16.3 16.7 1.00 1.0p 0.6 0.9 16.9 17.5 B B 17.3 B Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: NE 4th St & Nile Ave NE .,J. ,. of +--\.. "" ....... Lane Configurations ., t1+ ., t1+ Ideaf Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width 12 11 12 12 11 12 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Uti I. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 S;;;itd, Flow,(prot) 1710 .335$ 1770 3395 Fit Permitted 0.30 1.00 0.17 1.00 ~aJd.,FI~.,p~rml··· 555 :S35S ;31~. • ~395 Volume (vph) 80 1136 167 27 692 37 71 peskif!our factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0;89 0:95 0.95 0:95 0.59 Adj. Flow (vph) 90 1276 188 28 728 39 120 Lane Group Flow (vph) 90 1464 0 .. 28 767 <·0 '. 120 Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt Perm Protected 'Pllases 7 4 3. .B,· Permitted Phases 4 8 2 Actvated Green, G (s) 27.8 25.~ 25.2 23.9' 9:9 Effective Green, g (s) 27.8 25.2 25.2 23.9 9.9 Actuated g/CRatio 0.57 0.52 0.52 0.49 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle .Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3;0 3.0 .3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 384 1747 202 1676 255 \its''f~:a~io, Prot . cQ:,01> '~.~~ . O.do< ,0,23 vIs Ratio Perm 0.12 0.07 cO.10 vIc Ratio 0.23 0.84 0:14 0:46 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 4.8 9.9 7.2 8.0 16.9 progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 3.7 0.3 0.2 1.4 Delay (s) 5.2 13,6 7.5 8.2 .18,3 Level of Service A B A A B Approach Delay (s) '13.1 8.2 Approach LOS B A HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service H.CM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 48.4 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization', 72.5% ICU Level of~~rvic,e ," c Critical Lane Group TRANSPBELL-ST51 Future With Project PM Peak t ~ 1+ 1900 1900 11 12 4.0 1.00 0.92 1.00 .. i:1,.6?p 1.00 1656 18 21 0..59 0.59 31 36 67 0 2 9.9 9.9 0.20 4.0 3,.0 339 '·0.04 0.20 16.0 1.00 0.3 16.2 B 17.6 B B 8.0 C 10/4/2005 '-. + .I ., 1+ 1900 1900 1900 12 11 12 4.0 4.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90. 0.95 1.00 17,70 H[622· 0.71 1.00 14gS 1622 62 36 70 0.78 0.78 0.78 79 46 90 79 136 ·0 Perm '.',~. 6 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 0.20 0.20 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 272 332 0.(18) 0.06 0.29 0.41 16.3 16.7 1.00 1.00 0.6 0.8 16.9 17.5 B B 17..3 B Synchro 5 Report Page 1 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information IAnalyst VG Intersection 3 IAgency/Co. lJurisdiction Date Performed 312712005 IAnalysis Year Existing 2005 ~nalysis Time Period PM peak Project Description EasUWest Street: SE 132nd St North/South Street: 156th Ave. SE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrS): 1.00 ~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R !Volume 3 327 0 0 715 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 327 0 0 715 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ---0 --- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R IVolume 0 0 0 3 0 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay. Queue Length and Level of Service !Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR tv (vph) 3 11 C (m) (vph) 892 363 tv/c 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.09 Control Delay 9.0 15.2 LOS A C !Approach Delay ----15.2 !Approach LOS ----C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\ Temp\u2k5C 1. tmp 10/4/2005 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information IAnalyst VG Intersection 3 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 312712005 iAnalysis Year future without project Analysis Time Period PM peak Project Description EastlWest Street: SE 132nd St INorth/South Street: 156th Ave. SE Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy. Period (hrs): 1.00 ~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 3 354 0 0 744 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 354 0 0 744 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 --- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R rv'olume 0 0 0 3 0 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service iApproach N8 S8 Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR ~ (vph) 3 11 C (m) (vph) 870 344 vIc 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.10 Control Delay 9.2 15.8 LOS A C Approach Delay ----15.8 Approach LOS ----C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file:IIC:\Oocuments and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\ Temp\u2k5C 1. tmp 10/412005 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ~nalyst VG Intersection 3 f.gency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 312712005 Analysis Year future with project ~nalysis Time Period PM peak Project Description EastlWest Street: SE 132nd St North/South Street: 156th Ave. SE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs : 1.00 ~ehicle Volumes and Adiustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume 3 363 0 0 759 3 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 363 0 0 759 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 3 0 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service ~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR r.t (vph) 3 11 C (m) (vph) 859 336 r.t/c 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.10 Control Delay 9.2 16.1 LOS A C Approach Delay ---16.1 Approach LOS ---C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\ Temp\u2k5C l.tmp 10/412005 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 0[2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information !Analyst VG Intersection 3 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 312712005 [Analysis Year existing Analysis Time Period PM peak Project Description EastlWest Street: SE 133rd St INorth/South Street: 156th Ave. SE Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period (hrs): 1.00 [Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 3 340 0 0 715 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 340 0 0 715 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ~olume 0 0 0 3 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service r-pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR ~ (vph) 3 4 C (m) (vph) 889 278 vIc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 Control Delay 9. 1 18.1 LOS A C Approach Delay ----18.1 Approach LOS ---C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temp\u2k5Cl.tmp 10/4/2005 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information IAnalyst VG Intersection 3 IAgency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 312712005 lAna lysis Year future without project ~nalysis Time Period PM peak Project Description EastlWest Street: SE 133rd St North/South Street: 156th Ave. SE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrS): 1.00 ~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R r-,tolume 3 354 0 0 745 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 354 0 0 745 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ----0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 3 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 3 0 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length and Level of Service ~pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR IV (vph) 3 4 C (m) (vph) 867 262 IV/c 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.05 Control Delay 9.2 19.0 LOS A C ~pproach Delay ----19.0 ~pproach LOS ----C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:IIC:\Documents and Setlings\Owner\Local Setlings\Temp\u2k5C 1.tmp 10/4/2005 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 TWO-WA Y STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information IAnalyst VG Intersection 3 IAgency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 312712005 lAna lysis Year future with project ~nalysis Time Period PM peak Project Description EastlWest Street: SE 133rd St North/South Street: 156th Ave. SE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 !Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ~olume 3 354 0 0 745 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 3 354 0 0 745 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ---0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 12 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 12 0 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay Queue Lenath and Level of Service IApproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR ~ (vph) 3 13 C (m) (vph) 856 239 ~/c 0.00 0.05 95% queue length 0.01 0.17 Control Delay 9.2 20.9 LOS A C IApproach Delay ----20.9 lAPP roach LOS ----C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temp\u2k5Cl.tmp 10/4/2005 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 136th St & 156th Ave. SE t Existing PM peak 3/29/2005 Lane Configurations • • ""ft. +." Sign qc~lltrql . ,Stop> i"; ,§tQt):i).;~fref;.Fr~ Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% VO!lIrne{'l.~~(h). ,3 ,;!1j·,;;~4i:J.f.O,; •.. ~<) .0, .. .,)~tr!).;I'.;.;;~QA,;;~:::,;~;:~~.;;;9,.657 ·7 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ~~urtY'flqWt~~~;!~"~b~fir;; ··714." '.8 Pedestrians ban~~Wt~!tii;(i);j~{· Walking Speed (ft/s) P~rc~~!:~~~~lJ~'" . Right turn flare (veh) M~o,;tYp:& .;" ;I,/·:k;> ,; .. ~qfi!e:l~;':" Median storage veh) Upstream;iitAnali'ft\··::· :.' A ,>.., .. ,~.~c J,~~~~~~~",;\,.,!},'"~jJJe:<,:~····'\·' pX, platoon unblocked vC;CQ!Ilip~mg,\(olull1e; .'J~;{i)4($~' ;;~9t1~,:,s';;i1;lf"t~;~19ptl;, ;i;1;Q51'F;·;~lA~;;~lZ~~1:.·;ij~.;1'1\;;t~~)::~'~j!i~i~,;~;\;' vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2\~t~9~"J~9~fvor '~i~ ", ,;.~>;:;;~i~:;;§{t~il;~ ~l~,r··· vCu, unblocked vol 1040 1047 714 1050 1051 318 322 tCI~ingl~X§)~E: .. '7 ,1;;~{~;·}·ij;; p,g, ···jtBtt.,~'~:~,~:;·;~li'1~)~;2t~;'.·ii4X1J;;;11:·;' .. tC, 2 stage (s) tr; {W';~l:nI;!gr;::;;.· . ... ;;;;~:p;'. :4;,tt~;;,<;{:·~;3'.: ;;!,(~j~'i)ii4:P ,; ·;:·~;.;t:;}:·~;g " . 't~~?; ";;; pO queue free % 98 100 98 100 100 100 99 100 cfi:4~pa~i~We1j/~) ',~~,~; .• :tt~~7;i.,~~~»!t:];~!~~g~ ';):;:;·~i~~1;1l~~~:;ld~~~tli\~EE~~:li~ •• ti;;:f2.~~;:';;<; ;,; ... Volume Left VqlUrheRfghl cSH Volume to Capacity Queue Length (ft) Control DelpY(:s} Lane LOS A:' toaCh.0el ,~( ":1" IjJP .'" ..... ,,~'IIh §J Approach LOS 3050000 '.,' .. T;gf:F<' '0 :~. ';:7);r;~ .. ;':5~?;"';' 317 1700 880 1700 1700 1700 1700 O.03@~09 .. iO,Ol\Q.19;~:OO· (};:42, O;(}<f 2 0 0 000 0 ,16.7.. ;P;2;~~;i~ftjl~~·Jl;'~;:;t~~~f;;:.;:f.Q.O';"' ,O.Q ; :~.;p .. Q:~:' C A A .';{~.t; ;;;~:\;i~;~~:~;t;Q:~+;;(.:~H;:t??l).;Q :' C A Average Delay Int~rsebti()n;iQap~cityJ:lti~i?alji9Q ; 0.2 :~I'~i;j;t.iti·:IR;'tPO~~~~~ttpf;Servic~f;~;; .. ,,' ., TRANSPBELL-ST51 Synchro 5 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: SE 136th St & 156th Ave. SE Future Without Project PM Peak 3/29/2005 Lane Configurations Sign Qontrol' Grade \{olum${vehih)· ., ... Peak Hour Factor HoutIYllQ:ffafe~vehlh.) ' •. ~ y Pedestrians Lane~idt~'(ftr}\: . Walking Speed (ft/s) e~r~~rlt13lQ9l~~9~;o~;: ,:~"'~: ;):<;'f:~/ Right turn flare (veh) ~"":h/' ..~n.}f~ Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked t ~ <5tO:[>.··. 0% 0% .. ~r./ ,~/ .•. ;;\;J~·;·h;;:'ih·?9; \;l:,:.$: .' '!7.31Q 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 "6 0.92 t Free 0% j~ .. ,~8~ . 0.92 0.92 7 0.92 8 \t9.·cj~lic~i~g"Y~1i;ftr\~ij~.~J$·;{:lt~rE{1:·~741~~'fi1~!nttlA~~1;~! •• ii~.I:);~;~;f'g·~·:~Y~;·{:iltl:t;;;~~I~;;f~1~f;::;~;;.i, '. vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 sm';l'fv;1 .. ~ . . ... g~ .. Qon. ,J~ .. vCu, unblocked vol te, sif}Sle;~~)/;. tC, 2 stage (s) 343 ',4,~;O " tF, ~s) . 1;.,' . ...'.j'.' ;·::~::p.12: .•. ~~~L;:.;~l,3· :':;~A~0 .·H;i~1;Q.Y!'3.i~~~11r.~·i·~1~.1}~Li~ii. ~~;~~·~5.) \. pO queue free % 98 100 98 95 100 96 99 99 qN'f'~~Q1t:Y {yefitfil '.' .. ,,,,,, ... !,,,,,,.,. • ;\·jm&I'4~:f~~~~~fJ;~·:{iJ~;t,~t; ,;~~\tfl·~)~~i~It'.R~f;~~'~~·7;1J~\~i;i!i~i~\i~; {j'.;:0~~1~~t~sl::':· Volume Left 3 9 5 VO{uJYle~ight1:·· g~?O • <~;!<T<Q cSH 277 429 855 1700 1216 1700 1700 v:QJ4ro~1qG~paciW,~·O~Q4. :O .. O~ ..•• Q,9:1;.i;i···Q;2Q\,;,~j);~:Q~J .. };{.Q;~~~~;;~i~O'{t:M;:;~~r '\;;.;:;.'~. Queue Length (ft) 3 8 0 0 1 0 0 C6hffol~eta\l:;ls} :~,( ;.:~,;.;.·j\.;;4.j .. ·.6.· .• 5 . 'f~q.:;·;1;~·~;:f?'·;;;;;·Clfg~Q;~t;·~)f&l~;.~'h'~'?~\I;~1I;;~~)J.~::;jp?~.:~ ~-'P.:, ~~;".>",1,:,\,:<. .. "~",. c:~ Lane LOS C A Approaoft"(f)~Ia.V( $)' ;;i·'.tL;1t~i'i; ·;··14;a~:j;:'~~~.~;~· Approach LOS C B TRANSPBELL-ST51 Synchro 5 Report Page 1 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information IAnalyst VG Intersection IAgency/Co. !Jurisdiction Date Performed 211512005 IAnalysis Year Future With project ~nalysis Time Period PM Peak Project Description inc Evendale,Uberty Grove,Hiqhlands + bqround qrow EasUWest Street: SE 136th St North/South Street: 156th Ave SE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 1.00 ~ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lVolume 20 319 6 8 731 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 21 343 6 8 786 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 ---0 ---- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 Configuration L TR L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ~olume 8 0 29 3 0 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 31 3 0 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Delay Queue Length and Level of Service lAPP roach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L L TR L TR Iv (vph) 21 8 8 31 3 16 C (m) (vph) 837 1221 153 702 151 395 vIc 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.04 95% queue length 0.08 0.02 0.17 0.14 0.06 0.13 Control Delay 9.4 8.0 29.8 10.4 29.3 14.5 LOS A A D B D B f.pproach Delay ----14.4 16.8 ~pproach LOS ----B C > Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Local Settings\Temp\u2k5CB.tmp 10/4/2005 Core Design, 'nc. 14711 N.E.29thPlace,Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 9B007 425.885.7877 Fax425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com PRELIMINARY STORM DRAINAGE Prepared by: Project Manager: Date: Core No.: REPORT FOR HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Philip D. Sarandos, E.I.T. David E. Cayton, P.E. October 2005 01019 D€VELOPM efT'( of~~~~N/IVG OCT 10 20G5 RECEIVED [£l.:?:1\~:i6-12-09 ] lO~/O·oS ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING HIGHLANDS PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page 1. Project Overview ..................................................................... 3 2. Off-Site Analysis ...................................................................... 5 A. Upstream Tributary Area ................................................... 5 B. Downstream Analysis ........................................................ 5 3. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ................ 7 A. Hydraulic Analysis ........................................................... 7 B. Detention Routing Calculation ............................................ 11 C. Water Quality Volume Calculation ....................................... 18 D. Emergency Overflow Spillway Calculation ............................. 19 E. Pond Volume Summary ..................................................... 20 4. Appendix .............................................................................. 21 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW Highlands Park is located within SE 114., NW 1/4, Section 14, Township 23N, Range SE between lS2nd Avenue SE and lS6th Avenue SE at SE 2nd Street in Renton, Washington (see the vicinity map on the following page). The 17.94 acre site is currently occupied by one single- family residence and associated outbuildings. A portion of the site is pasture and impervious with the remainder as young second growth forest. The developer proposes to construct 73 single family residences with associated roadway and utilities (see the included site plan in the plan folder). An internal road through the site will connect with lS2nd Avenue SE and stub to an adjacent development to the north. The on-site generated runoff will be directed to a detention/water quality pond located in the southwest comer of the site. From the detention/water quality pond, runoff will discharge into an existing storm drainage system that runs along lS2nd Avenue SE which was constructed as part of the Maplewood development adjacent and west of the subject site. The detention, water quality and storm conveyance system for this project were designed under the 200S King County Surface Water Design Manual Standard. '" , 4 3 2 10 11 RENTON NE 4TH 5T GREENWOOD CEMETERY UJ <I) 1.0 15 ~ « 14 I I-~ !f\ VICINITY MAF (" = 3000':t 2. OFFSITE ANALYSIS A. Upstream Tributary Area Approximately 3.06 acres of area drains onto the site via sheet flow. The tributary area includes the rear yards of residential properties to the north, half of the I 56th Avenue SE road drainage to the east, three lots adjacent to the project and west of 156th Ave. SE. and a portion ofthe proposed intersection at I 52nd Ave. SE. (see Upstream Tributary Area and Downstream Drainage Route exhibit in the plan folder). B. Downstream Analysis The downstream analysis was performed on September 20, 2005. The weather was partly cloudy with a temperature of 68° F. See the included Upstream Tributary Area and Downstream Drainage Route exhibit. The site runoff flows in a southwesterly direction across the site and then south as it approaches 152nd Avenue SE. Drainage continues to sheet flow across the properties to the south for approximately 150 ft. and enters a ditch that is located on the north side of SE 136th Street (I). The ditch flow travels west where it enters a 12" culvert (2). The culvert runs west for approximately 30 ft. until entering a type II catch basin at the intersection of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 136th Street where it then joins with a 24" storm pipe from the north (3). The runoff then continues south in a 24" storm pipe for approximately 50 ft. where it discharges into a swale within the 152nd Avenue SE right of way (4). The flow then heads in a southwesterly direction through Maplewood Neighborhood Park. On the day of the field investigation, the flow dissipated into a ponding area, approximately 15 ft. across and I ft. deep, where it appeared to enter groundwater, approximately 100 ft. southwest of where the 24" storm drain discharges into the swale (5). However, there is a shallow swale southwest of the ponding area that appears to convey flow through the park that does not infiltrate into the ponding area. The swale continues in a southwesterly direction through Maplewood Neighborhood Park for approximately 1100 ft., passing the Y4 mile threshold, where it is enters a 30" culvert located north ofthe north end of 14Sth Place SE (6). The culvert runs south for approximately 50 ft. where it enters a type II catch basin approximately 10 f1. north ofthe end of 14Sth Place SE (7). The flow continues south in a 30" storm drain for approximately ISO f1. where it enters a storm manhole at the intersection of 14Sth PI. SE and SE 13Sth PI (8). The flow continues southerly in a 30" storm drain for approximately 260 ft. until it enters a type II catch basin where it collects additional drainage from 14Sth PI. SE (9). The flow continues southwesterly in a 30" storm drain for approximately SO ft. until it enters a type II catch basin where it collects additional drainage from 148th PI. SE (10). The flow continues southwesterly in a 30" storm drain for approximately 100 ft. until it enters a type II catch basin where it collects additional drainage from 149th PI. SE (11). The flow then heads west in a 30" storm drain for approximately 15 f1. where it enters a storm manhole inside a storm detention tract (12). The flow continues west in a 30" storm drain for approximately 30 f1. where it discharges into the Briar Hill detention pond (13). There were no visible signs of downstream flooding or erosion. This ends the field investigation. 3. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Hydraulic Analysis The drainage analysis was modeled using the King County Runoff Time Series software, as required by City of Renton code. The soils are Alderwood (AgC), KCRTS group Till. See the included King County Soils Map. The site is located in the Sea-Tac rainfall region with a location scale factor of 1.0. A total area of approximately 21.0 acres is tributary to the proposed detention facility. This area will be routed through the detention system. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS This property is 17.94 acres. The site is currently occupied by one single-family residence and associated outbuildings. A portion of the site is pasture and impervious with the remainder as young second growth forest. However, the existing site will be treated entirely as forest in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (Section 1, Page 1-3, 'Historic Conditions'). Frontage improvements along 156th Avenue SE will be constructed as part of this project. The existing conditions area will therefore extend along 156th Avenue SE along the east property boundary from the existing edge of asphalt to the east property line. This area within 156th Avenue SE is 0.42 acres. Sidewalk and intersection improvements along 152nd Avenue NE will also be constructed as part of this project. The existing conditions area will include a portion of that area, 0.02 acres, within 152nd Avenue NE that will be tributary to the proposed conveyance system and directed to the proposed water quality/detention pond. An insignificant area, 0.03 acres, of proposed sidewalk and proposed pavement within the 152nd Avenue NE right-of-way will bypass the proposed water quality/detention pond. This bypass area will be ignored since the 100-year peak flows will generate less than 0.1 CFS increase in existing site conditions for that area. The following information was used for generating time series and flow frequencies. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Total Area = 17.94 acres GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Forest 17.94 7 OFFSITE TRIBUTARY AREA Approximately 3.06 acres of additional area drains onto the site via sheet flow. This tributary area includes the rear yards of residential properties to the north, half of the 156th Avenue SE road drainage to the east, three lots adjacent to the project and west of 156th Ave. SE. and a portion of the proposed intersection at 152nd Ave. SE. The residential properties are assumed not to be connected to a storm drainage system since no established storm drainage system is within the vicinity of the existing houses. The impervious area associated with the residences will therefore be considered completely pervious. The asphalt area associated with 156th Avenue SE will be considered completely impervious even though it does not discharge directly to an established storm drainage system. Upon development of the properties north of the subject site and development of the subject site, the asphalt area will be directly connected to the proposed storm drainage system and will function therefore as effective impervious area. Approximately 22 feet of asphalt extending from the south property extension of the subject site and north to the first catch basin constructed as part of the Willowbrook Estates along 156th Avenue SE drains onto the site. The asphalt area along 156th Avenue SE is approximately 0.42 acre. The pervious area associated with the residences will be considered to be till-grass. UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY AREA Total Area = 3.06 acres GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass 2.18 Impervious 0.88 DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS The developed site will consist of 73 single family residences with associated roadway and utilities. The maximum impervious area per lot was calculated using the criteria in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual page 3-27 and K.C.C.21A.12.030. The proposed development is urban residential. The site is R-5 zoning. In K.C.C.21A.12.030, there is no listing for R-5 zoning. The maximum impervious area per lot therefore is assumed to range from R-4 zoning of 55% to R-6 zoning of70%. The average lot size as stated in the preliminary plat is 8,318 square feet. The average maximum impervious area per lot would therefore range from R-4 zoning with 4,575 square feet of impervious area per lot to R-6 zoning with 5,823 square feet of impervious area per lot. Per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual page 3-27, the maximum impervious area per lot would either be 4,000 square or the maximum impervious area as stated in K.C.C.21A.12.030, whichever is less. The impervious area per lot will therefore, be equal to 4,000 square feet since it is less than the other impervious areas as stated in K.C.C.21A.12.030. The half-street improvements along 156th Avenue SE will consist of 22' of pavement along with a 0.5' curb and 6' wide sidewalk. Since there is currently 22' of pavement within the road, construction will only consist of installation of a curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Improvements along 152nd Avenue NE will consist of sidewalk and intersection improvements. IMPERVIOUS AREA DELINEATION Total Area = 11.48 acres Onsite road and sidewalk/access easement 2.88 acres Lots (4,000 square feet * 73) 6.70 acres Pond surface, berm & access road 1.02 acres Offsite curb, gutter, & sidewalk along 156th 0.42 acre Offsite improvements along 152M 0.02 acre Offsite existing structures/pavement 0.44 acres () The inputs used for the KCRTS analysis, as well as the resulting peaks flows are summarized in the following tables: EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Total Area = 21.00 acres GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Forest 18.05 Till-Grass (Landscaping) 2.18 Impervious 0.77 Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 1.43 2 2/09/01 18:00 2.11 1 100.00 0.990 0.558 7 1/05/02 16:00 1.43 2 25.00 0.960 1.26 3 2/28/03 3:00 1.26 3 10.00 0.900 0.234 8 8/26/04 2:00 1.20 4 5.00 0.800 0.729 6 1/05/05 8:00 1.09 5 3.00 0.667 1.20 4 1118/0616:00 0.729 6 2.00 0.500 1.09 5 11124/06 4:00 0.558 7 1.30 0.231 2.11 1 1109/08 6:00 0.234 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.89 50.00 0.980 DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS Total Area = 21.00 acre GROUND COVER AREA(acre) Till-Grass (Landscaping) 9.52 Impervious 1l.48 Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location: Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 3.63 6 2/09/01 2:00 7.44 1 100.00 0.990 2.89 8 1105/02 16:00 4.41 2 25.00 0.960 4.39 3 2/27/03 7:00 4.39 3 10.00 0.900 3.04 7 8/26/04 2:00 3.85 4 5.00 0.800 3.68 5 10/28/04 16:00 3.68 5 3.00 0.667 3.85 4 1118/0616:00 3.63 6 2.00 0.500 4.41 2 10/26/06 0:00 3.04 7 1.30 0.231 7.44 1 1109/08 6:00 2.89 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 6.43 50.00 0.980 10 B. Detention Routing Calculations The detention portion of this design is based on the King County 'Conservation Flow Control' standard. The detention/water quality facility will be a combination water quality and detention pond. The pond will be designed according to the 2005 KCSWDM, which requires matching the pre-developed site for frequency and duration from Y2 the 2-year up to the 50 year event while maintaining the 'Basic Flow Control' standard for matching the release rates for the pre- developed 2 and 10 year events The pond will receive runoff from the upstream tributary area as well as runoff from onsite. The upstream tributary area will be routed through the onsite storm drainage system to the pond. The calculations have detennined that a 218,260 CF pond is required and will provide enough live storage (detention) to satisfy this detention standard. J I Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 3.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 190.00 ft Pond Bottom Width: 75.00 ft Pond Bottom Area: 14250. sq. ft Top Area at 1 ft. FB: 33750. sq. ft 0.775 acres Effective Storage Depth: 9.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 411.00 ft Storage Volume: 201393. cu. ft 4.623 ac-ft Riser Head: 9.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 2.25 0.412 2 5.70 3.50 0.603 6.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation Surf Area (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) 0.00 411.00 O. 0.000 0.000 0.00 14250. 0.02 411.02 285. 0.007 0.021 0.00 14282. 0.05 411.05 715. 0.016 0.030 0.00 14330. 0.07 411.07 1001. 0.023 0.036 0.00 14361. 0.09 411.09 1289. 0.030 0.042 0.00 14393. 0.12 411.12 1722. 0.040 0.047 0.00 14441. 0.14 411.14 2011. 0.046 0.051 0.00 14473. 0.16 411.16 2300. 0.053 0.056 0.00 14505. 0.19 411.19 2736. 0.063 0.059 0.00 14553. 0.34 411.34 4937. 0.113 0.080 0.00 14795. 0.49 411.49 7175. 0.165 0.096 0.00 15038. 0.65 411.65 9602. 0.220 0.110 0.00 15299. 0.80 411.80 11915. 0.274 0.123 0.00 15545. 0.95 411.95 14265. 0.327 0.134 0.00 15793. 1.10 412.10 16653. 0.382 0.144 0.00 16043. 1. 26 412.26 19241. 0.442 0.154 0.00 16311. 1.41 412.41 21707. 0.498 0.163 0.00 16563. 1. 56 412.56 24210. 0.556 0.172 0.00 16818. 1. 71 412.71 26752. 0.614 0.180 0.00 17074. 1. 87 412.87 29506. 0.677 0.188 0.00 17349. 2.02 413 .02 32128. 0.738 0.195 0.00 17609. 2.17 413.17 34789. 0.799 0.202 0.00 17870. 2.32 413.32 37489. 0.861 0.209 0.00 18133. 2.48 413.48 40413. 0.928 0.216 0.00 18415. 2.63 413.63 43195. 0.992 0.223 0.00 18681. 2.78 413.78 46017. 1.056 0.229 0.00 18948. 2.93 413 .93 48879. 1.122 0.235 0.00 19218. 3.09 414.09 51977. 1.193 0.241 0.00 19507. 3.24 414.24 54924. 1.261 0.247 0.00 19780. 3.39 414.39 57911. 1.329 0.253 0.00 20054. 3.54 414.54 60940. 1.399 0.258 0.00 20330. 3.70 414.70 64216. 1.474 0.264 0.00 20626. 3.85 414 . 85 67331. 1.546 0.269 0.00 20905. 12 4.00 4.15 4.31 4.46 4.61 4.76 4.92 5.07 5.22 5.37 5.53 5.68 5.70 5.74 5.77 5.81 5.85 5.88 5.92 5.96 5.99 6.14 6.30 6.45 6.60 6.75 6.91 7.06 7.21 7.36 7.52 7.67 7.82 7.97 8.13 8.28 8.43 8.58 8.74 8.89 9.00 9.10 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 9.60 9.70 9.80 9.90 10.00 10.10 10.20 10.30 10.40 10.50 10.60 10.70 10.80 10.90 415.00 415.15 415.31 415.46 415.61 415.76 415.92 416.07 416.22 416.37 416.53 416.68 416.70 416.74 416.77 416.81 416.85 416.88 416.92 416.96 416.99 417.14 417.30 417.45 417.60 417.75 417.91 418.06 418.21 418.36 418.52 418.67 418.82 418.97 419.13 419.28 419.43 419.58 419.74 419.89 420.00 420.10 420.20 420.30 420.40 420.50 420.60 420.70 420.80 420.90 421.00 421.10 421.20 421.30 421.40 421.50 421.60 421.70 421.80 421.90 70488. 73687. 77146. 80433. 83764. 87137. 90783. 94247. 97754. 101306. 105144. 108788. 109277. 110258. 110996 . 111982. 112972. 113716. 114712. 115710. 116461. 120244. 124329. 128207. 132130. 136100. 140387. 144453. 148568. 152729. 157221. 161481. 165790. 170147. 174848. 179306. 183813. 188370. 193285. 197944. 201393. 204552. 207733. 210937. 214163. 217412. 220684. 223979. 227296. 230637. 234000. 237387. 240796 . 244229. 247686. 251165. 254668. 258195. 261745. 265319. 1.618 0.275 1.692 0.280 1.7710.285 1.846 0.290 1.923 0.295 2.000 0.300 2.084 0.304 2.164 0.309 2.244 0.314 2.326 0.318 2.414 0.323 2.497 0.327 2.509 0.328 2.531 0.332 2.548 0.342 2.571 0.359 2.593 0.380 2.611 0.408 2.633 0.438 2.656 0.503 2.674 0.516 2.760 0.562 2.854 0.601 2.943 0.636 3.033 0.668 3.124 0.698 3.223 0.726 3.316 0.752 3.411 0.777 3.506 0.801 3.609 0.824 3.707 0.847 3.806 0.868 3.906 0.889 4.014 0.909 4.116 0.929 4.220 0.948 4.324 0.967 4.437 0.985 4.544 1.000 4.623 1.020 4.696 1.330 4.769 1.910 4.842 2.650 4.917 3.450 4.991 3.750 5.066 4.010 5.142 4.260 5.218 4.490 5.295 4.700 5.372 4.910 5.450 5.100 5.528 5.290 5.607 5.470 5.686 5.640 5.766 5.800 5.846 5.970 5.927 6.120 6.009 6.280 6.091 6.420 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21186. 21469. 21772. 22057. 22345. 22634. 22944. 23237. 23531. 23826. 24144. 24443. 24483. 24563. 24623. 24703. 24784. 24844. 24924. 25005. 25066. 25370. 25696. 26003. 26312. 26623. 26956. 27270. 27585. 27903. 28243. 28563. 28885. 29209. 29556. 29883. 30212. 30542. 30897. 31230. 31476. 31700. 31925. 32151. 32377. 32604. 32832. 33060. 33289. 33519. 33750. 33981. 34213. 34446. 34680. 34914. 35149. 35385. 35621. 35858. I Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 7.44 ******* 3.82 9.53 420.53 2 3.63 ******* 1. 50 9.13 420.13 3 3.64 1. 26 0.91 8.15 419.15 4 4.39 ******* 0.84 7.61 418.61 5 3.85 ******* 0.78 7.25 418.25 6 2.26 0.73 0.52 6.01 417.01 7 2.89 ******* 0.32 5.33 416.33 8 3.04 ******* 0.27 3.99 414.99 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 7.44 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 3.82 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 9.53 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 420.53 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 218260. Cu-Ft 5.011 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Ac-Ft 218260. 5.011 205473. 4.717 175513. 4.029 159660. 3.665 149739. 3.438 117023. 2.686 100462. 2.306 70369. 1. 615 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 10:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 1. 50 2 2/09/01 20:00 3.81 9.52 1 100.00 0.990 0.317 7 12/29/01 10:00 1. 50 9.13 2 25.00 0.960 0.837 4 3/06/03 22:00 0.912 8.15 3 10.00 0.900 0.275 8 8/26/04 7:00 0.837 7.61 4 5.00 0.800 0.523 6 1/05/05 16:00 0.784 7.25 5 3.00 0.667 0.784 5 1/19/06 0:00 0.523 6.01 6 2.00 0.500 0.912 3 11/24/06 8:00 0.317 5.33 7 1. 30 0.231 3.81 1 1/09/08 10:00 0.275 3.99 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 3.04 9.35 50.00 0.980 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence _Probability CFS % % % 0.021 36355 59.287 59.287 40.713 0.407E+00 0.063 5645 9.206 68.493 31. 507 0.315E+00 0.105 5178 8.444 76.937 23.063 0.231E+00 0.147 4343 7.083 84.020 15.980 0.160E+00 0.189 3730 6.083 90.103 9.897 0.990E-01 0.231 2412 3.933 94.036 5.964 0.596E-01 0.273 1643 2.679 96.716 3.284 0.328E-01 0.315 1130 1.843 98.558 1.442 0.144E-01 0.356 438 0.714 99.273 0.727 0.727E-02 0.398 61 0.099 99.372 0.628 0.628E-02 0.440 45 0.073 99.446 0.554 0.554E-02 0.482 12 0.020 99.465 0.535 0.535E-02 0.524 33 0.054 99.519 0.481 0.481E-02 0.566 36 0.059 99.578 0.422 0.422E-02 0.608 35 0.057 99.635 0.365 0.365E-02 0.650 25 0.041 99.675 0.325 0.325E-02 0.692 24 0.039 99.715 0.285 0.285E-02 14 0.733 26 0.042 99.757 0.243 0.243E-02 0.775 41 0.067 99.824 0.176 0.176E-02 0.817 30 0.049 99.873 0.127 0.127E-02 0.859 21 0.034 99.907 0.093 0.930E-03 0.901 16 0.026 99.933 0.067 0.669E-03 0.943 15 0.024 99.958 0.042 0.424E-03 0.985 13 0.021 99.979 0.021 0.212E-03 1. 03 8 0.013 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 1. 07 0 0.000 99.992 0.008 0.815E-04 1.11 1 0.002 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 1.15 0 0.000 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 1.19 0 0.000 99.993 0.007 0.652E-04 1.24 1 0.002 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 1.28 0 0.000 99.995 0.005 0.489E-04 1. 32 1 0.002 99.997 0.003 0.326E-04 1.36 1 0.002 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.40 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.45 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 1.49 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: predev.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time--------------Check of Cutoff Base New %Change probability Base 0.360 0.75E-02 0.71E-02 -5.0 0.75E-02 0.360 0.443 0.56E-02 0.55E-02 -0.9 0.56E-02 0.443 0.525 0.42E-02 0.48E-02 13.1 0.42E-02 0.525 0.608 0.32E-02 0.37E-02 14.9 0.32E-02 0.608 0.690 0.24E-02 0.29E-02 19.7 0.24E-02 0.690 0.772 0.18E-02 0.18E-02 2.8 0.18E-02 0.772 0.855 0.12E-02 0.95E-03 -21.6 0.12E-02 0.855 0.937 0.86E-03 0.44E-03 -49.1 0.86E-03 0.937 1. 02 0.64E-03 0.82E-04 -87.2 0.64E-03 1. 02 1.10 0.39E-03 0.65E-04 -83.3 0.39E-03 1.10 1.18 0.21E-03 0.65E-04 -69.2 0.21E-03 1. 18 1. 27 0.l1E-03 0.49E-04 -57.1 0.llE-03 1. 27 1. 35 0.65E-04 0.16E-04 -75.0 0.65E-04 1. 35 Maximum positive excursion = 0.059 cfs 9.6%) ,f occuring at 0.615 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 0.675 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Maximum negative excursion = 0.301 cfs (-22.9%) occuring at 1.32 cfs on the Base Data:predev.tsf and at 1.01 cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 7.44 Peak Outflow Discharge: 3.82 Peak Reservoir Stage: 9.53 Peak Reservoir Elev: 420.53 Peak Reservoir Storage: 218260. CFS at 6:00 CFS at 10:00 Ft Ft Cu-Ft 15 on Jan on Jan Tolerance------- New %Change 0.351 -2.6 ,f 0.433 -2.3 0.566 7.8 0.656 7.9 0.736 6.7 0.775 0.3 0.821 -3.9 0.870 -7.1 0.907 -11.0 0.946 -14.1 0.984 -17.0 1. 01 -20.4 1. 21 -10.1 9 in Year 8 9 in Year 8 5.011 Ac-Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 1. 50 0.317 0.837 0.275 0.523 0.784 0.912 2 2/09/01 20:00 7 12/29/01 10:00 4 3/06/03 22:00 8 8/26/04 7:00 6 1/05/05 16:00 5 1/19/06 0:00 3 11/24/06 8:00 1 1/09/08 10:00 3.81 9.52 1 100.00 0.990 3.81 computed Peaks 1. 50 0.912 0.837 0.784 0.523 0.317 0.275 3.04 9.13 8.15 7.61 7.25 6.01 5.33 3.99 9.35 Flow Duration from Time Series File:rdout.tsf 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 25.00 10.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 1. 30 1.10 50.00 Cutoff Count Frequency CDF Exceedence Probability CFS % % % 0.021 0.063 0.105 0.147 0.189 0.231 0.273 0.315 0.356 0.398 0.440 0.482 0.524 0.566 0.608 0.650 0.692 0.733 0.775 0.817 0.859 0.901 0.943 0.985 1. 03 1. 07 1.11 1.15 1.19 1.24 1. 28 1. 32 1. 36 1. 40 36355 5645 5178 4343 3730 2412 1643 1130 438 61 45 12 33 36 35 25 24 26 41 30 21 16 15 13 8 o 1 o o 1 o 1 1 o 59.287 9.206 8.444 7.083 6.083 3.933 2.679 1. 843 0.714 0.099 0.073 0.020 0.054 0.059 0.057 0.041 0.039 0.042 0.067 0.049 0.034 0.026 0.024 0.021 0.013 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 59.287 68.493 76.937 84.020 90.103 94.036 96.716 98.558 99.273 99.372 99.446 99.465 99.519 99.578 99.635 99.675 99.715 99.757 99.824 99.873 99.907 99.933 99.958 99.979 99.992 99.992 99.993 99.993 99.993 99.995 99.995 99.997 99.998 99.998 1.45 0 0.000 99.998 1.49 0 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.163E-04 40.713 31.507 23.063 15.980 9.897 5.964 3.284 1. 442 0.727 0.628 0.554 0.535 0.481 0.422 0.365 0.325 0.285 0.243 0.176 0.127 0.093 0.067 0.042 0.021 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 16 0.407E+00 0.315E+00 0.231E+00 0.160E+00 0.990E-01 0.596E-01 0.328E-01 0.144E-01 0.727E-02 0.628E-02 0.554E-02 0.535E-02 0.481E-02 0.422E-02 0.365E-02 0.325E-02 0.285E-02 0.243E-02 0.176E-02 0.127E-02 0.930E-03 0.669E-03 0.424E-03 0.212E-03 0.815E-04 0.815E-04 0.652E-04 0.6S2E-04 0.6S2E-04 0.489E-04 0.489E-04 0.326E-04 0.163E-04 0.163E-04 0.163E-04 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 Comparing 10-year and 2-year peak flows for 'Basic Flow Control' compliance, the 10-year and 2-year peak flows from the pond discharge are less than or equal to the pre-developed peak flows for those return periods. Flow Frequency Analysis-Predeveloped Discharge Time Series File:predev.tsf Project Location: Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) 1.43 2 2109/01 18:00 2.11 0.558 7 1105/02 16:00 1.43 1.26 3 2/28/03 3 :00 1.26 0.234 8 8126/04 2:00 1.20 0.729 6 1105/05 8:00 1.09 1.20 4 1118/06 16:00 0.729 1.09 5 11124/06 4:00 0.558 2.11 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.234 Computed Peaks 1.89 Flow Frequency Analysis-Pond Discharge Time Series File:rdouttsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0:800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- - -Peaks - -Rank Return Prob (CFS) 1.50 0.317 0.837 0.275 0.523 0.784 0.912 3.81 2 2/09/01 20:00 7 12/29/01 10:00 4 3/06103 22:00 8 8126/04 7:00 6 1105105 16:00 5 1/19/06 0:00 3 11124/06 8: 00 1 1/09/08 10:00 Computed Peaks 10 year peak flows Predeveloped Discharge -1.260 CFS Pond Discharge -0.912 CFS 2 year peak flows Predeveloped Discharge -0.729 CFS Pond Discharge -0.523 CFS (CFS) (ft) 3.81 9.52 1.50 9.13 0.912 8.15 0.837 7.61 0.784 7.25 0.523 6.01 0.317 5.33 0.275 3.99 3.04 9.35 17 Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 C. Water Quality Volume Calculation The water quality calculated using the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), 2005 Edition, section 6.4.1 standard. This site falls within the 'Basic Water Quality Menu'. Vb = f"(0.9Ai + 0.25Atg + O.lOAtf+ 0.IOAo)*(RlI2) Where, Thus, Vb =wetpool volume (d) f = volume factor Ai = area of impervious surface (sf) Atg = area of till soil covered with grass (sf) Atf = area of till soil covered with forest (sf) Ao = area of outwash soil covered with grass or forest R = rainfall from mean annual storm (inches) (Refer to the attached precipitation graph) Vb = 3[(0.9(11.48 AC) + 0.25(9.52 AC))(0.039 FT)](43,560CFIAC) Vb = 64,787 CF required As designed, the proposed dead storage is 7ft deep and will provide 65,276 CF of water quality volume as well as 1 ft of sediment storage. Ii' D. Emergency Overflow Spillway Calculation The width and depth of the emergency overflow spillway was designed based on the 2005 KCSWDM, Section 5.3.1.2. Where, Therefore, L = [Q100 / (3.21H3/2)] -2.4H or 6 feet minimum Q100 = peak flow for the unmitigated 100-year runoff event (7.44cfs) H = height of water over weir (O.3ft) L = [7.44/(3.21 *0.33/2)] -2.4* 0.3 = 13.38 ft L = 14.0 ft 19 E. Pond Volume Summary The required and provided volumes for live storage and water quality for the detention facility are as follows: Volume Required (CF) Volume Provided (CF) Live Storage 218,260 223,920 Water Quality 64,787 65,276 20 !' -~-. .. i" ! :~1 ....:~ : . ~-:",' '" ~.-, 14 '-~-=:::: .. ~~ " -,:,,-.~~~--' .-....." I j i ,J '\~ ~-~ :,;,~ 11 I I 16 1. _,~ i 16 'I"~ 13 ',! .~, " ',' ': 'lit: ;" Q Ii"',.' . 12 ~ ---"----.. -- 11 : i 'I I I. '0' .... "'~'~"I~ ',,-X''; '>'~ "L'-'-'-'" -'-'~' II . ""7" ' .. ,'---:--'-:'::-:-::"-~ ~--~~-----'--,------'---..: , ----«,--1.... '. TRACT 9S9 \.._-----~' ~,-~, ----'- -"--, ~~ =:l--'--_--.--~~ "j T C C 9- ,,' 1 IJ'" '. 1,-,'::---:;;...",,~,.:;-:--,~ .• "';"",--,-"""",,, ~ ':"""_ '.;i""'~'--, ,,-,' __ ,~ ... ____ -::.:...L..l. ,""'--~~E~y~~~.-""'.-""'~"""""5i"'-"'o~ .. ,~,-,--~~ / r ;I~ --.. :i~=,,~~~, '" '0::=, -'''-<<>,_<:" '~"-:'~....:::.::.~~'=_;;":::=.~, • L ,"'''' -----:::;:,"'~,'_2::~-~_.:.,,~--'-,.-=,,\..'-, .. ::::::~i: '" '-, ! ,f;· .. ----~I --'---.,) ·--,-""l~"-~\. ",,,,",:"_,, __ ........... ,',.j,._ . ' , I', II ~?~ 2 3 ~~r~; I' n " ,,' :,1, 4 'I : ~ .. ~ ,,6 ! \ '--------------,-'-- s ~ ---'-'-----=....:.......:.-~ ,==,;::---' I-~\ (! -, I 1,:t::::::::-4 """', .:~~ . ~ ~'" -..;.,.-- ':''"-7---._'-:-_."'~\ , " \ 39 19 20, i I , I P'ARCEjL:i B . ~! " I N88'Q4'<Q"W i~:~~~iJ I, i :1 I "'(-) ~ .. ~~:~.,~~~ '(. 3~ :J, I I,'" I' • , N ,~ 1 I • 40 ." t- I :::." " ill . . '~~~-:;-",,-~~, -ill ' --~~,-.--. '''''-' II -:-"----=---=-,--, .. :~;:,,~ .:::=-~""'=~-Q) .. '" "-" , ·w . I~ 41 i ' ',-- " r 42 =--=--:':'./ I, '\ 41> I ~F'I'1.DP05ED 8" DJ, WATEI'! MAIN (TYP) DATUM CITY Cf' 1<ENT0N -NAYD ~ BASIS OF BeARINGS NOO"2'3'l!''j: 5I:TU.eEN FOUND MONl.MENTS Al-ONG TIoi: ~INI: Cf' 1S.ll-! AVE S.E-AT TI-IE INTERSECTIONS WIll-! S.E. 128TH ST, AND S.E. 13t>ll-! ST. AS CAl-CULATED FROM CITY Cf' 1<ENT0N CON1l'<OL. POINT NOS, 1851 AND tee2, FOUND IN PLACE AND DE5Cl'!leEO eELOW FER CITY OF 1<ENT0N I-IOF!IZONTAI-~L NE'11IIOI'K PUeLI5HED NOV. la, I!IM. BeNCI-4MARK.S: FE!'! CITY Cf' ~TON 5Ul'!YET ON NAYD 1'388 DA'IU'1 NO. 1852 -3' FLAT 6I'1A5ei ~ACE DISC AT TI-IE CON5Tl'<UCiED INTEI'!5ECTION Cf' N.E-4ll-! ST. rs.E. 128TH5T.J AND 14all-! AVE S.E. EL 4a4.i1 (138.614 t'ETE1'!5) NO. 2103 -eROI<EN eI'tA5f> ~ACE DISC IN TI-IE INTEI'!5ECTION Cf' 5.E. 128ll-!5T. AND I%ll-! AVE S.E .EL &41.'34 (1.1.013 t'ETEI'!5) R/W 42' R/W .". I 5.0' 16' , 16' 5.0' I ~"~t,,, 2f ,-1_ .. "14,,, r~ • THICK CEMENT CEMENT CONCRETE: CONCRETE: SIDEWALK ~71CAL CURB de GUT7Ff/ SECTIONA-A ON-SITE 42' R/W SECTION f. NO SCALE 20' ESMT. 18' PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD I 1 ~ 1,5' :C:ENED c·g·; '56-+< .g,ifg *f'-"¥§'~ SECTlONC-C PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD NO SCALE t..j Vi ~ "" ~ Q:: i ~. a' ,,~, ~ 13 ~' la' WIDE, ",' f -A' ' , ," '" ; , STOR'1 '\ /. \' .,/ \' '---......., --,-:-rl -------~!;:':_f=..===:.::::::::,...-dill~'~ ,.. \ ----\: ""\.: '-~~~~TYP) -~2~ ___ !" I '--PROPOSED 12" CFEP ::c----.::...--=:=:.. , '(: 12 11 10 ,I STOR1 DRAIN (TYP) '" , /~! 69 68 i , .!:!!: ... _:: 61 '~ 66 COI+IECT TO EXIST. STO!<M DRAIN :; ! I,' \ ~ .. ", (~ I ' , I -":k~~~~-,r;,~~~i~~c"~m~~~-"1~~ --JJ I· 'i \ li~ I ~, \ '!! I. ~ 1·· , ." ,,T-', ~T' 41/ T . f' ',' ,50,' ---'. '.," "'I ~_ •• r~ '-~i ...... _--_.... -"'. DETENTIONAlET FOND eEl'iM • 421 MAX WA TEl'! 8UlOFACE • 420 eoTTOM LIVE 5T~ • 411 BOTTOM POND • 404 DETENTION I'<EQUII'£D • 218.62 CF DETENTION FI'!OVlDED • 223,'32 CF WATEI'! QUALITY I'<EQUII'<ED • 64,181 CF WATEI'! QUALITY I"AOVlDED • 6a,2~ Cf' I I "~2NDir.-:'~~~' ~----......-",,;~......:,..-.~-~~:..:~~::-_ -'~-'-.---=----'~ N' 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' 20.f.() 80 I I ! :1 i _ ! : i i ; '-t! ; i C) .., Z §~§ >- '" ! : ~ >-... Jt] ::l '" ~~~ C) !I! • ~i~ 2: 2: -.. ... 2: « ... ... ~~I ~~ ~ "-~ ~ .... ~ .... fI' .-;: ~~ §~~ :::i .... r:t~~ ~ '" .-;: ~ ~ ~~, ~<.j~ ~Q S'~ c:s O~~ ~~ ~'«~ ~ c;. ~~!<1 ~ :q~~ ).. !o&J ~ L.., Q:: .-;: ~ ~ ~ :t ~~Qj ~~~ ~ ..... to C(:t ~ 1:>' .~ ~ ~ Cli "', fl;' f:.l <.j '->' "" "-': I.:JI ~ ::::i ~ Q t; . !-s Q, ~' ~ '-> t;j:: ~ '->, ~', I' 1. 2 I,;.:li"[ 01.01.9 SE '4. SEC. 14. TWP. 23 N .. RGE. 5 E.. W.M. I, N88'04'",,"W I~~,' .i..~--";-=--=-__ :=:;~=.'~~-=:=::::::_+;:~':::' __ ::--~~~:::'::::-,>-_q_ =-"-'-~ ... -___ ::."'---" .' ---...'1' ---:--.:; ~-::----,,'" ---_____ '"7"--_____ -.. -___ , __ " ." I !, I""' '" I I " , • bi t· '21 22 23 24" ' , 2,5. ·r: . 26 PARbEL A . -! I l :, - i! ':-·"c.:--"~"-C"-l I r 21 26 + ~ i i.! I u , !I~ '29 lil~ .,", ,1,1,. , .. N88"03'2Q·W I I : , I' " " .. ~--,~-~:=~~.-L~ '---.- .. '"'----...-".-~-----... ........ )! t''''-~~~~~~ 'l I I· , --~:'-~.~.:.~. ~:::;;--~ !', I 36 ;, 35 , 34 ' 33, :f' I I Ii.: 'I 32 36 31 '~I" '0: f , ' ' :" ' .' .. ' ' . I, • I 30 \ __ "":''<:~_i:::r... y~-',' ; T1"!ACT 9~.1. -~"-'--:~~ ~ 7Naa~ l~OO ~e"ciJ. W4~MAIN (TYF) FROFoeED 8" I'"YC 6.ANIT AIIl'l" eEu.E1't (TYF) l:!-' ':;'" '", I II , I" " I' II. , .. ' ", -" 'I ~I~" C~1~~4~~~;~L'::-El~~":+ ~C~')"="2=c~i~1·"· Cg"~ffl;";' ,I ill, I", , I 5 ill 'I, I 31 0>1 ' .43 44 I 45 4h 41 4e I I:i I ",," 0'" ':':I ~,' ' '" \ 0::::55 ,<, \. 'I ',\ I~ --' -. g) '--_.:.--r: r--~-::;:::::::--\: \: ' 1 I I·· i 65 64 63 61 62 60 -, -=+=:-:z::;;:=':::::--'>..., --,-...,.:-.. ~ , --', '>....." / \. I ' , L . 59 56 ,I 51 12' RIGI-IT OF WAY DEDICATION " 53 ~''-=-:~"-:--~ ",,~, 54 . ~, ~~~~I; r " ESM'T' ,1 -t. ~ ''>, ----..." " '-"'---~~,--------- '-'--:' S6 11 I} Ii' L~-J~,~, c"'=}:;". -'-; ~;~-~-,~~cccc"i-0;;:~:::i-_:c~co=;:c'c,c'~.c\c~= ~::::;:> -'::C,-I':· , ", ,> ,..: I,. H' ;.".1 l' 5a . 'I' , '.-' (J ~. - I I I ·'1· ! 1 12' RIGoHir OF WAY PEDlq:ATION w (/) '"' " w > <C I<{ if- '(/) W, > ,! . D DATUM CIT'!" OF !<ENTON "' NAYD JlI!l8 BASIS OF BEARINGS NOO"29'1J'E I!!ETU.eN FOlND MONLIMENT6 ALONG. Ti-IE CI3>ITS'!J..1NE OF 156T1-1 AV£. 6.E. AT TI-IE INTEF!eECnON& WITH 6.E. 128T1-1 ST. ,4ND 6.e. ~"TI-I 6T. A6 CALCULATED FfWM CIT'!" OF RENTON CON11'i!OL. POINT N06. IBOI ,4ND 1e&2, FOUND IN PLACE ,4ND DE6Cl'tleeD I!\ELOW PEI't CIT'!" OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CON~ NE'TIlJOIII!K PUeLleHED NOV. e, 1994. BENCI-IMARKS: PEI't CIT'!" OF RENTON 6URYE'l" ON NAYD JlI!l8 DA1tN NO. 1852 -3" FL.AT ~ etlt'iFACE DISC AT THE CON6Tfi!JClED INTEF!eECTION OF N.E. 4T1-1 6T. (6.e. 128TH6TJ ,4ND 1-4&TI-I AYE. 6.e. E1.. -04." (138.614 ME~) NO. 2103 -eROKEN B~ ~ACE DISC IN THE INiCF!eECTION OF 6.E. 128T1-16T . .AND IShTI-I AYE 6.e .EL 54"1.94 (1h"1.o13 ~) R/W 42' R/W "'" I: 5.0' 16' , 16' 5.0' 1 ~ ~F·5' 2% I 2% 1~~~ <. ~~;~ ;dLK' --"";~~/o~~;; ::J~ EXISlING PA~ ROAO,",\ SECTIONA-A ON-SITE 42' R/W SECTION NO SCALE Ii SEE T'tPICAL PA~ENT SECTJ(K{ j J ON THIS SHEET flENOVE EXIST. A, C. SHO/JIJJER AND OIf7/£lt'A VA IE O/TCH AND SHOIJIJ)£f/ AI1EA TO PI10!Af)£ A SUITABlE SUB-BASE SECTIOND-D 1.56th AVENUE 5.£. NO SCALE j N' 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' 20 4ll 80 " ! PROPOSED LOT GllAOE ~ ., 2: 2 ~ ~ ~ l II! ~ ~ J f' :l 0; .i! .., ~~~ ~ f ~ ~ -:! -~ '" 2: -... 2: ~ .... "-(~~I ~~ ~a: ~ ~~ e~~ i:::: .... '!ooI~~ ~ e:::s'" ~ 1ft V') ~ '" ~, !I) l"j " ~Q ~~~ ~~ o~~ ~ ",:!:, I! Q~~ (!J ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ .... ''''''Il:l ~ -...~-~ .... f\; ~~s ~ ..... tQ a::z: 8 ~ ~ ~ ~' ~" ;J::' " " i;j e:i ~ l"j ~ ~ gJ ~.~ ~ ~. G ~ ~ C) i L.,....- 2 2 , , .----------,-,.--,.,--,----,~-,-=~~,~~.~,,-, -~-.. ',.-~-,~'-. ~~ .. -,.-.--.~ .. ~-,,~.----~~ ,~ ___ .-~"_;"'~ =·7=~_~~, .-~ ___ =~~ _______________ ....... _==;..._....! MO:J.9 ~ en til FRONTAGE BYPASS ~ 3 ~ VOL. 170. PGS. 1- uMATTE \.~ .~~~ ONSITE TRIBUTARY AREA = 17.94 acres LAWN 2 K.C.S.P. 484106 REC. NO. 8505170617 <' m <C F NSS'OO'19"W o .., o I') UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY l AREA = 3.06 acres I LAWN ,t SCALE: 1"=100' - ~ SE 133RD ST. T lJ UNPLAnED " EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPLEWOOD ESTATES DIV. 3 CORE PROJECT NO. 01019 1JiJIt1 SE JL.4, NW 1£4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, w.M. 93 1 --' UPSTREAM 92 TRIBUTARY ------L AREA = 3.06 acres 191 : ! or ~;( C(ri l'l<d > ;"7:r(::~/ 'J ({/!"~':-OJ' ,;' {"r,-I'(' "j' ,,; =? 90 i ," Nee.Oi&'39"W ' -l ,f'.' ,.' ·l ,.' 60._ 60 .. 6 . . "": '. ------------ I 14 I r-~, I"~'~' 11 -I .r---'1--' r--, )----:-', r;--:-" r-.t1, -':-]:', J'---t (' L %'8,5F ,'J~·li"'!."'lllJ~6FI-"",8.5F ;;;/ 13;~SF'J 121 \'1 22 "23 II 2:' Ir"~25 ,-,'u,"j ,21'<i'.:1 26'1'" -t"-'\I" . =. I~ = ~. == ~ L_ ~ __ . ! 1~'1± SF lb99~ SF r 1538t SF r 1511:1: SF .p ( ;618t SF OCI 18£:,Ot ~ ';( ", 2:1::5F I ~ B12e! SF k' I' '13' -l~ *m~ I " ' .;! I ' I ' I ---'>1-~ I I ~ ,I 11 ' I, ~I ,II}I t~, ,.II 11", " I,' -,: 2~ I' ,2 I,10"',SF J' ~~.~kc-;~l. v; I~ III '.,.," , ,';'; "_'.. : i I I L _ ';~ ". -:; 5b . -( , I L '443' SF I ~, I L ~ L -~ L -~ L_.~ --.J t' ,\1 --.. ,11 t 1 )--\ ~ --'," .. .0 ~ ,,--.,J, .::...J L .-------J -,-,-~ L ---.J L : r-_12>---7 >0 . -~ -.. \ l?O 60 ,,"0 "-0.. 4; -'. I . -• t _ I I . . ' 21 88 116 40' , _ 13 48 12 41 _ '1 () 3 .',; "--" 'to SF .---------,-I • , ~I~ "g . .0 .~ ..J I;';) --_______ _ '¢ /-' I I .... ~'82t SF .---'-l~-r--~--.-,--'-------:/t --. .30 31 60 60 60 60 29 . , 28 . 15 _ .'" ''1\ ''''_.' ----c-~.. ,5 ,'35: ~ I I' --'I ,--\ 1 -'I r-: -'I r --" 31 .' 34 _6e~--___ .-, ' q \8 w z '" '" ;t I' . 3~ 1 ,. I ' I I I I , I I r I X> : . ~ r TRACT ~9S r-.12661 5F .,' I " . ! 1 144115F ." ," . 6151t SF I _N 1;;;'1 I' 6 T). ,4" f' r-., l ,,': ~ 1'. I I I I I'" '/ ~ I \ ,'II, -,f ~\s . :':::SF, ~ -~. . I • I . I I I 1 36 I I 35 I I 34 I':~;' 'It 32 I L..···· ~ \ (, :-: I '~/. '/ (:'; :~ J '·1 ---.; :\, ow. L· J L __ ~. . i 8 31 ~ '-9 81 3~ SF I ~ f,''''3! SF I ~ '8b2bt SF ~ 836]t SF . ~ ----.-J §! w ' --. -, -.' ' ~ BIl.' 5F Ii I 8%" SF 1 e6'~' SF I 1 p 1 ~. ' ~ "I 1 ''''--. ~ " ~_ . I -'~. ~ 1 r ~ "; I ~ ---,--.--:: \ l?i;; , r ,"'1 ,I I 1 I I. I I I I I I. 'I. I , I I 1 I : : I. ,1\, I' 0:,0 11; 1,'1" ~:\) 40 !9 ".; II' -'.". liL.~:"L ~ !-;31\':) ~ , t'l --::: --,', -,'" '/ 'I :'1 .,' (,/1.,',- 'I ' ~ ; \ .-/ :(r~;~:',/ '" ,12"''''' r Ai' 1 "",SF I L_ ~ ll-.. -ONSITE ---..J, .~ --.J ----.-l I., 86,4. SF : I I . , I' /;f7 . ' . '. . " ".1 . i ' i .- I------;::;:-----'r-------;;:;:;----,--"----;;:;o;--'---r-=--"-=-,--,-;;c"----:-;---f-~'-'-,,_____++{-l-.I+__--+_L~, _"".,o.-"'--_-..J_. _+-_"""0'--------+-~"7 TRIBUTARY 60 60 60 L -,~ -'--:-----l NOO·02'44"W ' 152.00 -I; 64 bO 60 bO Q . . ) --'I 6' .-I --, -tl, -- ,-:""'-:-I AREA = 17 94 acres ~, ' : /0,/so<,1 , j 30'. : , --'I ,---I (' -, r----:-I ' '" I I on r--'/ ,--, . . ---I r----1 (' -, I w' ,I, I ~ 1 "'~. 5F 1 I II II II l:n 13'~':", ~ r I .,,,~15F I "I II II i_I I, I '~r(7-"'i'.:;.L"'LO~(1r;() 11'-I '8"'51':, ',I ~ ~ 1 _____ ,_..J I I t I ~ 1 3 b I 4 L L ~ _ ---,-.1 L ---,"'> ...J I 43 h I g I f I 46 l!: I 4l fl' ~ 1 .~. L --~ --'.-_J w r--------,""-----I 5F I I 8050' SF I I 8399< SF -• SF 1i -44 I I 45 r 46 I 4~!l W I 18204' -I I 8005 I 1----'0' ----CI, I' ---i I .~05' 5F 1 I 8430' SF, 8004. 51' I I 11.2, SF , I m",5F I I 8004•5F I 8430' SF I r-----,"'--, -~ -:-l a I! ~ I 53 I L illi I I 1 I 5 I ~ ~ I I I II I I L' I L I I I I I )" <I) '120' 5F " ,,_----.JL_----.J L _., ,.:0 180"SF I l8"';?'SF ~ ~L_..J '_',----.J -----.J.L_----.JL ~ 96O::5F. L ____ --..l " I 3b 8 5, ,. 44. -----l L _ ...J L __ J _ __ J l ___ J L:: ~O 60 . 60 60 -..J L __ ~_ ------" • o <~ r' \ J 16' '»,0)~.9 ~I 1-'1(,J1/;> 60 84 . __ . __ .______ 84 ,:>0 . 60 39 / ,AREA OF '\' 'e,.E;-2N'O &T, / I . Df'DI,CATED RIGI-IT ", "'--?c~O S f ,~ ;.' 6:;/ _ ,~ --~ \ OF WAY "11 -bO 60 I /- .... O,O;./!\'-_____ _ ___ fl.: . E>:. ., ,') r~)l \.,\I~O,053tSF. e>1 ~. ~_..', _ 60 40 2 '. " eo! 1 FRONTAGE I 11,1; SF l ~ 1_4~ ~'~';(J(f/<71 r~ 60. I I:", r5~ I ~ I r~ ~ ~ ~ iii, i ~ -~ ~ --l r:' -; ~o._" '; BYPASS '" I "" I ·1 I .. I 1 1 \ I I I" \, I I I 1 I 1 I I I I ".\ I I I I. I I I \ I L __ ,,--=c_ -_-____ ) ~ l2 bill I I lO 1\ 6~ I I 66 b I ~ 61 I I ~6 b I 65 I; I ~4 iii ~3 f 1 ~2 i! I 61 ill I 60 I I, 5~ II 5~ 1/ 51 I I 5~ 1:Ii S5 ~ GTOr "RA'N:46E>\ I 164" 5F -. 1>66' SF ~ _ .1358' 0. ~ 1358' SF r! 1358.5F _! P""SF 1) 148.,5F -1980' SF f 0,,4' SF r 8584<5F 8554' 51' I 8302'SF r .83" 5F ,l:') ',1423' 5F 1) "20-"" -'108" SF '" 8888' 5F 1 110";'0.'''' ,,' . I :,' ',', ' I \ 1 1 ,I I ' I I I I. "" I I I \ I I 1 I 1 I I I 11,,1 I' I I I I ' r I" I I" ,,' _:'_' ." I ~\" L _...J L ~"...JL -...J L _ ...J L _ ~..J L __ ...J L _ ..J L_ --.-l L __ ...J L _...J L _ . ...J L _ ----.J L _..J L _...JL _.J L _.~ L _.J L _~ _ \ I I .• 45" I . tC:>0, 6'0 60 60 '60 60; 60 , . 60' '. 60 6 -! .. ;',,:. 148 I ,j j' 'N88"OI"33"W 913,43 ' "", _ ,; ,. ! .J <\:'1',; 'I I i ! '; i ~ ,! rOUND JS:" REBAR & CAP , ;, ! , ; rOUND 12" REBAR & CAP "WPD 21710" 0.06' N. OF ' 4 :! l' ~WPD 21710" wi RP'S, LINE ! '" '! CAN 0,03' S. OF LINE I' .. \".~ ... Ii ~ ;'f:, --~ ;'1' ,; I ,,30' ,II ,,'I .' '30' I I,' .' I -, , " .. -;;;2,A·c, ',J_0 'l Fr ~ '" '" ~ -1 . . i·:.·.'1 i;' ~'i L-r 143 .~_ ... _~ __ ~ ... 1 • ... 1 --~ r~~::::4i2~ o,s;,. , :-' ~-, " I'-__ ---'--________ ---L. ___________ -----L_ \1\ ~"""-:;-~-rn=-¥~ ,= -~ ~ ,M ~~~ ~ SCALE: 1"=100' PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS MAPLEWOOD ESTATES DIV. 3 CORE PROJECT NO. 01019 N88'OO'19"W -~ /1 g I i '-r---1\-:-' ---T---I---T--""""----'7---~-i-t=~:" TO ~ '\ 7 "\ . I " n II 1/ SHEET NO. 11 KING COUNTY AREA, WASHINGTON (RENTON QUADRANGLE) 180000 FEET SCALE: 1"=2000' KING COUNTY SOILS MAP MAPLEWOOD ESTATES DIV. 3 CORE PROJECT NO. 01019 3.2.2 KCRTSIRUNOFF FILES METHOD -GENERA TING TIME SERIES Notes: Hydrologic Soil Group Group 1. Where outwash soils are saturated or underlain at shallow depth «5 feet) by glacial till, they should be treated as till soils. 2. These are bedrock soils, but calibration of HSPF by King County DNRP shows bedrock soils to have similar hydrologic response to till soils. 3. These are alluvial soils, some of which are underlain by glacial till or have a seasonally high water table. In the absence of detailed study, these soils should be treated as till soils. 4. Buckley soils are formed on the low-permeability Osceola mudflow. Hydrologic response is assumed to be similar to that of till soils. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 3-25 112412005 SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.2.A RAINFALL REGIONS AND REGIONAL SCALE FACTORS ST 1.0 ST 1.1 ST1.0 Rainfall Regions and Regional Scale Factors D 1?" .. c..ri Incorporated AreaD ~ River/LakeD Major RoadD D 1/24/2005 LA 1.0 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 3-22 6.4.1 WETPONDS -BASIC AND LARGE -METHODS OF ANALYSIS FIGURE 6.4.1.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES (FEET) ST 1.0 ST 1.1 0.54" (0.045') iT,71 Incorporated Area ~ River/Lake Major Road 0.47" (0.039') 0.47" (0.039') NOTE: Areas east of the easternmost isopluvial should use 0.65 inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of interest 24 The mean annual stORn is a conceptual storm found by dividing the annual precip~ation by the total number of stORn events per year LA 1.0 LA 1.2 result, generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils, and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at a shallow depth (less than 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1124/2005 6-71 April 7, 2006 Edward and June Hill fT5} THE YJURNSfEADS 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, Washington 98059 RE: Highlands Park -Boundary Line Adjustment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hill, ~'-----~ (! lh .. ". -------~ Our surveyor, Core Design, is preparing a boundary line adjustment application for submittal to the City of Renton. Attached is an exhibit which shows the portion of our property, highlighted in yellow, which will be conveyed to you. The north line is per the legal description prepared by Robert Boyde. Core Design has ordered title information for both parcels and plans to submit the application within two weeks. A copy of the boundary line adjustment will be forwarded for your revlew at that time. The City of Renton estimates it will take 6 to 8 weeks to process the application. Once approved, we will then prepare the quit claim deed for your signature. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (425) 454-1900 extension 233. Sincerely, BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~¥ Ron Hughes, P.E. Cc: Stephen Schrei, P.L.S., Core Design 1215 120th Avenue N.E., Ste. 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 425454 1900 Fax: 425 4544543 , ; .. FRODC~,~JJ PREUMIN ARY PLA T (/ ~il>!LAr~DS FAk~K NCI~Th ;.lNF. PER treAt.. ~)ESCR\F fiON '---..., 8Y ROBER' Vi, ElUDE. >''-, x--_....... ~'8',.n8>2'~"" "-x---=-. X -----==x ~'.d:..!:.. 1 S{), 15 " ~ , \ \ .\ N 1 SCALE: 1" = 30' Q HIGHLANDS PARK OCCUPATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT cOilE ~DESIGN ENGiNEERING, I'LANNIP..:G --x--==--=-_ REC NO 2002.0131900005 PRGPERT'( CON\l~Y~D ro LPWAf·<D AND ,JL!t~F HiL~ .. S.E. 2ND Pl. PAGE 10F 1 5URVEYiN(; JC>B NC>_ 0:1.0:1.9 August 21, 2006 Department of Natural Resources 950 Farman A venue North Enumclaw, W A 98022-9282 Dear Megan: CITY OF RENTON PlanningIB uildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This notice is to let you know that the City of Renton issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (DNS-M) on January 31, 2006 for the Highlands Park Project. The project is located in Renton and the applicant is the Bumstead Construction Company. The applicant will receive an approved clearing and/or grading permit for this project per WAC 222-20-010 (8) by the end of August. We have no objections to waiving the 14-day review period per WAC 222-20-020 (1) (c). Legal location of proposal: Section 14, Township 23N, Range 5 East, W.M. at Rosario Avenue SE & SE 2nd Place, Renton, Washington. Please call me at (425) 430-7286 if you have further questions. Sincerely, .-:.,,~ {oJjf-e; Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager -------------10-5-5-S-00-fu-ili--oo-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-on-,-W-~-h-in-~-o-n-9-80-5-5------------~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM August 14, 2006 Julianna Fries Jennifer Henning (425) 430-7286 m Highland Park Clearing Limits & Landscape Plans I've reviewed the drawings from Core Design, stamped into the City on June 21, 2006. The clearing limits, landscape plan, and fence detail are approved. h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev&plan.ing\jth\memos\highlands park clearing and landscaping. doc MSN Hotmail -Page 1 of7 Ie; highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com Printed: Monday, April 10, 20063:20 PM From: Sent: Subject : Highlands Neighbors <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> Thursday, February 9,200610:13 AM CARE Update: Slide Questions Answered Hi Neighbors! UilttZ. Below you will find the full thread of questions and answers correspondence between me and the Water and Land Staff from the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. I haven't really had a chance to ponder these answers carefully yet. Please let me know if you have thoughts on the topic. Happy Thursday! g C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell " .do'ing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org From: "Highlands Neighbors" <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> To: KenJohnson@METROKC.GOV CC: Curt.Crawford@METROKC.GOV, Mark.lsaacson@METROKC.GOV Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:41:44 -0800 Good Morning, Mr. Johnson! We extend our thanks to you and your colleagues for your careful review and answer of our questions. I agree that there was indeed overlap in our questions. I hope you will understand that we felt the need to ask for some of the same information from multiple points of view in order that we might hope to triangulate on the actual data we sought. I will share this information with the community today. We may have some follow up questions. Thanks again! Gwendolyn High C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org From: "Johnson, Ken" <Ken.Johnson@METROKC.GOV> To: 'Highlands Neighbors' <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> CC: "Crawford, Curt" <Curt.Crawford@METROKC.GOV>, "Isaacson, Mark" <Mark.lsaacson@METROKC.GOV> Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:43:32 -0800 Ms High, http://by111fd.bay111.hotmail.rnsn.comlcgi-binigetmsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOO00%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/10/2006 MSN Hotmail - sorry for the delay. As I said before, I do not have the expertise in the specifics of many of the issues you raised, so have had to consult others here in water and Land Resources Division. I myself haven't been to directly view the recent slide, but understand that it has gotten some attention from some of the drainage engineers, as is reflected in some of the responses. The following are your questions copied in: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) To what degree did the 4 most recently cleared subdivision sites (Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place) contribute to this event? A: Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichol's Place all front on 160th Ave SE at or near the intersection with SE 136th St. All four of these projects have detention systems and do not infiltrate their runoff (they are located on relatively impervious soil layers). The outfall from these projects appears to flow south then southeast and eventually west in conveyance on SE 144th St with eventual discharge into the creek next to 154th pl SE. It is unlikely any of these projects contributed significant recharge to groundwater and to the landslide that occurred near S& 148th St and 158th Ave SE. In addition, the clearing of an area has a mu~h greater elfect on runoff than on recharge, and can actually reduce recharge because of the increase of impervious pavement and removal of shallow perched zones of groundwater, especially at the locations of these developments because of the nature of the subsurface in this location. See the response to question 11 for additional information. Also, you should note that some of the older houses in the area are (or were at one time) on septic systems --such drainfields contribute water to the shallow groundwater system. This is not the case for the newer construction such as the 4 subdivisions, which are on sanitary sewers. 2) What can be done to minimize future comparable events? A: The landslide at SE 148th St and 158th Ave SE was groundwater driven, in that there was no surface runoff until the groundwater expressed itself on the slope. We believe that this event was mostly a natural occurrence -- similar landslides probably occurred throughout history since the Cedar River cut its valley and left this slope. It is hard to work against natural phenomena, and such landsliding is mainly a problem for the property owner on top or beneath the landslides. King County, like other jurisdictions, tries to limit development in areas like this, through its landslide hazard critical area regulations. Our records indicate that there is some possible, but minor, human element in initiation of this slide. A reconnaissance of this drainage in 2003 documented trash and ·yard debris and other junk" in the area that failed. This trash may have contributed to the failure by restricting groundwater discharge, loading the slope, and by preventing establishment and growth of vegetation. So, general maintenance I cleanup of drainage channels and vegetation establishment could help forestall a landslide temporarily, but would have little effect against the deeper, overwhelming, natural driving forces that really cause these landslides. If property owners are concerned about landslides regarding a slope on their own property they should consult a Geotechnical Engineer for recommendations. Weathering, sloughing, and even collapse of slopes is an ongoing natural process. Without site-specific information, it is unknown where the groundwater will express itself and thus initiate slope instabilities. Given such uncertainties, and the great expense to study and remediate a slope stability problem, it is probably better for some property owners to wait until there is a better indication that protection of the slope would in fact be necessary. 3) This slide occurred in a Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone. By what methodology and based on what datasets was the boundary of the Aquifer Page 2 of7 http://by111fd.bay111.hotmai1.msn.comlcgi-bini getmsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/10/2006 MSN Hotmail - zone set? A: The Critical Aquifer Recharge Area was mapped using regional-scale maps of surficial geology and soils, estimates of depth to water, and protective designations such as Wellhead Protection Areas and/or Sole Source Aquifers. The specific vicinity of the slide was mapped to be a Category 2 mainly because the surface soils are glacial outwash materials (Vashon Recessional Outwash or Qvr) that readily infiltrate water. With any regional scale mapping or interpretation, there are going to be errors about where exactly the boundaries from one zone to another should be drawn. There are methods for revising these mappings, and they are being revised on a long-term basis. You should note that at the hillside in question, the regional geologic map shows a dense geologic unit (Vashon Till or Qvt) underlying the Qvr which prevents much of the water from flowing to deeper zones, so this could be allowing (or forcing) the groundwater to flow out to the slope in this area, and thus make the slope more susceptible to landsliding. Some of our personnel, who examined the slope soon after the landslide, report that the Qvt is not present at the immediate location. However, they did report that the landslide slope does show a Qpf layer that is also a low permeability geologic unit (generally lying deeper than the Qvt) and which similarly limits the deeper infiltration of groundwater. You should also note that further north, away from the slope, the Qvt is mapped to be at the surface, including in the area of the four developments you discussed in Question 1. In this case these parcels probably contribute little recharge directly on their sites. If Qvt is at the surface, then there is no Qvr at the locations of the developments, so there may not be a near-surface aquifer way to communicate groundwater from these locations to the landslide area. We don't have the regional scale geologic map available on our web site, but you can see the best present King County geologic map via the UW area: http://geomapnw.ess.washington.edu/index.php?toc=maintoc&body=services/maps. htm <http://geomapnw.ess.washington.edu/index.php?toc=maintoc&body=services/maps .htm> (The map is very large so you should have a high-speed connection to view it. ) 4) Has this event "pulled the plug" on the aquifer recharge zone? A: No, we do not think that this event has "pulled the plug" on the aquifer (this applies to the entire aquifer rather than just the recharge zone) -- i.e., we don't think that subsequent recharge will just flow out immediately without building up (such as happened at the High Rock site near Monroe). As mentioned in the previous response, there is a layer of Qvt or Qpf that impedes deeper infiltration. When recharge reaches this nearly impervious layer the water above it moves horizontally, and usually flows out at lower elevations as springs along the hillside. The small amount of material that was lost due to this slide has not substantially reduced the storage capacity of the aquifer, nor has it opened up a major channel for discharge. Because the slide probably has not pulled the plug on the aquifer, a similar series of rainfall events will likely produce a similar result of infiltrated water seeking an expression on the Cedar River Valley slope as it did this time, and perhaps initiate further landsliding. 5) Is the aquifer recharge zone now at higher risk for settling and subsidence? Should property owners be aware of such a risk? What can they do to prepare for such occurrence? A: Subsidence should not be a problem on the top of the plateau as long as "piping" does not occur within the landslide scarp area. (Piping is the erosion out of soil materials by continued water flow from a hillside --it occurred in the big landslide that temporarily dammed the Cedar River a couple thousand feet west of this slide, after the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001 and local landowners had gravel "shot" into the widening hole to stop Page 3 of7 http://bylllfd.baylll.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-binigetmsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOO00%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/10/2006 MSN Hotmail - the piping.) Our field personnel report that there had been evidence of piping that occurred inunediately after the landslide, but these "pipes" were dry soon afterwards and no more erosion was taking place (the little bit of seepage that continued was occurring further down the slope) . Note that subsidence is not an issue regarding the recharge zone further back from the cliff, but only a local condition above the slide area. A greater threat is the soil movement that can be a direct effect of landsliding, with the properties at the top of the slope starting to move along with the soil as it begins to fail (even if the houses do not fall down the hill). Property owners along and close to the bluff edge should be aware of the possibility of landsliding at some time in the future, and contract a geotechnical study of their property if they want to get some kind of reassurance. Again, this does not apply to the bulk of the aquifer recharge area, away from the bluff. 6) Will the aquifer recharge zone be able to store future rainfall, or will the water continue to shoot out the side of the hill? A: The aquifer appears still able to store future rainfall. It is likely the short time and high rainfall amount was the cause of an overflow of the localized storage available underground. This is similar to having a bowl overflow when too much liquid is poured into it. When the groundwater has a chance to spread out it will reach the appropriate elevation for the flow from the slope to reduce or stop. But like a bowl, if you put too much water in it, it will overflow. (This question appears to be the same as Question #4.) 7) Under ideal circumstances, what can property owners in the aquifer recharge zone do to minimize future similar events? What development standards and practices could be set in place to minimize future comparable events? A: This landslide (like many others in the area, throughout history) appears to be a natural event driven by rainfall, soil type, soil geology, and erosion, rather than a mistake by anyone individual or group. It is a complex interaction and a concerned property owner may want to contact a Geotechnical Engineer for a more complete evaluation of their own property. Without knowing all the causes and interactions a conclusion for the best development standards and practices cannot be determined. 8) What are the exact locations of all the slides currently being monitored (or resulting from the same events as the largest slide)? A: We are aware of the following landslides in the vicinity and have investigated them but no monitoring plan is in place at this time. i. 14911 SE 145th pI ii. 14217 SE 146th St iii. 13715 139th Ave SE 9) How may we correctly request maps of the drainage features upstream of each of these slide locations? A: For flow control and water quality facilities outside a highway Right-of-Way contact Dave Hancock at 206-296-8230. For drainage features inside a King County Right-of-Way contact the Department of Transportation at 206-296-8100. Page 4 of7 http://bylllfd.baylll.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-bin/getmsg?cunnbox=OOOOOOO0%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4110/2006 MSN Hotrnail - 10) What is the communication model by which the lessons learned from these events are communicated to DDES so that future subdivision applications are reviewed with appropriate consideration of the circumstances that led to these events so that future negative events can be minimized? A: As in the answer to Question #7 (and other responses), we believe that this recent event was substantially natural. We already have regulations to avoid infiltration too close to the edge of a potentially unstable slope. In general, across the extent of King County, we want to encourage recharge / infiltration, to preserve the groundwater resources that sustain stream flows and fish habitat. However, we already try to avoid allowing infiltration too close to unstable slopes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Some precipitation is captured by re/detention ponds, some flows off as surface runoff and some soaks into the ground and becomes ground water, recharging aquifers. Clearing of vegetation accelerates the speed at which precipitation and some surface water soak into the ground because trees/vegetation slow this process and also capture some pf the water for their own use. I don't know how rapidly this occurs, but certainly there was a direct connection between massive volumes of rain and the huge increases in the groundwater that apparently precipitated the slide. I can't see the flaw in the logic that clear cutting acres and acres of ground may well have contributed to increased volumes of groundwater in the aquifers and that this happened much more rapidly than it did when the trees/vegetation were there. It seems to me that rain slowly seeping into the earth would spread the increase in the volume of groundwater over a greater amount of time and reduce the probability of a slide. A. In general, development of a site causes less water to infiltrate and more water to leave the site as surface runoff. Observation of these four projects is consistent with this generality because surface water was seen leaving the site from the flow control facilities long after the actual rainfall has ceased. The surface water that leaves these sites is conveyed as surface water to the stream along 154 PI SE. While a small amount of this water may infiltrate in the roadside ditches, the vast majority of surface runoff was safely conveyed away from any area where it could have contributed to this landslide, perhaps even all the way down to the Cedar River. It is correct that removing vegetation can affect the hydrology of a site. Usually, a vegetation-covered site will infiltrate a much larger percentage of rainfall than a cleared site. However, the top layer of soil under the vegetation, especially in forested areas, is much more important from a hydrologic standpoint. The variable ground surface, vegetation and ground litter slows the movement of runoff across the land giving it more time to infiltrate. The near-surface soil in the area of these developments is derived from till (Qvt) a soil type called Alderwood soils, and very different from the soil (Qvr, or Everett soils) that is present near where the landslide occurred. Alderwood soil has a very slow infiltration rate and tends to resist additional moisture. These four development sites capture nearly all runoff in the drainage catch basins and detention system. It is not immediately apparent that water infiltrating at these sites would even reach the landslide area. ~n short, because this landslide was a groundwater related incident it i:J unlikely that the mentioned developments had any influence on the cause of the landslide. "--' please feel free to share this e-mail with your members or anyone else. Also, feel free to contact me if you have further questions. Yours, --Ken Ken Johnson Page 5 of7 http://by111fd.bay111.hotrnail.msn.coml cgi -bini getrnsg?curmbox=OOOOOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 4/1012006 MSN. Hotmail - Water & Land Resources Division Dept. of Natural Resources & Parks 201 S. Jackson St., Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Internal mailstop (MS): KSC-NR-0600 Web: http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/wqfgroundwater.htm <http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/wq/groundwater.htm> Phone: (206) 296-8323 Fax: (206) 296-0192 -----original Message----- From: Highlands Neighbors [mailto: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com <mailto: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> 1 Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 7:44 AM To: Johnson, Ken Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! Good Morning, Mr. Johnson! So sorry for the long delay. I have been saving up all the questions coming in to us, and today I am finally sending them along to you! Please let me know if clarification is need on any of the following. You have an eager audience of hundreds awaiting your expertise! 1) To what degree did the 4 most recently cleared subdivision sites (Evendell, Liberty Grove, Liberty Grove Contiguous and Nichols Place) contribute to this event? 2) What can be done to minimize future comparable events? 3) This slide occurred in a Category 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Zone. By what methodology and based on what datasets was the boundary of the Aquifer zone set? 4) Has this event "pulled the plug" on the aquifer recharge zone? 5) Is the aquifer recharge zone now at higher risk for settling and subsidence? Should property owners be aware of such a risk? What can they do to prepare for such occurrence? 6) will the aquifer recharge zone be able to store future rainfall, or will the water continue to shoot out the side of the hill? 7) Under ideal circumstances, what can property owners in the aquifer recharge zone do to minimize future similar events? What development standards and practices could be set in place to minimize future comparable events? 8) What are the exact locations of all the slides currently being monitored (or resulting from the same events as the largest slide)? 9) How may we correctly request maps of the drainage features upstream of each of these slide locations? 10) What is the communication model by which the lessons learned from these events are communicated to DDES so that future subdivision applications are reviewed with appropriate consideration of the circumstances that led to these events so that future negative events can be minimized? And here is a snip of an email from one of our neighbors. She really captures the essence of the comments I have received from many folks. We would very much appreciate it if you could address these issues as well: 11) Some precipitation is captured by re/detention ponds, some flows off as surface runoff and some soaks into the ground and becomes ground water, recharging aquifers. Clearing of vegetation accelerates the speed at which precipitation and some surface water soak into the ground because trees/vegetation slow this process and also capture some pf the water for their own use. I don't know how rapidly this occurs, but certainly there was a direct connection between massive volumes of rain and the huge increases in the groundwater that apparently precipitated the slide. I can't see the flaw in the logic that clear cutting acres and acres of ground may well have contributed to increased volumes of groundwater in the aquifers and that this happened much more rapidly than it did when the trees/vegetation were there. It seems to me that rain slowly seeping into the earth would spread the increase in the volume of groundwater over a greater amount of time and reduce the probability of a slide. We look forward to hearing your analysis of these questions. Page 6 of7 http://by111fd.bay111.hotmail.msn.comlcgi-binigetmsg?curmbox=00000000%2dOO00%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 411 0/2006 MSN.Hotrnail- Thank you for all you assistance, Gwendolyn C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org <www.highlandsneighbors.org> >From: "Johnson, Ken" <Ken.Johnson@METROKC.GOV> >To: 'Highlands Neighbors' <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> >Subject: RE: Thanks for your call! >Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:34:40 -0800 > >Thank you for getting back to me. I have a meeting in Redmond at 4:00 so >will probably be unavailable in the late afternoon, but will be happy to >talk. If the issue is not pressing, perhaps next week will be easier to >do. > --Ken > >-----Original Message----- > From: Highl ands Neighbors [mailto: highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com <mailto:highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> 1 >Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:31 AM >To: Johnson, Ken >Subject: Thanks for your call! > >Good Morning, Mr. Johnson! > >I'm so sorry I haven't returned your call. I have been ill and am now >catchin gup on about a milliom threads. I hope to give you a ring this >afternoon to chat more about the groundwater situation on the North Cedar >River Plateau. > >Thanks! >Gwendolyn > > > >C.A.R.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell > ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... >www.highlandsneighbors.org <www.highlandsneighbors.org> > Page 7 of7 http://bylllfd.baylll.hotrnaiLmsn.comlcgi -bini getrnsg?cunnbox=00000000%2dOOOO%2dOOOO%2dOOOO... 411 0/2006 f ~-05-I d--t( DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 0 2005 RECEIVED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Highlands Park 13400 Block of 156th Avenue SE Renton, Washington Project No. T -5668-1 Terra Associates, Inc. Prepared for: Burnstead Construction Company Bellevue, Washington October 10,2005 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Mr. Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction Company 1215 -120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005-2135 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report Highlands Park 13400 Block of 156th Avenue SE Renton, Washington Dear Mr. Hughes: Environmental Earth Sciences October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects ofproject design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is predominantly underlain by glacial till consisting of dense to very dense silty sand to sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel. We observed what appears to be an isolated area of recessional outwash sand and gravel extending to depths of 5 to 20 feet near the southwestern corner of the site. Existing fill soils containing organics and construction debris were found to a depth of 10.5 feet in the northeastern portion of the site. We observed groundwater seepage in 10 of the 37 test pits. The observed seepage is generally light and perched on top of the dense to very dense glacial till. In our opinion, the soil and groundwater conditions are suitable for the planned development. Undisturbed inorganic native soil sub grade or compacted structural fill placed above competent native soil will provide suitable bearing for standard spread footing foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 Mr. Ron Hughes October 10, 2005 Detailed recommendations addressing these issues, as well as other geotechnical design considerations, are presented in the attached report. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Project No. T-5668-1 Page No. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Site Conditions ...................................................................................................... , ......... 2 3.1 Surface ............................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Soils ................................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................ 3 4.1 Steep Slopes ....................................................................................................... 3 4.2 Landslide Hazard ............................................................................................... 3 4.3 Erosion Hazard .................................................................................................. 4 4.4 Seismic Hazard .................................................................................................. 4 5.0 Discussion and Preliminary Recommendations .............................................................. 4 5.1 General ............................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................. 5 5.3 Excavations ........................................................................................................ 6 5.4 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 6 5.5 Basement and Site Retaining Walls ................................................................... 7 5.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors ......................................................................................... 7 5.7 Stormwater Pond ................................................................................................ 8 5.8 Drainage ............................................................................................................. 8 5.9 Utilities .............................................................................................................. 9 5.10 Pavements .......................................................................................................... 9 6.0 Additional Services ....................................................................................................... 10 7.0 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 10 Figures Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan ................................................................................................... Figure 2 Typical Wall Drainage Detail. ............................................................................................. Figure 3 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ................................................................... Appendix A Preliminary Geotechnical Report Highlands Park 13400 Block of 156th Avenue SE Renton, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a residential development. We were provided with a Preliminary Plat site plan by Core Design, dated July 2005 that indicates the site will be developed with 73 residential building lots. Site access will be from 152nd Avenue along the west property line and from SE 133rd Street along the north property line. The plan indicates site stormwater will be collected and routed to a stormwater facility in the southwestern corner of the site. Site grading, building, and stormwater management plans are currently not available. With the rolling topography, we expect site grading will consist of minor to moderate cuts and fills necessary to establish desired building pad and roadway elevations. We expect the residential structures will be one-to two-story, wood- framed buildings with main floor levels either framed over crawl spaces or constructed as slab-on-grade. Foundation loads should be light, in the range of 1 to 2 kips per foot for bearing walls and 10 to 25 kips for isolated columns. The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of these design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review fmal design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Site exploration work completed for this study included excavating test pits on three separate occasions. Test pits were excavated on February 7,2005, July 27,2005, and on October 5, 2005. Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, we performed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • Soil and groundwater conditions • Geologic hazards • Site preparation and grading • Excavations • Foundations • • • • • • Retaining walls Slab-on-grade floors Stonnwater pond Drainage Utilities Pavements October 10,2005 Project No. T -5668-1 It should be noted that the recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil strength, design earth pressures, erosion, and stability. Design and perfonnance issues with respect to moisture as it relates to the structure environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, mold) are beyond Terra Associates' purview. A building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these issues, as needed. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The site is an undeveloped, approximately 20-acre assemblage of 3 parcels located between 152nd Avenue SE (also known as Rosario Avenue SE) and 156th Avenue SE, just north of SE 136th Street (also known as SE 2nd Place) in Renton, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The eastern end of the north parcel is currently occupied by a single-family residence with several outbuildings. The site is generally forested with mature coniferous and deciduous trees. Site topography is relatively flat to rolling with a gentle grade down to the southwest. Topographic information provided to us indicates surface grades generally range between about 8 and 13 percent; however, localized slope areas may be slightly steeper. Overall relief across the site is approximately 84 feet. 3.2 Soils The soils we observed in the test pits generally consist of 3 to 18 inches of topsoil and forest duff overlying moist, silty sand with gravel consistent with glacial till. We observed dry to moist, outwash gravels and sands overlying the glacial till in five of the test pits and moist fill soils overlying the glacial till in nine of the test pits. The till was generally medium dense and weathered in the upper portions. The dense, unweathered glacial till was observed at depths ranging from 1.0 to 10.5 feet below existing surface grades. In Test Pits TP-l, TP-2, TP- 12, TP-I01, and TP-I03 we observed medium dense gravel with sand and sand with gravel consistent with recessional outwash to depths ranging from 5.5 to 20.0 feet below existing surface grades. These test pits are located in and around the stormwater detention tract in the southwestern corner of the site. Test Pits TP-I, TP-2, TP-12, and TP-I01 were terminated in the outwash gravels and sands. We observed the glacial till underlying the outwash in Test Pit TP-l 03 at a depth of 5.5 feet. Page No.2 October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 We observed moist fill to depths ranging from 1.5 to 10.5 feet below existing surface grades in Test Pit S-3, S-4, S-7, S-9, S-10, S-13, S-14, TE-1, and TP-I05. The fill was generally loose to medium dense and consisted of silty sand with gravel, organics, and occasional trash debris. These test pits are located around the existing residence located in the northeastern portion of the site. The Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by D.R. Mullineaux (1965), shows soils in the vicinity of the site mapped as ground moraine deposits consisting of ablation till over lodgment till. These soils are described as a mixture of silt and sand with varying amounts of gravel. The soils observed in our test pits are generally consistent with this description; however, the granular soils observed in the southwestern portion of the site appear to be recessional outwash deposits, which stratigraphically overly glacial till. 3.3 Groundwater We observed groundwater seepage in 10 of the 37 test pits. The observed seepage was light and generally perched on top of the dense to very dense glacial till. However, we observed moderate to heavy groundwater seepage between depths of approximately one to six feet below the existing ground surface in Test Pit TP-5. The groundwater conditions observed are typical for a glacial till site. In general, surface water that infiltrates through the upper weathered soil zone becomes perched on the underlying, dense cemented till. The cemented till has a relatively low permeability that impedes the downward migration of the infiltrated surface water. As a result, groundwater seepage will develop and tend to flow laterally along the till contact. Locally, such seepage is referred to as interflow. Perched groundwater levels and flow rates will fluctuate seasonally and typically reach their highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (October through May). 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Steep Slopes Section 4-3-050B4b (Steep Slopes) of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) describes steep slopes as either sensitive slopes or protected slopes. These designations require slope grades of either 25 percent and greater or 40 percent and greater, respectively. Based on our observations and site topography provided to us, slope gradients at the site are less than 25 percent. Therefore, steep slope areas as defmed by the RMC do not exist on- site. 4.2 Landslide Hazard As discussed earlier, site grades typically slope at gradients of less than 15 percent. Therefore, according to RMC Section 4-3-050B4c (Landslide Hazards), a Low Landslide Hazard (areas with slopes less than 15 percent) exists on-site. Page No.3 4.3 Erosion Hazard October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes (Age). These soils are described as having a moderate erosion potential. As defined in RMC Section 4-3-050B4d (Erosion Hazards), the site has a low erosion hazard. Regardless of the site classification, the site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. In our opinion, properly applied and maintained Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion prevention and sediment containment will adequately mitigate the potential for on-site erosion and sediment transport. All BMPs should conform to City of Renton requirements. 4.4 Seismic Hazard The site is underlain by dense to very dense glacial till. Therefore, according to RMC Section 4-3-050B4e (Seismic Hazards), the seismic hazard at the site is low. Seismic Site Class Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, per Chapter 16 of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), Site Class "C" should be used in the project's structural design. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on our study, in our opinion, there are no geotechnical constraints that would preclude development, as planned. The structures can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed above these native soils. Localized fill soils observed in the vicinity of the existing residence in the northeastern portion of the site will not be suitable for support of new construction. Removal and replacement of all or a portion of this fill with structural fill should be planned for support of new construction. The predominant glacial till soils and existing fill observed at the site contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt-and clay-sized particles) that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use the soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. Reuse of existing fill will also be dependent on the amount of organics and deleterious debris it contains. Detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations are provided in the following sections of this report. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications. Page No.4 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of about 3 to 18 inches should be expected to remove the organic topsoil and forest duff. The organic topsoil currently stockpiled in the eastern portion of the site will not be suitable for use as structural fill, and should also be stripped and removed in preparation for mass grading. The existing uncontrolled fill observed around the existing residence in the northeastern portion of the site, should also be excavated and replaced with structural fill. Based on our observations, it appears that the majority of the existing fill contains enough organics and construction debris that will make it unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Existing fill that contains a minimal amount of organics and construction debris could be reused as structural fill provided its moisture content allows for proper compaction when placed. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired roadway and lot grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed surfaces should be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Proofrolling should also be performed in cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction. If excessively yielding areas are observed and they cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new structural fill. If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, use of a geotextile reinforcing/separation fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, can be considered in conjunction with structural fill. Our experience has shown that, in general, a minimum of 18 inches of a clean (no soil fines), granular structural fill over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. The vast majority of soils observed on-site contain a significant amount of fines, and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. Accordingly, the ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place. Native soils that are too wet to properly compact could be dried by aeration during dry weather conditions or mixed with an additive such as cement, cement kiln dust (CKD), or lime to stabilize the soil and facilitate compaction. If an additive is used, additional BMPs for its use will need to be incorporated into the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control plan (TESC) for the project. Compaction of the fine-grained native soils may be accomplished using a self-propelled, vibrating sheep's-foot roller. Outwash sand and gravel observed at Test Pits TP-l, TP-2, TP-12, TP-I01, and TP-I03 in the southwestern portion of the site should be suitable for use as structural fill during most weather conditions. If grading activities are planned during the wet winter months, or if they are initiated during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the owner should prepare to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements. U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 6 inches 100 No.4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* *Based on the 314-inch fraction Page No.5 October 10,2005 Project No. T -5668-1 Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc., should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries current occupational safety and health regulations, the existing fill, upper weathered till horizon, and the medium dense to dense granular soils observed in the southwestern portion of the site would be classified as Type C soils. The unweathered, dense to very dense glacial till soils would be classified as Type A soils. Accordingly, for temporary excavations of more than 4 feet and less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type C soils should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Excavations in Type A soils should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 0.75:1. If there is insufficient room to slope the excavations in this manner, the contractor will need to use temporary shoring to support the excavations. We expect that site excavations will encounter light seepage of perched groundwater, particularly in the winter and early spring months. However, we do not expect that the light seepage flows will adversely impact the stability of temporary excavation sidewalls that are properly sloped, as described earlier. We expect the rate and volumes of the seepage will be low, and that conventional sump pumping procedures and a system of collection trenches, if necessary, should be capable of maintaining relatively dry excavations for construction purposes. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc., assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Foundations Residential structures may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent inorganic native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (pst). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With the anticipated residential loads and this bearing stress applied, building settlements should be less than one-half inch total and one-fourth inch differential. Page No.6 October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pc±). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent soil or backfilled with structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. 5.5 Basement and Site Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressure development on below-grade walls, such as basement or retaining walls, will partly depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. To guard against hydrostatic pressure development, drainage must be installed behind the wall. A typical wall drainage detail is shown on Figure 3. With wall backfill placed and compacted, as recommended and drainage properly installed, unrestrained walls can be designed for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be included. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embanlanents, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of the wall foundation and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in Section 5.4 of this report. 5.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on subgrades, as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. Immediately below the floor slabs, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-draining, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than three percent by weight of material passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slabs. The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion through the slab caused by water vapor transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing of the concrete slab. It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it will be ineffective in assisting in uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opinion, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction occurs during the wet winter months and the layer cannot be effectively drained. Page No. 7 October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 Other methods are available for preventing or reducing water vapor transmission through the slab. We recommend consulting with a building envelope specialist or contractor for additional assistance regarding this issue. 5.7 Stormwater Pond Soils observed in the location of the stormwater pond varied from relatively impervious glacial till in the ponds northeastern area transitioning to outwash sand and gravel to the southwest. The permeability of the outwash deposits will allow stormwater directed to the pond to infiltrate. However, the on-and off-site lateral extent of the deposit appears limited and; therefore, the capacity of the formation to accept infiltrated water will be limited by its volume. Further exploration and study would be necessary to define the limits of the formation and this volume. However, based on experience, it is likely that the volume will not be sufficient to rely on infiltration discharge of multiple storm events. Therefore, in our opinion, design of the stormwater system should be based on detention and controlled release. While the ability to infiltrate stormwater will be limited by the storage volume of the outwash formation, this available storage will be sufficient to impact water quality dead storage in the pond. If the pond system is designed with dead storage for water quality purposes, the water quality pond cell should be located on the upper northeastern portion of the pond site. If located in the western outwash portion, or if outwash soils are exposed in the water quality pond cell, the pond should be lined to prevent loss of dead storage. Lining can consist of a soil liner constructed using the on-site glacial till soils. The glacial till soil liner should have a minimum thickness of 2 feet and be constructed with till soils that have a minimum fines content of 20 percent. Cobbles or rock size of three inches and greater should be removed from the soil liner. The soil liner should be placed in 12- inch loose soil lifts and compacted as structural fill. Soil moisture should be within minus one to plus three percent of optimum soil moisture when compacted. Fill material placed for construction of perimeter containment berms should meet the requirements for pond liner as discussed. Berm fill should be placed and compacted structurally. Preparation of the fill subgrade should include removal of topsoil and forest duff, exposing competent native inorganic glacial soil. Interior pond slopes below the design maximum water surface should be graded to a minimum slope inclination of3:1. Exterior slopes can be graded to 2:1. All slope faces should be compacted and track-walked followed by cover planting, such as hydro-seeding to reduce the erosion potential. 5.8 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building areas. We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of two percent should be provided, unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Page No.8 Subsurface October lO, 2005 Project No. T-5668-l We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building foundations. The foundation drains should be tightlined to an approved point of controlled discharge independent of the roof drain system. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to the point of discharge. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year. 5.9 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APW A) specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. As noted, successful use of on-site soils as fill will require close moisture control. When moisture cannot be controlled to facilitate proper compaction, minimum trench backfill should consist of an imported granular soil that meets the gradation requirements presented in Section 5.2 of this report. 5.10 Pavements Roadway pavement within the project site should be constructed on subgrades, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the sub grade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. Proof rolling the sub grade with heavy construction equipment should be completed to verify this condition. The thickness of the various components of the pavement depends on the sub grade soils and the traffic conditions to which the pavement will be subjected. We expect traffic to mainly consist of light passenger vehicles, with only occasional heavy service vehicles. Based on this information, and assuming a properly prepared and stable sub grade , we recommend the following pavement sections: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt-treated base (ATB) All paving materials should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete and CRB surfacing. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. To improve performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. Page No. 9 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES October 10, 2005 Project No. T-5668-1 Terra Associates, Inc., should review the final project designs and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for expedient design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the property of Terra Associates, Inc., and is intended for specific application to the Highlands Park project in Renton, Washington. This report is for the exclusive use of Bumstead Construction Company and its authorized representatives. The analyses and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from the on- site test pits. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc., should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 10 Sf 124lH -_._-------.... _ .......... __ . 14C11H ~I REFERENCE: THOMAS GUIDE, CD-ROM, KING/PIERCE/SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, 2004 NOT TO SCALE Terra Associates Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences VICINITY MAP HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-5668-1 Date OCT 2005 Figure 1 <M LAWN 3 .. ... _I LAWN 2 K.C.S.P. 484106 REC. NO. 8505170617 'j:048:: .. ·2~" ... J.J"1.[t;il; 11,4·5· ;2;Lt;;,.\~.~ ..• , sM, -.r-- _ .. NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CORE DESIGN, INC. LEGEND: 151 Tp·1 • S·1 A TE·1 ~TP·101 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT, FEB. 7, 2005 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATION, JULY 27, 2005 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATION, JULY 27,2005 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT, OCT. 5, 2005 LAW N 1 ---l-- APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Terra ~ Associates Inc. UNPLATTED EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants In Geotechnical lnglneerlng Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-5668-1 I Date OCT 2005 Figure 2 12" MINIMUM 3/4" MINUS WASHED ~ GRAVEL n SLOPE TO DRAIN >. 3" BELOW PIPE 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE NOT TO SCALE NOTE: EXCAVATED SLOPE (SEE REPORT TEXT FOR APPROPRIATE INCLINATIONS) MIRADRAIN G100N PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS OR SIMILAR PRODUCT CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE 12-INCH WIDE GRAVEL DRAIN BEHIND WALL. DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD EXTEND A MINIMUM OF SIX INCHES INTO 12-INCH THICK DRAINAGE GRAVEL LAYER OVER PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE. ~ ,,..:~~:: Terra .... ~ .. ~, , ...... ' ...... Associates Inc. • Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering TYPICAL WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-5668-1 Date OCT 2005 Figure 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Highlands Park Renton, Washington Site exploration work was completed on three separate occasions. Initially, on February 7,2005, we excavated 12 test pits to a maximum depth of 20 feet below existing surface grades. On July 27, 2005, we excavated 14 additional test pits to a maximum depth of 9 feet below existing surface grades and 5 test holes to a maximum depth of 12.5 feet below existing surface grades. On October 5, 2005, six more test pits were excavated on property that was added onto the development site. The test pits were excavated using either a rubber-tired backhoe, or a track-mounted hoe. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2. Test pits locations are approximate and were determined by pacing and belt chain measurements from existing site features. The test pit logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-20. Test pit elevations shown on the logs are approximate and were determined by interpolation of the contour lines shown on the boundary and topographic survey prepared by CORE Design. A geological engineer or geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration, maintained a log of each test pit, classified the soils encountered, collected representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A-I. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the test pit logs. Grain size analyses were performed on 11 of the samples, the results of which are shown on Figures A-21 through A-26. Project No. T-5668-1 MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL Clean GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. s... CIJ Q) (less than Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or ..J ~ GP 0 «IQ) More than 5% fines) no fines. -N 50% of coarse CIJ -'w GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic «I fraction is Cl .t:; Q) Gravels fines. Q» larger than No. W ..... Q) with fines z «1.-4 sieve GC EfIJ Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ~ 0 ~o Clean (!) b N SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. 1.0 0 SANDS Sands w c:z (less than Poorly-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no CIJ «I SP a::: .£::.c: More than 5% fines) fines. ..... «1 50% of coarse « ~::; 0 0 fraction is SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. (J :2! smaller than Sands NO.4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. CIJ (ij ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight ..J ·t:;0 SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. 0 OlO CL 10 N Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). CIJ EOQ) Liquid limit is less than 50% Cl ~z.~ OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. W bc:fIJ Z I.O«IQ) ~ c:::; a; MH Inorganic silts, elastic. «I s....-.£::.Q)fIJ SILTS AND CLAYS (!) ..... = W Q)«I CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. s...E Z OfIJ Liquid limit is greater than 50% U. :2! OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS (f) Standard Penetration I 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT (f) Densit~ Resistance in Blows/Foot w SPOON SAMPLER -J Z Very loose 0-4 I 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER 0 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER en Loose w Medium dense 10-30 J: Dense 30-50 y WATER LEVEL (DATE) 0 Very dense >50 () Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Standard Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Consistenc~ Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot w > Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent en w Soft 2-4 J: Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX 0 Stiff 8-16 () Very stiff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 J Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ~~~ Associates, Inc. HIGHLANDS PARK ~~ .. RENTON, WASHINGTON ConSUltants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Proj. No. T-5668-1 I Date OCT 2005 I Figure A-1 Environmental Earth Sciences Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: JV Date: 2/7/05 Approximate Elev. 422 Depth (ft.) o Soil Description (8 inches TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF with fine roots) Moisture Content (%) 14.9 -Reddish-tan SILT with sand and small roots, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (ML) With fine roots. 5- 10-- Gray, fine-to coarse-grained SAND to SAND with silt, medium dense, moist. (SP/SW-SM) Gray, fine-to medium-grained sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, moist. -(GP) -15- - 7.6 6.2 6.9 3.1 7.4 Gray, weakly cemented, fine-grained SAND with silt, dense, moist. (SP-SM) 19.4 20 -+-=Te-s~t p~it~t-er-m"':"in-a"':"te-:d:-a"':"t ~20::-f~e-:et:-. "':"L~ig~ht:-g-ro-u-n"':'dw-a"':'te-r-s-ee-p-a-g-e -en-c-o-un""!t-er-e"':'d -at:-'1~8~.5:-:f~ee~t-. ---I Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: JV Date: 217105 Approximate Elev. 422 Depth (ft.) o Soil Description Moisture Content (%) (6 inches TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF with fine roots) 1\ Reddish-tan, fine-grained silty SAND to sandy SILT, medium dense, moist. 17.2 -I \ (SM/ML) With fine roots. 5- - 10- 15- - Gray, fine-to medium-grained sandy GRAVEL, medium dense to dense, moist. (GP) Test pit terminated at 16 feet. Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 8.5 feet. 6.7 7.1 8.2 20~---------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~~~ Terra. ~. ........ ASSOCiates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 I Date OCT 200s1 Figure A-2 Test Pit No. TP-3 Logged by: JV Date: 217105 Approximate Elev. 428 Depth Moisture Content (ft.) Soil Description (%) 0~-=(3~in-c~he-s~T~O~P~S~O~IL-a-nd~FO~R~E~S~T~D~U~F~F)~------------------~~~~--~ \ Reddish-tan, fine-grained silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist. 10.9 ,(SM) With fine roots. 5- _ Gray, fine grained, weakly cemented silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial Till) 10- 15-- 9.3 11.3 7.1 10.6 O Test pit terminated at 19 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 2 -~------------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: JV Date: 217105 Approximate Elev. 439 Depth (ft.) Soil Description o E3 Inches I ~ _~,~ and fUREST DUFF) 1\ Reddish-tan, fine-grained silty SAND to sandy SILT, medium dense, moist. -I \(SM/ML) 5- Gray, fine-grained silty SAND to sandy SILT, mottled, medium dense, 1\ moist. (SM/ML) (Weathered Glacial Till) Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel to sandy -SILT with gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial Till) - 10- Test pit terminated at 12 feet. 15-No groundwater seepage encountered. Moisture Content (%) 18.5 9.6 7.0 9.2 20~--------------------------------------------~ r ~~ Terra. ~"'-' .J ASSOCiates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 I Date OCT 200s1 Figure A-3 Logged by: JV Date: 2/7/05 Test Pit No. TP-5 Approximate Elev. 437 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description co(~te) nt O~ ________________________________________ -r~o_o~~~~ (TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF mixed with reddish-tan sandy SILT) Y 1\ With fine roots. 22.4 5- 10-- Mottled gray, fine-grained silty SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium dense, wet. (SM) Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial Till) -Test pit terminated at 12 feet. Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage between 1 and 6 feet. 8.6 7.6 8.4 15~--------------------------------------------~ Logged by: JV Date: 2/7/05 Test Pit No. TP-6 Approximate Elev. 448 Depth Moisture (ft ) Content . Soil Description (%) O~~==~~~==~~=---------------------~~~--~ (TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF) -Tan, fine-grained silty SAND, medium dense, wet. (SM) Gray, fine-grained silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, 5 -medium dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Weathered Glacial Till) Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 28.0 11.6 11.5 10~----------------------------------~--~--~ Test pit terminated at 10 feet. Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 3 feet. 15~--------------------------------------------~ r A~~ Terra ~:.--.. Associates, Inc. TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-5668-1 J Date OCT 2005\ Figure A-4 Test Pit No. TP-7 Logged by: JV Approximate Elev. 462 Date: 2/7/05 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content O~~~~====~~====~==----------------~-(~%~)~--~ (4 inches TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF) 14.7 Tan, fine-grained silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist. (SM/ML) Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel, dense, 5 -moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 10- Test pit terminated at 12 feet. _ Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 and 11.0 feet. 8.3 13.8 12.4 15~----------------------------------------------~ Logged by: JV Date: 2/7/05 Depth (ft.) Test Pit No. TP-8 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 459 Moisture Content o~----------------------------------------~~~----~ (TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF) (%) 32.5 Tan, fine-grained sandy SILT, medium dense, wet. (ML) With fine roots. Gray, fine-grained silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM) (Weathered Glacial Till) 5-+~~~----------~----------------------~ -Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial Till) Y 12.1 9.2 5.8 10-+------------------------------------~--~--~ -Test pit terminated at 10 feet. Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 feet. - 15~----------------------------------------------~ r A~ Terra ~:"" Associates, Inc. TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-5668-1 1 Date OCT 20051 Figure A-5 Logged by: JV Date: 217105 Test Pit No. TP-9 Approximate Elev. 470 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content o-.~~~--~~~~~----------__________ -.~(%~o)~ __ --, (TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF) 19.4 Mottled gray to tan, fine-grained silty SAND to sandy SILT, medium dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Weathered Glacial Till) 12.1 5- _ Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel to sandy _ SILT with gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial Till) 10- Test pit terminated at 12 feet. Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 4 feet. 11.2 7.7 15~--------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. TP-10 Logged by: JV Date: 2/7/05 Approximate Elev. 482 Depth Moisture (ft ) Content . Soil Description (%) O~----------------------------------------~~~----~ (4 inches TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF) 19.1 Mottled gray to tan, fine-grained silty SAND to sandy SILT, medium 1\ dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Weathered Glacial Till) '--------------------------1 13.7 - 5- -Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial Till) 11.9 . 10-11.5 Test pit terminated at 12 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 15~--------------------------------------------~ r &~ Terra. ~: 0--. oJ ASSOCiates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-5668-1 1 Date OCT 20051 Figure A-6 Test Pit No. TP-11 Logged by: JV Date: 2/7105 Approximate Elev. 436 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description co(~;e) nt O-r~~~~~~~==~~~----------------~~~~~--~ (8 inches TOPSOIL and FOREST DUFF) Reddish-tan, fine-grained sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, moist. -(ML) With fine roots. -Gray, fine-grained silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Weathered Glacial Till) 5-+------------------------------------------1 -Gray, fine grained, moderately cemented silty SAND with gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 10- Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 19.5 9.6 8.0 6.4 Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 2.5 feet. 15~~~--~~------~~--------------------------~ Test Pit No. TP-12 Logged by: JV Date: 2/7105 Approximate Elev. 427 Depth Moisture (ft ) Content . Soil Description (%) 0~/l~16T.in~c~he~s~T~qP~~oIILr.a~n~~~~~~~~~~~~.I.~.D~'IU~~~~~.t~----------------~~.----. 5- Tan, fine-grained sandy SILT, medium dense, moist. (ML) With fine roots. Y Gray, fine grained, weakly cemented silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist. (SM) Gray, fine-to coarse-grained GRAVEL with sand, medium dense, moist. (GP) 11.3 3.4 10-r----------------------------------~--~--~ Test pit terminated at 10 feet. -Light perched groundwater seepage encountered at 1.5 feet. - 15~------------------------------------------~ r A~ Terra. ~~:.--•• J ASSOCiates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-5668-1 1 Date OCT 20051 Figure A-7 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Test Pit No. 8-1 De~h Mo~~re (ft.) S '1 D . t' Content 01 escnp Ion (01 ) O-T----------------------~----------------~/~(O~--~ Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5-Test pit terminated at 4 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. o Test Pit No. 8-2 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth (ft.) o - 5- o o o Soil Description Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 4 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. Moisture Content (%) 10~------------------------------------------------------------------~ r ~~ Terra. ~~~y:.-.-. ~ Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-5668-1 1 Date OCT 20051 Figure A-8 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Test Pit No. 8-3 Depth Moisture (ft,) S 'I D 't' C~~tent 01 escnplon \0/0) o~----------------------------------------~~~----~ -FILL: brown silty sand with gravel and organics, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5 Test pit terminated at 4 feet. -No groundwater seepage encountered. - 10~----------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. 8-4 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth (ft.) o Soil Description FILL: brown silty sand with gravel and organics and wood debris, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5 -Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet. _ No groundwater seepage encountered. - - Moisture Content (%) 10~----------------------------------------------~ r A"''''~ Terra ~: .~. "I Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 1 Date OCT 200s1 Figure A-9 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth Test Pit No. 8-5 (ft.) Moisture Content Soil Description (%) O~----------------------~----------------~~~----~ Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) - Test pit terminated at 4 feet. 5 -No groundwater seepage encountered. - 10~---------------------------------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. 8-6 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content O~----------------------------------------~(~%~o)~--~ Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 4 feet. 5 -No groundwater seepage encountered. - 10~---------------------------------------------~ r &~ Terra. ~: ,--.. ] Associates, Inc. TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-S668-1 I Date OCT 200SIFiQUre A-10 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Test Pit No. 8-7 Depth Moisture (ft.) S '1 D . t' Cont~nt 01 escnp Ion (%, O~----------------------------------------~~~----~ -FILL: brown silty sand with gravel and organics, loose, moist. (SM) - 5-+-----------------------------------------; Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 6 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~--------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. 8-8 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth (ft.) Soil Description o Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5-Test pit terminated at 4 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. - Moisture Content (%) 10~--------------------------------------------~ ~ Terra ~ Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 I Date OCT 200SIFigure A-11 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Test Pit No. 8-9 Depth Moisture (ft.) S ·1 D . t· Content 01 escnp Ion (%) o~----------------------~----------------~~~----~ - FILL: brown silty SAND with gravel and organics, loose, moist. (SM) 5 -Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 7 feet. -No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~------------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. 8-10 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth (ft.) o . 5- Soil Description FILL: brown silty sandy gravel with rubbish, engine parts, and hydraulic hoses, loose, moist to wet. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Moisture Content (%) Test pit terminated at 9 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ r &~ Terra. ~:.~ .. ] Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and -Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 ! Date OCT 200S!Figure A-12 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27105 Test Pit No. 8-11 Depth Moisture (ft,) S 'I D 't' Content 01 escnp Ion (%) O~----------------------------------------~~~----~ Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) - Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5-+------------------------------------~--~--~ Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered . . 10~--------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. 8-12 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27105 Depth (ft.) o Soil Description Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Moisture Content (%) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 4 feet. 5-No groundwater seepage encountered. - . 10~----------------------------------------------~ r A~ Terra. ~:.--•• J Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 ! Date OCT 200S!FiQure A-13 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Test Pit No. 8-13 Depth Moisture (ft.) S '1 D . t' Content 01 escnp Ion (01 ) O-T----------------------------------------~/=(O~--~ FILL: brown silty sand with gravel and organics, loose, moist. (SM) - 5-~------------------------------------------, - Gray silty-SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 8 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. 8-14 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth (ft.) o Soil Description Moisture Content (%) FILL: brown silty sand with gravel and organics, loose, moist. (SM) 5 -Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 8 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~--------------------------------------------~ r~~~ Terra ~ •• --.-•• J Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 I Date OCT 200SIFigure A-14 Test Pit No. TE-1 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27105 Depth Moisture (ft) ~~~ . Soil Description (%) O~--------------------------------------~~~--~ 5-FILL: gray silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist. o o 10-~ ________________________________________ ~ Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. -Groundwater seepage encountered at 11.5 feet. 15~--------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. TE-2 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27105 Depth Moisture ft ) Content ( . Soil Description (%) O~--------------------------------------~~~---. Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose. (SM) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5-+------------------------------------~ o Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10- 15~------------------------------------~--~--~ r ~~ Terra ~:. I. 441 Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-5668-1 1 Date OCT 20051 Figure A-15 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Test Pit No. TE-3 Depth Moisture (ft.) S '1 D . t' Content 01 escnp Ion (%) o~--------------------------------------------~~~--~ Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose. (SM) -Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5~----------------------------------------~~~--~ Test pit terminated at 5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~------------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. TE-4 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth (ft. ) o Soil Description Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose. (SM) Moisture Content (%) Gray silty SAND with gravel, very dense. (SM) (Glacial Till) 5- Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ ~ Terra ~ Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 I Date OCT 200siFigure A-16 Test Pit No. TE-5 Logged by: EH Date: 7/27/05 Depth Moisture (ft.) S '1 D . t' Content 01 escnp Ion (,01 \ O~ ____________________ ~ ______________ ~~IO~J __ ~ FILL: brown silty SAND with gravel, loose . . 5- Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~--------------------------------------------~ r -~~ Terra ~:.--.. ' Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-S668-1 ! Date OCT 200S!FigUre A-17 Logged by: BPK Date: 10/5/05 Test Pit No. TP-101 Approximate Elev. 414 Depth Moisture (ft.) Content Soil Description 101 \ O-r--------------------~--------------~~\/~(OJ~--_. (6 inches TOPSOIL) Reddish-brown to tan silty SAND with gravel, cobbles to 6 inches, medium 6.5 dense, dry. (SM) 5 -Gray GRAVEL with sand, trace silt, cobbles to 6 inches, medium dense, dry. (GP) (Outwash) -Moist below 6 feet. Dense below 6.5 feet. Brown SAND with gravel, trace silt, cobbles to 4 inches, dense, moist. (SP) (Outwash) Wet below 9 feet. 10 -Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. Test Pit No. TP-102 3.3 6.0 4.7 Logged by: BPK Date: 10/5/05 Depth Approximate Elev. 430 (ft.) o 5 - Soil Description (6 inches TOPSOIL) Reddish-brown to tan silty SAND with gravel, cobbles to 12 inches, medium dense, dry. (SM) Slightly cemented below 2 feet. Moisture Content (%) 5.6 Gray, mottled yellow silty SAND with gravel, moderately cemented, cobbles to 4 inches, medium dense, moist. (SM) (Weathered Glacial Till) 6.3 l:iray SIl~.::;;ANI:J_ w!~n grav~l, m~~erately cementea, CODDles to 4 Incnes, dense, mOIst. (SM) (GlaCial Till) Test pit terminated at 6 feet. No ,groundwater seepage encountered. 6.1 10~--------------------------------------------------~ [ ~~ Terra. ~: .-.... •• J Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-5668-1 ! Date OCT 2005!FigUre A-18 Test Pit No. TP-103 Logged by: BPK Date: 10/5/05 Depth Approximate Elev. 418 Moisture Content (ft.) o S'ID 'r 01 escnplon 1%1 (8 inches TOPSOIL) . Reddish-brown to tan silty SAND, slightly gravelly, medium dense, dry . (SM) 5.7 Slightly cemented below 2 feet. Cobbles to 4 inches below 2.5 feet. Gray GRAVEL with sand, trace silt, slightly cemented, medium dense, dry. 1.9 (GP) (Outwash) 5 -Becomes brown and sandy below 5 feet. . C?ray silty o~tt~~ W~~h [If,avf!I, m~~erateIY cemented, cobbles to 4 Inches, dense, mOIst. SM laclal Till 9.8 Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. - 10 Test Pit No. TP-104 Logged by: BPK Date: 10/5/05 Depth Approximate Elev. 444 Moisture Content (%) (ft.) o 5 - 10 Soil Description (10 inches TOPSOIL) Reddish-brown to tan silty SAND with gravel, cobbles to 4 inches, medium 7.2 dense, moist. (SM) 8.7 Light gray mottled orange silty SAND with gravel, moderately cemented, cobbles to 4 inches, medium dense, moist. (SM) (Weathered Glacial Till) ~.!~ S,i!!'y'Sf.~.Q.Wlth gravel, mOderately cemented, dense, mOIst. (S ) (GlaCial Till) 8.9 Test pit terminated at 7 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. Terra Associates, Inc. TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-5668-1 Date OCT 2005 Figure A-19 Logged by: BPK Date: 10/5/05 Depth Test Pit No. TP-105 Approximate Elev. 459 (ft.) Moisture Content Soil Description (0/0) o~----------------------------------------~~~----~ FILL: dark brown sandy silt with gravel and organics, disturbed texture, loose, moist. Tan orange silty SAND, slightly gravelly, medium dense, moist. (SM) -Gray, mottled orange silty SAND with gravel, moderately cemented, cobbles to 6 inches, medium dense, moist. (SM) (Weathered Glacial Till) 7.7 12.7 ~ay S!~ty s~~Q.wltn gravel, moaerately cementea, aense, mOist. 5-i~(S~M~)~(G~I~aC~ia~I~Ti~II)~ ________________________________ ~ __ ~ ____ ~ Test pit terminated at 5 feet. -No groundwater seepage encountered. 10~----------------------------------------------~ Test Pit No. TP-106 Logged by: BPK Date: 10/5/05 Depth (ft.) o (8 inches TOPSOIL) Soil Description Approximate Elev. 453 Moisture Content (0/0) Reddish-brown to tan silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (SM) Gray, mottled orange silty SAND with gravel, moderately cemented, cobbles to 6 inches, medium dense, moist. (SM) (Weathered Glacial Till) 5 _ ~ay silty SA~.D with gravel, moderately cemented, dense, moist. (SM) (Glacial Till) Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. - 7.6 7.8 11.3 10~--------------------------------------------~ ~ Terra ~ Associates, Inc. TEST PIT LOGS HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-S668-1 ! Date OCT 200S!FigUre A-20 PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ..J n. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .001 0 ...-N C") ~ 10 co ,.... co en ...-.001 I--r-.....- ..J ..J .002 .002 en en .003 .003 ~ >-G)";/e -I :;: .004 .004 ... -.- ~ :;: :i 1i co ...-Z ~ .006 .006 o -~ M ~ :;: § c:: w en u !::::! .008 .008 w W en .01 .01 z l-LL W z ~ ~ 0 (!) c:: .02 .02 0 >-.03 .03 I .04 .04 .06 .06 r---200 .08 1-- 0 ~ .1 Q: C3 en z 100 c:: w ~ ~~""~ W z .2 l-ii: I:: en ~ ~ 0 60 W '"" en :.. ~ Co ::> .3 °5 :i io" ::i In .4 -I CD u 40 I-0 ~ ",'" IJI ~ 0 Q: 1/1 .... .6 Z z w I :;:< n. 20 .8 W ::>en J: ~ I 1 N ~ en en w I I :;: :;: Z "0 u.. ~ ~ I:: 0 til en 10 2 -In Q: W :; ~ w C> en .~ al 3 Q: ~ :;: II < ..J ::> 4 0 w z j ~I-o 0 ~ Z 4 z ~ f-I < 6 en (!) W 1/4 > ~ 8 w W 3/8 10 z en ii: en en 1/2 '" U n. n. w ..J en en (!) J: 5/8 "" w ::> u 3/4 ~ ~ ~ 20 ~ 1 ... w(!) :R--=-1 1/4 30 0 (!) "" en 10 t.ri ~ 1 1/2 Q: CI) = lei 40 ~ 0-'-...-z ~ w 2 U n. ~p.~l-~ 60 I:: 0 o ... 3 :;::; Q) u.. 80 I-L-I!! .0 ...-..- 0 I I o E n. n. w 4 100 en -:::I I--I-- N W ~z Ci5 -I W 6 CO CO 200 0 U ~ • 0 1--..... 12 300 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en co ,.... co 10 ~ C") N ...-...- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT _ Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ~ Associates, Inc. HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geolog~and Proj. No. T-5668-11 Date OCT 2005 I Figure A-21 Environmenta Earth Sciences PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT 1 ...J a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I--~ .001 0 .... N M V LO CD r--00 Ol .... .001 ...-- ...J ...J .002 .002 CI) en .003 .003 >-~ ....J ~ .004 .004 I!!--« j- ~ -c:: .., .... Z ~ . ~ S a; ,...: « .006 .006 ~ § ..... 0::: w CI) U N .008 .008 w L1J Ci5 Z I-.01 .01 iI L1J z ~ ~ 0 (!) 0::: .02 .02 0 >-.03 .03 J: .04 .04 .06 .06 f--f-200 .08 1-,... 0 ~ .1 0:: C3 100 ~ C/) z 0::: w ~ .. ~ .. ~io"io" L1J z ~ .2 l-iI: c:: (/) ~ 60 L1J (/) 1-1-~ :> "" .3 .;: :::i 0 :i" j.. 10-<II .4 ....J CD u 40 ",J,.I-~ .... 0 ~ ~j.I 0 0:: 10-"" .6 Z z w II l;1o-~« a. 20 .8 L1J :>(/) J: N is (/) 1 en w w ::: ~ ~ Z -0 II.. ~ c:: 0 111 C/) 10 2 l-I/) 0:: IJ w :!: £i en w (!) (/) ·iii .~ ~ III ~ 3 0:: £i ~ (§ .~ ...J ~ :> ~ w z 4 ~ 0 ~ 4 -z « f-IJI' « L1J 1/4 6 (/) (!) > ~ 8 w L1J 3/8 z en '" 10 iI: (/) ~ (/) 1/2 U en a. w ~ ...J (/) . (!) J: 5/8 w a. U J,. ~ :> (/) ~ 3/4 20 .... ~ 1 w(!) :5.-=-(!) 1 1/4 30 0 0 l-(/) a; z 11/2 0:: CD!!::. a; Z 40 (§ 0 .... w 2 a. U c:: 0 60 o "- II.. 3 1-.... ;:Oil ... ~ 0 80 (I? E cL a. w 4 100 en .Q j l-I- N W ~Z Ci5 ....J W 6 co co ~ 200 0 U ~ 12 300 l.....-• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol 00 r--CD LO V M N .... .... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT -Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ," a.:.: .... ::~;:'~'r"" '. Associates Inc. HIGHLANDS PARK .~ ... RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering Geolog~and Proj. No. T-566S-11 Date OCT 2005 1 Figure A-22 Environments Earth Sciences PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ...J a.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~ .001 0 ..... N C") ..,. LO co r--«Xl 0) ..... .001 ..-- ...J ...J .002 .002 en Ci5 .003 .003 ...... >-CDfI!. ...J ::E . 004 .004 .......... « ::J ... ::E 7ii c N .... Z ._ CD cO ,...:: « ~ .006 o ... .006 ::E § 0::: w (f) U N .008 .008 w W Ci) z I-.01 .01 u:: W z ~ ~ 0 C) 0::: .02 .02 Cl >-.03 I: .03 .04 .04 .06 .06 -I-200 .08 I-~ 0 ~ ~ .1 en z 100 0::: w ;! W Z ~ .2 l-ii: c en !j 0 en 60 W := ~ Co ::> 'I ,/1 .3 ·c :r: :J u III ~ ...J CD U 40 .4 ~ 0 ~ I ... ~ ~ 0 a: l .6 Z z w ~ ... ~ ::E<C a.. I .8 :::>en 20 1 w :I: N is en I 1/1 1 Ci5 w w ::E ~ ::E I z "0 I!! u.. / c 0 I ~ III 01 ~ 10 2 -III ~ a: I , w :; ~ w (9 en .~ Cl / / 3 a: 0 ~ ::E <C ...J Z :::> 0 ~ <C Z I 4 ~ en 4 -~ « -w I, 1 6 C) ·iii 1/4 > " 1 8 w W 3/8 z en "" 10 ii: en en 1/2 U a.. ::E w ... ~ :I: ...J en C) en 5/8 w :::> u ~ ~ 3/4 ~ """~ 20 I- ~ 1 wC) .s:::. C) 1 1/4 30 c..--:-0 0 ~ en CD¢:: ui N z 11/2 a: 0 ....... .... .... Z 40 ~ w 2 a.. U c 0 60 :8.8 u.. 3 I-~ N C") 0 80 ~ E Ii.. I a.. w 4 100 (f) ~~ t-t- N W Ci) ....J 6 fD fD 200 0 U >. CD • 0 r--12 300 "'-~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) «Xl r--co LO ..,. C") N .... .... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT ~ Terra GRAIN SIZE ANAL YSIS 'it"', 'J!' " HIGHLANDS PARK • ·I .. ~ 1 .. . .. ~.-.. Associates Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering Geology and Proj. No. T-5668-11 Date OCT 2005 1 Figure A-23 Environmental Earth Sciences PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ..J a.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-.001 0 .... ('II C") -.:t II) CD "-IX) en .... .001 ......- ..J ..J .002 .002 en en .003 .003 ...... >-Q)-;fl. -I ~ .004 .004 ... ~ <C :::I .... CD IX) ~ 1ii c: c:i M Z ~ '0 JB T'" .... <C .006 .006 ~ 5 0::: w (/) () N .008 .008 w W en z ..... .01 .01 u: W z ~ ~ 0 C!) 0::: .02 .02 CI >-.03 :::I: .03 .04 .04 .06 .06 ~ r-200 .08 -,- 0 Il 0:: .1 « 0 -- en ~ 100 0::: w "'~~ W z "''''~ . 2 ..... u:: c: en ~ 0 W ;I en 60 0. => ... ~~'" ~ .... .3 ~ ·c ::::i (,) :x:-I/) ... ~ .... .... -I CD () 40 .4 ..... 0 ~ II / ~ 0 0:: .6 Z z w I I -~« a.. .8 W =>en :r:: 20 ~ I N Ci en 1 en w ~ Q) w ~ ~ J I" > Z I!! I!! u. ~ CI CI 0 ~ l E ~ 0:: 10 2 ~ w l (!) en ~ to 0:: 0 0 ~ Jl 3 « z z => 4 0 « « z z ~-en en <C -4 ,'I ~ ~ w 6 'iii 'iii > 1/4 W I I 8 w 3/8 z en 10 u:: en en 1/2 () ~ ~ W ..J en en en :r:: 5/8 w => () ~ ~ 3/4 20 - ') 'I ~ 1 Ii wC!) = ...... C!) 1 1/4 Ij 30 en 0. • 0 II) Z 0:: CD II:: ....: cO Z 11/2 40 « o~ T'" W 2 0 a.. () c: 0 60 o ... u. 3 -I.-;I CD C") "-80 t'II.o I I 0 o E a.. a.. w 4 100 (/) -::::I l-I- N W ~z en -I w 6 co co 200 0 U ~ ---• 0 12 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en IX) "-CD II) -.:t C") ('II .... ..... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT ~ Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ., ::;-;;~'r '0,· • Associates Inc. HIGHLANDS PARK • _.::!:.a .. RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering GeolOg~and Proj. No. T-5668-11 Date OCT 2005 I Figure A-24 Environmenta Earth Sciences PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ...J Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .001 0 .... N c<) ~ I() CD r--co al .... .001 -r-r--- ...J ...J .002 .002 C/) en .003 .003 ....... >-ill ;;e. -I :::i: .004 .004 ... ~ « ::::I _ :::i: -c: .... ~ Z .~ .!l N .... « ~ .006 .006 ::::i: !5 .... .... 0::: w en N .008 .008 w u UJ en .01 .01 Z I-u::: UJ z :::E ~ 0 (!) 0::: .02 .02 C >-.03 .03 ::r:: .04 .04 .06 .06 -I-200 ~'" r-.08 .... - 0 a:: ~'" .1 C§ , ~ C/) z 100 0::: w ~ l Ii w z .2 l-ii: c: (J) 0 60 UJ :;:::I (J) / ~' ::2 Co ~ .3 .;:: ::J (.) -X , gj u 40 ') .4 -I ..... 0 ~ II ," ~ 0 a:: II .6 Z z w ,~ ::::i:~ Q. II .8 - 20 W ~ J: I , 0 Qj (J) 1 N w > w / ~, en :::i: Qj e :::i: > CI , z e "0 u. I, ~ CI c: ~ 0 10 2 -j «I a:: ~~~ -W ·iii ~ W (9 ~ co ........ " 3 0 £i :::i: C3 z .~ ~ ~.,. " « « z 4 ~ (J) 0 Z 4 -~ « r--,,' " ~ UJ 1/4 - 6 ·iii (J) > ~ " 8 w UJ 3/8 10 z en ii: (J) ::::i: (J) 1/2 u ::::i: (J) w I) ...J (J) cL J: 5/8 w ~ (J) u 3/4 ~ ~ (J) ~ II 20 ~ 1 w(!) '8.--:-(!) 11/4 30 (J) I() 0 z 11/2 a:: Q) ¢:: M M Z 40 « o~ w 2 0 Q. 60 u c: 0 o ... u. 3 :;:::I Q) ~ N 80 f--I!! .0 .... 0 o E Q. cL w 4 100 en -::::I l-I- N W ~z en -I w 6 CO CO 200 0 U >- 12 Q) • 0 _ ..... 300 '--~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al co r--CD I() ~ c<) N .... .... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT _Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS 111 ... • 0)" • HIGHLANDS PARK "'.: .. , _ -.,.-;.. Associates, Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Proj. No. T-5668-11 Date OCT 2005 I Figure A-25 Environmental Earth Sciences PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT ..J Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .001 0 ..... N C") ~ 10 (£) ,.... ex) en ..... .001 r---- ..J ..J .002 .002 CJ) en .003 .003 -->-CD"#. ..J ~ .004 .004 "" ~ « :::J _ :E -c: -.:t z '5 s M « ~ .006 .006 ~ § c::: w en N .008 .008 . w u w en .01 .01 Z l-ii: w z ::E ~ 0 (!) c::: .02 .02 Cl >-.03 .03 :r: .04 .04 .06 .06 r---200 .08 1-,.... Cl .1 ~ Cl 100 en ~ c::: w W z .2 l-ii: c: (J) 0 (J) 60 W :;::> ::E Q. :J .3 .;:: ::J 0 :i rn U 40 .4 ..J I-CD ~ 1 ~ Cl Cl 0:: .6 Z z w I :E~ Q. 20 .8 w :J J: 1 N C (J) en w w :E :E Z 't:J u... J ~ c: 0 10 m ~ 2 iii U) 0:: I :; ~ w (!) (J) .~ III 3 0:: :E <5 ..J :J I 4 w Z z 4 ~-~ « -, W 1/4 6 (!) > I 8 w w Ci5 3/8 10 z (J) 1/2 ii: (J) w ~ U Q. J: 5/8 ..J (J) (!) W :J U 3/4 I-~ ~ '" 20 ~ 1 ~ w(!) (!) 1 1/4 ~ 30 (J) K-=-Co! ~ 1 1/2 0:: CD¢:: 10 Z .. :.-40 <5 Cl~ w 2 Q. :'-""'''''' 60 u c: 0 o ~ u... 3 1---:;::>~ N 0 80 e:! E ..... , 4 100 .Q :::J Q. W en §tz l-N W en ....J w 6 a:l m 200 0 U >. 12 CD • ---300 ""---~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en ex) ,.... (£) 10 ~ C") N ..... ..... PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT ~Terra GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS HIGHLANDS PARK .~~ ~ Associates Inc. RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ Consultants in Geotechnical ~ngineering Geology and Proj. No. T-S668-11 Date OCT 200S I Figure A-26 Environmental Earth Sciences j • ! I I I I I , • \f _______ .~ ________ • ____ • __ --~.~-______ • ___ ~M __ ._~' _____ • ___ ,. _______ ~.~_. ______ ' __ • __ ••• __ .~ ___ .,. __ .. _ ........... '~_'. __ "~_~.' ___ ~~._~. __ ~_--.....u, .• _~ __ . ________ ... _____ . ____ ...".,.;.-•. __ ......,.....___ ______ _ --------.----.~----' .. "--.-.. -.. 1'J5 __ .. 0 .. .5'4 ---,--- / 1 / / J 0, .... / Q ~ 0 Q NaTE's J The, Hyd~'auliGs Division must be notif;i.ed priox' to any change in the drainage dBsign. , 2.. AU . .I'\lquircd stoX'm water retentlon/detenti'on faeUi ties must be : cons'f::,i>uctQc1 and in operation pri9X' ·to land clearing and/or .0 ther oanstrllction unless otherwiso approved by the Di:v:!,sion of HydrauUos. Px'ov:lde ami main tain temporary sed.imentaHon colieot:l,oll fa()ilities . 3. to insure sbdlment laden water does not unter the nabural dralnage system, Those facilities must bu in operation prior to alearing anel bllHding cons t l'llC Clon ,. Clnd lila tJ.sfaotorlly mnt 0 ~a:lo,,'l not U eon- structiQn nnd londaaaping IrB completed and the potentlul fOT on- situ eToslon bus paBaBd. ) ) k': "Q '0 '" If) () :--:-::::=:.cfF90"1 J,----------------------;I-----;I-I--___ --:~-/'/' /" Iv:. v IE :) " {2" CULVERT (E'X15T1NCr) I / . / / ~) ~ V o ~ v. / '-'._-./ r -ti;"~MP , -",,-- :1 ' / \ I I I / / " /' / / ~5<_ / /1:' ~ I I ! \ / "0'0 '- "o.39cr5 V£<I-.~ i:.8 F?5' c/ = .26 F7: \ \ \ \1/ jl///\ \ \ Ir---I i I I \ \\\ -:1. I , '''.'' i. __ _ , , , I I ..jl '-/s' --!~ l , j -" 1 2 3 \ .-.... " \ ,~IfIj)GE Y LIlliE \ l;'AO: _ . 61'1$ IN : ! 4~'" \ 5 / '\.-- ! , ~ .. \ 6 ! 1/ \ I ! I '3, c\' \\, \ ) /' I \ '--::r"'+--+-~~-\I \ \ \ , \. L ----'-0-- j/v' i7lP ·~/cr. ~;;F'-/, \ ',.' I \ .,'. I \ \ i '>, '. \ , .~ , \ ' \ . \ \ \ \ \ 1/ ~;.e. I 1 Y!' ; TOI'~12l; /IIu.16J.o I I I ~ \ " .. "",,---,---.... I.~.-... ---.. -" -_\ ___ 1[ .. 1.':/:1:.111_, -L_.__.. ..1 __ ,,1\ ___ . ____ ... _-/._j ___ ~'</"-- -;·--' __ C·,"~.: --..... -4' .... SE:'.c-137'T:"~""'''':''';;-=-'' ",,;u .. :-.. ~ . ~.:.= .. =_=./ ;/~ £ T H1. \ . , IN~t=Tif ToP 47180 IAN 45,,10 3Gf/¢ (TYP.) lioN. E L.' 'I{'S.80 B 12 -. "/,0. RllP V£I 0 5. o ' d' .3' enp . ~ .. ··~ .. ,-.... -'y--I· .. r-' --.. --_f-L..EL-. I" __ I ______ ~_ '.-.' "'fl. ' . .// /f ~ ---_._.+--_._--'q, . -rv,"'! <\. '< ''',' : 4 78.!" '. t-_ '" .~. A I Gri/.. V. S rtFJ!!'t 1 / ~-"-, -9 -- TOP EL. 47'>·37 P / Pi? ~;r----:-! .\ " /' PAT{lh'/ KCA.s. / SEe po/Vr SIIF£T3 '...----/1 1 1 I 1 "", 1 OcT~/L // '-SEE \ #' , 511EE7 Z ) f)c/AILS I I '. \ / / ./ , ., ! . - , -, \ " • \ , ., ., , \ \\ \ \ ., \\ \. , \ \ \ \ 0.005 Fr/PT _ ~ ;fJ!fi/!ff 2. ALL NAT£RIA/.. tf WORKMANSHIP 1'0 BE IN ACCOR{)4NC£ -I "/. AL.L CATCI-IBASINS TYP£ J~ UNLESS OTI-IERWISE NOTC£). 5> WITH AP.WA. spec's. (19'/7) ~j(j;YGCOUAiTY PUBLIC 54 I 0.::1 WORJ(.S fJEPT. . ..... I ().rf.!!j} 1; ~ ... 3.APP/POVAL Of" THt: COUNTY SIIALL B£ OBTAINtO lQ,Q . r. ' /'1AX. DeS/GN w.S, EL,47UJ PRIOR TO CONSTRIJCTlON. n, C:.:: . 4. fi'COI" OOWN5PO(JTS AR£ 10/3t:.-(/OAIN£Cr£!J INV. EL.''166,33 I , / I I J 1..f70 , ", -.......... CLOSED DETENTION :5 '(STEt1 DETAIL ( ) lin' M. ({') TO 5rOJfkf SEWERS 1'1'1/ S·.;T./37Tf/ r~L. No 5 CI'J U' -. <:ICir I/) . ." FACE .5 TRACT SII/ILL BE PEP/CllrEO FOR RETENTION nJClUTY SCALE:' NGAJE SPILLWAY De:TAtL 6 STE£LCVLVE/i'T SI-IALL ,BE GAL,YAIVIZCP ¢ TIf'£,A{A1£NT / '17 fJ' ~''''''''-'''-'''''' if 70 1/ G!;' '--~-.. - -OJ- 4) , I~I i ·80 TTor-1 0 F DITCH \. ;:t ,~ o /?£j/." 7 RFt/_ b REI!. 5, REVI5ED REV/SED 7" 25-7'1 7-/9-7[) 6 -13-79 17-']-79 J-b -79 REV/SED / -Lf -79 REV/SEO //-2-78 ," . '/1. $" ., / 16"4-?f I . -. '1If.qo , .~ f . '" , " ., .' rk I ' 3'1 Til pl .• 13;-~ eMf 0.0 1 f~ .j ~)- BOTTON OF DITe H - ~( L'J"15 7' /"'O~'/.J 11116 OF ,/f'VIII 0;:-;:- DITCI-( CROSS -jEeTIOIlJ /;//<:<: T # j/fJ /'~"fi. kC P.I.{).' tiel]/": MIN. ReM. /f-S ?E.f' I«,C. ~p GEN'. ReF//. AS PF"i' k. C. I(LJ ~ GEN, REI/. PER K. C. HYO, DEPT. KR(. GEN. REV. PER K. C. HYD DEPT. STORM'S Wl~,TER RETENTION SYSTEM FOR Ll8t.RT Y .LANE: ~ -. >, '. CH~eKa:D' SEC, A-A ASPH/I;LT' cOArE.!) . . _ . ____ -__ . __ ,~ ___ ~'"'_; __ .. ,,_~_.~,~_~ .. __ , -' -,.'-'_' _. ____ ._._T ... "'---..... -.. __ . ,_, ____ .;:, . .::..;=-:...:....:.:...;..;..... ____ i_.-__ ~~~ __ 'r ............ ,_ ........ ~.,,'-'""',,~ .•• -~ ....... ,._, ........ ~._ ......... ,---.-•• --.~.--.-':'" •• ~,,-.--.-... '---,,--,-------'-... ~-~-,-... -·,~-.-..... --+ .. ~.f.,.,.--• .,.-... -~-." .. -·'-.'F--__ I . . ~.-.... - , -, , . .;. , .'. " '"'-""t' ", ... ".' . , 470 " ! . , , i, ' i I', LOTS ____________ L...._ • ..---- /f78 '/7 7 ..... _---. -~------ ------.------ 477 " \l , I t!) -------------------LOT 8 ,= CI o l"1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I It ~--- .~" " BOLLlIRDS,-- ---'-,_ .. -----------+ ! I I " .. -.- I ,------- I I --------------------, ------ IN LET 2 ,'-."""----------- 47i3.,--~ 476 ,~ ____ _ IFI" _ ,-~- \) i ~I ; I /, ,; ~ '" -\t W ~.... ::r-4J I, '" Q.. ,112" AT EDGE ::: ~ ) / r--r T l:~;§j~~"(np) 'L__ -" ---•. ' -------r TRPSH RAe/< OETII/L l'uor TO SC~lLE I, I RENOI/FABlE SoIL V"- /\ . , III , , \ o I " /1/890341', W / -~-i \ \ \ \ \ ' .... 'SO/L. L06 iJ.~ I \ \ DRA/NA-61" \ \ \ " , '. -, ", ~ ---1 \ '-''''' ""-.::::-... ", -"::--- .~,"-.......... '" '~" ." ',. T A. ill/ TRACT A 1 \ I , """ ~ 0.: ....j ~l_ ~. I C), 0- :I~ "-:~ I \ M-W. s. £IE//.; -:;:: EL·474.67 ----------------_. '178 \ 477::'.. --.. -.. ---~" ( /'J.!' PERFORATED PIPE , -lO " I.n ~, "-- , , " F : ,L Ctl -' TPf}$rr p I'-C.'< l' 0 "20' , -'0.005 L <~O.O()---r-=~=~ , - , , , / I I I U If) ---"t- o " -..9 () '+80 _ _..___ 478 MAX. DESJGN /1/.-S'-E I 4-7'1 !! -/--< __________________ :L, _______ _ -------~~~~----... -... -... - : ; I " " '182_ 480 _ ---. '178 _ 476 _ \ \ \ POND I/O~. > 570 pr3 _ 480 .---H'(DROS££D AI-L DISi(AR8£O SURFACES /1A)(, WATER DESIGN EL-, ~ 'f77.00 \ 5 / \ ~-1 \ ~--~ ... I , \ __ EL. = '17'6.00' </78 _ '176 DII,F conPAC TEO TO 9S% OP nAY. AEUrnuE. ----0;;10151,'( AS DETERl1;NED 8'1 SEC. 2-03 .. '(/'-I)D OF WASH. ST. fikJ'(. DEPT. /976 5 TD. S PEe's. _ '/7'/ \ '17 4 ____ 5,£/)SO/V,4/. ____ ~" __ I /1/(3# GRolJ,VO \ N.QTER (/NOER POND \ \ \ 'n2 _ '170 _ \ _ 472 ~~ \ ~"--NATUFA L 5LOI'£: 15 25"10 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _4-;0 _ '168 _ '166 DETENTION FON 0 DETAIL -~p -SCIII E, ·JEW-. I"" 2 FT. I i 12_"Cf1P l-iOWc. (·~2.0F'T TOP VIElJ C 8 tt 2 SCALE 1"=2.' SCALE: 1";;.-2.1 1 \ \ / it- '_ .L -}----,I-----" o / ,\9' (If FS£T FRIlI_'/:: 1" LID SO Th'l1 r \,J/,'.,' [I--' -,'-'GI-/",-ClJ~-Pl-'- ,. OVERFLOkJ f=:LI'V. r B tI 2_ c 'I 70. gO c (3 t1,''':" '177.00 " ,-;-Gp-r E I,/,Th 8 ~ ,. 1':'-' . / /1), £!.... :;! ':;: :'. ~ :.1~ l-~-O O'~/~LET PIPE 11/N. SLOPE 0.5 70 I.-IV. LIIV, c. (~.-If l. = 16'S. QO c. 8. iJ [; -: >'?If .7? ,-',L_' __ _ / , / , : 2' t-'I IN. ~ , ',.+ '.' I> .", c:.> -1;> ~ __ 7 _ t> -p -i> -t> P-" ~-~---' ----.- NQ;'"::' ALL ST££L PAf:rS + 5·UkFAC.ES n(,f.:;r-B!?- GALV";~IIZ[I! i Tti'EAlIv1Ei{T / /15P/J/ILT COAlED. FLOV RESTRICTOR CONTROL O'EVICf. SCAL!:, NONE Coos·f l?eCdrd.$ 10-10-80 R£i/.3 /fD f,EV.2 ;<P,G G -/3-79 6iE# DR,I;Pr/A/6/}S PER /<:C'. 4·10-7'7 &E'AI REV. flS PER K, C, /-IV/). D';PT. P:t=v. I I<R.G :3-~-7Cf Cf-IAIJ&ED OIATL€T OG51G-N /16-0/·$0 STORM 8 WATER RETENTION SYSTEM FOR UBERTY LANE 0111 AWN' T T. CHECKED' [0) DONES". VAK a ASS, OC,lAJ[S, P. S. DRAWING NUI/IlEIl, '" 7823 159TH PLACE NclArHEAST 2' 01' :1 , REDMOND, WA. (20G) 883-0800 ' .. -~ ,~, , I '.';. !,~ "./" "'.', -~w , , w ~ o ,. • "'00 '-I-. , '0 n,., , , _0 1 1 ::'0 iJUJ I)V) ;:;; uUJ ~o:: >-• ~ o c Z Z '. ------ 490 L4~5 14~O' 475 l4IQ i I \ , 1---- I I <t. 30' , . , 18' 12" 5' 6' ~----------~-------_1ft--~--~--~~w z ::J ~-------------------30' ~ ._._-----------1 2" COMPT, DEPTH CLASS "8" ASPHALT CONCRETE '-I y" MIN. COMPT. DEPTH CR. SURFACING TOP COURSE. 2 '---2 '.til MIN. COMPT DEPTH CR. SURFACING 2 SECTION A-A 5" CEMEN1 CONCRETE WALK NOTE: UJ UJ Z 19' 2' 4'-6" 4'-6" ~ 1-----------' -'-c,~----.-.---_l__~+__-=:"~__f-..!-~_>:-' G RAVEL BASE, CLASS "8" MAY BE REQUIRED PENDING SOIL CONDITIONS, 2" COMPT. DEPTH, CLASS "8' ASPHALT, CONCRETI '\i '\ SL. 0.02: I " .-l--- I~" MIN. COMPI. DEPTH CR. SURFACING TOP COURSE INCL. SHOULDERS. 2~" MIN. COMPT. DEPTH CR. SURFACING TOP COURSE SECTION 8-8 I ~I 5' . ! CEMENT CONCRETE ROLL EO CURB . 5' . I SL. OJ'?" I SCAI £ :.1 "=5" -------_._._---~-"----/---... ------,--,-"~ __ , " __ c_> ,. _ --_. ---.. -. - .~~ .. -. . ... - . _. I~- ,~--- .. ~I--·-· --... ~ ... ... :1-1·-- I ....... .-.---_. .. ~. I-~- ··-t~ . .. . '. f- ._- j.-_. . ~+ ~-f-~~ --t- t --Ilhl-'-N ·1 ~fl-" '=:-. ,_. .. 1-. . ~ 1::::..:=:-1'-'1-= . --::~=.---.. I~--'I--I .. ,.----I- .. . f~-" ~~-I~+ . : .t~ ~.:~ I: ..::-:: 1-, .. I-~· ~-.. .-~ . --'1- ...~-... --..... ::: .. -. . ,J l". . .. t-· ~.~ ~-- .. " .... ~-::--..... -. .:.::-=-=-.::~::.: ~ ... ~ .---.... ~_. 1'--f--. .-.. t-,_.-C' ... . l-r'. . 1----. ~ t-~ . ---.. '-"- _. 1 . . -/---.. ~---. ~--.~ 1-· •• .. ~.- ~--~+-. t ... .~ ~-.. I··· ~ .. -~ ~-,,-' .. .~-.. _. --~. .. ~,,~ . ..... ~ .. -. f-- ~ .. ~.~-. . ~ 1---' f .~---~ .... I--'~'---:: I·~ "-' ... - .~~-.- ._. /,' ! ~ .. -- I' f--...... • '.C .. .:.;;;. .~ '. . ', .' U~ii ... PLATE t. PLAN·PROfILE n. KEtJf'ffL ,m.R CO.' . ( ~-------,-----_____________________________________ ~i,I......!:i~{ ______ .. ---.------··.:..------------,--i-.---~------::...:....:'J!~48R'71ri02;>.;4L;.~Ao~E;;;-,.;;;u.,~.Jo;_,.---~-:---------~---:'·---ti--------7 .;. t '.\ \ •• ::~(~: :.. . \ f \1 ,1:··~-:·i. -" ~ SCALE: I". 50' 25' 12 I I , '. . -.' ,.' . 14' . 2" COMPT. DEPTH CLASS "B" ASPHALT CONCRETE .' 14' ·····I~~···~~~ 25' 12" .'. I !t2"'MIN. COMPT. DEPTH CR. SURFACING TOP. COURSE 5' ~2" MIN. COMPT. DEPTH CR. SURFACING BASE COURSE .' , . ' .... ,. :' ~ SECTION c-C SCALf.: I "=~' . . r . , .... . . i .. .. ,.' '. '. .' '. .' . I 5' 1 ., ' ' I . .! ~'* cri! '<'? i~ all 45 BW! 2 5 OJ!)./c 149,l\b ---oI;I'l64·07u ..... ",t:NT I v.v£ ~.s""T·-= I O1PIVNnl~ :-~ S.P. 48405E I I £,~""1' I TRACT A [ [ '" ~~ :J:'" '" 92,5 [ 3 Q TRACT B ~~ ___ I~'1~"7L-~ ___ I~2'~'42~~1 o "" [ 0 WOOD 205 !Q 50 5~ 100 50 50 103 150 '00 TRACT H '0 2ND 1'2.0,53 so 13S,'34 ESTATe TRACT F TRACT I 95,36 S.E. ~22.IJ 50 '"' ~ 87.13 '" N ~ 87 '" '!i 90 ~ 86 89 fA 90 ~ ~ 61 :; 44 ,-~ ~ 37,:32 57.68 " 2ND 52 53 54 55 56 o RADIO TRANSMlrTER 90 44 65 Mapl ewood N e j g h b 0 r h o ~ ... -.. '-. .. .... {{i) l NATURAL SWALE 127a38 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 138TH lZD 90 21 ~ R l?2 I: A ~ R H L __ .... ~",.)l 30" STORM DRAIN 15 26 27 PL. 26 29 87 --~----~-----+----~----~----~~~~ 17 16 15 14 13 12 " 4 90 S.E. I 39TH 48 41 47 42 3 S.E. 4 -111 .. 51-' 10 5 iw I~ :3 0) o CEDA 5~4.5 (S~&.14) F I V E 595.1 ( 5':)1.45) ® TR @ Ii; S.P.17BOBO I . <f S.E. 60 $~ (4) ~ @ I ® " ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ __ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ __ ~'5~6~~~~~ __________ ~ ______________ '~' 100.£3 101.41 14~ 15 116 11& 13 16 110~! 44::; -~ TRACT~ I----'=----I~ "811 S 43 {)WNOSEESNr " 1412 24 ALAS OF SEATTLE 142ND o tI1,5l (I) TRACT "tl." OPEN AReA 90 PL. 25 26 27 PAVING (I) iil; (2) : (3) 1-'-(4)-~ lii ~ ~ I ----, Ii I ,..' g '2 I ;) I 125,03 ... " ~ I _ I 125 ~ ;;; I ,., I .zz.~'fi I I ~ ~ I I ,r,> 125 73 ®! I ®~~.~t:®~ e ~@-® I I '4' '19 B3.30 100.77 Ii I~ , 9],39 8917 .". 136TH 60 1I0fJ4 <>49.29 ~ e~ ~ '" '" 13€mJ r. '" ~ '" § N N .., (2) if (I) '" ef S.P. 480( 35 373,87 ~ @~ 1-, I :;; -~9 G @~ S.E. 137TH ST. 593.95 (600.10) .... 5%.25 (2) ~ ( I) S.P. 58950023(;;;"\ l?$7.e. 6 .5.94.4 3 RIVER 4 ACRE ~ ..... . 594.S~ 100 ~ :; S.P. 379074 "'--: ~ :g ~ .... (I) SCALE: 1"=200' UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY AREA & DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ROUTE MAPLEWOOD ESTATES DIV. 3 CORE PROJECT NO. 01019 I I I , KROLL MAP COMPANY, I NC., SEATTLE PLEASE NOTE: Kroll Atlas Pagaa .ara revised at leas! oneu a year with regard to plats, short plats, condominiums. and corporate Ilmits. JI.ddre~slng end structutsllnformatlon Is updated less frequently. This map 1s copyrighted in both form and content Reproduct1on In whote or in part, or transferring into digital form, is prohibltoo. by law, WATER MAIN 8 HYDRANT SEWER --6~ --8!..- RAILROAD BUILDING HOUSE NUMBER SCALE: I IN.:: 200 FT. COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY ,INC. Copyrlght 1997, Kroll Map Comp8ny, Inc. * Seattle, Washington. AU rights reserved, COUNTY TAX LOT NO. ® -------- ~----~\J~i __ ----------~O~' __________________________ ~~:; ________ ~5~~~~~r~)N~W~1/~4.~,5~~~C.~.1~4~,~nM~p.~2~~~N.~.f~R~G~E~5~E~.,~W.~.M~·~ ____ ~C~J----------~(J~------------------------~(0~----------~(=;~-----nw~~~~ 'I nn, ',: ;;:; , , ""~---"""""""" "4G 14!) ",,,=-, •• , ........ , 144 j " I ._ AEAS) , -,-, > 4'-' : Ci -'I , - -I " SCALE: 1" , , ; i I en , "' '" n ~- L() ""." '" u "' w i':i en -q-, ~w ~, DO .:-0~ err z: N o (~~ ~I~ w .. 30' : I " I I , , I , 30': I 30' 50' a 3 ~ 100 ~I _~I ~~I _~I () --. ,.-- 14 BI'32± SF NSS"04'40"uJ 66 i" ' 1.'- .! IS l------'-~='===~~~==-:=~~=:rO,-11309± SF I 1_' 13 GROSS 8516,:1: SF NET 1208:!: SF I I'~' 11\ I : ,:, ~:rt--n~~~~O~lB~± ~5i"~~~ l : I / l i-- I I' .. F I L_ 64 II NET 8148± SF -I 10 1165± SF 60 ' ':) 128515F -1 . I --.J 60 . I 18 8011±'~SF 8 _I' .,.1266±ff ' 1 $~~~':EC"e~I~~IC"·!~':~2~~llfl~~~~'~~,~"~llrr~~.~~,."~'~Jt ,~~ 1 "" 2--, I I I 6 132B± SF, ,--,1~204±ff j 8050, ff '-"-.~ "-., -"; -;-,----;--- 1 2 4 3 83~9:!: SF . 8905-:!: SF I I I ./ 1 I . :XI .. -, - I, 12 __ 1.0411 SF I: , , • -:c: ________ c __ 5 11 1366:!: SF-- 1 "1 1 , I, 1 1 " , , :'-'1 --,..c-- I :''-_1 • ~ --• , b . I , 1801± SF \ I .. ' 10 1358± SF ,,' , ." 'I <' "" --, ", 7 ! '-;"": 6':) 1358± SF :":,, I ,,,. , 3':) 1441± SF 40 1289± SF 41 81'33± SF--. p 20 l5061± SF l';l ':;J.6~3± SF '-I 42., "I' 60 8020! or·· _ I M!l 1358±-"SF <i 2X4CAF FLUSH TO 6ACKOF FOST II: 11'11 I: 61 -1359± SF 66 148"3± SF FOUND )2" REBAR & CAP "WPD 21710" WI PP'S, CAN 0,03' S, OF LINE " 21 ~ 804'3± SF ,I 'I I , I' , ! 31 -, --c I I 22 , I 1115± SF ",,,,,-,EL A , 83:&1:1: SF 23 I I _,1612± SF ~ 'r I, ":'1 I 24,1 158~3f' ~~ ~-' ", -'-,' '/ _ "./ ;--', 2S ---. I .;16~1±5F, ,"" }(~~-~ ,. I I II I I j I , 34 8163:1: SF I :' 8163 ± SF I 33 186261 SF; ., ... -- ; ;- "'-', " 30 8151* SF " '-!: --' - ---- ; ':." ',:,:' ,_ T '=_', '" 150.00 T,",1ir'T ';l';l8 152.00 I I ; " '..-.---- 12' Ro.W. , DEDICATION llb± SF ' '-", ,_,r ': I I I I --"'II~I_ ::::.-•. :;' L~~:9-'~:',;';:: ~~4~ L~_ .. ~c" ..J ., '-:-1 i ""31 I ,,:,. -', " , 'r \ " -~, N o 44 8430t SF -,.-,' 415 . a004~ SF ----. - :60 " -,-', , .46 ", I 11~;Z± SF \ " r I I '--' _;i-~, ' t-, FOUND )2" REBAR & CAP "WPD 21710" 0,06' N, OF LINE ~--IX4 CEDAR SLATS, NO ,pFACING 6EIJJT1I.EEN SLATS u---· ~~~~~S&URE TREATED ,r-'X", TRIM ,~-C<::>N(~RlETE FOOTING, FITCH TO (TYF.! I I GRADE ~_'~" GRAVEL sUe-eASE I eolL 48 8004± 5F , , I I I I ';'.~ -'" ,j • 1 "'" . .',' '" -"-'.- "I o r- , %14± S~ ----.1 ____ _ -I -., \;0 , 98:21± 5F I j ! 60 "'S13.E20 ST AKIN", NOTES, F<lJ66ER HOSE AT TREE, HOSE SHALL 6E LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE I YEAI'<5 GROUITH AND euFfER ALL 6~CHES FF<CM THE WIRE. 3 HARDWOOD STAKES OR OTHER AFFROVED MATERIAL, ALL STAKES TO eE DRIVEN OUTelDE THE ROOT6ALL, AT 120· SFACING, GALVANIZED WIRE 01< CA6LE, TWleT ~ WIRE TO TIGHTEN ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEF FROM SLIFPING (ALLOW FOR 60ME TRUNK MOVEMENT!. • 152.00 1011 • •••• 153 8400± ,-,: ~: ,~ _. '·E:.... Co_ ,'; i 5' LANDSCAFE STRIF 12' RO.W. : DEDICATIc)N 3180± SF ' :?~-;------'FFaJNE TREE AS DIRECTED IN FLANTING NOTES. TREE eo THAT THE TRUNK CROlLN 15 Vlel6LE AT THE TOF OF THE ROOT6ALG seT TOP OF ROOT6ALL FLUSH TO GRADE, DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOTeALL WITH eoiL. .r--I'11t-l 2" MULCH, DO NOT FLACE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK IN. HIGH EAF<TH SAUCER AROUND EDGE OF FLANTING FIT. ROUGHEN EDGES OF FIT i--~~~"""m~~1I~rrJI~£---~~0\~~~ ALL TWINE, WIRE AND BURLAF FF<CM TOF HALF OF ROOT6ALG NON·610DEGRADE6LE MATEF<IAL SHALL BE i<EMOVED COMFLETEL Y . FI.ANT SET CROli.N OF FLANT AT FINISHED GRADE "1 --l't------,TAMF TOPeOIL 6ACI<FILL AROUND ROOT6ALL eASE FIf<ML Y WITH FOOT FRESSURE TO AVOID SHIFT OF ROOT6ALL ----~Ut>IDISn.IRE:IED NATIVE eolL -----FLACE ROOT6ALL ON UNEXCAVATED eolL PEDESTAL TO 0) MODIFIED PANEL FENCE DETAIL NTe PLANT LIST <7 2" LAYER MULCH AS SPECIFIED ON FLANS, TAPER TO CROli.N SAUCER 2" HIGH 1 ~~-~~ [) FINISHED GRADE FREVENT SETILING TREE PLANTING DETAIL SYMBOL TYPE SIZE ffi DeCIDUOUS eTREET TREE 2.0" -2.5" CALIPE~ 6'6 "".\"t~ CONIFEROUS TREE ~·8'HT 3) 0 .f Jhy-r> ~Ii!:~ ... '''';;1 LOW SHF<lJ6/GROUNDCOVER MIX 2·5 GAL. J\._:~~_~i-~'~:~: DROUGHT TOLERANT ~ TALL SHF<L1f3 MIX 2·5 GAL, COMMENTS 30·40' HT AT MATURITY 20-30' HT. AT MATURITY 30" HT. MAX AT MATURITY 6·8' HT. AT MATURITY () Jt----~~~~~~R;r0~~~~~~~---ROOT6ALL ~ TOPeolL eACKFILL , FEF<TILIZER ~ ~~~~~(j~ ____ ROUGHEN ALL SURFACES Ii. ~ OF FIT x+------~ S ShRUB PLANTING DETAIL 2 LEVEL CONDITION NTS "c ." • .". ,,>, NTS ( .. ) f-« o Vl Z o Vl > W CL o z W f-« o ~ o "'I: w z Z l'J 5: Ul <{ w 0-: o 0 SHEET 5 ~ o w > o 0-: 0.. 0.. <{ - ~ :z -:z :z '" .... 0.. '" '" '" :z -~ :z '" OF 5 PROJECT NUMBER 01019 I, J LEGAL DESCRIFTION FARCEL A, LOT I, KINe;, COUNT.,.. SHORT FLAT NUMBER 618063-R, RECORDED UNDER RECORDINe;, NUMBER 1812110851, SAID SHORT FLAT BEINGo A SUBDiviSION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIF 23 NORTH, RANGoE & EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KINGo COUNT.,.., WASHINGoTON. FARCEL B, THAT FORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORT>4, RANe;,E 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KINe;, COUNT.,.., WAS>4INe;,TON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BEGoINNINGo AT A POINT NORT>4 00"28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3000 FEET AND NORT>4 00"55'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3000 FEET FROM T>4E CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE ALONe;, T>4E WESTERLY MARGoIN OF T>4E Auc;,UST GoERElER ROAD (156T>4 AVENUE SOUTf4EASV AS CONVE.,..ED TO KINe;, COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDINe;, NO. 10~4241, NORT>4 00'28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET TO THE TRLlE FOINT OF BEGoINNINGo OF T>4E TRACT >4EREIN DESCRIBED; T>4ENCE CONTINUINGo NORT>4 00'28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 151.51 FEET; T>4ENCE NORTH 8~"01'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1248.01 FEET TO mE EAST LINE OF T>4E WEST 30.00 FEET OF SAID SOUT>4EAST QUARTER OF T>4E NORTf4WEST QUARTER OF; T>4ENCE ALONGo SAID EAST LINE SoUT>4 00"33'02" EAST A DISTANCE OF 15101 FEET; T>4ENCE SOUT>4 88'5~'51" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1241.82 FEET TO T>4E TRLlE FOINT OF BEGoINNINGo; EXCEFT THOSE FORTIONS CONVE.,..ED TO FRANKLIN T. TETER AND C. LENA TETER, >4USBAND AND WIFE, BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDINe;, NOS. 6400141 AND 6411811. FARCEL C T>4AT FORTION OF T>4E SOUT>4EAST QUARTER OF T>4E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORT>4, RANe;,E 5 EAST WM., IN KINGo COUNT.,.., WASHINc;.TON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, BEc;.INNINGo AT A FOINT NOO"28'02"W 3000 FEET AND NOO'55'44"W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET FROM T>4E CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14; T>4ENCE ALONGo T>4E WESTERL"" MARGo IN OF T>4E Auc;,UST GoERElER ROAD (156T>4 AVENUE SOUT>4EAST) AS CONVEYED TO KINe;, COUNTY FOR ROAD FLJRFOSeS B.,.. DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDINGo NO. 10~4241, NOO"28'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 151.51 FEET TO T>4E TRUE FOINT OF BEGoINNI~~Go OF THE TRACT >4EREIN DESCRIBED; T>4ENCE CONTINUINe;, NOO'28'02"W A DISTANCE OF 315.02 FEET; THENCE N88"&9'51"W A DISTANCE OF 1241.82 FEET TO mE EAST LINE OF T>4E WEST 3000 FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER T>4ENCE ALONe;, SAID EAST LINE SOO"33'02"E A DISTANCE OF 314.14 FEET; T>4ENCE SOO"&l'I1"E A DISTANCE OF 1241.34 FEET TO T>4E TRUE FOINT OF BEGo INN INGo. FARCEL D, LOT 4 OF KINGo COUNT.,.. S>40RT FLAT NUMBER 484106, AS RECORDED UNDER KINe;, COUNTY RECORDINGo NUMBER 8505110611, IN KINGo COUNT.,.., WAS>4INc;. TON. 5£ TWP.23 RG£.5 w.M. FOR BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION SITE STATISTICS TOTAL SITE AREA, FROFOSED USE, NO. OF LOTS, AVERAGoE LOT SIZE, EXISTINGo ZONINGo, PERMITTED DENSITY, FROFOSED DENSIT'r, FUBLIC R-O-W PUBLIC R-O-W DEDICATION STORM DRAINAGoE (TRACT ~~1) OPEN SPACE (TRACTS ~~~, ~~8) SETBACKS, 18~,e21± S.F. (18.13 ACRES) DETACHED-SINGoLE FAMILY 13 8,1~~± S.F. R-4 & D.LIJAC. 4.81 DUlAC. 120,111± S.F. 4,4~6 ± S.F. 51,bl1: S.F. 11,121± S.F. FRONT -15' REAR -25' SIDE -5', 15' adjacent to etr .... t c;.ARAGoE -20' DENSITY CALCULATIONS GoROSS AREA OF FROFERTY, -FLJBLIC R-O-W -FLJBLIC R-O-W DEDICATION -ACCESS EASEMENT NET SITE AREA, NO. OF LOTS, NET DENSIT.,.., NOTES '78'18%1 1'15·13 -19!'b14: SF (-l8:le ACRES) 120,111: SF 4,4~6: SF 4,4~4: SF 660,bjili5± SF OR 1&.11 ACRES S'I 13 4.81 DUIACRE I. ALL TITLE INFORMATION SI-IOWN ON T>4IS MAF I-IAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CI-IICAGoO TITLE INSURANCE COMFANY FLAT CERTIFICATE, ORDER NO. 111&4&6, DATED SEPTEMBER 2~, 2005. IN PREFARINe;, T>4IS MAF, CORE DESIGoN, INC. >4AS CONDUCTED NO INDEFENDENT TITLE SEARC>4 NOR IS CORE DESIGoN, INC. AWARE OF ANY TITLE ISSUES AFFECTINGo T>4E SURVEYED PROPERTY OT>4ER T>4AN T>40SE SHOWN ON T>4E MAP. 2. TI-IIS SURVEY REFRESENTS VISIBLE FI-IYSICAL IMFROVEMENT CONDITIONS EXISTINe;, ON MARCI-I 14,2001. ALL SURVEY CONTROL INDICATED AS "FOUND" WAS RECOVERED FOR T>4IS FROJECT IN MARC>4, 2001, UNLESS NOTED OT>4ERWISE. 3. PROPERTY AREA = 18~,e21: SQUARE FEET (18.1325: ACRES). 4. ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET. 5. TI-IIS IS A FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY. A SOKKIA FIVE SECOND COMBINED ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION WAS USED TO MEASURE T>4E ANe;,ULAR AND DISTANCE RELATIONS>4IFS BETWEEN T>4E CONTROLLINGo MONUMENTATION AS S>40WN. CLOSURE RATIOS OF T>4E TRAVERSE MET OR EXCEEDED TI-IOSE SPECIFIED IN WAC 332-130-090. ALL MEASURINe;, INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT >4AS BEEN MAINTAINED IN ADJUSTMENT ACCORDINGo TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS WIT>4IN ONE YEAR OF TI-IE DATE OF THIS SURVEY. 6. UTILITIES OT>4ER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIST ON T>4IS SITE. ONL Y T>40SE UTILITIES WIT>4 EviDENCE OF THEIR INSTALLATION VISIBLE AT GoROUND SUf'<FACE ARE SHOWN HEREON. UNDERGoROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS S>40WN ARE AFPROXIMATE ONL.,... UNDERGoROUND CONNECTIONS ARE S>40WN AS STRAIGoHT LINES BETWEEN SUf'<FACE UTILITY LOCATIONS BUT MAY CONTAIN BENDS OR CURVES NOT S>40WN. SOME UNDERGoROUND LOCATIONS SHOWN >4EREON MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM FUBLIC RECORDS. CORE DESIGoN ASSUMES NO LlABILlT.,.. FOR T>4E ACCURAC.,.. OF FUBLIC RECORDS. 1. A FORTION OF THE TOFOORAFI-IY WAS OBTAINED FROM A TOFOORAFHIC SURVEY BY C • T SURVE.,..INGo, INC. DATED FEBRLlAR"" 1~92. DAS>4ED CONTOURS ONSITE REFLECT SAID SURVEY. OFFSITE CONTOURS OBTAINED FROM CIT.,.. OF RENTON UTILITIES DIVISION MAF NO. F1 OF THE WEST >4ALF OF SECTION 14. 4 RENTON GREENWOOD CEMETERY 16 3 2 10 11 15 1-L-~ _ -+--::\ __ '- MAFLEllKJOD GOLF COURSE viCINITY MAF 1" = 30001:1: 14 OWNER / AFFLICANT BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION 1215 120T>4 AVE. NE., SUITE 201 BELLEVUE, WAS>4INe;,TON 9800& CONTACT, RON >4uc;,>4ES (425) 454-1~00 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR/PLANNER CORE DESIGoN INC. 14111 NE. :2~T>4 FLACE, SUITE 101 BELLEVUE, WASHINe;,TON 98001 (425) 885-1811 CONTACT, MICHAEL CI-IEN-FLANNER DAviD E. CAnON, FE. -ENe;,INEER STEP>4EN J. SCHREI, Fol.S. -SURVEYOR DATUM CIT.,.. OF RENTON -NAVD 1988 6ASIS OF BEARINGS NOO'2~'II"E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONe;, THE CENTERLINE OF 1&6TH AVE. SE. AT T>4E INTERSECTIONS WITH S.E. 128TH ST. AND SE. 136T>4 ST. AS CALCULATED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL FOINT 1\05.1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN FLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW FER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK FUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1~'=I4. 6ENCl-IMARKS FER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NAVD 1988 DATUM 1'''.1852 -3" FLAT BRASS SUf'<FACE DISC AT T>4E CONSTRLlCTED !' _-SRSECTION OF NL 4TH ST. (SE. 128T>4SV AND 148T>4 AVE. SE. t:, 454.11 (138)>14 METERS) NQ.2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN T>4E INTERSECTION OF e". 128TH ST. Ji,-1D 156T>4 AVE SE EL. &41.94 (161.013 METERS) REFERENCE MONUMENTS NO. 1851 -3~" DOMED BRASS SUf'<FACE DISC W/FLJNC>4 MARK AT ">4E CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF NE. 4TI-I ST. (SE. 128TH SV lIND 140T>4 AVE. SE. NO. 1852 -3" FLAT BRASS SUf'<FACE DISC AT THE CONSTRLlCTED INTERSECTION OF NE. 4TH ST. (SE. 128T>4 ST.! AND 148TH AVE. SE. NO. 2105 -1-112" FLAT BRASS CAF WIFUNCI-I IN CONCRETE MONUMENT IN NORTI-IBOUND LANE OF 156T>4 AVENUE SE. AT T>4E CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION WIT>4 SE. 136T>4 ST. DEvELOPMENT CITY OF RE::r~ING OCT 1 0 20DS RECEIVED '"' ~ '0 Z '" --g :;; >-0 '" l.LJ -'" 'It '" ~ :> '" ~-~ ..,. '" £ 2 ~ ::;, Ol 02 V) -£ .S ..r= e-a ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ .. ~ -~ 00 z "-~ 00 ... ::::: l.t'j --~ '" z '" ... Z '<I: .... 0.. ~ Z '" l.LJ l.LJ Z -~ Z l.LJ ~ '" w CJ ~ (5 <t z ~ <t (\j Cj :> es ~ f- ~ U ~ w ~ ~ U .., ~ ~ ~ 0 I.::: '" 0 Il. ~ 0 ...., w a w > z z 0 w (') ~ cr f--(f) « [L « w cr [L 0 0 0 « SHEET OF :1. 5 PROJECT NUMBER 0:1.0:1.9 ;<v r, It.,;' L ~ T ("e:.. ;,' '.;8 RTV'\'~2.9'>'· :;'~~:"I; 4Yl (lil ).0; '(S~ '<,)!:\~'n I .. I' 41:} 0:1 '2,~ 4-iJ 4-5 :: S';Wi fiH ~i.. ~1 J fe' fX ';9h' I~ if "_L "'-<\ j 'i.,n' .',\, b. ·",,:.40' . W . I(f) ~ « o rilh~ f:I IN\! H ~,<",1 XI ,:,.) 4'3 ~ ...... /' .. \ .. , /-:P ~/ .;.}/ \, / '" 2rf.\ "\::"f 1 I / ! f \ ! .. \. " -(--:: \ " '\\)' <:;; ,; -/ ,,'7, ~ " ; ,. , " \ \ , , .. J; ./ C~-' " \ I , \ \ \ :\' ;/ if)' \ " iL .,;',' '\ , .. , , f'H:: Cc:; . 1-\ ~j .t$~\/{;:"""", j:>\'{~) :l-r:;,;-'.:\; SE ,[ill ,\1;,.\,'-//.1"·····_/-........ 1(''',/.,.,. 12\'11) ,,-,:}":;.81 12~([) 4->\."-. ',~ \ " .. \ I .. I \ FOUND )f REBAR & CAP "WPO 2171D" w/ RP'S, CAN 0.03' S. OF LINE N88'OO'19"W , I V; ! ! TWP.23 ! "1.-> NC'~' c~ P.<{r' \ \ '. '. , ! r '. , -, 789821 ± SF " SCALE: 1" , .. RGE. 5 A,. ;: I. L A 50' I I I I \ w.M. I I \ , '\ I \ \ .. \ '. \ '. I I I ( \ \ \ FOUND Xt REBAR & CAP "WPD 21710" 0.06' N. OF LINE \ '. I \ I \ Y-m, :~"rT'-' ! I; ; :'ifi ;) -::.":~':::' ....• I, I I !~ .. I I \ A W :\ LEGEND PP W/TRANS OHP U/G PNT HWF VBF ClF F D/W E/P TA-# --<I • \ SE 128TH ST. SE 132ND ST. . ;:,. \ , , \ \ FIRE HYDRANT WATER WATER VALVE METER , / I \ 'I .. • -. i I I i j \ / ! POWER POUE W/TRANSFORMER MAilBOX SIGN OVERHEAD POWER UNDERGROUND POWER UTILITY PAINT (AS NOTED) HOG-WIRE FENCE VERTICAL BOARD FENCE CHAIN-LINK FENCE FIR DRIVEWAY EDGE OF PAVEMENT ) ! I :-r:'ICf --:-C; :3 " (:' NC~--:H ,\,-.j[' 'J .,'" ,/ TERRA & ASSOC, WETLAND FLAG DESIGNATION POWER POLE w/s FREET LIGHT UTILITY POLE FOUND 3" BRASS SURFACE DISK (BROKEN W/PUNCH) FOUND 1-1/2" BRASS CAP --/; W/PUNCH IN CONG DN. 0.8' / IN CASE 0.6' S. 1 .C:J-f/i--'f. ;~rA ';Cl.7 I.E 1 :{~'(PEP .\.j 5(4);<\ I \ , , \, ~):.) ;·IOtJ:~:i ;;<'t't2':: ~i!>;";\/C \ ,I 11 \ \ !<SPHA.T D!W II/G VEL D/N VU .. D!Vi :) /'h OEVEiOPME CITYOF~ftr~%NING FouQl:'T -l,{/2'2Ii11Jss CAJ;. W/PUNCH IN CONe. D"HE:C~I~ltlljo,( CITY OF RENTtW 1!i~""105) HELD FOR CTR. SEC. w f-« o ~ o -.j w Z Z CJ 5 (f) « w D:' o 0 o w > o D:' eL eL « SHEET OF 2 5 '" lU lU Z -<.') Z lU PROJECT NUMBER 01019 193 192 191 . i, 147 146 145 14.4 ... I (MEAS) . '<1 ' "" .. 143 ;" . . ;( '.: , !, _ .. ,. ;' 'I /'" • < , '0. ~, oW "-.ro '.>..r:! 3: rr,.:z: N' 0: C"J- ~ '1:::-.w wi Z· J~. · . ' I". '/ ~O' ! i j ; o I '30'! · I, · i 30' '" " . G' " L I 1 1 L 64 1165± SF R=25o-00 N88"04'40"W 60 .' t~,' ~ . ? '" :, < • " < .:.' ~. 1-4'0-"l : . '. I", 1 1 . 1 . 12~2' SF j!: . ,j 1 1 1 , . ~". ....... :.c. ..... '(iii . \ .6=88"24.'11" _ . _.. " . . 'J-=38.s~ ~ --'~ -~-~5--"-:'-" __ ..:.:'~~ 'C' __ !: o n 2 : . , .... ~ .. . Ii, "(. , . : .. ~" . ': \,' ;0" ~ " . . .. ~ , -; I SE SEC. TWP.23 : ,: . h " . /<~>' : , .' S.E. 2ND FL. N88'00'19"W o n 30' 30' RG£5 WM. ! ," I 0' '",,; ,t , ' " j i", ;'~ .• S.E. 133RD sr. 1 ':---'<' '\-•• < SCALE: 1" = 50' .. J' .~ > " ,',.,-,.,.c ,,,,,,;.,,>IIftI,~,, _m.,,~,""" , .' , TRACT "''''8 . , ,; . N88"03'23"W 1502-00 1 I \~ .(\30'1 o n '.i i l I ........... '\ ---~!'" .-\1 : " , : '. . :.., .. , ' '" I . , o ' \., . i " j 1 : " 12' ROW. DEDICATION llb± SF .0 12' ",.oW. DEDICATION 3180± SF ,:1. 'I " LANDSCAPE STRIP (TYP) DEVELOP"" CITYof~tr~N/NG Ocr 10 2005 Rl:CEIVED ~ &! --J 0 w > Z 0 5: Il:: <1: 0.. Il:: 0.. o <1: SHEET OF 3 5 '" lIJ lIJ :z -o :z lIJ PROJECT NUMBER 01019 " " , , -I i .1 I I 6]:0]:0 d3BvmN l:nrOdd 9 JO ~ ~ A ~ /7 lT3HS » 0 0 0 1) ;u rl » 1) » (f) -I ;u :2' G"l rl 0 Z Z < rl C) rl r--0 C') 0 iil d ii:: ii:: C') ~ C') =ti ~~ ......... PJ ~ ,,~ ~ WI ~ -~ ~ ~ !l:J I\J...... .... ~ ~ ~ ttl ~I -::c:l rr, ~:b: ~ ec::, t'i~tl ~ 8 ~ ::.,. ""'" <.. 'I :b:;S"J ~ ~~"" ,...~ ~~"-J V ~ <Cl ;." "'!io tr, CO) d' ~ ~ <': ~ "I i§i ~:tJ R §~~ ~ ~ ~\:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'J ~ ~~ ." Z Q -Z ." ." '" Z Q ." ..... ~ z z ... '" '" ~ z y, ::::: ..b. OJ ~ " Q co ~ ...... '" . - '" z ~ :::: '" " 0 '" . '" (I) ""T1 5-~ c: Q co "" >; 0' Q '" ... ~ n <:: '" ,. I" '0 * ." OJ OJ . -< en g 0 I" " --~ Z Q ,., ! ~, /", , ( jr, "~ ..;:;' ,/) ·1. 8 1< N z nt co. oj m ~ q -f .~ ..... COl -.P = ' ~~I):>.\' C" N ~ en'" 1.0 --l'>-i 0 .. -' ~ ~. '''-. n G< '" 17; tTl ~ . , . :; . I " ,,/ ?' /1 1 1 " ". , t J! (,., h_ / '. '" Q /,' ',.'C:" ,.-~. (1 'j") . I.Ki >'(' !c!l\!("~ \ ", '" (.. '1 \ ) \-I ':~:, ., . 0 S' iC:t'G GJ o 3NIl ,,0 'N ,90'0 .. 0 lLlZ OdM .. dYJ '" ~1I83~ .. '/( ONno,! Lc , ,'> ~ ~, \ " -~ / {j ;>, ( , ) '.' .,1 '+ ~"i ',,> '/ -'j '( '. ~ " \S. ...____-- -----------~ -J.9 ~€€l '3'9 VfI'M 9 "3!JU \ :~:- e6aMl ~ .0 ....... I ______ ~M "Sr:3b'~~N" !~>'i:k~:.:,?;~J. I,)X~'''~:' '·'~:"~.5·C; .;;,,;:.i""~D'.'I,.~:X. GJ o 3NIl ,,0 ·s .\'0'0 NIIJ 'S.d~ 1M .. Olnl: OdM .. dYJ '" ~1I83~ .. '/( ONnOJ /..-/ .' 35 '1d QN~ '3'9 .... / ..... ~.~......=.~,/;;_:c.~,~ .. +.~;:~ .... = ••• ::, .... ~ .. ~, '/'l/ ,--//e" '~ :; ,.;~,< , , .. , '!" '" o '" .>i " H • / i O· ". COl 1:> ~I I~ • l~ :1". '0: 8' -<N z· _LN "'en ---' ,~pq; ~rTl III ~, COl Go o t'0 ._ en $--(""! 'r'" N Go • I . . '. ',il }-~ • (.,{)i} , ," \"., rn tJ Oi:' "I " I' .' 'f ( '. " 6]:0]:0 0I38~nN ~~)3rOOId 9 fr cJO 133HS p 0 0 0 U lJ r'l P U P Ul -4 lJ ::;: Cl r'l 0 Z Z < r'l C) r'l c-o CJ 0 fg ~ ~ ~ CJ ~ CJ ::-tj ~, ;g tJ:] .... ~ ~ C) I ~ l:~ .... '111 ~ -..::: ~~~ ~I-, ~ h] i\; :b: !:ti ~C::> ". t'i:t tl ~' n ~ :h. "" ',«:::: ):;: :s " J ""'I ~ :rl "" ,... ~ ~ <:'-1 \J ~ ~~;(! II. ti'j ~~(J) VI ~ ~~~' R 5;~~ ~j ~ ." Z Q -Z ." ." '" Z Q ." ~ l> Z Z -z Q '" c: '" '" ." -<: -Z Q C') ~'~ :::! .I-l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... '" ., ~ -~ ::::: .t.. '" ~ " Q) C§ ..... ~ ..,.CD ;;; 2: " ~ ::; " ~ '() -n §-:r- Q <Q ." " ~ -... 0 Q ., ~ n '" ,~ • '() 'Il: '" '" '" 0 -'" 0 0 ~ " - '" ';" f"-'; \ ,~/" Ii-, ,1;"-';;'" """ ) .~.'" '1'0/'< I:," ;'in \\ ,;, "', '. lev '1\/C r.i;. 'oj; , >j" " 1 ..... v ~ 1< N Z m enOl'" 00 ". g r--J. -f .<.0 ~" rr-J -->.-PI" N ~I ~\~ ~'-~y '" :-' r"-,:i ",m <.D ..",.' ,I '" " ~~ n"" » "'" I 1 .. I " "', <,\. / ,I f '" o j {~j ;~'i~ ':-, ;" t 'f ,,<. I':' ,,' "1 ,v.i '. ~ (" 1 (\'°1 iWif!/lOlI'fHl,,1 ~\',~l'f:!\"-'1"!"In, ""~4,,·,·'tjt ,,, ~iI' .j~ij""",,,,,,~,~,,;,t>~J'-"""ll,.t't,,, 1T"~1,>:« -:"'r~,t;'>,1 ,'.,r;,,,.1' .'~'.,. l" ".i ",._.",,,',' .. ,!.,' ,,,,,.",,"'c"-''-'r<' !." e, "000' .," "''''C',.-., .",,,,,.,,,"",,, .• ,,.,-,,. ,."'r,-~,-,-;,,c, ~~~~==~~', !! , : I ; I ll' I) , iii i OO~ ~ ~ a .09 IC~ :3lV8S O<;'\;;LG , ' I , .. , '" o 3NI] ~o 'N ,90'0 "OIL IZ OdM" d~J 'I' ~V83~ ,,~ qNnO~ //// / . ),J . ';.1 "'" '-; ~ , , L· ;',,' ,or ,or '" o Oil f7 (', ! U!--6 M,,6l,OO.88N "1d QNZ: "3"9 ,;~I '( i ", ' .• ? ',./ i .:.1 " ~", ~!+l:i'~(" ",j:~ o~ \' {.tV ~ 3NIl ~o '5 ,1:0'0 N~J 'S,d~ 1M "OILll OdM" ; r d~J '1', ~~83~ j{ ONnO~ ,;".;',!""",<--,,--,,@aN /'" :::" i "[fiN,, T~" :" ~'7 ) ~'." -.~ /,,/t/ ,/,< L /~: / ,',' " / / / / / / ;/ // .. /.////} y{/>--: /. / ./ j; //.// // /"-/ . /',/. / ,/ f .' /' ? ,rY','/ '/ 0"--' -! " .. 'i ('" '\ ...-/. /' " "J.9 ~€€I '3"9 \---\ t~:,:,~:':; Wi1tf 9 "398 Ec ClM.L 3S (.i ! ") ,~ ~ ,J I. ... '::1 ;0", I ~, ,~)"',,///,/ .0// //./://// /. < " '.'''"" .. <ft. n .. I -b (' L ///// ....... / . .," " "",>!,: // / /' F ,/ Z '-'" o "/ / / / '/" / / II' ,"'., ':/ /" , 'c .. '" ,/ y../ '. 'I j t' , I ,or I,' ".,1 0' t I ," <,; ~. 'i 10 (J) ,~ o z p, :lz 'io 1" 0 ~/N zr"" :::'ECJ-r .~ C'l 0' , ,.; , J f'~~ ;'1 ~ ) /"',\ ',~ rJ ,. ""1 ," ;"" t ="'1T F~ """.'1<,,,'''"'' P'd il ;' 'I , . ," , ~: ; " , 190 188 ... ! 146 145 144 :;' ~ \ . \, , ;, ;: ;':: .'; ',<' . :. ,~,: I I ....... " ... ; .;:~ . 143 I ;.' ~ I , :, , i (MEAS) , . , , \ . ' "" oW ~'. < , CD ~Ll? 3: ..-, z ~ f'J _ ON, ~I~ ;, <i i " 'I '[ , ! w, w z: I~; .30' I i I i, G\ "'. I 'I I L r- I I 14 81'32± SF 13 GROSS 8516i SF N,ET 1208:1: SF ; L, __ _ , I NET 136ol± SF ,------'""" I- I I _'-12a- , II GROSS 9'2l12± '5f;, , NET 8148± SF;, L __ 84 -'-In- 10 '~n&5± SF --130- 80 II .' , ' " , ,. , '-tt.,------~ ""'"'' , o n I 30' N88"04'40"W / 20' FR(VATE , ACCESS,EASEMENT \211±,SF \ c,' ",'Y / -, --154- 11\ 9016± SF" 20' PRIVATE, / ACCES(l EASIOMENT" 1281 ± SF ' ,4j~!liiii!iE"1jIl~-ii1i!i1i " ,TRACT '3'3'3 • PARK 1339± S.P. 113 ," c' "t '" r r .... 0 ~ '" . I', I L 8 126b± SF -100_ 1 12~2± 5F , , ''l I I bO " , , I I'-~: . .. .., I '1 I l_ '" 132S' SF .. l!i I 42 I I 8~05. SF f r--I---laO=-~-=---~- / I I p I L 12 bO .~ L 11 1 1366± SF ",. fJ . "'" _,~ 1- bO 130 ; AI'<EA·OF DSQ[CATEDRIG~T . .. OF WAY. 10 1358± SF :-I± 5 bO, r· In " ill Yl Jl) ;t '. ~ ;;' LAND,5CAPE .STRIP' 0 ~ SE 1/4-NW 1/4-SEC. 14-TWP. 23 !Y.:L RGE 5 E, w.M. 10<98.01 " ·-:b;0~---r~--:bO~~~~~~b:0~'~'~'~h,.-r----~b~6~~:r----7b:O~-'-\---r--~;,0~0~~-r~--~b~O~--/t~/_' ~.~:~O~--' '"'. -""'-.~ -, <';:" I , v , bO 2'0 1561± SF· r I ~ 1',-~I r' -~~:-] I I I-I F 11-',I' 11'--C 11 ____ ,I 21 I I niL 23 'I I 24 \1 I "f--r---~-=;---_--.J-'c_--r:1 8Q49± SF ~ I 'lTl:)± SF ~ I 1612± SF ~ lB~Ht·6F r -.... ~ ,]681± SF '" ----1:11_", ---r 'I I 1 I '''If» " " II 2E,1 I 21 I '1,28 I I 25, 40 128S± SF " 41 81~3± SF -'I I I I I I J , I I R~rELA II,ill'/<!I/IY ' ~J ,J I _JL _J L _ L ~ .1, 19,2,,' SF ~I I';IS8' SF , ~ I 8152' SF / ~I 29 / I, I I I I I \ I. I, 88S4. SF r I I I II I , , II 31 83bl± SF I I 35 I I 34 81b3' SF I 1 8183> SF I I II L ',II II 11\ I 1/ I I I / 33 J I I 1 8b28±/5Fll~~"2± SF ,,2 I, 1/, II '/.0 ' , >r~. ~.­ P I '" ; L I' "9 8151t: SF -,-, 128i-, '--~: '" _I _ -'" ~L~ .. ~ ,L ~ l_,'~'·~L I I .... 31 Be.14± SF / bO 789821 ± SF 6q 80 bO' L -1:00-' "' III r , I'~ I I ~11~\,1 r:~ II ......... , .. 150.00 , "N88"03'20" 131; TRACT 9'38 140 N88"03'23"W 152.00 ... > t; l4Q,.'. ,;,-l' " Ii . ,', , 30' I I I , I II EJ--L_, _~_, _I~ __ J_'" ---j I 4" h I I'· r-' --. -I I 8g05'QFT I 44 lli I 4" / I \1 1\ r 14'" " f I, 41 l,l- /1\ Fl" 48 I I ~ k. 50 982l± SP / , , . 52 • 8402± SF '-,- I J" " B02~SFi ~ I I I 8430± 51= I J" eqo4± SF I I 11~: SF'I I···· 11g2± SF I; I 6004' SF L ~ L- 'I I I . \ 13S~; SF ~ I 14;~ SF I 1 I I \ "'8 '; 1358± -SF ~ lL ~ . .JL 80 ' '80 ,,<,,.0 60' /'>/00'0"""" FOUND Y.," REBAR & CAp:' '~,: '" " ; ,':: "WPO 21710" wi RP'S, CAN 0.03' S. OF LINE I I II I I fl I I -.J·L ". , ' .. GO : j .... _:,~'l L ., I ) I I I r I "'" ~l I I I I / / r . j " .. I I 85~4± SF 8554:!: SF I I I I r I 830~,1 SF I I ~L _ '--J L_ .' ~·L 60 > .. -60" """"""'"'''' /' ' . ' . , . , \ :.< ~ j ': FOUND Y.," REBAR & CAP i "WPD :/1710" 0,06' N, OF LINE I I I I l II' II , 49 ~ "'0 r I 1831. SF II ",,0 . . ' I I I I I I hi / I l 53. 1 ". B400± Sf., ' " ' -,-'. J " -J.W>,_. --l '. ,,' , 54 . B3'2l3± SF I 20' PRIVATE-" , . ACCESS EAS~t;1ENT I ' I~± ~ ~'. ---1' , " 5" \~042' of • , . ' .. ~I' 142~; SF I I -.JL -.JL ~ I 142~~ SF / I ~.L bO 80· S1.3.50 '. --, bO b3 ,,</, FRUNE DAMA6ED TWIC,S AFTER FLANTING. FLACE IN VERT FOSITION, DOUBLE LEADERS WILL ;"E . ~JECkD NOTE, STAKINC, ON "_IS NEEDED BASIS" FER NOTES, ALL c,UYSA~O!E FLEXIBLE KEEF ROOTBALL MOIST AND FROTECTED TIMES , ROOTBALL AT OR JUST ABOVE FINISI-IED v "'",', " \ 6E. 2ND FL. I-IOLD C~~~FROTECT TRUNK AND LIMBS FROM INJURY BACKFILL TO BE SETTLEP U6INC, WATER ONLY -NO MECI-IANICAL COMFACTION ="MOVE ALL WRAF TIES 4 CONTAINERS, REC,ARPLE6SAOFL ~, MATERI . '"'' ~ , , N8S'OO'1 g"W '" '"' W~~ , 4-" , () 7 o n PLANT LIST SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME ACER RUBRUM r I o n COMMON NAME SCARLET MAFLE DROuc,I-IT TOLERANr SFECIES ONLY SPECIFIC VARIETIES "ARM6TRONC,", "AUTUMN BLAZE", "BOWI-IALL", "KARFICK", AND "SCARLET SENTINEL" SIZE 2.0" -2.5' CALIFER B4B (2) 2><2 PF STAKES FLUMB (1112" PIA X 10' SCI-I 40 C,ALV. FIFE AT STREETS) uilTI-I ELASTIC CHIIIN-LOCK TYFE dS.: ~~~: C,UYS TIED IN FIC,U~ EIC,I-IT, ~MOVE AFTER 6EASON FROTECTlVE WRAFFINC, DURINC, SI-IIFMENT TO SITE 4 INSTALLATION ~MOVE AT COMFLETION OF FLANTINC, ANT INC,· FROVIDE 3' "NO C,RASS" T~E RING 4 3" DEEF ~~J;LIN WELL. MULCI-I, 112" -I" SIZE I-IOLD BACK FRO~" ~~~ FINISI-IED C,RADE Mr:'E:O~~6~8~N6~~~~fl-l ~: R~~T~~Lt TA~~·'}~~~~NB~tt. I SAND CONT AINER6 SCO~ ROOTBALL RE~~ W~L~W,:t:e-E~ eOIL AWAY FROM FERIMETERARAOT~6~. SF~AD ROOTS INTO EXC V , SET BALL ON UNDI6TURElED BASE OR COMFACJ~gE:~~~ FENETRATION TO SUBBASE (+) 12" 12' R.OW, DEDICATION l16± SF S' LANDSCAPE STRIP 12' ROW, DEDICATiON 3lBO± 5F SCALE: 1" 50' TREE PLANTING AND STAKING o ! SCAL£' NONE 25 I w c-« o U1 Z o Ifl '> W 0" o z W f-« o SHEET OF 5 5 PROJECT NUMBER 01019 I '.L .. (i .,. . i ~ ~~~'. , " ,~, ~ ". '." , . '. . .... '.~. . '<; I .. , '. . ' ( I. I • . "i :: ..... I ...<;. . . .... · .....•.••.•• ·.·· •• ·1.·;,\1 .'. ! I . I! I . . ·1 . i .. , '. '.! i . , ...... ...... i . ; •... ; ". . 14 IS> ,,, -'-"." 13 ! i···· . ,.,- i/ ?i: ; ! 1 1 . . " . \ . :no '. -t~ --, 2 • 3 4 '. ~ ..... '" en la· ~ ! ....... I . " . , : ) ~~5 .. .' .' ./~,~'" . "i , . '. • . 18 1 SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. :14" TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M. : ' , . 11 20 j, ;~J"50-J 1ft ~~..... . . . ·P4..,'/5&"' ". .. . •............... .•.•...•. . ' , '" .. \ . , l':l . 1 ! . .. ! ,. f " r~9 . X' . \ . t', (1 <> 1 ; j \ 38 tl '. PARe B , ..' .... . r .I~ v ' ........ ! . .. • , A 40 OWNER / APPLICANT BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTioN 1215 120Tl-! AVE. N.E., SUITE! 201 BELLEVUE, WASl-!INGlTON <;)8005 CONTACT, RON l-!UGll-!ES (425) 454-1<;)00 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR/PLANNER CORE DE51G1N INC. 14111 NE. 2<;)TI-l PLACE, SUllE 101 BELLEVUE, WASl-!INGTON ':l8001 (425) 885-1811 CONTACT, MICl-!AEL CI-lEN-PLANNER DAVID E. CAYTON, PE. -ENGIINEER STEPl-!EN J. SCl-!REI, PL.S. -SURVEYOR DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NAVO 1:l88 BASIS OF BEARINGS NOO"2<;)'II"E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONGI T!-!E CENTERLINE OF I%Tl-! AVE. SE. AT TI-lE INTER5ECTIONS WITI-l SE. 128Tl-! 5T. AND SE. 131OT!-! ST. AS CALCULATED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NOS. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON I-lORIZONTAL CONTROL NErWoR!< FUBLISl-!ED NOv. 15, 1:l<;)4 . BENC~MARKS: PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NAVD 1:l88 DATUM NO. 1852 -3" FLAT BRASS SURFACE DISC AT TI-lE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF NE. 4TI-l ST. (S£. 128T!-!5T.) AND 148TI-l AVE. SE. EL 454.11 (1;,8.1014 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN T!-!E INTERSECTION OF SE. 128Tl-! ST. AND I%Tl-! AVE SE EL. 541.:l4 (1101.013 METERS) '.... . ..../ ,I: '. ..... / . ~ ••....... ~ ···· ... r·· I '. -\-' -=_/ \ .... \ •..•. \7···· " '., i' -'" 41 '. 42 I . / 5. \ 61 . !", . .'if' '\. \' \ \ :. . . FOUND ~. REBAR & CAP ·WPD 21710· WI RP'S. CAN 0.03' S. OF LINE .... .... 43 .' .. ' i .'\ ~ " . .......L::., ! ill I ill I PROPOSED 8" D.I. WATER MAIN <TYP) PROPOSED 8" PVC SANITARY SEWI:::R (TYP) PROPOSED 12" CPEP Isr""" PeA IN <rrp) I I I R/W 42' R/W 5.0' 16_' ----+~1 _____ 1_6_' _____ 1 __ 5_.0_'_: I 2K 1 P·5' -1--D·5' ~~~2~%~.~N~~~~~==~~~~~2%~~~~W·~··g2K~~··f~~·#~~i~,~ :--Z;" TH;CK'Cb~ENT ! CEME;T CONCR~~t"'''''''f' V/?7M CONCRETE SIDEWALl( VERTICAL CURB & 1/ lUI SECTIONA-A ON-JiITE 421 R/W SECTION NO SCALE 20' ESMT. 18' PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD I -I L 1.5' THICKENED 2% 1-EDGE ~~~,.,.~,~~'S~~~ SECTIONC-C PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD NO SCALE La SCALE: 1" = 40' o 20 40 80 ! ! :zl\ .~ .. "' ~ 'l~::~ ~S I t ~~~~ ~ -2: 2: '« z () . -V) 0 ~ ~ C>: t~ t ~ 'O..J ~ SHEET OF 1. 2 PROJECT NUMBER 01.01.9 I:, " , ,- il '" ! ' ill ill =r: U) ill ill I'",',', ,',,' : , " 3? " , , " <1)143 I I I I , .19 1 X / , i i g " , " I , ' "', \ 31 44 ')' ,', i :" " . / 1-( \ '" . -----.,.~,'. , " , " '. I 22 310 4S _I In', , 6'4 , ,,: ~ .. ... ' : , : ... /, Vi j\j i ; 23 /' ~+ 1 \ , / '. \ \ " " ' "" ': ttl " , 410 17 / \ 34 41 -, ~< ~~::-,,--\ x (r \~ ,&', I "', , \ \ -~;:,-7 L 'c-, 63 " . ''o i ! ';if 8 \ "" '\ 102 ..... 210 21 './ .. ,'--',.-.-.. -~~"" '" , ' ~ ,_ 5 . \, ; '~ 48 ., '\ -r- '? , , , , '"., .L \ / " ~' "', , '"", ~ \ , , . """ -\. • ~'o ---~~Ir\- ", " .. 101 100 " . I " > :C-, " '-.... , w SE :1./4, NW:1./4, SEC. 14 TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 £, W.M. so 1:>1 , " ·./lL' ',;. '! ,\ -\-" '\ , J 1 .\ , S8 , , \. "', -/..-/ , " ", , , """ / '\ \ 51 <', , , !.' /,{; , ' L io' " . . .,' " • rn ""'" \-~ """""'~'''''''',''., r\ : "" '. / .... ; .. / / R/W DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NAVD 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS NOO'29'II"E E3ETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONe:. TI-IE CENTERLINE OF 156TI-I AVE. SE. AT TI-IE INTERSECTIONS WITI-I SE. 128TI-I ST. AND SE. 1:36TI-I ST. AS CALCULATED F~OM CITY OF ~NTON CONT~OL FOINT NOS. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN FLACE AND DESCRIE3ED E3ELOW FE~ CITY OF ~NTON I-IORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK FUE3L[5I-1ED NOV. 15, 1994. BENCl-IMARKS: FE~ CITY OF ~NTON 5URVEY ON NAVD 1988 DATUM NO. 1852 ~ :3" FLAT E3~55 SURFACE DI5C AT TI-IE CON5TRUCTED INTERSECTION OF NE. 4TI-I ST. (5.E. 128TI-IST.) AND 148TI-I AVE. S.E. EL. 454.11 (1:38.614 METERS) NO. 210:3 -E3ROKEN E3~SS SURFACE DISC IN TI-IE INTE~SECTION OF S.E. 128TI-I ST. AND 106T1-1 AVE SE EL. 541.94 (161.01:3 METERS) 42' R/W 5.0' 16' It; 16' 5.0' ;-11-0.5-' --2-%----[--------1---+-1-0-·5-'-1 ?j ,;% ',. ' , '~'" ""'~f'V~~' '~' ~,~~(,jrt~ L4" THICK CEMENT ' " CEMENT CONCRETE 'v - CONCRETE SIDEWALK VERTICAL CURB & GUTTER SECTIONA-A ON-SITE 42' R/W SECTION NO SCALE '\ EXTEND ROAD TO FULL WIDTH \ 42' ~ \ JJ' ~5' \ 0.5'= 1--=.5.5' I-2% <., .' ~#-4-1-7 'C/, "'~\~ / ,v,>u:,tU LOT GRADE EXISTING PA~D ROADj ''',''," ,.. " / .. ' .. ,. ;:;.~. ',.' ::. ,>;\--i " " ".:;<" SEE TYPICAL PA ~MENT SECTION J ON THIS SHEET REMO~ EXIST. A,C. SHOULDER AND OVFREXCAVA TE DITCH AND SHOULDER AREA TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE SUB-BASE \ ~5' CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK ~ (6' THICK IN DR/~WArs; 4' THICK ELSEWHERE) CEMENT CONCRETE ~RTlCAL CURB AND GUTTER SECTIOND-D 156th AVENUE S.E NO SCALE (I SCALE: 1" = 40' o 20 40 so ~! ~I ~I----li '" i 1 « SHEET 2 -V) I.U a OF 2 PF,OJECT NUMBER 01.01.9 8 o RADIO iflANSMITTl',,? 14-23-5 9 ' 3 10 , "' 36 1 ~ TRACT B 'rRACT I 53 54 55 39 3S 37 36 T. Maplewood N e ghborhood Par k UJ vi 40 37 138TH PL. L 16 15 14 4 51 '00 J5 R ,," 55 48 41 56 47 42 57 4E 43 31 <=: 30 " I i ~ S.E. '" '" J 17 4 " 5 10 6 1-_"'---1; 10 22 23 " A ....... 5 OF SEATTLE KROLL MAP SCALE, I (N. ~ 200 FT. COMPANY,INC.,SEATTLE COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC. 13 12 TRACT ''A'' 2 I .: ,. iO 8 , o , ." NOTE: Kroll Mops (' andF,erdSurveys , , \ oilly an::! m warranty (2) 2.10'<1,.1":.. 4 5 R , Ii i [ " " ( £1 I .j 1~4) ' .. F I V E ~----------~~ ~~~-------- L_ .794c. 2.30 Ac. 4.70 Ac. @i II ) ® @) 1.35Ac.. (3) 4MAc. , , , , , , , ® I Q~ .------~-~---.-- (21 S.P. S69S00'''c RIVER 4 ACRE @ o ---------~-~~---.-~---------~ >1 .1 8 ' , I ! ,-' .. : I: "1"'-"+- I,', I 10 " I -i " " i , . c-' __ , (2.) -' ; J A "I', I i£-~---~~ ----i--·----~ ---.-\ (~J.'s I ,"' o r o -----Jr p-.-.-.~-. __ ~ ____ .. J. ___ " ." _~ _____ ~ 2 5tl'l,~1 5 ::iP.577011 (I) , I ' :: 'Ie, S P 97{;093 \2) " 6 , , I I 6 l 7 ! ULEVARD 5 TRACTS , , , __ • __ ~. _____ .~ -• ____ roo , I L·\ t, hc " -2r---- : 1 , i fi@ i --5- , ,,' o r' " CEDAR 2 ',HI o '.' !i~ ~_LI ~O~j~..L, .. ~, ~. I~r TR I---~-. ~~ ----~~ --~~-.. ~ , w .,' r I- '" I() 'S, E, 138TH E ;w __ I.-:&.. LEGEND , , . i , .. ~ __ e"~.,,,, ___ ~ NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP HIGHLANDS PARI< RENTON, WASHINGTON CORE DESIGN INC" ENGINEERING' FLANNING • SURvEYING CORE NO. 0101':1 OCTOBER 4, 200=, I" = 200' r: f!.'O 11<11 " ",,0>,1 v -Fl',_'> ." '" '_"" '" _., ,-" "'"" _""ll '".' "I , ",:""" I:', I Cl Z '" '" , , ------_._-- E -F 14-23-5 , ,', , " ~I , l~ 4 2 4 I I , 131ST PL', '. 1J 12 !4 13 . ,,, 5 . I I I I , I I I I , I , I I I I I I I I ~"'-r'~i I I I "i f====:::.,m:0I"~==~"r:: 8 TS 3 (2.) X' ;;1 w' -I 1 , 1 , I I 1 Pt.Vl~G WH;:R MAlN SEWER COUNTY TA~ --d"-- Rll,iLROi\O GUILUI Nl} ~ ,'>", Pi, I",' "',_" _,' "",_1 ,,, I~'"";' .,,,, ".1,' ".-'-"0 wi .,1". t,,,. "",.,, ""'" I; c-···-· --~--.• -.----.-.--.~--.-.• -.-.-\ i ,~~~I,~;.~, ·.~:~o\:~:'~;I;' ,!;;;~:,;~~ ~t~-~~; :: ;~,~",' ,~··;;~.;~,~',t'~"'\;'~·I~~:"·'· I;,e,e·j" ,',," l:~'=:_7, r,·' I.",~~,~~~ .""',, ,\'I'_,I,,'J"'" ~~::~~J KROLL MA P SCALE: (iN.:: 200 FT. COMPANY,INC.,SEATTLE CQP'n.,IGHT KROLL MAP COMPANY,INC. LOT NO. (1" ,> .-~---~------- (I' ~ {2} (3) ~I ~ .~ ~,~I .J .tt· wi L 653017 658.18 G> 0 r-....... ""'-_-'-='-'--llil<i<LL...-J.!._~_..J.I-~:JI .... ~_J.....i~--r..{q>~~_ ~I I -----~"-'-i:-------__+------~!.!..!L-~----i---------;;s.-.;::-E.--",-. --fil-::'3~2,lh ST. ."'~ • I:! I ~ ~R C R I~I I 3 4 5 :.t: · I a ~ · I I I · I~ ~II~ ~I <;j. I ~i ~. I I . I ~I 0::' 31 <:(' 2'3.G2 Ac. \II~~' TI ~ @ ® _151,4, _______ ...::(,~GOli:..Q!!!.I ___ --__ ~~~--------'r.r.~O.~811.-------_...u: t ~fi 1438 • • .. , • • • ... • • • • • ... 133RD 114.i? ;j ffi -----4 • • (P) • For(5t ~I---+ • 8 U o RADIO TRANSMITTER ,/ • 593.&8 (&QO.60) .., r. 11004 M~E~ #' @'" .~ 13$8 (2) ~ .., .-u Maplewood I .. .. ,/ • • 533.'35 (600.10) of § N ~ ® S.P. 480( ,-. ~ 5.E. '" (I) r--' 35 37ae7 ®r.= I :;; @ @ @~ 137TH 5'33.95 (600.10) g h b 0 f h ~ 0 d P.'tl r k ~ •• ~ .... .. -4 ... ""..". ..... ~ ~ ----N e --------_.-.-----.-. 4 5 6 11. ,. ., 47 • .. 42 12S • 138TH H 17 16 4 32 29 24 ATLAS OF SEATT PL. I L 26 27 28 15 14 13 .. '39TH 25 26 KROLL MAP COMPANY, INC·1 SEATTLE ~r.A I s:~ I IN = 200 FT_ COPYRIGHT KROLL MAP COM.PANY.INC. ~ 87 2 3 o Z,97.13 (2] 534-.1.5 '" '" S.P. 58950023";- Ztl7.t:. \ov 5.94.4 3 CEDAR I V E R 12 1/ 1 ~ I I I ~ PlEASE N01E: Kroll Atlas Pages are revised crt least Ofll';.e a year with regard to pIat$, short plats, condominiums. and corporate limitS.. Addn.!lSing and structural information is updated Ies$ frequently. This map 1$ copyrighMd in both form and contanf. Reproduction . .. -. . . ~ . '. -....... _--._-..... '--""---' ........ __ . o 0) W@7 ~r-------------~5~~~~~55~-----------~~ 4 ACRE 100 <: ~ Sop. 379074 III ::;t ..; Il.. C> <::) '" PAVING WATER MAlil1 e. HYDRANT SEWER rnllNTV TAl! I ('IT ,Nn (I) --6~ -8!-- C:i'l (2) I I I I r UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY AREA & DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ROUTE MAPLEWOOD ESTATES DIV. 3 CORE PROJECT NO. 01019 RAILilOAD BUILDING 0 HOUSE NUMBER mJ I Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Park Prelim Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Jim Jacques ,. 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Burnstead Construction 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 tel: 425-454-1900 (applicant) Jim Jacques Construction 1216 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 (owner) tel: 425-885-7877 eml: mc@coredesign.com ( contact) James & Linda St. John 6009 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-519-6565 (party of record) June Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SW Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-226-9686 (party of record) David L. Halinen 2115 N. 30th St. ste: #203 Tacoma, WA 98403 tel: (425) 454-8272 (party of record) David Bishop 15413 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7283 (party of record) Ellen & Martha Mier 15300 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 572-0271 (party of record) Berniece L. Ersland 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4655 (party of record) Updated: 03/24/06 Mike Moran 15121 SE 139th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Ronda & Franklyn Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gordon Sherman 15401 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 864-1552 (party of record) Kim Thomas 15404 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-3632 (party of record) Debra Moore 6026 SE 2nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 204-1458 (party of record) Manuel Hernandez 6015 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 256-0049 (party of record) Jack Pace 6013 NE 1st Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gwendolyn High, CARE President CARE PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Mayra Rodriguez 15323 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Quang Tran & Nga Ninh 15315 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-4915 (party of record) James & Melinda Wilson 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4886 (party of record) Chikai & Mitsuye Sakaguchi 15203 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-7916 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) Glenn Glover 6008 NE 1st Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-271-1248 (party of record) Kimberly Clairmont 107 Vesta Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: 206-271-6494 (party of record) Updated: 03/24/06 PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Park Prelim Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Robert M. Herman, P.E., P.T.O.E. Herman Traffic Engineering 15324 SE 133rd Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-277-1740 eml: hte@comcast.net (party of record) Jeff Anderson 15519 SE 133rd Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-460-2516 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) .i '4 ,. W.M. I "c::'::,,·;:r> I ( )1 f¥fr~ '" 11 lil!!": · .... i [ It'-C2~~C'''/, ~ .1 I "<:'::::-::' ,~:"'C::;~~1 PARCEj~ B Iii I "-'=-~f 3e ~i --=--=:=-","$'p . '~ ,1 'I, ,I I AI!" .. A II'~;I I-j~=:40cJ " "N ~ .. ';--~ -,-. f-~ --'~t ~ "'. ; k' I ) 4' ii: ) lli I: I I "" " I t 4' I I I ! ~D"D,', ~ WA~MAIN(~) OWNER / APPLICANT e.ur;N&TEAD CON&TRUCTJCt.I tie 120l1o! Av!!:. N.E., WIlE 201 ~E\IU!:, UL6,!)I.t!N::ilTON ~o& CONTACT, ~ HlJGI..I!e ("'2~)~·1900 ENc:.INEERl5URVEYORIFLANNER COlI!!: oe!llGN INC. 14'" N.E. 2-:!1n.! Fl..ACE, SUITE 101 eEl,..L..EYlE, WA&HINCitTOI '38001 (~&)N&-'ln' cct-ITACT, MICI-fAEL. CI-/EN-PL.ANNEJii DAYID E. C,4,'rTON. p.e. -~1NE1!!1I: &~ J. e.a.R1, PL6. -8URYEYOR DATUM CITY OF ~TON -NAYO Igee 6A515 OF 6EARINc:.5 NOO"2\11'lI'~ eETUeEN JICU.lD MGW.JMeNT$ AJ..c:::t-IG TI-I!! C!NT!I'ti..INE OF I!o.TI-I Ave:. $.E. AT "... INTEMECTICNe ~Llrn·1 !I.E. 128TI-I 6T. AND !l.E. \36>"f1.j 6T. A& c.A.l..Cl.II..ATED I"'II:OM CITY Of' ~ON ~ ~INT N06. lee-I AND 1862, ~ IN FL.4.CE AND DE6CfiiI:1M:D eaOJl FER CITY OF ..sNTON ~IZONT AI.. CONT1iCIL. NE~ AJeLI&tED NOV. Ill-, 1\11904. 6ENCI-lMARK5: PER CITY OF ~ON euRYI!Y ON NAVO 1'3N DATLM NO. 11&, -3' FlAT ~ ~ACE DI6C AT TI-E CONeTRJCTED !NTEti&ECTION OF N.e. 4TI-I &T. ns.E. 1~8n.i$TJ AND I..ceilool A~ U. EL 4~." (13e.6,4 METVtS) NO. :1103 ~ ~N ~ ~ Dlec rN T\.IE IN1"EfIO:6ECTICN OF &.E. 128TIooI eT. AND IMoTI-! AVE e.E .ELe."'.~(1.'.o13r-e~) R/W 42' R,/If iJ ~01P5' ,"' f f6' +::' I ~~tv " :::~,W '" ;;},'-w~:f ,*;;~ • THICK ct4lENT C£ItI£NT CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWALK '.IE:R71CAL CURB ok GUTTER SECTIONA..4 ON-S/TE 42' R/W SECTION NO SCALE 'l 20' £SMT. ! " ,,-----.-.::::, \ F!'iiOFO&eD e' FYC eANIT~~lLER(~) I ,.. PRIVATE )~ROAD 'firST","" ' ',' , I "1 • IS WIDE' I,' -A,. 'I I , I 'I ~A!EMENT I I I 'I' "' ~ ~ """""""" ,I" i I I . I,··· , i: '0 i : ., I ~. ., r " · . j _<l~ ~C"~~ ~.:J~ '2i;:3i~~t;,~~~~~,,)ii?;"-:bp'~'iLl ~DI2"Cl"'I!~ e.TOIIOMO~IN(T"'f"l-) 1 f-1.5' '::;£N£O """"";~G'M"'?<;~ SECTIONC-C PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD ",i,'--r 'rT1 ~~I _",00 r . . --1 LPIJ8.:;l4'IT . --- '-';--:.311.!i7. -r st'ffNbs[ DETENTICN/I1.eT F'CtO eI!!~.421 MAX WATER SUM'ACE • .0420 BOTTCM L.IVE STORAGE • -411 cotTCM I"'ClND • 404 DETENTIClN R!QUI~D • 21af>2 CI" DETENTION ~v!DED • 223.~ CF WA~ QUAl..ITT ~GlJI!Oi!ED • "-4,1&1 a= WATefII: QUAL.ITY ~IDI!D • 6!-.216 CI" I I f'fV ~CAL£ 1; N' J SCALE: ," = 40' ~ M ........ 1 ::1 \}., ~r :} ":1 ~: .. ~ ~~~ h~ III d. " IZ ~ w :- ~ " ., " IZ Z Z '" (~~j ~ ~rc ~ t ~ ~~ g~§ § ... D""~ I;;:~ ~ II) ~LJ~ ;!! "8 ~"'~ CS... ':!ill !:t ~ 'q;~ ~ c;. ~i!;," ~ :q~" ~ !I.I-," It: "-::lI)~ ~:t ~:;Qj ~~ ~ ~~~ I II II .,1 I~I 1l:;1~ gl 1,,1 11l1~ '" I "'I <;j' "I' "LJ I "I~ i>J, l':1;:1 ~~ ~ ~ "I" ill ~u 1 " ~I ~I ~I I SHEET I r)~' 1 , 2 O.1.0j!J ~ -- 166 ll;~ 64 .. , .. , 61 ';1"-, ...... ~ .. '., .. ::' ',' . -·r·· .. ~ -, . ~\ .. ... " ~ ... ; .... I ,,,-~ ':('~.;~,~:<y:.}.). SE so 60 TWP. 23 N .. RGE. 5 E .. W.M. f'IIOlOF'O&EO e"D.I. Wo4TER MAIN. (TYPJ II II ~ 'I~ ~ , '" I' I II ,I II II II II I 'I D DATUM CIT'r OF !ll!ENTc:J>.I • NAYD ~ 6A515 OF 6EA~INc:.5 NOO'2~'1I"E EIEl'lOEEN fOLI.ID ~T6 AL.ONG. n.IE CENTE1Ii!Lrt-E a: Ie6Tt-1 AV!:. &.E. AT TJ..IE INTeMeCTlCiN!o Will-! &.e. 12&n.I &T. AND e.e.,,.TI-I &T. ~ CALCUlATED ~ CIT"T'" OF II<£NTON CONT1ItOL POM N06. \2&1 AND 18S2. FOLND IN FI..ACE AND DeE!GRIeED eEL.OW FER CITY or-f;ENTON ~ZONTAI.. ~L. ~ A.eL1e+EP NOV'. 1&, 1994. 6ENCI-lMARK5: I"'ER CITY Of' I'iENTON ~T ON NAVD ~ DATU"! NO. 1852 • 3' R..AT BRA66 6f.IOFACE cree AT THE CON&Tfi01.ICTED IN'TEl'iI8ECTrON OF N..!. 4Tt-1 &T. (e.e:. 12eTWeor J AND 148TJ..I A\1!. 6.£. !"L. 004.11 (138.614 MeT!!':!) NO. 2103 -I5R()I(EN ~ euN=ACE DISC IN. THE INTaOl&ECTION OF 6.E. I2&TI-I6T. AND r. .. TI-I AVE sa .!:L ~1.~ (161.013 H!!T!!:~) R,/W 42' R/W ~ I &01Fs 16 r 16' 1~:' I q ~t ~ ~ ~ -..2X ~ "'-v"'''' ¥ ««~" <uS. "MvXj ."v~, ~ THICK C£M£NT CEMENT CCXVCRETF CONCRETE SIDEWALK I.flmCAL CUR8 .t GUTTER £)(JSlTNGPAIf11RaW, SEC"ONA-A ON-SITE 42' H/W SEC"ON NO SCALE .e. #";-f:? PfK;ffJSlIJ lor GRNE SEErrPICAlPAIaflVT5£CTICW--1 J ~!HIS SlEET 5' CEJENr CMCRETf' S6)[WA1J( RlJIO'oC£X!Sr.A.C.SHa.lJJ£l?ANtJ OIf7iUCAVAn-OITQlANf) SJKJtIlDER M£A ro PROWJ£ II SfAWll£ Sl.EJ-8AfE (6" FMC/(fN Dm'D'AYS, /" lHI(1( llS£IIH[f(f) Cl1IfNr~'l(RTlCAi.CUf(J Mf) QJI7fJ? SEC"OND-D :J.56th AVENUE 5oE. NO SCALE L ..!i 11 ,1 SCALE: 1" = 40' U i hI Hi ~ f! ~ i ~ " " ~ w ~ .. " ~ " z z " .. L ~~! :t~ ~ II: ~ ~ ~ ~~§ §~I!:!§:ll ~II)Y)~~ ~o ~,,~ ~ G'!i~ ... ~ .. ., ~~ ~ihl ~~ ~ii;" ).., ~-" ~.,. !2~~ ~ "" '" ;g ~ :s rd .... Q:j ~:t III! I ~I ~.~ "'I ~ I i'll' ~ I~I ,Cj i Ilil "',, ~:I ~'Ii ~, ~I ~13, ~:f <::> ~ ~'I ~I I 2'5 n 2 : ... ~' . . ".- ]],,' , -Il btl MICHAEL CHEN -.----pFH)JECTMAt'AGi:"r~·- r • I ~ I " . ~~ , PRELIIVIINARY PLA T HIGHLANDS PARK BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION 1215 TZOTH A ~ ME. SUITE 201 BEllEVUE, WASHlNGTCW 98005 cDiE ~DfSIGN Iqll~29Ih""'#I'" ........ w~1NJOQ7 ""~ ...... ~ ENGINEEIUNG· "LANNING· SUItVEYING , .... i ----,- I \ .' <JEST A AVE. .s.E . . ~~l·111;'&4-0.,-; -~ NI'U'2~"Jl)"E 700>1 'h ( .. ,·,oS) BOUNDARY/TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ~ l'"C'=--=-=-=--+_-=:-:==:::H.="'=-'G-=-'H.=L4,--M:::-'DS=:c-:-:P.:::!4R='K~==-=-C-----1 ~ AcP""'-VC'----=_ _ _ BURNSTEAO CONSTRUCTION c,.. ~ #oC;:#i.A~~ _ 1215 '~iZ1£~NU~ N.~8~~lE 201 .. ~,.., -0 .. ".. 25 " -,·r-'· "--OJ cOilE ~DES/GN ... C20$14IIo.A_~""~ ...... _"""" 425.J1U..7D7FaJf42S.&15.7903 ENGINEEIfNG . PLANNING· SUrVEYING ~! ~! ~I .•... ; .~~.~ . r .... , . . . .. -. •.. -........ --"'. ,-, I ····i i t-- ~---:­ l---------------- }---~--­ -~----- ::. }.~ ,-,. '. ., < I ,I ~ I~ I~ IiIICHAEL CHEN --. PROJEcT MANA""GER ___ VE~A iYE,~_ NOO"l~·l1·E 2S40H Nlf)·2S·'{.'T 2'·41 ,,? I~C"'c) PRELIMINARY TREE CUTnNG & CLEARING PlAN HIGHLANDS PARK BURNSTEAO CONSTRUCTION 1215 120T1i A ~ N.E. SUITC 201 BEliEWJE. WASHINGTON 98005 1'120.'1 ---- cOif ~DfSIGN 1-(71! ~29111"-"I,n ......... WOIIt/IooIrIn 9fO(V d6.tIII4JU7""'4~ ENGINEEtlNG· PlANNING· SUIII'VEYING ,0; ~ .-... k ,.. TRACT'" ~...., PAlfct~' 0 5£. 2ND PL :iE =V4, NW =V4, SEC. .14, TWP. 23 N., fIG£ 5 E:, w.M. j/'.;:V r I : ! iii li'~~ TI . -~ '-.--_J ., I I-~ s~LA:~~:ME roMMON_ ~VA_ sa. 1: ffi'--. ACl:1'I!!IilJeIIIU1 ~ ·,4,IIIM&~·,"AU1\I"'N~·. -~ "eOUHAU...', 'KAIiiF'ICI(', ANC " 'e.c:.Alll:L.ET eENTlNEl..." 2D'-2.&'CALIf'!lt,;ee ~ ~ TOLE~ eA!CIE6 ONL"!'" SCALE: 1" = 50' w--: T 1";;' """PAMAGeD """'_I'LAN' ... ~ PLACE IN VElIIfT. FO&ITla-I. DOIeLI!! l.EA.PEI'e WIW-!!IE ..... CT!P 6TAl<JNcia-l. 'A&t<EEDeD eMIS" ~~ AU.~ -= , . ~II!!IL.E 1(f!e1"' IOOOTeAU.. HOIST .4J.C ~ AT AU... ,-I-IOI..D CIIIC\lN Ql'fIItOOl15,A,L.L.. AT 0IIt JJ&T AeOvt!! I"lNlel-IED GIItADE~CTT1'NKAJCIL.rr-e&~~ eActeJ"lLL. TO e! &£TTLED U&ING WA'TVt ~ T -NO . ~tc.A.I.. ca"PACTION ," !et"t:rvE ALL. URAP, TIEe> ~ cc:NTAftoeM, ~ OF- HATE1It.IAL., " , (VM DF. 6T.A.ICE&, FUt1e (lIt.!' OIA)( 10' 6C1-140 GAl..V. PK AT 6T!11i1!ET6) ~ ~TIC o.lAlN-L.o:l< T'I'l"'E OPt!lll.eeE~ Gl1T"& TIED IN FlGUIIIiE Ekill-/TI IIIS'1O'.1!: AI"I'ER Qi!: GROWING &EA6a< ~TIYI! ~CUlltlNl:ifjj.j~TToeI'T!;: ~ IN&TAUATION!'iiII!I"IQ'.1 AT ~~~TINCi 'T\IIiF I""LANTING. P""I'OlO't1PE ,. ~ GRA8&" TJIIIEE ~NG. 4 ,. DEEP' HULCH IN iJ.I!L..L. \"1JLCH. \1.2' -I" elZE HOLO I!'M.O(. FRCM 'f'IIIaN( "'TO 10" P'1N1eH!!O GftAO~ __ ~AI'E P1.ANTII>C:io ~ I"'!"I't ~'e. AT MIN.. LOOeEN AND ~_.f. MIX 601L.T0I8"OIIiDEPTI-IOF~AND<f.TII"'E&~ q. PIA. Il!B"IOVE .41. L l!IIAf' TID ANP C<lNL41tCM 5COfO£ """'TeAU.. ANO~~60IL AW.ATI'I'OCM~1IlOOTe &f'!QEA[) ROOT6 INTO EXCAVATla-I. toET eAU ON i.N:lleiru~D eAee 0I't CO"PAC'I!!D I"ICUIO U<PE1Q.....u- ~Tta>4TO~(.)tiI" TREE PLANTING AND STAKING SCAIL;'_ U=:GAL DESC~IPTION LOT t KING CGI..INT"I' 6HOftT ~T NIJ"'eEIII: 61806!Hlt ~COIIIi:OEO UNOEIIiI: 1iII!~1I-6 N.J"eE1IiI: 15121108&1, eAID &I-IORt ID\...AT !Y!:fNClI A etJeOMel04 Of' A ~rON OF 'TIE ~T QJ~ Of' THe HORTI-ll.e&T GlJAl'lrl£IIiI: Of' eECTION )04, TOILN&I-il~ l' NORTH. IIt.oIH:iE & EAeT, II,ILLA"ETTE ~IDI..oN, IN KNG ca.NTT, ~INaoTa-I. . ...,... .. TAAT FO~ION Of TI-E eGlUTl-eAeT QUAR!'ER Of ne: ~6T ~ Of' ReflON \04, ,.ou..t>I&HI~~' ~H, ~ e ~T, W'l...LA"ETTE ~IDI..oN, IN KING ccu.ITY, u.JAei.III-kOoTCN, oet.c"rtleED A& ~LOUI!5, ~1I+I1Nci-AT A POINT ~ OO'le'o,z' WEer A DI&TANCE: 01";,0.00 I"EET AND N~ M~'44' IIE&T A Ol6TANCe OP )0.00 FEET F~ 1'I-E CENTEIIi. Of &AID 6ECTION "" TI-ENCe AL~ THe: ~~ Y MA!iiti1N 01' TI-E ~T ~ IIIOAO (INtTH A.....el.E &oLiTI-E.t.e.T) M CCNVE'r'£O TO ~C".oCl\..NTY eT ~o filll!COIIPDED l.NO!!l't ~1Nao NO. 100M2"1, NOIIm-I 00'18'0:1" lLEar A DI&TANCE OF "'"at>, PEI!T TO n.e: ll'!l.E POINT 01' eMlI+IlNci 01' TI-IE ~T I-I!'II£IN DE6CRIeEJ:), TI-I!NCE CONTINUINI:i NOIII'T\-I 00"28'02" u.e:eT A OI&TANCE Of ~,~~; n.ecE ~ lWOI'I6' WE&r A DI&T ANCE OF tl4e.01 F£ET TO n-e: !A&T L!\IE OF 11-£ WEer "'.00 I"I9!'T' CIf' &AID 8OlJTHEA6T GLIAIt'T!!JIt. OF THe HORTI-lI£&T QJ~ a<, T~ AL~ &AID I!!A&T LIN!! 8C\J11.I 00"33'02' ~T A DI&T,oINCE! OF ~1,O"l !'I!I!!T, TI-E'ICE 5OUTj.j _"M'&'''!A&T A DISTANCe Of' a",~ FEET TO TI-E TM.E POINT OF eEc,i.lI+Il~ EXCEf'T fI..ICI6E POIfll'IONe c:GWVEYED TO I'ltAI«LIN T. ~ AN.O Co L.&IA TE'I'aIiI, I-IJ6t!,ANO AHO WIFE, sy ~& IIIII!~ED IJ'(DE~ f<!COI'5::JII'oII:i NOS .• ~41 ,<!Np jj.4nlJT1. FAACaC TI-IAT POI'lTION Of n.£ ec-.m·EA&T ~ OF n.E NORNUEeT ~ OF SECTION 1-4, TCIU.NeI-III'" 23 NORT'I-I, IIiANClE & !A6T WM. IN KINI::i! o:::u>rrY, w,4,&i-IING,.CN, DI!!eatleeD A& FOU..OW&o ~1t+l1NGo AT A t-olNT NOQ"2.'02',,", 30.00 I"'I9!T AND NM"!;&'44'W A DI&T.ANCE Of-)O.oo!'IEET FROM fI..E CENT9I: a= eAID 6ECTIGN 11. T~ .ALc:t-t1 T1-II!! Il8&TI!!~ Y ~IN Of Tloe AlJQU6T GEIll!l!lEA: fIiOAO (elon.! A~ SOUn.eA&T) A5 CONVe~ TO KiHei COlfIITY FCIR ~AD ~ ey DEED IItECOROED ~ IlllECORDING NO. fO!!M.241, NOO"2e'02"'-1, A DI&T»«:E ~ 1~1~11'I!l!T TO TI-IE me !"'OINT Of eEGINN~ Of' Tioe ntACT ~IN Dt!:~~DJ TI-eNCE CONTfNJlNCi NOO"~&'02''W A DI&T»«:E Of. )1&02 Pl!ET, 'fl..ENCE: NN"H'I"'W A DI&TANCE Of' 12"'~ I'EET TO TIoE ~T LINE Of TIE Ul!'6T ~.oo FeET a: &.AID IloO.lTIoEAeT QJAIIItT2fII: Of' TI-E NOIImItLE6T ~ TI-ENCE AL.ONG &AID EMT LINe &oo"33'02"e: A DI&TANCe Of' '14.14 f'l!:i!T, TI-ENCE e.-a1'11''e A DI6TANC:E Of t24U41'!!ET TO TI-IE TR.JE PO"'" (]IfI1!!Ie~rr-G. !"'AItC!L D, LOT 4 Of-KINCio COI.NTY &I-IORT FLAT NUMeER 4&4106, AS !lli£C~EP i.IC!1II: IC:JI-.G co...N'rr RECOItOING t>l.II'1eelll!: e&e:e1106n, IN KING co..NTT, ~INGTa.I. HIGHLANDS PARK FOR BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION SITE STATISTICS TOTAL &ITE AIIi!EA< A'w'I!ItAG! LOT Size. E)(I&TINGZON~ ~rrTEP DENeoITr". ~PEN5(TY'. 'P.I,82lt &.F.(I&J~AOII!!&) OETACHEO-&lN6l1E I'AMILT &)!!I'!It!iP. 4.81 DUlAC. 120,mte.J=. P\el..IC IQ-O-W DEPICATICIN .o4,49IP~ SF. !TO!IIt1 DIllAINAt:iI!! (~ ~1) &1.'" 5.1'. OI"'EN &PACE (T~13 ~,-") n,12li ~ ..,...,~ ~-S' I'iEAA· ~&' &IDE -eo'. 1&' .dJ.~ t.a .~ ~·~O' DENSITY CALCULATIONS I3!IiO&6A1eAOI'~RTY, • FLaIC III!:-O·W -FI.Iel.IC III!:-O-W DIDICATION • ACCE&& EA&!MI!NT NOTES 1ee,,'4 ... (I&JC) ACJOE&) 120,n1i8P' 4.496* &I' .o4~t" 6,,0.'" ., OIII!: 1&." ~ L ALL TIT~ ~TION SI-IO.l.N ON T~I& M~ ~A6 eEeN EXTRACTED F!Qa1 II¥CR"1A.TlON CONTAINED IN CMICAGO TITLE IN/!UItANC2 CO"II"'AN'r I"I..AT CEIII!:TIF'ICATE. ORDER NO.ln&4&6, OATEO ~2'!1,2QC)!.. NI""'!III! .. AltJNGTI-II6M.4P,~ DEl3IGN, INC. MAe CGltOJeTEO NO INOEFEHDENT TITLE ~ NOR 16 COlliE DI!&IGN. INC. AWAIIiIE 01" ANY TITU!: 1&et.Ee """ECT1NCi fI.IE ~ ~ OTf.ElIIt fI.IAN THOeE 6HCUN. ON"'" MAP. 2. T~I&&Ulll!:YET~vrSI&IEl"'WT&ICAL ~T c:a-lDlTla-Ie. EXI&TN:lo ON MAI'<ICI--I 14, 2C1OL ALL ~ CONllIiIOL II\C)ICATeD A6 "I"O..ND' \IJA& R!COYeN!D FOR TI-lle PROJECT IN 1'1ARCJ.I, 2C:::OI, IJ>U.!:&& NaT!!D OT~I&E. ,. I""II.OP"'I!I'tTT ~ • '8'!~I' &QJA!Ie I'e!T (l&.I~et ACIIIt!&) • .04. AU. DI&TANC:E& AIOi£ IN F£ET. eo TI-lI& 16 A I'IELD TRAVE1'i!:6E~. A &clI<:XIA """1! &ECOND c.a-eINED eu::CTJi!OoIIC TOTAL &TATION Il.IA$ IJeED TO ~ TIoE ~ AND DI&TANCe IIII!!LATICJNeI..IIP& ~ TIoI!: ~~LLINGoMONL.t1ENTATlo-tA6&1--1011)o1. Cl..o&UIIlI!!!~Tror.OI' Tf.E TAA~E MET OR EXCEEDED fl.IOeE ~CIFIED IN LLIAC 352-13O-0!I0 . .ALL HEAeLiIltINCio IN&T!II.I''eNT'e,olND EQUI~T i-IA& eI!eN MAINTArt>ED IN AOJUS~ AC;C;OI'D~ TO t1ANIF~'& I!FECJl=IC.4TION& wr".1N 0hE TEAA a ti-E DATE OF fI.Il& eutYEY". ". UTILITIE6 crn--ErOi: TI--IAH THOeE ~ HAY EX~T ON Tl--Ile &ITE. a.lLT T!-IOR ISTILITIE6 LLl:Tl--I !vrDmolCE OF TIEIIii HeT.ALL.4TIQi vr&l~ AT GIRCl\.N;I euN"ACI! AlII!! 6HCUN. ~ ~UTILITTLOCATIGtoI66f.1OUHAIO£~l«'1ATE a.lLT. ~ CO!'N!CTION& ,ol,J;£ &WOUN M 6TItAIr)I.IT LIN!!& t!ETlIEEN ~ UTILITT LCCA~ 5lT MAT co.ITAIN 1!a'o06 OR ClJliVE6 NOT ~ eot1E ~ LOCATION& 6+-IOI.lN f.E~ MAY ~V1i! ~!N TAK2N f'!IlOM P'UeLIC III!:I!!COfIID6. CON!: D!6IGN .A6&l.ME6 NO LI~ILlTT FOR n-E ~ OF ~IC!QE~ 1. A I"'C'RTION CF TH! TOP"'OGfIiAPI.IT IIJ.A.& OeTAINED ~ .4 T~IC 6!RYEr 1ST C • T 6lJRY"ETIt-G, INC. DATED ~ I~. DA6i--I!D CONTOUFl:& 0Ne1T"E ~T 6AID 6LJ11tVET. CA'&ITE co.ITOI..No oeTAN!::e RII!ClM CITY' OI'!lENTON UTILITIE& DIYl13ION HAP NO. F1 CF Tl-£ UEST f.IALF OF seCTION 1-4. I ~~ ---1# @ VICIl;'Wr t:1AF ,;;, OWNE~ / APPLICANT ~TEAD CGIN8~IGN 121!!O 120n-l A'lE.N.E.6UITE 201 ~L.LEVlE. WA5+lINGoTON !JIOO& ~TAoCT,Rc:N.~6 C.042!!o).04&04-P.iOO ENGINEERl5U~Vl:YOR/F'LANNE~ COI'ED!6kiN INC. 1.04111 NoE:.2gn-l FLACE. sum. 101 e!!Ll...EWE, ~INCioTON.oo1 (42&)N&-1&11 CONTACT. MICI-IAEL OEN-FLAI+IE1Ii! DAVID I!. CA'"f"TOII'{ P.E. • ENGrNelIt &~J.~I,!"'l..&..&Ulll!:VeTOIIl DATUM BASIS OF BEA~INGS N007'3'1I''E eETllEEN FOUND M~ ALONCi TIoE CENTER-lIE OF N'Tl-I AVE. 6J!. AT f1.I! IN"TEIII!:!ECTIONe WI". e.E.12.T~ eT. ANO 6l!. I3bfl.< ST. A& CAoLOJL.A'TEO F!IiOt1 CITY' Of' N!NTOoI CCJN"TIIOCIL !"OINT NO&. ~ AND 1Ml, Fa.H;I IN FLACE AHO DE!C:IIi!IED eELOUl FEI"I CITY ~ III!:&ITON I-IORlzo.rT.AL CON1ltOI.. te"T\Lli::)l'J(.l"'I.eI...l&I--ED NOV, III, ...... BENCHMARKS FElli: CITY' Of' 1'ENT0N eL.RrEY ON NAVD !!IN DATLN NO. IS&2 • '" "LA" et'fA5$ el..Rl'AC!: Dlee AT Tl-E cc::JNS"M.ICTeD rNTEI'tI!ECTICJNOf' ~.04T1-1 .T. (U. 12.Tl-eTJ ANP 1.o4aTI-I A ..... e5. !L. -0-4." (1,..14 METERe) NO.21011 • IIMICICI!H ~ ~ACa elee. IN TI-E INTEMECTION Of' &.E.128TI-I6T. AND INn.lA'o'EH .EL.!!o41.e4 (16101ll~) ~EFE~NCE MONUMENTS NO .• ' • 3*' DOMeD e!UoM ..... ACE Dlee ~ MAl'< AT TIoI!: CONe"l1'l.JC;"T£p INT"ett!!I!CTION Of' ~ 4T~ eT. (&2. 1:!&'fI.I &V AI-£) 1<4OT~ AYE. &L NO. re&2 -~'P.AT ~ eu.ACE Dlec AT TOE CONeTfl:lJCTE) NTeN!C1"iGN 01" N.e. 4'" &T. (eL tlen.l &T) ,4ioO I4eT~ A'w'E. &.E. NO.21Qe -1-1/;1' FLAT e!tAee CAl"' ~ IN r;GINr;!II2Tf! MONI.I"ENTIN~LANZ!Of-NT~Avt:NJ!6LAT"fI.E CON&flIIIJCTEe INTE.-&CTICIN IOfTI.I &.E. a6fl.1 &T. ~~; Iii p~ d~ " ; ~ > ~ ~ " 2 2 2 .. ~~I ~ ~ rc ~ ~~ ~ ~ a: ~~~ ~ In ~~: II: Q s,," ~ C;",i1 l U';i~ .... 2: ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ .,j 1O:~i;j iii ~~'" ~:t ~ ~~ :t 01019 ~I! <:j' ~.~ Oil: 5 l~:r DATE JANUARY 11. 2006 J:) ~ ~ ~ DESIGNED Ale !~ -1 DRAWN AID ~ APPROVEO Ale ; CIt I Q MICHAEL CHEN :u "I PROJECT ~,I,N"'GEI'I JI " I , <~ ~ ~ I ... '" PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN HIGHLANDS PARK BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION 1215 120TH A~ H.e. SUITE' 201 sal.EK/£, WASHINGTON 98005 ~ I I I p j ~ I 1411 I "'.JM "'-.,01 --- IHOIHUIING· rt.l.HHIHO· SUrVEYING til ~~-=C~ [II ! ~ coo 1.4711 Nl2HI .......... 101 --- EHOINEII/NO • PLANNING· SURVEYING SE '4. SEC. 14. 7WP. 23 N •• RGE. 5 E.. W.M. I IF""~ ,I 'I II I[~~~= II '~=,c~ 'I II 1 1 j 3· !1 f: -'._ i! l~~r~~ , I .. .,~"JJ ~ ~\\\' '. " Jj il I ill I • 'Sl I ilL .~_~ JU ~'~CieJIk \~"' ,':=-l"=~~vs." ill P§KB-~ ill '.)9:~.,.l • '. [~ I d) L~ r ~~~c .=11 II ![ 40 I· I! [= 010 ,I ""'ll. I , I, " .,'''") l_c r ~ ~ 7" I[ II·dl." ~~J 'f1.~, ~ f==Y=""="i' II J :1 ~lrrr ~l' t[ " . lL=-~~~~ .• ;~ .7;~ JJ I \:3--"'. \(,,1 "'. 'Jf'","C ) i l'l7\\V m~ I I I w V>I II II I ~!I ~I ~I 30' f, I II Vl « 10'-' .... '" 1 0 -; l~~ <D I:; : "" ,"0 II I II 0:" o co z," o o z TREE ~TENTION LEGEND EXI&TINGo TlI<EE& TO I'iEMAIN (~f'1NE& AllIE E&TlMAlE&" EXI&TINGo TfOiEE& TO BE fiiEI1OYEP, ~lf~CON~ /1f~ • CON~. PECIDUOU& OPECIDUOU& TREE ~TENTION CALCULATIONS EXI&TINGo TfOiEE& 00-&1'1£, &IGNIFICANT TfOiEE&, (&. PIA. • LARiER FOR CONIFEROU&! 12· PIA. • LARloER FOR PECIDUOU&r. NON-&IGNIFICANT TfOiEE&. TfOiEE& WlT\oIIN R-O-W AREA • &TOR1 UII\ TER FACILITIE& TO BE fiiEI10YEP FIIiICIM CALCULATION&. NET TlI<EE& 00-&1'1£, TfOiEE& ~ TO BE &AIlED ("''' TREE MITIGATION &EE PRELIMINARY LANP&cAf'E PLAN (&EE &l-lEET !;) ~ 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' 20 40 80 !! ! </-929 </-1163 </-66 </-246 </-6&3 t/-ns (2&.5l') NOTEI .. A CON'1'N.IOUI efIIOIU TO .......ave ITa ~. 1M! I!IUI1..J:IER ~ ne: ..awT ... ITS ec:>LE Doec:N!TI(lN TO ""*-~ 0It I1OCPlCATlONI TO ~ 8I'B::PlCATlONI, MA-...L6, 1'EA1IIOE6 AN> COLOM. 5. () 2t-~ Z >-III !I~ ::. '" JI] :;, .., ~~~ () !I! ' .. -J"' z -"! ~ ~ Z -.z ... z ~ .... ... (~~I ~~ ~~ ~ ~.,.. ~ 0" " i::ft'§~~ !it .... ~~~ ~ 1ft ,,~~ ~¥' ~l,jt::: ct: Q ~~~ kI ~L.;iJ:\ ~ ~ (;)~~ t;:~ Qi!:~ ::... ~~:s: It I0I.l-t.J ~ ,,~~ ~ l: ~~lll §~ !S ~ .... ~ C(l: ~ t\j ~ ~ ~ :<I: -S ~~ ~ 0 ~ 8 !!! z z 0 w <.:> ;: '" I-iii ..: 0.. ..: w '" 0.. 0 o 0 ..: SHEET 7 ~:5 :;t~ GZ « i:i:l" ~t; G!!J Si~ Il. OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER 01019 ~-•. eo--7-~ ~ .. J': • i • ,~." . ·U. i ~ .. iT~ -= -1 If· ii ,I ,I Ii il· il. 'I 'i 'r-' .~ ~I~ i . ,. • l·r-4 ",. j , ~ i 1'1 \\\ l' 11., ,~ I' I, : I ..,.;t !I j~' ------"1'--f , 7' '.. I . / .. ! J r-- II" \ -"'" ' , i ==~ IT ~ ~ -----1. I,. , " . i .\ " -\, • I __ -; ''. I '-~ ---r--""1'-1 __ 1\ \ .-I "1'. I • L I '~. --, -<I , "L -l I • .' -";.,,,-, ':l':ll r I \ J ". __ I I '. " ~TOI'IIM POND • •• ~ i \ ."" I i ,I ., • \ ••• ' ',' • , • : -r-" , _ {' I. \\ L-__ --k..._ --.J-----1 ___ J_-.J "" I i -~ I, .: ! •• ,., • • I , • \ 1~-:c---_1_--." 1 • I 1 .1 I --------.4.-::.."":-0. _____ _ _:-::-J .-:=:.=:-: ~r • {, !. " ---, ---4-__._-1 ____ _ . . .. C~·1)). ,~=~=======..;::::--=-, rr '~'-'Ot', " , 'I ~ II. ~ c-L 40 III .1, [ r lL~c1l_-~. -~Jl . tOr] 1) .. 41 il-bL_..Ji·· -$"f~-= .,f .. ..;wJ "\ •• 42 :;::--~-;~ ~- j ~r I I J-W W I Q) W w· Q) T~E ~TENTION L.EGEND EXI&TINGo ~& ON-&rn: TO EXI&TINGo ~& TO ee FIEMOVEP, ~IN (Df;lIPINE& ~ E&TIMATE&h ~lf4ii!. CONIFE~ • CONII'9IOU& 4 PECIDUOU& /11~ OPECIDUOU& EXI&TINGo ~& WlTI-IIN RO&ARIO AVE. TO ~IN (Df;lIPINE& ~ E&TIMATE&); NOT ACCOl.NTED ~ IN NlTENTION CALCULATION, o CONIFE~ 4 PECIDUOU& EXI&TINGo ~& TO ee N!I1OY£P, • CONIFE~ 4 PECIDUOU& T~E ~TENTION CAL.CULATIONS EXI&TINGo ~& ON-&ITE, &ICiNIFICANT ~&, (8' PIA. 4 LAR:iEFI ~ CONIFEFIOU&I 12' PIA. 4 LAA:!oEFI ~ PECIDUOU&)' NON-&ICiNIFICANT ~ TN!E& WlTI-lIN FI-O-W AN!A 4 &TOI'IIM WATEFI FACILITIE& TO eE FIEMOVEP ~ CALCULATION&. NET ~& ON-&ITE, ~& f'FIOFO&ED TO ee &AYED ($), T~E MITIGATION +/-92~ +/-863 +/-66 +/-2-46 +/-683 +1-ru (2&",.) &EE PNlLIMINART LAND&CAPE PLAN (&EE &!-IEET !;) ~ 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' r 20 40 80 !! ! NOmo IN A CClNTHIOUI ...".,. TO ~ "" I"IOIXlIJCT&, ,.. IIUII.DeIIt _ ,.. -,-IN "" ecx.. DI8C:MT1ON TO I"WCE c:wAIOa6 OR I'1ODI'IC.ATIClI>e TO I"LAH .ecPICATIClI>e, HATPIAL&, .... 1IIa6 AND COLOM. .. 2~~ ! i! Ji~ ~~~ 'l! • ~ = I :a ~ i ~ ~ () z >-... >- '" :::. II) () z z Z "< ... ... ~~I :t~ ~ 1\11 ~ ~ II&. ~ t) ff ~ i::: ft' ~ ~ g ~1I&.p:~~ ~ '" ~~~ ~ V] Y)"-i~ Q: Q ~~~ !o&I ~~~ ~~ U~~ !;;::--'Ql!:w ).. ( ~~S! ~.J ~;~ ~ :t ~~IQ ~~ ~ ~ .... Q:i Cl::t ~:5 ~ :;t:~ Gz ~ -< Cj" ~ ~ "-l ~~ ~~ ~d 2!3 ~'" <:: a a a. ::!3 w ~ Z Z 0 w '-' ;;; '" f-Vi -< IL -< W '" IL a a a -< SHEET OF 6 :1. PROJECT NUMBER 0:1.0:1.9 190 188 148 147 I~ .J, :i{l± ~tA w.z "' -~~ '" -~I~ ,w I~ . 1 ·~I ;~ '" () 9 128&'* ef 60 1-1 11-1 3 e3~ eF 4 ...,.. OF 1 46 I; I' w --e --r::;: I~ ,.2;, OF ./1' , .. ~. OF ill '3~;: OF 145 . 1 1 '4. SEC. 14. 1WP. 23 N.. RG£ 5 £. w.M. 6C 60 6C ) \ ~I..... ~" .......... I N88·01'33"W 60 60 too ~LJ\~ -I I~ --I 60 6C 6C I 144 I. I· \ ...... ;:r--J--4n-T --___ >L.J / / ,!!'3~ 143 AEAS) g ~ 1 ". r, 12 1 ,I ' I ,./ e 1 ' I SCALE: 1" = 50' 2!5 50 100 " , PLANT LIST - ~ e>eClCUOU6 6~ ~ c:oNI'IOOC>J6 TlOI!E L.c:lUI~HI)( ~T"""""'" c=:::)1 TALL "'-MIX SIZE COMMENTS 2D--2,a,. CAL~ 8el JO-..a'!-IT AT M.AfUItITY •••• WT 20-J<)' WT. AT MA~rr 2-& GAL. 30" WT. MAX AT HA.'I\IIIiIITY 2~5 GAL.. 6-e' WT. AT MA",.rr 2X4CAP I'LUOU TO """"'OF """'T FOUND JS:~ REBAR &; CAP -WPD 21710~ WI RP'S. CAN 0.03' 5 Of UNE fOUND Jf REBAR &: CAP -WPD 21710· 006' N Of UN' DECOI'tAT1YE WOOD f'08T C-" ''''eM> ... ".,., 1)(.4 CEDAPt &L.,AT&s NO eptAoCl'«i: eeu.maeeH 8LAT& 4X4>C&' ~-...e 'n'IEATED """'" """'T D<6 "..., ~ FOOTINGIo .... n::w TO OfUoN rrY'P'J FINI&I-ED CifiUDE ~ANT 3 ~ 8T.AKE& OR ~ ~MATEJltlAI...!:.4U.. &T.AI<I!e TO lSI! ~ ClUT'84De ne ~ AT 120· er-ACNG. GALv.AN1Z2O ~ 0fIt ~ TUNel wn. TO TIGWTeN CiNL. Y IENOUCiIf.t TO ~ ~ SLI~ (.ALLOIIJIOIIl 6CI'1E1"fIiILN(.1"1OYEt"eNTJ. r m: 1"IIIC)1&~8OIL II!T QIIIC;.'\I,N a:: 1"'L..6NT AT ... ,....,-- 0MODIFIED PANEL FENCE DETAIL s l l "2 K fIIiOOTeALL DiA 2-LAYeIIt t"lL04 A6 8F'ECFtED ONI"'L.""'T~TO~ 6.4L1CEJ1ta-wlGI-I ~1et-eD~ """""'"'-L TOI"'8OIL e.AC:IQI=ILL .I"EfIfTILIZEfIIt ~AU.awACEe OF "'T OJT NEW IIBOOT MAN TO 6TR1JLATI reu IOCOT "'""'"'" I.N'ISl\.R5ED NATIVE eotL o &I-IRU6 PLANTING DETAIL :2 LIM!L "",",ITION "'" o TREE PLANTING DET A! N ~ 1il I ,\6.* 6P LANOecAf'E 6TRIP FWliJ. CEDICATION 3'80* SF Ta-1oIAU c:P OWALL 81! '~I liiil §§~ .... ~ {ji "l ~ ~II \) % .. ... > ... ::. .., \) % % % ~ -... ~~I ~ ~ rc ~ :5 ff i:: o.:~u ~a: ::;,~~ ~ e:~~ 'l)~~0l~ ~ Q ~~~ 'Iif O~~ "'" ~ U"'~ ). ~ Q~~ Q:: S ~~ .... ~ ~~~ i ~­~:t ~ ~~ ~ 0.: .... Q3 :t :!l CtIII.IIEXCAVAT£> &oiL r-eoI!!eTAL. TO I ~ ~ ~ ::::" ij DEVELOPMENT PLANNING I~ " ~ CITY OF RENTON " ~ ~J2I ::! ~ ~ FEB 202006 I ~ ..: 0 RECEIVED OF 5 --5EE 51-1EET 6 ~ . VESTA AVE. SE =-~-~ --=-=--NOO"29~"E ~O 43 ---=--=====----+32.Q.Zl --=----=-----=--==---==-------_______=_ _--====----_ _ NOO'28'50"E 264\ 59 (KCAS) ~6iE '<7""' ___ '0' a..-,w ....... NOCV .m.MU077,...........,.., ~DfS'GN ENOI,.,UtJNG· 'LANNING· SUIVEYING a II I , . . [J ... . . r:-. '. ·1, ... , " ... ~ ........ , , . , 0. ,I, I: .I .~J 1 I --~ Denis Law Mayor. September 24, 2013 Bob Durr, Vice President The Burnsteads 11980 NE 24th Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, WA 98005-1576 Via Email: bob@burnstead.com Department of Community and Economic Development C.E.I Chi p"Vincent, Administrator SUBJECT: Highlands Park Plat Tree Replacement Requirements (File Nos. lUAOS-124, PP, lUA and lUA07-016, FP) Dear Mr. Durr: This letter is a follow-up to meetings and discussions that we have had over the past several months regarding tree removal that occurred within the Highlands Park Plat, that was in excess ofthe approved tree retention plan, and occurred without the permission of the City of Renton. The site contained 929 trees at the time of preliminary plat application. Of these 863 were considered to be significant. Trees within right-of-way areas were subtracted from this number to yield a net of 683 trees. The City required that 25% of these trees or 170 . be retained. At the time, The Burnsteads proposed to retain 197 trees. During the course of construction, arborist reports concluded that some additional trees needed to be removed due to the health of the trees and/or the potential for the trees to fall. Staff reviewed and approved the removal of some additional trees. However many of the significant trees in the center of the site remained at the time that the plat was recorded. Subsequently, staff visited the site in April and determined that more than 50 of the trees that were to have been retained had been removed during the home building sequence. After we metto discuss this with you, you have provided the following information. The number of original deciduous trees remaining is now 44 trees, with 9 deciduous and 35 evergreen. This represents a loss of 126 trees from the 25% that should have been retained. You have also provided the following information: The Burnsteads have planted 1,028 trees, with 197 deciduous and 831 evergreen trees. These include street trees and ornamental trees planted on 57 of the 73 lots. Additional trees will be planted on the remaining 16 lots. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Bob Durr The Burnsteads Page 2 of 2 September 24, 2013 Retention of the trees was an expectation of the City and the community members during the development process. While trees within the created lot areas were removed, trees in the unimproved right-of-way (Rosario Ave SE north to the property line from SE 2nd Street) were also removed. This area was to remain in a natural state and continue to provide separation and a buffer between the project site and properties to the west. In order to rectify this, the City is requiring replanting within this are as follows: 1. The Burnsteads shall plant a minimum of 36 coniferous trees (Western Red Cedar, Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock), with a minimum height of 8-feet, within the unimproved right-of-way (Rosario Ave SE from SE 2nd Street to the north property line), concentrating the planting in the area west of new Lots 11,12, 13, and 14. No heavy equipment shall be used to plant the trees in order to protect the understory. 2. Additional understory plants shall be added to the unimproved right-of-way (Rosario Ave SE from SE 2nd Street to the north property line), as enhancement. These plants shall include 6 Vine Maple, 12 Red-Twig Dogwood, 12 Oregon Grape, 36Salal, and 36 Sword Ferns. Plants shall be at least one gallon containers. No heavy equipment shall be used to plant the understory vegetation. 3. Enhancement trees and plants shall be installed by October 31, 2013. Contact the City's Planning Division, Jennifer Henning (425-430-7286) for inspection of the installation when planting has been completed. We appreciate your Willingness to work with City staff and rectify this situation. Please contact me at (425)430-7286) if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~U-+JU~~ Jennifer Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Director Donna Locher, Code Compliance Laureen Nicolay, Senior Planner Glen Gordon, Party of Record / June 27, 2006 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place Bellevue, W A 98007 CIT~ Re: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, LUA-05-124, PP 115 Vesta Avenue SE Dear Mr. Chen: ~F RENTON City Clerk Bonnie I. Walton At the regular Council meeting of June 26, 2006, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the hearing examiner to approve the referepced preliminary plat, subject to conditions to be met at later stages of the platting process. Pursuant to RCW, a final plat meeting all requirements of State law and Renton Municipal Code shall be submitted to the City for approval within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk cc: Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Randy Corman Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner -IO-S-S -So-u-th-Gr-ad-y-W-a-y""---Re-n-to-n,-W-as-hi-ngt-o-n-9-8-0S-S---(4-2S-)-4-30--6-S-10-'-F-AX-(-42-S)-4-3-0--6S-1-6-~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE • June 26, 2006 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Solid Waste: Clean Sweep Program CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 6/19/2006 Plat: Ridgeview Court, Bremerton Ave NE, FP-06-012 Planning: 2005 Countywide Planning Policies Amendments Plat: Highlands Park, Vesta Ave SE, PP-05-124 CAG: 05-144, Benson Rd S, Dennis R Craig Construction Renton City Council Minutes Page 223 Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2006 and beyond. Items noted included: • Red, white, and blue decorations will adorn Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park and spectacular fireworks will reflect off Lake Washington for the 2006 Freddie's Club of Renton Fabulous Fourth of July. The schedule of events kicks off mid-morning with the Chrome Classic July 4th Car Show, and culminates with a public fireworks display at 10:15 p.m. • The City will begin construction of the roadway and infrastructure improvements in support of The Landing project in July, with construction expected to be substantially completed by September 2007. .. Over 50 Waste Management garbage trucks rolled through Renton neighborhoods last Saturday collecting everything from mattresses and furniture, to scrap wood and carpeting. This week, over 100 residents will have their appliances picked up at the curbside and recycled. Councilwoman Nelson noted the comments she received regarding the success of the garbage collection event last Saturday, and she thanked everyone involved for continuing the Clean Sweep program. In response to Councilman Clawson's inquiry regarding the scheduled curbside recycling of appliances, PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman indicated that the deadline for residents to sign up and arrange for their appliances to be picked up was last week. He offered his contact information, saying that he would find out if any after-deadline requests could be accommodated. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 6119/2006. Council concur. Development Services Division recommended approval, with conditions, of the . Ridgeview Court Final Plat; 20 single-family lots on 2.4 acres located at Bremerton Ave. NE (FP-06-012). Council concur. (See page 226 for resolution. ) Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended adoption of a resoLution ratifying the 2005 amendments to the Growth Management Planning Council's Countywide Planning Policies. Council concur. (See page 226 for resolution.) Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat; 73 single-family lots on 18.13 acres located at 115 Vesta Ave. SE (PP-05-124). Council concur. Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-05-144, Benson Rd. S. (Main Ave. S. to S. 26th St.); and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of$121,479.87, commencement of60-day lien period, and release of retain age in the amount of $24,271.05 to Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Y OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND. ILL I AI#: ~/d. Submitting Data: For Agenda of: 6/26/2006 DeptlDivlBoard .. Hearing Examiner Staff Contact.. .... Fred J. Kaufinan, ext. 6515 Agenda Status Consent. ............. X Subject: Public Hearing .. Correspondence .. Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Ordinance ............. File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Resolution ............ Old Business ........ Exhibits: New Business ....... Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation Study Sessions ...... Legal Description and Vicinity Map Information ......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Legal Dept.. ...... . Council Concur Finance Dept.. ... . Other .............. . Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... NI A Transferl Amendment. ..... . Amount Budgeted ...... . Revenue Generated ........ . Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. ) SUMMARY OF ACTION: . The hearing was first held on April 4, 2006. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat was published on May 18, 2006. The appeal period ended on June 1,2006. A Request for Reconsideration was filed on June 1,2006 and the Examiner's Response Approving the Reconsideration was dated June 13,2006. The Examiner recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined on page 12 of the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Conditions placed on this project are to be met at later stages of the platting process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat with conditions as outlined in the Examiner's Report and Recommendation. Rentonnetlagnbilll bh May 18, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Bumstead Construction 1215 120TH Ave NE Bellevue, W A Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place Bellevue, W A 98007 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 05-124, ECF, PP 115 Vesta Avenue SE Approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13- acre site intended for the development of single- family detached residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 28, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 11, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, at approximately 10:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. NOTE: The property discussed in this preliminary plat is located in the southeast quadrant of the City of Renton, however on the recorded CD and Staff Report and other documents some of the addresses are stated as NE. These minutes have been corrected to show all addresses as being SE. Highlands Park Prelimi Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the Exhibit No.2: Zoning Map original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this project. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.5: Preliminary Tree Retention Plan Exhibit No.6: Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit No.7: Boundaryffopographic Survey Exhibit No.8: Summary of Appeal filed by Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Exhibit No.9 Testimony by Kimberly Exhibit No. 10: Testimony by June Hill Clairmont taken April 4, 2006 during the taken April 4, 2006 during the Appeal Hearing Appeal Hearing Regarding an Easement Regarding Boundary Dispute Exhibit No. 11: Downstream Drainage Map Exhibit No. 12: Tree Cutting and Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 13: Substitute Condition #5 Exhibit No. 14: Record by Reference, SEPA files and CD Recording of Appeal Hearing Exhibit No. 15: Copy of Original Petition for Exhibit No. 16: Letter and Sketch by Ron Street Vacation, VAC 05-004 Hughes to Edward and June Hill Regarding Property Encroachment , Exhibit No. 17: New Landscape Plan, Tree, Exhibit No. 18: Gwendolyn High Packet Street and Pond Plan from Appeal Hearing Exhibit No. 19: Margin Brackets (pg. 5) Highlighting Ms. High's Packet (Ex. 18) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located on the west side of 115 Vesta Avenue SE, south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street and east of Rosario Avenue SE. The proposal is for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13- acre site located within the R-4 zone single-family residential units. There is an existing single- family residence and associated outbuildings that are proposed to be removed from the property. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest comer of the site and one small uru;egulated ~etland area will be filled. Two open space park tJ;acts willl?e provided onsite. This property was transferred to the City of Renton from King County in June 2005 and is vested under a special condition of the Development Standards. Within this area maximum density of5 duJa, minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet, minimum lot width is 60 feet for interior lots and 70 Highlands Park Prelimin~_.. )lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18, 2006 Page 3 feet for corner lots, minimum lot depth is 70 feet. Front yard setback is 15 feet for primary structure, 20 feet for attached or detached garage. Minimum side yard setback is 15 feet along a street and 5 feet for interior. All other requirements of the R-4 zoning designation do apply to this property. The property does appear to comply with all zoning requirements. A conceptual landscape plan has been provided which shows five-foot landscape strips abutting the frontages of Vesta and Rosario south ofSE 2nd Street. Scarlet Maple trees are proposed to be planted on the street frontages of each new residential lot and along the street frontages. The proposed stormwater detention tract will also be landscaped. A fmal plan will be submitted to Development Services for review. Access to the site is via two existing public roads, SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site which is currently stubbed from an existing subdivision and from Rosario Avenue SE on the west side which "T's" into Rosario from an existing subdivision to the west. There will be internal public streets within the subdivision and there will be access easements, which will serve Lots 14, 9, 10 and 55. The applicant is required to install full street improvements, including paving, sidewalks, curb and gutters, storm drains, landscaping, street lighting and signage along the frontages of Rosario south ofSE 2nd, on SE 2nd Place, Vesta Avenue SE and the interior plat streets. A street vacation was requested and approved in November 2005 and in December 2005 the owner of the property withdrew his request. The right-of-way has not been released and is therefore not developable. A substitute Condition #5 has been placed on this plat. The Highlands Park site is currently forested and consists of a low to moderate slope descending to the southwest at an average grade of 8-15%. Soils are classified as glacial till with 3-18 inches of duff on the floor of that forested area. The wildlife report indicates that no protected raptors or sensitive avian special or protected mammals were found in the area. They are working with the applicant to save as many native trees as possible on this site. The applicant estimates that approximately 70,000 cubic yards of cut and fill will occur onsite. Import or export of fill is not anticipated. There is a Category 2 wetland located northwest of the subject property, this development is not in the buffer area so there is no requirement for buffering in the Highlands Park site. There are no anticipated wetland impacts due to the fact that the site drains away from the wetland area. A Category 3 wetland is located in the southwest portion of the site at approximately Lot 70 and is an exempted wetland per code and so the wetland will be filled. A storm drainage report was submitted, a storm water detention and water quality pond is located in the southwest corner of the site, with a treated runoff connected to the existing storm drain system in Rosario Avenue SE. The storm water area must be fenced and landscaping will be placed on the street frontages of the pond area. The development is within the water service area of King County Water District 90 and sewer will be provided by the City of Renton. Highlands Park Prelimil )lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 4 The site is located within the Renton School District and they stated that they would be able to accommodate the additional students. Fire, Traffic and Park Mitigation fees have been imposed on this site. David Halinen, Attorney, 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203, Tacoma, WA 98403 stated that he is the attorney for Bumstead Construction. Regarding the street vacation petition V AC-05-004, the client is planning to move forward and refiIe the application. The client did not realize that it had been withdrawn. They concur with the substituted condition #5, that appears to be fine with the applicant. He introduced a letter from Ron Hughes of Bumstead Construction dated April 7, 2006, addressed to Edward and June Hill regarding the fence encroachment with a survey sketch done by Core Design. Bumstead Construction will execute a Quit Claim Deed to the Hills for the property in the boundary line adjustment. Bumstead is continuing to work with the driveway easement holder in the Tract 998 area to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated that in discussions with the planners, they were given the information that Rosario would most likely never continue and be improved to the north due to the Category 2 wetland found north of that vicinity so Lot 1 would not be considered a comer lot. Lot 39 is also one foot off on the eastern property line, but if you were to take the dimension of the western property line it actually averages out to 70 feet. Regarding the boundary line adjustment on Lots 55 and 56, once the adjustment is completed, the affected square footage is approximately 200 square feet. The net square footage of Lot 56 is 7,203 currently take out approximately 100 square feet and you would have a substandard lot under zoning code. The proposal is to shift the lot line between 56 and 55 to the east however many square feet it would take to get lot 56 up to 7,200 square feet. The Clairmonts' easement on Tract 998 is for lO-feet ingress/egress. The plan is to increase that easement to the current asphalt width that is there, approximately another 10-15 feet. The six- foot sidewalk would also be proposed concurrent with the ingress/egress easement. There will be no vehicle access to the plat. A proposed landscape plan, street landscape plan, fencing around the pond and tree retention plan was presented. Ronda Bryant, 6220 SE 2nd Place, Renton, W A 98059 stated that her property is south of Lots 62- 65 and she was concerned with drainage and the ground water and what it drains into. In the southwest comer just north of Lots 71 and 72, the drainage analysis showed holes that were drilled to test the soil composition and the water level. There was a hole 20-feet deep, showed no water it was surrounded by holes that were up to 10-feet deep and there was water at six feet. This does not seem correct. As far as tree retention, it is a great advancement, however on Lot 65 Highlands Park Prelimin __ 01 _'lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 PageS there is an indication of2 conifers, one is leaning and actually is a hemlock. She has a letter from Bumstead stating that if she would sign their letter for annexation, they would save the stumps and tree that are right on the property line. If they are taken out, it could potentially tear out her pond and damage her foundation. Lot 55 does have access from the interior roadway, it also backs to Vesta and could possibly have access from that as well. She also questioned the Tract 998 easement and where the fence would be for the lot to the north of the open space. Bob Herman, 15324 SE 133rd Court, Renton, WA 98059 also known as Lot 11 of Willow Brook Lane, which lies immediately north of the subject property. He is the president of the Willow Brook Homeowners Association, which is a 20-10t neighborhood all of which are on septic systems. He is a professional engineer (traffic). He did review the plat and feels that there are some very good things including the pedestrian connections. Sanitary sewers are going in all around them and they are not currently in the City limits and at some time they might want to connect into the sewer system. They would like to make sure that they would be able to connect to the sewer at some point in the future. The stub road that is an extension of SE 133rd Street would be the obvious place to tie in to the sewer. He would like to hear some discussion on how that would serve Willow Brook Lane. Christy Hill, 225 Vesta Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 she would like clarification on the new boundary line for the Hills, it appears that some of the tree map and tree retention plan includes trees that will now be inside that new boundary line adjustment, will that affect the proposed retention plan. She hopes those trees will stay. Gwendolyn High, 13405-1S8th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that several of the trees shown on the plan appear to be within the Hills disputed boundary, they would like to fmd out how that might affect the overall number of trees being retained after the adjustment is made. Some of the trees identified as being retained appear to be dying or dead or not worth keeping. They would like to see a plan that will show exactly which trees are to remain. A homeowners association for maintenance of roadway, storm water and utilities improvements only has been conditioned, they request that Renton retain performance oversight, require performance bond and add requirements for maintenance of shared landscaping and open space tracts as well. Regarding Tract 998, staff recommendation requires a six-foot paved walkway connection, there is a concern that this is asking for a dual use for that existing pavement and fear this will be a newly created safety issue with pedestrian access and driveway, they would like it clear that the pedestrian walkway is a separate sidewalk, not an extension of the 6-foot driveway. The ground water is still a critical concern and having this matter looked at by experts is critical in making sure there are not surprises in the future. Highlands Park Prelimir )lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 6 A sidewalk that goes along the entire western border of the proposed plat was proposed to connect the two developments has been proposed and CARE has been working with surrounding developments and the City of Renton to obtain funding support to make this a reality. If pedestrian improvements are not required it is most likely that CARE will appeal the final decision on this plat application to the full extent of remedy allowed. Tom Camenter, 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, W A 98059 stated that he lives three blocks south and 2 blocks west of the proposed development. He is the chair of the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council's Growth Management Committee and they submitted a formal letter to the Renton City Council. The purpose of that letter is to deal with the overall impact of the character ofthe neighborhood as development begins to occur. It is unfair to take one developer and make them fIrst in this area, he wanted to reinforce some of the comments of others. The character of the neighborhood is not being carried through. Vesta Avenue is going to eventually be a major north/south thoroughfare on this hill. He would encourage developers to voluntarily make sure that they address the character of the neighborhood as they go through these developments. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that Rosario Avenue SE in this location was not going to be used as a roadway but they did keep the right-of-way so a pedestrian trail could be made at some point in the future. Parks Department said no at that point and they were more afraid of the complaints of the use by undesirables as opposed to the good citizens of the city. Also, they had not come up with a complete design that they wanted for the city. Part of the road was blocked due to parties and other things that were going on where no one could see. Until the park land is distinctly owned by the City of Renton, the pedestrian access is as designed for this project. Due to Rosario not being improved, Lots 10-14 would be access only from the interior of the plat, as well Lots 52-55 would be via interior access only. All of the septic in this vicinity is somewhat troublesome to some of the homeowners in this area. The design that has been submitted is preliminary, there is an overall plan for both private construction that is driven by development as to how fast it gets put into place. All applications are reviewed for the largest amount of service as possible. One of the City Codes does require that all stubs do go up to the adjoining property lines. The vacation of Rosario was not finished, she did not know if it had been withdrawn, they got to a certain point and then it was just dropped. The SE 4th corridor was the main reason why so many codes got changed last year. Landscaping caused the codes to be changed, there is enforcement capability now. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Bellevue 98007 stated that regarding tree . retention on Lot 55 specifically, the majority of the trees are on the north side of the fence and the plan is to include and save those trees, there is one tree that may be outside their boundary and that one tree will not affect their tree retention play. Regarding Exhibit 17, the landscape plan Highlands Park Prelimin .. " [>lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 7 was colored to make it easier to identify the trees, the building footprints are conceptual, but the trees are in their correct locations. Ted Schepper, Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Ste. 101, Kirkland, W A 98034 stated that most times he is called to assure the local residents that a particular new development will not cause the ground water to dry up, and here the residents are concerned that this project will create an increase in the ground water table. The ground water on the site that people are seeing as seeps and springs exiting from embankment cuts and utility trench excavations is a seasonal ground water table that is directly related to precipitation. The shallow seepage will actually diminish becoming completely absent during the dryer summer months, evapotranspiration takes the water and dries it up. The first series of test pits were excavated in February 2005 the majority of the test pits had shallow ground water, a second series of test pits were excavated in October 2005, at the end of the dry season, and all those test pits had no ground water. Regarding the e-mails from CARE regarding a landslide that occurred near the intersection of SE 148th and I 54th Avenue SE, the developments north of this area did not have any impact on that slide. David Cayton, Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated that the final engineering plans will extend the sewer lines up to the property line for future connection to the north. The sewer lines were extended from the Maplewood project up to this north right-of-way for future extension as well. The foUowing two testimonies were recorded on April 11, 2006 during the appeal hearing due to the fact that the parties were not available for today's hearing: Kimberly Clairmont, 107 Vesta Avenue SE, Renton, W A 98059 stated that her house is located on the easement on Vesta Avenue just south of tract 998. She is currently working with Bumstead regarding the easement that is in question and how the easement will be developed in order to allow them to continue to use that as their driveway access. They have lived in the house for close to 10 years and have used that easement as their access. She also has a recorded Declaration of Easement recorded with King County. While they are working on an agreement, there has been no agreement reached as yet. Until they do come to some agreement, she would like to make sure that that easement remains open to them. June Hill, 225 Vesta Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that their property shares a boundary with Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. They are actually platting their land and she would like to submit correspondence documents that she has kept for almost two years. David Halinen stated that the ROA oversight issue had been adequately dealt with by Ms. Kittrick, due to Council legislation there is now some program in place and it would seem inappropriate to supplement that without any particulars. Highlands Park Prelimin 'lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 8 Tract 998 and the dual use issue, a slight modification to Staff Condition #3 should stated "A six foot paved pedestrian walkway connection to be located within the existing recorded access easement" the following should be added at that point: "as that easement may be widened". The Walkway may be widened on the north edge rather than the south edge, which would place the pedestrian walkway along the north edge. There has been no adverse possession in regard to this strip, at best it would be a prescriptive easement. At this time the City of Renton has no official designation of a trail within the Rosario Avenue SE corridor. The City of Renton Parks Department is not recommending construction of a trail at this point in time, therefore, the requirement of a trail would be improper. Mr. Halinen urged the Examiner to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. Keri Weaver stated that several persons testifYing today had questions about adjustments due to resolution to the Hill boundary line dispute or the vacation on Rosario and the impacts those issue might have on the tree retention plan. The plan submitted by the applicant is a preliminary plan and is considered until all the documents are received for [mal plan approval, there could be some adjustments to lot sizes and various other things. There will be a final tree retention plan that will undergo final review and approval. The Cedar River to Sammamish Trail potentially proposed by King County note that in the DSNM issued in January there was a note stating that the exact location would have to be disclosed on title. Landscaping and open space maintenance concerns were raised, landscaping on individual lots is the responsibility of the individual homeowner, but when placed off site it is the responsibility of the homeowner's association. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 12: 17 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Bumstead Construction, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). That determination was appealed by CARE and in a separate but concurrent SEP A appeal decision, the ERC's determination was upheld (see attached decision). Highlands Park PrelimincL.J Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 9 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between Rosario Avenue SE (152nd SE in King County) on the west and Vesta Avenue SE (l56th SE in King County) on the east and north SE 2nd Place. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of low density residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family - 4 dwelling units/acre). See below for an exception to the normal R-4 density requirements. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5140 enacted in June 2005. 9. The subject site is approximately 18.13 acres. The parcel is generally rectangular with some rectangular doglegs extending south and east from the main parcel. The subject site is approximately 1,246 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 630 feet deep. 10. The subject site slopes downward to the southwest at between 8 and 15 percent. There is an approximately 700 square foot unregulated Category 3 Wetland located in the southwest comer of the site that will be filled. An offsite wetland west of Rosario does not affect the subject site. II. The applicant proposes regrading large sections of the site, which will involve approximately 70,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. 12. The site is forested and a permit (Forest Practices Management) from the State will be required for tree removal. Trees will be removed but the applicant will be maintaining trees. A tree retention plan shows that approximately 25% of the trees would be retained on the site. 13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 73 lots and 3 tracts. The lots will be arranged in three tiers oflots generally running east to west across the subject site. There will be a tier of lots along both the north and south boundaries of the plat and an internal block of lots located across the middle of the plat. Lots will front both Vesta on the eastern edge of the plat and Rosario on the western edge of the plat although the lots north of 2nd SE will actually take access from the cul-de-sac due to wetlands in the vicinity. Lots will range in size from 7,200 square feet to 11,200 square feet. 14. The two of the three tracts will be open space. One tract is located near the northeast corner of the plat adjacent to an access easement. Part of that easement provides access to a third-party property. Any use by the applicant or eventual plat residents will remain subject to the conditions and limitations involved with the third-party's ownership. The second open space tract is located near the western end of the plat immediately south of a Highlands Park Prelimin.. 'lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18, 2006 Page 10 cul-de-sac. The third tract will provide for the stormwater detention system and is located in the southwest corner of the plat at the northeast corner of the intersection of Rosario and 2nd Place. 15. Access to the plat will be via Rosario Avenue along the western edge of the plat. An extension of SE 2nd Street will branch off to the east and form an internal, public, looped roadway. A new north to south road will branch north from SE 2nd Street, cross the looped road and swing to the northeast connecting the plat to SE 133rd Street which runs east to Vesta Avenue SE (156th in King County). Rosario will not connect to the north due to a Class 2 wetland located in that alignment north of the subject site. Three easement driveways will provide access to interior lots. Two will be located in the northwest corner of the plat off ofthe cul-de-sac to provide access to Proposed Lots 13 and 14 and 9, 10, and 11, respectively. The other easement will be located in the southeast corner and will provide access to Proposed Lots 55 and 56. As noted, a pedestrian access easement located southeast of Proposed Lot 29 will connect the internal loop road with Vesta. There will be no vehicular connection to Vesta directly from the plat. 16. The applicant will be dedicating 12 feet along Vesta to allow widening of that roadway. Since Rosario will not continue to the north, the improvements will terminate at SE 2nd Street. 17. When the subject site was annexed to the City special standards were applied to the area in which it was located, the Maplewood East Annexation Area. Those standards as applied to the subject site allow a density of five (5) units per acre, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size, 60 foot lot width for interior lots and 70 feet for corner lots, 70 foot lot depth, minimum front yard of 15 feet (20 feet with garage), 15 foot side yard along a street, 5 foot interior yard and a 25 foot rear yard. 18. The density for the plat would be 4.82 dwelling units per acre. This complies with the special standards applicable to this property. 19. The applicant has proposed five-foot landscape strips along both Rosario and Vesta. As noted, the applicant will also be retaining some of the significant trees on the subject site. 20. A wildlife study indicated that there were no endangered or threatened species including no avian species. No partiCUlar mammals were identified but small and larger mammals may exist on this forested site. 21. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 32 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 22. . . The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 730 trips for the 73 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 73 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. Highlands Park Prelimin ... J .lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 11 23. The stonnwater pond would be located in the southwest comer of the subject site. It will comply with the King County 2005 Manual. It will meet Level 2 flow control requirements and the property was assessed as a forested site and the pond sized accordingly. It will be lined to avoid either seepage out or infiltration into it. 24. Sewer and water are available. Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton while Water District 90 has provided a water availability certificate. Sewer line extensions will be completed by the applicant as required by code. 25. It appears that while a vacation along the western edge of the plat in a portion of the Rosario right-of-way was initiated, it was never fmalized. The plat was designed as if it had been accomplished. The applicant should finalize the vacation of Rosario or interior lot lines may have to be altered to accommodate the loss of that acreage. 26. There was some question about the location of a property line in the southeast comer of the plat. The applicant will provide a quick claim deed to resolve the issue with neighbors. The amount of property involved should not adversely affect the lot layout but minor adjustments would accommodate any lot size issues. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. While there was significant public interest in sorting out the stonnwater issues, it appears that the plat makes appropriate provisions for not only the stonnwater management but also for providing appropriate infrastructure including domestic water and road systems. 2. The plat will provide somewhat larger single-family lots for those who want more yard and open space. The applicant will be retaining approximately 25% of the larger significant trees. 3. There is no doubt that developing a forest site with single family housing will change the character of the subject site as well neighboring property. These changes were or should have been anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted for the area and then Zoning was applied to the property. There will be more traffic and general hubbub in and around the property once it is occupied. 4. The lots are generally rectangular. Most lots have direct access to streets while a few will use easements. The development of the proposed roadways, easements and paths seems appropriate given the size, shape and topography of the site and surrounding area. 5. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees to offset impacts on roads, parks and emergency services. The development of the subject site should also increase the tax bast! of the City further offsetting impacts of this larger plat on the City. 6. As noted in the findings, two issues concerning lot lines or acreage w~re not finalized. One concerns a proposed vacation of a portion of Rosario on the west end ofthe plat. Highlands Park Prelimil. Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 12 The second concerned potential discrepancy along the southeast margin of the plat where some property ownership issues had been unresolved. The applicant indicated that these issues would be resolved. 7. In conclusion, the plat appears to be reasonably designed, accommodates needed improvements and therefore, should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the proposed 73-10t plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Revised Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on February 6, 2006. 2. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan for the storm water detention pond (Tract 997). Fencing shall be consistent with the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. A 6-foot paved pedestrian walkway connection, to be located within the existing recorded access easement, shall be provided from Vesta Avenue SE through proposed Tract 998 (park) to the internal plat road. This walkway shall be shown on the fmal plat. The easement must be recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. The easement shall not interfere with the existing third party easement in that location. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume IT of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, and to provide staffwith a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 5. The proposed vacation ofa 5-foot portion of the Rosario Avenue SE right-of-way (V AC05-004) shall be fmalized and recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the [mal plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway, stormwater and utility improvements. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. . The applicant shall resolve the adverse possession claim and adjust lots sizes ifnecessary to accommodate any property transfer. Highlands Park PrelimiJ.. .)lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 13 ORDERED THIS 18th day of May, 2006 HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of May 2006 to the parties of record: Keri Weaver 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Christy Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Ted Schepper Terra Associates 12525 Willows Road, Ste. 101 Kirkland, W A 98034 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Division City of Renton Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, W A 98059 Gwendolyn High 13405-158th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 David Cayton Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 TRANSMI1TED THIS 18th day of May 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire David Halinen 2115 North 30th Street, Ste. 203 Tacoma, W A 98403 Bob Herman 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place Renton, W A 98059 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 1, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available Highlands Park Prelimil Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 14 at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action, as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 1,2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council Legal Description of Land: PARCeL A: • EXHIBIT A TO DEED OF TRUST (Legal Description) lOT 1. KING COUNTY SftORT PLAT MAlBER 67a063-R. RECOROEO UNDER RECORDING NWBER 7$U110857. SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SlHDIVISIOH Of A PORTIOII OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF '/'HE NORTllWEST ~ OF SECTION 14. TOWNSIUP 23 HORlli, RANC£ 6 EAST. WILlJ.METTE MERIDIAN. IN XING cO'AITY. IYASHINGTOtI. PARCEL II: TNAT PORTION OF THE SO~T QUAIO'"ER OF THE oJORnlWEST QUARTER OF SE:CTIOH 14. TQ'IHSHIP 23 NORTH. IWfGE S EAST. WIl.1.AUETTE MaRIDIAN. IN KING COUHTY. WASIUNGTOO. DESCRIBED AS FOlLOWS: etGlNNING AT A POINT IIOR'fH 00'28'02-lEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 fEET AND NORTH 88'5S'44~ WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET Ff!OII THE CEJlTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE AlONG lHE IESTERLY MARGIN OF THE AUGUST G£RBER ROAD (166111 AVENUE SOUTlfEAST) AS CDNmED TO KING COUNlY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 10&4241, NORTH 00'~8'02" lEST A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET TO THE TRIJE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE T~ HEREIN DESCRIBED; TIIEHC£ CONTINUING NOR1}f 00'28'02-WEST A DISTI'INCE OF 157 .~1 FEET: THENCE r«)RTH SS'01 '16" lEST A DISTANCE Of 1248.07 fEET TO 1lIE EAST LINE OF 1lIE ET 30.00 FEET OF SAIlI SOIJTItEI.ST QUARTEit "OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTERI TlIENCE AL~ Sf.ID EAST Wit SOU11l 00"33'02-fIST A DISTANCE OF 157.07 FEET: THENCE SOVTtl 00'59' 57-EAST A DISTANCE OF 1247 .82 FEfT TO "'flIE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; " EXC(PT lliOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO FRANKLIN 1. mER AND C. lENA TETER. HlISIWIO AND WIFE. BY DEEDS RJ::CORDED UNDfR RECORDING HllM8ERS 6400141 AND 6417877. SE 132nd St. S I 137th PI. ~ SE tI1 s '() p:. SE 138th Pl. SE 138th G 139th PI. ~ (I) <V SE 139th ~ ::.9 co 1.0 ..-< 142nd St. SE E 145th PI. 6-12 no F7 14 T23N R5E W 1/~1.f r N ! I \ I \ SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;JUN-14-06 3:06PM; PAGE 2/2 David L. Halinen, P.E. davidhalinen@halinenlaw.com VIA FAX AND EMAIL HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation McCarver Square 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397 June 14,2006 Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 mY (E AI!NTON JUN 1 4 2006 RECEfV£D any <l.!At<'s OFFICE Tacoma: (253) 627-6680 Seattle: (206) 443-4684 Fax: (253) 272-9876 Re: Proposed "Highlands Park" Preliminary Plat (LVA 05-124, ECF, PP) Applicant Burnstead Construction CO.'s Withdrawal of Its June 1, 2006 Appeal of the Renton Hearing Examiner's May 18,2006 Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council Dear Ms. Walton: As you know, I represent Applicant Bumstead Construction Co. with respect to the proposed "Highlands Park" preliminary plat application. In view of the Renton Hearing Examiner's June 13, 2006 letter to me and to Renton Principal Planner Jennifer Henning that responds to Bumstead's June 1, 2006 Request for Reconsideration and revises recommended Condition of Approval Number 5, on Bumstead's behalf! hereby withdraw Bumstead's June 1, 2006 appeal of the Hearing Examiner's May 18, 2006 Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council. Based upon the phone conference YOLl and I had today, I understand that, with the submittal of this withdrawal, you will be placing the "Highlands Park" preliminary plat application on the City Council's consent agenda for the Council's June 26,2006 meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or conunents. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, OFFICES. P.S . . -1f~ cc: Ron Hughes, Land Development Manager, Bumstead Construction Co., Inc. (via email) Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, Renton Development Services (via email) Michael Chen, AICP, Core Design, Inc. (via email) C:'CFI25]O'OOI\Pre1 p\at\Wilhdrawal of Appeal (Leiter 10 City Clerk:).doc SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9676 4;JUN--'-06 3:06PM; PAGE 1/2 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporation F~:(253)272-9876 davidhalinen@JIalinenlaw.com DATE.' June 14, 2006 McCarver Square 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397 FAX COVER SHEET TIME: 3:05p.m. Pacific Time TO: Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk COMPANY City of Renton City Clerk's Office: FAX NUMBER: (425) 430-6516 CITY: Renton, WA FR: David Halinen cn'Y OF R8ITON JUN 1 4 2006 crTY ~=FFlce Seattle (206) 443-4684 Tacoma (253) 627-6680 ITEMS SENT: Letter on behalf of Bumstead Construction Co. withdrawing its Highlands Park appeal TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 2 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS: The informadon contained in this facsimile communication is privileged and/or confulentiDl information intended on'y for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this cover p"ge is not the intended recipknl, lOU are herby notified that any dissemintl1;on. distribution or copymg of this communication or the information contained in this communictl1;on is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communictltion in error, please immediately nodfy us by telephone and return thisftlCsimile to us at the abol'e IIddress viII the U.S. Postal Sel1Jice. Thankyou. CITY OF RENTON JUN 0 1 2006 APPEAL -HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDA nON TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL. i.; Sl) f'., 'r11 FILE NO. LUA 05-124, ECF, PP ~ APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner dated May 18,2006. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: Bumstead Construction Co. Address: 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005-2135 Telephone No. (425) 454-1900, Ext. 233 REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) Name: David L. Halinen Address: 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403 Telephone No. (206) 443-4684 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No._25_ Error: The second sentence of Finding 25 indicates that "[t]he plat was designed as iff previously initiated vacation of a portion of the Rosario right-of-way]had been aCColIC.p~iated'" That statement is false. Nothing in the record supports that statement. Instead, the record amply demonstrates that the plat was designed as if a previously initiated vacation of a portion of the Rosario right-of-way was not going to occur. In view of the error in the second sentence of Finding 25, the third sentence of Finding 25 is also without basis in the record and clearly erroneous. Correction: The second and third sentences of Finding 25 should be revised to read as follows: "However, the plat was not designed as if that previously initiated vacation was going to be finalized. If the applicant wishes to refile the vacation application and the vacation is ultimately finalized, minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site could be made based upon the land area that would be gained by the vacation. " CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: ----------------------------------------------------------- Correction: ______________________________________________________ __ OTHER (Recommended Condition of Approval) No._5__ Error: The Hearing Examiner recommended as Condition 5 the original P/B/PW Staff Recommended Condition 5 as set forth in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner. However, at the preliminary plat hearing, the Applicant proposed a Substitute Condition 5, which the P/B/PW Staff representative, Senior Planner Keri Weaver, agreed with on the record. No one at the hearing expressed any opposition to that Substitute Condition 5, which states: If the applicant wishes to make minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site based upon the land area that would be gained by a vacation of the portion of the Rosario Avenue S.E. unimproved right-of-way that had been the subject of City of Renton Vacation File No. VAC-05-004 (ultimately withdrawn), the applicant shall (a) file a new vacation application, (b) submit an application for a minor amendment to the preliminary plat, and (c) finalize and record the vacation prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat. (Per City Code, any proposal to increase the number of lots approved in the preliminary plat shall require a major plat amendment.) Substitute Condition 5 is consistent with the above-stated corrections that should be made to Finding of Fact 25. However, the Hearing Examiner's recommended Condition 25 is inconsistent with the above-stated corrections that should be made to Finding of Fact 25. • Correction: Substitute Condition 5 should be used instead of the Hearing Examiner's Recommended Condition 25. 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desire) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: X Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Make the Corrections to Finding 25 and Recommended Condition 5 described above. Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Bumstead Construction CO.1 /} 1/ By: __ ~·1:~~_·~1-7/~/~~~_I_~+~~t_~~i~~~.~L:=-_-_. _________________________ ~Ju~n~e~1,~2~O~O~6~ ______ ___ Ron Hughes, L" d Development Manager Date AppellantJRepresentative Signature eel LiJ-vry WP-dt 1/£ f CI'~Y Atfr:r(rLe t /v'e, ( tJ{',ffs I Pelle i0f'/I~ rtf--5c/t!,cf5 j)i/l'e'Cfc.--r Ffcd ktW(."vtUff j Heat"Ylc bJ.tJrYU,H.e/' ) CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 425-430-6510 o Cash fI?'theck No._=3_o....:::S''---'!-( __ Description: o Copy Fee ~Appeal Fee Funds Received. From: b Name 1tj!~cft;'L~sb/k6~ Address lIt; 'io !Y~ z4fh Sf :({J.PO City/Zip "Be/itt/lie I LAlri 98 DO S Receipt N:_ Date iP¥t, I 0573 o Notary Service 0 ________ _ I Amount $ 75. () 0 Ci i Fred Kaufman -Highlands Park plat decie:' ,_-------------=--------------''--------- From: To: Date: Subject: Mr. Examiner, Keri Weaver Fred Kaufman 5/23/2006 11 :05:59 AM Highlands Park plat decision This is regarding the May 18 decision for the Highlands Park preliminary plat. As you indicated on p. 3, a substitute Condition #5 was entered into the record at the public hearing to replace Condition #5 in the April 11 staff report. However, Condition #5 on p. 12 of the decision reflects the original staff report language, and therefore staff requests a correction to the decision. The condition should read: "If the applicant wishes to make minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site based upon the land area that would be gained by a vacation of the portion of the Rosario Avenue S.E. unimproved right-of-way that had been the subject of City of Renton Vacation File No. VAC-05-004 (ultimately withdrawn), the applicant shall (a) file a new vacation application, (b) submit an application for a minor amendment to the preliminary plat, and (c) finalize and record the vacation prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat." If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you, Keri Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner, Development Services City of Renton tel (425) 430-7382 fax (425) 430-7231 kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us cc: Henning, Jennifer; mc@coredesigninc.com SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9876 4;JUN-1-06 5:01PM; PAGE 1 FAX: (253) 272-9876 dllvidhalinen@jllllinenlllw.com HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Pro/essional Service Corporation McCarver Square 2115 N. 30.11 Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397 FAX COVER SHEET Seatfie(106) 443-4684 Tacoma (253) 617~680 CITYOF R'E'NTON JUN 0 1 2006 CITY 6l1fh~~~FICE DATE' June 1,2006 TIME.-4:55 p.m. Pacific Time Jj:S'l/1I1 -lid TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner in care o(Bonnie Walton. Renton City Clerk COMPANY City of Renton City Clerk's Office: FAX NUMBER: (425) 430-6516 CITY: Renton, WA FR: David Halinen ITEMS SENT: Letter requesting reconsideration TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 3 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS: 10: II. E. The in/ormation contained in this facsimile communication is privileged andlor confulential information intended only lor the use 0/ the individual or entity named above. If the reader 0/ this cover page ;s not the intended recipient, you are herby notified that IIny dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or the in/ormation con/allied ill this communicatioll is stricdy prohibited. If you halle received this commullication in error, please lmmeduuely lIotifY us by telephone and return this jacsimile to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. CITY 'F RENTON June 13,2006 David Halinen Halinen Law Offices, P.S. McCarver Square 2115 N 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, W A 98403-3397 Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Principal Planner City of Renton Re: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Halinen and Ms. Henning: This office has received a request for reconsideration to alter Condition Number 5. Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman It appears reasonable to make that change. Condition Number 5 will now read as follows: "If the applicant wishes to make minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site based upon the land area that would be gained by a vacation of the portion of the Rosario Avenue S.E. unimproved right-of-way that had been the subject of City of Renton Vacation File No. VAC-05-004 (ultimately withdrawn), the applicant shall (a) file a new vacation application, (b) submit an application for a minor amendment to the preliminary plat, and (c) finalize and record the vacation prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat." If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton F.KJnt cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services Ron Hughes, Land Development Manager, Bumstead Construction Co., Inc. Michael Chen, AICP, Core Design, Inc. ----lO-S-S-s-ou-th-G-r-ad-y-W-a-y---R-en-t-on-,-W-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-80-S-S---(4-2S-)-4-30--6-S-1-S ---.:.... ~ ~ This oaoercontains 50% recvcled material 30% on..c;t con~IJmer AHEAD OF THE CURVE SENT BY: LAW OFFICESj 253 272 9876 4jJUN-1-06 5:01PMj PAGE 2/3 HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. A Professional Service Corporatian David L. Halinen, P.E. davidhalinen@}lalinenlaw.com McCarver Square 2115 N. 30th Street, Suite 203 Tacoma, Washington 98403-3397 Tacoma: (253) 627-6680 Seattle: (206) 443-4684 Fax: (253) 272-9876 June 1,2006 CITY OF RENTON JUN 0 1 2006 VIA FAX AND EMAIL ON CARE OF THE RENTON CITY CLERK) CfT'( ~'R-~E&-ACE I/: s r (JIM _ f:I.d Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 S. Grady Way, Seventh Floor Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Proposed "Highlands Park" Preliminary Plat (LUA 05-124, ECF, PP) Applicant Burnstead Construction CO.'s Request for Reconsideration of Your May 18, 2006 Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council Dear Mr. Examiner: As you know, I represent Applicant Bumstead Construction Co. with respect to the Proposed "Highlands Park" Preliminary Plat application. On Bumstead's behalf, I request reconsideration of Finding 25 and of Recommended Condition of Approval 5 of your May 18, 2006 Report and Recommendation to the Renton City Council. Let me explain the particulars of this request. Finding 25 states: Finding 25 set forth on page 11 of your May 18, 2006 Report and Recommendation It appears that while a vacation along the western edge of the plat in a portion of the Rosario right-of-way was initiated, it was never finalized. The plat was designed as if it bad been accomplished. The applicant should finalize the vacation of Rosario or interior lot lines may have to be altered to accommodate the loss of that acreage. (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the second sentence, the plat was !!!!L designed as if the vacation had been accomplished. The testimony and exhibits in the record make that abundantly clear. That being the case, Bumstead respectfully requests that you revise Finding 25 to read as follows: It appears that while a vacation along the western edge of the plat in a portion of the Rosario right-of-way was initiated, it was never finalized. However, the plat was not designed as if that previously initiated vacation was going to be finalized. If the applicant wishes to refile the vacation application and the vacation is uJtimately finalized, minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site could be made based upon the land area that would be gained by the vacation. SENT BY: LAW OFFICES; 253 272 9676 Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner June 1,2006 Page 2 4;JUN-1-06 5:02PM; This proposed revised version of Finding 25 would be consistent with the record_ Recommended Condition of Approval S PAGE 3/3 Recommend Condition 5 on page 12 of your May 18,2006 Report and Recommendation states: The proposed vacation ofa 5-foot portion of the Rosario Avenue SE right-of-way (VAC05-004) shall be finalized and recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. This language was the same as the original PfBfPW Staff Recommended Condition 5 as set forth in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner (with the correction of "NE" to "SE"). However, at the preliminary plat hearing, the Applicant proposed a Substitute Condition 5, which the PfBfPW Staff representative, Senior Planner Keri Weaver, agreed with on the record. No one at the hearing expressed any opposition to that Substitute Condition 5, which states: If the applicant wishes to make minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site based upon the land area that would be gained by a vacation of the portion of the Rosario Avenue S.E. unimproved right-of-way that had been the subject of City of Renton Vacation File No. VAC-05-004 (ultimately withdrawn), the applicant shall (a) file a new vacation application, (b) submit an application for a minor amendment to the preliminary plat, and (c) finalize and record the vacation prior to or concurrent with the recording of the fmal plat. (per City Code, any proposal to increase the number of lots approved in the preliminary plat shall require a major plat amendment.) Unlike your recommended Condition 5, Substitute Condition 5 is consistent with the above- stated corrections that should be made to Finding 25 and is consistent with the record. Accordingly, Bumstead hereby respectfully requests that you revise your Recommendation to replace your recommended Condition 5 with Substitute Condition 5. Sincerely, HALINEN LAW OFFICES, P.S. t:,~ men cc: Ron Hughes, Land Development Manager, Bumstead Construction Co., Inc. Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner, Renton Development Services Michael Chen, AlCP, Core Design, Inc. Request for Reconsidenltion (Letter to Hearing Examiner),doc June 1,2006 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 CITY _F RENTON PlanningfBuildingIPublic Worlcs Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator errv OF RENTON JUN 0 1 2006 RECEIVED ATY CLERK'S OFFICE SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION -HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT (FILE NO. LUA05-124, ECF, PP) Dear Mr. Kaufman, Staff respectfully requests reconsideration of a condition included in the Recommendation for the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, dated May 18,2006. As you indicated on pg. 3, a substitute Condition #5 was entered into the record at the public hearing to replace Condition #5 in the April 11, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner. However, Condition #5 on pg. 12 of the Recommendation reflects the original staff report language, and therefore staff requests a correction to the Recommendation. The condition should read: "If the applicant wishes to make minor adjustments to lots in the vicinity of the southerly portion of the site based upon the land area that would be gained by a vacation of the portion of the Rosario Avenue S.E. unimproved right-of-way that had been the subject of City of Renton Vacation File No. V AC-05-004 (ultimately withdrawn), the applicant shall (a) file a new vacation application, (b) submit an application for a minor amendment to the preliminary plat, and (c) finalize and record the vacation prior to or concurrent with the recording of the final plat." Please contact me at (425) 430-7286 should you have any questions regarding this letter. Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Principal Planner cc: Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division ------1-0-55-S-0-uth-Gr-a-dy-W-ay---R-en-to-n,-W-as-h-in-gt-on-98-0-55------~ ® This paper contains 50% recyded material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 18th day of May 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: " {j i! V N tary Public in and r the State of Washington esiding at ;k---r4'~ , therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 05-124, ECF, PP The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT May 18, 2006 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minntes APPLICANT: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Bumstead Construction 1215 120TH Ave NE Bellevue, W A Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place Bellevue, W A 98007 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA 05-124, ECF, PP 115 Vesta Avenue SE Approval for a 73-10t subdivision of an 18.13- acre site intended for the development of single- family detached residences. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on March 28, 2006. After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 11 , 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 11,2006, at approximately 10:02 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. NOTE: The property discussed in this preliminary plat is located in the southeast quadrant of the City of Renton, however on the recorded CD and Staff Report and other documents some of the addresses are stated as NE. These minutes have been corrected to show all addresses as being SE. Highlands Park Prelimina.j _'lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No.1: Yellow file containing the Exhibit No.2: Zoning Map original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this project. Exhibit No.3: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No.4: Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan Exhibit No.5: Preliminary Tree Retention Plan Exhibit No.6: Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit No.7: Boundaryffopographic Survey Exhibit No.8: Summary of Appeal filed by Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell Exhibit No.9 Testimony by Kimberly Exhibit No. 10: Testimony by June Hill Clairmont taken April 4, 2006 during the taken April 4, 2006 during the Appeal Hearing Appeal Hearing Regarding an Easement Regarding Boundary Dispute Exhibit No. 11: Downstream Drainage Map Exhibit No. 12: Tree Cutting and Clearing Plan Exhibit No. 13: Substitute Condition #5 Exhibit No. 14: Record by Reference, SEP A files and CD Recording of Appeal Hearing Exhibit No. 15: Copy of Original Petition for Exhibit No. 16: Letter and Sketch by Ron Street Vacation, VAC 05-004 Hughes to Edward and June Hill Regarding Property Encroachment , Exhibit No. 17: New Landscape Plan, Tree, Exhibit No. 18: Gwendolyn High Packet Street and Pond Plan from Appeal Hearing Exhibit No. 19: Margin Brackets (pg. 5) Highlighting Ms. High's Packet (Ex. 18) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The site is located on the west side of 115 Vesta Avenue SE, south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street and east of Rosario Avenue SE. The proposal is for a 73-10t subdivision of an 18.13- acre site located within the R-4 zone single-family residential units. There is an existing single- family residence and associated outbuildings that are proposed to be removed from the property. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest comer of the site and one small . unregulated wetland area will be filled. Two open space pat:k tracts will be provided onsite. This property was transferred to the City of Renton from King County in June 2005 and is vested under a special condition of the Development Standards. Within this area maximum density of 5 du/a, minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet, minimum lot width is 60 feet for interior lots and 70 Highlands Park Preliminary flat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 3 feet for comer lots, minimum lot depth is 70 feet. Front yard setback is 15 feet for primary structure, 20 feet for attached or detached garage. Minimum side yard setback is 15 feet along a street and 5 feet for interior. All other requirements of the R-4 zoning designation do apply to this property. The property does appear to comply with all zoning requirements. A conceptual landscape plan has been provided which shows five-foot landscape strips abutting the frontages of Vesta and Rosario south of SE 2nd Street. Scarlet Maple trees are proposed to be planted on the street frontages of each new residential lot and along the street frontages. The proposed stormwater detention tract will also be landscaped. A final plan will be submitted to Development Services for review. Access to the site is via two existing public roads, SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site which is currently stubbed from an existing subdivision and from Rosario Avenue SE on the west side which "T's" into Rosario from an existing subdivision to the west. There will be internal public streets within the subdivision and there will be access easements, which will serve Lots 14, 9, 10 and 55. The applicant is required to install full street improvements, including paving, sidewalks, curb and gutters, storm drains, landscaping, street lighting and signage along the frontages of Rosario south of SE 2nd, on SE 2nd Place, Vesta A venue SE and the interior plat streets. A street vacation was requested and approved in November 2005 and in December 2005 the owner of the property withdrew his request. The right-of-way has not been released and is therefore not developable. A substitute Condition #5 has been placed on this plat. The Highlands Park site is currently forested and consists of a low to moderate slope descending to the southwest at an average grade of 8-15%. Soils are classified as glacial till with 3-18 inches of duff on the floor of that forested area. The wildlife report indicates that no protected raptors or sensitive avian special or protected mammals were found in the area. They are working with the applicant to save as many native trees as possible on this site. The applicant estimates that approximately 70,000 cubic yards of cut and fill will occur onsite. Import or export of fill is not anticipated. There is a Category 2 wetland located northwest of the subject property, this development is not in the buffer area so there is no requirement for buffering in the Highlands Park site. There are no anticipated wetland impacts due to the fact that the site drains away from the wetland area. A Category 3 wetland is located in the southwest portion of the site at approximately Lot 70 and is an exempted wetland per code and so the wetland will be filled. A storm drainage report was submitted, a storm water detention and water quality pond is located in the southwest comer of the site, with a treated runoff connected to the existing storm drain system in Rosario Avenue SE. The storm water area must be fenced and landscaping will be placed on the street frontages of the pond area. The.development is within the water service area of King County. Water District 90 and sewer will be provided by the City of Renton. Highlands Park Preliminal) Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 4 The site is located within the Renton School District and they stated that they would be able to accommodate the additional students. Fire, Traffic and Park Mitigation fees have been imposed on this site. David Halinen, Attorney, 2115 North 30th Street, Suite 203, Tacoma, WA 98403 stated that he is the attorney for Bumstead Construction. Regarding the street vacation petition VAC-05-004, the client is planning to move forward and refile the application. The client did not realize that it had been withdrawn. They concur with the substituted condition #5, that appears to be fine with the applicant. He introduced a letter from Ron Hughes of Bumstead Construction dated April 7, 2006, addressed to Edward and June Hill regarding the fence encroachment with a survey sketch done by Core Design. Bumstead Construction will execute a Quit Claim Deed to the Hills for the property in the boundary line adjustment. Bumstead is continuing to work with the driveway easement holder in the Tract 998 area to work out a mutually acceptable arrangement. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101, Bellevue, W A 98007 stated that in discussions with the planners, they were given the information that Rosario would most likely never continue and be improved to the north due to the Category 2 wetland found north of that vicinity so Lot 1 would not be considered a comer lot. Lot 39 is also one foot off on the eastern property line, but if you were to take the dimension of the western property line it actually averages out to 70 feet. Regarding the boundary line adjustment on Lots 55 and 56, once the adjustment is completed, the affected square footage is approximately 200 square feet. The net square footage of Lot 56 is 7,203 currently take out approximately 100 square feet and you would have a substandard lot under zoning code. The proposal is to shift the lot line between 56 and 55 to the east however many square feet it would take to get lot 56 up to 7,200 square feet. The Clairmonts' easement on Tract 998 is for 10-feet ingress/egress. The plan is to increase that easement to the current asphalt width that is there, approximately another 10-15 feet. The six- foot sidewalk would also be proposed concurrent with the ingress/egress easement. There will be no vehicle access to the plat. A proposed landscape plan, street landscape plan, fencing around the pond and tree retention plan was presented. Ronda Bryant, 6220 SE 2nd Place, Renton, W A 98059 stated that her property is south of Lots 62- 65 and she was concerned with drainage and the ground water and what it drains into. In the southwest comer just north of Lots 71 and 72, the drainage analysis showed holes that were drilled to test the soil composition and the water level. There was a hole 20-feet deep, showed no water it was surrounded by holes that were up to 10-feet deep and there was water at six feet. This does not seem correct. As far as tree retention, it is a great advancement, however on Lot 65 Highlands Park Preliminary rlat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 5 there is an indication of 2 conifers, one is leaning and actually is a hemlock. She has a letter from Bumstead stating that if she would sign their letter for annexation, they would save the stumps and tree that are right on the property line. If they are taken out, it could potentially tear out her pond and damage her foundation. Lot 55 does have access from the interior roadway, it also backs to Vesta and could possibly have access from that as well. She also questioned the Tract 998 easement and where the fence would be for the lot to the north of the open space. Bob Herman, 15324 SE 133rd Court, Renton, WA 98059 also known as Lot 11 of Willow Brook Lane, which lies immediately north of the subject property. He is the president of the Willow Brook Homeowners Association, which is a 20-10t neighborhood all of which are on septic systems. He is a professional engineer (traffic). He did review the plat and feels that there are some very good things including the pedestrian connections. Sanitary sewers are going in all around them and they are not currently in the City limits and at some time they might want to connect into the sewer system. They would like to make sure that they would be able to connect to the sewer at some point in the future. The stub road that is an extension of SE 133rd Street would be the obvious place to tie in to the sewer. He would like to hear some discussion on how that would serve Willow Brook Lane. Christy Hill, 225 Vesta Avenue SE, Renton, W A 98059 she would like clarification on the new boundary line for the Hills, it appears that some of the tree map and tree retention plan includes trees that will now be inside that new boundary line adjustment, will that affect the proposed retention plan. She hopes those trees will stay. Gwendolyn High, 13405-158th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that several of the trees shown on the plan appear to be within the Hills disputed boundary, they would like to find out how that might affect the overall number of trees being retained after the adjustment is made. Some of the trees identified as being retained appear to be dying or dead or not worth keeping. They would like to see a plan that will show exactly which trees are to remain. A homeowners association for maintenance of roadway, storm water and utilities improvements only has been conditioned, they request that Renton retain performance oversight, require performance bond and add requirements for maintenance of shared landscaping and open space tracts as well. Regarding Tract 998, staff recommendation requires a six-foot paved walkway connection, there is a concern that this is asking for a dual use for that existing pavement and fear this will be a newly created safety issue with pedestrian access and driveway, they would like it clear that the pedestrian walkway is a separate sidewalk, not an extension of the 6-foot driveway. The ground water is still a critical concern and having this matter looked at by experts is critical in making sure there are not sut:prises in the future. Highlands Park PreliminalJ Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 6 A sidewalk that goes along the entire western border of the proposed plat was proposed to connect the two developments has been proposed and CARE has been working with surrounding developments and the City of Renton to obtain funding support to make this a reality. If pedestrian improvements are not required it is most likely that CARE will appeal the final decision on this plat application to the full extent of remedy allowed. Tom Carpenter, 15006 SE 139th Place, Renton, W A 98059 stated that he lives three blocks south and 2 blocks west of the proposed development. He is the chair of the Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council's Growth Management Committee and they submitted a formal letter to the Renton City Council. The purpose of that letter is to deal with the overall impact of the character of the neighborhood as development begins to occur. It is unfair to take one developer and make them first in this area, he wanted to reinforce some of the comments of others. The character of the neighborhood is not being carried through. V esta Avenue is going to eventually be a major north/south thoroughfare on this hill. He would encourage developers to voluntarily make sure that they address the character of the neighborhood as they go through these developments. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that Rosario Avenue SE in this location was not going to be used as a roadway but they did keep the right-of-way so a pedestrian trail could be made at some point in the future. Parks Department said no at that point and they were more afraid of the complaints of the use by undesirables as opposed to the good citizens of the city. Also, they had not come up with a complete design that they wanted for the city. Part of the road was blocked due to parties and other things that were going on where no one could see. Until the park land is distinctly owned by the City of Renton, the pedestrian access is as designed for this project. Due to Rosario not being improved, Lots 10-14 would be access only from the interior of the plat, as well Lots 52-55 would be via interior access only. All of the septic in this vicinity is somewhat troublesome to some of the homeowners in this area. The design that has been submitted is preliminary, there is an overall plan for both private construction that is driven by development as to how fast it gets put into place. All applications are reviewed for the largest amount of service as possible. One of the City Codes does require that all stubs do go up to the adjoining property lines. The vacation of Rosario was not finished, she did not know if it had been withdrawn, they got to a certain point and then it was just dropped. The SE 4th corridor was the main reason why so many codes got changed last year. Landscaping caused the codes to be changed, there is enforcement capability now. Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Bellevue 98007 stated that regarding tree retention on Lot 55 specifically, the majority of the trees are on the north side of the fence and the plan is to include and save those trees, there is one tree that may be outside their boundary and that one tree will not affect their tree retention play. Regarding Exhibit 17, the landscape plan , I • Highlands Park Preliminary rlat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 7 was colored to make it easier to identify the trees, the building footprints are conceptual, but the trees are in their correct locations. Ted Schepper, Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Ste. 101, Kirkland, W A 98034 stated that most times he is called to assure the local residents that a particular new development will not cause the ground water to dry up, and here the residents are concerned that this project will create an increase in the ground water table. The ground water on the site that people are seeing as seeps and springs exiting from embankment cuts and utility trench excavations is a seasonal ground water table that is directly related to precipitation. The shallow seepage will actually diminish becoming completely absent during the dryer summer months, evapotranspiration takes the water and dries it up. The first series of test pits were excavated in February 2005 the majority of the test pits had shallow ground water, a second series of test pits were excavated in October 2005, at the end of the dry season, and all those test pits had no ground water. Regarding the e-mails from CARE regarding a landslide that occurred near the intersection of SE 148th and 154th Avenue SE, the developments north ofthis area did not have any impact on that slide. David Cayton, Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101, Bellevue, WA 98007 stated that the final engineering plans will extend the sewer lines up to the property line for future connection to the north. The sewer lines were extended from the Maplewood project up to this north right-of-way for future extension as well. Thefollowing two testimonies were recorded on Aprilll, 2006 during the appeal hearing due to the fact that the parties were not available for today's hearing: Kimberly Clairmont, 107 Vesta Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that her house is located on the easement on Vesta Avenue just south of tract 998. She is currently working with Bumstead regarding the easement that is in question and how the easement will be developed in order to allow them to continue to use that as their driveway access. They have lived in the house for close to 10 years and have used that easement as their access. She also has a recorded Declaration of Easement recorded with King County. While they are working on an agreement, there has been no agreement reached as yet. Until they do come to some agreement, she would like to make sure that that easement remains open to them. June Hill, 225 Vesta Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98059 stated that their property shares a boundary with Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. They are actually platting their land and she would like to submit correspondence documents that she has kept for almost two years. David Halinen stated that the HOA oversight issue had been adequately dealt with by Ms. Kittrick, due to Council legislation there is now some program in place and it would seem inappropriate to supplement that without any particulars. . Highlands Park Prelimin~.) ~)lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 8 Tract 998 and the dual use issue, a slight modification to Staff Condition #3 should stated "A six foot paved pedestrian walkway connection to be located within the existing recorded access easement" the following should be added at that point: "as that easement may be widened". The Walkway may be widened on the north edge rather than the south edge, which would place the pedestrian walkway along the north edge. There has been no adverse possession in regard to this strip, at best it would be a prescriptive easement. At this time the City of Renton has no official designation of a trail within the Rosario Avenue SE corridor. The City of Renton Parks Department is not recommending construction of a trail at this point in time, therefore, the requirement of a trail would be improper. Mr. Halinen urged the Examiner to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. Keri Weaver stated that several persons testifying today had questions about adjustments due to resolution to the Hill boundary line dispute or the vacation on Rosario and the impacts those issue might have on the tree retention plan. The plan submitted by the applicant is a preliminary plan and is considered until all the documents are received for final plan approval, there could be some adjustments to lot sizes and various other things. There will be a final tree retention plan that will undergo final review and approval. The Cedar River to Sammamish Trail potentially proposed by King County note that in the DSNM issued in January there was a note stating that the exact location would have to be disclosed on title. Landscaping and open space maintenance concerns were raised, landscaping on individual lots is the responsibility of the individual homeowner, but when placed off site it is the responsibility of the homeowner's association. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at approximately 12: 17 p.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Bumstead Construction, filed a request for a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible ~fficial issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). That determination was appealed by CARE and in a separate but concurrent SEP A appeal decision, the ERC's determination was upheld (see attached decision). · \ ' · , . Highlands Park Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 9 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located between Rosario Avenue SE (152nd SE in King County) on the west and Vesta Avenue SE (l56th SE in King County) on the east and north SE 2nd Place. 6. The map element ofthe Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of low density residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 (Single Family - 4 dwelling units/acre). See below for an exception to the normal R-4 density requirements. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5140 enacted in June 2005. 9. The subject site is approximately 18.13 acres. The parcel is generally rectangular with some rectangular doglegs extending south and east from the main parcel. The subject site is approximately 1,246 feet wide (east to west) by approximately 630 feet deep. 10. The subject site slopes downward to the southwest at between 8 and 15 percent. There is an approximately 700 square foot unregulated Category 3 Wetland located in the southwest comer of the site that will be filled. An offsite wetland west of Rosario does not affect the subject site. 11. The applicant proposes regrading large sections of the site, which will involve approximately 70,000 cubic yards of cut and fill. 12. The site is forested and a permit (Forest Practices Management) from the State will be required for tree removal. Trees will be removed but the applicant will be maintaining trees. A tree retention plan shows that approximately 25% of the trees would be retained on the site. 13. The applicant proposes dividing the subject site into 73 lots and 3 tracts. The lots will be arranged in three tiers oflots generally running east to west across the subject site. There will be a tier oflots along both the north and south boundaries of the plat and an internal block of lots located across the middle of the plat. Lots will front both Vesta on the eastern edge of the plat and Rosario on the western edge of the plat although the lots north of 2nd SE will actually take access from the cul-de-sac due to wetlands in the vicinity. Lots will range in size from 7,200 square feet to 11,200 square feet. 14. The two of the three tracts will be open space. One tract is located near the northeast comer of the plat adjacent to an access easement. Part of that easement provides access to a third-party property. Any use by the applicant or eventual plat residents will remain subject to the conditions and limitations involved with the third-party's ownership. The second open space tract is located near the western end of the plat immediately south of a Highlands Park Prelimina'J }lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 10 cul-de-sac. The third tract will provide for the stormwater detention system and is located in the southwest comer of the plat at the northeast comer of the intersection of Rosario and 2nd Place. 15. Access to the plat will be via Rosario Avenue along the western edge of the plat. An extension of SE 2nd Street will branch off to the east and form an internal, public, looped roadway. A new north to south road will branch north from SE 2nd Street, cross the looped road and swing to the northeast connecting the plat to SE 133rd Street which runs east to Vesta Avenue SE (156th in King County). Rosario will not connect to the north due to a Class 2 wetland located in that alignment north of the subject site. Three easement driveways will provide access to interior lots. Two will be located in the northwest comer of the plat off of the cul-de-sac to provide access to Proposed Lots 13 and 14 and 9, 10, and 11, respectively. The other easement will be located in the southeast comer and will provide access to Proposed Lots 55 and 56. As noted, a pedestrian access easement located southeast of Proposed Lot 29 will connect the internal loop road with Vesta. There will be no vehicular connection to Vesta directly from the plat. 16. The applicant will be dedicating 12 feet along Vesta to allow widening of that roadway. Since Rosario will not continue to the north, the improvements will terminate at SE 2nd Street. 17. When the subject site was annexed to the City special standards were applied to the area in which it was located, the Maplewood East Annexation Area. Those standards as applied to the subject site allow a density of five (5) units per acre, 7,200 square foot minimum lot size, 60 foot lot width for interior lots and 70 feet for corner lots, 70 foot lot depth, minimum front yard of 15 feet (20 feet with garage), 15 foot side yard along a street, 5 foot interior yard and a 25 foot rear yard. 18. The density for the plat would be 4.82 dwelling units per acre. This complies with the special standards applicable to this property. 19. The applicant has proposed five-foot landscape strips along both Rosario and Vesta. As noted, the applicant will also be retaining some of the significant trees on the subject site. 20. A wildlife study indicated that there were no endangered or threatened species including no avian species. No particular mammals were identified but small and larger mammals may exist on this forested site. 21. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 32 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 22. The development will increase traffic approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 730 trips for the 73 single-family homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 73 additional peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evemng. , . \ Highlands Park Preliminary rlat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 11 23. The stormwater pond would be located in the southwest comer of the subject site. It will comply with the King County 2005 Manual. It will meet Level 2 flow control requirements and the property was assessed as a forested site and the pond sized accordingly. It will be lined to avoid either seepage out or infiltration into it. 24. Sewer and water are available. Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton while Water District 90 has provided a water availability certificate. Sewer line extensions will be completed by the applicant as required by code. 25. It appears that while a vacation along the western edge of the plat in a portion of the Rosario right-of-way was initiated, it was never finalized. The plat was designed as if it had been accomplished. The applicant should finalize the vacation of Rosario or interior lot lines may have to be altered to accommodate the loss of that acreage. 26. There was some question about the location of a property line in the southeast comer of the plat. The applicant will provide a quick claim deed to resolve the issue with neighbors. The amount of property involved should not adversely affect the lot layout but minor adjustments would accommodate any lot size issues. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. While there was significant public interest in sorting out the stormwater issues, it appears that the plat makes appropriate provisions for not only the stormwater management but also for providing appropriate infrastructure including domestic water and road systems. 2. The plat will provide somewhat larger single-family lots for those who want more yard and open space. The applicant will be retaining approximately 25% of the larger significant trees. 3. There is no doubt that developing a forest site with single family housing will change the character of the subject site as well neighboring property. These changes were or should have been anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted for the area and then Zoning was applied to the property. There will be more traffic and general hubbub in and around the property once it is occupied. 4. The lots are generally rectangular. Most lots have direct access to streets while a few will use easements. The development of the proposed roadways, easements and paths seems appropriate given the size, shape and topography of the site and surrounding area. 5. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees to offset impacts on roads, parks and emergency services. The development of the subject site should also increase the tax base of the City further offsetting impacts of this larger plat on the City. 6. As noted in the findings, two issues concerning lot lines or acreage wt::re not finalized. One concerns a proposed vacation of a portion of Rosario on the west end of the plat. Highlands Park Prelimina.:j Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 12 The second concerned potential discrepancy along the southeast margin of the plat where some property ownership issues had been unresolved. The applicant indicated that these issues would be resolved. 7. In conclusion, the plat appears to be reasonably designed, accommodates needed improvements and therefore, should be approved by the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the proposed 73-10t plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Revised Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on February 6,2006. 2. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan for the storm water detention pond (Tract 997). Fencing shall be consistent with the requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. A 6-foot paved pedestrian walkway connection, to be located within the existing recorded access easement, shall be provided from Vesta Avenue SE through proposed Tract 998 (park) to the internal plat road. This walkway shall be shown on the final plat. The easement must be recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. The easement shall not interfere with the existing third party easement in that location. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, and to provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 5. The proposed vacation of a 5-foot portion of the Rosario Avenue SE right-of-way (V AC05-004) shall be finalized and recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway, stormwater and utility improvements. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat. 7. The applicant shall resolve the adverse possession claim and adjust lots sizes if necessary to accommodate any property transfer. Highlands Park Preliminary J.lat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 13 ORDERED THIS 18th day of May, 2006 HEARlNG EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of May 2006 to the parties of record: Keri Weaver 1055 S Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 Christy Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Ted Schepper Terra Associates 12525 Willows Road, Ste. 101 Kirkland, W A 98034 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Division City of Renton Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, W A 98059 Gwendolyn High 13405-158th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 David Cayton Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Ste. 101 Bellevue, W A 98007 TRANSMITTED THIS 18th day of May 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire David Halinen 2115 North 30th Street, Ste. 203 Tacoma, W A 98403 Bob Herman 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Tom Carpenter 15006 SE 139th Place Renton, W A 98059 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Larry Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 1, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available Highlands Park Prelimin_l J Plat File No.: LUA-05-124, ECF, PP May 18,2006 Page 14 at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action, as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be fIled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 1, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the fIle. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council April 25. 2006 stephen Schrei Core Design 14711 NE 29th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 Dear Sir: Suite 101 We received the documents for the Lot Line Adjustment Saturday, April 21. 2006. After reviewing the documents there are errors that need to be corrected. We cannot sign a legal. notarized document with a name misspelled and our address incorrectly des1gnated. In addition, we had our surveyor look over the papers. He has pointed out errors and has initialed them. We cannot even have our lawyer .. look at the documents until the mistakes are corrected. I tried to call Ron Hughes per his instructions if llwe had questions. He will be out of his office all this week. Therefore, we are returning the documents to you so you can get the mistakes corrected rather than waiting for him to return to work. Please make the corrections as signed and return them to us for our notarized signatures for the Lot Line Agreement. Sincerely, ~)~-J i r1v0t a~,~~);J· ift Edward ~d June Hill 225 vesta Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 cc: Robert W. Boyd, Surveyor Mr. Frederick H. Burnstead Eurnstead Construction Co. 1215 l20th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Burnstead: 225 Vesta Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 November 30, 2005 Please find enclosed the legal description of the strip of land in dispute per your request. We would be amenable to a lot line adjustment and quit- claim deed or RCW 58.04 to resolve the boundary issue provided you pay all costs relating to said adjustment. Please respond in writing at your earliest convenience. 1.;[e must have our lawyer review all legal paperwork. ~:~~Yo ~/;/J~ ~T;Ldl/ Edward & June Hill cc: Ron Hughes, FE Neil Watts Robert IVlacOnie Bonnie Walton Eeri 1,.Ileaver DEUELOPMEN'S~C!S CI1Y OF RENTON DEC 0 ~ 2005 ~EC'EIVED Legal Description Of Occupation Along North Side Of Hill's Property: Beginning at a point 30 ft North and 30 ft West of the Center of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, WM, said Center of Section being marked by an existing 1 Y2" axle in a monument case; thence NO° 28' 50"E on a line 30 ft West and parallel with the East line of the NW 1;4 of said section a distance of 157.51 to the North East comer of a parcel of land owned by Edward and June Hill as recorded in survey under 20020131900005 Records Of King County, Washington, and the True Point Of Beginning; thence N88° 01' 22"W along the north line of said parcel a distance of 150.05 ft to the North West comer of said parcel; thence NO° 28' 50"E a distance of 5 .28 feet; thence S87° 08' 11 "E along the north side of an existing meandering wire fence a distance of 150.13 ft; thence SO° 28' 50flW a distance of2.96 ft to the True Point Of Beginning. From: Edward & June Hill 225 Vesta Ave. SE Benton, itlA 98059 To: Keri T,veaver 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, It,fA 98055 Re: Highlands Park Plat, LUA05-124,PP, ECF Dear Ms. Weaver. In an earlier conversation with you, I expressed concern for the level of drainage study required before approval of this proposed develop- ment. Since that time, I have discovered that the same issues were raised by several of our neighbors for more than two decades and most especially at the time of the Willowbrook Development (King County File #SPOP0098). Since the Highlands Park developnent and Willowbrook were once part of a common larger plat, the exhibits contained in this file have special significance for the current situation. For your convenience, I have pulled several exhibits for consideration. Of particular interest is any reference to underground springs and the inclusion of a complaint by George Bales (See exhibit 23) who until quite recently owned a significant section of the property within the proposed Highlands Park Development. On a personal note, we are aware of what appears to be an underground spring approximately 5 to 10 yards from the NW corner of our property located on the Burnstead Plat. While it< has been covered by several years of yard waste in an effort by our neighbor to control the flow through his property, the soil south of the spring is wet year round. Also, while I cannot accurately quantify to what degree, Since the Willowbrook Development I have noticed more ground water seeping up through our garage floor during rainy periods. If these problems were a concern before(and because o~a development involving 19 houses, it is clearly logical to anticipate a much greater negative impact from approximately 70 new units. For these reasons we clearly believe a Level III drainage suudy is not only reasonable, but a failure to do that level of study would be irrespon- si ble. Si~erelY, ,4~j/~;'/4 Edward & June Hill cc: Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton 2dward Hill 225 vesta Ave. SE Renton. 1,1A 98059 ·~8:::SS +:::::2:;::2 ~E. " i;0;'c..r:: ')"-' " ':.;;;' f'.~4 Y 'I"I w ~ns J ($) 00 01 DEC .... Ii;r. l\eil ~,·atts 6th Floor 1055 S. Grady T.Tay Renton. 1tlA 98055 . -" ..... _--'----, --.......... . Ii Ii! Ii HI,illl Hi Ii II I!i I II ilul i I ill ilill il i, II 111M lui/Ii - CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 28th day of March, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Michael Chen Contact Burnstead Construction Applicant Jim Jacques Owner Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of sender~ -..j(~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker Representing . signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary (Print): My appointment expires: Project Name: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA05-124, PP, ECF Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Park Prelim Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Jim Jacques 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Bumstead Construction 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 tel: 425-454-1900 (applicant) Jim Jacques Construction 1216 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 (owner) tel: 425-885-7877 eml: mc@coredesign.com (contact) James & Linda St. John 6009 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-519-6565 (party of record) June Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SW Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-226-9686 (party of record) David L. Halinen 2115 N. 30th St. ste: #203 Tacoma, WA 98403 tel: (425) 454-8272 (party of record) David Bishop 15413 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7283 (party of record) Ellen & Martha Mier 15300 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 572-0271 (party of record) Berniece L. Ersland 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4655 (party of record) Updated: 03/30/06 Mike Moran 15121 SE 139th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Ronda & Franklyn Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gordon Sherman 15401 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 864-1552 (party of record) Kim Thomas 15404 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-3632 (party of record) Debra Moore 6026 SE 2nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 204-1458 (party of record) Manuel Hernandez 6015 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 256-0049 (party of record) Jack Pace 6013 NE 1st Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gwendolyn High, CARE President CARE PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Mayra Rodriguez 15323 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Quang Tran & Nga Ninh 15315 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-4915 (party of record) James & Melinda Wilson 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4886 (party of record) Chikai & Mitsuye Sakaguchi 15203 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-7916 (party of record) (Pdge 1 of 2) .. Glenn Glover 6008 NE 1st Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-271-1248 (party of record) Kimberly Clairmont 107 Vesta Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 tel: 206-271-6494 (party of record) Updated: 03/30/06 PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Park Prelim Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Robert M. Herman, P.E., P.T.O.E. Herman Traffic Engineering 15324 SE 133rd Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-277-1740 eml: hte@comcast.net (party of record) Jeff Anderson 15519 SE 133rd Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-460-2516 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) [~ed-Kaufman -Re: Highlands Park Hear' .., ~D~a_te~C_on_c~e_r_n _________ _ From: To: Subject: Fred Kaufman Highlands Neighbors Re: Highlands Park Hearing Date Concern All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. >>> "Highlands Neighbors" <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> 03/28/06 2:55 PM »> Hello All! We apologize for such very late notice, but only very recently has it come to our attention that there are two outstanding ownership interest issues that have not yet been resolved in regard to the subject parcels. Per Halverson v. Bellevue (41.Wn. App. 457) and RCW 58.17.165 it appears that resolution of these issues to the satisfaction of all parties, as well as a certificate of dedication signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands to be subdivided is required before this application can proceed. Given the severe time limit, should the currently scheduled Hearing be postponed? Since that plat can not be decided while these issues remain unresolved, it does not appear to us to be reasonable to proceed with the current hearing schedule. Additionally, I and several other interested parties will have to make miss work, some of us without pay, in order to attend this hearing. If the plat application can not be decided at this hearing, we must anticipate that another event will have to be scheduled. We would be very interested in minimizing the time and financial impacts to all parties that multiple hearings would entail. Nonetheless, I expect that there may well not be sufficient time between our notice to you today and next Tuesday to set a new date and provide public notice of a date change. In this case, we are wondering what scope limits we should expect for issues to be presented, considered and decided at next Tuesday's hearing. We look forward to hearing your determination. Thank you for your time and consideration, Gwendolyn High -president CAR.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org Page 1 [Fred Kaufman -Highlands Park Hearing ~,.,te Concern l ________ ~______ =-.--c--__ "-c-~__'___ ________ ~ From: To: Date: Subject: Hello All! "Highlands Neighbors" <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> <kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us> 3/28/20062:55:38 PM Highlands Park Hearing Date Concern We apologize for such very late notice, but only very recently has it come to our attention that there are two outstanding ownership interest issues that have not yet been resolved in regard to the subject parcels. Per Halverson v. Bellevue (41.Wn. App. 457) and RCW 58.17.165 it appears that resolution of these issues to the satisfaction of all parties, as well as a certificate of dedication signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands to be subdivided is required before this application can proceed. Given the severe time limit, should the currently scheduled Hearing be postponed? Since that plat can not be decided while these issues remain unresolved, it does not appear to us to be reasonable to proceed with the current hearing schedule. Additionally, I and several other interested parties will have to make miss work, some of us without pay, in order to attend this hearing. If the plat application can not be decided at this hearing, we must anticipate that another event will have to be scheduled. We would be very interested in minimizing the time and financial impacts to all parties that multiple hearings would entail. Nonetheless, I expect that there may well not be sufficient time between our notice to you today and next Tuesday to set a new date and provide public notice of a date change. In this case, we are wondering what scope limits we should expect for issues to be presented, considered and decided at next Tuesday's hearing. We look forward to hearing your determination. Thank you for your time and consideration, Gwendolyn High -president CAR.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org cc: <Nwatts@cLrenton.wa.us>, <jhenning@cLrenton.wa.us>, <fkaufman@cLrenton.wa.us>, <Ron@burnstead.com> Page 1 : Fred Kaufman -Highlands Park Prelim in ' "'Iat hearing ----~~--------------------- From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Gwendolyn, Keri Weaver highlands _ neighbors@hotmail.com 3/29/2006 11 :24:34 AM Highlands Park Preliminary Plat hearing This is in response to your email from yesterday, in which you asked whether the hearing for the Highlands Park preliminary plat should be postponed because of outstanding issues regarding property lines/ownership (Edward and June Hill) and easement rights (Kimberlie Clairmont). The concerns of the Hills and Ms. Clairmont may require resolution prior to recording of the final plat; however, the City is not prevented from holding the preliminary plat hearing on on the scheduled date. The hearing will still be on Tuesday, April 4th, at 9:00 am, and all issues related to the proposed development, including those raised by the Hills and Ms. Clairmont, will be heard at that time. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call or email me. Regards, Keri Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner, Development Services City of Renton tel (425) 430-7382 fax (425) 430-7231 kweaver@cLrenton.wa.us cc: Fred Kaufman; Henning, Jennifer; mc@coredesigninc.com; ron@burnstead.com; Watts, Neil !Fred-Kauf~an -Re: Highlands Park Preli-'-ary Plat hearing --------_. -"-----"'-----'~------ From: To: Subject: Fred Kaufman Keri Weaver Re: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat hearing -----_._----- All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. »> Keri Weaver 03/29/06 11 :24 AM >>> Hi Gwendolyn, This is in response to your email from yesterday, in which you asked whether the hearing for the Highlands Park preliminary plat should be postponed because of outstanding issues regarding property lines/ownership (Edward and June Hill) and easement rights (Kimberlie Clairmont). The concerns of the Hills and Ms. Clairmont may require resolution prior to recording of the final plat; however, the City is not prevented from holding the preliminary plat hearing on on the scheduled date. The hearing will still be on Tuesday, April 4th, at 9:00 am, and all issues related to the proposed development, including those raised by the Hills and Ms. Clairmont, will be heard at that time. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call or email me. Regards, Keri Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner, Development Services City of Renton tel (425) 430-7382 fax (425) 430-7231 kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us Page 1 .-~-... ---. :_~re~ ~~~~~~,~~,.!3E: Highlands Park Pre!" ',,~ry Plat hearing From: To: Date: Subject: "Highlands Neighbors" <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> <KWeaver@ci.renton.wa.us> 3/29/2006 11 :36:56 AM RE: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat hearing Hello Ms. Weaver, Thank you for the update. We look forward to seeing you all on Tuesday. Regards, Gwendolyn CAR.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org >From: "Keri Weaver" <KWeaver@ci.renton.wa.us> >To: <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> >CC: <ron@burnstead.com> ,"Fred Kaufman" <Fkaufman@ci.renton.wa.us>,"Jennifer > Henning" <Jhenning@ci.renton.w8.us>,"Neil Watts" ><Nwatts@ci.renton.wa.us>, <mc@coredesigninc.com> >Subject: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat hearing >Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11 :24:34 -0800 > >Hi Gwendolyn, > > This is in response to your email from yesterday, in which you asked >whether the hearing for the Highlands Park preliminary plat should be >postponed because of outstanding issues regarding property lines/ownership >(Edward and June Hill) and easement rights (Kimberlie Clairmont). The >concerns of the Hills and Ms. Clairmont may require resolution prior to >recording of the final plat; however, the City is not prevented from >holding the preliminary plat hearing on on the scheduled date. The hearing >will still be on Tuesday, April 4th, at 9:00 am, and all issues related to >the proposed development, including those raised by the Hills and Ms. >Clairmont, will be heard at that time. > >If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call or >email me. > >Regards, >Keri > > >Keri A. Weaver, AICP >Senior Planner, Development Services >City of Renton >tel (425) 430-7382 >fax (425) 430-7231 >kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us Page 1 r-.----... -.~-.. Fred Kaufman -RE: Highlands Park Pre!" . ary Plat hearing ~~~--=---------Page 2 . ------------.... -----... ----~ > CC: <ron@burnstead.com>, <Fkaufman@cLrenton.wa.us>, <Jhenning@cLrenton.wa.us>, <Nwatts@ci.renton.wa.us>, <mc@coredesigninc.com> r------Lf-,"-e<:l_K~~fman _~ RE: Highlands Park Preli . a_ry-=--P_la~t-'.ch_e_a_ri_n..::.g __ ~~ ____ ~ Page 1 ' --------~-------' From: To: Date: Subject: Fred Kaufman Highlands Neighbors 4/3/20068:39:02 AM RE: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat hearing All correspondence with this office regarding pending land use applications must be part of the public record. Your email and this response will be placed in the official file. »> "Highlands Neighbors" <highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com> 03/29/06 11 :36 AM »> Hello Ms. Weaver, Thank you for the update. We look forward to seeing you all on Tuesday. Regards, Gwendolyn CAR.E. -Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell ... doing what we can, with our neighbors, for our community ... www.highlandsneighbors.org >From: "Keri Weaver" <KWeaver@cLrenton.wa.us> >To: <highlands neighbors@hotmail.com> >CC: <ron@burnstead.com>,"Fred Kaufman" <Fkaufman@cLrenton.wa.us>,"Jennifer > Henning" <Jhenning@cLrenton.wa.us>,"Neil Watts" ><Nwatts@cLrenton.wa.us>, <mc@coredesigninc.com> >Subject: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat hearing >Date: Wed, 29 Mar 200611 :24:34 -0800 > >Hi Gwendolyn, > > This is in response to your email from yesterday, in which you asked >whether the hearing for the Highlands Park preliminary plat should be >postponed because of outstanding issues regarding property lines/ownership >(Edward and June Hill) and easement rights (Kimberlie Clairmont). The >concerns of the Hills and Ms. Clairmont may require resolution prior to >recording of the final plat; however, the City is not prevented from >holding the preliminary plat hearing on on the scheduled date. The hearing >will still be on Tuesday, April 4th, at 9:00 am, and all issues related to >the proposed development, including those raised by the Hills and Ms. >Clairmont, will be heard at that time. > >If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call or >email me. > >Regards, >Keri > > >Keri A. Weaver, AICP ---------~---......---------------------------------.. ---. i Fred Kaufman -RE: Highlands Park Preli . ry Plat hearing >Senior Planner, Development Services >City of Renton >tel (425) 430-7382 >fax (425) 430-7231 >kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us > To: From: ,lVIeeling Date: ;~Time: ENVIRONNU!NT ALREVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE January 10, 2006 Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Dennis Culp, Community Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Jennifer Henning, Development Planning TuesQ;y(JelOuarY, 1 Qj 2Q06 9~OOAM': .' ,Location: Sixth FIOOrcbl1ference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Highlands Park Preliminary Plat -Reconsideration LUA05-124, PP, ECF (Weaver) On December 12,2005, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Highlands Park preliminary plat application. On December 28, 2005, two requests for reconsideration and appeals of the Environmental Determination were filed, by the applicant (Burnstead Construction) and by the Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE), a local citizen action group. The appeals were filed in a timely manner, and if not withdrawn, will be heard as part of the public hearing for the preliminary plat. The Environmental Review Committee is asked to separately review the requests for reconsideration prior to the public hearing. Field's Townhomes (Ding) LUA05-146, SA-A, ECF The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of two townhome structures, one has 3 units and totals 7,746 square feet in area, the other has 4 units and totals 8,504 square feet in area. The townhomes are proposed on a site containing two parcels totaling 22,632 square feet in area. The zoning designation is Commercial Arterial (CA). An existing single family residence and associated detached structures are proposed to be removed. Access is proposed to the site via a 28-foot wide private access easement off of Union Avenue NE. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer B. Wolters, EDNSP Director ® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® CII'Y OF RENTON HEA~ING E,XA~INi~ PUBLICHEARtNG 'C April 4, 200tf AGENDA C. . MENCtNG AT 9:0:0 AM, CQONCILCHAMBBRS~7THFLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL . The ~ppfication(s) listed are io,order of ~pli~tion humber only and not neces.sarily the order in whiCh>they will be heard. Items willtle called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing;ExJ!.lm1ner. , ;~, c • ~ ~ PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-05-124, PP, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 1B.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing single family residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 7,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. HEX Agenda 4-4-06 PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: Project Name: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: April 4, 2006 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Burnstead Construction, 1215 120th Ave. NE, Bellevue, WA Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29th Place, Bellevue, WA 98007 LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Project Manafler: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing single family residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 7,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE). City of Renton PIB/PW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PL •• ~reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 Page 20f9 B. HEARING EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4: Exhibit 5: Exhibit 6: Exhibit 7: Zoning Map: Sheet F7 West (dated 12128/2004) Preliminary Plat Plan (dated 10/5/2005) Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan (dated 10/10/2005) Preliminary Tree Retention Plan (dated 112612006) Preliminary Landscape Plan (dated 1/11/2006) Boundary/T opographic Survey (dated 10/5/2005) Exhibit 8: Summary of Appeal filed by Citizens Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (dated 12/28/2005) C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owners of Record: Jim Jacques Construction, 1216 N. 38th St., Renton, WA 98056 2. Zoning Designation: Residential - 4 (R-4), 4 Dwelling Units per Acre 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Residential Low Density (RLD) Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: Single-family residence to be removed 5. Neighborhood Characteristics: North: Single family residential; R-4 zoning East: Single family residential; R-4 zoning South: Single family residential; R-4 and R-8 zoning West: Single family residential; R-5 zoning (King County) 6. Access: SE 133rd Street at the north boundary ofthe site, and Rosario Ave. NE at the proposed intersection of SE 2nd Street (to be constructed) 7. Site Area: 18.13 acres 8. Project Data: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: Total Building Area: Area N/A N/A N/A D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Annexation Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use File No. N/A N/A N/A Comments Mobile home and related structures to be removed N/A Ordinance No. 5140 4498 5141 N/A Date 6/01/2005 2/20/1995 6/01/2005 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton PIB/PW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PREUMINARY PLA I )reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP PUBUC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-130: Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations Page 30'9 Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivision Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan-General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-150: Streets -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks -General Requirements and Minimum Standards Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots -General Requirements and Minimum Standards 6. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 7. Chapter 11 Definitions F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element: Residential Single Family and Residential Options objectives and policies; Residential Streets objectives and policies; Subdivision of Land objectives and policies. 2. Housing Element: Housing supply objectives and policies; Minimum density policies. G. DEPARTMENT ANAL YSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single- family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The proposed lot sizes range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. An unregulated wetland approximately 700 sq. ft. in size is located in the southwest portion of the site and will be filled. A Category 3 wetland approximately 8,976 sq. ft. in size is located offsite to the west, across the partially improved right-of-way of Rosario Ave. NE. The existing site currently has a single-family residence and several accessory structures that are proposed to be removed as part of this plat. The plat will have two external access points, from the stub of SE 133rd Street at the north boundary of the site, and from Rosario Ave. NE at the proposed intersection of SE 2nd Street (to be constructed). Internal public streets will serve the proposed lots. As indicated in a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated October 10, 2005, the site is currently forested and primarily consists of a moderate slope that descends to the southwest at an average grade of 8-15 percent, with soils classified as glacial till. The applicant proposes grading for site preparation and road construction, with approximately 70,000 cubic yards of cut and fill onsite. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan with trees and street frontage plantings in accordance with City code requirements. Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PREUMINARY PLr., . PUBUC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 'reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page 4 of9 Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on December 12, 2005, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat. The DNS-M included 7 mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 12, 2005 and ended on December 28, 2005. On December 28, 2006, Bumstead Construction (applicant) and Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) each filed an appeal and request for reconsideration. Bumstead appealed the DNS-M mitigation measures for clearing and grading, and for significant tree retention. CARE appealed on several issues, including wildlife protection, storm water, forest practices, clearing and grading, tree retention, and landscaping/pedestrian access. On January 26, 2006, the applicant submitted a significant tree retention plan and a revised landscape plan, which were reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on January 31, 2006, and were determined to be sufficient to justify revisions to the DNS-M regarding requirements for clearing and grading and significant tree retention. A revised DNS-M was issued on February 6, 2006, with the mitigation measures included in Section 3 below. A 14-day appeal period commenced on February 6,2006, and ended on February 20,2006. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of the probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures on February 6, 2006, with the revised Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M): 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 200S, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single- family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $7S.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $S30.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. S. The project shall comply with the 200S King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. 6. Clearing and grading activities shall comply with the tree retention plan dated January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 2S% of existing significant trees on the site. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CRITERIA: Approval of a plat is based upon several factors. The following preliminary plat criteria have been established to assist decision makers in the review of the subdivision: (A) Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation. The subject site is designated Residential Low Density (RLD) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The objective established by the RLD designation is to provide for development on land that is appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment, where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential -4 (R-4). The proposed plat is consistent with the following Residential Low Density policies: Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLr., . PUBLIC HEARING DA TE: April 4, 2006 Land Use Element 'reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page 50f9 Policy LU-134. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres (Resource Conservation) to 1 home per acre (Residential 1) on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre (Residential 4) on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate. Policy LU-138. To provide for more efficient development patterns and maximum preservation of open space, residential development may be clustered and/or lot sizes reduced within allowed density levels in Residential Low Density designations. Implementation of this policy should be phased in within two years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Objective LU-EE: DeSignate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings. Policy LU-143. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 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-144. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that incorporate quality building and landscaping standards. Policy LU-146. Interpret development standards to support provision of landscape features as well as innovative site planning. Criteria should include: 1) Attractive residential streetscapes with landscaped front yards that are visible from the street; 2) Landscaping, preferably with drought-resistant evergreen plant materials; 3) Large caliper street trees; 4) Irrigated landscape planting strips; 5) Low-impact development using landscaped buffers, open spaces, and other pervious surfaces; and 6) Significant native tree and vegetation retention and/or replacement. (8) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation. The 18.13-acre site is designated Residential - 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-4) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The proposed development would allow for the future construction of up to 73 new single-family residential units. The subject site was part of the Maplewood East annexation area that was transferred from King County to the City in June 2005. The Maplewood East annexation area is vested under a special condition of the development standards in RMC 4-2-110D, which applies to all of the annexed properties within that area, including the Highlands Park site. For these properties, the following exceptions to the R-4 zoning deSignation apply, which allow development to take place at densities which are effectively R-5, or 5 du/acre: Maximum Density: 5 dwelling units per net acre. Minimum Lot Size: 7,200 sq ft Minimum Lot Width: 60 ft for interior lots, 70 ft for corner lots Minimum Lot Depth: 70 ft Minimum Front Yard: 15 ft for a primary structure; 20 ft for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure shall be reduced to 10ft if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street: 15 ft Minimum Side Yard: 5 ft Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton P/BIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PREUMINARY Pb-i-I PUBUC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner " LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page 60f9 Except for the above-listed special exceptions, all other requirements of the R-4 zoning designation apply to the subject property. Density -The allowed maximum density in the R-4 zone is 4.0 dwelling units per net acre (dulac); however, for this site the allowed maximum density is 5.0 dulac. There is no minimum density requirement in the R-4 zone Net density is calculated after public rights-of-way, private streets serving more than three lots, and critical areas are deducted from the gross acreage of the site. There are no deductions from the gross area of the site. The 18.13 acre site (approximately 789,821 sq ft) is proposed for a net density of 4.82 dwelling units per acre (73 units 118.13 acres = 4.82 dulac). The proposed plat appears to comply with density requirements for the R-4 zoning designation based on the applicable special condition for density in RMC 4-2-1100. Lot Dimensions and Size -The minimum lot size required for this property is 7,200 sq ft. The minimum lot width required is 60 ft for interior lots and 70 feet for corner lots, and a minimum lot depth of 70 feet. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The proposed lots appear to comply with the lot dimension and size requirements for the R-4 zoning designation based on the applicable special condition for lot dimensions and size in RMC 4-2-1100. Setbacks -For this property, the minimum front yard setback is 15 ft for the primary structure and 20 ft for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with an alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to 10ft, if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley. The rear yard setback is 25 feet. The proposed lot dimensions appear to be compatible with these requirements. Compliance with these setback standards will be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Building Standards -The R-4 zone permits one single family residential structure per lot. Each of the proposed lots would support the construction of one detached unit. Accessory structures are permitted at a maximum number of two per lot at 720 sq ft each, or one per lot at 1,000 sq ft in size. Accessory structures are permitted only when associated with a primary structure located on the same parcel. Building height in the R-4 zone is limited to two stories and 30 feet for primary structures and 15 feet for detached accessory structures. Maximum building coverage is 35% or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater. All dwelling units shall provide vertical facade modulation at least every 20 horizontal feet, including front, side and rear facades when visible from a street. The proposal's compliance with these building standards would be verified prior to the issuance of individual building permits. Parking -Each detached dwelling unit is required to provide two off-street parking stalls per unit. The proposed building pads appear to be adequately sized for the provision of the required parking. Landscaping - A conceptual landscape plan has been provided that shows 5-foot landscape strips abutting the frontages of Vesta Ave. NE, and Rosario Ave NE south of SE 2nd Street Two scarlet maple trees are proposed to be planted on the street frontages of each new residential lot, and along the frontages of Rosario Ave. SE south of SE 2nd Street and Vesta Ave. NE. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscaping plan to the Development Services Division for review and approval prior to recording of the final plat. C. Compliance with Subdivision Regulations Lot Arrangement: Side lot lines are to be at right angles to street lines, and each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement per the requirements of the Street Improvement Ordinance. As proposed, the lots appear to comply with arrangement and access requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PREUMINARY PL-. I PUBUC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 'reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page 70'9 Lots: The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Each of the proposed lots satisfies the minimum lot area and dimension requirements of the R-4 zone, as provided in the applicable special conditions for lot dimensions in RMC 4-2-1100. When considering the required setbacks, as well as access pOints for each lot, the proposed lots appear to have sufficient building area for the development of detached single family homes. Property Corners at Intersections: All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of 15 feet. The configuration of the proposed lots appears to comply with this requirement. Access and Street Improvements: Access to the site is proposed via two existing public roads, from right- of-ways, The site will have access from SE 133m Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A 6-foot wide pedestrian access will be provided from Vesta Ave. SE through proposed Tract 998 (park) to the internal plat road, via an existing recorded access easement across Tract 998, The proposed cul-de-sac of "Street Cn has not been required to extend through to Rosario Ave. NE because of the presence of an offsite Category 2 wetland, which lies west of the su~ect property and extends partially across the unimproved right-of-way of Rosario Ave. NE north of SE 2 Street. For the same reason, the applicant has not been required to improve the Rosario Ave. NE right of way north of SE 2nd Street. The applicant will be required to provide full street improvements (including paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drains, landscaping, street lighting and signage) along the frontages of Rosario Ave. NE (south of SE 2nd Street only), SE 2nd Place, Vesta Ave. NE, and the interior plat streets. An additional 12 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the frontage of Vesta Ave. NE. One of the property owners (James Jacques) has petitioned City Council for a vacation of the easterly 5 feet of right-of-way on the northeast side of the intersection of Rosario Ave. NE and SE 2nd Place (SE 136th Street). The purpose of the vacation request is to allow the subject parcel to be over one acre in size, which will increase the density potential for that parcel and increase the overall allowable density of the Highlands Park development. The Development Services Division does not oppose the vacation request, since Rosario Ave. NE currently has a 60 foot right-of-way instead of 50 feet as required by City street standards. Sufficient area for full street improvements will still remain on Rosario Ave. NE; however, as previously discussed, it is not anticipated that Rosario Ave. NE will be extended north of SE 2nd Street because of the presence of an offsite wetland. The requested street vacation is required to be finalized and recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. Topography and Vegetation: The site is currently forested and primarily consists of a moderate slope that descends to the southwest at an average grade of 8-15 percent, with soils classified as glacial till. The applicant submitted a wildlife study report by Wetland Resources Inc., dated October 7, 2005, which indicated that during the study period in August 2005, several common bird species were detected. No mammalian species were detected; however, the report indicates that animals such as deer, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, rabbits and coyotes utilize similar habitats and may exist onsite. No bald eagles or sensitive avian species were detected. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use policies for the R-4 zone encourage retention of native vegetation and trees where possible. Additionally, RMC 4-4-070 indicates that existing trees and other vegetation shall be used to augment new plantings for landscaping where practical, and RMC 4-7-130 requires that a reasonable effort should be made to preserve existing trees. To achieve these requirements, Condition #6 of the revised DNS-M specifies that clearing and grading activities shall comply with the tree retention plan dated January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. The applicant estimates that approximately 70,000 cubic yards of cut and fill will occur onsite. Import or export of fill is not anticipated. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that a Forest Practices application may be necessary for the proposed clearing. As previously noted, an offsite Category 2 wetland is located northwest of the subject property. The proposed development is not located within the 50-foot buffer for this wetland and is not expected to Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton P/BtPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLr.. PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 )reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page 80f9 create any offsite wetland impacts. A Category 3 wetland approximately 625 sq. ft. in size is located in the southwest portion of the site. RMC 4-3-050(B)(7) exempts Category 3 wetlands of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from development regulation. The applicant proposes to fill this wetland. Relationship to Existing Uses: Single family residential homes surround the subject site. The proposed detached single family would be compatible with the surrounding development E. Availability and Impact on Public Services (Timeliness) Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development, subject to the applicant's provision of Code required improvements and fees. The Environmental Review Committee imposed a Fire Mitigation Fee in order to mitigate the project's potential impacts to emergency services. Recreation: A Parks Mitigation Fee was imposed by the Environmental Review Committee in order to mitigate the project's potential impact to park and recreation facilities. The project site is adjacent to the King County Maplewood Park site. Schools: The site is located within the boundaries of the Renton School District No. 403. Based on the student generation factor, the proposed plat would potentially result in 32 additional students (0.44 x 73 = 32.12 rounded to 32). The School District lias indicated that there is adequate capacity to serve the· potential additional students. Storm Drainage/Surface Water: The preliminary storm drainage report prepared by Core Design, Inc., dated October 10, 2005, proposes a storm water detention/water quality pond located in the southwest corner of the site, with connection of treated runoff to the existing storm drain system in Rosario Ave. NE. The stormwater pond tract will be required to be fenced. A bypass system will transfer offsite flows in excess of a 6 month storm event directly to the storm drain system. The site's downstream drainage is to the southwest to the Orting Hill sub-basin. Because staff is aware of downstream flooding and erosion problems, Condition #5 of the DNS-M requires the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities, to avoid further downstream impacts. The applicant will be required to install storm drains along the project frontages and streets. A Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $715 for each new single-family lot is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities: The proposed development is within the water service area of King County Water District 90. King County has issued a Certificate of Water Availability indicating that capacity is available to serve the development. A sewer main extension to the furthest extents of the new streets interior to the plat will be required. A sewer main extension along the frontage of Vesta Avenue will also be required. All new plats must provide separate side sewer stubs to each building 10Unew parcel. The site is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District fee, and to the Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $900 per new single-family lot. These fees are payable at the time the utility permit is issued. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, Project File No. LUA-05-124, ECF, PP, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Revised Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on February 6, 2006. 2. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan for the storm water detention pond (Tract 997). Fencing shall be consistent with the requirements of the King County Surface Water DeSign Manual. The satisfaction of these requirements shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the recording of the final plat. Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 City of Renton P/B/PW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA', PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 4, 2006 'reliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-05-124, ECF, PP Page 90f9 3. A 6-foot paved pedestrian walkway connection, to be located within the existing recorded access easement, shall be provided from Vesta Ave. SE through proposed Tract 998 (park) to the internal plat road. This walkway shall be shown on the final plat The easement must be recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual, and to provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 5. The proposed vacation of a 5-foot portion of the Rosario Ave. NE right-of-way (VAC05-004) shall be finalized and recorded prior to or concurrent with recording of the final plat. 6. A homeowner's association or maintenance agreement shall be created concurrently with the recording of the final plat in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for shared roadway, storm water and utility improvements. A draft of the document(s) shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property Services section prior to the recording of the final plat EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plats (PP): Five (5) years from final approval (signature) date. Staff Rpt Highland Park 05-124 SE 132nd St. S srrE.. tJ .... + ~ ~ [137th PI. ~ SE l22 S SE 13Bth PI. SE 13Bth I)S::; 139th PI. SE 140th PI. 1 ~ (/) Q) SE 139th :> « ~ ........, CO lf:) ....-I ~ ~ (/) (/) 142nd St. ...--. ...--. 0.. 0.. ~ ~ ........, ........, co 0':> -.:::t< -.:::t< ....-I ....-I SE E 145th PI. - - - -_to .. av LImI'-o 1:: t,fO F7 ~ ZONING ~ =:. DaIlOOAL SBllVI<D 14 T23N R5E W 1/2 5314 r N ~N'AiJ\lns • ON'NN't'lJ . !)NIII;UHIONi tHl"5 ~ N!)'S3CJ~ fiOOB6 1rKJ19N1HSYM ~ ~O"'N"''' .l'Jro>:ld IOZ 3ilfiS "3"11 31 V' hI' ; ~tZI N3H:J 73YfK)1IY ~ ~ NOll~n~SNOO =(S~W.~~~~~8~-+ _______ ~~~Q~~O~"~dd~V ~ ..L l:I'7c:1 AHt1'NIIAI/73Hc:I .<>< ..... I in UJ J Mil :J L / ..... _ .. - I ,I"' I .. )/: ~i ilj ii' .' !". 11 I!; It> -<:;:.-::r:' I' ~(->. ii, iR~t . :1IiL .. _ .... , .... _ .... TRACT~" ..•... _-....P~: .. 9- ....:·::::=.If,~'~··:::iiS i}:"~~ ~~~~~.~~=~ • . i ~f > i I. !lk ........ _, 41 iii II 3l> iJ 4 .:I:<;[i",' '''[-'''''=C~~~:=::::....J 43 ii ._.~_~ .. ~~Jl' J~._ ... _ ····i·--·~··'"1-:---··>,· ~TJONAI.I!T~ 1!e1lM • .0421 HA>< I114Teft 6lR=AC:E • .go eoTTO"1l.IW 8TOMAGE • 041. eom::t1.-.::tO • 404 ~ ~QIJIM!D. 2-.2 ao DElENTION ~DED • 22.),,» c:F WATEIIi: GlU.t\LITY I/ilEGUIPlED • "-4."18' CF WArM QU~ITY t-IItOVID!D • iloilo". a: , , rOUND W REBAR &: CAP"'; "WPD 21710" W! RP'S, CAN 0.03' S. OF LitlE ~::",:~::s7!f!I:;:~:i;;~~E~~;;L"'=-: ···::::c::~L:1t::;:;;;;,;;; ':"'~"" -')(1 Ii il III I . w OUNER / AFPLlCANT 1!5t.RaS~ C:::CNs,nIlUCTICN ae I2QT1.j Ao\lt!. Na., elJlTI! 201 !II!I...Le'AJ!.~TON~ CONTACT. """"-i-I.t»e& (42&)4504-I'l00 ENGoINEEfi!lSURYEYORlFLANNER COIIt!!oe&lr»IlNG. 141" ME.. ~ I"'LACE. 6UlTE lOt eEl..L.EVlE, ~INCiTGN. 9i8OO1 (~)"-'8" eaNTACT. HIQ.lABL. CI-II!N-~ DAVID eo CAYTON. po.!!. -eNailNE!1It STEPHEN J. EiC"J.llli!EI, pu. -~CfiI DATUM CITY ~ 1eNT0N • NAVO ,.,. BASIS OF BEARINGS NOQ"21t'!1oe: I!N!'T1IeDIII'OI.N::I ~ ArLCNci n.a c:&m!1tL1N! 01" e.TI-l AYe. u.. AT n.e N'TI!IIIeeeTlc:N! I1Jn.I &.I!. 12eT\o4 aT. AND U. 1!6n.1 8T. A& CALaLATEI """"'"' CITY Of' 1lteNT0N CONTROL r-ofNT NOe. \eeol AtID 1M2. Fc::\Jt.C) N A..ACE AtID D&ec:::M!IEO eEL.GUi PER CITY OF \liil&NTON WORIZQIT.t.L. CONTRa.. NE1U.Ic;:INC. Fl.l8LI&HED NOV. 1&, 1Ifio4. 6ENCHMARKS: Nilt CITY OI"!ll&lTClN etJIItY!!Y ~ NAvP t-.OAT1.I'1 NO •• 2 -,.. FLAT eIItA66 &UriFACE DIIC AT 1lE c::oNITRJC:'1'et) Nl"EMECTlOll OF NL .m.IaT. (U. a.n.I&T.) ANCI 104&11-1 AYE. &.e. I!!L 4W.." (1!1&61. I'1!TeIltl!o) NO,2!OJ -BIIiIDKSN efIIlM6 8I.R=ACE DIIC IN fI.IE N'TEAeECTICN OF 6.E. 128T101aT. AND e.TW A\I1! &.I!: .El..~1.~(161.O.,~) R/W ~2' R,IW 1m I 'E;I-+," i " or l :;:~b I!!ii ;11 «J ; ~ ~ THICK CCAlENT CD.I£NT CONCRC1C CCWCR£TE $lD£WALJ( 1€R17CAL CtIRS .. CIIT1CR SEC"ONA..4 ON-SITE 42' R/W SEC"ON NO SCALE I I ~D.·D~. 1LLATm't MAIN. (iTl-) P'IQCIfIIC6ED.· PVC &ANtT~ Iei&l!I't tm-) ~12·C/"'ePO 8TCN"1 0ftA1N (,..".) ~ 2O'ESJ.(r. I· --'8' PRlVA 7F I A=ROAD I 1 r'5'r::NEO J I~ ,&U\iK¥v SECT/ONCC PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD .... v SCALE 4 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' ~I" " -I hI I ! ~ ! " ~i~ ., 2: ~ w ~ -::0 ., z z z (~~i ~~~ ~~ §~~ !§ '!ol!?'" ;~ ~~~ 2$IoI U 'I!ilI ~~ ~~: '" ('" -'. ~ .~ ~.. ~ ~ l:lif ~~~ ~~ ~ &l ~ :li ! ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ < ". Q ,,< SHEET ~~ ~: ~~ OF 1. I 2 01.0.19 ! SE :1./4. NW :1./4. SEC. 14, 7WP. 23 N •• RGE. 5 E.. W.M. I: .... f:":.-:::·· ::;;;;:::.::~~;~; ~::::::::-:::~~.~: !,,;:::::::::::::~: ::::~::=::::~ ;'*--~:~~.~ '''''-'''-~:~:''i- ;~I 22 i! 23 14 .' .j I. lS ~".) 21 .)8 ! I .. ' .. :j f :" I [ . '2~ I iii ,F.' DATUM CiTY ~ ~~ -NAVC> I'Ye 6ASIS OF 6EARINGS NOO'~'II''E I5ET1LEEN FOI..ND 1""O'U'ENT6 Ai-ONGI T\oE ~1lE OF N'Tloj A'w1!. 6L AT".. 1NTJ!.-eC:T1QN6I.OKTI-IU. Qa.TIoI6T. At<.D U.156Tl-1 !loT. A6 CAl.CUL.A~ ~ CliT" a ~ON CON'T1'Ol fI'ONT NO&. 1MI AND 1HZ. ~ IN ~,II,CI! Al<O DEeCRleED eEL.OW FER Cll'T' OF II&{fON HORIZONTAl. CON1lIi.OI.. IET\I.IOI'iK ~r&I-ED HOY. 1&, ,"", 6ENCI-4MARKS: N1It CITY CII'!II&ITClN etItVI!!T eN NAYD I.e PAT1.I'1 NO. 1M2 -'* PLAT I!SRA&& 6Ulif'ACE DI6C AT 11-E CON6TJiiUCTEP INTE1'il6ECl'rONOF N.I!. "n.! 6T. (U. 12&Tl4oT J AND I~TI-I AYI!. &J!. Il Il Ii','.:, . ;~~;::-"" ~'":;=;C=:'~.~:;7~' ~>.. ~~.:,~~~ ~ ,~ii;" • "I 5.0' ~ 16' ~I' ,.. l~:"T I· ii il .... ' . . ...... >:'twll:)i ... m ... ~ 1," I~k~ . '... ,,';(/)I ~JllGim: Iii t •• " . . "w I " "". ==~ ,~jl . ~ 4"-" (13 ... 1. MaTe[a,) NO. 210) -~ eRA&e euFFACE 018C IN THE INTEMECTlON OF &.E. I2&TI-I6T. ArCI e.TI-I AYI! 62 a. ~'.!104 (16,aB H!'T1!M) I , ~. ~)'. . f ~r~~~i~,'C',.~~;~ .If ill .' I, <I) 1/ .:!:! 1-\--" \'-----~~ .4, 44 4~ ...... ,) 41 4& Ii 4!1 li._ . ·......11 ~I I -~ -.. -........ ·--r·· ~ " r ( i " I "" 6ft "4 II ") 62 ". " ... I... 60 S8.... S1 ... Ii ........ . I' .. '0f~ ~2.i"'""''''''''cl~~;" / . 1%"'?'~'S",~, I J i.' . _ ";0'-"<0 " REBAe • C<P • I. '.: .. ~::>.' ... ,'!' <;!: .. ,>~.: < ';;::," 2>1>0 0.06 N 0' : ;7:~\1,'~:~; :"': (;, SECT/ON A.,4 ON-SITE 42' R/W SECTION NO SCAlE ~~~~~-----1~ ~.' DI1S~;,::.7..)..:., ..... ,. :;,.,:,:.:., ... ... ',' ... ,,;;"? PIlOPOSED Lor fRAIJ£ • '.>'.~ ~ PA~r SECTION J ,,' CDEJlr cc:M)Iif7E SIJ£fMLX ~ 11I$!HCT (6-1IIQ( ~ DInfWf>S I" 1HfO( lLSEIIERf) NflmIC £)(1$1: A. C SHOtl1JlR AM) O~I'ATe OIrat NIJ SHOUDlR CDl£Nr C/:WOIf1C 1Oi'11CAl a.RIJ Alif'A TU PRl7IC¥" A SU1'A8t£ stJI1-8ASE MEl QlT7ER SECT/OND-/) :J.56th AVENUE 5oE. NO SCAU ~ 1 SCALE: ,. = 40' WU i hI I .. ! ~ ~H .. '" ~ '" ,. .. " .. .. '" '" z .. ~~i :t~ ~ a: ~ i~ §~~ 'II In ~~~ I.!I" ~>!I! ~1001 t:)'!i~ S~ U,<~ ~ (" Q~~ ). , ~ ;tl~-::l~~ ~~ 8 ~ " ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 w (3 ~ ~ I--!ii'i « a. ~I i5 lS ~ SHEET or 2 2 PROJECT NU~BER 01019 ONIJ.JJd,n N'NNyTt/· ONIJJJNIONJ Nf)/SiICI~ I I I I ~ i ! ~ . II II G i 2 ~] Ii ~ l! .. { { i { .. I I I I cS> II If i I ~ -d~i . ~ ~ I~ ~ I ~e m ~ ~ r ~ (I) II ~~ 0 ~ g I ill I ~ ,!,!I I ~ ~ 1& i= 9. ~ I el n I I illl! ; II!!! ill ! ! 1'1 ~I li~ ~u~o ~I iii -- ------... . __ ._- IE! ali Iii Ig il Ii J ,~ ~ II . i - ~ ·~ VESTA AYE. SE --------------' -------..... 2""O.~ll-=:-:== - ------ ----N-OO~9'i1·E 2640.-43---- ----- NOO~8'50'E 2641.59 ("CAS) i/1Ii,.',lm I ~ II I!! !lid; i GI ~ III J ~~ ::! ~ ~ i Ii il 2 ~ 2 e ~ ~I ~ i g g ~ i ,. ,.,. } 1- i/li q I cOilE =~.;=E:. ~OfSIGN ENGIHEI.,NG· tLA,NNIHI 'VIYlNO OHt,u • OHIHH¥J4 • OHtlUHIONJ N!)ISilO~ GtJ(}g6 NQJtJN/HStfAf 71)1 lOZ 3J./flS 311 :....tf HJ.iMl NOu::JnH.l.SNOO otBlSNlIns M~b'cI SClIVb'"7HOIH Ntn.l3dttOSONtn AlItnJlWl73l1d '. ",. ... >.0 1:-, ~~ :)1'1 03N~1S30 I:l lC) 6 9fXX 'II .J.lItffINW' 3J.'9'O ~ f w I ~ • I ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ % % " f I II ' '" ~ I I N ~ I I §I ! ~ II~ 0 I -~ . ~] ~~. ~ r;OOll6 r'M '3fVt3T73B JOG 3J.IflS "3"11 3nN.101 r' ~J ~J~J NOI.1:JflHlSNlXJ '..lSNJ:lflS JlWeI SON! -IIH A3AHnS :JIHcJtflIfJOdOL / AHtI'ONnOB BU1 NMV'/:jO I-- G3NQIS30 g tit {;(}{)Z H3Bf11XJ :31 va VI II. . I~ .i} a .1/") ]_ ~ « u VJ \ Citizens. Alliance for a Resp P.o. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner ;ible Evendell Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 December 28,2005 Request for Reconsideration and Appeal: Environmental Review Committee Report of December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Dear Renton Officials, highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org CITY OF RENTON DEC 28 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE '1:0"7 aU't I -H-e-e1 citlltJe/~t7t.. /"\Due to pressing time constraints of the Appeal deadline, the already scheduled next Environmental Committee meeting r and the Public Hearing on this matter, we are filing our Request for Reconsideration and our Appeal simultaneously. We hope that our concerns will be adequately addressed through the Reconsideration process, in which event we anticipate immediate withdrawal of the associated Appeal. CARE, its members and the larger community would be directly and adversely affected if the subject application is approved without adequate mitigation of adverse effects that we anticipate and for which we have provided extensive documentation to the Department of Development Services. We are primarily interested in ensuring coordinated and responsible development in our community consistent with state and local laws. We are particularly concerned with protecting against physical damage to existing residences and properties as a result of site preparation, construction, and use associated with the Highlands Park development, including the avoidance of potential downstream flooding as a direct result of the Highlands Park development. Such impacts would harm CARE members' interests in protecting their property values, along with their privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their property. Additionally, we request that the Public Hearing for Highlands Park Plat application, currently scheduled for January 6, 2006, be re-scheduled to follow resolution of this SEPA reconSideration/appeal. Gwendolyn High will speak for CARE in this matter. The attached Statement of Appeal details our issues of concern. We request prompt notification if we make any procedural error, so that we may make corrections at once. Despite our best efforts we may err through lack of previous experience with Renton's process. We commend all staff for the consistently patient and professional customer service we have experienced already, and look forward to a speedy and satisfactory resolution in this matter. CC: for you~ time and consideration, ~r~- t/ DB t dC 't tn ~ urns ea ons ruc Ion eC ', [tfy AtI~rUy Nttl ~J(~-tfs Citizens. Alliance for a Resp~ P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 ible Evendell Statement of Appeal REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF Issues of Concern: 1. Based on the recently supplied hawk photos, a new wildlife study should be required. highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org 2. Maximum analysis of the surface water situation and consequent mitigation is necessary for this site. • Level III study and mitigation facilities should be required. • The current mitigation requirement of a bypass system to handle only 6 month storm event is insufficient and should be increased. • Extraordinary impacts to adjacent downstream properties due to disturbance of the naturally existing groundwater system on the site are anticipated and additional mitigation is requested. 3. The Forest Practices Application must be required. 4. The Environmental Review Committee Report's recommendation for phased clearing and grading must be specifically required in order to minimize antiCipated erosion and other water and water quality impacts. 5. The sitewide tree retention plan preserving at least 25% of the significant trees should be approved before the final plat plan as the former is likely to directly impact the final plat layout. 6. The sitewide tree retention plan should be developed in conjunction with the fencing and landscaping of the drainage facility at the southwest corner of the site and both should be integrated and compatible with the improvements for pedestrian access along the existing roadway and easement on Rosario Ave. NE providing connectivity between the existing King County Parks to the north and south of the site. 7. Final Note Exhibits: 1. Hawk Photos and Statement provided 2. Historical Letter File: Regarding Drainage 3. Annotated King County Hearing Examiner Decisions for Evendell (3a), Liberty Grove (3b), Liberty Grove Contiguous (3c) and Nichols Place (3d) 4. King County IMAP Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination + Drainage Complaints (local area (4a) and zoom (4b) maps + Complaints Listing {4c» 5. King County IMAP Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (local area (Sa) and zoom (5b) maps) 6. The Greenprint for King County Figure 16. City Priority & Connectivity (full figure (6a) and zoom (6b) maps) Page 1 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 "dell ISSUE #1: A NEW WILDLIFE STUDY SHOULD BE REQUIRED Highlands Pari DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. ANIMALS C Report Statement of Appeal highlands._.neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other _______ _ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • Argument: CARE has recently been provided copies of photos and a statement from an adjacent property owner detailing observed hawk activity on the project site. The applicant submitted no information in regard to the possibility of a protected avian species' presence. • Reference: Exhibit 1 • ·Requested: A new wildlife study must be required in order to ensure that the habitat of any protected species is correctly protected and any adverse effects are properly mitigated. Page 2 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible I P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Idell Highlands Park ; Report Statement of Appeal highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #2: DRAINAGE LEVEL'" STUDY AND MITIGATION FACILITIES SHOULD BE REQUIRED RMC 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It Is the purpose of this Section to promote and develop policies with respect to and to preserve the Cltv's watercourses and to minimize water quality degradation by previous siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks. streams. rivers. lakes and other bodies of water to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to insure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. (Ord. 3174, 11- 21-1977) G. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN: 3. AdditIonal Information: The permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. (Ord. 3174, 11-21-1977) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable, Irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supply, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: C. APPLICABILITY -EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES: 3. Finding of Conformance Required: a. General: Conformance with these critical area regulations shall be a finding in any approval of a development permit or aquifer protection area permit, and such finding shall be documented in writing in the project file. b. Aquifer Protection Areas: No changes in land use shall be allowed nor shall permits for development be issued if the Department finds that the proposed land use, activity, or business is likely to impact the long-term, short-term or cumulative qualitvof the aquifer. Historical Complaints From Adjacent Properties Please review the attached package of historical letters (Exhibit 2) expressing drainage, groundwater and surface water concerns -including concerns expressed by the owner of one of the project parcels. Recent King County Hearing Examiner Decisions on Local Subdivision Applications In our letter of November 30, 2005 to the Renton Project Planner, we referenced the King County Hearing Examiner's findings and required drainage mitigation that came out of the recent subdivision applications in the area. The following applications were submitted to and processed by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services within the last four years: Evendell L01P0016A and L03RE038 Liberty Grove L03P0006 and L03TY 403 Liberty Grove Contiguous L03P0005 and L03TY 401 Nichols Place L03D0008 and L03TY 404 We understand from subsequent conversations with staff that the findings and requirements on these projects may have been disregarded due to difference of jurisdiction and local drainage basin, but we challenge this reasoning. These projects are within 2 blocks of the subject project and the geological and current infrastructure capacity/condition/design are all directly comparable and provide valid context in which this project must be evaluated. We have provided annotated copies of these reports highlighting the required drainage mitigation details (Exhibits 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). Page 3 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Area Drainage Complaint History adell Highlands Park ~ Report Statement of Appeal highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org This heading may also have received inadequate review based on the unique jurisdictional configuration currently in force. We have included printouts from the King County IMap application (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c that shows historical drainage complaint sites likely to be impacted by the Highlands Park project. Very recent experience indicates that the interflow (perched groundwater network) in the immediate area carries major groundwater flows. During the reconstruction of SE 136t1t Street/2nd (Highlands Estates development mitigations) several unforeseen events caused repeated work stoppages: The Quest Communications vaults were repeatedly flooded and had to be repaired/remediated several times The drain at the junction of the Hill and Ehlert lots on SE 136t1t Stl2nd had to be reworked And there were incidents where workers were heard to exclaim 'We hit a pipe!!" when they had in actuality punctured a perched groundwater conveyance of considerable volume/throughput. Class 2 Critical Agulfer Recharge Area and Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination We include in this package, for your consideration and for the record a map from the King County IMap application that shows that 1) the location of huge Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area that borders the Cedar River for miles is within 25 vertical feet of the proposed storm water discharge location from the proposed drainage control facilities (Exhibits 5a and 5b), and 2) the Area Susceptible to Groundwater Contamination (Exhibits 4a, 4b and 4c) directly downstream and/or overlapping the Class 2 Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The health and functionality of these natural systems are facing increased threat from the cumulative negative effects of development of the East Renton Plateau. Appropriate mitigation' and protection is Renton's responsibility. Section 4.3 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 4 Erosion Hazard) "Regardless of the site classification, the site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction." This section indicates concern that the site soils will be especially susceptible to erosion and recommends full Best Practices implementation. We ask the precise leveVstandard to be specifically required by reference to the relevant manual and classification. Section 5.8 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 9 Drainage) 'We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building foundations ... All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once every year." This section makes clear the serious groundwater situation on the project site. If such extreme measures are required for the new construction, obviously, very serious mitigation measures must be required in order to protect the public's interest in healthy and functional ecological and hydrological natural systems as well as the private interests of adjacent and downstream properties. • Argument: Drainage in the East Renton Plateau PAA has been a chronic concern from the very first development in this area. Adequate analysis and mitigation of storm/surface/ground water impacts are of greatest concern to CARE and surrounding property owners. It appears to us that the location of Renton's City Limits relative to the project site may have limited downstream analysis so far performed. The current site sits within a very recently annexed (effective June 1, 2005) eastward protrusion of Renton's border where staff has not previously reviewed projects. Thus much of the downstream impacts from this project will affect watercourses, protected Class II Aquifer Recharge Zone and properties that currently lie within King County jurisdiction with which staff may not be adequately familiar. However, Renton bears the responsibility for the public trust in the protection of the aquifer recharge area, and ultimately the lower Cedar River where all water-related impacts from this project will discharge. Our greatest interest is that this project will be adequately mitigated within appropriate real-world context. We believe that Level III analysis and mitigation per the 2005 King County Drainage manual is necessary. RMC 4.6.030.G.3 establishes the authority of the Administrator to impose these development conditions. • Reference: Exhibit 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, and 5b Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 • Requested: A new surface water and downstream analysis should be performed to consider the wider context of ecological and geological circumstances of the project site. We request a full Level III (per the 2005 King County Drainage manual) study and Level III mitigation facilities be required of this project. Page 4 of 10 Citizens· Alliance for a Responsible P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Idell Highlands Pari ISSUE #3: FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION MUST BE REQUIRED RCW 76.09.050 Rules establishing classes of forest practices C Report Statement of Appeal highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsnelghbors.org Class IV: Forest practices other than those contained In Class I drll: faJ On lands platted after January 1, 1960, as provided In chapter 58.17 RCW, fbJ on lands that have or are being converted to another use, lc) on lands which. pursuant to RCW 76.09.070 as now or hereafter amended. are not to be reforested because of the likelihood of future conversion to urban development, fdJ involving timber harvesting or road construction on lands that are contained within "urban growth areas, U designated pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW ... PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any local or regional governmental entity from determining that a detai/ed statement must be prepared for an action pursuant to a Class IV forest practice taken by that governmental entity concerning the land on which forest practices will be conducted. Letter from Lisa Spahr. Department of Natural Resources, dated 11/0212005 included In the ERCR . Ms. Spahr's letter indicates two issues that could trigger the Forest Practices App"cation. Environmental Review Committee Report date 1210612005 -Section 7 p. 4 ·Clearcutting the 18·acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." • Argument: The forest that currently covers the project site is vested as part of the established character of our community. We understand that forest cover reduction is inevitable through (re)-development in this area, however, enabling and prescriptive/protectionary legislation has been adopte.d that covers this site and we request full consideration under the law. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/2005 • Requested: A full review by the Department of Natural Resources and a full Forest Practices Application should be required. Page 5 of 10 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible I P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Ide II Highlands Park ; Report Statement of Appeal highlands .. _neighbors@hotmaiLcom www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #4: PHASED CLEARING AND GRADING MUST BE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED Section 5.2 of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (p. 5 Site Preparation and Grading) "To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious material should be stripped and removed from the site. Surface stripping depths of between 3 to 18 inches should be expected ... " Environmental Review Committee Report date 12/0612005 -Section 7 p. 4 ·Clearcutting the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in on-site erosion for the large scale earth and vegetation disturbance." Environmental Review Committee Report date 12/0612005 -Section 7 p. 5 "To maximize preservation of existing trees, clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage will only be allowed as necessary to construct roads and utilities.· • Argument: Both staff and third party experts acknowledge that this project will severely disturb the surface and subsurface geology of the project site. As previously discussed, this site is particularly subject to surface and groundwater issues. All reasonable efforts to phase these impacts so the cumulative negative impacts can at least be imposed incrementally should be required. • Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report -Terra Assoc. Project No. T-5668-1 10/10/2005 Environmental Review Committee Report -12106/2005 • Requested: Detailed phased clearing and grading plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to final plat consideration. Page 6 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible I P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 dell Highlands Park :; Report Statement of Appeal highlands_.neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #5: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN MUST BE APPROVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT PLAN IS CONSIDERED Environmental Review Committee Report date 12106/2005 -Section 7 p. 5 ·Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree retention plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of the identified trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited. " • Argument: The significant trees that will be retained due to this mitigation requirement serve much more than aesthetic purposes. On this site, subject to such serious groundwater and surface water concerns, retention of. significant trees will further mitigate drainage issues. We are concerned that if the full tree retention plan is not required first, clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits will be vested without full and correct specification of the impacts of the tree retention plan. This will completely defeat the purpose of the tree retention plan mitigation requirement. • Reference: Environmental Review Committee Report -12/06/2005 • Requested: Detailed sitewide tree inventory and retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. Page 7 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 Idell Highlands Par. C Report Statement of Appeal highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsneighbors.org ISSUE #6: THE SITEWIDE TREE RETENTION PLAN SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FENCING AND LANDSCAPING OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITY AND THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG THE EXISTING ROADWAY AND EASEMENT ON ROSARIO AVE. NE RMC 4-7-120 COMPATIBILITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE AND PLAN -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. TRAILS PLANS: If a subdivision Is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 3. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. (Amd. Ord. 4835, 3-27-2000) RMC 4-7-130 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: A.PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this Section to provide for the protection of valuable, irreplaceable environmental amenities and to make urban development as compatible as possible with the ecological balance of the area. Goals are to preserve drainage patterns, protect groundwater supplY, prevent erosion and to preserve trees and natural vegetation. This is beneficial to the City in lessening the costs of the development to the City as a whole, and to the subdivider in creating an attractive and healthy environment. RMC 4-7-150 STREETS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: F. IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED: All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets. roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the PlanninglBulldinglPublic Works Administrator or his/her designee. (Ord. 4636, 9-23-1996; Ord. 5156, 9-26-2005) RMC 4-7-160 RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. WALKWA YS: Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6") in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Ord.5100, 11-1-2004) RMC 4-7-190 PUBLIC USE AND SERVICE AREA -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM STANDARDS: B. COMMUNITY ASSETS: Due regard shall be shown to al/ natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the propertv. (Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Renton Community Design POlicies Policy CD-16 ... discourage single-tier lots with rear yards backing onto a street. Page 8 of 10 Citizens. Alliance for a Responsible P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 Ide II Highlands Pari C Report Statement of Appeal highlands_neighbors@hotmail.com www.highlandsnelghbors.org • Argument: This site is quite unusual in that there are almost no frontages to be improved per Renton code. In fact for a site greater than 18 acres, containing 73 new homes, only approximately 865 linear feet of frontage improvements are currently proposed to be required, instead of an estimated 1600 to 2000 for a more typical parcel configuration. Furthermore, the plat layout for lots #10, 11, 12, 13, and 14~iolate1' CD-16 in that those lots will back directly onto an existing street. As seen in Exhibits 6a and 6b, these lots are directly along the easemenVstreet route shown between the two local King County Parks. The land for these parks was purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Tail project (Exhibit 7a). Thus, Renton has the authority and the responsibility to require reasonable l pedestrian access improvements consistent with this existing trail plan along the full westem border of the project site. • Reference: Exhibit 6a and 6b • Requested: Fully integrated pedestrian access improvements, drainage facility landscaping and tree retention plans must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits. Page 9 of 10 Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible P.O. Box 2936 Renton. WA 98056 FINAL NOTE: ldell Highlands Par C Report Statement of Appeal highlands _neighbors@hotmaiLcom www.highlandsneighbors,org CARE would like to make clear that this Appeal is intended to register a challenge in degree more than in fundamental protest. We are generally fairly satisfied with the level of review and mitigation proposed by staff. Certainly, a greater respect for long-term consequences has been evidenced than what we have seen under King County jurisdiction. Nonetheless, we remain concerned that this is the first such Proposed Land Use Action to be considered by the City in this area. CARE has been very actively involved in similar Land Use Action applications in the vicinity, and we offer this appeal in the hope of protecting the quality of life and the character of our community. This application is, in a very real sense, a test case for the City of Renton to demonstrate wise planning in the real world to a surrounding community of over 3000 resident/owners as we consider our governance options through the Preserve Our Plateau annexation ballot measure this spring. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter of grave concern to our community. Respectfully submitted, A~~z/"f'-71~ Gwendolyn High CARE president December 28, 2005 Page 10 of 10 ,--,-~~----~--,-----~ l Keri Weaver-Highlands Park drainage cor.,olaints ~~-"---'" "~~-~-"--------------------- From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Dave, Keri Weaver dec@coredesign.com 03/24/2006 10:25:21 AM Highlands Park drainage complaints At your request, this is to confirm that Development Services staff reviewed each of the downstream drainage complaints that were prepared by King County and provided by the applicant as part of the Highlands Park preliminary plat application (LUA05-124). It was determined that there were no complaints indicating a downstream problem which would be worsened by the proposed Highlands Park development. Based on this review, as well as a review of other stormwater information submitted by the applicant and site inspection, staff concluded that SEPA mitigation measure #5 in the DNS-M issued 2/6/2006, which required the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual - Level 2 for both detention and water quality, was an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for preliminary plat approval. Please let me know if you have additional questions or need more information regarding this matter. Regards, Keri Keri A. Weaver, AICP Senior Planner, Development Services City of Renton tel (425) 430-7382 fax (425) 430-7231 kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us cc: Juliana Fries; Kayren Kittrick cORE ~DESIGN ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING TRANSJVlITTAL DATE: 01/09/06 TO: City of Renton - 6th Floor ATTN: Juliana Fries CORE PROJECT NO: REFERENCE: FROM: SENDING VIA: Cor. Design, 'nc. 14711 N.E. 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com 01019 Highlands Park Stormwater David Cayton ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 D MAIL D PICK-UP D HAND DELIVER rgj COURIER D1-HR rgj 2-HR D4-HR D OVERNIGHT QUANTITY DATED DESCRIPTION 1 set 01/09/06 Storm Drainage Complaint TRANSMITTED: rgj FOR YOUR USE D PER YOUR REQUEST ACTION REQUIRED: D PROCESSING D REPLY D RETURN D INFORMATION ONLY rgj NONE COMMENTS: CC: aVid E. Cayton, P.E. Map Output Page 1 of 1 '1.. ~,., t .~ .,' , ~ 4f.' ':; • tr~h I ,. X & • • • MU.I'IU 'I p~,,,~; D'H'I<I;!,: SU t~.'; :I-en 7 ' ~ am'M Ml-l.I,,',il Inl'l E'n:;- ? iMAP -Stormwater . :'.i h1 '.0"'.1 .1 ...... .'. ?(t)~ -' 0i4S" 2D>3-o3rct )(( 2t»3 -01,3+, 2cPI _o'gOS 2a>I-004l, (,,&-052o~ \ ~q 8-CI>01 .I~' 'bD2.-~2C\ 'ZeD (-t>'3' 2-'. ; ... JI 2000-0 410 , 1'i.1.1 ~ 15"37 l ~ • • . J j t I ~ .(. '. I), il:)" Legem1 " I • ~ I Pn"'!' , -~./ "-./ "-- '.,"",' • J.'~ I t"";,!','j ,"V''':! t":1 '1,>I,j:' P:,:!,'!.':\.' H;!~1(Jl(H' St:.l~t! .. 'Ir,"::JIi-!! .·!d:;".!i'I~':: 1.,;'1~':;; 'lid l"'~l:,' H t' ',' ~ Sh\\ "'" 0V>M Cbny\allJ-. e infonnation included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. ng County makes no representations or warranties, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such nfonnation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, st revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the infonnation contained on this map. Any sale of this map or infonnation on is ma is rohibited exce t b written nnission of Kin Coun . King County I G!S Center I New~ I Services I r:omrnent~ ISI:!arc" By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by tenns and conditions of the site. 'I)", d",lal"" http://www5.metrokc.gov/servletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientV...1/4/06 'Map Output ~ ~ King County 401: -1 -- ( \ l l ~ f I + ., L ..--'- e UHc!;'.' :" I·:h,:,; • • t-",,;t'I'n''''',-j L'i'''''I,q>,' P:'I"~'Ji • " iMAP -Stormwater t[ Li'\1-\~'32 i ~ I -- ~.' t PH,:~':, >'>'~ t..,SI~~ " .f t l,i i f -!i~l L \~'ll-OO')(P ( I ( ( ( ( .... lIti<;; wI'.! d.'J\ !..:".;'; ~ r:·~H·'I:"Ji:. ::::.'n',;,,"!:.t -HE 1'1:·:')'11 »!11J,:"J .:-":;;i L lOOl-OOlS, 'J.l":i* ~l Page 1 of 1 The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice, King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such nformation. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect. incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. KIng County I GIS Cente! I News I ServK".es I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. ! Il,:,1E'rdl~ http://www5.metrokc.gov/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&ClientV...1/4/06 JA~. 5.2006 2:13PM KING CO. WLHD. NO. 6930 P. 1134 King County Water and :Land ResgUtces CNLR) Division 201 S Jackson Sf, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Date: FAX Number of pages 'including cover sheet:3 r From: Cindy Torkelson , WLR Stormwater Services Section Phone: 206-296-1900 Fax Number: 206-296-0192 IMPORTANT LEVEL 1 ANALYSIS NOD~? We·do not send copies of certain complaint types that are not relevfmt such ~.;SC.W', PI, FIR., FIR and WQA, and we do not send CL and LS types. See key below. Type S 1, 82 and 83 will not be faxed due to size c~: . . .' 'f)I::iJ/-OJ/J lrJ tL Jl]JlvJ{Jti UcJ.:io~, dHt~ ~ ~ JP'3" OJS'1 ~ The following is a list of complaint typ::s received by the Water and Land Resources Stonnwater Services Section. Complaint numbers hegmr..ing pr;ior to 1990-XXXX have been archived mid are no longer in our possession. They can still be r3trieved~ ifnecessazy. but\viIl take additional time and Illay not be beneficial to your tesearch due to their age, qeve1aPment which has occUrred, etc. If ~u are interested in reviewing the actual complaints, they can be pulled (time pennitting) for yotJr review. Copies can be obtained for $ .15 per page"; imd: $2.00 per pake' for plans. . Keys: .. ; . , , . nDe.oflnvestigatiob .. Type ofPrgblem C Action Request DCA ' BCW Business' for Clean Water I)DM CCF Response 10 Inquiry . LIES "CL CIah:n DlB . EH Enibree:mQlt on Hold bTA ER Eoformnent Review . INQ FCC,FCR.FCS Facility Compl8ints : . ..tMA PI SWM Fee Inquisy . MMF PIR SWM Fee Review ' 'MMG FIR SWM Fee 011 Hold I MMM *LS Uwsuit MNM RR F~ EngineerioG Review ' MNW NDA Neighborhood Drainage Assistance , SWF , WQC Water Quality CQmplaint WQB WQS Wattr Qualliy Enforcement ' , i WQD" , WQR Wm Quality Engineering Review " . , ·WQI., " WQA Water Quality Audit REM .. WQO WetefQuaIity-OIhe.r GilT S 1 ,S2,SN3 EQginocring Studies NWD ~opmenrlComtr1Jetion Drainage. Mlsccllanedus Drainage -Erosion/Sedimentation :Dralna;e-LmdsUde/Eartb Movement Drain. 'rQCbntca1 Assistance Drainago -Genem Inquiry Maintenance· Aa~cs MaintmJance -flooding MlIintlmanc:e -Gcru:raI Maintenance -Mowing .\Irfain1eumce -Needs Maintwancc Mainte%l8ncc-NoxloUS Weeds SWM Fcc Questions WatI:r Quality -Best Manqement Practices Water Quality -Dumping Waret Quality -illlcit ColIDecoon SWM IU·Remeasurement, SWMFee-(bnt SWM r-e&-New :Discount "'Subjoct to Publio D"1so.lo~ requjrcmen1s I, R.eeeipt of wri''ten tcqucst fur dor..umetlt! 2. '&view and approni by ProSl:CUtlng Attorney's office t JAN, 5,2006 2:14PM --=--- PROBLEM: ~ =RE=C=Er ...... V=ED"-"B~Y..:....: _A'--'-'d..""":-....--____ . D=a=te:.;.= ..... 'I-:r __ ~_. _----=O=K~'.=..d ~by~:))_~ _ ___=_F=JL=E.:..:N=o.;..:.Pl:_: . ~rJ-_·· 'ttl.;:;.;::' :::..;il/J __ 7~··:··_ Received from= NAMF.:Q~ie.. Gte{~L. ADDRESS: )~D71 l¥1"" 'Pl SE. Location of problem, if different; ~0515 ! (Day) (+1..12',) PHONE 'l2..1P -n-ll.." (Eve) ( ) City'Ren.-hnL., State _____ Zip 'ifOS9 t:Jp-L"?-=?-t • -.' ·Plat name: ~(Iff I-HIt '3 ~-+ Lot No: JP-J4 Block No: Other agencies involved: ~w 1+ 2=3 ~ liS, "'"~ ~ ~ ~ S T R Parcel No.IO=ZW;-D5fD . Kroll~1 \AI Th.Bros: Ne~ :r3 Old-~'5DG. Basin I»-: Council District Jl:.. Charge No 0 ______ _ .-.... ...,.-..... -~~-.... --........ -... ----... --.-.--......... -... -----..... -".---~--------·"·-I-"'_"·---"-.' . ___ .... _______ ....... _ ........ ~,_ RESPONSE: Citizen notified on' /-s-rr by: _ phone letter" 2-in person 6~ ~ok.s f~ I.Wh.k 1"'0"'-' c/rs.s~ G!..I,~ w# I"~O' "P ;, :PDf DISPOSITION: Turned to~ on I ." 1 .. _,_ ~y __ OR: No further action recommended because~ 2-Lead ag~ncy has been notified: ~Q AA s ttltrN'T ~ LYfL.. or'.5 _ Problem has been corrected. _ No problem has been identified. _ Prior investigation addfesses problem: . SEE FILl; ## __ _ _ ' Private problem -NDAP will riot conside" bCi!B.use: __ Water originates onsite andlor on neighboring parcel. Location is outside WLRD SerjJ;;J::e1' __ Other (Specify): DATE CLOSED:· 1/2l / f( By; ---I'L-vtJ ,~ J JAN, 5,2006 2: 14PM KING CO. WLRD NO. 6930 p, 3/34 H::~I::~~-4 Th= ftas ~~, -~5:A: --:. W:3 Facility" D90S1S Type, Pond BRIAR HILLS • ~ Street Address: 14005 -149TH PL SE Directions; FROM SE 128TH ST, TAKE 144TH AVE SE. GO SOUTH. TURN LEFT,ONT( SE 142ND ST. TURN LEFT OI;~TO 149TH PL BE:. THE POND IS ON, THE LEF'T AT HOUSE 14005. ' ' Checked on 1/15/9a by DOU6 DDBKINS~ Radio I: 555 Charge to Project t: Oa7~15 Fi5heries: N Special Equiplent: s¥n Notes/CPllents: Repail inlet pipe to eSteB1 and backlill ~jth ~ to 6 inch spall! to inChdf pipe. IE you have any questions concerning the anthoring aE the pipe please contact Doug Dablins a~ 296-1915 ar Dn Cell 660-8352. , RDad~ Div. Notes: :) ffl J ) ) ) ) ) Task Unit tode Typ2 1102 Ea.Fac. W15 E;u:h W2~ Ea. Fae. r Units Wort Requested 1 ~Relovf sedilent in control structure CSC!/l. (:eE10) I 2 lRetove sedilent £rOI the fallowing cattb basinc I) and dispose in accordanc! with applicable Regulation5: CBl2 Ch3 (ref210) 1 -Perf all the fallo'ing lainten .. nct/repah vorkf repair inlet pipe to CS/CB1. se~ natfs in th~ cu .. ~nt settion •• I reE660} - Work Authorized: ____________________________ _ Work Completed : __ ~ ____________ --__ ---------- Plogral VerSion; februarv'22, 1993 Oita Actual Material Katerial COlpleted Units Init Placed Excavated Date= ____ ~ Date= ____ _ -_JAN. 5.2006 2: 14PMINGCKING co. WLRDC};RANDLMl>REsOURC£sDMS:NO.6930 P. 4/34,~ .. -. 1;)RA 4.GE INVESTIGATION RE RT or:PdJ I 'V 6-t.l ' Page I! INvEsTIGATION REQUEST V'" ¥ lj2e ""< ---~ :~:~;:nY:!%! . Date: ,Jh,jtOK'd~:])P-W FIL£N'<f&:~' ReceIved from: WJIJ,' "lL:' 2 ~------ , ~ (' /J " I (Day) (tX.JV') (Eve) ( ) NAME: ' f.L~ PHONE g(f(J:;.ZOf ADDRe~lI~ ~{)i;i£:1?1 S£ City 54!(d. State Zip 9ttJf33(;:' Location ofprobletn, if different: Plat name: ~ {ld.d tI; Lot No: 50 Block No: Other agencies involved: c: . No field investigation required, __ (initials) , , 'To BE COl\1PLETEDBYC<?¥PLAIN.T~ROGRAMSTAFF, .. :~ .:.,', '\'" .> -", ,-:; .. ~". <_~ .] 1L-" ~ R ParcelNo.~1g7g005()(}KIoll.(£;19f1)Th.Bros: New (o8(P,()Z . /1/0 ..lL Jfi. 'l4 S . T Old Af9(-}1 ' Basin' f3/.Il Council District _!l_ Charge No., ___ ~ ___ _ ~ RESPONSE: Citizen notified on J:ftqf ~/ . __ by: _ phone _le:tt~r --=::mPerson . l3.4't-tw-e 1) T flf' r£()~tJ .co ITff WP'1 p(t~7( 4-rJ iJ Jf<'w[;r."f .. 51.s.r-er#f>W".(,f< ~p tkJtAJ 20 ~() ~ G,ti t.J.e~TI,.K V},· ,lfOilJJ p (;J.J~~. ' ~ ~ DISPOSITION: Turned to _ on -1._,1_ by_ OR: No further actio~ reco~ended becB.?Se: rA~ ___ Lead agency has been notified: __ _ _____ Problel11 has been corrected. _ No problem 'has been identified. _ Prior investigation a~dresses probJem: . V7' SEE FILE # __ # Private problem -NDAP will not consider hecause; , }cWater originates onsite and/or on nel.ghboring parcel. , Location is outside WL~ S~;b,a. Other (Specify): DATE CLOSED: !if ~2-,9J? By: --..iILr; . . ' /#Rf€PIAIIJ~ _JAN. 5.2006..,. 2: 15PM_K~N~ cq:~ W~,~! ________ , _______ ,--....--~ '. Complaint 98-0332 Pigott Investigated by Pat Simmons 05/15/98 NO. 6930 P. 5/34 I met with Ms. Pigott to discuss the project that they ~ planning to dIy out the backyard of their home. They constructed a similar project last year to dzy out the upper part of the yard and dIaiD. rhe water to the street. i, ' • The main concern was attaching an existing pipe(that may drain a bulkhead) on the adjoining property and routing the water to the street drainage, ih:y also are going to put in another interceptor trench in the yard to contain the. groand water that is coming from die sIcpe behind their house. ' 1 explained that they could, connect to the pipe with the property owner's pennisSion and collect the water and put the water in the gutter line of the street as lont. as the kept the curb intact. I also told me to -call if they have any other questions Wet Area DzyArea NewSysteDl Concrete Bulkhead ~ 3" Plastic Pipe ITI ~~ (q _ JAN, 5, 2006 2 : 15 DMlNG C L ~A .C .. O~ ~.L 5..D:~R AND LAND RESOURCE~ 'lMSl~n 69 3? " DRA ~GE INVESTIGATION RE .. _RT p, 6/34 .4 ;.",,1 ,.tf~ Jag.e ~~: ~TIGATIONR.EQUEST ----Type Fe!( PROBLEM: r(y/l!J~_' , ' REcrIVEDBY: &Wz) , . 'd.~)~7;_[-,=O~K'-'='d-=:.by~: __ --=-~'xL=""=-EN:;..;,oO=:_tff~·~_~tf!)_d _0_ Received from; ~ ern tJr.1I.,R..u 4-1UU:.t.) NAME: _--Io&"",,/J24.1.~~~.;;,.Ium~'t-.ON~/=~=--'. __ _ (Day) ~( _-.t.) (Eve) ...... ( _--...1..1 PHONE ___ ..-__ ADnR.Ess:_~ ____ ~ _________ City ______ State. __ Zip __ _ ~ocation of problem, if different: /1/ f 22-06 /.ij cld Sf ,Repol'ted Problem: CALL FIRST 0 (Would l.ike To Be P;esent) . , , . iJd':d ~du/ dffifiJ~ ~ ~~. ~~~~.Ltv./~/~~q0~ cxJmLJf~, 7{Jcif~ ~~ -Other-agencies involved: Basin'/JYf Council District ~ Block No: No field investigation required, __ (initials) RESPONSE: Citizen notified on _____ by: __ phone _letf:f _ in'person DISPOSITION: T1Jllled to _ on ___ I_ .. ,-?--_ b~ ~ OR:. No further action recommended because: ~ Lead agency has been notific;p.~ , . .. __ ' ______ . ________ _ __ Problem has been com;cted . ..lSJ. No problem has been; 'jentified. _ Prior investigation a9dresses problem: SEE FIL£ ## ___ _ ~_ Priv.ate problem -NDAP will not consider because: __ Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. Location is outside WLRD S~~ fYa, __ Other (Specify): DATE CLOSED: r l 131tf By:~_ I/I'/A.#I,/J I II --- t JAN, 5,2006 2: 15PM KPJG CO, WLF:D Complaint 98-0520 Anonymous Investig.Jed by Robert M~s on 8-6-98 NO, 6930 p, 7/34 --"1!IIi!!~", -_._------- . I checked D90515 and found no problems. This facility has no ditch. In the pond facility D90669 there is a rock lined ditch that I found to have no problems. This pond had work done ,on it last year~ It's clean and functioning. No problem was identified. No pnoto's were taken. "JAN, 5,2006 2: 15PM KING CO, WLRD , NO, 6930 p, 8/34- KING CO~ W.lo.TER ANn LAND RESOURCE IVISION DRA.IYf"AGE L'WESTIGATION REpORT Received from: (Day) (~"S A t-l-4. 1-1 KIIFt:5: Lt:: '7/L. ____ PHoNE ~ 2', I ¢-.k. (Eve) L-....J NAME: ADDRESS: /4104' J4f17-1.L~ SE City R~./·701,J St~e WAZip ~ , Location of problem, if different: RepOT'led Problem: . CALL Ji'IRST 0 (Wo~1d Like To Be Present) 6rt-?~ C~L.r.(" U'-f--0";'-': 2/2-7/9; -;::;'~t:"-Z~ l?j J) /;A/J> ClJft-cr R'o A-t:I AN") t./J'V2. ~ Cffr7 Platname:~id th l\ s 1\10' L Other agencies invol,ved: ,q W t!' ~,c;-{J f...u.,f r c:-rz. ".. /1;2 ~ 1'7-c:,~ C> /.,J' C. Lot No: 13/ Block No: No field investigation required ____ _ s , T R Parcel No. 1O1 2JJ t -(J Sl () Kroll ~lIW Th.Bros: New (a5l.tt Jb . BasinL{L RPSPONSE: Crt~ennotifiedon Old ~? D(p Council Disttict Iv Charge No., _______ _ :12-7/91_ by: _~one __ letter __ in person w/f'#-1595'S- =t , I -. DISl'osmON: Turned to __ on / ~ __ I __ ' by_ OR; No further action recommended because: --L1 Lead agency has been notified: ~ ~ , 'S f"l-"b::! ~r, .5"?c-c:-IA-L.... Q /J...s . _ __ . _ Problem has been corrected. ~ No prohlem has been identified. __ Prior jnvesti~atiOD addresses problem: SnFn.EiJ. __ _ _ Private problem -NPAP will not consider because: __ Water originates on site aud/or on neighboring parcel. Location is outside WLRD S~itl:J ~Other (Spe.cirj): DA TE CLOSED: S I /7/ /j By----.Lf57 IAJfr£~~ • nan!:e DivisiDn; . ,4 Thulas Bro;; nap: 6~~7 AS Pond Briar lUlls ,~ . Street Address:: '14005 149th 'P1SE Directions: FROM SE 128TH ST, TAKE 1~4TH AVE SEw .eO.SOUTH. TURN SE 142ND ST. TURN L~FT ONTO 149:f'H PL SE. THE POND IS ON THE LEF 14005. " , " . ; ", Radio ,: 551 Charge to Project t: Oa7~15 Special Equip.ant: ,.' . ' WLRI} Nobs/Colients; , . , The b~o'ckage vas :r'~OVI!.~ during' an e.ergeney call Dllt 'J2/~U7~ 'an ... th~ p!1I1d receeded. The laciHty las checked on 03/0'+199 ilId all parts were vQrling correctly. ' ~ 11-1/ 'ji . , ,. , . ~ I , ' ' s"l1'" -llfi45 Oiv. Hot... n V CD 'f-'l P , h -I-}) . h \ 0' ~'--'1.V . (J e" VV b{S Sr;: ~ __ ..... -----Date Ta~it ' , t~~~pe Unit~ Wor~ Requested Actual Katerial Ititerial COlplated Units Init Placed Exravated [ i WOb Lin.Ft~ 1 iR~.o~e debris Erol trash rac~(5} at pipe end{s): POND O~TLET. fre£390) Work Completed : __________________________ ~-- Prc~ra. Version: Fe~ruary 22, 1993 '.' . Date: ___________ .. , ,~ " .~ 5. 2006~ 2:16PM KING CO. WLRD NO. 6930 • P. 10/34 __ .• ~~-!-... --- KING COUNTY Oepartment of Natural Rasourcea Water and Land Re$ource Division . -_ .. _--- PILE NO. 090515 N~E ALLAN KIESLER .. - ADDRESS 14102 148TH PL SE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGATION PHONE 425/226-1446 TB PAGB 858J3 -=-~~-~ .. - 1/27/99 KROLL PAGE 811W MAlNT. DIVISION ~ DATE ------ INITIALS - DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION: ~ .. ~ SITE VISIT ON 2127/99. RECEIVED CALL FROM L. OET'rU! THAT 4 RID PONb LOCATED IN THe PLAT 01' BRIAR HILL~ biV. 4 WAS CURRENTLY IN OVi;RFL·:>W. Mel" WIT~ ~~R. KIESLER AND FAMILY ON SITE. INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT UPON SITE VISIT THE POND VIAS OCCURING A .REACH OF THE SPILLWAY ON'ro t49T14 PL SE. THe SPILLWAY IS OIl~J:CTED TO OVERFLOW ONTO THE R/W WITH FLOW BEING COVEno VIA CURBSIDE DRAIN AGE 'fo THE SOUTH. THR£J: TYPE I CATr",,, BASINS ;'OCATED AT THE INTERSEC'I'ION OF liE .1S9TH PL CONTAINED WATER OVE~FLOW THE TOP of THE ElASrN, AS WAT5R IN THE POND WAS AT A HIGHE~ ELEVATION THEN THE RIM OF THE BASIN GRADE. FLOW FROM 'fifE TYPE I BASINS ARe CO'NVaY SOUTH ON 139 PL SE., AND WEST ALOttG SE 13 TH PL. A II' RUN OF 30" CMP IS THf OUTLET li/,.l: FROM THE POND TO THE CONTROL MANHOLE. THE IIANHOLE REFLECTED WATER ENTERiNG THE ao' PI:>!> AT APPROX. 10" CAPACITY (-THAN 4-61. THE OVERFLOW TEE~ECTIN WAS NOT IN OVERFLOW. THIS INDICATED THAT A BLOCKAGE OCCUFlI!D AT THE PIPE INLET TO THE CS/t:B1. TREE DEBRIS FROM OVIiFlHANGINGI E~RGREEN$ WERE REMOVED FROM "!'HI! PIPE INLET INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF WAT£~ RELEASe TO THE CS/CB,. EViiN'TUALLY, WITH sO ... E MANUEL LASOR THE BLOCKAGE WAS REMOVED AND THE POND WAI> 4- CAPABL£ OF DECREASING AND THE OVERFL.OW CEASED. THE KIESLER LOT IS LOCATED ON THE s.W. SIDE OF THE POND WITH A PhlVATE GATE PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE TRAcT. THE B~Rl.9 ELEVATION ON THE Wne SIDE OF THE POND DID NOT POSE A TH~&AT TO THE IClESLEiR LOT. WATER WAS DESIGNED TO OVERFLOW ONTO THE R/W OF 149TH PL SE. MR. KIESLER AND FAMILY WAS VERY PLEASED WITII THE EbUC'ATlONAL EXPERIENCE ANI,) OFPORTUNI TV TO DISCUSS THE FUNcTION OF THE POND. SKETCH; NO 6930 P 11 /~4=-' -_,jAN. 5.2006 2:16PM-KING co. WLH). . i'j" Jt ____ ' t;-" , KING Corn --W~ TER AND LAND REsOURCE IVISION t". ~ DRA:U.,AGE INVES-p:GATION REpORT /? . (2h J:" I~ ~-:=~age 1: lNVESTI,GATIONREQUEST Type ~ PROBLEM: (Jt/IJJl----"L£1li.9 Lt./ C!.LiLJ2 I\ECEIVEDBY: d0nDate:f~g OK'dby: ~ ElLENa. Sia4W ReceiYed from: , •. CP3r) ( 1'1 (Eve) (.y'.z~ NAME: ~ C1/~ PHoNE,,7~S-2. 07 2(d-iffi! ADDRESS: =~; Jj) Ii ([Ii .City ~ S~te Zip 9(a5;; Location of problem, if different: PI3.t name: Lot No: Block No: Other agencies involved: No field investigation required ___ ~ s T R Parcel No. )O:J2l1":JQtf<j Kroll,¥,14 Th.Bros: New (Q5\.p j' 2:,6 Old ~ ()~ Basin ~CIe-.-Council District -i2::-Charge No. ______ ~ RESPONSE: Citizen noti£.ed on 89),!99 by: --2L phone ~_letter _ in person Hcna-...,.~~ t2(,1,_N ~ , 'rT?r,/;z.7/?~. ~~.rtLI"'Y '$ ,,.., "'" t:.~ $~'-- ~'''':1 ;<:.,.. ---", ~c.o'-.,~,~. ",r,-~ ~~...J ~.,."... ~,., ..... ~.",--..". ~~ ~'~ ~-h-.l1 ~, ~JM? ..... ~ /",~ DISPOSITION: Turned to _ on I " / ~ by___ OR: No further action recommended because: ... __ Lead agency has been riotified: _____________________ _ . ..:.__ Problem has been corrected. _ No problem has been jdentified. _ Prior investigation addresses problem: . SuFIu# A Private problem -N,DAP will not consider because: --- __ Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. Location is outside WLRD sW' --LOther (S~): DATE CLOSED: r /"l.. I J.t. By:' . G/.ld~~~ , '#Z/7#~/1' Wet area --CMUWa11 2-4' tall Complaint 99-0625 Quinn Investigated by Chris Treichel 08/30/99 Met with Mrs. Quinn on site Aug. 27, \999. Her lot is Lot 44 of Briar Hills Div 4. The property is relatively flat but the house does sit in <:he higherelevatioll. There is a eMU block wall on the west property line. The water drains away from the house in all directions. They have a street to the east and . south, a single-family residence to th~ west, and Maplewood PSlk to the north. She stated that she was worried abollt an area in the Northwest comer of the property where the water seems to slowly infiltrate. She stated that she and her husband thought that the sprinkler sySleDl for the yard maybe leaking, they are in the process of replacing some of the Gprinkler heads. When they were digging the sprinkler heads up, she stated that there was water in the gNund. She also stated that they smelled a waste type of odor. The area seemed to be the low point from tb\!park, house and neighbors. She stated that this was occurring prior to the CMU wall being installed Maplewood Park Blockade fl[ end of road ~ r--L-ot-44-B-n-·ar-H-il-l~-_#-2· ~ .. Ie I ... NTS _,JAN. 5.2006 2: 17PM KING CO. WLRD, NO. 6930 \ P. 13/34 KING COUN WAirltRAND LAND RESOURCES ~ION ' . ... ""'-. r' DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REpORT, ' . ' h' , /7rA ~ d'~ "'" ' lNVES1JG~1'!6N~UEST, ' ' 'l'ypef'6~ , -PROBLeM:~)£iIlfZ'ry /r.:/o " ,,' " " "(Ew) ( ) , NAME;, ' ,,'IL, ' 'PH~ dU57Y19 ' ADDRESS: ,/~ = =tf)I?/' ()E~City :tfi~ Stllte " ' ,Zip 9/15l LocATroNOrPROBLEM,lFDIFFERENT: jLI9t'J/:? /),-I'2LrJ ', ... 1 C.;.J... _~ ___ ---: ____ ' -,' ·,..-----.;~Z-"1. 7 \ ) ()r~~,:......-...:....:.-T~G(;(..:...:JI'A:.....!..::::(;'/~U~ 11_,,'-., ----__ -:---'-r Access'Pemiission ~,anted 0: Call Firs~ (~'oilld L~e To Be Present) D·' _ d(5'£dM/,~~~ea6&,&u-dW~P " ~ ~, aeu,.eJe/J.dz4i //k./iJAidlv~'.m, ~ , ~. ~ d{cXiLj C/;OfV/ t!d@,~~ ~ ~9! ~~ @'~CW/b,~~,~rylAv~ ~~ iAJ~AtO~~ ~~~1/J'it/14I ~YdLQ/JM/p~~. , ", ',' , " . /JU'¥ , f)9c!&~1' . ,', Plat name: fjh,/M· i'~ -;v8 Other agencies involved: Lot No~ i/1, Block No: .-A AVY' No field investigation required~1 J "':-;·~a~·~-~"'~-;-~~-----~ ... -·~-~--::.-.. -~_-=:; ... ---':')'y~",,;~:.--:..~-.---:-~ ,"" -:-:.:~~_ .. -:"-"'~ .--. ,--ff:~''7, -~--...... , , ~: ""~;':~'\;:J~t'~\"i'~i~" " .:-," ·:r,,'lj':~;.\·'1'·(j)~;H~~,:;:~rt~~.'H·~"" (1'(~\\4~:~!.. .. '';~'~iF )~i~,\:)t~~I~< .• ~,1 ~~" ,;'1:,' I -. (T., ~~ t 1 ~;"-~::_"'ll~~_.::::' •.. w!.<_~_':-(!. -, ..... :..:.. '. -:.u._:" --:_'.~ __ ~,:-=".. __ .~~ ~-:_: ___ :..... :_~.--" .•. _.=--:...:...::._ .. J •• ..=:=-~ '. ~:~ .... ~:_::!_/ .... /,~~ '--~ . Basm /....eli.. Councu.oistrlct I~ ,ChargeNo. __ ......;.'---___ _ RESPONSE: Citizen notified on f/-/. i .... DO _ by: ~ phone _ letter '..l;:.-in pers~n ~' 11t:( ,0enl't( 071-'<1 u·rl.'/~tf 1,J~(?--:-c:r-clA...... --' DISPOSITION: Turned to _' OIl 7!J:.1 I, __ by , OR: No ~er actiQJI """,_ .. dOd bee .... : ' ~, Lead agency haS b~rinotified! ~ A--D~ if/ilAlT -:-th'll-i'7i( I~ f1 ~ " , _". _ Prohlem bas been <:ott~ted. _. No ,pr.oblem l~as been identified. __ , Prior investigation addresses problem~ ; .,' ' ..',: . ... SEEFILE# . . __ 'Private prpblem -NDAP will not consid~ becaUse:' '\ ' . ,Water origmates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. \ Lo6ation is outside 'W~RD Se. ke J;:a.. / ' ....-" DATE CLOSED; {o I (51 dO By: ._ 6 ' CJ.._.' "..---, / ;-,1 J r /.) ---,-~Other (SpecifY): f" JAN. 5.2006 2: 18PM eKING co. WLkD. A. ... ~L n .. _ NO. 6930 P. 14/340 .I.UNG ~V~"f n ~.l'ER~"f.u AND ~OUR.CEf ..... -vISIu.N .. f r . -DRAI. , __ GE. INVESTIG~TION REPv.t{T /J ... 7: .. --r ~ INVBSTIGATIONREQUEST . Type EiCIi PROBLEM: ~L/l/.II'I.It12J). . REc£lVED8Y: ~ Date: lojxjm OK'dbl: ~llJlNO.1JPt~ Received from: ~ . NAME: (ll.LM /(cnJaf!.ttJJ PHONE ~~/.,'29~ (Eve) L ) ADDRESS.: IA/;zLQ /f9~/ of: City /i}/b22?ii0 State Zip f6a!9 /YJO~ IJ9eJ!f/Q or D?OftJ6/1· Platnam~: tJ~~ Lot No: Block No: Other agencies involved: No field investigation required== 60 -I!L ~ ....s:.....-~ S T R Parcel No/67J CQJ 'i?;:2 Kroll Illlv' Th.Bros! New ~571J 3 Basin LGIf Council District -'-J.-CrurrgeNo .. ______________ _ _ R.ESPONSE: Citizen notified on __ -"--_ __ by: __ phone __ letter _ in person ./ui DISPOSITION: Turned totilf. on LillY / tJO by-.i!l OR! No further action recommended because: _ Lead agency has been notified: .. ___________________ _ _ Problem has been corrected. _ No problem has been identified. __ Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE # __ _ ~._ Private proplem • NDAP will not consider because: __ Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. . . Location is outside ~-Other (SpecifY): DATE CLOSED: I2tZO IY'2-By: .' - \ J.' 1 -., Ja r n . 'itO~'Jl.WV·~ JAN. 5. 2006 2: 18PM KING CO. WLRD ®~ TO,.SueCWke,Acting Seruor Engmeer ER&R . Drainage Services Iv . Sue: ,. ~~~ KING COUNTY iii Departmonl of Natur.1 Aasourcae Wilier and Land ROSCIurca DM.Jon ; NO. 6930 P. 15/34 From: Larry Gettle Senior Engineer Water and LaRd Resources Division Drainage Services Section Mail Stop KSC NR 0600 DATE 11/13/00 This is the complaint you called me about on T:p.ursday Nov. 9Tl1 • The issue is a development within the City of Renton discharging (pumping) sediment lader, ~ater off site. I understand you will be working with Renton and the dev~loper/con1ractor to eliminate pumping and having the downstream system cleaned, including our facility at Bri3f Hills . .. . , , , , SIGNED / I I PROBLEM: <..,rp l~q""N7: INVESTIGATION REQUEST P,16/34 i M AG ~~ 1I;~, Type 0&;\ JAN, 5,2006 2: 18PM KING CO, WUD 1-!:N0,j 910 -KIN;Com W ~TER ~'D LAND RESOURcEl VISION DRAINAGE,' INVESTIGATION REpORT RECEIVED BY: / C~-rrc.~ r Date: fr 1£ lOll OK'd by: ~ FILE No. -Wth,iiYll£ '", I Received from: -r. L!? J)8~"'/cn..) t;;'#5 }ttU.tJ( l (Day) (425) ~ (u~ NAME: l2d'/~ Ny&a;;~, __ . __ PHONE Z2/-/7'L3 2~,..tP«/f:: ADDRESS: ~C ~?-/5L tdxi-~ City State Zip ~ __ 16lP~ 1~f't!i.lSrrl ~ ~.1 RiA" Q3t'1r" -, :OCA nON OF PROBLEM. IF DIFFERENT: 1..3 4,t2(2. /s-<f? 7"1'-/ ~I/ e=-5e- Access Permission Granted 0 Call Fitst (Would L.ike To Be Present) D ?.f5:(JI'e~ ./ecs-FI t!?v-/-/CJrr ~Yr7 /IT /~dv~ A~p.-?..:::~ ;!5./.heeE-s:o Ie.... . ?A-5'V.-e~ ~a?7-P~C/:J..,.f?e~/,;JC; ~~~ I&(? p/-;;-c/-/. A r-r~ /vv~-r/t"/-I."7/t.2'AJ ~o < O/.n/#:Tr,;-tA/r-:/-/' 1'~~/t.?" CLI/V?-C/~ I~ /f7P~ l.s Js~ 6'1' ~t/c::?-rtP?K. Plat name: -Other agencies involved: ~l~'··).\·L:>:~~:' .. Y.',; ':' .:;';i!\Y:.~ U0frii:·~:.~I~ "':~ .~ .. i .. ::',,'; '. .' t"'\~~ Lot No: Block No: No field investigation required== -:lJE I .aL ~ .. ~ S T R Parc~l No')&lASO .... 0,,(0 Kroll m-~ Th.Bros; New (p57 8~ Basin I.",().., Council District~_ Charge. No. ______ ~ __ RESPONSE: Citizen notified on __ by: ->L-phone __ letter _ in person 0 1-11,01 -?-f>1Y' c"V~uo\ ~~ IJybloaT-r-.-k:, ~""!t'':'(;tUI'\ \~ ~ -n-h~ \~"G:: l.4 .. I\LL f..C pc.W!"w~~~ O\J i'O ~e'..:. 'f'Cf2.-UlDE: ~~\'l,~~......rr ' DISPOSITION: Turned to on / / _ by_ OR; No further action recommended because: X Lead agency has been notified: U{)er5,: ce,Oc::f'"' ~@~~ , __ Problem has been corrected. __ No problem has been identified. _ Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE # _~_ ~_ Private problem -NDAP will not consider because: ___ W,ater originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. Location is outside W~~ice Area, DATE CLOSED: r /'t-C / 0/ By: ~I.Z._ _--"Other (Specify): ,t) d".Ik ~~ f>. A~ JAN, 5, 2006 2: 19 PM KING CO, WLRD ,(~, '. KING COU DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGATION I '~ ". " '. I( :?HONE: 425-271-6423 KROLL PAGE: 811 MAINT. DMSION:#4 INITIALS:MAG -Visited site on 0 1 ~ 12-0 1. Livestock was present at that time. There is no visible vegetation in the fenced area where Also noted equipment tracks throughout the area and fencii"g materials stacked inside fenced area. Runoff from the the open roadside ditches causing visible turbidity in the immediate area and down stream. There was past enti~rcc:meR1! conducted in the summer months of 2000, at that time no violation was determined. r spoke With Laurie Clinton on 01 site and showed her photographs of the currenl: sitUation. She said with no vegetation this would be Q confinement Lau:rj.e suggested this go to water quality first. after a noted violation we could enforce the Livestock Management require the property o~er to set up a fann plan and foOtlow the requirc;Dents outlined by the Livesrock Management [ -'\ / 13405 I f j t \ .... ( ...., \ ~ NTS oiC -~'8~ -'= --'. ~ "\ -t I 13404 ,n. ,_-I ! ./ I <;) ~ • .-"--~""'''''-, ) [ ..... '0 \ J t 1 , , J \ :~) ~ .. \ ! . ...... -( 13414 , \.., \ ~ \ ., * .*-~ ) ! I -_.-/ J .,. '. \ 13511 I g " I 13422 -I • ( \ ~ \t .... ___ .. ~ . , .---_ ....... -.....-------, '~II "' . ) 'Y ~ ... - ;' [ R.esidence 13527 SE 1,36th St _JAN. 5,2006 2: 19PM -Krr~G co. WLRD NO. 6930 KING Cou r WATER AND LAND RESOURC} IVISION P. 18/34) VtL-. DRAu~AGE,INVESTIGATION REpORT Q k ~ltl.G. ATION REQDE,' ST Type ~c. lL PROBLEM: 1"\ AT> 'N ~\V ~'-IV ~R~EC=<!=E<!...!IV~ED~BYJ..::-+Id:..J.l-!A~IJ:...:c:::.:o:.:G;;:;J\LI::::::-____ D~: }/t.. '"io J OK'd by: ~ FILENo .• 2Q'U.4Q'I1 Received from: NAME: K~)J .,... A 'XL'D fL ADDRESS: iL.f '71. D 5 IE. (Day) (LftS) (Eve) ~( _-1.) PHONE~-4:~67 117~ pc.., City ~....-State __ Zip __ _ LOCATION OF PROBLEM, IF DIFFERENT: I k 0 0 S ' IttCJ ~ ~ -p L $.,f .,) CallFi(st (Would Like To Be Present) 0 i ~SJO' ~ Access Permission Granted 0 ~\ I\t~\b' 1h~ (\.(.~slA~c.rk~J hJv;. ,be;~ ~v'L:1V'tJ f-eJ)~5 -rk'C, d~~ '-iV\. 1-~e. ~l D' f bV\; ~ /he--.b~~J a V/-,.d -F () 0 IJ -t+. 'e j t:f.rL I.e... v/~ -r:'},--f-J, e. J v i/Ls. h 4 .s "- Iff Hr <i de d r4-ts. ~ -f-~~ "'i,V\. /h*-t:~V"'f' SI<] v-. "'" va ,74),b -10 de-le...-fo f'r pV'tJJ:;k .~ ~ .;w/ rr D~ ,vi ,aL~?'1 '~~ ~ ~" l:JtJ v t:. tel C-E, .M A ~ ;9 t-S"C jC)J;)w \ Plat name: ~ n .. , ~ ..,... l~ tll.~ -il4': {Dtt OSt sj Lot No: Block No: Other s T , > () R Parcel No .. J 6 71iO.lv~ Kroll 811 vJ TIl.Bros: NewhS7 A3 DISPOSITION; Turned to on I I' by_.c-OR: No further action recommended because: _ Lead agency has been notified: ~ .~ Probl~nhM~~ro~C~ .. ~~~N~~-p-r~ob~k-m~h-~~b~e-~~:j~~-.~ffi~l~~.~~~P~ri-m-~-v-~-ti-~-ti-on--ad-~-~-s-~-p-ro-b-k-m-: SEE FILE # __ _ _ Private problem -NDAP will not consider because: ~_Water originates on site andlor on neighboring parcel. Location is outside WLR~ •• ~~rea. DATE CLOSED: 2,1:; pi By: _~~ Nt1fuf1 _---'Other (Specify): (ll - 'I - JAN. 5. 2006 2: 20PM KING CO. WLKJ , .-''III ? t :4 . rtsr(~ ;"'~hrr:-' Complaint No. 01-0041 Inspected By: Virgil Pacampara DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION , . NO. 6930 P. 19/34 . , " , I r:ittuo'Wtts Name: Ken Taylor Date: January 25,2001 ) 3' > "'pt",. ( _ Y' " , I went to the site of the problem on 1/25101 AT 3:00 PM. The weather was fair and sunny. I spoke with Mr. Ken Taylor regarding his conCe):lJ Oll neighborhood feeding the ducks regularly. The bread and food they are leaving for the ducks has aitracted rats. He has inquired if there is an interpretive sign available to deter the problem. I walked around the facility of Briar Hills #4 (D9051S) which is the site of the complaint. r saw almost 60 number of ducks wading at the pond. I did not see any Significant ducklbird food around the area and I did not see rats around the facility during the inspection. I asked with .Mr. Taylor about seeing any rats in the area and his response was" That He did not see any rats. His neighbor (Ga~e) told him that there was rats :in the area, That the Gaetzkehas put some rat poison on their property and that the Gaetzke own dog died of food poisoning. :Mr. Ta)'lor added that The Gaetzke and passer-bye always feed the ducks. That they feed them with com and grains. I went to the Gaetzke home ( no body h';)me) and I left a yellow card at the door to inquire more information about the rats. I went alsQ to house # 14005 no body home. I also went at house No. # 13912. I was able to spoke to the homeowner and she told me that she did not see any rats in the area and added that she notice the Gaetzke who feed the ducks. I went to the paint shop before going to the site arid spoke with George Dudley regarding a sign about "NO' FEEDING OF DUCKS ", He to~d me that they have sign for that reason and usually they install-it in a County parks. He added that this may be the first time it will be :installed to RID Pond. SEE FACILITY SKETCH , , .. JAN, 5, 2006 2: 20PM KING CO, WU:D.., yo" NO, 6930 p, 20/34~ AJNG CUUN'l' WA'1'Elt'AND LAND RESOURCES, -"'ISICJN d7"\-~ DRAIl'. __ -iE L~STIGATION ,REPO~1 ./l . _I ,c-! . _ JNVllS11GATiONlIEQ)ltST 1»pe Fell PROBL~M: tf"tnr~. 'tf.li1dLL)I!2~ J " ' RECEIVED BY: ~ Pate~(~ OK'd by: ~ FILE No ... ;Mii.~&3a. Received from: .LJ..., J!;- .I. J .~ (Day)·~ (Eve) 'f ) , ... NAME: C2fIzuz aJiuv PHONE 023 2 -W ;; ADDRESS: I~ /~9?;!) DOE City ~ State~ Zip 9/t7J"~ LOCATION OF PROBI..E,M, IF DIFFERENT: 1m::') sl::.: J.~LJQ:;.::;JI.£IA,J.Jd.-"<:-~~!.LT __________ _ 't Access Permission Granted 0 Call First (Would Like'TO Be Present) 0 IbmIZ{)~i4 o..6oa/do~~Y--~ ~ A-ead~, ~ --h ~a; J~S~)) ~ 07/4W.!LJe4P$"LJh 91 ~ (/7ZUVJ~ ~) /~ ~ /» t1fM 3/?~ qptJ~~~.&m~. /(//1 if /573/ ;JerE/" m fhIs -slk;0) C/:--/5730 (s·t?63 cdfachd) -, " 090foC,9 Plat name: '(] ~ ~ ~/ Lot No: Block No: Other agencies involved: No field investigation required,===. _Sid --L!L . c21 S -~ S T R Parcel No.IOWaz?f'<0 0 Kroll ii/it! Th.Bros: New 6511i3 DISPOSITION: Turned to on 1 I .,_ by_ OR; No further action recommended because: _If Lead agency has been notified: i( o~ s; w\A. 1,j1 .,. 5l'~ t.A-L. () f' oS _ Problem has been corrected. _ No problem has been identjfied. :>< Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE # '2.." 0 I -0 <) 9 l) ___ Private problem· NDAP will not consider because: __ Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parcel. DATE CLOSED: 5'1.2-/10 I By: ~J _~Other (Specify): lAJ(,7 ?/ · __ . JAN, 5, 2006-2: 20P~KING ... Q9.:. ~~~~@gf 'po" ""i!!l~"''''c'''':R'·b·J, .. NO, 6930_P, 21/34 : • C4~ Drainage Services Reaidl _i~l',.R/n Work Authorization i~enance nivision~ lj,., Thola!. Br05 flap: 657 AS V. Pand Briar Hills 11 WA t W1S730 Facility J: D90669 Street Address: 14995 BE 142nd St Directions: FROM'SE 128TH 8T~ T~:II<E 1l.t4TH AVE SEw GO SOUTH. TURN LEFT ONTO -t;E 1.4(?ND J3T.,. POND .ON RIGHT BEHJ:ND HOUSE :a: lL+202 1 1",,9TH PL SE, AS WELL AS AT TH~ INTERSECTION OF lS0TH PL SS: 8. fiE 142ND /3:. __ ~hl!c~ed or. U22!01 by Vil'~il Pacaej:Bra "f\1 Spe:jal Equip.ent: ~lRD Notfs/Cam6enti~ _ NDt~s~ ReQIJv!! the pde of yud vast! and c~cl'e~e rlil:l',le5 4u~!!ed a~ tlie ~~,Jthwe~t corner crt the facility <lnd di!p~;C! DE £l(J#l ;;He. ! estimatEd ~!Jti11 \'~lul~ is t. D cub it: Vilrus) Ro~cs VIV. Notes: iiif)it CliMvpE! l U!'ii h It'iirt, R~queS'ted WO~'k Completeci : _, __ ~ __ ?ngra<lt Versil1l1: February' 22, 11'13 o ~~te Actual Hi!criil ".t~rial C041f,detEd Unj ti Init Placed Exciilyated .JAN, 5, 2006 2:.211~G(.K2~~.~O.: .~~~~'J;RANDLANDRESOURCESnTVISI~9~ 6930 p, 22/34 .. : DRAI GE INVESTIGATION REpl ___ T Type ECYL-IJ I D ! ! lNVBSTIG. AnON RBQUEST PROBLEM: U'. tl\J'f!l~ it RECEIVED BY: e;l~ Date: I~Po/6/. OK'd by: FnENo. 2001 -0]::';0 Received from: ~ -t/,,~ -I1t1 A ~ I ~~.;. • (Day) ( NAME:('VllJ. U~~J~ .. _. _. PHONE B,3S .... :'67 ADDRESS; Lt{qrl.O 86 12>9~. Pi-'.;..City ~ State lJ,A Zip __ (Eve) ~( _---..I.) LOCATION OF PROBLEM, IF DIFFERENf: I !iCZ05 L l{f':' P ~ Access Permission Granted 0 Call First 'G'{ould Like To Be Present) 0 1(/0 . ~ ~. , Plat name: 'f)76StS Lot No! Block No: Parcel No ,J(il clO ~05"'16 KrollV/ftJ TIl-Bros: New ftp1/}3 RDP _ Basin UJt-Council District _. I;)... Charge No. _________ _ RESPONSE: Citizen notified on 14..1~ II 0_' _-____ by: L phone __ lette; _ in person -1'f11ima. ~~~ ~~.r:::> l't> ~w A-\-J-D l}J\LL. \At:E I'2..Wes.t<r DISPOSITION, Turned .0'£ on 1 Z-, t40L by-:}IJLR, No lin1he .. ction recommended because: ___ Lead agency has been notified: ___________________ _ _ Problem has been corrected. _ No problem has been identified. __ Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE # __ _ _ Private problem -NDAP will not consider b~use: __ Water originates onsite andlor on neighboring parceL DATE CLOSED: /01 'l..L.jO-z.... By:-ti!:f _____ Other (Specify): Jl'Jt.M~ (!p.u.e~ . ."._ .. ,. , JAN. 5.2006 2:21PM, KiNG CO. WLRD 1 • NO. 6930 P. 23/34 ..... :.---.-------_r.... _________ ~~ SKETCH OP 2001"()80S j , r----=SE~1=.::.!3 !t...:a4....lSt:.!;t_---; ~ Inlet (with trash taCk) D90S15, water level was higb. ..... , ) I • !' ....,~ .. ,,,.~'~. -.. -~_ >-",--n ............ '~' ,~' 1-~~"'..7.~ ~~.---Io. ___ ... __ •••• r-... -.... ~ ... -.. -•• -... -... --.... -•• -... ----... -•• -... -.... -... -... I I I I I I I .ae.~~ ~Qryoftbn eMts Ci~ ofP.enton Jurisdiction KCPnlptrty -14~PL.SE. oodedatea DNTS I -JAN. 5.2006 2:21PM KiNG CO. WLRD I~ ~ ! I ,. ---_ .. _'.' ~'--~ ®. TO: ,Brian Sleight, Acting EngmeerID ER&R Stormwater Services . -~--. .. --..... . NO. 6930 P. 24/34 ._-._ .. _---_. "-.----'.---'- From: Larry Gettle Senior Engineer Watel" and Land Resources Dtvision Drainage Services Section Mall Stop KSC NR 0600 DATE 12/24/01 " This complaint concerns roadway and private property .flooding. _ Complainant resides in the plat of Briar Hills Diy 4. Across (west) 1491h Place SE is flow control facility D90515, According to the complainant this pond overflowed and water ponded in the street and possibly flowed into complainant's crawl space. Our investigation and research revealed a significant history of drainage problems associated with the flow control facilities in these developments. We have completed aredesignlretro-fit (Kovacich) offacility D90698 which is 1()c·ated downstream of the complainant. The investigation also revealed a new development north of the complainant, This development is within the City of Renton.. It appears from site investigation that a significant amount of flow is being directed southerly toward the facility D90515. The flow from the north, including the new development area is controlled by the orifice m. D90S15. SIGNED --- -- .JAN, 5,2006 2:22PM KING CO, WLRD NO, 6930 p, 25/34 Q r'tenanf:e Dhisiollr 4' Tholas Bros "ap!. 657 A3 WI, t 1.&116833 Filtility " el Pond Briar Hi1l5r'~ street Address; 14005 149th PI SE ~ Directions: FROM SE 12e.TH STj TAKE 144TH AVE SE. 60 SOUTH. TURN LEFT ONTO SE 14·2ND ST _ TURN LEFT ·ONTO 149TH PL SEw THE POND IS ON THE LEFT AT HOUSE u .14005. R.die t: Slit Chilge to Project I: 090515 Fiiheries: N WlRD Motes/Co.,ents: 1. R~IDve th~ oro~en concrEte slab fro. insid~ of CB-2 and disposed of iroi sitE. 2. Tli. the tree branches/lilbs at the trict for fiSY itCef around the pend. 3. Re,cvE th! trash r&.ck at the outlet (CB-2 to pond). ~. FD~ lowing schedule. Raads Div. Nates: t n'nit Coae'Type Units Work ReQUf5t~ 1102 £a~fac. 1 'RelO"£! sediaent in c:antral itrl;dul'l! CS/eS-I. h·eUOi WOb U.n.Ft. as rRelllVI! tu!h/deor is flOti c:onveyallct! p'lptfsi betvllin: POND -tsltBl (reE310) DatR Actual ft,teriJl "Iteriil COiplited Units Iqit Placed E.tavated ~~------r-~----~------------------------------+-----~~--~~~----r----; W23 £a.fat. 1 .The tralh lacls an t~~ipe(!l CB2 ~ fOND are I iii itld lust be ~pl(!ced o~aired. r-ipe oiHet!r is 30inthel. !tgQj ~-\t;! The inlet/outlet pip! lUst hive tri5h rack{s} ~a:­ S~ IJOt~l,j. freflt021 ~fZ.. -1 e iJ."'i.o~ 1--~s.-lt' 3 -1\.;--. t.· ';w-H f ii <... iL WOl'l<. Completed :_~ ____ --,,~ ________ _ PrDffit YersiOD: ·Februlf~ 22, 1993 o ... Oatel ____ _ JAN, 5,2006 2: 22PM KIN G CO, W L ~ D NO, 6930 p, 26/34 0' '·rit£!nl~e Divi!iolU 4' Tho.ili II,,,. KIp: 6SiA3 VA I W1.6833 FilcUitY'1 D90515 , e: Pond ,Briar Hills t~ street Address I 1~005 1~9th PI SE Directions~ FROM BE 12BTH ST, TAKE 144TH AVE SE. 60 SOUTH. TURN LEFT ONTO SE 142ND 8T. TURN LEFT ONTO 1'+9TH PL Sf:. THE POND IS ON THE LEFT AT HOUSE # It 14005. --Cfi.ded on 3/06/02 by Virgil Piicaapau Charge to Project a; D90S1S Fish!rilSl H Specl.l Equip.tnt: VLRD NDteslCo •• ents: 1. Re.ave the braken concrete dab Iro. inside ot t'8-2 and dilpQs!d Iii irol sit~. 2. Tlil the tree bnllcbe5/lilbs it the tnct for eiSY acc!S around the pond. 3. Reiove the trash rack it the outlet (CB-2 t~ pond}. ~: for loving schedule. - RQad& biv. Notes: ,{-lnnit ~T¥pe 1102 £a.fac. ~Ob til. Ft. , ' , Units Vtll'k Rl!1jll.lita 1 '-~ye ledi.ent in control struciure &S/C!-!. (reflO) I 35 ~RftoVf trl.h/debtis f:dI cQRvsyaace pipe~s} betvetn{ POND , ¥23 [a. Fat. 1 r ~/tBl (relaI0' _, .The trill! lith OIl t"~ipeti) CI2 -t'OHD ire 'l~l"od .......... lred. Pip. jlaoot" I. 3Oinchsl. ~01) ~ TIll Jnletiautlet 9ipe .It hive hub lICUS} .Bim~ IQ nirtel. r"f't02) ~£.'I e 1J)t.~ ~ .. 11Q'.s..:# 3 ~,~ /\1\6 ''V'"L-' . ,{LA ''''+1 {'-if L{L7' ~ WorK Autho~izedl~ 7;{7 -~~ Work Completed ·:_' ____________ ~/~ ____________ __ PrOffit Venionr FrbrulfY 22, 1'193 o Dite Actu.l ,Haterial Mat!ri11 tUlpleted Units Init Plated £KCi~ated Dater ~$L?- Da'tel ______ _ Received from: NAME: /1-112-, WH Ire (Eve) ..... (_~) ADDRESS: ILl-"'Lo L-14-9'77.1 PI- LoCATION OF PROBLEM" IF DIFFERENT: It! 77 5" --s~---.L~'IckIJ~,=--rJ,--=S~-L-..I ________ _ Access Permission Gr~nted 0 Call Fir~; (Wollld L~ To Be Present) 0 ~ "'" ' ~u\\y1~\~rv . ~\ Di!!~;£ . ~ P~JJ~ ) c...o'f'J(J;::::.f/-1I' • .s:5 1,..J )-4'~ VI~VS-~ • f ~~ .l>E-£.Lt~ ~;'\114"'''' L -I'; p{)~SI8Ui., (L~ !l\-eV{. ~ d, r;.;t>~ of 6J~ a;-J ~ s-~ ~b:Vr . . Plat name: f).wyu 1..1.dh rtf Lot No: Block No: No field investi ation re uired ]}ISPOSITION: Turned to _ on I / __ .... by _ OR; No further action recommended because: _ Lead agency has been notified:, ___ _ X Problem has been corrected. _ No problem has been identified. _ Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE # __ _ _ ._ Private problem -NDAP will not consider because: __ Water originates onsite and/or on neighboring parceL _Other (Specify): DATE CLOSED: 10 / 1.. / Cf"V By: DJU.4-. - , FILE NO.: 2002-0629 NAME: Mr. WW'I'E '" P. 28/34 •• • -1_":'_ • __ ® KING ·COUNTY· DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGA TlON ADDRESS: 14202 149TH PL. SE, Renton, 98059 PHONE; (425) 235-9119 l)ATE OF INVESTIGATION: 9-13-02 fNVESTIGATED BY: Vir2il Paeampara I went to the residence of Mr. White to investigate [he complaint about debris in the pond and concern abollt West Nile virus. The facility is Briar Hills #1 (D90669). I walked iU"ound t.he retention/detention pond and noticed the following: a) Ther.e was no water at the pond during the investigation. The bottom is dry and moist b) I did not noticed any mosquito during the investigation. c) There are some water plants at the pond. d) Needs to mow and/or hand brush the overgrown vegetation and alders in and around the pond and tract. e) Cut and/or removed the overgrown cat-tails at the pond. f) Needs to remove the bicycle froin the bottom of the pond and some debris. g) The north and northeast side slopes oftha pond j,g eroaingfsloughing and needs to restore the side slope of the pond.. Need also to re- seed the disturbed area and bare areas. . h) There are sign age installed along the north side CIt: the tr~tct, the "No Dumping" and "Scoop Law". , . , I went to the residence of Mr. White, no body was home during the ;.westigation and the main gate was locked. I attempted to call him in the following days and left a message at his answering ma~hine.. j. ~ .! " . JAN, 5, 2006 2: 23PM KI NG CO, WL 0 NO, 6930 p, 29/34 --' ----~--~-~.-----------I , I tA-z. \0 14l. oz.. ./ '-------.~=r'\ -~_tr---~-- \ ('.. E. -----...:..--'- ~' V , ~ ... ,JAN, 5,2006 2:23PM KING CO, WL~DI"" ", NO,6930 .l.(J:N'G COU----~ WATER AND L~ REsOURCE IVISION ~[?:? DR£.. .AGE INVESTIGATION REpORT ~SnGArioNREQU~ p, 30/34 Aff'A o.,J oS t~ 7----rf' ~ o~ Type Fe. fZ- RECEIVED BY: OK'd b : FILENo. Received from: (Day) ( Ift5) (Eve) ( 1 NAME: -r;;Yl~ (L ..: K~N PHONE Z3 r--7'3b 7 ADDRESS: /497..,0 13Cf9h. fL. S",~_City . State, __ Zip __ _ _ LOCATIONOFPROBLEM,IFDIPl'ERENT: W60S; .,' , 1~9~ pL se Access Permission Granted 0 Call First '(\VouIdLUr" ToBeP,resent) 0 Po~~~~ ~J~13~vOr' t ?i~-r£ ~ ~~.~ Lot No: Block No: ParcelNo. LD7XJ:xJSt{OKron'6tLIJ Th.Bros: New t6743 RDP Basin L GIL Council District ..... CO~--City_. __ ChargeNo,,~ __ ---,Fi __ _ RESPONSE: Citizen notified on _____ by: __ phone __ letter; __ in person ])lSPOSITION: Turned to on I J . by __ OR: No further action recommended because: , -IfJLead agency has been notified: ')( o~ 5" v1i1Jt-l,JT:; S(J.:c.::...:/I11..-~;........::..8.i....f.c:S=--____ _ _ Problem has been corrected. _ No problein bas been. identified. __ Prior investigation addresses problem: SEE FILE # __ _ ___ Private problem -NDAP will not consider because: . Water o~rs onsite and/or,on neighboring parcel. DATE CLOSED: 1J tr'ti3 By: ~ . ___ Other (Specify): - - JAN. 5.2006 2:23PM T 'G CO ill' k I' K,N. . VIL,.U ':' NO. 6930 P. 31134--- --"-:-:--~-~--' ....... """ Citizen Request N~,,:·fItU~ldb3)' Request taken via King CcHrnty beJ)artm",,,, of l'rBnsportation Request Date /-2 U ' 2003 Time --l.'i : 2. 0 ~:~'. Caller Name ---T.'~.:....r-f---W-~,---r-l-~-.L..~:'-'-----Day Phone ( ~,_-_~~,---.L..~~~ LlOther(_) Caller AddreSS _____ ~~--I-_+~~~"L-.-____.1f__3..LJ7~·--L~-Alk~~--"~~!::==.--· ____ _ Problem Location --::::Z'7-'---H:-:::+~~--. -:/r.3~'"':Zr--j:.-J~W---:7"-§i.-oE::::~-e;e __ ~=--------­ -R-e-q-ue-s-t-D-e-m~i-ls----~~~~~n~d~C-ro~ee~s-lr~--lo-r~~a~nd~m=B~rk~~--"~~~----~~~------------------------- ~eJ9~est' for,-)fded to: ~'1 ~JlJ [,ll!f-IPU #_ DIV Dispatched to' '~ _________ _ J d '2 -8-a.m. Time Ref'd --Lf-: J f 0 p.m. Above this line 10 fflce U3e Be/ow this Hoe for Field Use . ----. Initial Investigation by \L. I fa JJ~ . Req. Type-12-Investigation Date I ~ ,)., .2003 Findings/Action Taken . C~ t/~+ j',~~ flo_" ('':.f') W~.f /nr ~~ ~c~ c( ; rCmovt:J:... tle-JC~·f e. r7~.J: icp.",,~71 f."JJ tk-fk..t f'·fc.;zhJw~,c~ ~, =fit:{@1:;t~g§·-_~{fZ;J~6t~~:r Task Complered h IQ 6 Refer'd tou __ -'S:'__ RPU __ .-.~ Work Scheduled I /l.}fJ 6' Task Code O~ Ag('ncy ,. ~ Month/Task Fiesponding Pit ..... -? 0' :J Date Ref'd '" . 200_ Second Invest. by __ ~ _______ _ Oats Recv'd _________ • 200_ Action Taken -:'IAI ....... 'J.:~~·~=~""""-_~-'t!'·--=-·!\.;-"-~.-:"'· ___ ~ ____ l+-l :-' '. __ -_"."b=-=-( ...... )=u:....;r: ... dI-lC~)'--________________ _ ______ ~I~t~I~~,,~L_5~~I~+J~~~t~~~r~~. ~I-S~~~------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CONTACT LOG We£; Task Completed . Request Type '0 Date Clo.ed __ L../_-_~"'__· _L __ , 200-::! ~M~O~de~ __ ~=---~~~-------=~m~en=~~m~~~q~.------------------------------_=--~ I-'£=---+"'c...&..~:..c._t_F_-=----t-=~~""'_-.L<~--~r-t;. . ra.~.~::-----=:.;;....;....~------;...;;.;:...~~ Type of Request Choices A. Abandoned/Com'l Vehicle B. Utility Inspeotion C Cont(ac~OvarJay issues D. Drainage E. Debris or Hazard on Roadway F Flooding Property et-..r'~ / ~---~~~~~~~~=--=~~~~~ IE) Email (/) In pet1iQn (N) Note Hener) (U) Unsble 10 etJnfBf:r (V} Voies M611 G. Guardrail/Fence Damage H. SpiJl Cleanup (Gene~an '-Jnquiriss RE; Maint. ilctivities J. Spray Application K. Washout Repair/Slidt) Removal l. Vegetation CO('1[(ol (MoW. Brush. etc.) M. Illegal Use of R/W N. Shoulder Maintenance O. Mise, Requests P. Pothole O. Sidewalk/Curb. Maim. R. Repair StreerlPav!ng S. Street MaintJSweep T. Trash/Utter on R/W U. Snow/lce V. Water on Road/Flooding W. Lid MIssing (Gte, Utif.J X. Ditching ~'" I (Rev. 12/02) While Ccpy (CIOl;U'6) CMary Copy (FU) Pink C'<",v I~"h"n .. "",,, "'~''''----''' "'-_ ... _." -. Y. Brinn .. , ... " , .. ., , LOCAL DR.t\JNAG£ SERVICEs UNIT SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO MOW MOW SPECIAL MOW o o • o NO. 6930 P. 32/34 1.1A.:::!'<ITENANCE DlV ... BASIN LCR COUNCIL DIST. 12 TYPE POND STR sw 1+l.J..5 KItOLL811W RETROfITI'ED TN 19~ BY Sf EVE FOLEY . ~ ..• BOTIOM OF POND ELEV 360S 1.£361.0 INVENTORY DATE 1-21-98 149TB pLSE ACCESS GATE CHAINLINK FENCE 4' P. 33/34:--JAN. 5.2006 2:24PM KING CO. WLRD NO. 6930 -...;.--KlNGCOUN ·WA-rtRANDLANDRESOURCES ~ON If J I:;t-\..:) , DRAI~ ~~GE INVESTIGATION REpORT INVESTIGATION REQUEST ,"'IJ 1./ PROBLEM: 21b\-t tV AC c£ ~(. Type EC£: RECEIVED BY; L 6c-~ tJ Date: l \ I If03 OK"d by: FILENo. 2003 -fff/ls Received from: : (Day) e/?5) (Eve) ( . ) NAME: K~ TitvLoe .~ PHONE. 235-4.2' 7 ADDRESS; /4-.12...0 5e ~ r(~ City ff~t7N' StJJ.reu/~ Zip ZIPS? LOCATION OF PROSLEM, IF DIFFERENT: Access Permission Granted D :-. ~:,.. I." t ; Call First (Would Like To Be F.resent) 0 Lot No: • Block No: s T ~ Parcel NO./D-J),Q.?a5 <f 0 KroU1,tl Th.Bros; New 6sJ;;,JJ , RDP __ Basin L-U' Council District n_ City. Charge No .. ______ _ REsPONSE.' Citizen notified on nd t tl~ ._ J,y: '"")_ p~one __ letter. _ in p~rson ~".~. wi tM.A. .1~.lbY ;;:t;~. ~+-.' >~ JO~ l..O~ 1c-S s.~ {}4~ OV«"~ ~ Stke.f. ~.w-~~ ~ t.v~ Fl417~ '::Jo ~ if: t~ ~ 5p~ Pt-~~ ~#We,f" . . -(J DISPOSITION: Turned to on / / _ by_._ .. _ OR: No further action recommended because: . ____ Lead agency has been notified: . ___ " _'""_' "_' ._. ~ ___________ _ "_._ Problem has been corrected. _ No problem. has been identified. __ Prior investigation addresses problem: XI ' SEE FILE # __ _ -1.~' Priva~e problem -NDAP will not consider because: ': Water originates onsite':];JdJO on eighboring parcel. ~ Other (Specifyl;.,· 4-~ /9' 1/ p~ "je.a4.Ife.'-Y t;;/2sJ~""'.u-~"""--: DATE CLOSl!:D: ~:J By: ---,_. . ,(}J~ f~{/~ DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION REPORT FIELD INVESTIGATION On site December-5, 2003. At the time of my ,isit it was precipitating heavily and the pond and control structure were working at well. The inlet to the control structure had some moderate debris on the trash rack. This debris did not di,nupt flow to the eontrol structur-e. The inlet to the pond was running at normal capacity for the conditions at , the time of inspeetion. The Emergency spillway tor this pond spills over the control structure onto 149tft PL SE. On November 19,2003 the area experienced significant precipita'tion. I eould find DO defects at tbe time of my inspection to indicate a blockage in tbe control stroetur.e or catch basins down stream from this ladlRy. I, f i ~ i "D r (D m SE 139th PI,' l"r. Frederick H. Burn'3tead Burnstead. Constructi-on Cr, 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, 14A 98005 Dear Mr. Burnsteadl 225 vesta Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 March 6, 2006 We responded to your letter of November 17, 2005 with the legal description of the strip of land in dispute per your request. To date, we have received no further correspondence from you. After speaking with Keri Heaver, Senior Planner at Renton City Hall, it is our understanding the Hearing Examiner may well postpone the Highlands Park hearing if this dispute is not resolved before the April l.j" 2006 hearing date. Since we are certain you will want to avoid further delay, we wondered if possibly you failed to receive our re- sponse of November JO, 2005. If this is the situation, we can provide you with another copy of the necessary information. Sincerely, ~~aJ-},7Mf Edward & June Hill cc;Ron Hughes, PE Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton vKeri Weaver tl.iichael Chen -c~i __ .. __ ~~af.,.,~E4€~-..?5H?~. __ ~E4 .q_M,_"~~~L·' <~ 4;i£2lfC4I41.}c=<J:..":."4! ,4., .23 _4-4 ------~-d-w-a-r-d & June H111 225 vesta Ave SE . SEATTLE \IVA 981 Renton, WA 98059 • r-" ~ '0..-1. cr:;:.\J~~~.\\y "f i, "l~O 1 f',0f'1P .. \",1"-1' -i.':"'.) w"""-', 'f' '!I;, ... t,...~~ -: ,\ ~ \'~ r:,.1v (,,;>~, 06 ~1AR 2Ot16Pt-1 3 T Ver1 Weaver, ~en1or Planner ~th Floor -Renton City hall 1055 Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ·38:::S~;'·+-:::::2:~::2 Ii I I I I' 0 I . I 1/ 0 0 'I I' 0 I J 1 0/' II! !I 1l/f1/U!lL "II 1111 1!!/d!!i III ,IIi, II ! I!!I d ~. i Keri~W~e~ave-~r~-_-T_~r_e~_R_e~e-n_-ti_o~n=a-_~-d·-P-r-e-lim-in-a-r-' -L=a=nd=-s-.~-31=-p=-in~g-_ Pla-n=s=f-?_r-=-H-· _ig-=-h-_la-=n=d_S Park Develo_p_m_e_nt_.~ __ .~~ ___ pagen From: To: Date: Subject: Keri -- Eddie Tennell <papaezt@yahoo.com> <kweaver@ci.renton.wa.us>, <highlands_neighbors.@hotmail.com> 03/07/200612:52:33 PM Tree Retention and Preliminary Landscaping Plans for Highlands Park Development My wife and I have inspected the preliminary tree retention plan for the Highlands Park Development and would like to provide our input. We reside at 15511 SE 133rd St and our property will be adjacent to Lots 28 and 29 of the new development. The tree retention plan indicates the decidious trees will be kept. These trees are maple trees that have the very large leaves. In the fall, these leaves all come off the trees and the wind blows them everywhere including in our back yard. They create a very large mess that we must clean up and pay to have disposed of. Additionally, they create huge quantities of seeds that blow everywhere, take root, and must be removed. These trees are covered extensively with moss. When we moved into our home, there were two of these trees left in our back yard that were in a similar condition and we had to have them removed because they were rotting internally. We discovered this when a wind storm blew a very large limb off of one of them and we had them inspected to determine if they were stable. They were not and we had them removed. It is our opinion that these decidious trees should be removed to prevent all concerned parties from having to deal with the mess. The evergreen trees should provide sufficient greenery to retain the character of the area. Thank you, Eddie and Nancy Tennell Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. STA TE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal, dvertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court ofthe State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on February 6, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $163.80. ",,""""'(, ...... ~ ••. ,'" 111 _~'(\"'Ii J".,d··'t,~~ t, :~.o,·; .. ~;\::;>if;",>9 "" l~ga~rtising Representative, King County Journal! :'ii'~ !k1~'"~~~··". \ , • tj): , Subscribed and sworn to me this 6th day of February, 2~6. ~ 0 ,~o<q"... : .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_ ,d 1.($)' •• ',,-' :0: I, /-"', 'I ... r.::. .: _ ',.-d-.: ,. "0-\ I, 1 J': -.. ' . " ~~ _- Kathy D"~l •••• ~ 0;'; V,j>.S"':. .... Notary Public for the State of Washmgton, Residing in Covingt~h\\W~~10n PO Number: REVISED NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Revised Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Location: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King Countv 152nd Ave. SE). The applic;nt is requesting SEPA environmental review and Pre- liminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an lS.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single- family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. f1. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. Appeals of the environmental deter- mination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on April 4, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. If the Environ- mental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: February 6, 2006 Published in the King County Journal February 6, 2006. #848629 I ~ CORE ~DESIGN ENGINEERING· PLANNING· TRA DATE: 02/16/06 TO: City of Renton - 6th Floor ATTN: Keri Weaver ADDRESS: 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 QUANTITY DATED DESCRIPTION .' • , • \ \ \ , , • NSNIITTAL CORE PROJECT NO: REFERENCE: FROM: SENDING VIA: (ore De.lgft, 'nco 14711 N.E. 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com 01019 Highlands Park Michael Chen [gI MAIL 0 PICK-UP o HAND DELIVER o COURIER D1-HR 1!2-HR D4-HR o OVERNIGHT 6 01-11-06 Preliminary Landscape Plan (11 x17) 6 01-2006 Preliminary Tree Retention Plan (11 x17) TRANSMITTED: 0 FOR YOUR USE ACTION REQUIRED: 0 PROCESSING COMMENTS: Keri, [gI PER YOUR REQUEST o REPLY o RETURN o INFORMATION ONLY [gI NONE Enclosed are the half size plans of the preliminary tree retention and landscape plan for Highlands Park. CC: BY: ~~ Michael Chkn, Senior Land Planner REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PRC>.JECT NUMBER: LUA05-124, pp, ECF LOCATION: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. Se), south of SE 133rd Street. north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) DESCRIPnON: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73--101 subdivision of an 18.13 .... cre site located within the Residential-4 (R .... ' dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-famity detached units. An existing resklenee and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately B,200 sq. ft. to 11.200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE. and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal publiC streets. A stonn water detention pond is proposed for the southwest comer of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental detennination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.9. Additional infonnation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 4, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. CERTIFICATION I, Dcre.k:.. Jor~", , hereby certify that "3 copies of the above document were posted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property_o,p DATE: ::l/ ~ 106 SIGNED: D R ~...--::::= .. ~ -,' ".{"' . ~ . " : Q ~~ ~ .. '~" j "( :' c'{' N U ! (Vi' .' : (J , • ,',:)/ ! ~ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in A:n"~' n, '3e,a1T1.e Wti1,oothe?z daYOf~n;j Mb. DoI/LAcc~~ NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of February, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing REVISED ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Rep .. e$~nting Agencies See Attached Burnstead Construction Applicant Jim Jacques Owner Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): >~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) ... --- ": '''-'), lYli -' I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker ",-""," '0 :~:.::~.~~r-1/' \, signed this inst~umen.t and ~cknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act !.¢~e~iJS~ .. ~~\ Purposes mentioned In the Instrument. }.-o :if \1)~I'I\R" -;51', "PI ..... , ~":t :6 ~,'-' I {tl: ( J I / I . ,/) /,,'. // , 1" .. -•• ~~ (fl • l Dated: ;:( 6 06' L,lct-ucLl~~ (./L. k~ /1 : 0 PUEUC .: : Notary Public in and for the Sate of ~~!~'?~.~?:~~~:;(~.} Notary (Print):_.L-c'--,4_c:_l_f_'Y Cf'_C_'_"L_I_"\ __ A __ Le_'_'}(_?l_,_I!_d_,_, ._[_r_' __ " _' \_~._O.;;..F_\~,_,f.'._(~:,:",_; "'_""_": My appointment expires: 3-/'7 . 0(; Project Name: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Project Number: LUA05-124, PP, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing .. Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Jim Jacques 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Bumstead Construction 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 tel: 425-454-1900 Jim Jacques Construction 1216 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 (owner) tel: 425-885-7877 eml: mc@coredesign.com (contact) James & Linda St. John 6009 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-519-6565 (party of record) June Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SW Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-226-9686 (party of record) David L. Halinen 2115 N. 30th St. ste: #203 Tacoma, WA 98403 tel: (425) 454-8272 (party of record) David Bishop 15413 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7283 (party of record) Ellen & Martha Mier 15300 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 572-0271 (party of record) Berniece L. Ersland 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4655 (party of record) Updated: 01/19/06 ( applicant) Mike Moran 15121 SE 139th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Ronda & Franklyn Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gordon Sherman 15401 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 864-1552 (party of record) Kim Thomas 15404 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-3632 (party of record) Debra Moore 6026 SE 2nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 204-1458 (party of record) Manuel Hernandez 6015 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 256-0049 (party of record) Jack Pace 6013 NE 1st Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gwendolyn High, CARE President CARE PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Mayra Rodriguez 15323 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Quang Tran & Nga Ninh 15313 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-4915 (party of record) James & Melinda Wilson 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4886 (party of record) Chikai & Mitsuye Sakaguchi 15203 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-7916 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) · . Glenn Glover 6008 NE 1st Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-271-1248 (party of record) Updated: 01/19/06 PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Robert M. Herman, P.E., P.T.O.E. Herman Traffic Engineering 15324 SE 133rd Court Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-277-1740 eml: hte@comcast.net (party of record) Jeff Anderson 15519 SE 133rd Street Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-460-2516 (party of record) (Page 2 of 2) REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 4,2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please Include·the pr()J~t~.NUMBER. whell.calllng fgrproper file Identificatlon~ . y I February 2, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: REVISED Environmental Determination Transmitted herewith is a copy of the REVISED Environmental Determination for the following project that was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on January 31,2006: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers _E_nc_lo_su_r_e ----lO-S-S-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y---R-e....;.nt-on-,..,.W-as-hi-ngt-on-9-S0-S-S-------~ ~ This oaoer contains 50% recvcled material. 30% Oo.c;t consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) -REVISED APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-124, PP, ECF APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An eXisting residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Dennis Culp, Admini Community Servic February 6, 2006 January 31,2006 February 2, 2006 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 CITY ~ ~ RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat -LUA05-124, PP, ECF Revised Environmental Determination / Reschedule of Public Hearing Dear Mr. Chen: As you know, on December 28, 2005, two appeals and requests for reconsideration of the Environmental Determination were filed by individual parties. The appeals were filed in a timely manner, and will be heard as part of the public hearing for the preliminary plat. On January 31, 2006 the Environmental Review Committee separately reviewed the requests for reconsideration and issued a revised threshold Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with revised Mitigation Measures and AdviSOry Notes. Both are enclosed for your review. The public hearing date has been rescheduled for April 4, 2006 at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the scheduled hearing. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on February 20, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have any questions or or need additional information, please call me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: Jim Jacques Construction / Owner Burnstead Construction / Applicant Parties of Record Enclosures -------l-O-SS-So-u-th-a-r-ad-y-W-a-y---R-e-nt-on-,-W-a-sh-i-ngt-o-n-. -98-0-S-S ------~ ~ This paoer contains 50% recvcled material. 30% ppst consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON REVISED -DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-124, PP, ECF APPLICANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual develoPl11ent of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on. the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: On th,e west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE'(King County 152nd Ave. SE) The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DevelopmenfPlanning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 2005, prepared by Terra Associates; Inc. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-famlly lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic MitigationFee based on $75.00 p.er each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. 6. Clearing and grading activities shall comply with the tree retention plan dated January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON REVISED -DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-124, PP, ECF APPLICANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th . Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave;·NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Plann\ng/Buildfng/Public Works Development Planning Section AdvisoryJ:iotei1 to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these /Jotes are provided as infof(lJation only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmentaldeterminations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030 .. C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division, The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction workwill occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clo.ck (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shan be. permitted on Sundays. Fire Prevention 1. Afire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of 3 3. Dead end access roadways over 700 feet in length are required to have a secondary access. All lots on a dead end access roadway between 500 and 700 feet are required to be sprinklered. A secondary access would eliminate this requirement. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Plan Review -Stormwater Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $715.00 x 72 new single-family lots. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $51,480.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. Applicant will be required to tightline all roof drains to the storm system. 3. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted and reviewed. The project will be required to comply with the standards and requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 5. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided along the proposed detention/water quality pond facilities area where it abuts the right-of-way. 6. The applicant shall comply with the preliminary geotechntcalr~port by Terra Associates, dated October 10, 2005, and its recommended conditions. Plan Review -Water 1.· Fire flow requirement for single~family reSidences is 1,000 gpm. ,A. hydrant is required within 300 feet of the furthest structure. If residences exceed 3,600 square feet .. fire flow. increases to 1,500 gpm and an additional hydrant will be required. ..' . . 2. A 5-inch Storz quick-disconnect fitting willb~. reqpir£;lCi to be installed on;existing and new hydrants. 3. All plats shall provide a separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Separate permits for water meters will be required. Plan Review-Sewer 1. The project is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees will be collected at the time the utility construction permitis issued. . 2. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $900.00 x 72 single-family lots. 3. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $64,800.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 4. A sanitary sewer main extension to the furthest extent of the new interior street that will serve the plat will be required. The sewer main shall be installed at a slope that will allow it to serve the developments to the north by gravity, as far as possible. 5. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave .. NE will be required. 6. Separate sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot prior to recording of the short plat. No dual side sewers are allowed. Minimum slope for side sewers shall be 2%. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including Sidewalk, curb and gutter, street lighting, signage, landscaping and storm drainage are required to be installed along the frontage of the project site with Rosario Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave. NE, and along the new streets in the interior of the plat. 2. Dedication of 12 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. ERe Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 \. • I • 5. A pedestrian walkway connection, with a minimum 6 feet of pavement, shall be provided from Vesta Ave. NE to the internal road in proposed tract 998 (park), to enable easier access for pedestrians. An access easement for this purpose shall be recorded with the final plat. 6. The applicant has requested a road modification for reduction of right-of-way width of internal streets to 42 feet. The road modification decision will be issued during review of the preliminarypJat application. General: 1. Separate permits for the side sewer connections, water meters and storm drainage connections are required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with submittal. 4. A Forest Practices Permit from the Washington Department of Natural Resources maybe required for the proposed clearing. The applicant will be requited to provide detailed information regarding the percentages of hardwood, conifer and shrubs onsite, and the kinds and amounts to be removed and left. Contact: Lisa Spahr, Department of Natural Resources, (360) 802-7007. 5. A right-of-way vacation request has been submitted to City Council (VAC 05-004) for 5 feet along Rosario Ave. NE for Tax Parcel ID No. 1423059118, and. Will be considered during review of the preliminary plat application. 6. A segment .of King County's proposed Cedar River-Sammam.ishRegional.Trail may be developed in the unused portion of Rosario Ave. NE, north of SE 2nd Street, ane may be. extended through the right-of-way on the east side of Rosario Ave; NEadjacentto the proposed storm wat$f pond (Tract 997/Parcel D). The applicant is required to provide notice concerning the potential trai~devefopment and its location on title for all lots in the proposed subdivision. .. . . 7. The applicant shall include a copy of the Tree R~tention Plan dated January 26,2006 as an atlachmentio the CC&Rs for the future homeowners' as~ociation •. ·ti:\e.CC&Rs sh~ILincfude a provision that if any trees identified for retention in the Tree Retention Plan are·iemoved after occupancy, each tree removed shall be replaced in the same general area with another-tree offikekind, and shall be permanently maintained. ERCAdvisory Notes Page 30f3 Date: To: From: Subject: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM January 31, 2006 Environmental Review Committee Keri Weaver, Senior Planner x 7382 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Application LUA05-124 Revised/Reissued DNS-M -Summary On January 31, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee decided to revise mitigation measures and reissue the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Highlands Park preliminary plat application. The following changes have been made: Mitigation Measure #6 (phasing of clearing and grading) has been replaced with new language requiring clearing and grading activities to comply with the tree retention plan submitted on January 26, 2006, in order to preserve at least 25% of existing significant trees on the site. Mitigation Measure #7 (applicant to prepare tree inventory and retention plan) has been deleted, as the applicant has now provided the required inventory and plan. Advisory Notes (General): Two notes have been added. Note #7 requires the applicant to provide notice on title regarding potential trail development along Rosario Ave. NE. Note #8 requires the applicant to include a copy of the tree retention plan with the CC&Rs, and requires the CC&Rs to include a provision that if any retained tree is removed after occupany, it must be replaced with a like tree. Revised DNS-M Memo 10 ERe 05-124.doc Date: To: From: Subject: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM January 5, 2006 Environmental Review Committee Keri Weaver, Senior Planner x 7382 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Application LUA05-124 Appeals of Environmental Determination (DNS-M) -Summary of Issues On December 12, 2005, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Highlands Park preliminary plat application. On December 28, 2005, two requests for reconsideration and appeals of the Environmental Determination were filed, by the applicant (Burnstead Construction) and by the Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE), a local citizen action group. The appeals were filed in a timely manner, and if not withdrawn, will be heard as part of the public hearing for the preliminary plat. The Environmental Review Committee is asked to separately review the requests for reconsideration prior to the public hearing. The following is a summary of the reconsideration/appeal issues, and staff's position on each issue: A. Burnstead Construction (applicant) The applicant has appealed Mitigation Measures #6 and 7 in the DNS-M, and alleges that these mitigation measures are not authorized by the City's SEPA policies, are not reasonably necessary, and are unduly oppressive. • Mitigation Measure #6: "Clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage is limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities." • Mitigation Measure #7: "Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant shall provide a tree inventory and tree retention plan to the Development Services Division for review and approval. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited." Mitigation Measure #6 is intended to (1) reduce the likelihood of onsite and offsite erosion and sedimentation that could result from large-scale clearcutting and grading at one time over the entire site, which is approximately 18 acres in size; (2) preserve existing trees in conjunction with Mitigation Measure #7 (see below); and (3) protect neighborhood aesthetics and buffer surrounding properties and residents from the potential impacts of large-scale clearcutting and grading. Mitigation Measure #7 is intended to clarify and implement the requirements of RMC 4- 7 -130, which states: "Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees." The Memo to ERe re appeaa05-124.doc City is currently developi..~ policy for significant tree retention, ch will be adopted into the RMC. Mitigation Measure #7 is consistent with the City's draft tree retention language. Staff believes that these mitigation measures are authorized by RMC 4-9-070 (Environmental Review Procedures), and are consistent with the ERC's responsibility to apply reasonable conditions to mitigate or avoid the adverse impacts of the development proposal. B. Citizens' Alliance for a Responsible Evendell (CARE) CARE's primary concerns are stormwater, clearing and grading, tree retention, wildlife, landscaping and pedestrian access. CARE alleges that the following issues have not been adequately addressed in the DNS-M: 1. Wildlife protection. A member of public provided CARE with a photograph of a red-tailed hawk on a property adjacent to the Highlands Park site, and an accompanying statement that the site is home to numerous wildlife species, including hawks, owls, deer, raccoons, opossums and coyotes. Based on the photograph, CARE alleges that a new wildlife study should be required, as the applicant "submitted no information in regard ot the possibility of a protected avian species' presence." A wildlife reconnaissance study by Wetland Resources Inc., dated October 7, 2005, was submitted with the project application. The study indicated that several common bird species were detected. No mammalian species were detected; however, the report indicates that animals such as deer, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, rabbits and coyotes utilize similar habitats and may exist onsite. No bald eagles or sensitive avian species were detected. Staff believes that the appel/ant has not demonstrated that the existing wildlife study was inaccurate or inadequate, and that the documented off site observance of a red- tailed hawk does not justify requiring a new wildlife study 2. Stormwater. Mitigation Measure #5 of the DNS-M requires the project to be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. CARE alleges that the Level 2 standard is inadequate to address major storm events, aquifer protection, groundwater seepage, and erosion. CARE requests that a new surface water and downstream analysis be performed consistent with the Level 3 standards of the 2005 KCSWDM, and that Level 3 stormwater control facilities and mitigation measures be required. The 2005 KCSWDM, Section 1.2.3.1., specifies steps for flow control facility requirements. Step No. 2 refers to use of the Flow Control Applications Map. According to this map, the project site is within a Conservation Flow Control Area (formerly known as Level 2). Steps No. 3 and 4 refer to downstream problems identified through the off site analysis. According to the Preliminary Drainage Report for Highlands Park, dated October 2005, there are no flooding problems downstream that would justify a Flood Problem Flow Control (Level 3). Staff believes that based on the information provided by the applicant, the 2005 KCSWDM requirements indicate that a Level 2 flow control is sufficient for the proposed development. However, if during the design review phase evidence is shown that downstream problems are in fact present and require mitigation, the applicant should be required to provide the mitigation and/or design the flow control to a higher standard. Memo to ERe re appeals 05-124.doc • Staff recommend~ __ vision of Mitigation Measure #5 as _lows: "The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. However, if information is provided during final design review showing the existence of existing downstream drainage problems that will require mitigation and/or that the proposed development will create downstream drainage impacts that cannot be adequatelv handled by Level 2 flow control, the Department may require the applicant to provide additional mitigation and/or design the flow control facilities to a higher standard. " 3. Forest Practices. In a letter dated November 2, 2005, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) indicated that a Forest Practices application could be required for the applicant's proposal to clearcut the site. CARE requests that the applicant be required to submit a full Forest Practices permit application for review by the Department of Natural Resources. The applicant was notified in the DNS-M, and will be additionally notified in the Report to the Hearing Examiner, that a Forest Practices permit application may need to be submitted to DNR. The City does not enforce State permit processes. Submittal of a Forest Practices application is not required for preliminary plat approval. 4. Clearing and Grading. CARE requests that the applicant be required to clear and grade in phases, so that "the cumulative negative impacts can at least be imposed incrementally". To this end, detailed phased clearing and grading plans should be submitted and approved prior to the final plat consideration. Mitigation Measure #6 limits clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities. Clearing for building sites will take place subsequent to recording of the final plat. The appellant does not provide any information on how further "phasing" of clearing and grading should be designed, nor how this additional requirement would reduce project impacts. Staff does not believe that a requirement to phase clearing and grading is justified. 5. Tree Retention. Mitigation Measure #7 requires the applicant to submit and receive approval for a sitewide tree retention plan prior to receiving construction permits. CARE requests that the tree retention plan be submitted and approved before "any and all clearing and grading, platting, building footprint, street network design, utility location and all other plans and permits" so that these plans are designed around the tree retention requirements instead of vice versa. CARE is apparently requesting that the City first approve a stand-alone tree retention plan for the site without consideration for a potential lot layout, the street network deSign, placement of utilities, etc. -in other words, the project would have to be later designed around the trees. Staff believes that such a requirement would be onerous, unnecessary, and inconsistent with the City's urban development policies. The City has identified a desire to preserve significant trees and retain an overall percentage of trees, and staff believes that Mitigation Measure #7 is adequate for this purpose. 6. Landscaping and Pedestrian Access. CARE states that lots on the west side of the plat, adjacent to the undeveloped right-of-way of Rosario Ave. SE, "are directly along the easemenVstreet route shown between the two local King County Parks. The land for these parks was purchased as part of the Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail project." CARE requests that the City "require Memo to ERe re appe .... 05-124.00c • reasonable pedes ____ n access improvements consistent I this existing trail plan along the full western border of the project site," and that these improvements be coordinated with the tree retention and site landscaping for approval prior to any other plans or permits. The City may require a proposed development to accommodate an officially designated City trail (RMC 4-7-120). However, the Cedar River-Lake Sammamish Trail is a County trail, and the County continues to retain jurisdiction over those sections of the trail within incorporated areas. The proposed development does not preclude future use of the undeveloped portion of Rosario Ave. SE right-of-way for trail purposes. The applicant has not been required to provide frontage improvements (including pedestrian access or landscaping) along Rosario Ave. SE north of SE ~d Street, due to the presence of an offsite Class /I wetland that lies partially within the Rosario Ave. SE right- of-way. Staff believes that development of such improvements within a wetland or wetland buffer would be inconsistent with the City's Critical Areas Ordinance and cannot be justified. Memo to ERe re appeals 05-124.doc STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING} AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Tom Meagher, being fIrst duly sworn on oath that he is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on December 12, 2005. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$130.00. ~,;: ~\\\"""'" {/L-~,,'t:'{ L.!l~ 11',~ ~~OT~AJ?() ~ Tom Meagher ~.., ~ J-~ ~ Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journi EXP. = Subscribed and sworn to me this 15th day of Decembej ~ 5. 04/28/2009 ~ E ~~'1 . Jj:)~ [)/g-~.~~~c (:):~ :> ~I: 011' UrA' ~, ... "1,/ "'I""" \~ ',"" ... '\' Jo . arton Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington PO Number: Cost of publishing this notice includes an affIdavit surcharge. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Detennination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the fol- lowing project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Location: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County l52nd Ave. SE). The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of a18.l3-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant pro- poses the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approxi- mately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A stonn water detention pond is proposed for the BOuthwest comer of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writ- ing together with the reqnired $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Sec>- tion 4-8-110.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on January 10, 2006 at 9:00 AM to con- sider the Preliminary Plat. If the Environmental Detennination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the pub- lic hearing. Published in the King County Journal December 12,2005. #848215 ~< .-llj rt F~ November 17, 2005 Edward and June Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, Washington 98059 RE: Highlands Park -Boundary Line Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hill, I have reviewed your letter dated November 7'h, which included the letter from your attorney, and we want to proceed with the quitclaim deed. Please forward the legal description describing the strip of land which your surveyor has prepared. Once the surveyors are in agreement with the existing fence location, I will have Core Design prepare the quitclaim deed. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (425) 454-1900 extension 233. Sincerely, BURNST~AD jONSTRUCTION COMPANY /k~ Ron Hughes, PE Cc: Neil Watts, City of Renton Michael Chen, Core Design OEVElOPMENT~CES CITY OF RENTON JAN 2 0 2~eS RECEIVED 1215 120th Avenue N.E., Ste. 201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 425454 1900 Fax: 425 454 4543 ri!! '. " i :' ' :, l' cORE ~DESIGN ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING TRANSJVlITTAL DATE: 1/11/06 CORE PROJECT NO: REFERENCE: TO: City of Renton FROM: ATTN: Keri A. Weaver, AICP Coro D.slgn, Inc. J471 J N.E. 29th Place, Suite JOJ Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 www.coredesigninc.com 01019 I 'i; Highlands Park l ..:. 12J.f i I~ ADDRESS: Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 SENDING VIA: o MAIL o PICK-UP IZI HAND DELIVER o COURIER D1·HR D2-HR D4-HR o OVERNIGHT QUANTITY DATED DESCRIPTION 3 1/11/06 Preliminary Landscape Plan TRANSMITTED: o PER YOUR REQUEST o INFORMATION ONLY ACTION REQUIRED: IZI FOR YOUR USE o PROCESSING o REPLY o RETURN o NONE COMMENTS: CC: BY: :iC. Pc: , it Mic ael Chen, Senior Planner • l(p~i W-r-/f-f[P/L ... -. )' /l-fLit-/V1tJ"t"-(L. , .,. CifJ._.1~r#T6"'_~ . .. .... - p~{L ~ /(tGt"NT Tt1rftfOlv~' CA;/VvN {;J-T1oN .... ~;;C#-~';;~ 7£-' tfIGtf~! 1*Rk-ft..rJ j (;I~/lF ... ...... :::1 ...... ~ .. -B:~/;t). . .. ," . . Ih-y .. ,. Cf) N C-f/CN s: 14rvT .. Tf/f-. !~JfC;r ;~f.J't Jrr {O .. ~ wi~. 0fF iS$'IIFs. S~te {flc L'-y II ~ Vf-R-1. vP~_~7, rJy~'I}-.T!fF .... ~ r./j.,H--~H~ _'HI6!J~-Il PIt1L~ .fLlr1 "ts_~ ~1 .. " ... ~t 6oc.,.l)pW ~LFS. \~ f-LY to A/vl) ~ ... bkt Nf{6q-~dA-s 1A1<~ ~D itvN T ~12 Tfjtl/L ~ 7fjflrr"c; Jt-tT-v1l +4 t+16ttlA-Nb PAtte futr ~/) ttl--~~ ~I o~ tJl~ P/ZA-Pt~7f. T~J TLt.f'flo.t #-. Cf/)t1YL tl Vf/L A:it~, to TlfF Ifh~~mtfJlt()/Vt;'''L> Nt--16It&nL"~ . 1tJt t+L6lt-~ I ufT 4~s 0 / ) 'tJ~() ~! Tffr P-fA.o t-t~ S fb~ NP{.T ItV6 Pv~/~{-, 14-SBt'fr6 ~ >" Jr1~ 1--1>-. iI110fJ Tit s • ,-,- Pt-WY s-uMk Tfff>E~.J wfllI ,-ttr" f" tv V I ~--N 1IV1,f'"./tll-L ~v I FW ~., (JrE J: ~ SeN e-F1lE: (, t ) . tfll 14-tVlo~ Pit-/? T Y of ~r"GM-/:l CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 4th day of January, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Notice of Postponement of Public Hearing documents. This information was sent to: ~T ~ame .....•. Michael Chen Burnstead Construction Jim Jacques Parties of Record (Signature of Sender)~ /~J ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) SS ) '-- @;i>,';:' ~~ ",; 6~pre§~ntthg . ",' Contact Applicant Owner See attached list. -/" "\ / ---~ Ct~t \({LEt:; ro. i'(O.·\~'U \ j NOTARY PUBLIC ~ : STATE OF WASHINGTO"J , l'"':OIIMIS'·:·· · ...... '\1 ·:7..X""I)'~:>!::C ",-,"." nIl . "",\."/\: , .... .1' " ;: ..... t;;) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Patrick Roduin .;~~~.,1~j~:L?3_~..\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and p::::es mt/Z:in the instrument. ~ r~ QOtaf)IPUbIiC in and for the State of Washington Notary (print): __ ,;;...D-=-." ~_J_~_-f_. _. (--.,;~-=-J!£_' _________ _ My appointment expires: Highlands Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF • . .. " Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. PARTIES OF RECORD Highlands Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Jim Jacques 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Burnstead Construction 1215 120th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 tel: 425-454-1900 (applicant) Jim Jacques Construction 1216 N 38th Street Renton, WA 98056 (owner) tel: 425-885-7877 eml: mc@coredesign.com (contact) James & Linda St. John 6009 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-519-6565 (party of record) June Hill 225 Vesta Avenue SW Renton, WA 98059 tel: 425-226-9686 (party of record) David L. Halinen 2115 N. 30th St. ste: 203 Tacoma, WA 98403 tel: (425) 454-8272 (party of record) David Bishop 15413 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-7283 (party of record) Ellen & Martha Mier 15300 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 572-0271 (party of record) Berniece L. Ersland 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4655 (party of record) Updated: 01/04/06 Mike Moran 15121 SE 139th Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Ronda Bryant 6220 SE 2nd Place Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gordon Sherman 15401 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 864-1552 (party of record) Kim Thomas 15404 SE 133rd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 255-3632 (party of record) Debra Moore 6026 SE 2nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 204-1458 (party of record) Manuel Hernandez 6015 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 256-0049 (party of record) Jack Pace 6013 NE 1st Street Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Gwendolyn High, CARE President CARE PO Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Mayra Rodriguez 15323 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 (party of record) Quang Tran & Nga Ninh 15313 SE 133rd Ct. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 235-4915 (party of record) James & Melinda Wilson 6014 NE 1st Circle Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 228-4886 (party of record) Chikai & Mitsuye Sakaguchi 15203 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA 98059 tel: (425) 271-7916 (party of record) (Page 1 of 1) December 29,2005 Fred Kaufman -Hearing Examiner Keri Weaver -Senior Planner Jennifer Henning -Principal Planner Neil Watts -Director of Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: Forest Practice Application, Tree Inventory and Tree Retention Plan Highlands Park Preliminary Plat: LUA -05-124, PP, ECF A copy of the letter we received from Bumstead Construction Company in June of 2004 is attached. In it they agree to leave three cedar trees that are on the line between our properties in exchange for our signature on a 60% petition to annex to the City of Renton. While talking to neighbors, it occurred to us that by having a look at the Tree Retention Plan before it was finalized, some of the concerns of the surrounding property owners could be addressed at that time. For example, one neighbor is concerned about a conifer that is a possible threat to his home. If it faUs it would crush his home. If this tree was slated to stay, could it not be removed and another designated to stay? Conversely, if some trees along the edge of the project were marked for removal could they not stay and others be removed? We realize that these are questions that could have an impact on the design of the development, but they, at the very least, deserve serious consideration. Sincerely, X 6/~~G3~~~ Ronda and Franklyn Bryant '7 6220 SE 2nd Street Renton, W A 98059 ..... June 30, 2004 Franklyn & Ronda Bryant 15406 SE 136th ST Renton, W A 98059 RE: Petition to Annex to the City of Renton Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bryant, As previously discussed: In return for your signature on the Renton Maplewood East Annexation, Bumstead Construction will agree to leaving the 3 cedar trees currently on the property line, between parcel numbers 1423059006 and 1423059047, adjacent to your fish pond. These 3 cedar trees will be left as stumps meeting the appropriate safety requirements and will not be up rooted during the clearing of Bumstead's parcel # 1423059047. We understand your concerns and appreciLte your cooperation. onstruction Company .21S 120r" A.-enl/C N.E.. Src. 201 Ilt'flcmc. 1~:1 9800S-2IJ5 42545-1 1900 Fax: 425 454 454) ,I I. i i.1 CITY F RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator January 4, 2006 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Subject: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat -LUA05-124, PP, ECF Postponement of Public Hearing Dear Mr. Chen: The public hearing date for the Highlands Park Preliminary Plat was originally scheduled for January 10, 2005, at 9:00 am. This hearing has been postponed to a later date which has not yet been determined. On December 12, 2005, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) for the project. On December 28, 2005, two appeals and requests for reconsideration of the Environmental Determination were filed by individual parties. The appeals were filed in a timely manner, and will be heard as part of the public hearing for the preliminary plat The Environmental Review Committee will separately review the requests for reconsideration. When a new hearing date for the project has been established, all Parties of Record will be notified no later than ten days prior to the new hearing date. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: Jim Jacques Construction I Owner Bumstead Construction I Applicant Parties of Record -------------lo-5-5-S-ou-ili--ili-a-dy-w--~---R-e-nt-on-,-W-~-h-in-~-o-n-9-8-05-5------------~ ~ This Daoer contain~ 50% 1"AC":VC".IAti m;atP.ri;:!l1 ~n% ~t r.nn~llmAr AHEAD OF THE CURVE 7 I City of Reff.un Department of Planning / Building / Public Wv. p"s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ~ lteL..-COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77491 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housinq Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. (1.. r( c.. .. -.J ,r- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date 225 Vesta Ave.SE Ren ton ~';A 98059 October 3, 2005 heil l/atts, [evelopment Services [irector 6th Floor -1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 08055 He: Vaplewood East -LUA-04-114· A,RZ,ECF ~aplewood Estates -Division J It has come to our attention that the above pre- application was recently submitted to Renton. Part of this proposed development includes Parcel #142305-90h 7 belonging to the 3urnsteads. We are concerned because our property, Parcel d142305-9059, shares a boundary line with it. That boundary line is in dispute. You can see fro~ the attached attorney's letter that we have attempted for ~ore than a year to re- solve this situation with Colony 30mes and, spec- ifically, the 3urnsteads. T~ey have been unrespon- si vee Cur fenceline has existed unchallenged in various forrr.s for more than 25 years. Because of this cir- cumstance, we do not believe that the application process should be allowed to BO forward until our concerns have been addressed to our satisfaction. cc: Frederick Eurnstead Robert l:acCnie bonnie Halton August 6, 2004 HELSELL FETTERMAN A I 'mlt~" J ,,,h,/ill l'tt,.ttJ~rfh,p Mr. Frederick H. Burnslead Burnstead Construction Company 1215 120u1 Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Jane S Kiker ,\/10m ".1' At Lav. Re: Colony Homes, King County Parcel No. 1423059047; Edward and June Hill Dear Mr. Burnstead: This office has been retained by Edward and June Hill, who own property and reside at 13527 -156th Avenue SE, in unincorporated King County. The Hills are in receipt of your company's May 12, 2004, letter requesting that they sign the annexation petition for the Maplewood East Annexation to the City of Renton. A copy of that letter is attached. Burnstead's support of the proposed annexation indicates that it may have plans to develop --in the near future --its property that lies adjacent to the I-Iills' on 156lh Avenue SE. The King County Assessor's office indicates that the record owner of the parcel is Colony Homes, Inc., which appears to be a division of your company. In addition, although King County's on-line information for this parcel does not reflect any current development permits, the Hills have recently noticed some clearing and other work occurring on the property. In light of these new developments, the Hills have instructed me to bring to your attention on an urgent basis --prior to signing the annexation petition --an apparent discrepancy in your respective property titles, requiring prompt clarification. As you know, there is a substantial hedge and a chain-link fence that separate the two properties. This fence (or a similar one in the same location) was installed by the Hills over 20 years ago, and has been maintained (and replaced, as necessary) consistently to the present date. The fence follows the adjacent evergreen hedge that was established even prior to the Hills' acquisition of the property in 1970. For the past 30 years the Hills have used the property up to the fence and/or hedge line for a variety of purposes, including but not limited to anorse pasture, and, more recently, their vegetable garden. In addition, the I-Iills have constructed a small garden shed partially within the narrow strip of property between the surveyed property line and this long-standing fence line. I.a III OffiCf!S 1001 rOLJRTl1 AVENUE. SLJITE ,1200' SEATTLE. WA 98154-1154' 1'.0. nux 2184(,' SEATTLE. WA 98111·3846 I'll: (lOu) 292,11,14 rx: UOb) 340· ()'J02 EMAIL: i/P/'eL,el/.,·olll www.hrLsell.com Frederick H. Burnstead August 6, 2004 page 2 The strip of land at issue here is approximately two feet wide at the front, northeast corner of the Hills' property (at 156th Avenue SE), and gradually increases to approximately five feet in width at the rear (northwest) corner of the Hills' property. Thus, the strip is probably not more than 600 square feet in size, total. In light of the foregoing, prior to signing the annexation petition, the Hills seek Burnstead's agreement to a boundary modification reflecting that the Hills' property extends all the way to the chain link fence and hedge that run the length of the north side of their property. This modification could be achieved by means of a simple quitclaim deed from Burnstead. The Hills' surveyor is willing to prepare a legal description describing the stdp of land for p1Jrposes of expedHing the process. We emphasize that this is a matter which requires resolution regardless of the status of the annexation petition. We look forward to hearing from you on this matter of urgent importance to our clients, and thank you in advance for your cooperation in reaching an amicable solution. Sincerely, HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP ~'lC_ Jane S. Kiker JSKlles cc: Edward and June Hill G :\G Dri ve\LU\HILL \Bumstead ·080604. doc ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA05-124, PP, ECF LOCATION: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. se), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-k>t subdivision of an 18.13..acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dweHing units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single..family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately ',200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. fl The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NEt and will have access trom SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest comer of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code section ~-110.B. Additional infonnation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Cia",'. Office, {42SI430-6510_ A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 10, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION I, Ud"c!.\L Jor~Y\ , hereby certify that:::5 copies of the above document were posted by me in _3_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: Id..j'( 6& SIGNED: 'Jfl~ .. ~ .c::::::=. (T ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State ofWashin RJ~(uJA ,on the NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: CITY OF RENTO ,CYRRENT PLANNING DIVIISION AFFIDAVIT OFSERVfCE BY •• Ir\ll ........ i""' On the 8th day of December, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERe Determination documents. This information was sent to: Agencies See Attached Bumstead Construction Applicant Jim Jacques Owner James & Linda St. John Party of Record Mike Moran Party ot Record Jace Pace Party of Record June Hill Party of Record Ronda Bryant Party of Record (Signature of Sender)..:....: ~::::::s!:L&J.~'JIF=~~LL..<:!L...d:....!:&:~--------'F~~."""'-....... _.....,"'-, ..... CHARLES F. KOKKO STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING NOTARY PUBLIC 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 19, 2006 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker'-~-'''''M', signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and p~::es ~~ni~i;;the instrument C~ 2 ~. Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print): __ -:::-{--;-J!t4---=--1V' '_eJ_' _F_~_fs_I6>_' ______ _ My appointment expires: 3:>( Iq lOG Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 -172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANGE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south o{ SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4(R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existi",g residence and _ ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the. southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. . _ .'. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28,.2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON JANUARY 10, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. SITE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. . , . Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor December 8, 2005 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place ste: #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: Dear Mr. Chen: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner:, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code .Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on January 10, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Preliminary Plat. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, ;r:t~' s4-i{j~4 (/-t''-.- Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: Jim Jacques / Owner(s) James & Linda St. John, Mike Moran, Jack Pace, June Hill, Ronda Bryant, Gwendolyn High / Party(ies) of Record Burnstead Construction / Applicant Enclosure -------------10-5-5-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-w-a-y--R-e-n-to~n-,-W-a-sh-in-g-to-n-9-g-0-55-------------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~4~ lint ..aL -Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor December 8, 2005 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CITY. RENTON PlanningIBuildinglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 6, 2005: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9~055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, ~S4.elk;.~ Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Enclosure ~ -------lO-S-S-S-ou-t-h-G-ra-d-y-W-a-y-. R-e-n-to-n-, -W-as-h-in-g-to-n-9-8-0-SS-------R E N TON * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-124, PP, ECF APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of a 18.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 113rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on December 28, 2005. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: December 12, 2005 DATE OF DECISION: December 6, 2005 SIGNATURES: ~1r$n ~ Im~~(f== regg er n, Adminlst a or Planning/Building/Public Works De~,b)!v' flrItllUu !, a! ~ /@)c!;d$iJ Iz/tl(}~ Alex Pietsch, Administrator Date Community Services EDNSP CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-124, pp, ECF APPLICANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-iot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tractswill be provided onsite. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: On the west side of 11.5 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), squth of SE t33id street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE '(King County 152nd Ave. SE) The City of Renton ... Departn'tent of ~lanning/auilding/Public Works DeveiopmenfPJ~nnin9 Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 2005, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. . 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriat~ Traffic Mitigation Fee ..based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to tfierecor<ling of the final. plat: 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control-Level 2) and water quality facilities. 6. Clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage is limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities. 7. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant shall provide a tree inventory and tree retention plan to the Development Services Division for review and approval. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade. and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited. ERe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 I CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA05-124, PP, ECF APPL1CANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of an 18.13-acre site located within the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 133rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of S~ 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Aye. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) The City of Renton Department of Planriing/Buitding/Public Works Development Planning Section Advlsoty Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in c;onjunction with the environmental determination. Because these (Jotes are provi(Jed as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Fire Prevention 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. ERe Advisory Notes Page 1 of3 3. Dead end access roadways over 700 feet in length are required to have a secondary access. All lots on a dead end access roadway between 500 and 700 feet are required to be sprinklered. A secondary access would eliminate this requirement. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Plan Review -Stormwater Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $715.00 x 72 new single-family lots. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $51,480.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. Applicant will be required to tightline all roof drains to the storm system. 3. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted and reviewed. The project will be required to comply with the standards and requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 5. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided along the proposed detention/water quality pond facilities area where it abuts the right-of-way. 6. The applicant shall comply with the preliminary geotechnical report by Terra Associates, dated October 10, 2005, and its recommended conditions. Plan Review -Water 1. Fire flow requirement for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm. A hydrant is required within 300 feet of the furthest structure. If residences exceed 3,600 square feet, fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and an additional hydrant will be required. 2. A 5-inch Storz quick-disconnect fitting will be required to be installed on existing and new hydrants. 3. All plats shall provide a separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Separate permits for water meters will be required. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The project is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees will be collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 2. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $900.00 x 72 single-family lots. 3. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $64,800.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 4. A sanitary sewer main extension to the furthest extent of the new interior street that will serve the plat will be required. The sewer main shall be installed at a slope that will allow it to serve the developments to the north by gravity, as far as possible. 5. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 6. Separate sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot prior to recording of the short plat. No dual side sewers are allowed. Minimum slope for side sewers shall be 2%. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including sidewalk, curb and gutter, street lighting, signage, landscaping and storm drainage are required to be installed along the frontage of the project site with Rosario Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave. NE, and along the new streets in the interior of the plat. 2. Dedication of 12 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. ERe Advisory Notes Page 2 of3 5. A pedestrian walkway connection, with a minimum 6 feet of pavement, shall be provided from Vesta Ave. NE to the internal road in proposed tract 998 (park), to enable easier access for pedestrians. An access easement for this purpose shall be recorded with the final plat. 6. The applicant has requested a road modification for reduction of right-of-way width of internal streets to 42 feet. The road modification decision will be issued during review of the preliminary plat application. General: 1. Separate permits for the side sewer connections, water meters and storm drainage connections are required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing an necessary easements for utilities. 3. A" new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with submittal. 4. A Forest Practices Permit from the Washington Department of Natural Resources may be required for the proposed clearing. Theapplfcant will be required to provide detailed information regarding the percentages of hardwood, conifer and shrubs onsite, and the kinds and amounts to be removed and left. Contact: Lisa Spahr, Department of Natural Resources, (360) 802-7007. 5. A right-of-way vacation request has been submitted to City Council (VAC 05-004) for 5 feet along Rosario Ave. NE for Tax Parcel 10 No. 1423059118, and will be considered during review of the preliminary plat application. ERe Advisory Notes Page 3 of3 REPORT & DECISION ERe MEETING DATE: Project Name: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Description: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: RECOMMENDA TlON: Project Location Map City of rtenton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT December 6, 2005 Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Burnstead Construction, 1215 120m Ave. NE, Bellevue, WA 98005 Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc., 14711 NE 29m Place, Bellevue, WA 98007 LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Keri Weaver, Senior Planner The applicant is requesting SEPA environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for a 73-lot subdivision of a18.13-acre site located within the Residential -4 (R-4) dwelling units per acre zone. The applicant proposes the eventual development of single-family detached units. An existing residence and ancillary structures will be removed. The lot sizes would range from approximately 8,200 sq. ft. to 11,200 sq. ft. The site is located at 115 Vesta Ave. NE, and will have access from SE 123rd Street on the north side, and from Rosario Ave. NE on the west side, with internal public streets. A storm water detention pond is proposed for the southwest corner of the site. Two open space/park tracts will be provided onsite. (cont. next page) On the west side of 115 Vesta Ave. NE (King County 156th Ave. SE), south of SE 133rd Street, north of SE 136th Street, and east of Rosario Ave. NE (King County 152nd Ave. SE) To be removed Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: N/A 18.13 acres Total Building Area SF: N/A Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). t N ERCRPT 05-124.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA , REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 Environl II Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 20(7 T ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND CONTINUED An unregulated wetland approximately 700 sq. ft. in size is located in the southwest portion of the site and will be filled. A Category 3 wetland approximately 8,976 sq. ft. in size is located offsite to the west, across the partially improved right-of-way of Rosario Ave. NE. The existing site currently has a single-family residence and several accessory structures that are proposed to be removed as part of this plat. The plat will have two external access points, from the stub of SE 133rd Street at the north boundary of the site, and from Rosario Ave. NE at the proposed intersection of SE 2nd Street (to be constructed). Internal public streets will serve the proposed lots. As indicated in a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated October 10, 2005, the site is currently forested and primarily consists of a moderate slope that descends to the southwest at an average grade of 8-15 percent, with soils classified as glacial till. The applicant proposes grading for site preparation and road construction. The entire site will be cleared, which will require a Forest Practices Application to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan with trees and street frontage plantings in accordance with City code requirements. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under eXisting development standards and environmental regulations. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA T/ON OF NON·SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures x DETERMINA T/ON OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· MITIGA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 2005, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single- family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. 5. The project shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control-Level 2) and water quality facilities. C. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: ERCRPT 05-124.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA , REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 1. Earth Environ II Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 30f7 Impacts: The site is relatively flat to rolling, with a gentle slope from northeast to southwest. Surface grades are approximately 8-13%. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. dated October 10, 2005, which addressed soil and groundwater conditions, geologic hazards, site preparation, foundations, retaining walls and slabs, stormwater detention, drainage, utilities and pavement. Test pit soils generally consisted of 3-18" of topsoil and forest duff overlying moist, silty sand and gravel consistent with glacial till. The soils are mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Groundwater seepage was observed in 10 of 37 test pits, with conditions typical of a glacial till site. Moderate to heavy groundwater was observed in one test pit, at a depth of 1-6 feet. The geotechnical report indicates that the soils are suitable for the proposed construction with conventional foundations and footings, although not suitable for structural fill. The site soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction, and therefore Best Management Practices (BMPs) are recommended by the consultant to prevent onsite erosion and sedimentation transport during construction. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained within the geotechnical report dated October 10, 2005, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water -Stormwater Impacts: The preliminary storm drainage report prepared by Core Design, Inc., dated October 10, 2005, proposes a storm water detention/water quality pond located in the southwest corner of the site, with connection of treated runoff to the existing storm drain system in Rosario Ave. SE. A bypass system will transfer offsite flows in excess of a 6 month storm event directly to the storm drain system. The site's downstream drainage is to the southwest to the Orting Hill sub-basin. Because staff is aware of downstream flooding and erosion problems, the applicant shall be required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to prevent additional downstream impacts. Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water DeSign Manual for both detention (Conservation Flow Control -Level 2) and water quality facilities. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Wetlands Impacts: A wetland reconnaissance report prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., indicates that a Category 3 wetland approximately 625 sq. ft. in size is located in the southwest portion of the site. RMC 4- 3-050(B)(7) exempts Category 3 wetlands of less than 5,000 sq. ft. from development regulation. The applicant proposed to fill this wetland. A Category 2 wetland approximately 8,976 sq. ft. in size is located offsite to the west, across the partially improved right-of-way for Rosario Ave. NE. The presence of this wetland has resulted in the location of the proposed plat access from Rosario Ave. NE on the southern portion of the site. Additionally, to avoid impacts to this wetland, the cul-de-sac of internal plat "Street C" will not be required to be extended through to Rosario Ave. NE, and the unimproved right-of-way on Rosario Ave. NE north of the plat entrance will not be improved. The proposed Highland Park development is outside the 50-foot buffer area for the offsite wetland. No impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Fire Protection Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provide required improvements and fees. As the ERCRPT 05-124.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA, REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 Environl II Review Committee Staff Reporl LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 4 of7 proposal would add 73 new residences to the City, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee in the amount of $488.00 per new single-family residence with credit given for 1 existing residence. The total fee is estimated at $35,316.00 (73 lots - 1 existing=7 x $488.00 = $35,316.00). Staff recommends that the payment of the fee be required prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $488.00 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 2913, Ordinance 4527. 5. Transportation Impacts: The proposal would result in an increase in traffic trips to the City's street system; therefore, staff recommends that the applicant pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a rate of $75.00 per new trip. Each new residence is expected to generate approximately 9.57 trips per day with credit given for 1 existing residence. For the proposal, the Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $51,678.00 (73 lots - 1 existing=72 x 9.57 trips x $75 per trip = $51,678.00). Staff recommends that this fee be payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each new average daily trip associated with the project prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3100, Ordinance 4527. 6. Parks & Recreation Impacts: The proposed development is anticipated to generate future demand on existing and future City parks, recreational facilities and programs. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pay a Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per each new single-family lot. The fee is estimated at $38,745.48 (73 lots - 1 existing=73 x $530.76 = $38,745.48). Staff recommends that this fee be payable prior to the recording of the final plat. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single-family lot prior to the recording of the final plat. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations; Parks Mitigation Fee Resolution No. 3082, Ordinance 4527. 7. Vegetation & Wildlife Impacts: The site is largely forested with mature coniferous and deciduous trees, and likely provides habitat for various wildlife species. The applicant submitted a wildlife study report by Wetland Resources Inc., dated October 7,2005, which indicated that during the study period in August 2005, several common bird species were detected. No mammalian species were detected; however, the report indicates that animals such as deer, raccoons, skunks, squirrels, rabbits and coyotes utilize similar habitats and may exist onsite. No bald eagles or sensitive avian species were detected. The applicant proposes to clear the entire site of existing trees and vegetation to accommodate grading for roads and building site preparation. Clear-cutting of the 18-acre site will impact existing neighborhood aesthetics and will likely result in onsite erosion from the large-scale earth and vegetation disturbance RMC 4-7-130C.3 requires that a reasonable effort should be made to preserve existing trees. Additionally, RMC 4-4-070D.7 indicates that existing trees and other vegetation on the site of a proposed development shall be used to augment new plantings where practical if the quality is equal to or better than available nursery stock. Retention of existing trees will also help to preserve neighborhood ERCRPT 05-124.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA, Envirom I Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 5 of 7 aesthetics and to minimize onsite erosion. The applicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree inventory consistent with RMC 4-8-120 with the preliminary plat application. To maximize preservation of existing trees, clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage will only be allowed as necessary to construct roads and utilities. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant will be required to provide a sitewide tree retention plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of the identified trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that a Forest Practices Permit may be required to clear the site. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan showing that two street trees (scarlet maple) will be provided for each residential lot. Consistent with RMC 4-10-110A, the applicant will also be required to provide 10 feet of landscaping along the improved frontage of Rosario Ave. NE, and along the frontages of SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave. SE. The required landscaping and street trees will provide aesthetic appeal for the post-development neighborhood and adjacent street frontages, and buffer established nearby neighborhoods from the new development. Mitigation Measures: 1. Clearing and grading at the preliminary plat stage is limited to the minimum amount necessary to construct roads and utilities. 2. Prior to receiving construction permits, the applicant shall provide a tree inventory and tree retention plan to the Development Services Division for review and approval. The plan must show preservation of at least 25% of trees with a minimum diameter of 8" (evergreen) or 12" (deciduous) when measured four feet above grade, and indicate how proposed building footprints will be sited. Policy Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. --X.. Copies of aI/ Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of aI/ Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, December 28,2005 Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton MuniCipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mUlch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1 st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi-family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. ERCRPT 05-124.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA , Envirom II Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 Page 60f7 Fire Prevention 1. A fire hydrant with 1,000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single-family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3,600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1,500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structures. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. 3. Dead end access roadways over 700 feet in length are required to have a secondary access. All lots on a dead end access roadway between 500 and 700 feet are required to be sprinklered. A secondary access would eliminate this requirement. 4. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Plan Review -Storm water Drainage 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges are based on a rate of $715.00 x 72 new single-family lots. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $51,480.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 2. Applicant will be required to tightline all roof drains to the storm system. 3. A preliminary drainage report has been submitted and reviewed. The project will be required to comply with the standards and requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. A temporary erosion control plan will be required and shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 5. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided along the proposed detention/water quality pond facilities area where it abuts the right-of-way. 6. The applicant shall comply with the preliminary geotechnical report by Terra Associates, dated October 10, 2005, and its recommended conditions. Plan Review -Water 1. Fire flow requirement for single-family residences is 1,000 gpm. A hydrant is required within 300 feet of the furthest structure. If residences exceed 3,600 square feet, fire flow increases to 1,500 gpm and an additional hydrant will be required. 2. A 5-inch Storz quick-disconnect fitting will be required to be installed on existing and new hydrants. 5. All plats shall provide a separate water service stubs to each building lot prior to recording of the plat. Separate permits for water meters will be required. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The project is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees will be collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 2. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges are based on a rate of $900.00 x 72 single-family lots. Estimated fees based on the entire site plan is $64,800.00. Payment of these fees will be required prior to issuance of utility construction permit. 3. A sanitary sewer main extension to the furthest extent of the new interior street that will serve the plat will be required. The sewer main shall be installed at a slope that will allow it to serve the developments to the north by gravity, as far as possible. 4. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 5. Separate sewer stubs are required to be provided to each lot prior to recording of the short plat. No dual side sewers are allowed. Minimum slope for side sewers shall be 2%. Plan Review -Street Improvements 1. Full street improvements including sidewalk, curb and gutter, street lighting, signage, landscaping and storm drainage are required to be installed along the frontage of the project site with Rosario Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave. NE, and along the new streets in the interior of the plat. 2. Dedication of 12 feet of right-of-way along the frontage of Vesta Ave. NE will be required. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. 5. A pedestrian walkway connection, with a minimum 6 feet of pavement, shall be provided from Vesta Ave. NE to the internal road in proposed tract 998 (park), to enable easier access for pedestrians. An access easement for this purpose shall be recorded with the final plat. 6. The applicant has requested a road modification for reduction of right-of-way width of internal streets to 42 feet. The road modification decision will be issued during review of the preliminary plat application. General: 1. Separate permits for the side sewer connections, water meters and storm drainage connections are required. 2 Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit for structural review. A geotechnical report is required with submittal. ERCRPT 05-124.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department HIGHLANDS PARK PRELIMINARY PLA , REPORT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005 Envirom II Review Committee Staff Report LUA-05-124, PP, ECF Page 70(7 4. A Forest Practices Permit from the Washington Department of Natural Resources may be required for the proposed clearing. The applicant will be required to provide detailed information regarding the percentages of hardwood, conifer and shrubs onsite, and the kinds and amounts to be removed and left. Contact: Lisa Spahr, Department of Natural Resources, (360) 802-7007. 5. A right-of-way vacation request has been submitted to City Council (VAC 05-004) for 5 feet along Rosario Ave. NE for Tax Parcel ID No. 1423059118, and will be considered during review of the preliminary plat application. ERCRPT 05-124.doc .st II ! -------:~ ~----'----'----'---~ -~ ~;--I_J L-.J '____ __ ---I SE 132nd st. S srrE.. tl ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ SE 138th SE 139th ...c: ...c: ~ ........, ........, co 0:> -.::t< -.::t< ........ ! ........ U SE 143rd 143rd PI E 145th PI. ~ ZONING ~ := TBCHNICAL SBllVICB8 Y :00 w F7 1_ -- --Renton CJV UmlU 14 T23N RSE W 1/2 5314 r N • ~.-- I: I I: I r I I I ," " I I~_ " ,'. I I G' I I"· I I i I '" ,'. !)N1A3Arn INNVU • !)NJIUiN'!)N~ __ ...... N~IS3(]~ _'>l';:-~i 'i':, 't/I H,!~', '.:..13W2...:!!. r,;:q: ].;;",·.~(nN .2 I" .. -~ ----'J~ --- ! ';3 ..... .. 1/ /." ,,'3'9""" 01"""90'" l .... ,_'_· --.-] '. it ~ ~. I I... I iP u~ Vl lor ·~"---' .. l i I ,', ., .!; J " I';;.' "I I Ib :;~j~[-- 9' A r--" 20, 1~ ~e 40 :1 I[ '····1 ! '" ". t ... ~, .. -. w OUNE~ / AFPLICANT I!A.IIfoIITIAD CCNlTflUCTION 12.~A'VW.N.&.eurra:zOl MLL..YU., WofoII.IINI:I!TCIH ~ CONTACT, -=:IN HI..Ir:»ee (42&) .... -1100 ENGINEERlSU~YE,,(ORIF'LANNE~ COfIII! Dl!61dN INC.. \04111 N.E. ~ P'LACE.14JITE 101 eEU.E'w'I.E.~TQllMOO'1 (43) ... -,." c::OItIrACr.MIO-LAm..~-~ DAVID e. c:A.TTON,. ~.e. • ~N!1!!1It 6~J.IOMLPJ..6.-~QIIII DATUM CITY ~ 1eNT0N -MAVO rue BASIS OF BEA~INGS NOO-:ltI,ro. MTUIIIN II'OI.NO ~ ALGINCi ne: celT'!N..NI! Of' e.TH A\Ie. 6Jt AT TIoI8 NT1!fUeCTIc:N6 \lJ'n.I &J!. 12."., 6T. AND &2. !MoTH 6T. A& CAL.aLATm' ~ c:M'Y Of' 1eNT0N ~ I"'OINT NOe. INI ~ 1M2, FC\ICI' N ~ AtCI DE8aIIeED 8IEI..O.II f'EIIt. CITY 011 FllENTON IoIOfIUZClNTAL c::c;;IN11ItQ. ~ ~16I£P NOV. leo, I'I'M. BENCHMAFiKS: NltCIT'TOf''''''''OHaIIII'¥1EYt:lN.NAYD .... OAT1I""I NO. 11&2 -3" PLAT BftAI6 61J1FACIi DiIC AT TH! CONITfIiUCTED ~"""" He...m.I 6T. ( • .e. aeT'*TJ.o6Nt> ,,,11-1 A'o1!. U. 1!L4IW."~"'I1I!TeM) NO. :110' -8IIIIOICEN !MIt.46& ~ OIIC IN n.fI N1'EAIECTICN OF-a.a. awrw tT. AND IMTIoIAYI!U a. e.41.~ (161Db P'e11!ft6) hI Hi ll; ~ r ~ i .. >: w ,. .. " ~ >: ~ '11 \. Iii ~1,1: 41 ::l i IIi; 4. Illi R~ ~' R/W i; '01P~'" i ,.' l~:' I ~b J\!!Ii .! y""x ~ • 7HICK C£JI£Nr CD.IOIr CONCRC7C CONCRETE 51O£WALK l£R'71CAL CtIR8 • GtlrTCR ~~j ~~ ~ a: ~ ill JI.... ___ . Ii iii fi :~~~ -42 _.:.~Jii! i~._ I ';'·7'---'-"1-;-""" il:--\ .. 9 -"--.' -......... ~ ... . 1···'···,····· >-; I ... i' i : i iii. I . l~;,7i~~~J,J ., .... :::-.~.- ~'33"~ peT1!NTICNIUoWT ~ ~",",. 421 ~ WATER 8U1'1"'ACI! • 0420 19OTTct1 L/YE ITOIIU4a • <411 l!S01'TCIM.-c:NPoo404 ~TlON N!c:LIIIIII!O • 2aa.>2 0' DElENTIGlN ~DEI) • 223.92 CF IUATER GlJAL.ITY flilliGIURiD • "',161 a= IllATI9t QUAL.ITT ~DaD ••• ". Cf' <:~/" fOUND ~" REBAA • CAP j V" "WPD 21710· WI pp'S. CAN O.OJ' S OF" LIN[ I I ':';·ii=iNi/iF:;:~:'·'·'·':::::.2;,;;,.,::::::.:;;;;;;:;;:~:~:~:::~::;;,;:;m:::;; "= '.'='" PROP'"06ED e' D.I. WATefll:I'1AIN(TTJI') ~e·pvc aANlTAIItT'~CT'T1-) ~D""GPI!~ 6TOfW"1 DftAH (TTJI') SECTlONA..4 ON-SITE 42' R/W SECTION NO SCAlI t' 20" ESIIr. I 18' PRlVA 7C Aca:s:s-ROAD ~'.5' n;:::£N£D SECTlONC-C PRIVATEACCESSROAD ~ SCALE ~ 1 SCALE: 1" = 40' ! W' or ... ., . .I ... ;0 .,j~ :w 70:: .~~. ~~ 3-i.uO .> ~ tn g N c:::> -I-(..) 0 o ~~ §~~ :::i £;~'" ; I/) ~~~ CS Q a~~ ~ ~ (:j~~ "'cr ~~~ i J ~~~ ~ l: i iil~ ~ ~~ Ul ~ 2: ~ ~ Ul !5 ~'"I~ O ~ ~ 0 g 8 ~ W w 5 ~ ~ a: I-(i'i« Q. « W Il: Q. a 0 0 « SHEET OF .1 I 2 0.10J.lJ i SE 1/4. NW 1/4. SEC. 14. 1WP. 23 N .. RGE. 5 E.. w'M. I t~~:r":"'''~-::::~ ;--.<'~! ---<,-_c,_ ...... , 22 ,L ,. , I . ! ,I. ,.; .. '.. 2& ".' , II, "i ; '" , ., '. '" I PAR EL A :li;,11 Ii, <', 0 [/ Ill~;:'2Jl,~,;~~:,~~Z~)~-' ".,' _. Ii .. , DATUM CITT ~ N!NTo.I -NAoVO !!lie 6ASIS OF 6EARING.S NOO'~'II"E MTWEIN f"OU'a) ~ AL.ONGI TJ.tS CllNTlQliLItE OF N",. A-..t! .... AT T .... N~0N6 unw .... 12.'"" .T. AIC) U. .,.1'" 61 • .46 CAL.CLLA'MO I"ItOI"t CITY' 01' !eNTON ~ ~NT NOla. _I .AM:> 11&2, FO\.K) N .-LAC!! AltO DElCllUBED eEL.OU.I f"E1It CITY' OF IW'{TON HOIIiIZOH'T""'-~ .....-n&IOIIIK ~16I-ED NOV •• , \994. 6ENCI-lMARK6: ,... CITY "" MNrc:::t-i ~T c:::H NAVD lIN OATU"I NO. 1"2 • 3' PLAT I!NIt.4M 1IJIiFAc:E aile AT n-E CON6'Tl111JCTED N'TEIiMCTION ~ N.L -4'n-1 .T. (6.1!. 12."..T J AND I-4eTl-l A ......... L .......... "(ISM"',...,.,." NO.2!OJ -~ MAN IlJIIIIIAC.R D11C IN TI-IE NTliRNCTION Of' .. a I2eTl-l6T. Ao/CI •• TWA-.,.eU .eL..&-4'.~(I.,.o~HI!"T1!M) "_ ......... ",._ .. ,"~n .. ~ n ~ ;=;.;jt,:: .1' .' IGi,."IT. OF lUA'" I : : . ...,.._ .. ;..\ -:' 19'tT1GN R/W 42' R,Ar . ],1 ,.,' I" .. I 5.0' /6' , /6' M'I ) ';,'»w"rn: ... ,nnn'{i 1P" I jF5' " ." .. '(/)/ ~ffl: :1 I ~!J;'~ I '" 31 i 36 I' 3. 3.~' ~ 33 ' .. 'f W ~. THfQ( CDlCNT CWENr CCWCRETF '7 j .! r.; >j , CONCR£TE SlD£WAI.X 1o£7i'17CAL CURB ~ SUrFER ,/ :i " , : SECTIONA-A _I' ,I' "i ii .... fj; 1< ON-SITE42'R/WSECTION ) l ,I, "31 ~ J NO SCA<E ! r~~~ ~'i~,~"'~ ~~~~-::=~-,=, ,III ii, <01 !i &a . . 43 ';4 4& ..... 1 i D t 1 '. II 41 ... 4~ =~::~\ "', ' ::~~, __ torGRA« , I' '" : SEE Tl1W:4l: PAJOOT !£CD J S' CllItNT CONaCf£ SIlEWMX i •. _ &:1 ", 1 1M HS SlEET (r 1/ICI( IN M'tfWOS /-1HKJ( ll.SDHRC) 11---·· ~'i;'Zr:g' ~.~ "' __ -.nee>. -' ----~·:l-7-'----~n\.-"f I ' .. , I/'i ': 1 l' ii, .. . .. : ..... --\ ~~~~7a,~~ ..•• ~--••••• ----:-•••••• ..,-.-\ A«A TOPfi()IIJ£,tSUTMMISIJB-IJASE &4 SECTION/)-/} :J.56th AVENUE 50£. NO SCALE 6.. ..~ .. 4 ill .3 ' , i I' , 6, i I ' .... ~1... ..0 f..~ &Il S1 I";;!'" -, :; ~ 2~~ h~ n~ q~ ~ f ~ ~ i I " " ~ ~ > ~ ~ " " ... ;;; " ~~ ~ (~)I ~~ ~rc ~ E fI' I:: ~ ~~ ~~§ S'" (!:~:ll ~ II) ~~~ ~o ~~~ ~~ s~~ ~~ ~~~ ~.J f ~cl ~:t i ~~ : [jj ... ~ &::t r7 ---'0---~~~ k~:~," -b--..~±ii'~S.'~2':"2;.,"': ,J i F('l'~lD 1~" REBA? &, CAP ~ ~ 1 ~, Z' "0 :~ <:::) ~ "" ~ I "WPD ;::1710" OO€>' I, i)F LitlE SCALE: 1· = 40' ,0 1 ". L;U i I _w :!a: UI4. ~o 5~ ..J-'JJO '> 'JJ ,:) c:::::» ~ ~ ...... g 'ET OF 2 I 2 010:19 ~ ,;. (I :,':'::1 -"'" ",>-- / y S£1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. J4, 7WP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., w.M, I. ",.. .. , ".f.¢ I I /~g.~~ I, ~~=::='=-:~--:;~;;;;;-O~~:;::--'-~~---'--~~~-~~--H1-· • If---,--;_-::._..,~. II,""" &00 r I ... i i '1 W ~. I~ , I ; "I': I "~~~ ,,:;;~ · ~-',-~~" =--.i,¢ ~ '-, ., . r -~ "1 I '~--, {-''C I • -, ' ",,,, I I ! I . ~ , I . * : . I 1,c ;! ,._-"-~.-• .,f,M r: ~~~ i' ... "1' ' I I oj_~ ~ •.... ···~~ll ;!) . .~ I , I! I I.' 1<' ---_ ..... - Z z .... Z" ~c- ;·H> ;-'1:;. ~. U! ' I! Ii II I. -, -~ ,,~:~ ~; ,.::' ... ·h I ,,~.; .. ! I "~.~,, h I "'~~ .. hi r r • ..:~" . .F I ,:,:'" ",':.. ,.~~""l.~,, .. I I ~ I ~~,,' 0' : Ii 1.1:1 I! . I: II II 11 11 , .11 Ii "/1 :,~:: II .... ---·"'_1· , L --.J --,J l_ -,.J lc.. --..J L --.J L -~ L. __ ..J L __ '_J L __ -.J L __ ..J L __ -.J L _-.J L _ ~ k. , "0 ~ "-"'-, 1 I; I I ;0: j\!r .;0_ ~~ i ~ t. •. _j_ ..... - I ~ ,? JO' 7 Nee".OI'!!W )" "-8 .0 '" .. 9~l.e:oW """ .0" H" , / / .. I jo ~ jO;!_25.oo Il. bo8&·2~'n" ~ ... .J..~~&'!>' g "MUCT'!'!' P~irD ~ ~~'2'\"I;'ESO.&/'~ C':; - ~ ~I> ~A!'WV __ ,;.uo."" I~ SJ!. 2ND FL_ ( -------r-I ~I ~~, ~; ----.----.I-""~'-· ~ -r---~'----'------ I! i I J:\ 1 I, \ I I ~-:-.. L ; I .. I R PLANT LIST -'-~N SJ1IIBOL SClENTIFrCNAME COItII!IIJNNAItIE 8PECfiCVARlE7ES .1 @ == ~ '~&~',"A.UT1J'"t.I~', ~.o·-"'CAl.r~~ee --" ~·,~ICK·,.oINO ! '!CAAlIT __ " '_ IIIIm ~ TOl..I!!IItANT &l"'l!CII!!& ONL.T SCALE: 1" = 50' ~ 'i > """""D ........ D'IWI06....,..P'L ... """'~ JD1.ACI! IN veJIrI'. I"'O&ITrQH, POUIIU! L.1EAPmlIS WILJ,. ee ':l 6T_INIlCN .A6t<e!PI!PeA6I6.~~..tL.L~ \ I"LI!)(I~ I(!~ II!OC7TaALL. MOI6T ANI) ~ A.T AU. TI'D i-IOL.O ~ 01" ~L AT OII!:..u&T AeOve N<4le1-E) ~I'""IIICm!eTT'IILHIC.ItN:)I.""....::t1tUJ1rr DAOQIIU. TO ee eeTTLeD U61N& IIlATmit (;INI.. Y. NO .-.• -~1C.AI..~.t.cTtc::tt /':>,; !e1OVI! AU.1IA4r',TliI!& c CCNT ... ~.~.4~~ ~t! , .... '·/F (2):b02 OF. &TAlC.EIo, I'"I..LI'1II (1 112' PIA. X 10' 5CI-I <40 Q.Al..V. PII"E : ."i'. i' ~ AT&~)ILfT1.II[LA5TICcw.a.~-I..OCKiYl"'I! 0I'N..ee!e~ J, :, .:; GUY6 TI!I:> N 1"l4lJlll£ £I$IT, 1III!MOV1! .4I"Tl!fIII: ONI ~ ',' ,e., '),,;/; ~TtCTI-...f! ~1:>LlI'tINIl6l-l~T TO&lTl! 4 Y ~ lNaTAU.. ... TION~ATCOI"'PLtrrIONCJf'r-IJNTIf\G "~ T\JII!'l"'j..,oI!N'TlNCi.~ViDI!" ''NOGIItA&&·~,IiljNci4'"D!. ; I t1LII..C14 IN ILI!L.L I"lILCI-I. 1f.iI" -I" llZE 1-101.0 eACK MQ1 l1IU«. ~ .. TO 10" ." PNI&i-eDOII.4DI!_ .: PfIII:2!1I'AN! ~"INtiI eE) ~1It6P'EC''' AT HiI'l, L.OONN AND ---'-:~'"'; •... , MIX &OII..TO."QllitPEl"'11-ia-~A/'II:).Tt'P1!Iro4U. -':"; _ -,,-" D'A. ~ A' J H"W TIM AHP PJN!AMM 8COIIJ! 1'OO"l'aAU.. ANDIIICIfIII(~aolL AWAT~~~" &f'"'IIiI&AP !iCOT& INTO ~VATrCJol. eeT LeAU. ON I.N)I&TLIII!5I!O eAM Oft CGt'PACmO Ma.NO ...,.,.eAU, ~TIc:NTO~(.)la" TREE PLANTING AND STAKING ScAiE.:-1iiiNE lWl i 11 i I i, 'I I ! I I i III ~ ~ HI Ip ~ . d. " ,. ; ~ ~ ~ '" ~~i c ~!!: 1:::::: Q; gw e:~ ~, or a~' -.I ~ r;;~ ::.. "-"t~ It QI; I ~ ~ ~~~ ~,J "-:~i;J al: - l~li!l l: I ! I I I i §I I ~ ... ~ ~! ~ il ~I ~ ~I ~ :; ~ ~I * ~ fr ~I ~ :5 ~I ~ ~".J,,~ OJ019 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM November 4, 2005 Keri Weaver Juliana Fries (x:7278) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat -LUA 05 -124 115 Vesta Ave NE I have reviewed the application for this 73-lot plat, located at the 115 Vesta Ave NE, and the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SEWER STORM STREETS The proposed development is within the water service area of Water District 90 (WD 90). The applicant has not included a Certificate of Water Availability. A fire flow analyses will be required to verify that the District's system can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow. The proposed project is located outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. There is an 8-inch sewer main at the intersection of SE 2nd Street & Rosario Ave (152nd Ave SE). There is also an 8-inch sewer main along SE 2nd PI (SE 136th St). A storm drainage plan and drainage report was provided. The applicant is proposing a detention and water quality pond. The site drains to Orting Hill sub- basin. There are no curb/gutter, sidewalk or streetlights on Vesta Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Rosario Ave NE, fronting the site. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A Certificate of Water Availability from Water District No. 90 is required prior to the issuance of the construction permit. 2. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings. SANITARY SEWER 1. A sewer main extension to the furthest extends of the new streets interior to the plat will be required. The sewer main shall be installed at a slope that will allow to serve the developments to the north, by gravity, as far as possible. 2. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave (156th Ave SE) will also be required. 3. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. 4. This parcel is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). Fees are collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. This fee is subject to change. SURFACE WATER 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. This fee is subject to change. TRANSPORTATION 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the frontage of the project site with Rosario Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave NE. 2. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the new streets interior to the plat. 3. Dedication of 12-foot Right-of-Way along the frontage of the development with Vesta Ave NE will be required. The dedication is needed to accommodate a 5-lane roadway plus bike lane, and would be consistent with the 12-foot dedication to the north (Willowbrook Lane development) 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. 5. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. PLAN REVIEW· GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards CONDITIONS 1. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, staff is recommending a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control-a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 2. Staff recommends that fencing and landscaping be provided along the proposed detention/water quality pond when abutting Right-of-Way. 3. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the "Preliminary Geotechnical" dated October 10, 2005, regarding Site Preparation and Grading, and Stormwater Pond. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction permits. 5. Staff recommends that a minimum of 6-feet width paved pedestrian walkway connection, within a recorded access easement, from Vesta Ave SE to the internal road (in proposed Tract 998 -Park) be required, to provide easier access for pedestrians. cc: Kayren Kittrick DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MITIGATION ITEMS: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 28, 2005 Keri Weaver, Senior Planner , tJJ James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal rj ~ Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, 115 Vesta Ave. NE 1. A fire mitigation fee of$488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single- family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to a minimum of 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Fire department access roads are required to be paved, 20 feet wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. 3. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i:\ercplat.doc November 2, 2005 Keri Weaver Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: SEPA Comment for Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Dear Ms. Weaver: I have reviewed the SEP A document for Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, and provide the following comments. Question A. 10: A Forest Practice Application may need to be submitted to Department of Natural Resources. Question B.4.b: The applicant should note percentages of hardwood, conifer or shrubs, and kinds and amount to be removed and left. A Forest Practice Application may be needed depending on the amount of harvest occurring. If you have any questions, please give me a call on my direct line, 360-802-7007. Respectfully, Lisa Spahr Department of Natural Resources South Puget Sound Region Forest Practices Coordinator 360-825-1631 Mr. Frederick H. Burnstead Burnstead Construction Company 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Burnstead: 225 vesta Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 November 7, 2005 Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to by our attorney, dated August 6, 2004. Here is a good explanation or our position. We have an adverse possession property claim to the 2.96' -5.28' strip of land by 150.13' long. The fence and hedge have been there more than 20 years. We would be amenable to a Boundary Line Adjustment provided you pay all costs relating to said adjust- ment. The lot line adjustment runs the entire length of hedge and fence, east to west, plus 1" on the north side of our property. This means a simple quitclaim deed from you. We have a prepared legal description of the strip of land for purposes of expediting the process. Please respond in writing at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ;J ~w~~r~! Edward J. and June B. Hill cc: Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton Ron Hughes Michael Chen Keri Weaver Mr. Frederick H. Burnstead Burnstead Construction Co. 1215 120th Avenue NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Dear Mr. Burnstead: 225 Vesta Ave. SE Renton, 1,olA 98059 November JO, 2005 Please find enclosed the legal description of the strip of land in dispute per your request. We would be amenable to a lot line adjustment and quit- claim deed or RC1,ol 58.04 to resolve th~ boundary issue provided you pay all costs relating to said adjustment. Flease respond in l'Trl ting at your earliest convenience. ~.[e must have our lawyer review all legal paperwork. :?£:JfJif Edward & June Hill cc: Ron Hughes, PE -\ Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton Keri Weaver From: Edward 8:: June Hill 225 Vesta Ave. SE R.enton, WA 98059 To: Keri l,veaver 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, lATA 98055 Re: Highlands Park Plat, LUA05-124,pp, ECF Dear 'fIiS. Weaver; In an earlier conversation with you, I expressed concern for the level of drainage study required before approval of this proposed develop- ment. Since that time, I have discovered that the same issues were raised by several of our neighbors for more than two decades and most especially at the time of the Willowbrook Development (King County File #SPOP0098). Since the Highlands Park development and Willowbrook were once part of a common larger plat, the exhibits contained in this file have special significanc.e for the current situation. For your convenience, I have pulled several exhibits for consideration. Of particular interest is any reference to underground spr~ngs and the inclusion of a complaint by George Bales (See exhibi~~J) who until quite recently owned a significant section of the property within the proposed Highlands Park Development. On a personal note, we are aware of what appears to be an underground spring approximately 5 to 10 yards from the NW corner of our property located on the Burnstead Plat. While it~ has been covered by several years of yard waste in an effort by our neighbor to control the flow through his property, the soil south of the spring is wet . year round. Also, while I cannot accurately quantify to what degree, since the Willowbrook Development I have noticed more ground water seeping up through our garage floor during rainy periods. If these problems were a concern before(and because of)a development involving 19 houses, it is clearly logical to anticipate a much greater negative impact from approximately 70 new units. For these reasons we clearly believe a Level III drainage s~udy is not only reasonable, but a failure to do that level of study would be irrespon- sible. Si.3gerely, 4~Y'~1/4 Edward. & June Hill cc: Neil Watts Robert MacOnie Bonnie Walton I / April 14, 1983 Barbara Pettinger 15203 SE 132nd St. Renton, WA 98056 1. I.J ~ I ~~A I' ....".. Ms. Liz Kues t c-"w-' ~f...,.rl C7i ~. ~,.4i4 <a,~t.. Field Representative ~ King County Public Health (SE Div.) 3001 NE Fourth Renton, WA 98056 Dear Ms. Kuest: As you are aware, by your own inspection on April 12, 1983, and by my previ ous correspondence to you, an a.tJ_em~~ bei ng made to PERC the land located on the North side onE 132na Street. As a homeowner, rrvfn~g ';if-15Zoi·"SE· 132nd Street:lamsTncerely concerned about the . legality and possible resultant health and sanitation hazards of said perc. - It ~ay interest the the residents of this stre have continual y ex erlence serlOUS ralna e I personnally ave put ln ralns in my yard to try to drain off otherwise standing water. In the crawl space of my home (rambler style), as well as under the homes of neighbors, there is standing water for several months every year. The 1 and simply DOES NOT DRAIN. - 2 - Please be advised that I am not an environmental protectionist "nut", nor am I "anti-development.J1 My husband and I own several properties and totally support investment in real estate ventures. It is, however, my firm belief that the aforementioned . not le a1T , under inspections pass a perc test. - Any expedient certification by your department that the aforementioned property passed II inaT" erc will I believe, create more healt ~n sanl a lon drainage problems for residents. Should such a situation e\lentuate jn spite of efforts that have been made to inform you of past a.nd continuing drainage problems, I will take thelegal actlons necessary to hold King County responsible for all ensuing health and sanitation repercussions. ---- If you or your superiors need further information concerning the existing poor drainage, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your careful consideration of this matter:- Sincerely, ----~ti~ c: Duane D. Kiel, Donaldson & Kiel Attorneys at Law 2819 Vandever Building Seattle, WA 98128 January 22, 1991 Gregg Kipp Manager, Building and Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Attention: Lisa Pringle RE: Willowbrook File No. S90-P0098 This letter is written in support of complaint No. 9012-015 recently filed with John Nicon of the King County Office of Citizen Complaint. We recently met with our neighbors to discuss what actions might be taken individually and/or collectively to question the processes followed to date in order to legally allow the proposed building of 20 or more homes (Willowbrook) on land which has not, for 17 years at a minimum, met requirements to be certified as "buildable." I have included my individual supportive data as an addendum to this general letter. (See attached and enclosed.) To our dismay we have heard from county employees that: 1. "The plan is to hook up to the sewer on 156th .... " There is no sewer! 2. "The soil tests are marginal but passable .... " What tests? Why would land that wouldn't "PERC" for years and thus change owners who also wanted to develop the land but cou1dn't ... now "marginally pass?" Aren't tests to be more responsive to current environmental restrictions than less? We have very poor drainage. Multiple drains have been added. Water run-off creates (with the exception of late July and August) year round "streams" and/or "swamps" on our properties. Research into the history of this area will show that even a 3,100 foot long, 5 feet deep ditch dug uphill from the proposed Willowbrook Development did not successfully drain property to Ilpass" tests. Again what has possibly changed to allow for 20 or more " homes to be built on land that drains other land requiring 1-1/4 acres (1987) and five acres (1985) to "pass" one home. Please consider this letter to be a formal request to participate in the review process regarding Willowbrook File S90-0098. I request to be made a party of record on the plat of Willowbrook and, as such, request to be informed of all hearings, actions, decisions or appeal processes. I understand that under WAC 197-11-100 an applicant must prepare the initial environmental checklist. I also note reference to a lead agency. I would request written response to the following: 1. Which agency is the lead agency in the matter of Willowbrook? 2. Have there been reports prepared and submitted which verify the information in the environmental checklist? May I have a copy of any and all such reports? Mr. Gregg Kipp -2-January 22, 1991 3. Has the manger of B.A.L.D. set any deadlines for the submittal of information, studies or documents relative to threshold requirements? 4. Has the department mitigated any general K.C.C. health threshold requirements specifically regarding water run off? 5. Is an EIS required before plat approval is authorized? As you will note herein, we are concerned citizens. We are not anti development. We are concerned about the lack of drainage and our property; we are concerned about standing water in our yards and under some of our homes; we are concerned about sewer odors; we are concerned that current water run off is undercutting and washing away our road. We know the land cannot support 20 or more homes. Please read the enclosed January 31, 1990, article from the Valley Daily News in general support of our collective and specific concerns regarding Willowbrook. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I will be looking for your response in the near future. I would be happy to provide additional information if requested to do so. Sincerely, Sandra and Terry Taylor 15243 SE l32nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Telephone: 228-5477 c: Mr. John S. Nicon Complaint Investigator King County Office of Citizen Complaints C-2l3 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Ray Hell er Program Manager King County Surface Water Management Division 730 Dexter-Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Larry Kirchner EHS Supervisor Seattle-King County Health Department 1404 Central Avenue South Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 15243 S.E. 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 October 27, 1991 King County Building and Land Development Attn: Hearing Examiner 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: #S90P0098 Willowbrook To Whom It May Concern: We have received the staff report on the proposed development of Willowbrook, and after reading through it, find little to make us feel any better about the addition of 20 houses. The problems that have existed for the 17+ years that we have lived here are still there and this new addition will just compound the problems. We find that many others have written stating many of the same concerns and problems of which we have tried to make you aware. For years, beginning with Mary Ryan's decision to semi- develop the land to the north of S.E. 132nd Street, we have tried, unsuccessfully, to make county officials aware of the problems we have had to deal with because of the poor soil drainage and high water table, such as standing water in our yards, erosion of the road, water coming in and under our homes, trees that are uprooted in high winds because the roots are saturated, and above all, the health hazards that exist because of poorly functioning septic systems. We can 'lift the lid off our septic tank during very wet periods and actually see the water that is suppose to drain into the soil run back into the septic tank, the path of least resistance. We have also been told that underground springs exit which adds to the problem. We feel that our county officials who are suppose to have knowledge of these problems have ignored a situation that existed long before any of our homes were built. As more trees are eliminated and more stress put on the land more problems appear. We would like to believe that these officials are looking at the big picture of the future, and not just 10 acres at a time. It has been suggested that the neighbors get together to hire an engineer to further stress the problems that exist. We cannot see that someone who sees the,land in question a couple of times would have any better khowledge of the problems that we have described than those who have lived here the number of years that we have. We would like to believe that those of you who will make the final decision will do so with true concern for those who may live in this new development as well as those of us who have made this area our home. As previously stated, the proposed development lies downhill and slopes away from the homes on S.E. 132nd Street and will not only have to deal with the normal problems brought on by heavy rain and poor soil but also the water flowing from our yards as the natural flow of the land is toward them. The only area that would have little problem with this are the few lots at the top of the proposed development near 156th Street. After being informed of these problems we would hope that new housing projects would not be considered until proper sanitary facilities are in place. Another concern is the increase in traffic on the already busy 156th Street. It is the only North/South route between Maple Valley Highway and S.E. 128th Street (Cemetery Road). During heavy traffic periods it takes several minutes to even get out onto 156th Street. We hate to think of the possible accidents which may occur due to the overload and impatience. We would ask that this letter and the others we have sent in the past which concern this issue be made a matter of public record as work may make it impossible to attend the hearing. Sincerely, Sandra and Terry Taylor ,. Cd 8 0 , 19f1 !:JailBTI' 24 ~, KING COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICt' 935 Powell Ave. S.W ... Renton. WA 98055 Phone (206) 22&4867 August 7, 1991 joe Miles Engineering Review Unit King County Bu i I ding 8c Land Deve lopment EastPointe Plaza, Suite A 3600-136th Place Southeast Be I I evue, WA. 98006 Re: Wi I low Brook, Fi Ie *S90P0098 Mr. Mi I es: According to the 1973 King County Soi I Survey, the above mentioned plat is underlain by soils of the Alderwood (AgC> series. Erosion problems are common on Alderwood type soils when disturbed by construction activities. This is due to the presence of a til I I ayer at a sha I low depth wh i ch increases runoff, and subsequently, the erosion potential. Corrosivity of Alderwood soils for uncoated steel and concrete is moderate to high. Proposed plat is 3/4 mi Ie to tributary *0307 according to WSASU Vol·.1 (Puget Sound) and eros i on and I ands I i de hazard zones accord i ng Sensitive Areas Map Folio. of Cedar River 3/4 mil e to to King C:>unty Please contact assistance. our office if we can be of further Sincerely, I . I ;+-, \+--. , . II ','./ I '''.~ , A. Fatin Kara Water Resource Planner cc: Barbara Questad, SEPA Coordinator F i Ie _ EXHIBIT 5 CONSERVATION" D[VHOP.\fE~.rr .. SEI.F·COVER..Io.JMENT t'l..·L .... --n. (, _, I '---'.;...~~c._,. _. , I \ February 3, 1991 Gregg Kipp RECEIVED FE/j I 1991 SUBDIVISIONS Manager, Building and Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA. 98006 ~' Attention: Lisa Pringle RE: Willowbrook File No. S90-P0098 \ .... \ " . .. ... I .. ·••• I'm sure by this time you have received our letters regarding our concerns about the proposed home to be built in Willowbrook. As was stated, we met as a group and voiced our individual concerns about our al re~xist ini~aler_pr_o_bleP.ls and the effect 20+ homeS-would-do to compound the problem. The letter was composed as a group and sent individually to further stress our joint concerns. In our home, we have had to deal with water seeping through the bricks of a downstairs fireplace. We have this problem despite the fact that we have put in 2 layers of drain pipe plus rock along the house to redirect the water away from the house. The outside walls were also tarred down to the footings. The downstairs toilet overflows whenever we have heavy rain, and washing, showering and, worst of all, flushing are out of the question. This has gotten worse as the area has developed. We pump our septic tank every 2-3 years trying to minimize the problem. I often wonder how homes could be built when these ~onditions are present. I read about cases like Sierra Heights and realize the system just doesn't work because the people whose job it is and who should be concerned are swayed by developers and builders whcrse only concern is how much money can be made. I would like to state just a couple of other concerns before I close. What is going to happen to the homes to be built when the water flowing off my yard and being directed away from my house ~nds up in their homes? If all the trees on the ·Wi 1 l'owbrook sit e ar.e removed to......ge..1 _As,many--houseslnas possible, who will be responsible for the trees in my yard and others which have been protected from high winds by the windbreak provided by the trees on the Willowbrook? There is also the question of additional traffic, schools that are already full, and the extra load on utilities such as water? _ EXHIBIT 7 c I • February 27, :1-991 Gregg Kipp Manager, Building and Land 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 RECFJ\fED Development MAR 0 4 1991 At ten t i on :tiiIs'a._~S-! ri-ri'gie~ SUBDIVISIONS RE: Wil16~brook File No. S90-P0098 -".--"- . " This letter is written in support of Complaint # 9012-015 filed last month with the King County Office of Citizen Camplaint. The proposed Willowbrook development seems particularly ill advised at this time. The reasons for nonsupport are based on problems of present homeowners in the area as well as ~rojected difficulties of any residents who might occupy homes were they to be built here. Our specific difficulties arise from poor drainage of the soil, a ~roblem which has been overlooked repeatedly in the ?ast by county staff ~embers. The runoff of surface waters has created problems for neighbors in that yards and ?lanting areas become mushy/swamplike during the rainy seasons of the year. We, ourselvcs. experience water ~nder our home at times, and other neighbors on even higher ground have reported even worse situations than ours. The water runs from our area down into the prooosed development area. ~hat in the world happens to it there now. and what will happen in the future? The saturated ground does not readily absorb the normal rain ~.;ater let alone any excess if it is a "rainy" :-car. Additionally we have experienced dif~iculties with the ne~~n­ borhood septic systems. Despite ?rofessional care. problems continue: we, ourselves. have had to have our seotic system extended bccau~c of inadequacics-this, as you can ima~ine. caused undue expense and difficulties. plus the extra work and expense of the land- scaping following the work. The record of the county is not good with regard to serving the ~eople of our neighborhood. We were told that our home was supposed to have been built four ieet higher on our lot than it actually was-a ~act somehow ignored by health authorities 3t :n~ critical time. In previous years, the land for the proposed Jc- velopment (Willowbrook) did not perc appropriately for any builJin~ to occur, and in fact, the land has ~nged ownership several times for that very reason. How is it that, suddenly, the propertv i3 now capable of supporting 20 or more homes? The Valley Daily News periodically includes articles regard- ing the sewage/sanitation and inadequate water runoff facilities extent in this and surrounding areas. These are mere echoes of our concern now, and for the future. Lest you think that my wife and I are antidevelopment, let ~c state than I have no objections to expanding the neighborhood--if and when sewers and adequate drainage for surface waters are avail- able. It does not appear that these necessities are forthcoming. EXHIBIT 8 pa6e two Nor does it seem that the commonsense of the present residents has been heard. The history of "lost letters" to officials, and uncaring and even arrogant public employees who seem not to be responsible for their actions once they move on to "better jobs" does not support the trust we once had in County departments cre- ated for the public good. I am hopeful that this effort to explain the area's water problems will be read, understood and appreciated as an honest attempt to improve the quality of life in our immediate locale. I am hopeful, too; that you will appreciate the ongoing frustra- tion which has been engendered by county officials who are no longer with the department, and who, apparently, felt no ob- ligation to ensure that records would be kept and used. Sincerely, ~11.~ Gary G. ::ewbury 15251 S.L. 132nd St. Renton, ~A 98059 January 22, 1991 Gregg Kipp RECEIVED FEB 6 1991 SUBDIVISIONS ~, 'J Manager, Building and Land Development 3600 136th Place S.E. \ .... Bellevue, WA 98006 ., , ~., Attention: Lisa Pringle .' RE: Willowbrook File No. S90-P0098 This letter is written in support of complaint No. 9012-015 recently filed with John Nican of the King County Office of Citizen Comp1ain~. We recently met with our neighbors to discuss what actions might be taken individually and/or collectively to question the processes followed to date in order to legally allow the proposed building of 20 or more homes (Willowbrook) on land which has not, for 17 years at a minimum, met requirements to be certified as "buildable." I have included my individual supportive data as an addendum to this general letter. (See attached and enclosed.) To our dismay we have heard from county employees that: 1. "The plan i~ to hook up to the sewer on 156th ..•. " There is no sewer! 2. "The soil tests are marginal but passable .•.• " What tests? Why would land that wouldn't "PERC" for years and thus change owners who also wanted to develop the land but cou1dn't ..• now "marginally pass?" Aren't tests to be ~ responsive to current environmental restrictions than less? We have very poor drainage. Multiple drains have been added. Water run-off creates (with the exception of late July and August) year round "streams" and/or "swamps" on our properties. Research into the history of this area will show that even a 3,100 foot long, 5 feet deep ditch dug uphill from the proposed Willowbrook Development did not successfully drain property to "pass" tests. Again what has possibly changed to allow for 20 or more homes to be built on land that drains other land requiring 1-1/4 acres {19B7) and five acres (1985) to ·pass" one home. Please consider this letter to be a formal request to participate in the review process regarding Willowbrook File 590-0098. I request to be made a party of / record on the plat of Willowbrook and, as such, request to be informed of all hearings, actions, decisions or appeal processes. I understand that under WAC 197-11-100 an applicant must prepare the initial environmental checklist. I also note reference to a lead agency. I would request written response to the following: 1. Which agency is the lead agency in the matter of Willowbrook? 2. Have there been reports prepared and submitted which verify the information in the environmental checklist? May I have a copy of any and all such reports? EXHIBIT 15 f' Mr. Gregg Kipp -2-January 22, 1991 3. Has the manger of B.A.l.D. set any deadlines for the submittal of information, studies or documents relative to threshold requirements? 4. Has the department mitigated any general K.C.C. health threshold requirements specifically regarding water run off? 5. Is an EIS required before plat approval is authorized? As you will note herein, we are concerned citizens. We are not anti development. We are concerned about the lack of drainage and QY! property; we are concerned about standing water in our yards and under some of our homes; we are concerned about sewer odors; we are concerned that current water run off ;s undercutting and washing away our road. We know the land cannot support 20 or more homes. Please read the enclosed January 31, 1990, article from the Valley Daily News in general support of our collective and specific concerns regarding Willowbrook. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I will be looking for your response in the near future. I would be happy to provide additional information if requested to do so. Sincerely, keMM.JblN-V11~~ S~ S; r. Kenneth and Margaret Smith 15402 SE 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 Telephone: 206/226-4899 c: Mr. John S. Nicon Complaint Investigator King County Office of Citizen Complaints C-213 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Ray Heller Program Manager King County Surface Water Management Division 730 Dexter-Horton Building 710 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Larry Kirchner EHS Supervisor Seattle-King County Health Department 1404 Central Avenue South Suite 101 Kent, WA 98032 -: ..•.. r' ? • ~ l... •. '- q I ~! fro ,........ r--." _ t . ....;:.') t. i.: r' ," ~: r :.' .... 130_ 156th Ave. 3.S. Renton, Wa. 9d059 August 16, 1991 King County Bq~lding and Land Development Division Subd i. vi. s ion s4~t. ion! ~. RECEIVED f..UG 2 1 1991 ?601) 136th plS3ce .§ .. i;:.' 'gel 1.evue, ·Ja. 98006-1400 Sentlemen: SUBDIVISIONS T~nnk vou for including us in vour list of property owners to whom vou sent notices of public hearing to consider the application for su'b~Fvisi.on of the "-li.llowbrook Plat f: 3901'0098. The land in nuestion belonged to ;rt Zengrell in the 1950's in \Jhat he Cn 11.ed the "~.azy A '7, Ranch" .;hen he died the 80 acres was ~ivided into 10 and 5 acre tracts. The land had been used for horse ridi~g and hiking trails by Mr. Zengrell. It was good use because the ~ajor portion of the land was wetlands. King County would not issue perculat ion tests on t~e acreage for at least 20 years. Then, a roadway (S.c. 132nd st.) was put in and in subsequent years a whole street of houses was built. The requirement was that a bit of gravel should be "smeared around". The few rocks that were added to the saturated soil didn't ma~e any difference. Just ask the hOMeowners who bought houses in dry weather and now can't sell. =o1"1e of those ~o~eowners, who are on the edge of the proposed development, have expressed the description of their homes as having "hot and cold runni.ng \.Jater in their fireplaces". ~'7ater stands under their homes during most of the rainy season. 3ecause of the impercability of land just to the north of those homes, rea 1. estate woman i'~ary Ryan had a trench more than 6 feet deep ~n places dug and a drain pipe installed that runs from 156th Ave. 3.E. (across the street frOM our property) to the end of 3.B. 132nd 3t.,and t~en on to t~e back of the proposed plat flows the drained water. Any- one \-r~'0 di.d not see the drai.n installed would be unaware. The drainpipe drai.ns about 4 blocks from 156th }\ve. 3.i:. to 152nd lwe. 3.S. if extended. ~nother concern is the traffic backups already existent on 156th ~we. ).~. "'lost of the day, but especially bad during "rush hour traffic". ~anv Renton and Tssaauah School District school ~uses are routed on the rOndwav during the school vear. The ~ing County ~ire ~istrtct 3tation #1 is immediateLy to the north of the proposed development. Fire truc~s, pol~ce cars and aid cars are leaving from or returning to the station all day and night hours. Traffic impedes the emergency vehicles'response t i.Mes. In addi t i.on, property owners are endangered every time they have to trY to cross the road to collect mail and newspapers by the number of speedi.ng vehicles, and by the increasing number of huge truc~ combinations which have found 156th Ave. s.~. is a shortcut from the Maple Valley and Fairwood area to Bellevue and ~ighway 405 without having to buc~ rtenton traffi.c jams. i'~ch traffic now also is being diverted to 144th Ave. S.E. from 156th Ave. S.S. because of congestion on 156th past the Renton School District Maplewood Heights elementary School. Many children walk to school there. J EXHIBIT 1_ I \.JQuld like to b ldde~ to the list to rece: the Hearing Examiners I report as a Party-of-h.ccord. I am enclosing the "1-arty-of-Record request. Sincerely yours, ~C2~ ) ~oxaine R. Reynolds \ August 28, 1991 f~"~' ','''', 1-' OC1 2~) 199! King County Environmental 'blvision Attn: SEPA Center 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: File No. S90P0098 Willowbrook G~.q,t1emen: The undersigned is the owner of two 5-acre parcels located immediately south of the proposed plat of Willowbrook. My tax parcel numbers are 142305-9083-03 and 142305-9110-00. I have ·~wned this property for more than 20 years. I have made use of this property in my business and I am therefore on the property and have been on the property on a year-round basis. \ During the rainy season, which is approximately six (6) J~nths from October through March, there is a very strong odor of sep- tic tank effluent coming from my property. My ten (10) acres contains only one (1) single family unit. The odors are not coming from my premises. My real property is lower than the real property north and therefore, during the rainy seasons the ground water and surface waters flow from the north to t~e south across and within my property. There is a layer of hard- pan which prevents the water from percolating deep into the soil. Although I have never dug or excavated on the property to the north, it is my belief that not only the Willowbrook property but also property further north and to the east of Willowbrook also contain this hardpan layer. It is my opinion the winter rains permeate the soil in and around the residences north of my property and in turn, when this soil becomes saturated, the water flows down hill and crosses over my property either underground or on the surface. As a result, the septic tank effluent is carried from these residences to my property and other properties in the area. Based upon my years of experiencing this condition, it is therefore my opinion that further and additional residences should not be allowed to be constructed and served by septic tanks in the area. In the event the new residences were to be served by a sariitary se~er, I would have no objection to this Willowbrook Development. Due to my schedule, I will not be available at the public hearing and I therefore request this letter be made a matter of public record. EXHIBIT \8 Georqe -- I "'EP . ".: :.J . -. King County Environmental Division 3600 1,}6 pI SE Bellevue, Wa 98006-1400 RE: S90P0098 Willowbrook To~~bm it may Concern: ~.'! ~." ... ,~ '. :, "., .. .---' .- 13204 156 Ave S.E. Renton, WA 98059 August 30, 1991 R ~('~I\Ir:' ~ . 1= ~' :0.._ • ~~. . SEP 04 198'j SUBDIV1S!Or" , We have resided at 13204 156 Ave SE for nearly 20 years. We are concerned regarding the new development called Willowbrook. Actually, we are surprised this development has progressed this far. These are our concerns: 1. Much of the ground is very marshy, with standing water except for the dry summer months. Some houses along SE 132 which are higher than the proposed devel~pment have experienced septic failure in the short time they have been there. 2. The latest hou~es developed on the north side of SE 132 were required to have 1 acre lots. We don't understand allowing 19 lots on these 9 acres. We question how these lots could possibly pass the perc test? We would appreciate re-consideration for allowing that many lots to be developed in such a small portion of land. c.c. Building and Land Development Division Subdivision Section 3600 136 Pl S.E Bellevue Thank you, t2d;~~...t~, y n~;pa<.t!'/o (:Z1....e t'~~~~u.", Addison and Marge Williams EXHIBIT ~ 11-' , \ ~R . \. .. , , . . Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator ,. september 2, 1991 King County Environmental 3600 -136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Division ATTN: SEPA center File I S90P0098 .... ~ To whom it may concern: The City of Renton has reviewed the Determination of Non- ~Significance for the Loran Petersen/ESM for King Brothers, Const. 19 lot suburban subdivision. The City of Renton is concerned about the siting near its sphere of influence and that it comply with the Newcastle Community Plan. It copld have subsequent impacts on land use, transportation, and. environmental health. LAND USE: The SR15000 zoning of this 'area establishes a minimum lot size of 15000 square feet. This zoning is often proposed for areas outside of the sewer service area. There is no ~ information given on infrastructure incompatibility. Also, compatibility and impacts of all the "action" alternatives on surrounding land uses should be thoroughly discussed. TRANSPORTATION: Additional information & an impact analysis is needed on the extension of the roadway between 132nd and 134th. SENSITIVE AREAS: The addresses given makes it impossible to accurately locate the site(s) on a map. For this reason, the site location was estimated for the assessments made. For complete accuracy a site map would be needed. It appears the 132nd site lies within a Class III Landslide Area and half of the site lies within a Class III Seismic Area. The 152nd location might have a small portion of the South East corner within the Class III Landslide Area. These determinations were made from the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio - a difficult map to find an exact siting from. EXHIBIT" 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 \ King County Environmental Division September 2, 1991 Page 2 The City of Renton would like to be kept informed of the progress of the environmental review and if there are any mitigating factors determined. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Determination of Non-Significance on this project. have any questions you can contact, Teri A. Adams, Intern I, at 235-2552. ~.; Sincerely yours, ~/:1L!!n:~ Principal Planner If you Planning • III RECElVED NOV 1 1991 SEPA King County Building and Attn: Hearing Examiner 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Re: #S90P0098 Willowbrook T~Whom It May Concern: 15243 S.E. 132nd Street Renton, WA 98059 October 27, 1991 Land Development RECr-J\n:;O ,-. OC7 : 0 ~391 .-::" . ... ," J We have received the staff report on the proposed development of Willowbrook, and after reading through it, find little to make us feel any better about the addition of 20 houses. The problems that have existed for the 17+ years that we have lived here are still there and this new addition will just compound the problems. We find that many others have written stating many of the same concerns and problems of which we have tried to make you aware. For years, beginning with Mary Ryan's decision to semi- develop the land to the north of S.E. 132nd Street, we have tried. unsuccessfully, to make county officials aware of the problems we have had to deal/with because of the poor soil drainage and high water table, such as standing water in our yards~ erosion of the road. water coming in and under our homes. trees that are uprooted in high winds because the root~ are saturated, and above all, the health hazards that exist because of poorly functioning septic systems. We can lift the lid off our septic tank during very wet periods and actually see the water that is suppose to drain into the soil run back into the septic tank, the path of least resistance. ~e have also been told that underground springs e~it which adds to the problem. We feel that our county officials who are suppose to have knowledge of these problems have ignored a situation that existed long before any of our homes were built. As more trees are eliminated and more stress put on the land more problems appear. We would like to believe that these officials are looking at the big picture of the future, and not just 10 acres at a time. It has been suggested that the neighbors get together to hire an engineer to further stress the problems that exist. We cannot see that someone who sees the land in question a couple of times would have any better knowledge of the problems that we have described than those who have lived here the number of years that we have. We would like to believe that those of you who will make the tinal decision will do so with true concern for those who may live in this EXP.IBIT 22 ~ I i '/ ! new development 'as well as those of us who have made this area our home. As previously stated, the proposed development lies downhill and slopes away from the homes on S.E. 132nd Street and will not only have to deal with the normal problems brought on by heavy rain and poor soil but also the water flowing from our yards as the natural flow of the land is toward them. The only area that would have little problem with this are the few lots at the top of the proposed development near 156th Street. After being informed of these problems we would hope that new housing projects would not be considered until proper sanitary facilities are in place. An~her concern is the increase in traffic on the already busy 156th Street. It is the only North/South route between ~aple Valley Highway and S.E. 128th Street (Cemetery Road). During heavy traffic periods it takes several minutes to even get out onto 156th Street. We hate to think of the '~ossible accidents which may occur due to the overload and impatience. We would ask that this letter and the others we have sent in the past which concern this issue be made a matter of public record as work may make it impossible to attend the hearing. Sincerely, ;/ "-.J£ z, k) Sandra and Terry Taylor t f t f I I t r . I t' Willowbrook, S90P0098 Hearing, November 5, 1991 Drainage Complaints Dick and Barb Wright, 152433 SE 132nd standing water in form of year round streams and/or swamps; water runoff undercutting and washing away SE 132nd street, sewer odors, soil percability. Sandy and Terry Taylor, 15423 S.E. 132nd Street Water seeping through bricks of downstairs fireplace, problems with water pressure, septic tank problems -have to pump out every two years. _________ . . ___ -,.-__ . __ .... ____ .... ___ . ___ . ...,.... ___ ...a~_~._ .. __ -........ __ _ Gary G. Newbury, 15251 S.E. 132nd Street Poor drainage of soil, runoff, water under their home, difficulties with neighborhood septic systems, inability of willowbrook property to perc. Roxaine R. Reynolds, 13042 -156th Avenue S.E. Property a wetlands in 1950s. Houses built near S.E. 132nd street have water under homes during most of rainy season. A drainpipe runs from 156th Avenue S.E. to end of S.E. 132nd street and on to back of proposed plat drains about four blocks from 156th Avenue S.E. to 152nd Avenue S.E. if extended. Addison and Marge Williams, 13204 -156th Avenue S.E. Ground is very marshy with standing water except for dry summer months. Some houses along S.E. 132nd have experienced septic failure. George Bales, 13427 -156th Avenue S.E. During rainy season very strong odor of septic tank effluent coming from the property. Property is lower than property north; ground and surface waters flow from north to south across and within his property. There is a layer of hardpan which prevents water from percolating deep into soil. When soil becomes saturated north of his property, water carrying septic effluent flows downhill and crosses his property either underground or on surface. £ '? If { i3 {T 2-.3 lU7it1 ~,(.<'-{ tC r&-e [\.U~ Citizens. Alliance for a h\;;~ponsible Evendell P.O. Box 2936 Renton, WA 98056 highlands_neighbors@hotmail,com November 30,2005 Keri Weaver Project Manager -Development Services City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton W A 98055 RE: Highlands Park Plat Application -file # LUA05-124, PP, ECF Dear Ms. Weaver, I write to you today in regard to the Highlands Park Plat application currently under review by your department. At the request of several of the owners and occupants of the properties adjacent to the Highlands Park parcel, I would like to bring to you attention some findings that came out of the recent subdivision applications in the area. The following applications were submitted to and processed by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services within the last four years: Evendell L01 P0016A and L03RE038 Liberty Grove L03P0006 and L03TY 403 Liberty Grove Contiguous L03P0005 and L03TY 401 Nichols Place L03D0008 and L03TY 404 Each of these applications yielded voluminous King County Hearing Examiner Decision Reports, so I am not including physical copies today. They are all available on the King County website. Please let me know if you need live links and I will be happy to email them to you. As a result of the evidence and statements from neighboring properties that CARE submitted, Level 3 Drainage Studies [per the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)] were required for these applications. Subsequently, drainage improvements at a minimum of Level 2, as well as several components at Level 3, were required for all four development projects. These parcels also have the same Alderwood soil type, very comparable vegetative cover, and are very closely located to the Highlands Park parcel. All these circumstances, along with the many voices of concerned neighbors who have contacted us, compel us to submit this letter and formally request that the same level of drainage analysis and mitigation be required for this plat project. In addition, I also request that CARE be made a party of record for this application. Please do not hesitate to contact me if further documentation or explanation is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration, , "'" ." ~ ,,/ / ~--'I:<t ~?'t~<;I' ?--='>V('1 C Gwendolyn High to' CARE president cc: Neil Watts -Director of Development Services ® King County Parks and Recreation Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center Building KSC-NR-0700 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 206-296-8687 November 9,2005 Ms. Keri Weaver Development Services Division City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Subject: Highlands Park Plat -Cedar to Sammamish Regional Trail Dear Ms. Weaver: DEVELOPMENT PU\I\Nllvr; CITY OF RENTOf'.I . " NOV 1 42005 RECEIVED The King County Parks and Recreation Division would appreciate the opportunity to work with you on the retention of a 30 foot-wide easement within the proposed Highlands Park Plat. This easement would accommodate the future Cedar to Sammamish Trail, a component of King County's Regional Trail System. The preferred location for the easement would be along the western property boundary to provide a continuous link along 152nd Avenue SE. We would like to meet with you in the near future to present our Regional Trails Plan, the role of the Cedar to Sammamish Trail, and the preferred location for the trail within this community. Sharon Claussen, Project Manager with our Division has taken the lead on acquiring the necessary right-of-way for the trail. She will contact you within a few days to discuss this project and to set up an appointment that is convenient with your schedule. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, !-Z~ Jq-~", Robert Foxworthy ~) Regional Trails Coordinator cc: Kevin Brown, Director, Parks and Recreation Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP) Sharon Claussen, Program Manager, Parks and Recreation Division, DNRP @1!>~1202M DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM November 15, 2005 Keri Weaver Sonja J. Fesser~C(s'O v Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, LUA-05-124, PP Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced preliminary plat submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: There needs to be a resolution of the adverse possession claim on a portion of the subject plat property before said plat can be approved and recorded. What is the identity of the tract (or lot) southerly of Lot 73, northerly of Tract 997 (Storm Pond) and easterly of Rosario Ave SE (Sheet 3 of 5)? If it is a part of Tract 997 (the storm pond), then a line (dividing said tract) needs to be removed. There are horizontal lines crossing Street A (between proposed Lots 40 and 41) and Street B (between Lots 31 and 50). Also, there are horizontal extensions (to the east and west) of the centerline of Street C (crossing Lot 12 and Tract 998). Are said lines significant or should they be removed? Information needed for final plat approval includes the following: Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA-OX-XXX-FP and LND-1O-0439, respectively, on the drawing sheets. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number for the final plat will be different from the preliminary plat number and is unknown as of this date. Note two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties are provided. \H:\File Sys\LND " Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-lO " Plats\0439\R V051114.doc November 23, 2005 Page 2 Provide plat and lot closure calculations. Note the date the existing monuments were visited, per WAC 332-130-150, and what was found. Complete City of Renton Monument Cards, with reference points of all new right-of-way monuments set as part of the plat. Required City of Renton signatures (on the final plat submittal) include the Administrator of Planning/BuildinglPublic Works, the Mayor and the City Clerk. An approval block for the city's Finance Director is also required. Appropriate King County approval blocks need to be noted on the plat drawing. All vested owners of the plat property, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat document. Include notary blocks as needed. Include a dedication/certification block on the plat drawing. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the comers of the proposed lots. On the final submittal, remove all references to trees, utility facilities, topog lines and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. Remove all references to building setback lines, except those required by the Hearing Examiner, if any. Setbacks are usually determined at the time of issuance of building permits. Note encroachments, if any. Note all easements, agreements and covenants of record on the drawing. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The city will provide addresses for the proposed lots after the preliminary plat is approved. The addresses (and street names) will need to be noted on the plat document. Remove all references to density and zoning information from the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat, then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, easements or agreements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s) for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-10 -Plats\0439\RV051114.doc\cor November 23, 2005 Page 3 If there is a Homeowners' Association (HOA) for this plat, the following language concerning ownership of TRACTS 997, 998 and 999 applies to this plat and should be noted on the final plat drawing. The following text example will need to be repeated for Tract 997 (storm pond): Upon the recording of this plat, Tracts 998 and 999 are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Highlands Park Homeowners' Association (HOA) for park areas. All necessary maintenance activities for said Tracts will be the responsibility of the HOA. In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months, then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tracts previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. If there is no HOA, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 73, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in "Tracts 997, 998 and 999". The forgoing statement is to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tracts serving the plat, or reference a separate recorded instrument detailing the same. The three new 20' private access/utilities easements are for the benefit of future owners of the proposed associated lots. Since the new lots created via this plat are under common ownership at the time of plat recording, there can be no new easements created until ownership of the lots is conveyed to others, together with/or subject to specific easement rights. Add the following Declaration of Covenant language on the face of the subject plat drawing, if the previous paragraph applies: DECLARATION OF COVENANT: The owners of the land embraced within this plat, in return for the benefit to accrue from this subdivision, by signing hereon covenant and agree to convey the beneficial interest in the new easements shown on this plat to any and all future purchasers of the lots, or of any subdivisions thereof This covenant shall run with the land as shown on this plat. The new private access/utilities easements require a "NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT" statement noted on the plat drawing. See the attachment. If additional easements (private and/or public) are added to this proposed plat, then more comments regarding said easements may be required in the future. H:\File Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-\0 -Plats\0439\RVOSII14.doc\cor November 23,2005 Page 4 Comments for the Project Manager: Note, in particular, the first paragraph of this review. A resolution of the property dispute must be settled before the plat can be approved and recorded. Fee Review Comments: The Fee Review Sheet for the preliminary plat review is provided for your use and information. H:\Pile Sys\LND -Land Subdivision & Surveying Records\LND-LO -Plats\0439\RV051 I 14.doc\cor Title for both of the following paragraphs: NEW PRIVATE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Use the following paragraph if there are two or more lots participating in the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNERS OF LOTS SHALL HAVE AN EQUAL AND UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. Use the following paragraph if there is one Lot subject to the agreement: NOTE: NEW PRIVATE EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES IS TO BE CREATED UPON THE SALE OF LOTS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. THE OWNER OF LOT SHALL HAVE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT APPURTENANCES. THESE APPURTENANCES AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE REP AIR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD, DRAINAGE PIPES, AND STORM WATER QUALITY AND/OR DETENTION FACILITIES WITHIN THIS EASEMENT, PRIVATE SIGNAGE, AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NOT OWNED BY THE CITY OF RENTON OR OTHER UTILITY PROVIDERS. MAINTENANCE COSTS SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY. PARKING ON THE PAVING IN THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS PROHIBITED, UNLESS PAVEMENT WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 20 FEET. PROPERTY SERVIC~~ "EE REVIEW FOR SUBmVISIONS No '5 ----,G;-....'-__ RECEIVED FROM ___ ----:-~-:-_ (date) JOB ADDRESS: J \5 VSErfA A'Yc WE WO#_~i,-7.-,-,+9==--.l-.L-I _____ _ NATURE OF WORK: '7a-~ LalJ~--PJ ~ [HIGi-H1-.Al I05 -pAafc:) LND# 10-o4ag X PRELIMINARY REVIEW OFSUBDlViS'ldN iYLdNG PLAT, NEED MORE INFORMATION: .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORT PLAT, BINDING SITE PLAN, ETC. PID #'s .. VICINITY MAP -FINAL REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION, THIS REVIEW REPLACES SQUARE FOOTAGE -OTHER PRELIMINARY FEE REVIEW DATED FRONT FOOTAGE SUBJECT PROPERTY PARENT PIO# 142.;%:>5-9047) -qlla X NEW KING CO. TAX ACCT.#(s) are required when -ClOSS, -q116 assigned by King County. It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice, that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements (i.e. underground utilities, street improvements, etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The existing house on SP Lot # , addressed as has not previously paid ____ SDC fees, due to connection to City utilities prior to existance of SDC fee Ord. SP Lot# will be subject to future SDC fees if triggering mechanisms are touched within current City Ordinances. We understand that this subdivision is in the preliminary stage and that we will have the opportunity to review it again before recordation. Th ~ II e 0 oWlllg quote d fi d NOT' d . ees 0 tnclu e tnspectlon . f, ees, SIde sewer permits, r w permIt ees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement (pvt) WATER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) W ASTEW A TER -0- Latecomer Agreement (pvt) OTHER -0- / Special Assessment District!W A TER /-0- eAbT "R,El.r'fbU I ~Ce:Pft>R OOO.e $ae4.52 XUU,I"JS+ "13 Teo Special Assessment District/W ASTEW A TER It..r Joint Use A~reement (METRO) - Local Improvement District * - Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION - FUTURE OBLIGATIONS - SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WATER .. Estimated # OF UNITSI SDC FEE .. Pd Prevo .. Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never Pd SQ. FTG. Single family residential $1,525/unit x --~-1..-..::: ~ -:BI;!; Mobile home dwelling unit $1220/unit inpark ...-...:.. P!JV ' Apartment, Condo $915/unit not in CD or COR zones x ~_90 Commercial/industrial, $0.213!sq. ft. of property (not less than $1,525.00) x Boeing, by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter (2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -WASTEWATER" Estimated .. Pd Prevo Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never Pd Single famih' residential $900/unit x 7!'3 l\lobile home dwelling unit $720/unit x Apartment, Condo $540/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/lndustrial $0. 126/s9,. ft. of property x(not less than $900.00) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE -SURFACE\,\'ATER Estimated .. Pd Prevo .. Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) .. Never'Pd Single familr residential and mobile home dwellingunit $715/unit x 73 All other properties $0.249!sq ft of new impen'iotls area of propert}' x (not less than $715.00) I PREUI\HNARY TOTAL $ u!Q~b'5 I,;.-\it- $~5 '100.OC: $52195.00 '< IV III 0 OJ 0 t-t 111 t-t III < *11' subject propert} is \\ithin an UD, it is de\ elopers responsibility to check with tlte Finance Dept. for paid/un-paid status. Square footage figures are taken from tlte I\.ing County Assessor's mal' and are suhject to change_ Curn~lIt Cit} SDC fee charges apply to ~ __ EfFECTI\T January I, lOll') f-' III l: ::J 0 City of Re ...... n Department of Planning / Building / Public ~. "', KS ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Hi hlands Park Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77491 ,,", SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres t{~~'l6W~eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and e'a¥~bt rio Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd eet on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Re ... ~n Department of Planning / Building / Public •. v •.. S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Pa.N1(.S COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries ..... \'" ,C\J SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A at=-lf~ , " '1\)\Y.l LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77491 ."f' '2. ;, L- SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lo~'ior eventl)a!\,.;\~ c!> development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of B AVP;?~\C ... SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133r~ [ :¢'l tWa north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One s~' gulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposaMNiU be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl HistoriclCultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS -;lAML cu' IW~-~ai IcJ &~, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wher~ additional information is eded to property assess this proposal. Date 7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM November 4, 2005 Keri Weaver Juliana Fries (x:7278) Highlands Park Preliminary Plat· LUA 05·124 115 Vesta Ave NE I have reviewed the application for this 73-lot plat, located at the 115 Vesta Ave NE, and the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER SEWER STORM STREETS The proposed development is within the water service area of Water District 90 (WD 90). The applicant has not included a Certificate of Water Availability. A fire flow analyses will be required to verify that the District's system can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow. The proposed project is located outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. There is an 8-inch sewer main at the intersection of SE 2nd Street & Rosario Ave (152nd Ave SE). There is also an 8-inch sewer main along SE 2nd PI (SE 136th St). A storm drainage plan and drainage report was provided. The applicant is proposing a detention and water quality pond. The site drains to Orting Hill sub- basin. There are no curb/gutter, sidewalk or streetlights on Vesta Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Rosario Ave NE, fronting the site. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A Certificate of Water Availability from Water District No. 90 is required prior to the issuance of the construction permit. 2. Existing and new hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Storz "quick disconnect" fittings. SANITARY SEWER 1. A sewer main extension to the furthest extends of the new streets interior to the plat will be required. The sewer main shall be installed at a slope that will allow to serve the developments to the north, by gravity, as far as possible. 2. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave (156th Ave SE) will also be required. 3. Separate side sewers stubs are required in each building lot. No dual side sewers are allowed. 4. This parcel is subject to the L-ast Renton Interceptor Special Asses .... nent District (SAD). Fees are collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 5. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. This fee is subject to change. SURFACE WATER 1. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) is $715 per building lot. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. This fee is subject to change. TRANSPORTATION 1. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the frontage of the project site with Rosario Ave NE, SE 2nd Place and Vesta Ave NE. 2. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting and street signs will be required along the new streets interior to the plat. 3. Dedication of 12-foot Right-of-Way along the frontage of the development with Vesta Ave NE will be required. The dedication is needed to accommodate a 5-lane roadway plus bike lane, and would be consistent with the 12-foot dedication to the north (Willowbrook Lane development) 4. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed at a rate of 9.57 trips per single-family residence. 5. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards CONDITIONS 1. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, staff is recommending a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control-a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 2. Staff recommends that fencing and landscaping be provided along the proposed detention/water quality pond when abutting Right-of-Way. 3. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the "Preliminary Geotechnical" dated October 10, 2005, regarding Site Preparation and Grading, and Stormwater Pond. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction permits. 5. Staff recommends that a minimum of 6-feet width paved pedestrian walkway connection, within a recorded access easement, from Vesta Ave SE to the internal road (in proposed Tract 998 -Park) be required, to provide easier access for pedestrians. cc: Kayren Kittrick City of Re .. __ n Department of Planning / Bui/ding / Public ...... ,,$ ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Bumstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Hi hlands Park Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA ross: N/A CT 3 1 2005 LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77491 BUll DING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Si-£, atfix-dL£d with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or is needed to property assess this proposal. //-L/-o.s- Sign Date City of Remon Department of Planning / Building / Public ~v, "s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Hi hlands Park Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77491 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS ~ ~-ctu::-cl We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or e additional informati is needed to properly assess this proposal. //-,-/-OS- Signat Date s#_-=.~_50--=--__ _ Project Name: l-h~HkA~t>? {>AA'L. rJf Project Address: 115 "87Th Mtf Yw.t tV€ Contact Person: 1'N¥4)~"'D-'::N> (P'4J~\' Permit Number: WA 0':;>-Lq,Y Project Description: _J.J....,J.:?_L...;:;o;;..'\.;......:S:::.f;...'IL~~f~4YC::u....I. ___________________________ _ Land Use Type: o Residential o Retail o Non-retail Calculation: q.~l ~ toqq A{)T ~ "1 S :. D>s:;l.) 4 ().5. If{) Method of Calculation: ~ ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition ~~raffic Study o Other \VtA t= C3f' \Oly)-auo5 ; Transportation Mitigation Fee: ---..;j\,;;,;......;:5;;.;:;;l.;.;..)1-t.\J.::;).::.::~~._01) ______________ _ Calculated by: -h.i,iJ.kv..0iJ Date: \ Ofwk Date of Payment: _______________________________ j City of Re ..• Jn Department of Planning / Building / Public .. _ ... s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Hi hlands Park Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 77491 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wet/and (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major InformaUon Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date .. .. ' DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MITIGATION ITEMS: FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 28, 2005 Keri Weaver, Senior Planner , ;JJ James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal rI,(L Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, 115 Vesta Ave. NE 1. A fire mitigation fee of$488.00 is required for all new single-family structures. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is required within 300 feet of all new single- family structures. lfthe building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to a minimum of 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Fire department access roads are required to be paved, 20 feet wide. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. 3. Street addresses shall be visible from a public street. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. i:\ercplat.doc City of Remon Department of Planning / Building / Public •• ~. ks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .ft> ('f' COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER in ?nnJ; ~ ---" \ DATE CIRCULATED: OdfOBErt27.\~OiG G \1'.' , \ i"'\ " \ APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF -.::.:, i: \: i APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: K~~i1(rkli3ver 1\ \ \1 PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana F\'~S \ OCT 27 2005 \', LJ j : \ ... ,-,~ ... ' \ ;..0 -J . SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA (gross): fA LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE WORK ORDER NO: 7749 i~1 iY Qr p.un'\i j -~ ,-\" ~ ",' ~ , , ;-! --SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totalin g 1!f.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences_ The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS I)j C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewe1J,his application w' particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ."'" wh,,,, add;t! nat ;nfonnation ;, ded to proporly a""" /h;, """",al. 1 0 k j 5"------ Signature 0 ~jctor or Authorized epre ntative Date 7 I City of Re, .. _n Department of Planning / Building / Public .. _ ... 8 ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 10, 2005 APPLICATION NO: LUA05-124, PP, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 27,2005 APPLICANT: Burnstead Construction PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver CITY OF RENTON PROJECT TITLE: Hi hlands Park Prelimina Plat PLAN REVIEW: Juliana Fries SITE AREA: 18.13 acres BUILDING AREA ross: N/A LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE I WORK ORDER NO: 77491 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water UghtiG/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Lltilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energyl Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Noue We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or e additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date ® King County DDES DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 900 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest Renton, Wa 98055-1219 This certificate lJi uvides the Seattle King County Department of Public Health and the Department of Development and Environmental Services with info'(f!lation necessary to evaluate develop~)'€"L.op proposals. CI7}-'8} rY'r p~ L-------------------------~~€"Nto~~NG NOV .. 42005 King County Certificate of Water Availabilitl~c~IV~D I Do not write in this box number o Building Permit o Short Subdivision name IKI Preliminary Plat or PUD o Rezone or other _______ _ Applicant's name: Highlands Park / Bumstead Construction Ron Hughes, Phone 425-985-8755 (Cell) Proposed use: Single Family Residences (193 Lots) Location: From Rosario Ave SE & 156th Ave SE on Vesta Ave SE (Parcel # 14-23-5) ap and legal description if necessary) Water purveyor information: I 1. 0 a. Water will be provided by service connection only to an existing_(size) water main that is fronting the site. OR IKI b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system of: o (1) feet of water main to reach the site; and/or o (2) The construction of a distribution system on the site; and/or IKI (3) Other (describe): Steel main on 156th Ave SE to be replaced. DE Agreement, installation of all Mains, Hydrants and all related on-site and off-site Easements are required by the District. 2. IKI a. The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan. OR o b. The water system improvement is not in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan and wi!! require a water comprehensive plan amendment. (This may cause a delay in issuance of a permit or approval). 3. IKI a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor. OR o b. Annexation or Boundary Review Board (BRB) approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. IKI a. Water will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant __ feet from the building/property (or as marked on the attached map): Rate of Row at Peak Demand o less than 500 gpm (approx. ___ g,pm) o 500 to 999 gpm IKI 1000 gpm or more o flow test of ________ gpm o calculation of gpm Duration o less than 1 hour o 1 hour to 2 hours IKI 2 hours or more o other ____ _ (Note: Commercial building permits which includes multifamily structures require flow test or calculation. ) OR o b. Water system is not capable of providing fire flow. 5. IKI a. Water system has certificates of water right or water right claims sufficient to provide service. OR o b. Water system does not currently have necessary water rights or water right claims. Comments/conditions: Install Hydrants per Fire Marshall requirements. Fees per Lot: WAC @ $125, GFC @ $3,200, and Meter Drop @ $450 = Total per Lot $3,775.00 FEES SUBJECf TO CHANGE WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE I certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This certification shall be valid for 1year from date of Signature. KING COUN1Y WATER DISTRICf #90 LESTER PIELE RENEWAL FEES: WI IN 1 YEAR $50.00 Agency name Signatory name AFTER 1 YEAR $125.00 ,,/f -. SUPERINTENDENT Title ~r~;7~ " t:;, /,/C/ t/C.(;t-'!c-: ''-d / L.--I-, Signature Z:\Water Availability Certificates\Water Avaiiability\Highlands Park.doc 11/02/2005 Date : KeriW-e-a-v-e-r---S-E-P-A-c-o-m-m-e~r1-t2-.d-o-c~" ---------------------"----_.-.-"---- November 2,2005 Keri Weaver Senior Planner Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Re: SEPA Comment for Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Dear Ms. Weaver: I have reviewed the SEP A document for Highlands Park Preliminary Plat, and provide the following comments. Question A. 10: A Forest Practice Application may need to be submitted to Department of Natural Resources. Question B.4.b: The applicant should note percentages of hardwood, conifer or shrubs, and kinds and amount to be removed and left. A Forest Practice Application may be needed depending on the amount of harvest occurring. If you have any questions, please give me a call on my direct line, 360-802-7007. Respectfully, Lisa Spahr Department of Natural Resources South Puget Sound Region Forest Practices Coordinator 360-825-1631 Page 1 October 27,2005 Edward and June Hill rTfJ THE YJURNSTFADS 225 Vesta Avenue SE Renton, Washington 98059 RE: Highlands Park -Boundary Line Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hill, OevaOPM~N J SERVICES CITY OF RENTON NOV 01 2005 REceiVED I'm writing in regards to your letter dated October 3rd , to Neil Watts. We have submitted a preliminary plat application for the proposed Highlands Park development located north of your property. The boundary survey completed by Core Design, has located your fence which encroaches onto our site. We would like to resolve this conflict and move forward with our project. Would you please forward a copy of your attorney's letter to our office so we can address your concerns. I have enclosed a self addressed stamped envelope for your convience. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (425) 454-1900 extension 233. Sincerely, BURN~~EAJ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~~ Ron Hughes, PE Cc: Neil Watts, City of Renton Michael Chen, Core Design lllS UOtil Avenue N. E, St(!, 201 RelJcl'ue, HA 980()5-2 13 5 4J S 454 1 C)OO F(L\;: ,n5 -f 54 4-543 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: October 27, 2005 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-124, PP, ECF PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 loIs for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located al 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave NE and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsile tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. PROJECT LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-5IGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, tha City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a ONS-M Is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the ONS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October 10, 2005 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 27. 2005 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Chen, Core D.slgn, Inc,; Tel: (425) 885-7877; Eml: mc@coredeslgnlnc,com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat approval Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, and Fire Permits Requested Studies: Wetland & Traffic Studle., Drainage & Geotechnical Reports Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hali,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatiyely scheduled for January 6. 2006 before the Renton Hearing Examiner In Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Propo.ed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The subject site is designated Residential low DenSity on the City of Renton Comprehensive land Use Map and Residential -4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Municipal Code Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code and other applicable codes anc regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be Imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project ·Impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Ken Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 10, 2005. This matter Is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 6, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested 10 attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division· to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Kerl Weaver, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7382 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION SE 132nd Sl. R-4 -~! ~:I S s' "'" m. l. ~~! r--J ;rl b--...11 SE 138th PI. lJ~lld\iE 139th;J SE 138th SE 139th If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete Ihis form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No .. Highlands Park Preliminary PlatlLUA05-124, PP, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: __________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: _________ _ CERTIFICATION I. ~ ~ lAY Q CLv-Vi , hereby certify that ::3 copies of the above document were sted by me in ~ conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: -----------------SIGNED: __ -f-Ift='-/L--_'A-e_-_'J_c!_(~ ____ _ ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Was . gton residing inj J e\;~\ WTt--,onthe ~( d~~' _ {)f:/It~~~.'( Zbo~ dQ.4j \ .. h·\:,_,.. '!\" Jo-: . NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE: clil" NO'TA f,\', :': j! '.: , 8''\"-1\.,.''', W WI" ':';" .' ;.",,-",. ,~ IHIe:. ,. ii', k.-... <_,;; ,; ;:-:-(\.~ I ~"I. ,~ \~ '. CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2ih day of October, 2005, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Ur, NOA, Environmental Checklist, PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name :,,:. Repre~~nting Agencies -NOA, Env. Checklist, & PMT's See Attached Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc. -Accpt. Ltr only Contact Burnstead Construction -Accpt. Ltr only Applicant Jim Jacques Construction -Accpt. Ltr only Owner James & Linda St. John Party of Record Mike Moran Party of Record Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender)..:....: __ ----""........:.:,.,j......; .. >;....o' _----,.-"'"'-' -''-_·-'-_______ ---I--iiCHAR~~LE''=S F. KoKk6 ~ NOTARY PUBLIC ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Holly Graber ; COMMISSION EXPIRES ~ MARCH 19,2006 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned ~ the instrument. f) ~ /I /' . ---11 J j Dated: /oOtIo,) ~1~ I ------~--~~~-~~-~~----,.------Notary Public in and for the Sate of Washington Notary (print): __ -iEC-r/[_~-rv~&J~F_~_t;J_' ______ __ My appointment expires: 3./IC;;/b6 Project Name: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Project Numb~f:: LUA05-124, PP, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology * Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region * Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Servo Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERe DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. * c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160th Ave SE 39015 _172nd Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program * 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation * Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72nd Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing 943275001007 ANDERSON JEFF G 15519 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630077000 BAN KS TRAVIS 6000 NE 1ST ST RENTON WA 98059 142305900607 BRYANT FRANKLYN A & RONDA A 15406 SE 136TH RENTON WA 98059 512630075004 CHUANG TOM+JESSICA 6006 NE 1ST ST RENTON WA 98059 512630027005 CORONADO PETER A 218 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 512630030009 DIAZ RAFAEL JR 200 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 142305903304 EHLERT DONALD E+EILEEN F 15502 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98056 329590003003 GALANG GINA+HECITA ELBERT ASTURIAS 15217 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 512630026007 GILMAN TODD N+CRISTIN R MANDAVILLE 6035 SE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 366450025007 HAIR JARED L+LAURA S TAUTZ 13422 156TH AV SE RENTON WA 98059 943275010008 ANTONESCU ILIE I+MARIANA 15316 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 943275005008 BISHOP DAVID C+NANCY N BRAM 15413 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630028003 BULLER JUSTIN W+JULIA K 212 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 142305908204 CLAIRMONT KIMBERLIE J 13407 156TH AV SE RENTON WA 98059 329590041003 CRUZ-METRA ANA LIZA 13602 153RD PL SE RENTON WA 98059 512630067001 DOLAN JAMES P+ BENKE DEIRDRE A 6003 NE 1ST CT RENTON WA 98059 943275019009 FICHTENHOLTZ MICHAEL O+NATA 15323 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 329590015007 GARLAND ELIZABETH 15246 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98059 512630070005 GLOVER GLENN A+ TONI H 6008 NE 1ST CT RENTON WA 98059 146340004903 HALLUM JOHN MARTIN+VALERIE 15415 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98056 142305911000 BALES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 3015 RENTON WA 98056 943275018001 BROWNE EDGAR S JR 15518 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630025009 CHIN SCOTT D 6029 SE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 142305904708 COLONY HOMES INC 1215 120TH AV NE #201 BELLEVUE WA 98005 512630023004 DELORME RICHMOND Y 6017 SE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 329590001007 DUNNE MICHAEL+MARGARET J 15205 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 329590008002 Ncl-dell...tefili e.. ~ FRANK STEVE+MELANIE ~ 15301 SE 136TH ST lVt"tloS RENTON WA 98059 943275012004 GIANG PAUL 15336 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630024002 GOSSARD STACEY LANE 6023 SE 2ND CT RENTON WA 98059 146340004507 HALLUN VALERIE L 15415 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98056 943275008002 HEERENSPERGER JOSEPH ALAN 15307 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 142305905903 HILL EDWARD J JR 13527 156TH SE RENTON WA 98055 512630069007 KELLY BRYANT KOTA S 6009 NE 1ST CT RENTON WA 98059 943275020007 LEACH GARRY K+KATHERINE E 15308 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 512630076002 MARTUCCI DAVID+SUSAN L 6012 NE 1ST ST RENTON WA 98059 366450028506 MILL CHARLES V+ CATHERINE M 13434 156TH AV SE RENTON WA 98059 142305903502 NEEDHAM THOMAS A 13325 156TH ST SE RENTON WA 98059 366450028100 OSGOOD BY BRUCE SHANNON 13456 156TH SE RENTON WA 98055 329590040005 PELAYO JANICE R+RONALD B 13608 153RD PL SE RENTON WA 98059 329590002005 RABON VINCENT Q+MARIA D 15211 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 943275011006 HERMAN ROBERT M & MICHELLE 15324 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 329590005008 HONG ANH 15229 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 943275021005 KING COUNTY 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 500 4TH AV SEATTLE WA 98104 943275003003 LEE SEUNG JOE & HYUN JOO 15503 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630059008 MAUTHE MARK A+JANET I 6014 SE 2ND ST RENTON WA 98059 512630058000 MOORE DEBRA 6026 SE 2ND ST RENTON WA 98059 329590007004 NGO TINH KHAC+HUE THI DANG 15241 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 512630073009 PACE JOHN P JEAN MORRISON-PACE 6013 NE 1ST ST RENTON WA 98059 366450026104 PERRY LUCILLE M 13426 156 AV SE RENTON WA 98055 329590013002 RORIE LARRY R+KRISTINE 15302 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98059 512630079006 HERNANDEZ MANUEL F JR+LISA F 6015 NE 1ST CIR RENTON WA 98059 329590010008 JUDSON NATHAN L+KAMI WONG 15313 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 512630029001 KONO ANNE M 206 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 146340004408 LONG KAREN MARIE+KIERIG JER 15403 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 943275009000 MIER MARTIN A 15300 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 329590009000 MOORE PATRICK+GWENDOLYN 15307 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 329590006006 OH KWANG DUCK+HYE KYONG YANG 15235 SE 136TH ST MAPLE VALLEY WA 98059 329590016005 PANTER GREGORY P+ELLEN M 15240 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98055 512630068009 PETERSON DEAN & PAMELA 6015 NE 1ST CT RENTON WA 98059 329590017003 SADUCOS FLORENTINO P JR+BRENDA G 15234 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98059 512630074007 SAINT CLAIR JUSTIN H+BIRD KIRSTEN 6007 NE 1ST ST RENTON WA 98059 329590011006 SCHROEDER VU+MY LE THI BACH 15314 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98059 512630031007 SMITH DESMOND L 201 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 512630080004 ST JOHN JAMES M+LINDA J 6009 NE 1ST CIR RENTON WA 98059 943275002005 TENNELL EDDIE Z+NANCY L 15511 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 142305911703 TRAN KHOA CAM+SAM TU NGOC 15320 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 943275004001 A~ td-~ WAGNER JASON L+WAGNER RACHEL L 949 ABERDEEN AV NE #A202 tI/t'-tloS RENTON WA 98056 512630071003 WILMOT KEVIN 6014 NE 1ST CT RENTON WA 98059 512630033003 XAYARATH STEVE K + LAKY K 213 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 142305911802 SAITO MICHAEL & ARLENE 7630 S 115TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 943275006006 SHERMAN GORDON L & DARLA J 15401 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 943275016005 SNODGRASS JOHN W+MARY L B 15502 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 329590004001 SUNKEL IGNACIO A 15223 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA 98059 943275013002 THOMAS KIM H 15404 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 943275007004 TRAN QUANG + NINH NGA 15315 SE 133RD CT RENTON WA 98059 943275015007 WANLESS ROBERT G+CATHERINE 15420 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 329590014000 WONG NATHAN K+RACHAEL L RIVERA- 15252 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98059 142305904005 SANTA CRUZ MARNA M 13425 156TH AV SE RENTON WA 98059 512630072001 SLYE MELISSA 6001 NE 1ST ST RENTON WA 98059 512630065005 SOHRABIHOMAYOUN+HERNANDEZ LOURDES Y 6012 NE 1ST PL RENTON WA 98059 329590012004 TENA MICHAEL A 15038 SE 136TH LN RENTON WA 98059 512630064008 TONG IP 6011 NE 1ST PL RENTON WA 98059 943275014000 TROUT KAREN L 15412 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 943275017003 WHITSON ROBERT S+JACKIE L 15510 SE 133RD ST RENTON WA 98059 512630032005 WOO EUGENE+YUET BING+YEE LUP 207 QUINCY PL SE RENTON WA 98059 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: October 27,2005 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA05-124, PP, ECF PROJECT NAME: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 18.13 acres into 73 lots for eventual development of single-family residences. The site is located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE, west of Vesta Ave NE and east of Rosario Ave. SE. Access to the proposed subdivision would be from Rosario Ave. SE on the west side of the site, and SE 133rd Street on the north side of the site. Onsite tracts are proposed for recreational open space and stormwater detention. One small unregulated wetland (approx. 700 sq. ft.) is located in the southeast portion of the site. SEPA review of this development proposal will be required. PROJECT LOCATION: 115 Vesta Avenue NE OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October 10, 2005 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: October 27,2005 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Michael Chen, Core Design, Inc.; Tel: (425) 885-7877; Eml: mc@coredeslgnlnc.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Preliminary Plat approval Other Permits which may be required: Construction, Building, and Fire Permits Requested Studies: Wetland & Traffic Studies, Drainage & Geotechnical Reports Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 6. 2006 before the Renton Hearing Examiner in Renton Council Chambers. Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the new Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The subject site is deSignated Residential Low Density on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, Municipal Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; and The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Parks Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 10, 2005. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on January 6, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Development Services Division' to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled at (425) 430-7282. If comments cannot be submitted in writing by the date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional information by mail, please contact the project manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Keri Weaver, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7382 I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I SE 132nd St. S R-4 r~""""'-.L..--~Jir..g~Qt,W; i~ SE 136th St. SE !137th PI. SE 13Bth PI. SE 13Bth f k 139th PI. SE 139th If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Highlands Park Preliminary PlatlLUA05-124, PP, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: ________________________ _ TELEPHONE NO.: ~~ Kathy Keolker-Wbeeler. Mayor October 27, 2005 Michael Chen Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place #101 Bellevue, WA 98007 Subject: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF Dear Mr. Chen: CITY 4~ F RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrl\tor The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on December 6, 2005. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. In addition, this matter is tentatively scheduled for a Public Hearing on January 6, 2006 at 9:00 AM, Council Chambers, Seventh Floor, Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions. Sincerely, t7~~ Keri Weaver Senior Planner cc: Jim Jacques Construction I Owner Bumstead Construction I Applicant James & Linda St. John, Mike Moran I Parties of Record ------l-O-SS-So-u-th-G-r-a-dy-W,-ay---R-e-n-to-n-, W,-as-h-in-gt-o-n-9-g-0S-S-------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE l~~ Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor October 27, 2005 Superintendent's Office Renton School District #403 300 SW 7th Street Renton, WA 98055-2307 Subject: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat LUA05-124, PP, ECF CITY., RENTON PlanningIBuildingIPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator The City of Renton Development Services Division has received an application for a 73-lot single-family subdivision located at 115 Vesta Avenue NE. Please see the enclosed Notice of Application for further details. In order to process this application, the Development Services Division needs to know which Renton schools would be attended by children living in residences at the location indicated above. Please fill in the appropriate schools on the list below and return this letter to my attention, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055 by November 10, 2005. Elementary School: __________________________ _ Middle School: ----------------------------------------- High School: ___________________________ _ Will the schools you have indicated be able to handle the impact of the additional students estimated to come from the proposed development? Yes No __ _ Any Comments: ____________________________ _ Thank you for providing this important information. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, <. Keri Weaver Senior Planner Enel. ----~-l-O-S-S -So-u-th-a-r-a-dy-W.-ay---R-e-n-to-n-, W.-a-s-h-in-gt-o-n-9-8-0S-S-------~ * This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT TAX IICC()IJNT It 142 tJ -'1118 PROPERTY OWNER(S) TELEPHONE NUMBER: APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: CO~NY (if apPlicable)j /l / /. _ , Otllf'/tlSIf'tlU {()/l&r,eu ~ nCAJ CONTACT PERSON NAME: Michael Chen COMPANY (if applicable): Core De s i 9 n , Inc. ADDRESS: 14711 NE 29th Pl., #101 CITY: ZIP: Bellevue ltJA TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E·MAIL ADDRESS: 425-885-7877 MC@coredesigninc.com Q:wcb1pw!devservJfonmiplanningfma,tcrapp,<ioc 98007 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Highlands Park . PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 15400 SE 2nd street Renton tvA 98055 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER{S): 1423059047.? -110 f -083, -118 EXISTING LAND USE{S): Single Family Res. PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Res. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Res. LOVI Density .- PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Res. Lovl Density EXISTING ZONING: R _ 4 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): R-4 SITE AREA (in square feet): 788 f 374 s. f. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): 120,177+/- PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): 4.82 dulac. NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 73 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 7 3 s. f. 0("(5 j"cJ PO~ -(1'3 ~l s }~l\S -k) bZ Q;tUtf{ , v·rN;', LJ PROJECTINFORMAT~I=O~N~(~.c~o=nt=in~u=e=d~I) ______________ -, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): 1 mobile home. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): +1-3 000 ~ f SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): --SQUARE FOOT AGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDlNGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 13,000 1 000 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE Q AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO Q FLOOD HAZARD AREA Q GEOLOGIC HAZARD Q HABITAT CONSERVATION ____ 0 sqo ft. ___ sq,ft. Q SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. 19< WETLANDS 7) 6, __ sq. ft LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE N'IJ 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION .. JJ TOWNSHIP2 3N, RANGE 5E , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES list all land use applications being applied for: 1. EX::liiIl. l:2ht 3. 2. SEPA 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ ___ _ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s), ";fl -r: 3fL~.t2.\2..£.f""",,,,,c.~ , declare that I am (please check one) ""the current owner of the property involved in ihis application or __ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are In all respects tore and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief I certify lhat I know or have satisfactory evidence that JI m ;JJJ.1&Ul!2 _ --------"'--- (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q: webipwlot'V,en Ito!'ll1Siplanning/rnastcl"dpp.doc signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be hislherltheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument '''u .... et" ~", 0 J '''''4! ~ .. ~ x~n . PI:> ~#. ~ ~'\ .... " ••• 'TAl ~*' l<t .··Ow-t-A, £;~ .. 1-~\ :,"S.CJ .•• ~ .. = : _" 0 T A A r· ~ ! :'\~ :: "'''''''--=-* : ....,.,..-. * : : ~ : : ~ cP·. v:PUBUG ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ••• V-( Y ~~<;:; •• ·~O I "'##. )'~ ••••• 1.~; •• ·:~0 ft. .... , \ i ~#q##.110F WASy...~<:." .... ~ Notary (print),U1l1t1I{eV QfiZ{tL.2-D~ •• "",,;~,,! My appointment expires: t?./ { )/)f){1]-1f--- I I , r City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT DEvELOPMENT CITY OF REtr~~N/ ~ MASTER APPLICATION OCT 10 2005' ReCeIVED TIM A&'tJv~7 /4Z$()5-tftJ41 1/11 t' • PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME: C (J,v S1~VC.T/ ",..; !3V!e,vSTelJ 17 Co. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Highlands Park -- ADDRESSj215 12tlrfJ fJv6. f\/,6. PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)!LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 15400 SE 2nd street CITY: f3£LJ...e.V(/~ WA. ZIP; 96t:l~5 Renton ~'VA 98055 , TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425 454-1?(JrJ )C 2~J KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1423059047", -110 , -083, -118 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: EXISTING LAND USE(S): Single Fami.ly Res. COMPANY (if applicable): PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Single Family Res. ADDRESS; EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Res. Low Density CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): Res. Low Density TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: R _ 4 CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (If applicable): R-4 NAME: M.i.chael Chen SITE AREA (in square feet): 788 I 374 s. f. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED COMPANY (if applicable): Core Design, Inc. FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE (if applicable): ADDRESS: 14711 NE 29th Pl., 120,177+/- #101 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY: ZIP: ACRE (if appUcable): 4.82 dulac. Bellevue WA 98007 NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): 73 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E·MAIL ADDRESS: 425-885-7877 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): ., 3 MC@coredesigninc.com Q;web!pw!dcvservJfotm,fplanninl!/ma,terapp.doc {)9!24J03 s. f. PROJECTINFORMAT~I~O~N~(~lc~o=nt=in~u~e~d~I) ______________ -, NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 13,000 ,000 1 mobile home. SQUARE FOOT AGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): +1-3 000 s f IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): U AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE SQUARE FOOT AGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL U AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO BUILDINGS (if applicable): 0 FLOOD HAZARD AREA _,,_«._., __ sq. ft. SQUARE FOOT AGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): a GEOLOGIC HAZARD ___ sq.ft. NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if a HABITAT CONSERVATION _~ ____ sq. ft. applicable): 0 SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES __ ~_m"_"_"·, sq. ft. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 26 ~WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE NW 1/4 QUARTER OF SECTION 11TOWNSHIP23N, RANGE5E, IN THE CITY ------OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES list all land use applications being applied for: 1. 12;r;QiJ • l?ht 3. 2. SEPA 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ ___ _ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I. (Print Narools) .__ (lJcd'" cjAlCJL. . .5LJLe ___ . __ ~ dectare that I am (please check one) ,~e current owner oj the prop6rty involved in this application or I the authortied representative to act fOf a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all resp6cts true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:wibJpw!dc\lsen!/imnsiplanninglrnastcmpp.doc 1 certify that I know Of have satisfactory evidence that ~..J1_ ..... t/Ij~ g, S I ~ L signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/ller/their frife atd voluntary ct for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. My appolntment eXPires: ___ ' +1-1-+12-6& t 09!24!m I I ! DENSITY WORKSHEET City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 1. Gross area of property: 1. 789,821 _ square feet 2. Deductions: Certain areas are excluded from density calculations. These include: Public streets·· Private access easements·· Critical Areas· Total excluded area: 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1 for net area: 4. Divide line 3 by 43,560 for net acreage: 5. Number of dwelling units or lots planned: 124,67/3 square feet 4£494 square feet square feet 2. 129,167 square feet 3. 660,654 square feet 15.17 4. _____ acres 73 5. _____ units/lots 6. Divide line 5 by line 4 for net density: 6. 4.81 = dwelling units/acre ·Crltical Areas are defined as "Areas determined by the City to be not suitable for development and which are subject to the City's Critical Areas Regulations including very high landslide areas, protected slopes, wetlands or floodways." Critical areas buffers are not deducted/excluded. ** Alleys (public or private) do not have to be excluded. R:\PW\DEVSERV\Forms\Planning\density.doc Last updated: 11/0812004 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT July 19, 2005 Jill Hall, Associate PlanncT nfl James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal" J.E- Maplewood Estates Div. 3 Plat, ves7a Ave. NE Fire Department Comments: 1. A fire hydrant with 1000 GPM fire flow is requ.~ed within 300 feet of all new single- family structures. If the building square footage exceeds 3600 square feet in area, the minimum fire flow increases to 1500 GPM and requires two hydrants within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$488.00 is required for aI' new single-family structures. 3. Fire department access roadways require a minimum 20-foot wide paved roadway. Fire department turnarounds are required for roads over 150 feet in length. 4. All building addresses shall be visible from a public street. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions; i:\plat2.doc To: Jill Hall CITY OF RENTON MEMO PUBLIC WORKS From: Juliana Fries Date: Subject: August 4, 2005 PreApplication Review Comments PREAPP No. 05-099 Maplewood Estates Division 3 Preliminary Plat ------------------------------ NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. I have reviewed the preliminary application for this plat located between Rosario Ave and Vesta Ave and have the following comments: WATER 1. The proposed development is within the water serdce area of Water District 90 (WD 90). The applicant shall obtain a certificate of water av,Lilability from the District and provide it the City prior to the approval of the preliminary pIa:. A fire flow analyses will be required to verify that the District's system can provide a minimum of 1,000 gpm of available fire flow. Results of analysis shall be submitted to the Cty along with the certificate of water availability to ensure that adequate flow rate fond pressure is available to serve the development. 2. The proposed project is located outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an 8-inch sewer main at the intersection of SE 2nd Street & Rosario Ave (l52nd Ave SE). 2. There is also an 8-inch sewer main along SE 2nd PI (SE 136th St). 3. A sewer main extension to the furthest extends of t11e new streets interior to the plat will be required. 4. A sewer main extension along the frontage of the parcels with Vesta Ave (l56th Ave SE) will also be required. 5. This parcel is subject to the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District (SAD). As of 8/10/05 fees are $308.3/10t. Fee accrues interest daily. Fees are collected at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Maplewood Estates Dl •• ~ion 3 Preliminary PlatOS/0412005 Page 2 6. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charges (SDC) is $900 per lot. The fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. SURFACE WATER 1. The site drains.to Orting Hill sub-basin. 2. Due to downstream flooding and erosion problems, staff will recommend a SEPA condition requiring this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control -Level 2 flow control) and water quality improvements. 3. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) are $715 per building lot. These are payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. TRANSPORTATION 1. Dedication of 12-foot along the frontage with Vesta Ave (152nd Ave SE) will be required for Right-of-Way purposes. i 2. A joint use driveway may be permitted for access to two (2) lots. The private access easement shall be a minimum of20-feet wide with 12-feet paved. 3. The City code states that private streets are allowed for access to six (6) or less lots, with no more than four (4) of the lots not abutting a public right-of-way. The private street easement shall be a minimum of 26-feet wide with 20-feet paved. 4. Street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, storm drain, landscape, street lighting, landscaping and street signs will be required along the frontage of the parcel with Vesta Ave (156th Ave SE), as well as along the streets interior to the plat. L""':? 5 L~~ r -+ b.I"e-L~ I s/w 5. City Code requires frontage improvements along Rosario Ave (152nd Ave SE). The Board of Public Works has the authority to waive/defer such improvements. 6. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed per additional single family home at a rate of 9.57 trips (# lots x 9.57 trips x $75/trip). This fee is payable at time of recording the short plat. 7. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles necessitate to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Permit application must include' an itemized cost of construction estimate for these improvements. The fee for review and inspection' of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Halfth'~ fee must be paid upon application. 2. If you have anyquestions, call me ~!:t 425-430-7278 cc: Kayren Kittrick CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2005 TO: Pre-Application File No. 05-099 FROM: Jill Hall, Associate Planner x7219 SUBJECT: Maplewood Estates Division 3 Prelimi'nary Plat General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above-referenced development proposal. The following comments on devE'lopment and permitting Issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of F\enton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned thi't information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works" and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other delsign changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for pure hase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. Project Proposal: The subject site consists of 3 parcels located on the western side of Vesta Avenue NE (156th Avenue SE) at 115 Vesta Avenue NE (PID # 1423059047, 1423059110, and 1423059083). The subject site was previously located within the Maplewoud East annexation area. The proposal is to subdivide 3 parcels totaling 20.07 acres into 68 lots, 4 tracts. Tract 997 is 9,782 square feet in area and is proposed as a park, Tract 998 is 1,287 square feet in area and is proposed as an access tract, Tract 999 is 6,738 square feet in area and is proposed as a park, and Tract B is a 49,647 square foot tract to be used for storm detention and open space. A 775 sq. ft. small wetland is located on the west portion of the site and is proposed to be filled. Zoning/Density Requirements: The subject site is located 'within the Residential-4 dulac (R-4) zoning designation. The method of calculating net density has been revised in the ,new code and is as follows: A calculation of the number of hQusing units and/or (ots that would be allowed on a property after critical areas and public rights-of-way and legally recorded private access easements are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus streets and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers and public and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpqse of net density calculations. The density range required in the R-4 zone is no minimum to a maximum of 4.0 dwelling units per acre (dulac). However, Condition 13 of the R-4 development srandards provides that properties which are located within the Maplewood East annexation area and are developed within 5 years of preliminary plat approval andlor annexation may be permitted a maximum density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre. The project area is located within the Maplewood East ann~~xation area and is therefore permitted a maximum residential density of 5.0 dulac per Condo #13 (3ttached). The pre-application materials indicated that the total project area is approximately 20.07 acres or approximately 874,249 square feet, however the King County Assessor's data indicates that the total site area is 746,181 square feet. This discrepancy shall be resolved prior to formal land use application as the proposal may be eligible for additional lots. If the submitted lot area of 20.07 acres is correct, the proposal after deducting the amas for public rights-of-way and access easements would result in a net density of 3.95 dulac (6i~ lots 117.2 net acres = 3.95 dulac). If the King County Assessor's site area of 746,181 square fee,t is correct, the proposal after deducting the areas for public rights-of-way and access easements would result in a net density of 4.8 dulac (68 lots / 14.3 net acres = 4.8 dulac). Both of the resulting net densities are within the density range permitted under Condition #13 of the R-4 zone, however if the site area is 20.07 acres, the applicant may wish to propose more than the 68 lots proposed. All square footages of areas to be deducted (private access easements, public roads) must be provided at the time of formal land use application. Development Standards: Minimum Lot Size. Width and Depth -Th,e minimum lot size is 8,000 sq. ft. except where small lot clusters are allowed. The minimum lot width is 70 ft. for interior lots and 80 ft. for corner lots and 80 ft. for the minimum lot depth. Condition #13 allows a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. Minimum lot width of 60 ft. for interior lots and 70 ft. for corner lots. The minimum lot depth is 70 ft. Land area included in private access easements must not be included in lot area calculations. Please provide both the gross and net square footage of each lot at the time of formal land use application. Proposed lots 13,15, and 56 are all below the minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. In addition, it appears that proposed lots 1, 15, 39, and 57 may not comply with the minimum lot width requirements. The proposed lots appec!lr to comply with the minimum lot depth requirements. The preliminary plat map shall be revisecl' prior to formal land use application to propose lots that comply with the minimum lot size, width,snd depth requirements. BiJilding Standards -The R-4 zone restrict!) building height to 30 feet and 2-stories for standard roofs. For roofs having a pitch greater than 3/12, tv/o stories and up to 35 ft. in height would be permitted. These would be reviewed at the time of individual building permit submittal for compliance. Maximum building coverage is 35% or 2,500 sq. ft. whichever is; greater for lots greater than 5,000 sq. ft. in area and 50% for lots less than 5,000 sq. ft. in area. Setbacks -Setbacks are the minimum reqllired distance between the building footprint and the property line and any private access easement. The required setbacks in the R-4 zone are as follows: Minimum front yard is 30 feet. For side yards along a street, the setback is 20 feet. Side yards (interior lots) have 15 foot combined setbacks with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side. The rear yard is a minimum of 25 feet setback. Condition #13 allows a minimum front yard of 15 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for garages. The side yard along a street the setback is 15 ft. and 5 ft. interior side yards. The lots utilizing a private access easement will need to measure the front yard setbacks from the edge of the access easement, in addition lots with side yards abutting an access easement shall provide the required side yard along a street setback from the edge of the access easement. All setbacks are to be dimensioned and shown on the preliminary plat plan, but are to be removed prior to recording. Access, Parking and Circulation: Access to lots is proposed to be through a new looped residential access street to be dedicated for public use upon final plat recording, which connects to SE 133rd Street in the north and connects to SE 200 Street at the southwest corner of the property. A stub has also been shown from the looped road to the west, whiGh terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround. Private streets are allowed for access to sile or less lots, with no more than 4 of the lots not abutting a public right-of-way. The street is to include a minimum easement width of 26 feet with 20 feet of paving. Private driveways may serve a maximum of ''Wo lots and must have a minimum easement width of 20 feet with 12 feet of paving. Addresses of lots along private streets are tCi be visible from the public street by provision of a sign stating all house numbers and is to be located at the intersection of the private street and the public street. Pre05-099 (R-4 68-lot prelim. plat. prevo pre04-134).doc Each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles per lot. In addition, appropriate shared maintenance and access agreement/easements will be required between lots with shared access. The proposed residential street would need to comply with ,he City's street standards, which require a minimum right-of-way width of 42 feet with 32 feet of paving, 5-foot sidewalks, curb, gutter and street lighting. Driveway Grades: The maximum driveway slopes can not oxceed fifteen percent (15%), provided that driveways exceeding eight percent (8%) are to provide slotted drains at the lower end of the driveway. If the grade exceeds 15%, a variance from the Board of Adjustment is required. Landscaping and Open Space: For plats abutting non-arterial public streets, the minimum off-site landscaping is a five (5 ft.) wide irrigated or drought resist~,nt landscape strip provided that if there is additional undeveloped right-of-way in excess of 5 ft., this also must be landscaped. For plats abutting principal, minor or collector arterials, the width increases to 10ft. unless otherwise determined by the reviewing official during the subdivision process. A 5-foot irrigated or drought resistant landscape strip is required along the site's 152" Avenue SE frontage, Vesta Avenue NE (156th Avenue SE), and along the new interior access road. Tree requirements for plats include at least two (2) trees of a City approved species with a minimum caliper of 1 1/2 inches per tree must be planted in the front yard or planting strip of every lot prior to building occupancy. Sensitive Areas: Based on the City's Critical Areas Maps, th;9 site is does appears to be located within a forested area which may be indicative of the presence of habitat/wildlife. A habitat data report would be needed to determine what wildlife is present and could be impacted by the proposed plat. Due to the applicant's disclosure that a small wetland is' on-site, a wetland reconnaissance letter would be sufficient to be submitted with the land use application that describes the small wetland. The reconnaissance letter should specify the classification of the wetland, as only Category 3 wetlands qualify for the 2,200 square foot exemption from Critical Area Requirements. 11 any other wetlands are on site or within 100 ft. of the property, further review would be required as stated in the following. The applicant is required to provide a wetland delineation and report addressing the quality and size of the wetland(s). In addition, the report would need to include a discussion regarding impacts to the wetland, if any, from the proposed development. The required buffers will need to be shown. Any proposed modifications to the requirements must be clearly identified and justified (Le. buffer averaging, etc.). The wetland report will need to be prepared by a qualified wetlands biologist and submitted with the formal land use application. For wetlands present, the applic;lble buffer widths based on the category of . the wetland are required (Category 1 -100 ft.; Category 2 -50 ft.; and Category 3 -25ft.). Due to the size of the wetlands, the Army Corps of Engineers should br, contacted to verify whether they have any jurisdiction over the wetland. Please refer to RMC 4-3-050.~'. for additional regulations on wetlands. As outlined in the development regulations, a mitigatio.n plan, fiVE! year monitoring, surety devices, etc. would be required. Environmental Review: The project would require SEPA review due to the number of lots of the proposed plat (greater than four dwelling units). The propor.al would be brought to the Environmental Review Committee for review as it is their charge to make threshold determinations for environmental checklists. Typically, mitigation of impacts is accomplisheeJ through fees related to issues such as transportation, fire and parks as well as measures to reduce impacts to environmental elements such as soils, streams, water, etc .. : Permit Requirements: The project would require Preliminay Plat and Environmental (SEPA) Review. The review of these applications would be processe<::l concurrently within an estimated time frame of 12 to 16 weeks. After the required notification period, the Environmental Review Committee would issue a Threshold Determination for the project. When the required two-week appeal period is completed, the Pre05-099 (R-4 68-lot prelim. plat, prevo pre04-134).doc project would go before the Hearing Examiner for a recommendation to the City Council on the Preliminary Plat. The Hearing Examiner's r9{:ommendation would be subject to two-week appeal periods. The application fee would be $2,000 for the Preliminary Plat and Y2 of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200 (1/2 of $400.00 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500.00 fee (1/2 of $100Q.00 full fee) plus first class postage per mailing label required for, notification to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the site. Estimated fees for the land use applications would be $2,500.00 plus postage. The applicant will be required to install a public information sign on the property. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal requirements is provided in the attached handouts. Once Preliminary Plat approval is obtained, the applicant must complete the required improvements and dedications, as well as satisfy any conditions of the preliminary approval before submitting for Final Plat review. The Final Plat process also requires City Council approval. Once final approval is received, the plat may be recorded. The newly created lots may only be sold after the plat has been recorded. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each .nm:t average daily trip attributable to the proji,3ct; and, • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $488.00 per.nm:t single family lot; and, • A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $530.76 per new single family residence. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees is included in the packet for your review. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing development would be located within the Residential Low Density (RLD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. The following proposed policies are applicable to the proposal: . Residential Low Densitv Policies Policy LU-26. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per (net) acre in Residential Low Density except in areas with significant environmental constraints. Design and Improvement Standards for Residential Areas Objective LU-M: Provide more linkages within and between neighborhoods by developing a system of residential streets, which serve both vehi=les and pedestrians and creates a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the City without unduly increasing pass through traffic. Policy LU-70. Streets, sidewalks, pedestrkrn or bike paths in a neighborhood development should be arranged as an interconnecting network. The extensive or predominant use of cu/~de-sacs and pipestems should be discouraged for new dl~velopment. A "flexible grid" pattern of streets and pathways should be used to connect adjacent and future development. Policy LU-76. To visually improve the public streetscape and the safety of perimeter sidewalks and facilitate off-street parking, construction of alleys providing rear access to service entries and garages should be encouraged. Policy LU-80. Land should be arranged in blocks divided into lots with all lots required to front on a public street or a park. Additional Comments: • In advance of submitting the full application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre-screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application is complete prior to making all copies. cc: Jennifer Henning Pre05·099 (R.4 68·lot prelim. plat, prevo pre04·\34).doc . iRil ! i ; i SE 132nd S1. S ~ SE 136th St. ~ SE [ 137th PI.] ;::::::::==::::::::::::j! S SE 138th SE 139th SE 140th PI. ~ ~ (IJ (IJ ........ ........ 0... 0... 142nd S1. .L:l .L:l -+-" -+-" co m "<::f< "<::f< ...--i ...--i SE 143rd SE E 145th PI. e ZONING .~. ~ TBCHNICAL SIllVlClS -- --Renton dif;T UmI~ 14 T23N R5E W 1/2 5314 existing viable stands of trees or other native vegetation. Such tracts shall be shown and recorded on the face of the plat to be preserved in perpetuity. Such tracts may be included in cOlltiguous open space for the purposes of qualifying for small lot clustereddevelopmer.t. Where trees are removed, landscaping designed to replace the functions of exist- ing trees is required. 11. Lot size, width, and depth may be reduced by the Reviewing Official when, due to lot configuration or access, four (4) qwelling units per net acre cannot be achieved. The reduction shall be the minimum nE.ieded to allow four (4) dwelling units per net acre and shall be limited to the following mini- mum dimensions: Lot size -seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. Lot width -sixty feet (60'). Lot depth -seventy feet (70'). 12. When lot size is reduced for the purpose of achieving maximum density, setbacks may also be reduced by the Reviewing Official. Setback reductions shall be limited to the following: Front -twenty feet (20'). Side yard along a street -fifteen fBet (15') primary structure, twenty feet (20'; attached garage with access from the side yard. Side -Minimum side yard combioOld set- back -fifteen feet (15'). Minimum for one yard -five feet (1)'). 13. For properties vested. with a comp'ete plat application prior to November 10, .W04, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards clpply. Vested plats must be developed within five (5) years of preliminary plat appro\;al and! or annexation. Maximum density -five (5) dwelling units per net acre. Minimum lot size -seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. 2 -82.1 4-2-1100 Minimum lot width -sixty feet (60') for inte- rior lots, seventy feet (70') for comer lots. Minimum lot depth -seventy feet (70'). Minimum front yard -fifteen feet (15') for the primary structure, twenty feet (20') for an attached or de~ached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10') if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley. Minimum side yard along a street-fifteen feet (15'). Minimum side yard -five feet (5'). (Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 5100, 11-1- 2004) (Revised 1/05) _ ,,;VELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section PROJECT NAME: mV.fj~W(",QJ. Estc...-k.) DN .J 3. Building Section 4. Development Planning Sectio- DATE: --.!.:Io,=-/-I u.1 O~IL..:; o=-C.-.!.2~ ___ _ • I Post-it'" Fax Note To Co.lDept. Phone # Fax# ~ a..5 Q:\WEB\Pw\OEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 07/29/2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISIO WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECTNAME: ________________________ __ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: ________________________ __ 4. Development Planning Section Q;\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 07/29/2005 EVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND :3 Photosimulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section PROJECT NAME: ('fkp/e. Wood [sjats "DiV 3- DATE: lut'l a/a S 4. Development Planning Section Q:\WEB\Pw\DEVSERv\Forms\Planning\waiver.xls 07129/2005 Project Narrative Highlands Park .. Renton, Washington • Project Name: Project Size: Location of Site: • Parcel Numbers: • Current zoning: Surrounding zoning: • Current use: • Special site features: • Soil type and Drainage: Higlands Park Preliminay Plat The total site is approximately 18.13 acres. The location of the project is 15400 SE 2nd Street. East of Maplewood Estates Division 1. 1423059047,1423059110,1423059083 & 1423059118 Residentia14 dulac (pe; 4-2-110D 13 Gtyof Renton Zoning CDde. North: Residential 4 dulac (Single-family home) South: Residential 4 dulac (Single-family home) West: Residentia18 du/ ac (Single-family home) East: Residential 4 du/ ac (Single-family home) The site is undeveloped There are no coalmines and no steep, sensitive, or protected slopes located on the site. There is a small 726 s.f wetland proposed to be filled. According to the King C.ounty Soils Report the site is entirely underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Storm water runoff will .. esult from roadways and other impervious surfaces and will be collected and routed to the detention facility located on-site, treated for sediment removal, then tight lined to an existing storm drainage system. This combined drainage system has been designed to handle all the stormwater run-off that will be generated by the site. The system will include temporary t rosion control barriers during site construction. This pennanent system will ensure that prior to the discharge of stormwater into the downstream system and will have significantly reduc,~d the potential impacts to ground and surface waters. • Proposed property use: The proposal is to subdivide the property into 73 single-family detached, fee simple, lo-:~. The project will not create any new public roads. The exist:ng mobile home and associated structures will be removed. • Access: Thelroject is proposin':~ to gain access from SE 2nd Street and SE 133 Street. • Off-site improvements: None proposed at this time • Est. CDnstruction CDsts: $3,000,000.00 • Est. fair market value: • Quantity and type of fill: • Trees to be removed: • Land dedication: • Number, size, and density of lots: • Proposed job shacks: • Modifications: $13,000,000.00 At this point in the design process, the site is anticipated to be balanced by cutting and filling. The quantities of the cut and fill that will occur on site are approximately ±70,000 cubic yards. If it is discovered that the ;ite will need fill material, the applicant will submit a fill source :;tatement at that time. Everyeffon will be mac1e to retain as many trees as possible. Please see the Tree wtting/Land Oearing plan for the approximate location of the clearing limit. N/A There are 73 lots proposed for the propeny. The average lot size is approximately 8,211 ± s.f. The net density is approximately 4.81 dulac. The site will have a construction trailer during the construction of the development. Per Gty of Renton Development Regulations Section 4-6-060 R3, Reduced Right-of-Way Dedication, we are proposing to reduce the right-of-way width for the proposed public roads from 50 feet to 42 feet. This reduction allows the creation of additional lots within the shape and size constraints of the site. 73 lots, 10/07/Dr; CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat Applicant: Bumstead Construction Attn: Ron Hughes 1215 -120th Avenue N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, W A 98005· (425) 454-1900 Representative/Contact: Core Design, Inc. Attn: Michael Chen 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 Phone: (425) 885-78'17 Date: October7,2005 I TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ............................................................................ , ..................................... 1 B. ENVIR.ONMENTAL ELEMENTS ..................................................................................... 3 1. EARTH ................................................................................................................... 3 2. AIR. .......................................................................................................................... 4 3. WA1'ER ................................................................................................................... 4 4. PLANTS .................................................................................................................. 6 5. ANIMALS .............................................................................................................. 7 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................ 7 7. ENVIR.ONMENTAL HEALTH .............................................................................. 8 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE ............................................................................ 9 9. HOUSING .......................................................................... ; ..................................... 10 10. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................ 10 11. LIGHT AND GLARE .............................................................................................. 11 12. RECREATION ........................................................................................................ 11 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION ............................................... 12 14. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................. 12 15. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................... 13 16. UTILITIES ............................................................................................................... 13 C. SIGNATURE ........................................................................................................................ 13 Appendices Appendix A --Legal Description Appendix B --Vicinity Map ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION PUQ)ose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of y'iur knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans withe.ut the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do nct know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you p:\an to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: (A nonproject proposal includes plans, policies and programs where actions are different or broader than a single site-specific proposal) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPRO]ECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the word "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer", and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. N arne of proposed project, if applicable: Highlands Park Preliminary Plat 2. Name of applicant: Ron Hughes, Bumstead Construction 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact pe tson: Applicant: Ron Hughes Bumstead Construction 1215 -120th Ave. N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, W A 98005 (425) 454-1900 4. Date checklist prepared: October 7, 2005 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division Contact Person: Michael Chen c/o Core Design, Inc. 14711 NE 29th Place, Suite 101 Bellevue, W A 9H007 (425) 885-7877 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Plat construction is scheduled to start in mid 2006, subject to the approval process and market demands. Home construction is proposed to start in late 2006. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Not at this time. 8. List any environmental information you mow about th~lt has been prepared, or will be prepared, direcdy related to this proposal. Preliminary storm drainage report, prepared by Core Design Inc. 9. Do you mow whether applications are pending for gov4!mmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N one to our knowledge. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 1 10. List any government approViUs or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Preliminary Plat Approval SEP A Determination Drainage Plan Approval Water and Sewer Construction Plan Approval Grading Permit Final Plat Approval Residential Building Permits 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thiB checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific informat~on on project description.) 1bis application proposes a 73 lot preliminary plat on an approximately 18.1 acre site under the existing requirements for an R-4 zone per 4-2-11OD 13 City of Rentcn Zoning Code. The homes are anticipated to be in the middle income price range. Construction of the site will Iesult in +100% of the property being developed. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information fc .. a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any. and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site( s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic m~p, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not re"luired to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The location of the project is 154000 SE 2nd Street and is located in the NW 1/4, Section 14, Township 23N, Range 5E. The site is just to the east of the intersection of 152nd Avenue SE and SE 2nd Street. A legal description and vicinity map is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 2 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one):Q olling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous other ~ The site is generally flat, sloping from the east to the west at approximately 6%. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slupe)? The steepest slope is approximately 30% in the central portion of d,e property. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultllralsoils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the King County Soil Survey the site is almost entirel) underlain by Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam and Everett soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in thf, immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, not to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose of the grading is to construct the proposed public streets to City standards and to provide building pads and utility locations for single family residences. The grading is intended to be balanced onsite, with all cut and fill material originating from within the site, with the total of ± 70,000 cubic yards. If it is discovered that the site will need fill materials, a fill source statement will be submitted at that time. Please refer to the Preliminary Grading and Utility Plans prepared by Core Design, Inc for additional information. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or uE:e? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur as a result of denuded soil during and immedintely following storm events. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 55% will be covered by impervious surface. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Page 3 h. Proposed measures to reduce or I earth, if any: rol erosion, or other impacts to the A temporary erosion and sedimentation control (fESCP) plan will be prepared and implemented prior to commencement of construction activities. During construction erosion control measures may include any of the following: siltation fence, temporary siltation ponds and other measures which may be used in accordance with requirements of the City. At completion of the pr(,ject, permanent measures will include stormwater runoff detention and water quality facilities as required. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the propc,sal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, there will be increased exhaust and dust partide emissions. After construction, the principle source of emissions will be from a'ltomobile traffic, lawn equipment, and others typical of a residential neighborhood. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may aHect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Off-site sources of emissions or odors are those typical of the resid;!ntial neighborhoods that surround this site, such as automobile emissions from traffic on adjacent roadways and fireplace emissions from nearby homes. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction impacts will not be significant and can be controlled by several methods: watering or using dust suppressants on areas of exposed ~.oils, washing truck wheels before leaving the site, and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Automobile and ftreplace emission standards are regulated by the State of Washington. The site has been included in a "No Burn Zone" by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency which went into effect on September 1, 1992. No land clearing or residential yard debris fires would be permitted on-aite, nor in the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with the regulation. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity-of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are no water bodies associated with this property. We are a,,;:are of wetland and intermittent streams that are associated with the Maplewood Eltates project to the west and northwest of the subject property. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 4 · 2) Will the project require any work r, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please: describe and attach available plans. None to our knowledge. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wedands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if kllOwn. No, there will be no surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5) Does the proposal lie within a tOO-year floodplain? If so, note tocation on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials t,) surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volu:ne of discharge. No, a public sanitary sewer system will be installed to serve the futt.re homes. b. Ground: t) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged 11') ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater will be withdrawn, public water mains will be installed as part of the plat construction. No water will be discharged to groundwater except through the incidental infiltration of stormwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The site will be served by sanitary sewers. There will be no waste rilaterial discharged to the ground from the development. Post-developmer..t stormwater runoff from roadways and home sites will be collected within drainage facilities which will settle out and/ or separate automobile petroleum and other household waste materials to acceptable levels, then tight lined to a level flow :;preader located along the south property line. Requirements for water quality and runoff rate control will be met. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 5 c. Water Runoff (including storm w ): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater runoff will result from roadways and other impervious surfaces and will be collected and routed to the detention facility located on-site, treated for sediment removal, then tight lined to an existing storm drainage system. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. This would be very unlikely. The only materials that could enter gr~:)Und or surface waters would be those associated with automobile discharges and ya.rd and garden preparations. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A City approved storm drainage system will be designed and implecnented in order to mitigate any adverse impacts from stormwater runoff. The syste m will include temporary erosion control barriers during site construction, and pe;manent stormwater collection/treatment facilities soon after beginning site,development construction. This permanent system will ensure that prior to the release of stormwater into the downstream storm system, the system will have significantly reduced the potential impacts to ground and surface waters. 4. Plants a. Check or underline types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: cottonwood, ash X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other: hemlock X shrubs X grass pasture wet soil plants: cattail, creeping buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, horsetail, water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other: other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Of the site, all of which is to be developed into lots, roadways and drainage facilities, 100% of the existing vegetation will be removed. c. Ust threatened or endangered species known to be on or neal' the site. No threatened or endangered plants are known to exist on the site. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 6 d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The yard areas associated with individual ownership will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. 5. Animals a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrel fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or :tlear the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to exist on the sitf; c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, the site is part of the Pacific Fly Way. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The yard areas associated with individual ownership will be landscaped by the future residents with both formal and informal plantings. Existing vegetation will be retained as much as possible. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and/ or natural gas will be the primary source of energy used to provide heating and cooling to each home. These forms of energy are immediately available to the site. The builder will provide the appropriate heating and cooling systems which are energy efficient and cost effective for the homebuyer. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 7 c. What kinds of energy conservation u.atures are included in the plans of this proposal: List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the State Energy Code will be incorporated into the construction of the buildings. Energy conserving materials and fixtures are encouraged in all new construction. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The project will not generate any environmental health hazards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None to our knowledge. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: There are no on-site environmental health hazards known to exist today nor are there any that will be generated as a direct result of this proposal. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The main source of off-site noise in this area originates from the veucular traffic present on Vesta Avenue SE. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term noise impacts will result from the use of construction and building equipment during site development and home construction. These temporary activities will be limited to normal working hours. Long-term impacts will be those associated with the increase of human population; additional traffic and noise associated with residential areas will occur in the are!!. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Building construction will be done during the hours prescribed by t'te City of Renton. Construction equipment will be equipped with muffler devlces and idling time should be kept at a minimum. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 8 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The majority of the site is undeveloped, except for a mobile home and associated outbuildings in the northern parcels. The current use of the adjacent properties is as follows; North: South: East: West: Single-family detached home Single-family detached home Single-family detached home Single-family detached home b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. There is a mobile home and associated outbuildings in the northerr. parcels. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning is R-4 per 4-2-110D 13 City of Renton Zoning ':ode. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the sit, ,? The current comprehensive plan designation is Residential Rural. . g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program deRignation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 182 people [13 x 2.5 persons per dwelling unit). j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 9 k. Proposed measures to avoid or re ~ displacement impacts, if any: None proposed because the current property owner is a proponent of the redevelopment of the property. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The area around the site consists of residential housing. This use is compatible with surrounding uses both existing and proposed. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The preliminary plat contains 73 new single-family residences. The new homes are anticipated to be in the middle-income price range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if a!ly: None proposed because the current property owner is a proponent of the redevelopment of the property. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not induding antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) pwposed? The buildings will meet the height requirements of the R-4 zone and will not exceed 2 stories or 30 ft. The exterior building materials may include any of the following; wood, hardwood, masonry, cedar shakes and/or asphalt shingles. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Because of the surrounding development and mature forest, the visual impact on the adjacent area will be minimal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The homes will be of a scale and size to be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Landscaping will be installed by the future residents to provide an additional visual buffer. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 10 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur. Light and glare will originate from building lighting and exterior lighting. Light will also be produced from vehicles using the site. These impacts would occur primarily in the evening and before dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The only offsite source of light and glare are from vehicles and street lighting from the adjacent streets and the single-family neighborhoods. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Street lighting, when deemed necessary, will be installed in a manne~ that directs the lighting downward. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Maplewood Park (located on 144th Ave. SE), Maplewood Golf COlIrSe, and Cedar River Regional Park (located on the Renton Maple Valley Road) art' in proximity to the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation~ including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any? Impacts will be mitigated through participation in the City's park mitigation program. The required mitigation fee will be paid prior to recording the subdivision. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 11 13. Historic and Cultural Pres~ ion a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, arcbaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to th,e site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N one, there are no known impacts. If an archeological site is found during the course of construction, the State Historical Preservation Officer will be notified. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any" Access to the site from the west will be from SE 2nd Street and SE :t33rd Street from the north. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is .50 miles to the northwest at the intf'.tsection of Rosario Ave NE and NE 4th Street. The stop is served by Metro transit bus 111. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have:' How many would the project eliminate? Four parking spaces will be provided in association with each homt; a total of 292 spaces will be provided on the site. The spaces will be located in garages and on the driveways. There are no parking spaces eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. The proposal will create approximately 2,830 lineal feet of new road. Two new internal public streets will provide access to the single-family lots. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is estimated to generate 698 ADT (9.57 ADT IDU). Peak volumes would occur during the morning and evening commutes. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 12 g. Proposed measures to reduce or cOntrol transportation impacts, if any: Transportation impacts will be mitigated through participation in the city's traffic mitigation program. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The need for public service such as fire, health, and police protection will be typical of single family development of this size. The school children originating from the homes in this development will attend the schools in the Issaquah School District. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The roads and homes will be constructed to meet all applicable standards and codes of the City and the Uniform Building Code. The proposed development will contribute to the local tax base and provide additional tax revenue for the various public services. The impact to the schools and traffic will be mitigated through the payment of impact fees. 16. Utilities a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All utilities are available to the site through the proper extension of 3ervices. Extension of services is the developers' responsibility. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site f~r in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas will be provided by Puget Sound Energy Water Service will be provided by King County District 90 Sanitary Sewer will be provided by the City of Renton Telephone Service will be provided by Qwest. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ~ 6?~ Date Submitted: October 7. 2005 Michael Chen, Senior Land Planner Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Page 13 CORE DESIGN, INC. BELLEVUE WA 98007 Legal Description PARCEL A: Legal Descriptio.n Core Project No: 01019 Date: 9/28/05 LOT 1, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 678063-R, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812110857, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMEITE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCELB: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET AND NORTH 88°55'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE AUGUST GERBER ROAD (156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1094241, NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 472.53 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 157.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°01'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1248.07 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°33'02" EAST A DISTANCE OF 157.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°59'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1247.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO FRANKLJN T. TETER AND C. LENA TETER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6400741 MD 6417877. PARCELC THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT Noo028'02"W 30.00 FEET AND N88°55'44"W A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE AUGUST GERBER ROAD (156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPCSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1094241, Noo028'02"W, A DISTANCE OF 157.51 FEET TO THE TRliE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING Noo028'02"W A DISTANCE OF 315.02 FEET; THENCE N88°59'57"W A DISTANCE OF 1247.82 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF ~AID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE Soo033'02"E A DISTANCE OF 314.14 FEET; THENCE S88°57'17"E A DISTANCE OF 1247.34 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCELD: LOT 4 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 484106, AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 8505170617, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat Appendix A Vicinity Map VICINiTy MAP!.. I" • .ICJOO'II Environmental Checklist Highlands Park 73 Lot Preliminary Plat AppendixB , DEvELOPMENT CITY OF Re~~N'NG OCT 102005 , Wethl1d /(fJ.80IlrcffS,lHc. RECEIVED .~LI -De-iin-ea-tio-n-'M-it-ig-ati-on-'-Re-st-or-ati-on-'-Ha-bi-tat-C-re-ati-on-'-~-rm-it-A$-i-~a-n-~----------------------9-5-05--1-9t-h-A-~-n-ue--s~.E.1 Suite 106 Everett, Washington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 October 7, 2005 Burnstead Construction Attn: Ron Hughes 1215 120th Ave NE, #201 Bellevue, WA 98005-2135 RE: Wetland Reconnaissance -Highlands Park Wetland Resources, Inc. completed a site investigation on August 25, 2005 to assess the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the 18.12-acre site located west of 156th Ave SE and North of 136th St. in Renton, WA. The Washington State Department of Ecology Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual March 1997, was used to determine wetland conditions. Site Description An existing single family residence, outbuildings, and associated infrastructure are located on the eastern portion of the investigation area. Access is to the site is gained via 156th Ave SE along the property's eastern boundary. With the exception of the eastern portion of the property the site vegetation is comprised of a mixed forest with a canopy of Douglas-fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, red alder, and black cottonwood. Understory vegetation is comprised of Oso-berry, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, Oregon grape, salal, swordfern, and dewberry. Topography of the site is generally a west aspect with slight undulations. A small depression was identified in the southwestern corner of the investigation area. Wetland flagging was observed surrounding the perimeter of the depression, presumably from the delineation conducted by Terra and Associates, Inc in 2004. Data sites were taken surrounding previously delineated area and it was determined to be accurate as flagged (Wetland A). No additional flags were hung in the field. An additional wetland area was identified off-site and west of the investigation across the partially improved right-of-way of 152nd Ave. SE (Wetland B). This wetland area appears to have been impacted as part of improvements associated with the Maplewood subdivision. Wetland A is approximately 625 sq. ft. in size and is comprised of non-mature forested vegetation. Wetlands with these characteristics are typically classified as Category 3 wetlands. Category 3 wetlands less than 5,000 sq. ft. in size are exempt from regulation per 4-3-050(B)(7). Wetland B is approximately 8,976 sq. ft. in size Wetland Resources, Inc. October 7, 2005 1 Highlands Wetland Reconnaissance WRI #05321 and is comprised of non-mature forested vegetation. Wetlands with these characteristics are typically classified as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are designated 50-foot protective buffers from their flagged boundaries. The 50-foot buffer designated from the previously flagged boundary of Wetland B does not extend onto the subject property. Use of this Report This Wetland Reconnaissance Report is supplied to Burnstead Construction as a means of determining on-site wetland and stream conditions. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access, which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard, PWS Principal Wetland Ecologist ----~----- 2 Field Data Sheet Highlands Park -WRI#05321 Investigation Date: 08128/005 Pit Depth Texture Color Moisture Species % Status Strata S1 0-18"+ Silt Loam 10 YR 3/1 dry Thuja plicata 30 Fac Tree Wetland 10YR 3/2 dry Alnus rubra 20 Fac Tree slight redox Acer circinatum 30 Fac-Shrub Rubus spectabilis 40 Fac+ Shrub Tolmiea menziesii 10 Fac Herb Athyrium filix-femina 10 Fac Herb Conclusion: Wetland -Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are met. S2 0-8" silt loam 10YR 3/2 dry Thuja plicata 40 Fac Tree Non-Wetland 8"-18+" Gravelly Loam 10YR 3/4 dry Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 FacU Tree Tsuga heterophylla 20 FacU-Tree Acer circinatum 40 Fac-Shrub Rubus spectabilis 40 Fac+ Shrub Polystichum munitum 10 FacU Herb Conclusion: Non-Wetland -Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are not met_ S3 0-10"+ silt loam 10YR 3/2 dry Alnus rubra 10 Fac Tree Non-Wetland 10-18+" Gravelly Loam 10YR 3/4 dry Thuja plicata 30 Fac Tree Pseudotsuga menziesii 20 FacU Tree Tsuga heterophylla 20 FacU-Tree Oemleria cerasiformis 30 FacU-shrub Rubus spectabilis 5 Fac+ Shrub Polystichum munitum 20 FacU Herb Berberis nervosa 20 FacU Herb Conclusion: Non-Wetland -Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are not met. S4 0-8" silt loam 10YR 312 dry Thuja plicata 20 Fac Tree Non-Wetland 8-18+" Gravelly Loam 10YR 3/4 dry Pseudotsuga menziesii 40 FacU Tree Tsuga heterophylla 30 FacU-Tree Vaccinium parvifolium 5 FacU Shrub Sambucus racemosa 10 FacU Shrub Polystichum munitum 20 FacU Herb Rubus ursinus 10 FacU Herb Conclusion: Non-Wetland -Parameters for hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology are not met. 3 • • ~~ .... ;!i~ u.i vi ~ Cl Z N II') ~ ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ ~I , r------__ I 1 1 I 17 / ' 1 1 ______ -' r-----i I I , 18 I I , I 14 , ,----, ,---I I I I 15 I , 16 , 1-______ --' , I I I ,-----, , , I , ID~ "'~ , , , , I 13 , "'1:1 I I ~~ I----J l I , , L _____ ...l ' __ I ,------7 , 12 I I : ( L ______ ------, , I I 11 , I TRACT 999 I PARK , ,---- , 8 ) , I L _____ --' , , I I I ( • WETLAND RECONNAISSANCE MAP HIGHLANDS PARK PORTION OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 5, W.M. N • , "W '---I 1 , r---, r---, 20 , r---, r---, r---, r---, , I , I I , I I I , , I 21 22 23 24 25 26 L-____ ....J , I I , I I I I I I I 1------, I I I I , I I , , , I I I , I I I I I , @ , I I 19 , , , I , , , , I , , I , I I I ", r - --, r - --, r - - -~~ , " " , I" , 27 " 28 " ~ I " "29 t: , " " I~ , " " , , --------L ___ -' .----I , ----, , I I , - - - - - - - - - -'-- --.J , " " , L - --.J L - ----' l ) I N8B'tlt!tft8W' l5Q 00 'v/./ ..... "'-, ( TRACT 997 I , PARK I \ I \.---....",..,.,- -, ,----, r----, r , r--l '---I " " I I ---I 39 I' " , " " , , , ' " " , " " , I I r------ , 30 NSS"04'OS"W''''' 52.00 '" L ____ , ------, 1-- - ---I \ I I 10 I ( 9 I , ~ - - - ---' , 38 " 37 , 36 " 35 " 34, 33, 32 , 1---------.., , " I " " I , , r-----" " , " " , , I ' :' " " " ,,(§ " " , , I '--------' ": .... N I~ I , , , L ______ --' L ___ --' 7 , , I , L ____ ' r----, ,--1 r---, r---, r---, , 6 I I , , " , I " I I I , I I I , I I I ~, 1 " 2 " 3 ,I 4 I L ____ --' I I II " " '.--, < 1;:; : 40 I ' ___ --' ,-----' ,--_--' , ___ --' , ___ --' , ___ --' 1 ___ --' L-___ .J 31 ---, I , I '" ~ z -- - - - -NHH·U_4'W 152.00 r--....... r-""","2..CL_-_ I I I I I I ,---'" '---"-----, 1----,----, '---"-----, I 50 I 52 I I 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I <XI _______ _ I I I I I I '--, "" ID m N e L --' I I, II " I, 'I II I --,1;:; r--------- - - -43 46 I 47 I 8 ~ - - - - _ _ UJ I r -.., I I I 44 I I 45 I I I I 4 I I 49 I r 1= I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I en I 53 I I I I I I I I I I __ I 42 I I I I I I • I I I I I 51 I ~ B I I I I .J l_----' ,-----' ----.J L.-__ ..J l I I ________ -' ~!.!! l ____ --' L ___ '· -----J ~--___ / ,-----;:---~ li ~ I I , " I , " I l I , " I I 'I 5 I __ ...1 l ___ --' ,_ " 'I I - --, L -__ J L ___ ~ ---./ J..---__ I N < "'''' .,. 0 :r I" '" WETLAND A S.E. 2ND 5, . <. ~ to ;: ~ @ mSQ.FT. ,------__ J • ~"; ----,r----~ ~ ,-------, ~------, ,-, " ' r---, ,----. / " r·----, ' , 1 r---, r -, r---, ,---, ,---, r--r , , , , , ' , , r---l r---, (, , I n , , '", , ___ _ ' """"""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ' """"""" " """'"'''''' L--_____ J , " " " " ro " ~ " .. " " " .. '" " M , '" ~ " " " m " " " .. , "" "" " , I II " " " " " I II I I " II II II I II " I I " II " " " " 'I II 'I 'I 'I II II " 'I II " I ' - - ---' I ___ --' I ___ --' I ___ --' I ___ --' I ___ --' I ___ --' . ___ --' I ___ --' , ___ --' '-___ I ___ --' 1 ___ --' I ___ --' , ___ --' , ___ --' , ___ --' ,_ _ _ --' TR.8 S10RM POND ~~ fj.", o Z NSS"Ol '33"W 973.43 R-2S.00 ~!f~j'17" r _24/10&1. I SCALE 1" = 100' 1-_ ,..- o 50 100 150 WETlAND RECONNAISSANCE MAP HIGHLANDS PARK RENTON, WA 200 r:.::J WETlAND ®----® DATA SITES 1-4 Phone: (425) 337-3174 Fax: (425) 337-3045 BERNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION ATTN:RON HUGHS Sheet 1/1 Job #05321 Drawn by: S, BRAINARD Date: OCTOBER 7,2005 Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com 1215 120TH AVE NE, #201 BELLEVUE, WA 98005-2135 · . TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 1 RESULTS 1 DISCUSSION 2 SENSITIVE SPECIES 3 MIGRATORY BIRDS 3 WASHINGTON STATE LAw 3 CONCLUSIONS 4 REFERENCES 5 INTRODUCTION Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a wildlife study on August 25, 2005 to survey actual and potential wildlife usage on an 1B.12-acre site located west of 156th Ave SE and north of 136th St. in Renton, WA. The site is located as a portion of Section 14, Township 23N, Range 5E, W.M. An existing single family residence, outbuildings, and associated infrastructure are located on the eastern portion of the investigation area. Access is to the site is gained via 156th Ave. SE along the property's eastern boundary. With the exception of the eastern portion of the property the site vegetation is comprised of a mixed forested with a canopy of Douglas-fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, red alder, and black cottonwood. Understory vegetation is comprised of Oso-berry, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, Oregon grape, salal, swordfern, and dewberry. Topography of the site is generally a west aspect with slight undulations. The applicant is proposing a 73-lot subdivision on the subject site. METHODS From 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., visual and aural point counts were conducted to determine actual and potential bird species present on site. Four representative point counts were selected in both forested and non-forested areas. Data was collected for approximately thirty minutes at each point count station. Only species that had not been noted at previous stations were recorded at each point count station. During the first 1.5 hours of the wildlife study, it was 100% cloudy with drizzling rain, and the temperature was an estimated 65 degrees. Therefore, the weather may have prohibited some bird species from being as active as if it were sunny. For the last half hour of the survey, the drizzling rain ceased and the sky was 50% overcast, while the temperature remained essentially constant. Birds that were seen, heard, or both were recorded. Throughout this report, the words "detection" or "detected" only imply presence of the species and do not explain whether the species was heard or seen. From 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m., the wildlife biologist walked north-south transects across the property. Various habitats were evaluated for signs of past or current evidence of wildlife use, including but not limited to nests, tree markings/damage, burrows/ digging, scat, and tracks. RESULTS The following eleven bird species were detected on the subject site: American robin (Turdus migatorius) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickH) Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapWus) Wetland Resources, Inc. October 7, 2005 1 Highlands Park Wildlife Study WRI #05321 Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemaLis) Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Gulls (Larus spp.) Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) Rock dove (Columba Livia) Steller's jay (Cyanodtta stelleri) Winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) No mammal species were detected on-site during the wildlife study. DISCUSSION The structural diversity of the habitats on-site is high, creating valuable cover, shelter, and foraging opportunities for a variety of wildlife species. The subject forest contains a mix of conifers and deciduous trees, a shrub layer, and ground cover provided by herbaceous plant species. The dominant tree species include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and red alder (Alnus rubra). The shrub layer is relatively sparse in some areas, but is thicker along the fringes of the property and contains species such as red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), holly (llex aquifolium), and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius). The herbaceous layer is dominated by Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), with smaller amounts of lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina) and Pacific bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa). Habitats that contain both vertical and horizontal complexity generally increase the diversity of wildlife in an area by providing habitats for a variety of animals, particularly bird species. Snag habitat is another key wildlife feature. Snags in varying stages of decay, ranging from newly dead standing trees to fallen logs and stumps are used by many wildlife species. Snags are a source of cavities and perches for birds, and decaying wood (both standing and downed) provides habitat for invertebrates and other organisms of decay, which in turn provide a food source for many species of birds and small mammals. Although eleven avian species were detected on-site, many more wildlife species are expected to utilize the site during the breeding or migration seasons. In addition to the bird species noted as occurring on site, other species of thrushes, flycatchers, and warblers are expected to use the site. The site provides basic habitat characteristics such as food, hiding and thermal cover, shelter, and water in close proximity. No raptors or signs of raptor use were observed on-site. No mammals were detected on-site during the wildlife study. However, mammalian species that utilize similar habitats in the Pacific Northwest include typical urban/suburban and woodland species that are adaptable to suburban environments such as black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), shrews (Sorex spp.), moles (Scapanus spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks (Mephitis spp.), squirrels (Sduris griseus, Tamiasciurus douglasi), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), and coyotes (Canis Wetland Resources, Inc. October 7, 2005 2 Highlands Park Wildlife Study WRI #05321 moles (Scapanus spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks (Mephitis spp.), squirrels (Sciuris griseus, Tamiasciurus douglasi), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus), and coyotes (Canis latrans). This list is not intended to be all-inclusive and may omit species that utilize or could utilize the site. SENSITIVE SPECIES Many species of plants and animals in the Puget Sound region are listed as threatened or endangered species by Washington State and/or under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other species are defined as species of concern, meaning their populations and/or habitats are severely depleted or threatened. Superimposed upon the federal and state regulations are others mandated by the local jurisdictions, which may designate additional species as sensitive, critical, or species of local importance. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus /eucocephalus) It does not appear that bald eagles (a federally and state threatened species) utilize this site for nesting. The habitat on the subject property does not appear to be suitable for bald eagle nesting. Bald eagles typically nest or perch in trees that are more than 100 years old and have open tops remaining for the best viewing potential. No eagles, eagle nests, or signs of eagle nesting activity were sighted on or near the property. MIGRATORY BIRDS All migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703- 712; Chapter 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755 as amended). This act, originally passed in 1918, provides protection for migratory bird species. Under the Act, it is unlawful to take, import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. Take is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or collecting. Permits may be granted for various non-commercial activities involving migratory birds and some commercial activities involving captive-bred migratory birds. This act does not provide for any special protection of migratory bird habitat or nest sites. For example, it may not be unlawful to cut down a nest tree outside of the breeding season. However, destroying an active nest during the breeding season may constitute a taking. WASHINGTON STATE LAW The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act grants authority to States to enact and implement laws or regulations to allow for greater protection of migratory birds. The State of Washington does not provide for any additional protections for the common species of birds that would typically utilize this site. The Washington Administrative Wetland Resources, Inc. October 7, 2005 3 Highlands Park Wildlife Study WRI #05321 species of birds that would typically utilize this site. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) classifies most common (non-game) birds species as "other protected wildlife" species and states that protected wildlife "shall not be hunted or fished" (WAC 232-12-011). The WAC does not provide for any special protection of common bird habitat or nesting sites. CONCLUSIONS Many common species of wildlife adapted to urban and suburban environments are expected to utilize the habitat on the subject property. No sensitive species were detected on-site. No sign of eagle nesting habitat was detected on-site. Wetland Resources, Inc. ~~ . Scott Brainard, PWS -------------- PrincipaL Wetland EcoLogist ------------------:--------------::----:-~------ 4 Highlands Park Wildlife Study Wetland Resources, Inc. October 7, 2005 WRI #05321 REFERENCES City of Renton Code. Chapter 3.050: Critical Areas. Renton, WA. 2003. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. The Birder's Handbook: a Field Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. 1988. Lewis, Jeffrey C. and Jeffrey M. Azerrad. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations. Volume IV: Birds. 2003. Peterson, R.T. Peterson Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, NY. 1990. Whitaker, J.O. Jr. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY. 1998. Wetland Resources, Inc. October 7, 2005 5 Highlands Park Wildlife Study WRI #05321 \ CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Highlands Park, Core Project # 01019 I. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DATES Grading will start mid 2006. The road and utilities will start shortly thereafter with building construction to follow. II. HOURS OF OPERATION FOR RESIDE~[TIAL CONSTRUCTION Per City of Renton: Monday -Friday: Saturday: Sunday: 7AM-8 PM 9AM-8PM None III. PROPOSED HAULING/TRANSPORTATION ROUTES All equipment, materials, and laborers will enter the site off of SE 2nd Street and SE 133f Street. IV. MEASURES TO BE IMPLEMENTED TC~ MINIMIZE DUST, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, MUD, NOISE AND OTHER NOXIOUS CHARACTERISTICS. • Dust Best management practices will be used to minimize dust on the project site. Water trucks or metered fire hoses will be used as needed to wet down the areas used by construction equipment. Disturbed slopes will be hydroseeded per the Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan to control dust. • Traffic During site infrastructure and building construction, the traffic entering and leaving the site will consist of subcontractors and deliveries. When arriving for work, the subcontractors will be traveling opposite the traffic leaving the residential area, and materials are primarily delivered at off peak hours during the day. None of these operations are anticipated to have a significant impact on the peak or non-peak traffic hour in the area. • Transportation Impacts There will be two access points for construction of the project located off of SE 133fd Street and SE 2nd Street. As was stated above the construction traffic will not have a significant impact on traffic. The construction of the entrance, extension off SE 2nd Street and all associated wet and dry utilities to the project may require some construction in':he SE 133fd Street and SE 2nd Street right-of-way. This work will be perfonned during non-peak hours and lane channelization will be used if needed . • Mud In keeping with state law, any vehicle with deposits of mud, etc. on the vehicle's body, (fender, undercarriage, wheels or tires) will be cleaned of such material before the operation of the vehicle on a paved public highway. In addition a street sweeper will also be used as necessary to remove any deposits from the roadways . • Noise All Construction equipment will have approved mufflers. Impacts from noise are expected to be minimal. The hours of operation will be consistent with City regulations. 'ICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY J' IAVENUE,#3400,SEATILE, WA 98104 PLAT CERTIFICATE Certificate for Filing Proposed Plat: In the matter of the plat submitted for our approval, this Company has examined the records of the County Auditor and County Clerk of KING County, 'Of ashington, and the records of the Clerk of the United States Courts holding terms in said County, and from such examination hereby certifies that the title to the following described land situate in said KING County, to-wit: SEE SCHEDULE A (NFXT PAGE) VESTED IN: BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A WASHINGTON Cc)RPORATION, AS TO PARCELS A AND Bj BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION, WHICH ACQUIRED TITLE AS COLONY HOMES, INC., AS TO PARCEL C; AND JIM JACQUES CONSTRUCTION, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIIITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS TO PARCEL D. EXCEPTIONS: SEE SCHEDULE B ATTACHED CHARGE: $200.00 TAX: $17.60 Records examined to SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 at 8: 00 AM HARRIS/EISENBREY Title Officer (206)628-5623 PIATCRTA/RDA/0999 --:HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA!'- PLAT CERTlFIO\TE SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 1175456 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: LOT 1, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 678063-R, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812110857, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON'. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DI!,TANCE OF 30.00 FEET AND NORTH 88°55'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE AUGUST GERBER ROAD (156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED ,'_ECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1094241, NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 47:1.53 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTA!.'fCE OF 157.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°01'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1248 07 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF SADI SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°33'02" EAHT A DISTANCE OF 157.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°59'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1247 82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO FRANKLIN T. ":ETER AND C. LENA TETER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NilllBERS 6400741 AND 6417877. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 00°28'02" WEST 30.00 FEET AND NORTH 88°55'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE AUGUST GERBER ROAD (~56TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1094241, NORTH 00°28'02" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 157.51 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTAl':rCE OF 315.02 FEET; SEE NEXT PAm: PlATCRTI./RDA/0999 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SCHEDULE A (Continued) , Policy No.: 001175456 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THENCE NORTH 88°59'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1247.82 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°33'02" EAST A DISTANCE OF 314.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°57'17" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1247.34 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D: LOT 4 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 484106, AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 8505170617, IN KING COUNTY, Wl'iSHINGTON. LEGLCONT /RDA/rm9 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PLAT CERTIFICH.TE SCHEDULEB Order No.: 1175456 This certificate does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following exceptions: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: A. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, fIrst appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to (he date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. B. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the publil: records. C. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, and any other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. D. Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public records. E. Any lien, or right to lien, for contributions to employee benefIt hmds, or for state workers' compensation, or for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, all as imposed by law, and not shown by the public records. F. Liens under the Workmen's Compensation Act not shown by the public records. G. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance or constructi III charges for sewer, water, electricity or garbage removal. H. General taxes not now payable; matters relating to special asse!i~ments and special levies, if any, preceding or in the same becoming a lien. I. Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; Indian tribal codes or regulations, Indian treaty or aboriginal rights, including easements or equitable servitudes. J. Water rights, claims, or title to water. K. THIS REPORT IS ISSUED AND ACCEPTED UPON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE THOUS_'\ND DOLIARS($l000.00). PlATCRTB/RDA/0999 ~HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE CaMP A1'T PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B (Continued) EXCEPTIONS Order No.: 1175456 A 1. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, NOTES, DEDICATIONS AND SETBACKS, IF ANY, SET FORTH IN OR DEL]NEATED ON THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812110857. B AFFECTS: PARCEL A. c 2. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, NOTES, DEDICATIONS AND SETBACKS, IF ANY, SET FORTH IN OR DELINEATED ON THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8505170617. D AFFECTS: PARCEL D. B 3. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: INGR3SS AND EGRESS AN E U>TERLY PORTION OF PARCEL B AS DESC :IBED IN SAID INSTRUMENT DECEi>1BER 10, 1976 7612 ;.00059 F 4. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: PUGE.· SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A WASH~~NGTON CORPORATION ELEC'f'RIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTiUBUTION LINE THE BOUTH 5 FEET OF PARCEL D MARCH 1, 1985 85031H0803 G 5. AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: AND: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: REGARDING: H AFFECTS: PARCEL D. RONDA BRYANT AND FRANK BRYANT KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 APRIL 21, 1988 8804210773 TEMPCRARY WATER SERVICE I 6. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NOTICE OF CHAR.3ES BY WATER, SEWER, AND/OR STORM AND SURFACE WATER UTILITIES, RECORDEDJNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9606210966. PlATCRTB1/RDA/0999 -:HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA1" PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDUU~ B (Continued) Order No.: 1175456 J 7. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: AFFECTS: PARCEL A. 2005 142305-9110-00 4350 $ 360,000.00 $ 0.00 BILLi3D: $ 4,508.28 PAID: $ 4,508.28 UNPAID: $ 0.00 x 8. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCI!UDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: AFFECTS: PARCEL B. 2005 1423{;S-9083-03 4350 $ 36'1,000.00 $ 6.1,000.00 BILU:D: $ 5, 314 . 81 PAID, $ 5,314.81 UNPArD: $ 0.00 L 9. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, I PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HALF DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: AFFECTS: PARCEL C. 2005 142305-9047-08 4350 $ 755,000.00 $ 0.00 BILLED: $ 9,447.79 PAID: $ 4,723.90 UNPAID: $ 4,723.89 PlATCRB2/RDA/0999 ~HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPAl'- PLAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B (Continued:) Order No.: 1175456 11 10. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES AND CHARGES, PAYABLE FEBRUARY 15, DELINQUENT IF FIRST HALF UNPAID ON MAY 1, SECOND HAl,F DELINQUENT IF UNPAID ON NOVEMBER 1 OF THE TAX YEAR (AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTIES) : YEAR: TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: LEVY CODE: ASSESSED VALUE-LAND: ASSESSED VALUE-IMPROVEMENTS: GENERAL & SPECIAL TAXES: AFFECTS: PARCEL D. 2005 142305-9118-02 4350 $ 160,000.00 $ 0.00 BILL:rm: $ 2,007.22 PAID: $ 1,003.61 UNPAID: $ 1,003.61 o 11. THE MOBILE HOME OR MANUFACTURED HOME (AS DEFINED IN RCW 46.04.302) LOCATED OR TO BE LOCATED ON THE REAL ~aOPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO LICENSING AND TITLE REGISTRATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES PURSUANT TO RCW. 46.12.290. P AFFECTS: PARCEL B. o 12. DEED OF TRUST AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS 'UID/OR LEASES, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: BURNHTEAD CONSTRUCTION CO. U.S. 'BANK TRUST COMPANY, N.A. u.S. BANK N.A. $ 1,!:20,000.00 AUGUST 29, 2005 SEPTl1:MBER 14, 2005 20050914000851 THE AMOUNT NOW SECURED BY SAID DEED OF, TRUST AND THE TERMS UPON WHICH THE SAME CAN BE DISCHARGED OR ASSUMED SHOU.~D BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE HOLDER OF THE INDEBTEDNESS SECURED. R AFFECTS: PARCELS A AND B. s 13. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THIS COMMITMENT IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THE APPLICATION AND THE PUBLIC RECORDS AS DEFINED IN THE POLICY TO ISSUE. THE PARTIES TO THE FORTHCOMING TRANSACTION MUST NOTIFY THE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PRIOR TO CLOSING IF ~HE DESCRIPTION DOES NOT CONFORM TO PIATCRB2/RDA/0999 -:HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA!" THEIR EXPECTATIONS. T NOTE 1: PlAT CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE B (Continued: Order No.: 1175456 THE FOLLOWING MAY BE USED AS AN ABBRE\ ',IATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED TO COMPLY WI,]"H THE REQUIREMENTS OF RCW 64.04. SAID ABBREVIATED LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH MUST ALSO APPE'J~R IN THE BODY OF THE DOCUMENT: PORS SEQ NWQ SECTION 14-23-5. AS OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, THE TAX ACCOUNTS FOR SAID PREMISES ARE 142305-9110-00, 142305-9083-03, 142305-9047-08, AND 142305-9118-02. END OF SCHEDULE B PIATCRB2/RDA/0999 CHICAGO TI1L -NSURANCE COMPANY 701 FIFTH A VENUE, #340, A TILE, WA 98104 PHONE: (206)628-5623 FAX: (206)628-5657 IMPORTANT: This is not a Survey. It is furnished as a convenieD.ce to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon. Southeast % of the Northwest % of Section 14-23-5 :. o. ."..._... ,.. _ 0' I ... l'~ , +" ~~ __ ~ ____ .L __ ~~ __ ~~~~~ __ ~~ __ ~~~~L-~~ D ; . ~ A r.ev.;;t' IMI ~7 A .4 J ; FI l ~i ~ ~~ ;, =-"' 4.l1t'! ..".~ .f' .... '" I .... -ICID • 04 At \ .. ..... N ,~. . ... ,. ... -III... .... _ .. -v~ OED. ,a-RD. IV I.P.1 = 1 -II '\ -n " ..... .. 00, _ MAP/RDA/rm9 i I l l~ Ii I~ ! !, i ~iled for RKard at Recwat of WARRANlV FULFILLMENT DEED NAME __ ~(~b~lony~L-~Ham==es=~«~I~nc~. ____________ __ ADDRESS 14280 HE 21st CITY AND STATE Bellevue. WA 98007 __ _ ! .. ~. ':.- THE GRANTOR OIESTER D. I.AllREm' and LDm!\ B. IAURFnl', husband and wife for and in consideration of 'n:!n dollars and other valuable considerations In hand paid, conveys end warrants to CDLCNY H(Ml;« ne. the following described 'NI estate, situated in the County of King , State of WlShinvton: IEGM. IESCRIPl'ICN A'.l'1'N:lIED HErem AS E»IIBIT IfAIf AND BY '!HIS REFERENCE M1UE A PARI' HElB:F. ICING COUNTY NO EXCISE TAX OCT 121982 E069158a This deed is given ;n fulfillment of that ::eruin real _te contnct '*-the perties hereto, dated August 8th 19 77 ,and conditioned for the conveylnce of the abo:MI described property, and the coveRints of warranty herein con· tained shill not apply to any title, In_t or encumtw.nce rising by. through or under the pu~ in said contract. and shall not apply to any tilles, _ssmenu or other charges levied. Issessed or b.coming due su~ to the date of wid contract. DatedC;t.~~_. __________ _ C"lesteJ: D.. • '. . ~ ~~~ ---------=(~~·~t~I----------- STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF~ ,,~ On this day ~Iy .pjII:ared before me _____ _ c.~-\: ..... "t) ,Lsw.u ... '" ' no-A '. ~!o..:l? LQ. ~ . to' _known to be the inc!Ividual cleKribed in and who executed the wlthin.w.'oregoino In,irument. anJ acknovd· edged thet ' '-n~ ', ... ," c,'" ,,' signed the same 8l_' _¥:~;;.;",.:.'C"" ____ -'-__ _ ,," and voIllngry' ai:t and deed, for tha U!4!S and purposes therein mentioned~ , GIVEN under my ,hind Ind offhlial seal this • .2:..: ___ _ ___ claY of~e\M.Is. .. r ,19 ~ c¥-. ~< \>;..,' N~\."*-= Notary ""bile In :1 b the State of Washington, i§din'l at :\c;, ,. 's \r . By ____________ ~~--~---------------(Secretary I STATE OF W;,sHINGTON COUNTY OF On this .. ay of ______ _ 19 __ , before me, the undersigned, I Notary . ""blie In and for the State of Washlngto.., duly commissionlrl and sworn, personally appeared __________ ------ and to me k.lOwn to be the ____ .,..... ____ President and SeCretllly, respectively. of th~ corporation that executed the foregoing .nstrument. and acknowledge,! .he said instrument to be the free and volun- tary act and deed of saiC: corpOration, fer the uses and pur· poses therein mentioned, and. on Oath stated that __ .. __ _____ • ____ authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal Iffixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness my hand and official sltal hereto affixed Ihe da" and year li"t above written. Notary ""blic in and for the State 01 Washington, (esiding at __________________________________ __ .... ' i. .,'. ," ".;:., EXHIBIT "A!! ',"; . 20050607001944.001 AFfER RECORDING MAIL TO: JIM JACQUES CONSTRUCTION, LLC 1216 NORTH 38TH STREET RENTON, WA 98056 IIIII1III11IIII1 20050607001944 ~g~~~i~~T~ YO 28.88 86/87/2885 16:38 KING COUNTY. WI E2129112 ""7/28811 16:32 J(J~ COUNTY'5= ... SALE $21:;8.8 .•• PAGEee1 OF .. 1 Filed for Record at Request or MAIN STREET ESCROW, INC. Esc:row Number. 04,.4288 Statutory Warranty Deed Grantor(s): MICHAEL TAKEO SAITO, ARLENE NAOMI SAITO Grantee(s): JIM JACQUES CONSTRUCTION, LLC Abbreviated LegaJ: LOT(S) 4, OF KCSP NO. 484106 REC. Additional legal(s) on page: ~~IrBjU: Assessor'sTu Pan:eI Number(s): 1423059118 2-2-0 8505170617. THE GRANTOR MICHAEL TAKEO SAITO and ARLENE NAOMI SAITO, hUsband and wi fe for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION in hand paid, conveys and warrants to J 1M JACQUES CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a wash; n9t:on Limited Liability company !he following described real estale, situated in the County of KING , State of Washington: LOT 4 OF KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NO. 484106, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8505170617, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY AUDITOR; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. See Anached Exhibit A Dated this 2nd day of JU";$Jl5 By MT~~'-' __ By __________________________ __ .. "'-M_~_~" ~ By ~.,t&I~~ By __________________________ __ ARLENE NAOMI SAITO STATE OF WASHINGTON } • County of _K_I_N_G __________ } SS. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that MICHAEL TAKEO SAITO AND ARLENE SAITO NAOMI are the person S who appeared before me. and said person S acknowledged that t:hey $igned th~ instrument ~owledge it to be the; r free and voluntary act for the lIses and purposes mentioned in th~ instrument. Dated: JUNE 6TH, 2005 Q,,,a~Jn, [,J,W. PAULINE M. WEBER Notary Public in and for the State of WASHINGTON Residing at PIERCE COUNTY My appointment .ellpires: ~6:...;71;;;.;9;..:;7..:::2;.:;O..;;.09:::.__=_------- Paae 1 LPB-JO 20050607001944.002 .... Exhibit A SUBJECT TO: Easements, rest:ric'tions, reserva'tions. ri gh1:s. covenant:s, and condi'tions, as shown on the preliminary 1:;1:1e repor1: issued by COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE under 'their order no: RJ-20021421. ACKNOWLEDGED, ACCEPTED AND APPROVED. ". ": ~:.; ::. Page 2 LPB·IO WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO BURNSTEAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1215-12OTH N.E., SUTI1! 20l BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON9800S /-lllllllllllill 20050914000850 CHICAGO TITLE YD 3S. ee PAGE .. 1 OF "4 "'t4/2815 11 :47 KING COUNTY, lolA E2154369 "'14/2 • ., 11:34 KING COUNTY, YA 20050914000850.001 TAX S49 845 .•• SALE $2,88', •• 8., PAGE .. , OF eet ~ CHICAGO TI11..E INSURANCE COMPANY \eI------1162762 STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Dated: SEP'lEMBER 1,2005 THE GRANJ'OR BALESlJMITEDPAIITNERSBJP,AWASHINGTONUMITEDPARTNERSHIP for and in consideration of TENDOUARSANDonfflRGOODANDVALUABUlCONSIDBRATIONANDASPARTOFANI.R.C.SECIlON 1031 TAX DEFERRED EXCHANGB in hand paid, conveys and warrants to BURNSTBAD CONSfRUCTION COMPANY, A WASHJNGTON CORPORATION the foHowing described real estate situated in the County of KING Tax Account Number(s): 142305-9110-00 AND 142305-9083-03 State of Washington: r~:!:: .r~~:r.#~hT::;::; ;...;;:,~. DESCRIPTION IS AS FOLL;J~S: LOT 1 KL,~a'" Tl-c. i8UtJ.; ...... REC #7812110857; AND PORTION SEQ NWQ SECTION 14-23-5. THE COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS LOCATED ON PAGE 3 AS EXHIBIT "Aft ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF AS IF FULLY INCORPORATED HEREIN. SUBJECT TO: EXCEPTIONS SET FORTH ON ATTACHED EXHIBIT "S" AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF AS IF FULLY INCORPORATED HEREIN. CHICAGO TITlE INS. rxx:!J) REF# //,£242 -/0 SWD/RDA/OIIiI9 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss 20050914000850.002 I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE H. BALES IS THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME ~ AND SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT, ON OATH STATED THAT HB WAS AtTI'HORIZED TO EXECUTE THE. INS:rRUMBNT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS TRUSTEB OF THE BALES MANAGEMENT TRUST DATED JULY 18, 1995, GENERAL PARTNER OF OF BALES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO BB THB FREB AND VOLUNTARY ACT OF SUCH PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT. DATED: $epf. B} ~ ~ 20050914000850.003 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXHIBIT A Escrow No.: 1162762 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Jand referred to is situated in the Slate of Washington, County of KING asfoDows: , and is described PARCEL A: LOT 1, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 678063-R, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812110857, SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUBDIVISION OP A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHBAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET AND NORTH 88°55'44" WEST A DISTANCBOP 30.00 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14) THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY ,MARGIN OF THE AUGUST GERBER ROAD (156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVEYED TO '1{ING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED ONDER RECORDING NUMBER 1094241, NORTH 00°28"02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 472~S3 PEET'To THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OP THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00°'28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 157.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°01'16" WES'r'A:DISTANCE OF 1248.07 PBBT:TO THE :EAST LINE OF ",," ! 'i.; THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF SADISqUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE N~THHEST iQUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00°33'02" EAST A DIS~ANCB OF :157.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°59' 57" EAST A !,ISTANCE OF 1247.82 PEET!TO THE TRUE POINT OF BBGINNING; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS CON'llBYED TO FRANKLIN T. TETER' ANb c. LENA TETER, HUSBAND AND WIPE, BY DEEDS ~BCORDED UNDER RECORDINGIN~BRS 640074~ AND 6417877, : . .: ,." ", 20050914000850.004 CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY EXHIBIT B EscrowNo.: 1162762 EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED, RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: SNOQUALMIE FALLS POWER CCMPANY ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION LINE AS CONSTRUCTED NOVEMBER 10, 1899 183070 EASEMENT'AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: INGRESS AND EGRESS AN EASTERLY PORTION OF PARCEL B AS DESCRIBED IN SAID INSTRUMENT DECEMBER 10, 1976 7612100059 CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NUMBER 4612, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: RECORDING NUMBER: REGARDING: JUNE 21, 1996 9606210966 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE EXHISIT/RDA/II999 Filed for Record ot Request of '--.--: r-----------------------·-------·-; ! THIS SPACE RESElYEO FOR uco~ USE. ~ · . · . · . · . I : I ?\jM!:~~:·:~ .... : .. _> i I " ".' ;:,' 0 : ) ; - ! 1 Namr ... _ .••...•...... __ •. _. ____ .. __ .• _ •.... __ ••..••...•. ___ •••• __ •. _ .... _. __ •.• __ RENT(l:J· B~M:C!{ Addr.,. .......... \'L."SH1~lG:;:O~: . .L.:!l:!.:.~1. . .s .. :.::!.&!CS.SAN.K-......... ___ .-.-__ _ · i i · . p P C~;\ ~.,~ FIt . City and State .... _.JiUtIIlN • ..IYk:tdltf.li.fOO . .9BlE5. ...... _ ... J;;_::t_E.::"" •. p .. _. '''I. . .". . ,.I-~ri>-----------------------------.,-,~ !. S: -. . ,en",,~ t. ..J,._:-i ..... ; I I yu .)t -~,.l "'-, Ii' .~.: ::J(t'-Of .3 =-~ ~ '07. ' t'll F""" •• 7. :-REV , .. ,' :;;' ~ StatutOry Warranty Deed :; ~.~:.::! ......... . ~ _. .""; r- I~ THF. (;R.\-'TOR --E. D. STAFF(JU) &lid GLADYS STAFFORD, his vite; __ _ (or ant! in crlnsidtralion of -TEN .1ND 110/100 - - ---- - - - - ---($10.00) DOLLARS in hand paid.cnn\"rys and warranls to FRAl'IKLII L. TEl'ER and C, LElA rnER, his wit., Ihe foliawing dp~cribed rral .slal., situated in thr Ctlllnt~· of -KIIG ------ -----, Stat. of Washinj:ton: . \ ~, t"t That portion of the South8t1st + of the Ifortbv •• t t of Section 14, TownshIp 23 lorth, Rallge 5 East, V.M •• deacribed as tollon: Beginnillg at a point Borth 870,8'50" V.st 30.01 teet and Borth ooP2S 50" Eaat 30.01 teet from the cellter ot Mid section 14; thellce North OO~8 50· East along the Vest Margin ot August Gerber Road 536.54 teet to the true point ot BeginniDg; '!'hence North 88°04'2'3" Vest 152 teet;· Thence North OO~8'50w last 63.79 te.t; Thence South 88 04'2'3" Eaat a distaDce ot 152 teet; Thence South OO~8'50" Veat 63.79 teet to the true poillt at Beginnillg. Situate in . the County of Killg. State of Washington • ." - '" ?: -'" v , i ~":l ~nn 641.'7877 . :-rRA'NSAMERICA TITLE .... ' I:-;SI;RA:-;(:F. COMI'AN1' OF WA INGTON THE GRA.'\TOR E. D. STAF1(JU) and GLADIS STAF1<1lD, hb vUe; for and in consid.raliun of TEll AID lfO/lOO ------DOLLARS in hand paid. CI>"""Y' alld warranlS to FlUIIILDI L. TETER aDd C. LElA TETEIl, hi,.. vUe; Ibe follo'll'lng described real estatr, situated in the County of -- -IIliTG ____ _ - , Sta~ of W""hingl'lQ : D That portion ot the Southeast t or the lorthve"t tot Section 14, Township 2:'1 Horth, R4nge 5 Fa"t, V.H •• described aa tollow,,: Beginning at a point lorth 87"'58' 50· Vest 30.01 teet and Borth 00 "28' 50· East 30.01 teet rro. the center ot said Section 14: Thence Borth 00"28' 50· ... t alDg tile Ve.t Margin or 156th !Tenue Sout}o{' .. st (August Gerber Road) "72.75 re.t to the tJ'lle point ot Beginning; Thence North 88<U)'OS" Veet a dbtaDce ot 152 teet; - Thence lorth 00"28'50" Baet 6).7) teet; Thance South 88 004' 29" Baet 152 teet; Thence South ooP28 50" W.et 6).79 teet to the true point or BeginniDg. v '11:1~T'OF (lconveyance ~ VI"shinglon ~-Tax-~ 1)- DEPT. OF oel·m ~ :: 0 3. 0 0 ::: REVENUE P'9.I~in ______ == lIat~d this JOt.b :;'/'.\'1'.: OF W.-\SHl~GT()!\. I .', \ I r OF \\' \"III~r.TO:\. I I .. ·.n':-,,' KING i '-<. • .. .... ~ •• ; ~. ,. ~ r ............. 1 .. ,1. i:h.&L i l. • , ~. , .;; ~ i: i: ! f l ~ .,. r t " 0> ". 0: t ~ ,,~ I ~. { 1 k f J " ! • c.:.> q r- L ... ~ CJ r- ii\ co 0 rl ,-i N rl ::;, .- N " 11'\ 0 0 :;;:) i-;- .-{ .-i . ~ I.LI = s.K T.~.fN.R.~ This spa~e reserved for recorder's use SHORT PLAT K I N~ COUNTY, WASHINGTON APPROVAL Department of Planning and Community DevelopmP.nt Building and Land Develo~JJt Division Examined and approved this ;!?'dag of ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~:=..:;.~~~' ~!::::Sc:;!:~"'--ion tp,,! riled for record at the request of: ~C\le. S» Gt.t?rj4t- Return to: Building & Land Development 450 KC Administration Bldg Seattle, Vashingtcm 98104 DESCRIPT!ON De~rtment of Public Works _~;...,.-_ day of Director Department of Assessments EKanUned and approved this __ --"/_.=b"'--__ , 19 7R Assessor o . bA ;;;:Jt;:::;- Deput Ij Assessor SE-Ii v-./ 1J{.23OS--'1~~-tJf '!ha.t portion o:f the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 2J North, Range .5 East, II.M., in King County, Washington, desoribed as follollsl Beginning at a point N 0°28'02" II )0.00 :feet and N 88°.5.5'44" W )0.00 feet from the center of said Section 14, thence along the westerly margin of the August Gerber Road (156th Avenue S.E.) as conveyed to King County, August 14, 1914. by instrument recorded. under Auditor's File No. 1094.241, N 0°28'02" 1rI 6)0.04 feet to the true point of beginning of the tract of land herein described; thence continuing N 0°28'02" W 157.51 feet; thence N 89°02'36" 1rI l2JI.3.)1 feet to the east line of the west 30.00 feet of said southeast quarter of the northwest quarter; thence along said east line S 0°)3' 02" E 157.07 feet; thence S 89°01'16" E 1.248.97 feet tc the true point o:f beg:l.nn1ng. SUBJECt TO an easellent far an electric transmision and distri~ \lina ~~J UDder A.F.# 183070. -~ , .' Map on File in Vault J-c 'Iy "I" A!w 'd 1'1 -A;J· S- '- DEc II 2 20 PM '18 RECOftDEO KC RECOIUIS Parle 1 of L ·1 ~ j i , i~ L , Ii I ~ I f f H 1 j i ~ ~ ¥ ~ ;: • t t i I ~ ! , ! i 1 ,..... I.t') co C> 't"-..-- C\J r-eo r--- LEX;AL DESCRIPTIONS George :Bales Short Plat (K. C. #67806J) LotI 1hat portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 l\"rth, Range 5 East, W.K., in King County described as followsl Beginning at a point N 0°28'02" I( )0.00 feet and H Bff'55'44" I( JO.OO feet from the center of said Section 14; thence along the westerly margin of August Gerber Road (1.56th Avenue S.E.) as conveyed to King County August 14, 1914 by instrument recorded uBier Auditor's File No. 1094241, N 0°28'02" I( 6JO.04 feet to the true point of beginning of the land herein described; thence continuing H 0°28'02" Ii )0.00 feet; thence N 89°01'16" Ii 150.00 feet; thence N 0°28'02" Ii 127.45 feetJ thence N 89002'J6" If 109).J1 feet to the east line of the west JO.OO feet of sa.1d southeast qua.:rt.er of the northwest quarter; thence along said east line S 00JJ'02" E 157.07 feet; thence S 89°01'16" E 1248.97 feet to the true point of beginning • Lot 2 That portion of the southeast quarter of the northWest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Y.M., in King County described as follows I Beginning at a point H 0028'02" Ii )0.00 feet and N aa"55'l!-4" Ii JO.OO feet froll the center of said Section 14, thence along the westerly margin of August Gerber Road (156th Avenue S.E.) as conveyed to King County August 14, 1914 by inst:rument recorded UDder Auditor's File No. 1094241, N 0°28'02" I( 660.04 feet to the true point of beginning of the land herein dr:lsoribed; thence continuing N 0°28'02" I( 127 • .51 "feet.! thence N 89002'~h" 101 19),00 :f'eat; th.elll)b ~ 00 2:;;'02 .. E 12'/.45 feetJ then~e S 89°01'16" E 150.00 feet to the txu.e point of beginning. Shart Plat No:-=b:~7-.;;.3I._~_6._3~ __ _ i .~ I r-. DECLARATIOO: l.t) CO o Know all men by these preIJeDts that we. the UDde1'8iped, OWDer(s) in fee simple [and contract purchaser(s)] of the land berein dellcribed do hereby make a sbort subdivision tbereot pursuant to RCIf 58.17.060 and declare this short plat to be the graphic representat10D of same, and that said ahort subdivision 1s msde with the free conseDt and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). ID witness whereof we have set our hands and seals. ~~-~ NIllllI> Name ~JJt;d' C /3,,0 Name Name Name STATE OF WASHINGTON'f' K/.. ss. county of J~ On ~s day personally appgred before,. 5~ I/. &i:.s L /ll/« C!. go~J to _ knowD to be the 1ndlvidual ~ibed in and .,ho execute~t .,ithin and fozegoin'3 instrull1!!nt, and acknowledged thattf signed the sa_ as ~ free and ""luntary .sci: Md d_d, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official th1s~ STATE OF WASHINGTON'i $S. county o~~. __________ _ On Ws dag l»r6omsllg appeared before ,. __________________ _ to me br;Nn to be the i.ndividual described .in and .,ho executed the within and foregoing .inst:rumeDt, and acJcIJcNledged that signed the SUIt .. free and tIOluntary act and doed, for the ua .. and purposes therein _tianed. GIVEN under -V band and official seal this _ ~g of _______ , 19_. IIIQI Short Plat Nwd.,er 67@6':3 Notarg Public in and for the State of 1f .. 1l1n~on, residing at . , it of r-- Lf) ; CO 1 0 f r-o· .. ~ t " C\J , , 1 ...- ex) r-- , ~ ! t. 1 I ~. f .~ ~ . . ~ J 1 ~ DECLARATION OP COVENAIft' IN LIEU OP SOILS DBT FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SDI'l'ASILIT".l • "Declaration of Covenant ~;!P ,~A.id.ration of the approval by King County of short plat • ~~~2'~~ , which said plat creates a lot described 8S follows: That portion of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, i.M., in King County described as follows: Beginning at a point N 0°28'02" II 30.00 feet and N 88°55'L!4" II )0.00 feet from the center of said Section 14; thence a.l.ong the westerly Jll8Xgin of August Gerber Road (156tb Avenue S.E.) as conveyed to 1(ing County August 14, 1914 by instrument recomed under Auditor's 1""..le No. 1094241, N OV28'02" W 6)0.04 fset to the t:rue point of beg1nni~ of the land herein described6 thence continuing N 0 28'02" W .30.00 feet, thence N 8;1 01'16" W 150.00 feet, thence N 0 28'02" II 127.45 feet; thence N 890 02'36" W 109.3.31 feet to the east line of the Hest JO.OO fest of said southeast quarter of thS northvest q1l2...-ter; thence along said east line S 0.33'02" E 157.07 feet; thence S 89 01'16" E 12#8.97 feet to the t:rue point of beginning. Also known as Lot 1 the undersiqned covenants and agrees that: "(a) No percolation te~t has been performed on the above-described lot. "(b) Approval of short plat' £1tf//tf'J creating the above- described lot DOES.NOT constitute approval by xIng County that said lot can be used for a buIlding site. NCC) No structure requiring domestic water consumption or sewage disposal can be placed on said lot until approval is given by the Seattle- Xing County Health Department or other appropriate department agenci ••• -Cd) This convenant shall run with the land and is binding on all subsequent ownerCs) of the above described lot(s).ft fee owner fee owner STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUN'l'Y OF X1NG ) ss /'1 ~n .this day personally appeared before me G~ i .4fic~ L t::5NL:'$'· , to me known to be the ind~ aescri6ed rn and Who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their ~r.e and vol~tary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein stated. and official seal this ~ 19". ------------------- at Porm C-l -.:- 1 I ,.... , Lt') t ex) f a J ..-- ~. or- ~ C\J ~ ...- ! ex:> t r-~ ~ ~ ;; i t • ~ t ; 1. ~ . 1 I J ~~ j t !! )- " ~: %AtfE / :'ft7' L~T ~--,IJ£U/L. ------ f.,E. /.!b',wS7 Map on File in Vault Direction: -~J~ Scale: .:51£. AlIDr£' ,.... i , o Page 5 of 5 -- SHORT PLAT NO .... " lUh S. -1..L.. T. -.2.l R.~_ K t N G COUNTY, WASHINGTON ,---~hJS 5Pd~C reserved fur record"c'. use APPROVAL Department of Plar.ninq and CommunJ t" Drt\'dopment Bui1dinq and Land De~'elopmenc Divislon r- <.0 0 r"- '---------------- Fi led lor Te,-",rd at thE' re'l Ut.'S t ot; Name Dewey Boss Examined iJnd approved this 1$"" day of VE'parcmenc of PublJC Werks Director LJepartntf.'nc at Assessments ~ ... III U") ~ EXdlll4nt:d and approved ch~s __ --=2.;;;:::,, ___ , day of t~ ..r: ~ -:.C 0-c:: .... 1! B III IIC Return to: Bui Zding & Land Development 450 KC Administration Bldg Seattle, Washington 98104 19 R\' Assessc..r C.t ·V\t~· Deputy A.ssessor,.,,\ . ~ U85/05./17 REeD F RFlJ c:: 10617 B (as per deed) CA5HSL 9.50 15.00 >1<"'*24.50 55 That portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point North '0°28'02" West, 30 feet and North 88·55'4~" v..t 30 net from the Center of said Section 14; thence continuing parallel to the South Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, North 88°5S'44"W, 1247.10 feet to the East Line of the West 30 feet of said subdivision; thence parallel to the West Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, North 0033'02"IVest , 157.07 feet; thence South 88 0 57'17" East, 1247.34 feet to a point North 0025'02"West from the faint of Beginning; thence parallel to the East Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, South 0°23'02" East, 157.51 feet to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPT the East 150 f~et thereof. TOGETHER WITH The West 30 feet of the South.aat Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North. Range 5 East, W.M., in ling County, WaBhington; EXCEPT the North 187.07 feet thereof. AND TOGETHER WITH the South ]0 feet of the Southeaat Quarter of the Northwelt Quarter of Section 14. Townehip 23 North, Ranse 5 Ealt, V.M •• in Kinl County. Washinlton; EXCEPT the e •• t 30 feet thereof. SUBJECT TO an ealement for vater and aewer main., per A.F.I 7507170568. ~).' .:, . -. 1 : :. .:./ ·","r· _J .~.,# :J -.c.-~./ •. ~'~ _;, " .. ' .• ~~ Map on File In V.utl Page 1 ot L- 8505170617 It!M~~~ '~.s .• ,,,,,. ~.I.l.tn '"i too ). 0 110 "'''':7 110 • r-' ~ "~:J~ ... [ ~ . " . ~~.,. , -· · ~ ~·o. . ._, o " -i~,.~. ." ~ I! ~"'~."o ~ .", ~ ; a."~~ ~ " ~ ~ -a. 0 ... • • " '.1'." , .. ~~~~ .. " ~ ~ ~". " . •• ~ ..... 111 0 It cr 'I.' " 0., ., l\J I~: ~ !7 ., ~ :::. 11 t Q.!;.§'l ~ J 3'~:: 2 ~ &:;:~'C :: " :10;: ., .. ~ ~f: . .!~ po t" ~~a.a b '~ Ib'~.. ~ t ~ , • 0' -•••• ~....." I .,. ., \ :; ~ ~. g" ~.;;·o;·ii'" l""-:,-;...t. L Z . l ~ U a -" 1 .-II 14." ~ • Ii ~ / ~ .. ~. ". 2 ._. ~ ~.~ a, 15(')' r 19( ... I~~-Uo 1,0 ~'~. 0"- 111-' ,. I l~ I ~ ~ ·t . It ~ a: trl --... ---co .C;; • ~JJ :-r: ...- :2 r. .... :,-, ~ r . ..., N ..., ? '" VI :"'1 lI) I) t::I E ... ... ... ., 8 ~ ~il ' -,., : c1>' :161: 14---" , J 1!ltJ7.~ 150754-_ •• M '" l..~ --... -, . IV.OOD8W . /II C' .. " " 0 .. . :::I ... : g ~ i' "-l C + 3' ~~ c: f c :; 'V NO 110 Y IQ f fTH 0 t I: . :.;' , e~D£D~" "" 7I¥6~ ~ f 6 fit, M:' _\ ___ oEt>VQ ·-Acrn-,,- \ ~ ~/.v" fJI" ",IS'S/fII.,..n.r, " J ~. {;'~I?J""'1W'" -- ~\ \\ ~ i WARNING: King ~ounty has no responsibility to build, improve, maintain or otherwise serve the public roads contained within or , providing service to the property described in this short plat. ·NOTE: Due to insufficient soil depth, a conventlonal septlc system may not be Rcceptable fer Lot 2. A mound system or other a]tel~atlye system ~ay te required. II l I l!l :tt :It' I :~. ~ '.:'; .... , .:~Jttl\::·::·:5··' :; ,.:,.~\~<.i;'·· COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS RUNNINl: WITH THE LAND: That portiones) of 152nd Ave. Sf Ind Sf p6 th St. which adjoins the subject subdivision is a public right-at-way. It is des('ribed in the King County Comprehensive Plan as a "local access street or road" and in accordance with the standards therein, may be required to be improved for future County street, road or thoroughfare. The owner, his grantees and assigns, hereby agree to participate in, and/or not oppose or protest, the formation of a County Road Zmprovement District (CRID) pursuant to RCW 36.88 or any Road Improve- ment project sanctioned by King County, which 1s designed to improve said street(s) and the immediate street system of which it 1s a part. Timing of the formation of said CHID or other road improvement project shall be determined by King County. The street improvement authorized by the CHID or other road i~provement project shall call for the improvement of said street(s) and its immediate street system to at least the minimum King County road standards applicable to said street(s) and the immediate street system at the time the CRID or other road project is formed; provided that, in situations where there is a multiple ownership of properties participating in the formation of the CRID, cr other road improvement project, if a majority of the property owners want a higher standard, i.e., curbs, gutters, under- ground drainage, etc., that standard s~all prevail. Short Plat NOI_4.84 ..... 1_06 ________ _ 'r- """ tD ~. .J .. , .... DECLARA~ION OF COVENANT REGARDING USE MID MAINTENANCE OF KItIe; COUNTY IUCHT OF WAY BY ADJACENT pJtOpun elmER In conaideration of approval by King County of a right-of- way uae pe~t for the use of the road right-of-way described below, P<I+:?Y F: -Ress-«NO nv,~(Y Rq.f£ property ovner(a), h.reby covenant and agree a. follows: 1. I/W. are owner. of the following d •• cribed real propert.y: ~4T.S" / 2 .3 ~., 41="'" ~N-" £"'A:J'NJ""Y , # J"-¥QJ2r ,oUl, N'Q. ·~8"'/d~. ~ 2. lIVe have requ.ated i •• uance of a King County right.-~f- If.I CD way uae permit to place the follOWing iIIlprovement., lv'" ,R~'fd y I .. ' ,--.. -'. • 'f' ,.: .... 1n the road rivht-of-vay for the following. J.J.ny Count.y atreet. S. G. 1.3~ ~ .1"7:":..:,. __________________ _ which .erve. the above-described real property. 3. ~e owne~a of the real property deacribed in paragraph 1 hereby a •• ~ ao1. re.pon.ibility for the .~int.nanc. of the improvement deacribed in paragraph 2. t. Bo anlargaaent or alteration of the iaprovement deacribed in paragraph 2 except routine .aintedaDce ia peEmitted without prior appro"al of .:1ng eoa.aty. : 5. fte owner. of the real property deacribed in paragraph 1 ~.r~ hold ItinV Co~~y har..1e •• f~ .11 coata, expena •• , 10 •••• and damag.a, iftcluding the COR of defena. iftcurred a. the re.ult of the exiatence, operetion or uae of the tmprove .. nt de.cribed in paragraph 2. ......... . PMte ~OF..:L , ".,-,:!, • . .,... ·', 6. It i. hareby acknowledged that the inprovement described in paragraph 2 1. located in a King County road right-of-way. In the event .in9 County determines that the aubject road ~i9ht-of-wa] i. needed for public purposes or ha. become a hazard to the aafe public uae of the road right- of-way, King Co~ty may order the owner. of the property described in paragraph 1 to remove, repair or alter •• id improvements at •• id property owner'a expense. Said owners agree to immediately comply with any auch orders • . '. In t.he event that Jt!ng CO\ll'lty determinea that the 1IIlprovements described in paragraph 2 have become a public health or acfety hazard or if the owner. of the real property de.cribed in paragraph.l feil to comply with any King County order i.sued purauant to paragraph 6, King County has the rig~t to remove, repair or alter aaid improvements without notice to .aid owners. Said owners ahall compensate King County for the coata of auch removal, repair or alteration. 8. This agreement is binding upon the heirs, auccessors and a.signs of the owners of the real property described in paragraph 1 and i. a covenant running with the land. AlATED thi. d;5~ rillY gf .... A~p .... (..:.·, .... i ______ ; 1,9~. . . .., ~' ~ " i'1'A'1'E OF WASBING'J'ON ) .) as. Il COUN'l'f OF lUNG ')' I. A4mek... S Clyde: , Notary Public in and for the State of Wa.hington, do hereby certify that on this :2;:s...f.% 48, of 40(, I • 19~, personally appeared befon -be'H~Y F. ~sS eM. d \/;";,,.0, <OS$ , to me known PA6E S" OF 7 -- < r ,. i 1 I , . to be the individual.~ described in and who executed the within instrume'lt and acknowledged t.hat --H'i'd signed the sane as f -+h,',,( free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN UNDER tty llANO Mm OFFICIAL SEAL this 23 rdda~. of ~A~p~f~,I~ _____________ . 19~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF KING to me known to be the ----..... -------------------------------------- ~------------------------------------------~--------------------- of the corporaticn that executed the within and foregoing instr~ent, and aCknowl~dged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation. for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath atated that ___ he __________________________ _ authorized said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate aea1 of said corporation. IN WITNESS WlIEREOr, I have hereunto .et JAy hand and affixed my official seal the day ana year first above written. notary p\iblic in and for the State of wash1n9ton, residing at ________ ..... SHOIlTRR No. -N¥I1Ji, P~E ..LDFL . ; .... . ;.,:." .,' :.-: . ./ : .. ;::. • D [ D teA T I 0 " -·KNOW ALL PEOPLE I' THtSE PRESENTS thlt w, the unders1gn.d cwners of interest in the '.nd hereby short subdi.ided, bereby decllre this short pllt to be the gr.phic representa- tion of the short sUbd1vtston Mdt "'reby, Ind do hereby dedicate to the use of the .public forever III strtlts and I.enues not shown as privlt. hereon Ind dedic.t. the us. thereof for .,1 public purpos.s not inconsistent Mith tfte USI thlreof for public highwlY purposes, Ind 11so thl rtght to .ct. III necISSlry .'opes for cuts Ind ftl1s upon the lots shown thereon in the or1gtnal reasonable fredf", of Iltd Itre.tl Ind 1 •• nUIS, Ind further dedicate to ttl. use of the PdUc III the us ... nts Ind trlctl shown on thts lhort pl.t for ,11 public purposes IS tndiclted thlreon, tnclud1ng but not 11_ited to p.rks. open spice, ut11it1e5 Ind drlinlVl unlels luch 'Isements or tr.cts Ire speciftcal'y 1ndentified on thts short pllt IS being dedicatld or conveYld to I person or entity oth.r than the public. Further, the undersigned owners of the lind hereby short subdi.ided w.ive for thlmsehes. their hlirs Ind Issilns Ind Iny Plrson or .ntity dertving titl. framthl undersigned, .ny .nd III cl.t~ for d ... g.s ig.inst linl County. tts successors Ind Issigns which .. y be occastoned by tbe .stab11shlent, construct1on, or .. tntlnlnCI of ro.ds and/or drltnage systems wtthin this short subdivision other thin cl11ms resulting froM Inadequlte .. inte· r--narlce ~1 ltng Count,r • .... ~f"rt"'r, the undtrsigned owners of the 'and herebl lhort subdhtded Igre. for themselves,-r--the1r heirs and Iss1tns to 1ndem1fy Ind hold 11ng County, tts successors Ind Isstgns, .......... ,." fl"Olll III)' dallatt. includ1nl I", costs of deflnsl, clai.d by persons within or ~wtthOut this short Subdivision to hlVI been caused bl Ilterltions of the ground surflce. !nyegetation. drlinlge, or lurflce or sUb·SUrfICI .. tlr flows witMn this short subdhision ODor ~)' establishment, construction or .. inteninci of the roldS within this short subdivi- sion. Provided, this Wltver alld indemnificltion shill not be cOllstrued IS relels1ng K1ng County, tts luccessors or Isstgns, from lilbility for demlges, tncluding the cost of defense. resulting in whole or 1n Plrt f~ the neglfgence of lfng County. 1ts successors. or Issigns. Th1s subdivision, dedfcltion ... 1ver of cla1 .. and agreement to hold harmless 1s .. de with the fne consent Ind In .ccordlnCt with the desires of Slid owners. 18 WITNESS WHEREOr we •• t our bana. an4 ••• 1 •• • iii //"' I ... ;;::;~-<'as</ $~~ .... I ... I'J'AD or WASBI11G'l'011 » » -. Coaty of _t<~~~ ____ » On tbia "ay penona1ly aw.ar.d before -... fr~;ol\oAol"'-.:5"-ilf.r_...&:.'=~' ~'f?""'O"''':;",S ... 9a,a:llIoIIo¢ ___ ~f" '"::::> c: c:: . Fo';'~no~Q~)bi £h. Ind,vlaual$a •• erlbia In and Wio .a.eu£.a th. wltEIn ana foregolng lnatrWllftt f and acknOwl.dg." ~at $u''I dined the .... a. dGhe:C fr •• and volunta¥r ~et and d •• a, iror £be v ••• and purpo ••• Efi.r.1ft mention.d. GIVEN under ., hand and official •• al till. h 3~ d.y of Aft.', \ f 1'~, Short ,lat .. .J DECLARATION OF EASEMEN'l' \# 10 ,.. 8 30 DIRECTOR RECORDS &. ELECliONS KING c:.:~mi'l'. WA,sH. GRANTORS, GEORGE H. BALES and ALICE C. BALES, his wife. for and In consideration of the mutual benefits of the parties, do hereby grant and convey 1'0 ANDREW H. FORRAS and NANCY L. F'ORRAS, his wife, GRANTEES, an easement for ingress and egress over the following described real estate situated in King County, Washington: That portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears North 87°58'50" West 30.01 feet and North 0002S'SO" East 30.01 feet from the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the said Northwest quarter; thence North 00°28'50. Ea5C 600.33 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 0002Sf50n East 10 feet; thence North 88°04'29" West 152 feet; thence South 00°28'50' West 10 feet; thence South 88°04'29" East 152 feet to che point of beginning, hereinafter referred to as the easement property, subject to the following limitations and covenants: 1. Duration. The easement shall be perpetual. 2. Benefit. The easement shall be for the use and benefit of the Grantees, their successors and assigns of the Grantee's Lnter8st to the following described prvperty. A portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Town- ship 23 North. Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears North 87°58'50" West 30.01 feet and North 00°28'50" East 30.01 feet from the Southeast corner of the Southeast quarter of said North- west quarter; thence North 00°28'50" East 536.54 feet to the point of begin~ing; thence North 88°04'29" West 152 feet; thenc~ :iorth 00°28'50" East 63.79 feet; thence South 88°04'29" East 152 fe~t; thence South 00°28'50" West 63.79 feet to the point of beginning, hereinafter referred to as the benefited property. 3. Use. The easement property shall be used only for ingress and egress to th~ easement property and to the beneiited property- Parking shall be prohibited upor. the ea~ement proper~y . ... :!. . Page One- I 4. Reservations. Grantors reserve for Grantors, their heirs, successors, devisees and assigns, the right to use the easement pro- perty for all purposes not inconsistent with the use for ingress and egress from the ber'·.!fi ted property. 5. Maintenance. Grantees, their successors and assigns, cove- nant and agree, at thei~ sole cost and expense, to maintain the ease- ment property in its present condition or in such improved condition as may be attained in the future, except that the Grantees, their successors and assigns, will not be responsible for repairing or correcting any damage to or destruction of the easement property, or any part thereof, caused by other parties in conjunction with or as a result of services or work performed for the establishment of improvements, which improvements are contracted for, requested or accepted by the Grantors, their heirs, successors, devisees and assigns to the following described property: That portion of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point wh.ich bears North 87 c 58' 50" West 30.01 feet and North 00°28'50" East 30.01 feet from th"" SOl1.rh"~st In]~,..t-'''l-nf' ~.",i(! No.rt-hwest quarter~ Thence North 00°28'50" East·600.33 feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing North 00°28' 50" East. 30.01 feet;; thence North 88°04'29" West 1,248.44 feet: thence South 00°23'52" West 157.07 feet; thence South 88 c 03'05" East 1,096.22 feet; thence North 00°28'50" East 121.52 feet; thence South 88°04'29" East to the West margin of 156th Avenue Southeast, a distance of 152 feet, to the point of beginning. 1976. ,-, ~W) "tl Andrew H. Forras " ,.. I') i I tl. ~ L r Nancy L. i:'orr as Alice C. Bales STATE OF WASHINGTON 55. COUNTY OF KING On thi5~day of November, 1976, before me, the undersigned, Page Two a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commission- ed and sworn, personally appeared GEORGE H. BALES and ALICE C. BALES, his wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing Declaration of Easement, and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the said instrwnent as their free and voluntary Rct and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } ss. COUNTY OF KING } - '. . " I,· '\ ,...... ~ _....t: 'r'; -• .-\ .'\~ > . .. Notary \p~biic in and for the State' of '.' Washington, residing at Kin~f: G..()l3n~y,. • ~ : f • ... ' .. ; ... :;" ... , , I, , , ' .. -. I . On this.;(·~ay of November, 1976, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ANDREW H. FORRAS and NANCY L. FORRAS', his wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing Declaration of Easement, and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the said instrument as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal h'ereto affixed the day and year in this certificate first above written. Page Three Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at' King couni:y.,; . J: I· ,. , , :", (,' <, ., ".-'." 'I • • -". ". J. ORIGINAL EASEMENT Ft., and In ronsldero1li,.n of One Dollar (SI.Oo) and other "aluahle wnM,krillHm. (he re(rll" ,,' "'hl(h I' herr"~ aC!:;JIl\l,·lcdgcd. DEWEY F. ROSS and VIVIAN M. ROSS, husband and wife, (-Granlllr-hrrtinl. hereby grolnts. "onwys and warrants 10 1'l'GEr SOl'~1> rOWER & U(iH'1 COM P:\\ \'. a Wa,hinJllon corporation (-Gramee-herein). for the rlUrpo~ herrinalter ".,-tl""h. a perpcllm' ca'l'ment ",·cr. aaus. and undrr Ihl' followinr. described ~a' properl)' (Ihe -Proptrt~·" herrin) in KinSl ('"unly. Washin~lon: 85/0:>01 SEE EXHIBIT "An ATTACHED HERETO REeD F CASHSl ""'''''*5. 00 55 1 % EXCISE TAX NOT P.EOi.i!;-·~~ Ki~s Co R~r.Clj5 i~'.: '.lI 8y d IZL Ul4L/ Ex~pt as l1llIy bl' otherwise sct fonh hc:rein Grantee·s rights shalt !;c cxerdscd upon Ihal portion of the Properly llhe -Right-of·Way" herein) desl:Tibcd as follows: A Right-of-Way ten (lO) feet in widlh having five (5) feet of such width on each side of n centerline described as follows: The centerline of Grantee's facilities as constructed or to be constructed, extended, or relocated, lying within the above described Parcel C and within the South five (5) feet of the above described Parcel A. ::Oco ::r ~-< ~ :xg'--l ~;~~~ -. 0=--~ f'..: _t·. , . . : . -E OF' FIU::D FOR RECORD ATJl~ ~ . r':'::"~~i~;J~}t~gN :. ~~ ~, L;;-CEVU::'. WAStitt .. GTON ~­ "'--GHBOPSIhmI: ATIENTION: ~!1'll" I. PIII'pOR. Gramee shall have the right to construct. oprrate. mainlain. repair. ~place and enlarge ulle or more ele.."tric transmission and lor distribution lines O\'Cr andi or under the Right-of-Way togethc:r with all necessary or convenient appurtenances thereto. which may include but are not limited to the following: a. Oy~d r.cilities.. Poles and/or towers with crossanns. braces. guys and anchors. electric trnnsmission and distribution lines; communication and signal lines; transformers. b. UnderpoUltd fadlitilS. Underground conduits. cables. vauUs. manholes. switches and transforrnrrs; semi- buried or ground mounted facilities such as pads. transformers and switches, Following the initial construction ofits facilities. Grantee may from ti~ to ti~ construct such additional lines nnd other facilities as it may require. 2. Access. Grantee shall have the right of access to the Right-of-Way ever and across the Property tOl'nable Grantee to exercise it rights hereunder, provided. that Grantee shall compensate Grantor for any damage to thr Property caused.by the exercise of said right of access. 3, Cuttinl of Trees. Grantee shall have the right 10 cut or trim any and all brush or trees standing or growing upon the Right-of-Way, and also the right to cut or trim any trees upon the Property which. in falli!!!;, COUld. in Grantee's reasonable judgement, be a hazard to Grantee"! faCilities. - 4. Grantor's _ of Ript-or·W.y. Grantor reserves the right 10 usc the Right-of-Way for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights herein granted. provided. that Grantor shall not construct or maintain any building or 01 her strueture on the Right-of-Way and Grantorshalldo no blastingwithinJOO feel ofGrantee's facilities without Grantee's prior written consent. 5. Indemnity. By accc:ptingand ~ording this casement. Granteeagrees to indemnify and hold harmless Grantorfrom any and all claims for injuries and/ or damages suffered by any person which may be caused by the Grantee's exercise of the righls herein granted; provided. that Grantee shall not be responsible 10 Grantor for any injuria and; or damages to any person caused by acts or omissions of Grantor. 6. Abuldonment. The rights hereinsranted shall continue umil such time as Grantee ceases to use the: Right-of-Way for a prriod of five (5) successive yean. in which event this casement shan te:rminate and all nghts hereunder shall reven to Grantor. provided.lhat no abandonmentshall he deemed to have occurred by reason ofC,ral\tec's failure 10 initially install its facilities on the Right.of.Way within any period of time from the dale hereof. R-2086 K .... " "',-14 81."Z1t..1.1 ~"~-.'f ,~<' to· > -- 8 .. 7, Su","_ and A_IIII. rh" rilth!> and ubhplions or Ih" panl~ ,hall inurt h' Ihr !><-nrfilol and be: bindinlt uflOn' Ihell r~~rel;i\" 'UCl"'C""'''' and as.~lgll.S. STATEOFWASHIl\'-TON I ~~~ SS _ -. .......,.~ ..... COUl\:TY OF ) n. v"J' a. ;::---"'':JI~::.:'.LJ'' ~ On ("j:; day pc~onally appeaRd before me (,rFt.ut'V E ITOs, ,.. t'l'4%~M ~.\ III nl<" known 10 b~~indiVIdUal2-desCril?FJ.l i~ and "ho elleculed Ihe \\ilhin and foreg.>l1'1& .i~irumei;lt; .~\ '\ a.:kn?wlclged lhal signed Ihe same as~(ree and voluntary a~1 and dc:nl iorlhe US,'lO and jlu~ Ih~qJ. '. m~ntll~nC'd. ... " .., . po> ; ,/I -t';$-~, ;::t: GIVEN under mv hand and ofli.;al seal this ~day 01 __ t-J ~, . j . ': ~:.~~~-:.:> ... / c STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 55 COU:'I:TY OF ) On Ihis day personally ap~an:d before me _________________________ _ to me known to be Ihe indi\'idual __ described in and who executed Ihe uitbin and foregoing inslrumenl. and acknowledged Ihat ___ signed the 53me as ___ free and voluntary act and dt'ed for the uses and purpose" therein mentioned. GIVE:-.I under my hand and official seal this ___ da)' of _______________ • 19 ___ . STATE OF WASHISGTON ) SS COUNTY OF ) Notary Public in and for the Slate of Washington. residing at CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT On IbilSc ___ ,day of _____ -'-___ _ • 19 ___ • before me, the undersigned. personally appeared ________________________________________ -aand ______________________________________ _ to me known to be the and . res~C1i\'ely, of ________________ ......;. ___________ the corporation that executed Ihe foregoing instrument. and acJcnowledged the said instrument to be thefree and voluntary act and deed of said corporation. for the U5<.'S and purposes therein mentioned. and an oath stated that ' authoriud to ~lIecute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. Witness my hand and offICial seal hereto affixed Ibe day and year first abo\'e wrinen. Notary Public in and for the Slate of Washington. residing at Ross R-2086 PARCEL A: EXHIBIT "A" That portion of 'he Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 14. Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King county, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at. a point North 0°28'02" West 30 feet and North 8a055'44" West 30 feet from the center of said Section 14: thence continuing parallel to the South line of said Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter, North 88°55'44" West 1247.10 feet to the East line of the West 30 feet of said subdivision; thence parallel to the West line of said Southeast quarter of the Northwest q~arter, North 0°33'02" West 157.07 feet: thence Soutt. Qa057'17" East 1247.34 feet at a point North 002a'02" West from the Point of Beginning; thence parallel to the East line of said Southeast quar~er of the Northwest quarter, South 002a'02" East 157.51 feet to the Point of Beginning: EXCEPT the East 150 feet thereof. PARCEL B: ----- The west 30 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., inKing County, Washington: EXCEPT the North 187.07 feet thereof. PARCEL C: The South 30 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, TOwnship 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof. ~ KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE THEUIVDERSIGNED-1.:lo,vJ ... dte.'1ItA-T ~ r,ffln../( B/CtA~T (husband and wile), owners of the following described real property In King County, Washlnglon, 10 wit: (insert legal description) . ... 4( c. !} ~ .'l l" ." ~ l" IU ~ (.) :.., ... 3: N ~ = il) C!) oc 14 """J !l"" o~ $? ~-~.~.~ lr. ~::;@ In .:::: ,.J·~ou 'd~C!) .:-:::; =:.~=: E !-!3!a: ...... ~.) ~ Ul'"-' r.::: :;·;·-·(t"· ." :;·I$i·f~L ".!.'II • "t ....... -;-.. (tc. For and in consideration of King County Water District No. 90. King County. Washington, herelnaller called District, granting permission to connect a private temporary line to said property, does hereby agree as 'ollows: 1. USES: Water Service shall be for one single family home. 2. EASEMENTS: The Owner shall obtain from others at his sote cosl, all easements which may be necessary for the installation 01 the temporary service line; and il required by the District as part of the consideratiOn for said permission, the underslglled shall gran1 and convey to the District easements over, Ihrough, under and across the above described property for water mains and appurtenances forthe implementation 01 the comprehensive plan or for the Improvement of the water supply of the system of thE' Dislrict 3. COSTS: The undersigned agree to pay the following costs: a) meter and ser/icG installation charge b) general tacillly charge S _ ... 3:...<1_:S"--~,,,.0~ __ _ S 100.0C:> c) special temporary service charge S -'::l=.,::t'c...0_.D_ O ___ _ These charges mllst be paid prior to the District providing any service. (Installation of me!er, et eel era) 4. TERM -LENGTH· OF AGREEMENT: This temporary service agreement. and the temporary service provided hereby, shall terminate at such time as the DistrIct has permanent water main service available for Ihe property here in question; PROVIDED. that Ihe undersigned shall be entilled to thirty (39) days' notice of the lerminallon of said agreement 5. PERMANENT WATER MAIN: At such time as the District has available 10 lhe u.ldersioned's property, water service from a permanent main. the undersigned shall conneclto said main; and at such lime, pay 10 the District Ihe prorata cost 0' l!airi main which is properly allocated to his property and shall further pay the cost 01 movir.g the meter from its orlglnallocalion to connect to the new water main. log ether with the cost 0' connection. It is agreed and understood that the cost 0' such fulure main shall include the Installation and construction expense 01 said maIn, the Dlst:ict's administrative overhead charge of ~% the engineerIng and legal expenses attributed to such main conslruction; pursuant to Resolution No. 262. Resolution No. 352 and Resolution No. 357. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION PROVtSIONS: That attar:hed hereto is an acknowl- edgement by the owner-appliclnt that the lemporary water service may not be consistent with the King Count~ Fire Code Ordinances in providing adequate. waler flow for fire prolection, 7. TERMINATION: tlthis agreement is notfulfilled by the underslgnedwllhin nlnety(90) daysfrom the dateol its execution, then the Agreement shall beCome null and void and the application lee, to be distinguished from the costs provided 'or In paragraph 3 above, shall become the property of the Dislrlct and all rights 01 the owner and/or undersigned shall be terminated. :0._ ... -_.-.. '~ 'Sn-ers i. . .1. 8. TITLE-PAR1"Ij':'S BOUN D BY THIS AGREEMeNT: This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon the undersigned. any and all successors In inlerest, heirs. personal represenlalives, assigns. rentors. and lessors. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement the _--'Z=--__ ,dayof 11e,e,' L .1983. :~ ./ ,-. -I KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 I I ' By : .f: :-.---- DISTRICT MATE OF WASHINGTON) ~un:y of King ) S5 ~. On this day personally appeared before me _~d-J'l ry J fA /0/ Jt,.o f( 13 If Y .fiA. r . Nme known to be the indlvidual(s) described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument and acknowledged !~Slgned same as~free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. ~EN under my hand and official seal this -~ A~ ~d~~r~~.e· ~ . . 19B.£:. /0 ~LL&L1r't.( STATE: OF WASHINGTON) County of King NOTARY PUBLIC in and for e State of Washin9.!On. residing at 11$ Ii oS/:: 13<'!T" R ... .;JE", On this day personally appeared before me -E, 0 no If S , d.511-JIM -fLo h t! c.c • \0 me known to be the President and Secrelary respectively of KING COUNTY WATEa DISTRICT 90, and acknowledged that they were authorized to execute the within Instrument on the District's behall,thatthey execute same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GtVEN under my hand and ollieal seal this ---~ -.... ..:.:.~ -.:'~ ".:, -', . ; ",,' .... '." ~ . . ,-JU~t;2~; ,,"O,.l:Jotl.t !'JU~I.II 'IN DI".IUNG IMIIQft !tAl' • 9 -.... /5'Z "''''e Sot NOIT" . SCALI: 1M • ~ . ~ .. OP~RK " .j o $O/,-L06-'-. :-~ ' .. . f; ., '-i ., i! -i1 .. ~~ I ~I ' .. ... ~ i'" I i I' 0 ,j .... ~ i N ! ~ 0 'j CO C» GO > " ;. ;. ~ ':-"- C'\) I :: 'J' t ; . . .I ~ 'v ~ I I ~ r I .--. Ja.~~~~· . L-'1& : . _---_ ..... .. ........ _ ...... _- •• : .j ".J!_i c:: CERTfICAlE I. the c=;:!:rsigned, ~ Clerk of the City of Ranton, Wa3hington. certify that this Is a true and correct copy of~~"""':;~'-X..JJIi."""' __ _ Subscribed and Seal ~ CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 4612 All 0ltDIDJ.fCE OF TIIB cr.t"!' OF Rli:N'l'OR, WASJlIlICilTOIr I BSTABLXSBmQ .Ali ASSESSJID'l' DJ:snl:CT POll SAR:n'ARY SBIfD. SERVl:CK m A POlt".rl:OR' OJ' THE SOUTl[ Hl:GBLMmS, BBA"l'BBIl DOMBS, AND DPLEllOOD SUB-BASms Al1D :&:STABL:tSBDrG 'l'BB AIIOOBT 0:1' '!'BE CBAllGB UPON commcTl:ON TO TQ J'ACU.%TZXS. THB CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTQN. DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SBCTJ:ON I. There is hereby created a Sanitary Sewer Service· Special Assessment District for the area served by. the Bast Renton Sanitary Sewer Intercepto~ in the northeast quadrant of the City of Renton and. a portion of its urban growth area within unincorporated Xing County, which area is more particulatly described in Exhibit "'AN attached hereto. A map of the service area is attached as Exhibit "'B. Ir The recording of this document is to provide notification of potential connection and interest charges. While this connection charge may be paid at any time, the , City does not require payment until such time as the parce1 is connected to and thus benefiting from the sewer faciliti.es. The property may be sold or in any other way change hands without triggering the requirement, by the City, of payment of the charges associated with this district. SBCnQIJ :tI. Persons connecting to the sanitary sewer facilities in this Special Assessment District and which properties .... fS x; -c:!:. ~ '" -i i ~ ~ ...... ~ ~ .... -< fl!: I c::a = -.,j r-:IC .... ; ~ I 8 r , ~ I I t 1i .. ~ :; ~ ~ ., li ~ , J ! I I I i I I • l j ORDINANCE 4612 have not been charged or assessed with all costs of the East Renton Sanitary Sewer Interceptor, as detailed in this ordinance, shall pay, in addition to the payment of the connection permit fee and in addition to the system development charge, the following additional fees: A. Per unit Charge. New connections of residential dwelling units or equiva1ents shall pay a fee of $224.52 per dwelling unit and all other uses shall pay a Wlit charge of $0.069 per square foot of property. Those properties included within this Special Assessment District and which may be assessed a charge thereunder are included within the boundary legally described in Exhibit "AD and which boundary is shown on the'~~ attached as Exhibit ~B.· SECTIQN Xi:r. In addition to· the aforestated charges I there shall be a charge of 4.11% per annum added to the Per Unit Charge. The . interest charge shall accrue for no more than ten (lO) years from the date this ordinance becomes effective. Interest charges will be simple interest and not compound interest. SECTION IV. This ordinance shall be e!fe,ctive upon its passage, approva~, and thirty (30) days after publication'. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this·~ day Of __ ~J~u~n~e~ ___ L_ 1996 . 2 • : •. J . • ." _ .• _1 .. OItDINANCE 4612 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 10th day of __ J_u __ ne ___________ , 1996. APpro~ as to form: oC~~~Qt- Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 6/14/96 ORD.576:5/20/96;as. 3 i 1 t I • 1 , ; Ii I 1 .L a f __ PC 4. ...::+.4 P.;P Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRiCT FOR THE CITY OF RENTON -EAST RENTON INTERCEPTOR Portions of Sections 8,9. 10. 11. 14. 15. 16.17,21 and 22 an in Township 23N. ~e 5E W.M. in King Counqr. Washington Section 8, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. All of'that portion of Section 8, Township 23N. Range 5E W.M. lying East of the East right-of-way line of SR-405 and South of the following described line: ~ at the intersection of the East line of said Section 8 with the centerline of NE 7th Street: thence Westerly along said centerline of NE 7th Street to its intersection with the centerline of Sunset Boulevard NE; thence Northerly along the centerline of Sunset Boulevard NE to the North line of the Southeast 1A of said Section 8; thence West along said North line to the East right-of-way line of SR-405 and the terminus of said line. Section 9, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. All of that portion of Section 9, Township 23N. Range 5E W.M. lying South and East of the following described line: . Beginning on the centerline of·NE 7th Street at its intersection with the centerline cf EA"nO~S Avenue NE; &...ence Easterly alcng 't-"l-Je· cen.ter1..!!:'~ ~f NF 7th ~t to its intersection with the centerline of Monroe Avenue NE; thence North along said centerline to the South line of the Northeast ~ of said Section 9; thence East along sald South line to its intersection with the centerline of Redmond Avenue NE; thence Northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of NE 10th Street; thence East along said centerline to the East line of said Section 9 and the terminus of said line. Seet10n 10, Townshlp23N, R.ange SEW.M. All of that portion of Section 10. Township 23N. Range 5E W.M. Iy.tng Southerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the West line of Section 10 at its intersection with the North line of the South Y.2 of the North 112 of said Section 10; thence East along said North line to its Intersection with the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; thence Southerly along saki centerline to its intei"section with the North line of the Southeast JA of said Section 10; thence East along said North line to its intersection with the East line of said Section 10 and the terminus of said line. I I i I I 4. ...... !JIE'L! • _. Legal Description of the Special Assessment District for the City 0[ Renlon -East Renton Intercepter Section 11, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. All of the Southwest ~ of Section 11. Township 23N. Range 5E W.M.. Section 14, Township 23N, Range 6E W.M. Page2of3 An of that portion of Section 14. Township 23N. Range 5E. W.M. descnbed as follows: All of the Northwest 14 of said section. together with the Southwest ¥I of said section. except the South ~ of the Southeast ~ of said Southwest 14 and exCept the plat of Mclntire Homesites and ~ of streets adjacent as recorded in the Book of Plats. Volume 58, Page 82. Records of King County, Washington. and except the South 151.55 feet of the East 239.435 feet of Tract 6. Block 1 of Cedar River Five .Acre Tracts as recorded in the Book of Plats. Volume 16. Page 52. Records of King County. Washington, less ~ of the street abutting said partlon of 'Tract 6, Block 1, and less Tract 6, Block 2 of said Cedar RIver Five Acre 1iacts. l~ lh of the street adjacent to said Tract 6, Block 2. and except the South 82.785 feet of the East 150 feet of Tract 5, Block 2 of said Cedar River Five Acre Tracts and less lh the street adjacent to said portion of Tract 5. Block 2. Section 15, Township 23N, Range 5E W~M. All of that portion of Sectlon 15, Township 23N. Range 5E. W.M .• except the Southwest ~ of the Southwest ~ of the Southwest ¥I of said section. Section 16, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. All tif that portion of Section 16. Township 23N. Range 5E W.M .• except that portion of the Southeast lA of the Southeast ~ of the said Section 16ly.ing East of the East line of the PIat of Maplewood Division No. 2 as recorded in the Book of Plats Volume 39. page 39. Records of King County Washington and its Northerly extension to the North line of said Southeast ~ of the Southeast 1,4 of the said Section 16 and except that portion of said section lying Southerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway). I Section 17, Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. ,. .All of that portion of Section 11. Township 23N, Range 5E W.M .• lying Northeasterly of the Northeasterly right-of-way of SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway) and Easterly of the East right-of-way line of SR-405 less that portion lying genemlly West of the East and Southeasterly line of Bronson Way NE lying i • I 1 ! . t .. '.-- Legal Description. of the Spedtzl Assessment District for the City of Renton -East Rmton Interceptor Page3of3 between the South line of the NE 3rd Street and the Northeasterly margin of SR- 405. Section 21 J Township 23M, Range 5E W.M. All that portion of Section 21. Township 23N, R 5E W.M. lying Northeasterly of the Northeasterly right-of-way line of SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway) and West of the .East line of the Plat of Maplewood Division No. 2 as recorded in the Book of Plats. volume 39, page 39. Records of King County. Washington. SeCtIon 22, Township 23M, Range 5E W.M. An of that portion of Section 22. Township 23N, Range 5E W.M. described as follOWs: . All of the Northwest 1A of the Northeast ~ of said Section 22 lying Northerly of the Southerly line of the Plat of Maplewooc;l Heigh~ as recorded in the Book of Plats. volume 78. pages 1 through 4. Records crRing Count;y. Washington. ; Together with the North 227.11 feet of the west 97.02 of the Northeast ~ of the Northeast ~ of said Section 22. I I I J I i I Exhibit B EAST RENTON INTERCEPTOR Special Assessment District Boundary e SANTARY SEWERS +MD+ ~Warb ~ ChrktenMn,MacOnie.Vbneski 20 May 1996 -1 :24,000 ------City Limi'. lZT.Z..7.J Special Assessment Distrkt ~ThiS instrumen~t prepare~d by a,,"-------nd "'----111--1---1---1---1-1-1--1---1---1---1-----I----I--I--I-l-after recording return to: Vincent A. Jaramillo ~~~A~:~~________ ~!!~$.~!400!t!51 PORTLAND OR 97228-5308 :'~:'~0'S 11 :47 KING COUNTY, IJA 1226475483 WASHINGTON DEED OF TRUST, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND LEASES (INCLUDING FIXTURE FILING UNDER UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE) 20050914000851.001 Granlor(s): Burns tead Cons truc tion Co. Grantees: U. S _ BANK N. A.. as Beneficiary CHICAGO TITLE INS. cfiJ!; REF' 7/a c2 7z£x 7t) Jl'.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY. N.A •• as Trustee Legal Description: Lot 1 KCSP #618063R. REC #78121108.57: and PORTION S:EQ NWO SECTION 14-23-5. ______________________________ (Additional on page 2) Assessor's Tax Parcel or Account Number:Parcel A-14230S-9110-00 and Parcel B-14230S-9083-03 Reference Number of documents assigned or released: NOT APPLICABLE This Washington Deed of Trust, Security Agreement and Assignment of Rents and Leases(lncluding Fixture Filing Under Uniform Commercial Code) ("Deed of Trust ") is made and entered into by the undersigned borrower(s). guarantor(s)andlor other obligor(s)/pledgor(s) (collectively the "Grantor") in favor of Jl.....S. BANK TRtl~t'r .... __ _ COMPANY, N.A. • having a mailing addres§!i!i SW OAK, PORTLAND, OR _97_"?~4 ____ ' _____ ." ____ ._. __ : _________ . _________ . ________ . __ . ______ (the "Trustee", for !he~~nefilof U. S. BANK N. A. (the "Beneficiary'). as of the date set forth below. ARTICLE I. CONVEY ANCEIMORTGAGED PROPERTY 1.1 Grant of Deed of Trust/Security Interest. IN CONSIDERATIONOF FIVE DOLLARS ($5_00) cash in hand paid by the Trustee to the Grantor, and the financial accommodations from the Beneficiary to the Grantor as described below, the Grantor has bargained, sold. conveyed and confirmed. and hereby bargains, sells. conveys and confirms, unto Trustee, ils successors and assigns, for the benefit of the Beneficiary.the Mortgaged Property (defined below) 10 secure all of ttie Granlor's Obligations (defined below) to the Beneficiary. The inlent of the parties hereto is that the Mortgaged Property secures all Obligations of the Grantor to the Beneficiary. whether now or hereafter existing, between the Grantor and the Beneficiary or inlavor of the Beneficiary. including. wilhoullimitation, the Note (as herein defined) and, except as otherwise specifically provided herein, any loan agreement, guaranty, mortgage. trust deed. lease or other agreement, document or instrument, whether or not enumerated herein. which specifically evidences or secures any of the indebtedness evidenced by the Note (together and individually, the "Loan Documents")_ The parties further intend that this Deed of Trust shall operate as a security agreementwilh respect to those portions of the Mortgaged Property which are subject to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. 1.2 "MortgagedProperty"means all of the following, whethernow owned or existing or hereafter acquired by the Grantor, wherever located: all the real estate described below or in Exhibit A attached trereto (the "Land"). together with all buildings, structures, standing timber, timber to be cut, fixtures, eqUipment, inventory and furnishings used in connection with the Land and improvements; all materials, contracts, drawings and personal property relating to any construction on the Land; and all other improvements now or hereaflerconstructed, affixed or localed thereon (the "Improvements') (the Land and the Improvements collectively the "Premises"); TOGETHER with any and all easements,rights-of-waY,licenses, privileges, and appurtenances thereto, and any and all leases or other agreements for the use or occupancy of the Premises, all the rents, issues, profits or any proceeds therefrom and all security deposits and any guaranty of a tenant's obligations thereunder (collectively the "Rents"); all awards as a result of 17140WA Q us bancorp 2001 81 Page 1 of 9 6/03 20050914000851.00: condemnation, eminent domain or other decrease in value of the Premises and all insurance and other proceeds of the Premises. The Land is described as follows (or in Exhibit A hereto if the description does not appear below): See Attached Exhibit A 1.3 'ObligationS' means all loans by the Beneficiary to Bumstead Construction Co. _____________________ including those loans evidenced by a note or notes dated _O=-8~/2;:;..:;..9'_/.;;.O=5 ________________________ , in the initial principal amount(s) of $1,820,000.00 and any extensions, renewals, restatements and modifications thereof and all principal, interest, fees and expenses relating thereto (the "Note"): and also means all the Grantor's debts, liabilities, obligations, covenants, warranties, and duties to the Beneficiary, whether now or hereatterexlsting or incurred, whether liquidated or unliquidated, whether absolute or contingent, which arise out of the Loan Documents, and principal, interest, fees, expenses and charges relating to any of the foregoing, including, without limitation, costs and expenses of collection and enforcement of this Deed of Trust, and attorneys' fees of both inside and outside counsel. The interest rate and maturity of such Obligations are as described in the documents creating the indebtedness secured hereby. 1.4 Homestead. The Premises are not the homestead of the Grantor. If so, the Grantor (are)(are not) releases and waives aU rights under and by virtue of the homestead exemption laws of the State of Washington. 1.5 Deed of Trust Secures Commercial Loan. The Grantor and the Beneficiary hereby agree that the Obligations secured by this Deed of Trust constitute a commercial loan and are not made primarily for personal, family or household purposes. 1.6 Mortgaged Property Not Agricultural Property. The Grantor hereby represents and warrants that the 1":0, 'Yd;';:::U-Frupeiiy is nol used primariiy 'jor agricultural p.irpOScl's. - 1.7 Deed of Trust Does Not Secure Envlronmentallndemnities. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herei,) or in any other Loan Document, this Deed of Trust shall not secure the obligations of the Grantor or any other Obligor under that certain Unsecured Real Estate Environmental Indemnity dated as of even date herewith made by the Grantorin favor of the Beneficiary(the "Environmentallndemnity Agreement') or the substantial equivalent of the obligations arising uncler the Environmental Indemnity Agreement. All of such obligations (and the substantial equivalents thereof) shall constitute the separate, unsecured, full recourse obligations of the Grantor and any other obligor identified therein and shall not be deemed to be evidenced by the Note or secured by this Deed of Trust. 1.8 Construction Loan. 0 If checked here, this Deed of Trust secures an obligation incurred for the construction of an improvement on land, including the acquisition cost of the land. ARTICLE II. WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS In addition to all other warranties and covenants of the Grantor under the Loan Documents which are expressly incorporated herein as part of this Deed of Trust, including the covenants to pay and perform all Obligations, and while any part of the credit granted the Grantor uncler the Loan Documents is available or any Obligations of the Grantor to the Beneficiary are unpaid or outstanding, the Grantor continuously warrants to the Beneficiary and the Trustee and agrees as follows: 2.1 Warranty of Title/Possession. The G rantor warrants that it has sole and exclusive title to and possession of the Premises, excepting only the following 'Permitted EncumbranceS': restrictions and easements of record, and zoning ordinances (the terms of which are and will be complied with, and in the case of easements, are and will be kept free ot encroachm ents), taxes and assessments not yet due and payable and those Perm illed Encumbrances set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto (except that if no Exhibit B is attached, there will be no additional Permitted Encumbrances). The lien of this Deed of Trust, subject only to Permitted Encumbrances, is and will continue to be a 1714DWA Page 2 of 9 20050914000851.00: valid first and only lien upon all of the Mortgaged Property. 2.2 Maintenance; Waste; Alteration. The Grantor will maintain the Premises in good and tenantable condition and will restore or repla¢e damaged or destroyed improvements with items of at least equal utility and value. The Grantor will not commit or permit waste to be committed on the Premises. The Grantor will nol remove. demolish or materially alter any part ot the Premises without the Beneficiary's prior written consent. except the Grantor may remove a fixture, provided the fixture is promplly replaced with another fixture of at least equal utility. The replacement fixture will be subject to the priority lien and security of this Deed of Trust. 2.3 Transfer and Liens. The Grantorwill not, without the prior written consent of the Beneficiary, which may be withheld in the Beneficiary's sole and absolute discretion, either voluntarily or involuntarily (a) sell, assign. lease or transfer. or permit to be sold, assigned, leased or-transferred, any part of the Premises, or any Interest therein; or (b) pledge or otherwise encumber, create or permit to exist any mortgage, pledge, lien or claim for lien or encumbrance upon any part of the Premises or interest therein, except for the Permitted Encumbrances. Beneficiary has not consented and will not consent to any contract or to any work or to the furnishing of any materials which might be deemed to create a lien or liens superior to the lien of this Deed of Trust. 2.4 Escrow. Afterwritlen request from the Beneficiary, the Grantor will pay to the Beneficiary sufficient funds at such time as the Beneficiary designates, to pay (a) the estimated annual real estate taxes and assessments on the Premises;and (b) all property or hazard insurance premiums when due. Interestwill not be paid by the BeneHciaryon any escrowed funds. Escrowed funds may be commingled with other funds of the Beneficiary. All escrowed funds are hereby pledged as additional security for the Obligations. 2.5 Taxes, Assessments and Charges. To the extent not paid to the Beneficiary under 2.4 above, the Grantor will pay before they become delinquent a1llaxes, assessments and other charges now or hereafter levied or assessed against the Premises, against the Beneficiarybased upon this Deed of Trust or the Obligations secured by this Deed of Trust, or upon the Beneficiary's interest in the Premises, and deliver to the Beneficiary receipts showing timely payment. 2.6 Insurance. The, Grantor will continually insure the Premises agaInst such perils or hazards as the Beneficiary may require, in amounts; with acceptable co-insurance provisions, not less than the unpaid balance of the Obligations or the full replacement value of the Improvements, whichever is less. The poliCies will contain an agreement by each insurer that the policy will not be terminated or modified without at least thirty (30) days' prior wrltlen notice to the Beneficiary and will contain a mortgage clause acceptable to the Beneficiary; and the Grantor will take such other action as the BenefICiary may reasonably request to ensure that the Beneficiary will receive (subject to no other interests)the insurance proceeds from the Improvements. The Grantor hereby assigns all Insurance proceeds to and irrevocably directs. while any Obligations remain unpaid, any insurer to pay to the BenefICiary the proceeds of all such insurance and ai'lY j:>fl::fffiiUli. refund; ana aumCiizas loe t3eneficiaryto endorse the Grantor's namS to .. rjecll,.G: same. to make; adjust or settle, in the Grantor's name, any claim on any insurance policy relating to the Premises. The proceeds and refunds will be applied in such manner as the Beneficiary, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines to rebuilding of the Premises or to payment of the Obligations, whether or not then due and payable. 2.7 Condemnation. Any compensation received for the taking of the Premises, or any part thereof. by a condemnation proceeding (Including payments in compromise of condemnation proceedings), and all compensation received as damages for injury to the Premises, or any part -thereof. shall be applied in such manner as the Beneficiary, in Its sole and absolute discretion, determines to rebuilding of the Premises or to payment of the Obligations, whether or 90t then due and payable. . 2.8 Assignments. T:he Grantorwill not assign, in whole or in part, without the Beneficiary's prior wriltenconsent. the rents, issues or profits arising from the Premises. I 2.9 Right of Inspect'lon. The Beneficiarymay at all reasonable times enter and inspecl the Premises. 2.10 Waivers by G~ntor. To the greatest extant that such rights may then be lawfuDy waived, the Grantor hereby agrees for itself a:nd any persons claiming under the Deed of Trust that it will waive and will not. at any time, insist upon or plead or irl any manner whatsoeverclaim or take any benefit or advantage of (a) any exemption, stay. extension or moratorium!law now or at any time hereafter in force; (b) any law now or hereafter in force providing for the valuation or apprais~ment of the Premises or any part thereof prior to any sale or-$8les thereof to be made pursuant to any provisio~ herein contained or pursuant to the decree, judgment or order of any court of competent jurisdiction; (c) to tha ex~ent permitted by law, any law now or at any time hereafter made or enacted granting a right to redeem from foreclosure or any other rights of redemption in connection with foreclosure of, or exercise of any power of sale under, this Deed of Trust; (d) any statute 0' limitations now or at any time hereafter in force; or (e) any right to require marshalling of assets by the Beneficiary. 1714DWA Page 3 019 :! 20050914000851.00. 2.11 Assignment of Rents and Leases. The Grantor assigns and transfers to the Beneficiary, as additional securilyfor the Obligations, all right, title and interest of the Grantor in and to all teases which now exist or hereafter may be executed by or on behalf of the Grantor covering the Premises and any extensions or renewals thereof, together with all Rents, it being intended that this is an absolute and present assignment of the Rents. Notwithstanding that this assignment constitutes a present assignment of leases and rents, the Grantor may collect the Rents and manage the Premises, but only If and so long as a default has not occurred. If a default occurs, the right of Grantor to collect the Rents and to manage the Premises shall thereupon automatically terminate and such right, together with other rights, powers and authorizations contained herein, shall belong exclus[vely to the Benefic[ary. This assignment confers upon the BenefiCiary a power coupled with an interest and cannot be revoked by the Grantor. Upon the occurrence of a default, the BenefiCiary, at its option Without notice and without seeking or obtaining the appointment of a receiver or taking actual possession of the Premises may (a) give notice to any tenant(s) that the tenant(s) should begin making payments under their lease agreement(s) directly to the Beneficiary or its designee; (b) commence a foreclosure action and file a motion for appointment of a receiver; or (e) give notice to the Grantor thaI the Grantor should collect all Rents arising from the Premises and remil them to the Beneficiary upon collection and that the Grantorshould enforce the terms of the lease{s)to ensure prompt payment by tenant(s) under the lease(s). AU Rents received by the Grantor shall be held in trust by the Grantorfor the Beneficiary. All such payments received by the BenefiCiary may be applied in any manner as the Beneficiary determines to payments required under this Deed of Trust, the Loan Documents and the Obligations. The Grantor agrees to hold each tenant harmless from actions relating to tenant's payment of Rents to the Beneficiary. 2.12 Fixture Filing. From the date of Its recording, this Deed of Trust shall be effective as a financing statement filed as a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code with respect to the Improvements and for this purpose the name and address of the debtor is the name and address of the Grantor as set forth in this Deed of Trust and the name and address of the secured party is the name and address of the Benefic[ary as set forth in this Deed of Trust. The Mortgaged Property includes goods which are or may become so affixed to real property as to become fixtures. If any of the Mortgaged Property is of a nature such that a security interesttherein can be perfected under the Uniform Commercial Code, this Deed of Trust shall also constitute the grant of a security interest to the Beneficiary and serve as a Security Agreement, and Grantor authorizes the filing of any financing statements and agrees to execute other instruments that may be required for the further specification, perfection or renewal of such security interest. ARTICLE III. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE BENEFICIARY In addition to all other rights (including setoff) and duties of the Beneficiary under the Loan Documents which are expressly incorporated herein as a part of this Deed of Trust, the following provisions will also apply: 3.1 Beneficiary Authorizedto Perform for Grantor. If the Grantorfails to perform any of the Grantor's duties or covenants S€i fertli in UIIS Deed of Trus:, tne-8enofi.:;;ary may periol In ii:e uuiitl1. '" ;;.o.u<Sc:l-ihem to ::'e pHforl'l1eC, including, without limitation, signing the Grantor's name or paying any amount so required, and the cost, with interest at the default rate set forth in the Loan Documents, will immediately be due from the Grantor to the Beneficiary from the date of expenditure by the Beneficiary to date of payment by the Grantor, and will be one of the Obligations secured by this Deed of Trust. All acts by the Beneficiary are hereby ratified and approved, and the BenefICiary will not be liable for any acts of commission or omission, nor for any errors of judgment or mistakes of fact or law. ARTICLE IV. DEFAULTS AND REMEDIES The Beneficiary may enforce its rights and remedies under this Deed of Trust upon default. A default will occur if the Grantor fails to comply with the terms of any Loan Documents (including this Deed of Trust or any guaranty by the Grantor) or a demand for payment is made under a demand loan, or the Grantor defaults on any other mortgage affecting the Land, or if any other obligor fails to comply with the terms of any Loan Documents for which the Grantor has given the Beneficiary a guaranty or pledge, or if there shall be a default under the Unsecured Rea[ Estate Environmental Indemnity of even date herewith by Borrower or any other Indemnitor identified therein. Upon the occurrence of a default, then subject only to any statutes conferring upon the Grantor the right to notice and an opportunity to cure, the Beneficiary may declare the Obligations to be immediately due and payable. 4.1 Remedies. In addition to the remedies for default set forth below and in-the other Loan Documents, including acceleration, the Beneficiary upon default will have all other rights and remedies for default availab[e by law or equity. Upon a default, Beneficiary may exercise the following remedies: (a) Enforcement of Assignment of Rents and Leases. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Beneficiary may: (i) terminate the license granted to Grantor to collect the Rents (regardless 01 whether Beneficiary or Trustee 1714DWA Page 4 of 9 20050914000851.00! shall have entered into possession of the Mortgaged Property), colieci and sue for the Renls in Beneficiary's own name, give receipts and releases therefor, and after deducting all expenses of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees, apply the net proceeds thereof to any Obligations as Beneficiary may elect; (ii) make, modify, enforce, cancel or accept surrender of any leases, evict tenants, adjust Rents, maintain, decorate, refurbish, repair, clean, and make space ready for renting, and otherwise do anything Beneficiary reason" ably deems advisable In connection with the Mortgaged Property; (iii) apply the Rents so collected to the operation and management of the Mortgaged Property, Including the payment of reasonable management, brokerage and attorneys' fees, or to the Obligations; and (iv) require Grantor to transfer and deliver possession of all security deposits and records thereof to Beneficiary. (b) Power of Sale. Beneficiary may require the Trustee,and the Trustee is hereby authorized and empowered, to enter and take possession of the Premises and to sell all or part of the Mortgaged Property, at public auction, to the highest bidder fo(cash or such equivalent form of payment as may be permiltedby applicable law, free from equity of redemption, and any statutory or common law right of redemption, homestead, dower, marital share, and all other exemptions, after giving notice of the time, place and terms of such sale and of the Mortgaged Property to be sold, by advertising the sale of the property in such manner and at such times as. may be required by applicable law. The Trustee shall execute a conveyance to the purchaser conveying to the purchaser all the right, title and interest in the real and personal property sold at the trustee's sale which the Grantor had or had power to convey at the time of execution of this Deed of Trust and such right, title and interest therein as the Grantor may have thereafteracquired, and the Trustee shall deliver possession to the purchaser, which the Grantor warrants shall be given without obstruction, hindrance or delay. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Trustee may sell all or any portion of the Mortgaged Property, together or in lois or parcels, and may execute and derIVer to the purchaser or purchasers of such property a conveyance as described abov.e. The Trustee shall receive the proceeds thereof and shall apply the same as follows: (a) first, the expense of the sale, Including a reasonable charge by the Trustee and by his or her attorneys; (b) second, to the payment of the Obligations herein secured, in such order as Beneficiary shall elect. and to the extent permitted by applicable law any balance of said Obligations may be the subject of immediate suit; and (c) third, should there be any surplus, Trustee will deposit such surplus, if any, less the clerk's filing fee, with the clerk of the superior court of the county In which the sale took place. To the exlent permitted by applicable law, the sale or sales by Trustee of less than the whole of the Mortgaged Property shall not exhaust the power of sale herein granted, and the Trustee is specifically empowered to make successive sales under such power until the whole of the Mortgaged Property shall be sold; and if the proceeds of such sale or sales of less than the whole of the Premises ,,"'nll 1:1'" 1",!'t~ thM thr-> "'!J~r"''J'''t_p of thp 01:lligatlon.~ and the elfp-~"lesth"'reof. this. n!'·,~d of :rt~!':'~ ",nc! th" r~n. "",,,m":' interest and assignment hereof shall remain in full force and effect as to the unsold portion of the Mortgaged Property; provided, however, that Grantor shall never have any right to require the sale or sales of fass than the whole of the Mortgaged Property, but Beneficiaryshall have the right at its sole election, to request the Trustee to sell less than the whole ot the Mortgaged Property, Beneficiary may bid and become the purchaser of all or any part of the Mortgaged Property at any such sale, and the amount of Beneficiary's successful bid may be credited on the Obligations. (c) Judicial and Other Relief. Beneficiary or Trustee may proceed by a suit or suils in equity or at law, whether for the specific performance of any covenant or agreement herein contained or in aid of the execution ot any power herein granted, or for any foreclosure hereunder or for the sale of the Mortgaged Property under the judgment or decree of any court or courts of competent jurisdiction. (d) Entryon Premises; Tenancy at Will. (i) Beneficiary may enler into and upon arid take possession of all or any part of the Mortgaged Property, and may exclude Grantor, and all persons claiming under Grantor, and its agents or servants, wholly or partly therefrom; and, holding the same, BenefiCiary may use, administer, manage, operate, and control the Mortgaged Property and may exercise all rights and powers of Grantor in the name, place and stead of Grantor, or otherwise, as the Beneficiary shall deem best; and in the exercise of any of the foregoing rights and powers Beneficiary shall not be 1Iable to Grantor for any loss or damage thereby sustained unless due solely to the willful misconduct or gross negligence of Beneficiary. - (ti) In the event of a trustee's or other foreclosure sale hereunder and if at the time of such sale Grantor or any olher party (other than a tenant under a Lease as to which the Beneficiary shall have expressly subordinated the lien of this Deed of Trust as hereinabove set out) occupies the portion of the Mortgaged Property so sold or any part thereof, such occupant shall on the twentieth day after the sale become the tenant of the purchaser at such sale, which tenancy, unless otherwise required by applicable law, shall be a tenancy from day to day, terminable at Ihe will 1714DWA Page50f9 20050914000851".OOf of such purchaser, at a reasonable rental per day based upon the value of the portion of the Premises so occupied (but not less than any rental theretofore paid by such tenant, computed on a daily basis). An action of forcible detainer shall lie if any such tenant holds over a demand in writing for possession of such portion of the Premises. (e) Receiver. Beneficiary may make application to a court of competent jurisdiction. as a matter of strict right and without notice. to Grantor or regard to the adequacy of the Mortgaged Property for the repayment of the Obligations, for appointment of a receiver of the Mortgaged Property, and Grantor does hereby irrevocably consent to such appointment. Any such receiver shall have an necessary and proper powers and duties of receivers in similar cases, including the full power to rent. maintain and otherwise operate the Mortgaged Property upon such terms as may be approved by the court. (I) Remedies Cumulative, Concurrent and Nonexclusive. If the Obligations are now or hereafter further secured by chattel mortgages, other deeds of trust, security agreements, pledges, contracts of guaranty, assignments of leases, or other security, then to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Beneficiary may, al its option, exhaust its remedies under anyone or more of said instruments and this Deed of Trust, either concurrentry or independently, and in such order as Beneficiary may determine. Beneficiary shall have all rIghts, remedies and recourses granted in the Loan Documents and available to it at law or equity (including, without limitation, those granted by the Uniform Commercial Code), and to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, same (a) shall be cumulative, concurrent, and nonexclusive, (b) may be pursued separately, successively or concurrently against Grantor or others obligated for the Obligations, or any part thereof or against any one or more of them, or against the Mortgaged Property, at the sole discretion of Benefic!ary,and (c) may be exercised as often as occasion thereforshall arise, it being agreed by Grantor that the exercise of or failure to exercise any of same shall in no event be construed as a waiver or release thereof or of any other right, remedy or recourse. (g) Waiver by the Beneficiary. The'Beneficiarymay permit the Grantor to attempt to remedy any default without waiving its rights and remedies hereunder, and the Beneficiary may waive any default without waiving any other subsequent or prior default by the Grantor. Furthermore, delay on the part or the Beneficiary in exerCising any right, power or privilege hereunder or at law will not operate as a waiver thereof, nor wRl any single or partial exercise of such right, power or privilege preclude other exerclse thereof or the exercise of any other righI, power or privilege. No waiver or suspension will be deemed 10 have occurred unless the BenefiCiary has expressly agreed in writing specifying such waiver Or suspension. (h) Attorneys' Fees and Other Costs. Attomeys'fees and other costs incurred in connection with this Deed of Trust (inclUding without limitation, the cost of any appraisal which may be obtained in conjunction with any foreclosure or deficiency judgment proceedings) may be recovered by the Beneficiary and inCluded in any sale made hereunder or by judgment of foreclosure .. ARTICLE V. TRUST!:E 5.1 Action by Trustee. The Trustee named herein shall be clothed with full power to act when action hereunder shall be required, and to execute any conveyance of the Mortgaged Property. In the event that the substitution of the Trusteeshall become necessary for any reason, the substitution of a trustee in the place of that named hereIn shall be sufficient. The term "Trustee· shall be construed to mean "Trustees·wheneverlhe sense requires. The necessity of the Trustee herein named, or any successor in trust, making oath or giving bond, is expressly waived. 5.2 Employmentof Agents. The Trustee,or anyone acting in it's stead, shall have, in it's discretion, authority to employ all property agents and attorneys in the execution of thIs trust and/or in the conducting of any sale made pursuant to the terms hereof, and to pay for such services rendered out of the proceeds of the sale of the Mortgaged Property, should any be realized; and if no sale be made or if the proceeds of sale be insufficient to pay the same, then, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Grantorhereby undertakes and agrees to pay the cost of such services rendered to said Trustee. Trustee may rely on any document believed by it In good faith to be genuine. All money received by the Trustee shall, until used or applied as herein provided, be held in trust, but need not be segregated (except to the extent required by law), and the Trustee shall not be liable for interest thereon. 5.3 Indemnification of Trustee. If the Trustee shall be made a party to or sh?J1I intervene in any action or proceeding affecting the Mortgaged Property or the title thereto, or the interest of the Trustee or Beneficiaryunder this Deed of Trust, the Trustee and BenefICiary shall be reimbursed by Grantor, immediatelY and without demand, for all reasonable costs, charges and attorneys' fees incurred by them or either of them in any such case, and the same shall be secured he~eby as a further charge and lien upon the Mortgaged Property. 5.4 Successor Trustee. In the event of the death, refusal, or of inability for any cause, on the part of the Trustee named herein, or of any successor trustee, to act at any time when action under the forgoing powers and trust may be required, or for any other reason satisfactorylo the Beneficiary, the Beneficiary is authorized, either in its own name or 1714DWA PageS 019 20050914000851.00~ through an attomey or attorneys in fact appointed for that purpose, by written instrument duly recorded, to name, substitute and appoint a successor or successors to execute this trust, such appointment to be evidenced by writing. duly acknowledged; and when such writing shall have been recorded in each county in which the Land is located, the substituted trustee named therein shall thereupon be vested with all the right and title, and clothed with all the power of the Trustee named herein and such like power of substitution shall continue so long as any part of the debt secured hereby remains unpaid. Any successor Trustee may be replaced, at the option of the BenefiCiary, by the original Trustee or a successor Trustee previously replaced, each such substitution to be made as herein provided. ARTICLE VI. MISCELLANEOUS In addition to all other miscellaneous provisions under the Loan Documents which are expressly incorporated as a part of this Deed of Trust, the following provisions will also apply: 6.1 Term of Deed of Trust. This Deed ot Trust shall continue in full force and effect until the Mortgaged Property has been reconveyed by the Trustee. S.2 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to payment of the Obligations, the performance of all covenants of the Grantor and the payment of taxes, assessments, and similar charges and insurance premiums. 6.3 Subrogation. The Beneficiary will be subrogated to the lien of any mortgage or other lien discharged, In whole or in part, by the proceeds of the Note or other advances by the Beneficiary,in which event any sums otherwise advanced by the Beneficiary shall be immediately due and payable, with interest at the default rate set forth in the Loan Documents from the date of advance by the Beneficiary to the date of payment by the Grantor,and will be one of the Obligations secured by this Deed of Trust. 6.4 Choice of Law. This Deed of Trust will be governed by the laws of the state in which the Mortgaged Property is located. For all other purposes, the choice of law specified In the Loan Documents wiD govern. 6.5 Severability. Invalidity or unenforceabilityof any provision of this Deed of Trust shan not affect the validity or enforceability of any other prOvision. S.6 EntireAgreement. This Deed of Trust is intended by the Grantor and the Beneficiaryas a final expression of this Deed of Trust and as a complete and exclusive statement of its terms, there being no conditions to the full effectiveness of this Deed of Trust. No parol evidence of any nature shall be used to supplement or modify any terms. 6.7 Joint UabllltYjSuccessors and Assigns. If there is more than one Grantor, the liability of Ihe Grantorswill be joint and several, and the reference to 'G~antor' shall be deemed to refer to each .Grantor and to all Grantors. The rights, options, powers and remedies granted in this Deed of Trust and the other Loan Documents shall extend to the Beneficiaryand to its successors and assigns, shall be binding upon the Grantor and its successors and assigns, and ""a;; ;..~ <1!JjJii,.;.:.t.uie rlt:neio and 10 ail r<:lnewals; amendments amliol ~xt\;lIl$lon:; new;;l. 6.8 Indemnification. Except for harm ariSing from the Beneficiary's or the Trustee's willful misconduct, the Grantor hereby indemnifies and agrees to defend and hold the Beneficiary and the Trustee harmless from any and all losses, cosls, damages, claims and expenses {including, without ~milation, attorneys' fees and expenses} of any kind suffered by or asserted against the Beneficiary or the Trustee relating to claims by third parties arising out of the financing provided under 1he Loan Documents or related to the Mortgaged Property excepting the Beneficiary's failure to perform its obligations under the Real Estate Environmental Indemnity Agreement or the exercise by lhe Beneficiary or the Trustee of any of their respective powers, rights and remedies under this Deed of Trust. To the fulles! extent permitted by applicable law, this indemnification and hold harmless provision will survive the termination of the Loan Documents and the satisfaction of this Deed of Trust and Obligations due the Beneficiary . .6.9 NotIces. Except.as otherwisE1provided by applicable law, notice of any record shall be deemed delivered when the record has been (a) deposited in the United States Mail, postage pre-paid, (b) received by overnight delivery service, (c) received by telex, (d) received by telecopy, (e) received through the internet, or (f) when personally denvered. 6.10 Release of Rights of Dower, Homestead and Distributive Share. Each of the undersigned hereby relinqUIshes all rights of dower, homestead and distributive share in and to the Mortgaged Property and waives all rights of exemption as to any of the Mortgaged Property. 6.11 Copy. The Grantor hereby acknowledges the receipt of a copy of this Deed of Trust, together with a copy of each promissory note secured hereby, and all other documents executed by the Grantor in connection herewith. 6.12 Usury Savings Clause. Notwithstanding anything herein or in the Note to the contrary, no provision contained herein or in the Note which purports to obligate the Grantorto pay any amounl of interestor any feeS,costs or expenses which are in excess of the maximum permitted by applicabie law, shall be effective to the extent Ihat it 1714DWA Page 7 of 9 20050914000851.U~: calls for the payment of any interest or other sums in excess of such maximum. All agreements between the Grantor and the Beneficiary, whethernow existing or hereafterarlsing and whetherwrillen or oral, are hereby limited so that in no contingency, whether by reason of demand for payment of or acceleration of the maturity of any of the indebtedness secured hereby or otherwise. shall the interest contracted for, charged or received by the Beneficiary exceed the maximum amount permissible under applicable law. If, from any circumstance whatsoever, interestwould otherwise be payable to the Benertclary in excess of the maximum lawful amount, the interest payable to the Beneficiary shall be reduced to the maximum amount permitted under applicable law: and if from any circumstance the Beneficiary shall ever receive anything of value deemed ir'!lerest by applicable law in excess of the maximum lawful amount, an amount equal to any excessive interest shall € Ilhe Beneficiary'soption, be refunded to the Grantor or be applied to the reduction of the principal balance of the ind.~btedness secured hereby and not to the payment of interest or, if such excessive interest exceeds the unpaid balallce of prinCipal indebtedness secured hereby. such excess shall be refunded to the Grantor. This paragraph shall (;ontrol an agreements between the Grantor and the Beneficiary. 6.13 Riders. The rider(s) attached hereto and recordec' together with this Deed of Trust are hereby fully incorporated into this Deed of Trust. [Check applicable box(esll 0 Condominium Rider 0 Second Deed of Trust Rider 0 Construction Loan RiderO Other(s) (Specif~. ________________ _ IN WfTNESSWHEREOF,the undersigned has/have execule d this Deed of Trust as of AUGUST 29, 2005 (Individual Grantor) (Indiddual Grantor) Printed Name ______ ---'N ... I....,A,....... ______ _ Printed Name ______ N={~ ____ _ Burnstead Construction Co. Grantor Name (Organization) :y was;;}:?!::~~ .- NameandTiUe ~Jane7fye. President -,,--~-----~------------------ By _________________________________________ _ Name and 11lle _____________________ _ (Grantor Address) 1215 120th Avenue NE Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 (Beneficiary Address) ~55 SW OAK £PO~R~T~L!:!!AND~~,~O~R~..:.9~7~2~O:.:!!4 _________________ __'_ .. __ INOTARIZATION(S) ON NEXT PAGE} 1714DWA Page8019 • .. 200509140oo851.0u: Acknowledgment In Individual Capacity STATE OF ~ __ S5. COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence th«atL-_______ -,,==::'N~/A~==-------- IName(s) of Person(sJl Is/are the person(s) who appeared before me, and said person(s) acknowledged that he/shelthey signed thi.s instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and volunt:try act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ___________ _ (Seal or Stamp) Printed Name:_. _________________ _ Title: ---- My appointment expires: ______________ _ Acknowledgment in Representative Capacity STATE OF ~ COUNTY O-F-_-_-_~-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~ SS. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence th ... at'---__ .L!Y~~u ... '_':l./-'l__fi~!lff,t1~:T.s:n/-vy~<'::'!::-~------_ u...; I (Name(s) O/ferson(s}J is/are the person(s) who appeared before me, and said persor.(s) acknowledged that he/she/they signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/shelthey was/were authorized to execute Ihe instrument and acknowledged it as the ~Sirl<eA r . (Type 01 aulhOfity, e.g., officer, lrustee, etc) m Burnstead Construction Co. (Name 01 parly on behall of wtlom instrumenl was executed) to be the free and voluntary acl of such party for the uses and pUfposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: ¢.2 /;;zaas= I 1714DWA ~'H6-.Qbvkd p(int~ .. ~ :Benedt'cr Title: ---- My appOintment :~xpires: ___ :..,1 ,f-I.!../7.jL'=.l~/:>~O.!Jd'_L.712_---- Page 9 of 9 iii • l ' Legal Description of Land: PARCEL A; EXHlBIT A TO DEED OF TRUST (Legal Description) LOT 1. KING COUNTY SMORT PLAT IUlBEIl 678063-R. RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUUBER 7812110857. SAID SHORT PLAT BEING A SUIDIVISION OF A pORTION OF THE SOIJTHEAST QUARTER Of 11fE NORTlIWEST QUAR~ Of SECTION 14. TOWNSHIP 23 HORllf. RANt;£ 5 EAST. WILlAMETTE MERIDIAN. IN XING C()'JflTY. lYASHINGTON. PARCEL il; THAT PORTION Of THE SOUTHJ:AST QUAATER OF THE ~ORllIWEST QUARTER OF S£CTION 14. TO'IHSH I P 23 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST. WI Ll.AIIETTE ""AID I AN. INK I NG COUNTY. WASIUNGTOO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: B£GINNING AT A POINT NORrH 00'as'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET AND NORTH 88·55'44" WEST A DISTAHCE OF 30.00 FEET F~ TlfE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14: THENCE AlONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF IIIE A~sr G£RBER ROAD (156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVeYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1094241. NORTH 00°28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 412.53 FEET TO THE TROE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TAACT HfREIN DESCRIBED; TIlENtE COHTIIAIING NORTH 00·28'02· "EST A DIST"NCE OF 157.51 FEET: THENCE NORTH 89'01'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF '2~~.07 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 30.00 FEET OF SADI SOOTIfEAST QUAATEilOF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER I T»ENCE ALO~G SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 00'33'02" ~lsT A DISTANCE OF 157.07 FEET; mINCE SOUTt! 00'$9' 57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1241.82 FEET TO WE TRUE POINT OF DEGINIIING; EXC~ rHOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO FRANKLIN T. TETEIt AND C. lENA TETER. HUSBANO AND WIFE, BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 6400741 AND 6417877. 20050914000851.<1 ~ n ( \ AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) OCT 10 2C:5 RECEIVen ____ Mi_·_c_ha_e_l_Ch_en ___________________ , being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: 1. On the, bt~ day of ~,+. , 20 05 ,I installed 2 public information sign(s} and plastic flyer box on the property located at 15400 SE 2nd street for the following project: Highlands Park Project name Bumstead Construction Owner Name 2. I have attached a copy of the neighborhood detail map marked with an "X" to indicate the location of the installed sign. . 3. This/these public information sign(s) was/were constructed and installed in locations in conformance with the requirements of Chapter 7 Title 4 of Renton Municipal Code. Installer Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 'O~ay of 0 C:t · , 20 OS . LAURIE K. BARNHARl NOTARY PUBLIC SlA1E OF WASHING10N COMMISSION EXPIRES JUL'f 22. 2008 ) d~K.~~ NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Carnation WA • My commission expires ~n 7, z "2.--0 K http://www.cLrenton.wa.uslpw/devserv/fonns/pianninglpubsign.doc 10/07/05 . , I I I 5£ I (J) _. :r: <C ::1 .--- C9 5" --~ :5 " ~ ~ ~ \.J". ... "\J ',;) ~ -r-I ~ 0 ..:....-- 0 -S> (J) _. <C 0 ::1 I .-I I I I Printed: 10-10-2005 Payment Made: ~~TY OF RENTON 055 S. Grady Way • Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA05-124 10/10/2005 03:38 PM , I DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT~N'NG Receipt Number: OCT I 0 2DDS RECEIVED R0505511 Total Payment: 2,500.00 Payee: Burnstead Construction Co. Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check 2481 2,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 2,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/ErS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 et: ll. ll. « w !< o z Q C/l GJ «: o z ; " , , ./" \. \ . ,'. ·1 , , ; ", .. , , ""< ' . 1 .. , . "/ C'i; ; " ; <, . ~ ~' , i . , . , , ----.J " ":l:. '" , i , : ..... / , / .. c ... " !11m !11m !11m !11m _1 .. JII"" '" 1 .. ·424 " ,0 eT~ET T~E <TYF) 5EE ,-+=;;;-1 NOTE '13', 51-1EET L2.0E> SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M ,----,EX:15TIING. CONIFEf<0U5 T~E TO ~MAIN (TYFJ ;--EXleITI~lG DECIDUOU5 T~E TO ~MAIN (TYPJ / / / / .. / / .. / .. \ / , \ \ / / \ , \ / .' , ,;;C" ,.,f ~ I~_- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~~~~~~~~L-~~il~'·,--- / I: J8 \,"--8'.I~AI~ eENCI-I (TYP); 5EE NOTE 'C', 51-1EET L2'o!;' , '--,,.' Oe5TI"!1.ICTION-F~E 5AFETY FALL ZONE AROUND ENTI~ 5TI"!1.ICTllf<E . '" 7 \ 6 . SHEET L201 r"'~",","""".!IIm !11m !11m !11m ilIIIIIJ !11m SHEET L20J 5 20 19 38 \,' \: , 43 o 5Tf~IF '. " I !o ,< .' "<, /' '-... ' \ , 37 44 o j, ". ~ .. ~/" '" I'i t 1/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 36 45 .. ) FOR FLANT €lCI-IEDULE €lEE €l1-1EET L2.05 N SCALE: 1" o 15 30 60 ~I ~I ~I ___ I DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA VV 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'1I"E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG m[ CENTERLINE OF 156TH AVE 5.£. AT THE INTERSECTIONS WITH 5.£. 128TH ST. AND s.£. JJ6TH ST. AS CALCULA TED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N05. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENiON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994, BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NAVV 1988 DATUM NO. 1852 -3" FLAT BRASS SURFACE DISC AT THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N£. 4TH ST. (5.£. 128THST.) AND 148TH AVE 5.£. EL. 454.17 (138,614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECTION OF 5.£. 128TH ST. AND 156TH AVE 5.£. EL. 547.94 (167.013 METERS) , , , UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT d /Id tJ, A. 1-----------------~- FRED I. GUCK CERTIFICATE NO, 435 coRE \= ,/DESIGN ENGINEERING CORE JOB# 0:1.019 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL OAT£"~ BY.'~ BY: ______ OATE._ BY.' ______ OA TE: 147/1 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425,885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 PLANNING SURVEYING \ ,.: D., W 0, U) '" n:: o 3: <.l -' OJ :::J "-"-<::> z o -' :::J OJ G-z z z :5 "- ~ ~ ti! ti! I I ~ I n:: "-"-« w ~ o o z t ! i . i I: ,; I ! 37 ..... , / " ! _ UU"'UU UIiM.. UIi!! ;., . 44 o o I I I I I I I Ii I I I I I 22 j.' . 23 DA 35 : i i i '._- 46 ! ! 24 I I' , I; ! j 34 ; , 33 ; II , , I ! / \,-,j o , , " ~ i /!\ / : ~ \. 32 /' '.: ' i i· SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, w.M. i i i , ' I ~--EXI8TING CONIFEROUS TRE:E: TO F£MAIN ITYF.i , i j eXI8TING DeCIDUOUS TRE:E TO F<EMAIN ITYF.i 28 ',30 FROvlDI: A"20' CLI:AFi! VISION ZONI: AT ALL STFi!E:ET coFNEF1!5 (TYF~ 51:1: NOTI: 'D', 81-1EI:T L2.QS 31 ! / I i ./ , I 50 YA~S i i i! '29, s:q:~~~-----'74+------+~~) STFi!E:ET TRE:E ITYF) SEE NOTE: 'S', 81-1eeT L2.QS 53 54, :" . > . /'. /" / . , , , " '" \ ! . [ . , I , , I , ... -i. FOR PLANT SCf-lEDULE SEE Sf-lEET UD!; SCALE: 1" 30' o 15 30 60 1-1 -1_1 __ 1 DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA /IIJ 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'ffT BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 156TH A~ 5oE. AT THE INTERSECTIONS WITH 5oE. 128TH ST. AND 5oE. 136TH ST. AS CALCULA TED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N050 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994, BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NA /IIJ 1988 DA TUM NO. 1852 -3" FLA T BRASS SURFACE DISC A T THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.E. 4TH ST. (5oE. 128THSr.) AND 148TH A ~ 5oE. £L 454.77 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECTION OF 5oE. 128TH ST. AND 156TH AVE 5oE. EL 547.94 (167.0/3 METERS) , ~, UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT dW t;'J,d. / ----------------~- FRED I. GLICK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \: /DESIGN ENGINEERING· CORE JOB# 01019 BY: BY: BY: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL ~ DATE.'~ ______ DATE: DATE: 1471 1 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 PLANNING SURVEYING w !< o z o (f) GJ 0:: o z " , " , , -----.---. -_ .. ---, " , ' , '. ! , I i • , , . , q.' 73 ~-[)OU61_e .. 'ACCESS GATE (12' TOTAL UJIDTI4) • I / . , iRACr ,991, + + Slf}RM+p.oNa w / i I 72 . i" t v ! 'W .... ~.---.-'- '~7! j> • SE 1./4, NW 1./4, SEC. 1.4, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M 6 SHEET L201 ,F?l~_mm mm mm mm 'mm I' . ' .' SHEET L203\ , , 70 69 Ii , ' 1 iO' HT.FANEL ....... _...,-;;:-::;-FE'NCE (TYF) ... ~~ ---.. --... -.. -~, .... --"-" .. J ! 67 '--+'-~" STREET TREE (TYF) SEE NOTE '6', SHEET L2.oS . ........... _-, ... -"-"---"-- / . , j 43 66 FOR FLANT SCI-lEDULE SEE SI-lEET L2.Q;; :-"-,7''-------EXISTING CONIFEROUS T~E TO ~MAIN (TYF.! l!Fit---t------~'---t--_hL------EXISTING DECIDUOUS I, , i 65 I I --t , I I • I I I I T~E TO ~MAIN (TYF.! \ \ \ • \ , SCALE: 1" 30' o 15 30 60 1--1 -I~I~~I DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA IoV 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'11T BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG TflE CENTERLINE OF 156Tf1 A 10£ 50£. AT TflE INTERSECTIONS WlTfI 50£. 128Tf1 ST. AND 50£. 136Tf1 ST. AS CALCULATED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N050 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994. BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NA IoV 1988 DA TUM NO. 1852 -J" FLAT BRASS SURFACE DISC AT TflE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.£. 4Tf1 ST. (50£. 128Tf1ST.) AND 148TH A 10£ 50£. £L. 454.77 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECTION OF s.£. 128Tf1 ST. AND 156Tf1 AVE s.£. EL. 547.94 (167.013 METERS) " c, UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE" CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT d# ~J./ ----------------~-FRED I. GUCK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \,; /DESIGN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL &~ BY: ~ DATE.' +--'-t' BY: DAT£.o BY: DAT£.· J 471 J Nf 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING· PLANNING SURVEYING CORE JOB# 0101.9 ----,--.-~----- w ~ o z o (f) (;j 0:: o z o , _. 44 , i 65 64 . ! ... \. 46 63 62 I,' I I 61 : i : i I \ I; , "" .. -.. -- 60 SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M I i LAt-li;)E;CA_F5 STRIP 'rAf<DS "'59 .. ---.. --. -". ---...... -------....... . 31 :1 58 57 .._-. ----. -_ .. __ ._----. ;:~7 j;/j}., , SHEET L2.04 53 '56 '---.'XIE;TING. CONIFEf<OUS TR5e TO R5MAIN (T'rP.! '----eXISTING. DeCIDUOUS TR5e TO R5MAIN !T'rP.! 54 - - ----....... - 55 ----.... --....... - -.. "._-.. , i·1 ~. . ~ .. I II I' , , , . .' . : ,/' "'-------.. FOR FLANT SCHEDULE SEE SHEET L20!:> 6' HT. PANEL ......... -f~=-i FeNCe !T'rP) i I \ i \ I s~eTTR5e(T'rF)See ____ -+-c7~ NOTe '6', SHeeT L2.GS ,.:' , ; : , • I , . ;: SCALE: 1" 30' DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA VI) 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'1I"E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 156TH A 10£ 5.£. AT THE INTERSECTIONS WITH 5.£. 128TH ST. AND 5.£. 136TH ST. AS CALCULA TED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N05. /851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15. 1994. BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NA VI) 1988 DA TVM NO. 1852 -J" FLA T BRASS SURFACE DISC A T THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.£. 4TH ST. (5.£. 128THST.) AND 148TH A 10£ 5.£. EL. 454.77 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECTION OF 5.£. !28TH ST. AND 156TH AVE 5.£. EL. 547.94 (167.013 METERS) • UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! , . 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT d/IJ ~4, I. ----------------~- FRED I. GLICK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \,; /DESIGN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVALJJu~ BY: ~ DAT~1 BY: ______ DATE BY: DATE 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING· PLANNING SURVEYING CORE JOB# 01.01.9 ~ w o III '" n:: o s: U ....J m ::J a. "-t!J Z (5 ....J ::J m ~ z z z :'5 a. n:: a. a. « w !;;: o z o III GJ n:: o z SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M o o o Q o o o o ~';-:';:':':';':':';':':';-:':;':':l '~':""':.'~':.\':: ::/::, •• , ••••• : •••• :.', .• ?.:.":: • ......... '.· ... ·.·.·";.·7·.·'·7·. PLANT SCHEDULE QTY 60TANICAL NAME COMMONNAM~ TREES 11 ACE~ CE~CINATUM VINE MAPLE 62 ACE~ ~6~M 'RED SUNSET' RED SUNSET RED MAPLE 16 CE~IDIP+-IYLLUM JAPONICUM JAPANESE KATSU~ TREE 14 F~XINUS LATIFOLIA T+-IUJA PLICATA '+-Ioc:.AN' !-Ioc:.AN WESTE~ ~DCEDA~ TILIA CO~ATA LITTLELEAF LINDEN 11 TSuc:.A +-IETE~OP+-IYLLA WESTE~ +-IEMLOCK ZELKOVA SE~TA JAPANESE ZELKOV;'o, S!-II"1U6S so AZALEA 'GUMPO PINK' GUMPO PINK AZALf::A 119 CISTUS x '61"1ILLIANCY' !':',I'<!ILLIANCY 1"10CKI"10SE 41 COI"1NUS STOLONIFE~ Ht=DTWIG Doc:.WOOD 21 ESCALLONIA LANc:.LEYENSIS APPLE 6LOSSOM ~5CALLONIA 'APPLE 6LOSSOM' 30 19 3S 19 21 14 1 GAUL T!-IE~IA S!-IALLON !-IOLODISCUS DISCOLOI"1 MA+-IONIA AQUIFOLIUM MYI"1ICA CALIFO~ICUM P+-IYSOCA~S CAPITATUS ~NUS LAUI"10CE~SUS VI6U~UM DAVIDII VI6U~UM PLICATUM 'TOMENTOSUM' GI"1OUNDCOVE~ 4,810 S.F. AI"1CTSTAP+-IYLOS uvA UI"15I 185 SF. +-IYFEI"1ICUM CAL YCINUM 14S1 S.F. POL YSTIC+-IUM MUNITUM SALAL OCEANS~Y OREGON G~PE +-loLLY PACIFIC WAX MYI"1TLE COMMON NINE6AI"1K C!-IE~ LAUREL DAVID'S VI6U~UM DOU6LEFILE VI6U~UM 6EA~EI"1I"1Y ST. JO!-lN'S WOI"1T SIZE SPACING 1-8' +-IT. MIN. AS S+-IOWN I.S" CAL. MIN. AS S+-IOWN I.S" CAL. MIN. AS S+-IOWN 1.5" CAL. MIN. AS S+-IOWN 6-1' +-IT. MIN AS S+-IOWN 1.5" CAL. MIN AS S+-IOWN 6-1' !-IT. MIN AS S+-IOWN 1.5" CAL. MIN. AS S!-IOWN IS-18" !-IT. MIN. 2.5' O.C. MIN. 18-24" +-IT. MIN. 3' O.C. MIN. 18-24" !-IT. MIN. 4' O.C. MIN. IS-18" !-IT. MIN. 3' O.C. MIN. lS-18" !-IT. MIN. 3' O.C. MIN. 24-30" +-IT. MIN. 4.5' O.C. MIN. 18-24" +-IT. MIN. 3.5' O.C. MIN. 24-30" !-IT. MIN. 4.5' o.c. MIN. 24-30" !-IT. MIN. S' o.c. MIN. 24-30" +-IT. MIN. 4' o.c. MIN. IS-18" +-IT. MIN. 2.5' O.C. MIN. 24-30" +-IT. MIN. 4.5' O.C. MIN I GAL. 18" o.c. 1 GAL. 18" O.C. I GAL. 24" O.C. COMMENTS CLUMP, 3 STEM MIN., WELL 6~NC+-IED WELL 6~NC+-IED. STREET TREE QUALITY WELL 6~NC+-IED, STREET TREE QUALITY WELL 6~NC+-IED, STREET TREE QUALITY CLUMP, WELL 6~NC+-IED WELL 6~NC+-IED, STREET TREE QUALITY WELL 6~NC!-IED WELL 6~NC!-IED, STREET TREE QUALITY Nt~{i;~~*~~l f-114_0_1_S_.F-I' _S_O_D_L_A_WN _______ +-___________ -I ______ I-____ t~U_:_:°I"1F=_D_;_;_::~=-~-:-~=-~=MWN_::IL~A:_:~:_:M::E:_:~:_::_L=_P-__j I I USE LOW GI"10W SEED MIX • " w + ~ 41131 S.F. !-IYDI"10SEEP PEI"1 WA DEPT. OF ECOLoc:.y L-__ ~ ________________ L-________________ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~ ______________ _ PLANTING NOTES GENERAL NOTES; I. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOf't MUST I3E LICENSED AND Of't ElONDED. CONTRACTOf't MUST I3E EXPEf'tIENCED IN LANDSCAPE u):;)RK OF TI-IE ElEST Tf'tADE PRACTICES AND I-IAVE TI-IE NECESSAf'tY EQUIPMENT AND PEf't5ONNEL TO PEF<FOf'tM lUOI<K. 2. TI-IE LANDSCAPE =NTRACTOf't SI-IALL ElE f'tE5FONSIElLE FOf't FAMILIAf'tIZING I-IEf'tII-IlMSELF WITI-I TI-IE SITE AND ALL OTI-IEf't SITE IMFf'tOVEMENTS Pf'tIOf't TO TI-IE STAf'tT OF LAND!lCAFE u):;)RK. I. I~IGATION, I~IGATION DESIGN FOf't Ff'tOJeCT elY OTl-lef't5. 3. TI-IE LANDSCAFE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL ElE f'tESFONSIElLE FOf't TI-IE Ff'tOTECTION OF ALL UTILITIES AND USE CAUTION Wl-IlLe EXCAVATING IN Of'tDEf't TO AVOID DISTUf'tElING ANY EXISTING UTILITIES. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTf'tACTOf't WILL Ff'tOMFTL Y NOTIFY TI-IE GENEf'tAL CONTRACTOf't AND OWNef't OF ANY CONFLICTS. IN Tl-le EVENT OEl5Tf'tUCTIONS Af'tE ENCOUNTEf'tED DUf'tING PLANTING ACTIVITIES, AL TefiiNATIVE LOCATIONS MAY ElE SELECTED elY TI-IE OUJNEf't'S f'tEFf'tESENTATIVE. 4. TI-IE LANDSCAFE CONTRACTOf't WILL COOf'tDINATE ALL u):;)RK f'tELATED TO OTI-IEf't TRADES AS f'tEQUIf'tED. S. TI-IE LANDSCAFE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL Ff'tOVIDE ALL FLANTS OF TI-IE CO~CT SIZE, SPECIES VAf'tIETY QUANTITY AND QUALITY AS SPECIFIED ON FLANT SCI-IEDULE AND SYMElOLS ON LANDSCAFE PLAN. IF ' UNAVAILAElLE, TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL NOTIFY TI-IE OUJNEf't'S f'tEPf'tE!lENTATIVE IMMEDIATELy AND Ff'tOVIDE TI-IE NAMeS AND TELEFI-IONE NUMElEf't5 OF TI-lf'tEE NUf't5Ef'tY 5UFPLlef't5 Of't FLANT Elf'tOKl:f't5 TI-IAT I-IAVE eleeN CONTACTED. SUElSTITUTIONS SI-IALL ONLY I3E MADE UPON TI-IE AFFf'tOVAL OF TI-IE OUJNEf't'!l f'tEFf'tE!lENTATIVE. b. ALL FLANT MATef'tIAL SI-IALL ElE INSPECTeD AND AFFf'tOVED ElY TI-IE OWNEf't'S f'tEFf'tESENTATIVE ffilOIOI TO PLANTING. ALL FLANT MATelOIlAL SI-IALL CONFQf'tM TO Tl-le AMelOIlCAN ST ANDAf'tDS FOIOI NUf't5eIOiY STOCK elY AMEf'tICAN ASSOCIATION OF NUf't5eIOiYMeN (ANeI ZbO.1!. 1. Tl-le LANDSCAPE CONTf'tACTOf't 51-1ALL DELIVEf't, MAINTAIN AND WATelOI FLANT MATEIOIIAL UNTIL OUJNEf't5 FINAL A=EFTANCe 15 f'tECEIVED. 8. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL TAKE ALL NECESSAIOiY FI'eCAUTION5 TO ffiOTeCT ALL ffiOFeI"iTY, INCLUDING FAVEMENT, WALKWAYS, CUf'tElS, FeNCING, STI".uCTUf'tES, ETC. DUIOIING CONSTf'tUCTION. ~. Tl-le LANDSCAPE CONTf'tACTOIOI SI-IALL Ele f'tE5FONSIElLe FOIOI KEEFING INFOf'tMED OF ALL eXISTING CODES, LAlUS AND Of'tDINANCeS f'tELATING TO TI-IE WORK f'tEQUlf'tED ON SITE, AND SI-IALL COMFL Y ACCOf'tD INGL Y. 10. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL COOf'tDINATe WITI-I TI-IE GI"NeRAL CONTRACTOf't TO ASSUf'tE ffiOPEIOI SUElGRADES Af'tE MeT. Tl-leSE INCLUDE 10" eeLow FINISI-IED GRADE FOIOI PLANTING ElEDS AND 4" ElELOW FINISl-leD Gf'tADE IN LAWN Af'tEAS. II. TI-IE LANDSCAFe CONTRACTOIOI SI-IALL SUElMIT TI-lf'tEe f'tEFf'tESeNTATIVE SOIL SAMPLES TO TI-IE OWNef't'~ f'tEFf'tESeNTATIVE FOf't APffiOYAL, elY AN AFFf'tOVED SOIL TeSTING LAElORATOf'tY. AMENDMENTS SI-IALL ee ADDeD TO TI-IE SOIL MIX AS f'tECOMMENDED elY SOIL TeSTING LAEl. 12. TI-IE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL ee f'tESPONSIElLE FOf't Elf'tINGING FLANTING ElEDS AND LAWN Af'tEAS TO FINISI-IED GRADe USING AFFf'tOYED TOFSOIL. TOFSOIL SI-IALL ElE PACIFIC TOFSOIL TI-lf'tEE-WAY MIX 01'< SIMILAf't AND SI-IALL I-IAVE A FI-I RANGe OF 5.0 TO IO.s. 13. TI-IE LANDSCAFE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL INSTALL TOFSOIL TO A DEFTI-I OF 10" IN PLANTING ElEDS AND .1" IN SODDED LAWN Af'tEAS. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOIOI SI-IALL !'tOTOTILL TOPSOIL A MINIMUM OF 10" INTo EXISTING !lOlL LAYER 14. TI-IE LANDSCAFE CONTRACTOf't SI-IALL RAKE Ff'tEFAf'tED Af'tEAS AND f'tEMOVE ANY f'tOCK Of't DEElIOiIIl OVEIOI I". IN LAWN Af'tEAS !'tOLL FOI'< FIf'tMNESS TO Ff'tOVIDE A UNIFO',QM SUF<FACC WITI-IOUT DIVOTS Of't MOUNDS. 15. TI-IE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTC>I'< SI-IALL SET FINISI-IED GRADES ElE,LOW EDGE OF I-IAf'tDSCAFE ELEMENT() ffilOf't TO MULCI-I AND/Of't SOD INSTALLATION. GRADES SI-IALL ElE !;ET 3" ElELOW ADJACENT I-IAf'tD6CAFt! SUf'tFACES FOf't FLANTING ElEDS AND I" ElELOW FOf't LAWN Af'tEAS. 110. TI-IE LANDSCAPE =NTf'tACTOf't SI-IALL F!'tOVIDE A 2" DEEP LAYef't OF MULCI-I IN ALL PLANTING ElEDS. 11. MULCI-I SI-IALL ElE FINE G!'tOUND F!'tOM Flf't Of't I-IEMLOCK, OF UNIFOf'tM COLOf't, AND Ff'tEe Ff'tOM WEED SEEDS, SAWDUST, u):;)OOFIElEf't5 0101 ANY OTI-lEIOI COMFOUND DETI'<IMI"NTAL TO FLANT G!'tOUITI-I. 18. FEf'tTILIZEf't SI-IALL ElE A COMFLETE COMMef'tCIAL ElRAND FEI"iTIL.IZEf't WITI-I COMFLETE CI-IEMICAL ANALYSIS SI-IOWN ON AN UNOPeNeD CONTAINEf't UJI-IEN DELlVEf'tED. FEf'tTILlZEf't SI-IALL ElE AFPLlED AT RATES CONSISTENT WITI-I TI-IE MANUFACTUf'tEf't'S f'tECOMMENDATIONS AND SOIL TESTING LAEl'5 f'tECOMMENDATIONS. I~. WORK Af'tEAS TO ElE KEPT CLeAN AND Ff'tEE OF DEElf'tIS AND f'tUElElISI-I DUf'tING ffiOGf'tESS OF WORK UNTIL COMPLETION. RAKE ElEDS NEATLY TO AN EVEN FINE GRADE A!'tOUND ALL FLANTS. ALL PAVED Af'tEAS Af'tE TO ElE CLEANED elY Elf'tOOM AND/Of't WASI-IED AFTEf't EACI-I DAY'S u):;)RK Of't AS f'tEQUlf'tED. ALL FLANTING Af'tEAS AND ADJACENT FAVED Af'tEAS SI-IALL ElE LEFT IN A NEAT AND CLeAN CONDITION UFON COMPLETION OF JOel. 20. IF A DISCf'tEFANCY EXISTS ElETWEEN TI-IE PLANT QUANTITIES ON Tl-le FLANT SCi-leDULE AND THO!lE SI-IOUJN ON TI-IE FLAN TI-IE QUANTITIES ON TI-IE FLAN SI-IALL GOVERN. PROJECT NOTES A. FLAY STf'tUCTUf'tE, GAMCTIME 'RASCAL' MODEL, • 11114. TO ee INSTALLED PEf't MANUFACTUf'tEf't'S SFECIFICATIONS. 10' OElSTf'tUCTION-Ff'tEe SAFETY FALL ZONE f'tEQUIf'tED A!'tOUND eNTlf'tE 5Tf'tUCTUf'tE (IMAGE ElELOW). 6. STf'tEET Tf'tEE LOCATION AND SPACING IS APFf'tOXIMATE, (2) Tf'tEES 51-1ALL ElE INSTALLED ON EACI-I LOT, ElUT LOCATIONS MAY ElE ADJUSteD AS NEEDED TO AVOID CONFLICT WIll-I DlOIlVEWAYS, UTILITIES, AND ANY OTHEf't STf'tUCTUf'tES Of't OElSTf'tUCTIONS TI-IAT MAY EXIST AT TIME OF FLANTING. STf'tEET Tf'tEES SI-IALL ElE MAINTAINED elY TI-IE ADJACENT Ff'tOPEI"iTY OWNeR C. e' GAMeTIME STRAIGHT LEG PARK ElENCI-I, MODEL· P40lO' (0101 SIMILAI'U. INSTALL WHEI'<E SHOWN ON FLAN PEl'< MANUFACTUREf't'S !lPECIFICATIONS. NOte, INSTALL SUFFOf'tT FOSTe, AS CLOSE TO WALK EDGE AS F065IElLe TO ALLOW F!'tONT EDGE OF ElENCI-I TO OVEf'tI-IANG PAVEMeNT. D. CLEAR VISION Af'tEA IS DeFINeD AS Tl-le Af'tEA ElOUNDED elY TI-IE STf'tEET ffiOFel"iTY LINeS OF CO~elOi LOTS AND A LINE JOINING POINTS ALONG SAID STf'tEET LINES 20' Ff'tOM TI-IEIf't POINT OF INTEf't5ECTION. CLEAf't Af'tEA IS ElETWeEN 3' TO 10' I-IT~ VEGETATION AND OTI-IEf't OElSTf'tUCTIONS SI-IALL NOT INTl'aJDE WITI-IIN TI-IIS ZONE. (SEE CITY OF f'teNTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 4-11-030) DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA fIZ) 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00"29'fI"E BET'lrtEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 156TH AVE 5.£ AT THE INTERSECTIONS WITH 5.£ 128TH ST. AND 5.£. 136TH ST. AS CALCULA TEO FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N05. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994. BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NA fIZ) 1988 DA TUM NO. 1852 -3" FLA T BRASS SURFACE DISC A T THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.£. 4TH ST. (5.£. 128THST.) AND 148TH AVE 5.£. EL. 454.77 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECTION OF 5.£. 128TH ST. AND 156TH AVE 5.£. EL. 547.94 (167.013 METERS) UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT d /led iJ, -'. / ----------------~- FRED I. GLICK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \,; /DESIGN ENGINEERING CORE JOB# 0:1.0:1.9 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL J,.Ji BY: ~ OAT£'·.~' BY: ______ OAT£.· BY: DATE: 7477 7 NE 29th Place Suite 707 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 PLANNING SURVEYING ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ., ~ ""i~ o~ ~ L z • ~ d\~ ~~ ~ ~ r-' "-w ~Z 0 '" 00 "" "" ~~ 0 3= 0 ~Z ::J ~~ en :::> U~ "-'-l!l Z 0 -' :::> m '-l!l Z z z ::i "- . • ~, ~~ ~i ~. ~~ ~ I'l I'l ~ " " 0 il • z I ~ ~ ~ c c u l<l ~ " ~ • ~ ~ "" "-"-<{ w ~ 0 ~ o z SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC· 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, w.M. 8ASFHALT WALKWAY DETAIL NTS x \1 0AUCER 2" I-IIGH \1''i.L-------'f7'::d -'\'F7I'~!.h-~"\'.'('7'.L:.-"~=t:f~~;;;:~-i'INISI-lED GRADE +----~"::':.I ,,§',,..:L .. r'<OOTE3ALL '-III-W=l' . - -cj~ __ --TOFSOIL E3ACKFILL 4 FERTILIZER /-;;------ROUGI-IEN ALL SURFACES r;;r~-bk1~ OF FIT -----CUT NEW ROOT MASS To STIMULATE NEW f;;:OOT GROWTI-I UNDISTURE3ED NATIVE SOIL l l 2 x ROOTE3ALL DIA. IF ADJACENT SURFACE IS FAVEMENT,-~ INST Ai-L FLUSI-I WI EDGE AND SLOFE AWAy .. 2% (TYF) IF ADJ/,,cENT SURFACE IS TURF, FINISI-I GRADE TO I" E3ELOW EDGE TO ALLOW FOR THiCKNESS OF TURF, SLOFE AWAY AT 2% (TYF) GAMETIME 12" I-IIGH E3LACK FLASTIC 'FLAYCURE3', b' LENGTI-IS, INSTALL FER MANUFACTURER'S SFECS. .r---FLAY SLiRFACE SHALL E3E I" E3ELOW ~DGE TO REDUCE SFILLO\lER OF SURFACE MATERIAL 12" OF Gl IMFAX ENGINEERED FIE3ER SURFACE MATERIAL OR AFFROVED EQUiVALENT 10" FERIMETER DRAIN; 4" DIA ADS FOL YETI-IYLENE FERFORATED FIFE, CONNECT TO SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ~PLAY AREA SURFACE 4 EDGE DETAIL U NTS RAILS TO ALTERNATE' ON OFFOSITE OF FOSTE, AT EACH SECTION 10'-0" O.C. MAX. CUT AT 45'~ 4><6 FRESSURE TR~ATED FOST o SHRUB FLANTING DETAIL (TO FACE FRONT) "- LEVEL CONDITION NTS DRILL 112" HOLE FOR 112" CARRIAGE E30L T ('9" LENGTH, GALVANIZED) TYF. I 112 x ROOTE3ALL DIA o ~~ > ,.' ~--GROUNDCOVER 2" LAYER MULCH AS SFECIFIED ON FLANS; T AFER TO CROWN ~I~~~~=FINISHED GRADE 1-ROOTE3ALL £:::.:...----TOFSOIL E3ACKFILL 4 FERTILIZER ~lIIl .•..•...•. .... . .. , ••. == CUT NEW ROOT MASS ~ ____ =II--',,:.-.. .,.'. = I' TO STIMULATE NEW t __ ~ 1;;--'7C-"ii'-~ ---~::r:T~:~~H NATIVE SOIL STAKING NOTES: RUE3E3ER I-IOSE AT TREE; I-IOSE SHALL E3E LONG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE I YEARS GROWTH AND FROTECT TRUNK FROM DAMAGE OR CI-IAFING4 ASSURE FROTECTION OF E3RANCHES. :0 HARDWOOD STAKES OR OTI-IER AFFROVED MATERIAL, ALL STAKES TO E3E DRIVEN OUTSIDE TI-IE ROOTE3ALL, AT 120· SFACING 4 INTO NATIVE SOIL A MIN. OF b". GALVANIZED WIRE OR CAE3LE, TWIST WIRE TO TIGHTEN ONLY ENOUGH TO KEEF FROM SLiFFING (ALLOW FOR SOME TRUNK MOVEMENT). I 112 x DIA 2 x ROOTE3ALL DIA. GROUNDCovER PLANTING DETAIL 2 x • o 0 o 0 NTS • 0°0 0 /"-.;-----------FRUNE TREE AS DIRECTED IN FLANTING NOTES. ~--FLANT TREE SO THAT THE TRUNK CROWN IS vISIE3LE AT THE TOF OF THE ROOTE3ALL; SET TOF OF ROOTE3ALL FLUSH TO GRADE; DO NOT COVER THE CROWN OF ROOTE3ALL WITI-I SOIL. ___ -MIN. 2" MULCH; DO NOT FLACE IN CONTACT WITI-I TRUNK ~-4 IN. HIGH EARTH SAUCER AROUND EDGE OF FLANTING FIT. 1Ilt~~~:'------REMOVE ALL TWINE, WIRE AND E3URLAF FROM TOF I-IALF OF _ ROOTE3ALL; NON-E310DEGRADEE3LE MATERIAL SHALL E3E REMOVED COMFLETEL Y. '...-j!,!!---------TAMF TOFSOIL E3ACKFILL AROUND ROOTE3ALL E3ASE ~j-""'-.:.C:thb1~:.... FIRML Y WITH FOOT FRESSURE TO AVOID SHIFT OF ROOTE3ALL. DIA ---SOIL LAYER --FLACE ROOTE3ALL ON UNEXCAvATED SOIL FEDESTAL TO FREVENT SETTLING 8 TREE PLANTING DETAIL NTS = \Il , '" 0 \Il -N N 0 0 0 0 ELEVATION G RAIL FENCE DETAIL NTS SECTION 2X4 RAILS FLUSH TO E3ACK OF FOST ~ III , I " -I I· \.5" ELEVATION 8'-0" o.c. ~MODIFIED FANEL FENCE DET,Cl.IL ~ NTS • o o o 2><", PRESSURE TRI.:ATED RAIL ,.--CONCRETE FOOTING; FITCI-I TO DRAIN (TYF) FINISHED GRADE DECORATIVE WOOD FOST CAF ,/ ~2X4CAF /t .............-IX4 TRIM ---Y- / ~-~ IXb CEDAR SLATS; NO 1~-f ..... I-"-SFACING E3EWTWEEN SLATS " . .1-1---4X4X8' FRESSURE TREATED WOOD FOST , . IX6 TRIM CONCRETE FOOTING; FITCH TO DRAIN nYF) FINISHED GRADE I •• 'h ..............-GRAVEL SUE3-E3ASE nYF) ~~i'ii~ UNDISTURE3ED SOIL '-" -II=- DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA I-V 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'n HE BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 156TH Af,£ 50£. AT THE INTERSECTIONS WITH 50£. 128TH ST. AND 50£. 136TH ST. AS CALCULA TED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N050 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994. BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NA I-V 1988 DA TUM NO. 1852 -3" FLA T BRASS SURFACE DISC A T THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.£. 4TH ST. (50£. 128THST.) AND 148TH A f,£ 50£. EL. 454.71 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECTION OF 50£. 128TH ST. AND 156TH AVE 50£. EL. 547.94 (167.013 METERS) UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE , CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! .~ ""'-1-800-424-5555 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT d# ~A./ ----------------~- FRED I. GLICK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \,; /DESIGN BY: ______ DATE __ BY: DATE __ 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING PLANNING SURVEYING CORE J08# 01019 ,..: D... W o (f) '" "" o 3: u ---' en :J D... 0-z o ---' :J en 0-z z z ::s D... w ~ o o z L . ", ~. , , , : i I " ~~:+' , JI , ~: -t- I I I ". I {'",'I" ·········::it ~ ..... ,,-_, ~ \ !J I ./ 9 "\, , \ " \ { ! ROAD A 8 70 SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M ,~, I 19 ! / , ! Iv ! '.,-\ / .~ mi "'I \ \ \\, \ ;', \ \ .. \ .-\ -\ \ ~ . , , " ! _, f ' "/ $;\1 </ '+ -' \ jW' . -I , ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 'II I" ___ ):C", , !: " 1/ I _~ . t-~~··· \ ' \ ; ~ , >;!; ,'; I .1 'I 1 1 !II 1 23 , \ 41 ROJ. 6, TREE RETENTION LEGEND ExiSTING TREES ON-SITE TO REMAIN (PRIFLINES ARE ESTIMATES), , '\ CONIFEROUS PECIPUOUS ExiSTING TREES WITHIN ROSARIO AVE. TO REMAIN (DRIFLINES ARE ESTIMATES); NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETENTION CALCULATION, TREE RETENTION CALCULATIONS ExiSTING TREES ON-SITE, SIGNIFICANT TREES, (8" PIA .• LARGER FOR CONIFEROUS/ 12" DIA. • LARGER FOR DECIDUOUS), NON-SIGNIFICANT TREES, lREES WITf..lIN R-O-W AREA. STORM WATER FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED t'ROM CALCULATIONS, NET TREES ON-SITE, lREES FROFOSED TO BE SAVEP (%), SCALE: 1" 40' r r~~T--------1r +/ -':12':1 +/-80&3 +/-0&0& +/-240& +/-0&83 +/-114 (25.5%) DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA Vl) 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'J1"E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 156TH AVE s.£. AT THE INTERSECnONS WITH s.£. 128TH ST. AND s.£. 136TH ST. AS CALCULA TEO FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT NOS. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994. BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NAVl) 1988 DATUM NO. 1852 -3" FLA T BRASS SURFACE DISC A T THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECnON OF N.£. 4TH ST. (s.£. 128THST.) AND 148TH AVE s.£. EL. 454.77 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSECnON OF s.£. 128TH ST. AND 156TH AVES.£. EL. 547.94 (167.013 METERS) iU (' , UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE , CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT _d:~~, FRED I. GLICK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \,; /DESIGN ENGINEERING CORE JOB# 0:1.019 BY: BY: BY: ______ DATE ______ DATE 14711 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 PLANNING SURVEYING w ~ o z o (/) GJ 0::: o z 'I Ij " \ 44 65 j r :1' , !i 50 'i , SE :1/4, NW:1/4, SEC,:14, TWP. 23 N., RGE 5 E, W.M , ,,,,t~< ..... -,~" i , ~~~+ i \ NB87J3'20"W 15QOO 52 ! ./, /' ! »/ .• , v + ".I ' ~, ,'.; "," I '1 i ' + I ~- . .' , : . ; . ; \ ,.., ... ; ." ,; TREE RETENTION LEGEND E)<ISTIN60 TREES ON-SITE: TO REiMAIN (DRIPLINES ARE ESTIMATES), CONIFEROUS DECIDUOUS EXISTIN60 TREES WITHIN ROSARIO AVE. TO REMAIN (DRIPLINES ARE ESTIMATES); NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETENTION CALCULATION, o CON'''"",.. DEWUCUS TREE RETENTION CALCULATIONS EXISTING; TREES ON-SITE, SI60NIFICANT TREES, (8" DIA. " LARGoER FOR CONIFEROUSI 12" DIA. ~ LARGoER FOR DECIDUOUS), NON-SI60NIFICANT TREES, TREES WITHIN R-O-W AREA 4 STORM WATER FACILITIES TO 6E REMOVED FRoM CALCULATIONS, NET TREES ON-SITE, TREES PROPOSED TO 6E SAVED (%), SCALE: 1" 40' +1-92'21 +1-8103 +1-1010 +1-2410 +1-1083 +1-114 (25.5%) DATUM CITY OF RENTON -NA VV 1988 BASIS OF BEARINGS N00'29'/ft: BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS ALONG TIlE CENTERLINE OF 156TH AII.E. 5.£ AT THE INTERSECTIONS WITH 5.£ 128TH ST. AND 5.£ 136TH ST. AS CALCULATED FROM CITY OF RENTON CONTROL POINT N05. 1851 AND 1852, FOUNO IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOV. 15, 1994 BENCHMARKS PER CITY OF RENTON SURVEY ON NA VV 1988 DA TUM NO. 1852 -3" FLA T BRASS SURFACE OISC A T THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSEC110N OF N.£ 4TH ST. (5.£ 128THST.) AND 148TH AII.E. 5.£ EL. 454.77 (138.614 METERS) NO. 2103 -BROKEN BRASS SURFACE DISC IN THE NTERSEC110N OF 5.£ 128TH ST. AND 156TH AVE 5.£ EL 547.94 (167.013 METERS) . . ,~ ; UNDERGROUND LOCATOR SERVICE CALL BEFORE YOU D/G/ 1-800-424-5555 STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT d /IJ ,;j, A. I. ----------------~-FRED I. GLICK CERTIFICATE NO. 435 coRE \,; /DESIGN ENGINEERING CORE JOB# 01019 BY: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL d1tw..f DAT£-1/Jtt6 BY: ______ DAT£· BY: DAT£' 147/1 NE 29th Place Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 PLANNING SURVEYING I PARK SHEET 2 OF 7 A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M., CITY OF RENTOt'-lj KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LUA-XX-XXX-FP LND-XX-XXX LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: LOT 1, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 678063-R, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812110857. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, WlLLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING, COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:' BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 00'28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET AND NORTH 88'55'44" WEST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET fROM THE CENTER Of SAID SECTION 14; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN Of THE AUGUST GERBER ROAD (156TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST) AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 1094241, NORTH 00'28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 472.53 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00'28'02" WEST A DISTANCE OF 157.51 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'01'16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1248.07 FEET TO .THE EAST UNE OF THE WEST 30.00 fEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST UNE SOUTH 00'33'02" EAST A DISTANCE OF 157.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88'59'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1247.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT Of BEGINNING; EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS CONVEYED TO FRANKUN T. TETER AND C. LENA TETER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 6400741 AND 6417877. PARCEL C: PARCEL A, CITY OF RENTON LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER LUA-06-052-LLA, HIGHLANDS PARK, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20061011900002, IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. PARCEL D: LOT 4, KING COUNTY SHORT PLAT NUMBER 484106, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8505170617. EASEMENT NOTES THE EASEMENTS DEPICTED ON THE MAP SHEETS OF THIS FINAL PLAT ARE FOR THE UMITED PURPOSED USTED BELOW AND ARE HEREBY CONVEYED FOLLOWING THE RECORDING OF THIS FINAL PLAT AS SPECIFIED ACCORDING TO THE RESERVATIONS USTED BELOW. THE CITY OF RENTON SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON TO REPAIR ANY DEfiCIENCIES OF THE DRAINAGE FACIUTY IN THE EVENT THE OWNER(S) IS/ARE NEGUGENT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DRAINAGE FACIUTIES. THESE REPAIRS SHALL BE AT THE OWNER'S COST. L·AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED, GRANTED AN[LCONVEYED TO. THkCLTY .OE.RENION, KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90 AND THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, UNDER AND UPON THE 20 FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS SHOWN ON LOTS 13 AND 56, THE 26 FOOT ACCESS AND UllUTY EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 11 AND TRACT 999, AND THE EXTERIOR 10 FEET OF ALL LOTS AND TRACTS, PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING EXISTING OR PROPOSED PUBUC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN HEREON, IN WHICH TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS WITH NECESSARY FACIUllES, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTl,ER PROPERTY, WITH UllLlTY SERVICES AND SIDEWALKS, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN TOGETHER STATED. NO UNES OR WIRES fOR THE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT, OR FOR TELEPHONE USE, CABLE TELEVISION, FIRE OR POUCE SIGNAL OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES, SHALL BE PLACED UPON ANY LOT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN CONDUIT ATTACHED TO A BUILDING. 2. A PRIVATE EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO PUGET SOUND ENERGY COMPANY, QWEST, COM CAST, (OTHER PRIVATE UllLlTIES), AND THEIR RESPECllVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS UNDER AND UPON ALL PRIVATE STREETS, ALLEYWAYS OR PRIVATE DRIVES, INCLUDING THE 20 FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS AND UllUTY EASEMENTS SHOWN ON LOTS 13 AND 56, THE 26 FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS AND UllUTY EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 11 AND TRACT 999, AND THE EXTERIOR TEN (10) FEET PARALLEL WITH AND ADJOINING THE STREET, ALLEYWAYS OR PRIVATE DRIVE FRONTAGE Of ALL LOTS AND TRACTS. FURTHER EASEMENTS ARE RESERVED OVER PRIVATE LANDS FOR VAULTS, PEDESTALS AND RELATED FACILITIES ("VAULT EASEMENTS") ADJACENT TO THE 10-fOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT RESERVED IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS: THE VAULT EASEMENT MAY OCCUPY UP TO AN ADDITIONAL ONE (1) FOOT IN WIDTH (FOR A TOTAL WIDTH OF 11 fEET) WITH THE LENGTH OF EACH VAULT EASEMENT EXTENDING ONE (1) FOOT FROM EACH END Of THE ASBUILT VAULT(S). THE NUMBER AND LOCATION OF VAULT EASEMENTS WILL BE "AS INSTALLED" DURING THE UTlUTY'S INITIAL INSTALLATION OF FACIUTIES. .THE EASEMENTS ARE RESERVED AND GRANTED IN ORDER TO INSTALL, LAY, CONSTRUCT, RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN UNDERGROUND PIPE, CONDUIT, CABLES, WIRES, VAULTS AND PEDESTALS WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WITH ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, GAS, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DATA TRANSMISSION, STREET UGHTS AND UTILITY SERVICE TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS AND TRACTS AT ALL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED. THESE EASEMENTS ENTERED UPON FOR THESE PURPOSES SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION. NO LINES OR WIRES fOR TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRIC CURRENT, OR fOR TELEPHONE, CABLE TELEVISION, TELECOMMUNICAllONS OR DATA TRANSMISSION USES SHALL BE PLACED OR PERMITTED TO BE PLACED WITHIN THIS EASEMENT UNLESS THE SAME SHALL BE UNDERGROUND. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURE SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE EASEMENTS WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM EASEMENT OWNERS. 3. THE 5-FOOT PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 1 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 10. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE FACILIllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. . 4. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACIUllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT, 5. THE 10-FOOi PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 5, 6 AND 7 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 5, 6, 7 AND 3. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILIllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 6. THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT 999 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 9. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEfiTED LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. EASEMENT NOTES CONTINUED EASEMENT NOTES CONTINUED 7. THE 10-FOOT BY 13-FOOT PRIVATE ORAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 11 IS FOR THE BENEFIT Of LOT 12. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFlTt!D LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILIllES WITHIN SAIP EASEMENT. 8. THE 5-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASE:MENT SHOWN ON LOTS 12 AND 13 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 12, 13 AND 14. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGt! FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. ''-.. " 9. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASeMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 13, 15 AND 16 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 12, 15, 16 AND 18. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGi! FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 10. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 18 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 17 AND 18. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFIT[;:D LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILIllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 11. THE i0-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE Ef\5EMENT SHOWN ON LOT 19 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 19 AND 20. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEmi:D LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES \MTHI~J SAID EASEMENT. 12. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 21 AND 22 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 21, 22 AND 23. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGe: FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 13. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 23, 24 AND 25 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 23, 24, 25 AND 26. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAiNAGE: FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 14. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 26, 27 AND 28 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 27, 28, AND 29. THE OVl'NERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGl! FACILITIES WiTHIN SAID EASEMENT. 15. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 32 IS fOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 30. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOT sHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID E/ISEM[:NT. 16. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EM1EMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 33, 34 AND 35 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 32, 33 AND 34. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGir FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 17. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE: Ef\SEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 36 AND 37 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 35, 36 AND 37. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGl! FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 18. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 39 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 38. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOT S~IALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID Ef,SEM[NT. 19. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 40, 41 AND 42 IS FOR THE BENEFIT -----------------------------------------------------------34. HiE 15-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 73 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY Of RENTON fOR PUBUC STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES. THE CITY OF RENTON IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE fACILlllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 35. THE 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 55 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR PUBUC STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES. THE CITY OF RENTON IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ~e-INTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASE~ENT. 36. THE 15-FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 55 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR SANITARY SEWER FACIUTIES. THE CITY OF RENTON IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER FACILIllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 37. THE 15-FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT 998 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RENTON fOR SANllARY SEWER FACIUllES. THE CITY OF RENTON IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 38. THE 20-FOOT WATER EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT 998 IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90 FOR PUBLIC WATER FACIUTIES. SAID D;STRICT IS HEREBY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THf:.: PUBLIC WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 39. THE 5-FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 56 AND 57 IS fOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 55 AND 56. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITCD LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF 1l,EIR PRIVATE WATER fACIUTlES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 40. THE 5-FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 15 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 14. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOT SHALL BE r~ESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 41. THE 5-FOOT PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 12 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 13. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOT SHALL BE r~ESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THEIR PRIVATE WATER FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 42. THE 20-FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTIUTY EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 13 IS FOR THE BENEFIT Of LOT '14. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 13 AND 14 SHAUL BE RESPONSIBLE fOR THEIR RESPECllVE PRIVflTE UTILITY FACILIllES AND SHARE EQUALLY IN THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ACCESS AND UTILITIES USED IN COMMON WITH SAID EASEMENT. 43. THE 26-FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 11 AND TRACT 999 IS FOR THE I3ENEFIT OF LOTS 9 AND 10. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 9 AND 10 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR: RESPECTIVE PRIVATE UTIUTY FACIUTIES AND SHARE EQUAULY IN THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBIUTIES OF THE ACCESS AND UTILITIES USED IN COMMON WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 44. THE 20-FOOT PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 56 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 55. THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 55 AND 56 SHALL BE RESPONSIBl.E FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE PRIV!ITE UTILITY FACILITIES AND SHARE EQUALLY IN THE MAINTENANCE f~ESPONSIBILIllES OF THE ACCESS AND UTlUTlES USED IN COMMON WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. OF LOTS 39, 40, 41 AND 42. THE 0WNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE fOR THE [GI@- Mi\lN~J:!ANCE OF THE E'RIVATE DRN>'.GE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID ~ASEMENT. 4(}5 -_-----... " _ _ t. __ .- 20. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGL r~ASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 42, 43 AND 44 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 43, 44 AND 45. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 21. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 45 AND 46 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 46 AND 47. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 22. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 48 AND 49 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 48, 49 AND 51. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 23. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 50 AND 51 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 31 AND 50. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 24. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 53, 54 AND 56 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 52, 53 AND 54. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILIllES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 25. THE 5-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 56 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 55. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEfiTED LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID E.A,SEMENT. 26. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOT 58 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 57. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 27. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 59, 60, 61 AND 62 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 58, 59, 60 AND 61. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE fOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE fACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 28. THE 10-fOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 63 AND 64 IS fOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 62 AND 63. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 29. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 65, 66 AND 67 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 64, 65 AND 66. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT, 30. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINP,GE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 68 AND 69 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 67 AND 68. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 31. THE 10-fOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 70 AND 71 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 69, 70 AND 71. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEFITED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 32. THE 10-fOOT BY 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON TRACT 997 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT 72. THE OWNERS OF SI>.ID BENEFITED LOT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE Of THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. 33. THE 10-FOOT PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON LOTS 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 AND TRACT 997 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 AND 72. THE OWNERS OF SAID BENEfiTED LOTS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE FACILITIES WITHIN SAID EASEMENT. Z-JOS-/OI 9 RENTON GREENWOOD CEMETERY 16 fO NE 4TH ST 15 1-'------r MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE 11 14 VICINITY MAP r = 3000':t: cORE \,; ,/ DESIGN 1477 1 N.E. 29th PI. Suite 701 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fox 425,885.7963 ENGINEERING, PLANNING· SURVEYING JOB NO. 0:1.0:1.9 , ." FOUND ;')-1/2" DOMED BRASS SURFACE DISC AT THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) AND 140TH liVE. S.E. IN APRIL. 1995, RENTON CONTROL MON. NO. 1851 2623.86 (CITY OF RENTON) HIGHLANDS PARK A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M., CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) _ 2623.87 ~~~. 10 11 -----........ -V------- -N88'21'19"W RESTRICTIONS 1. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, NOTES, DEDICATIONS, AND SETBACKS, IF ANY, SET FORTH IN OR DELINEATED ON THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812110857. 2. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, NOTES, DEDICATIONS AND SETBACKS, IF ANY, SET FORTH IN OR DELINEATED ON THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8505170617. 3. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO COVENANrs, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, NOTES, DgOICATlONS AND SETBACKS, IF ANY, SET FORTH IN OR DELINEATED ON CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMEtfr NO. LUA-06-052-LLA, RECORDED UNDER i{ECORDING NUMBER 200610119000027. 4. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN EASEMENT FOR INCRESS AND EGRESS AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7612100059. 5. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND I~ I~ I ~ I ~$ 8 I Z I CONDITIONS OF AN EASEMENT FOR AN ELECTRIC I TRANSMISSION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION LINE GRANTED TO I PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, AS DISCLOSED 1 BY I~STRUMENT RE~ORDED UNDER RECO~DING NUMBER 8503010803'1 6. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITiONS OF I AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN RONDA BRYANT AND FRANK I BRYANT AND KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 REGARDING TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8804210773. 7. THIS SITE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NOTICE OF CHARGES BY WATER, SEWER, AND/OR STORM AND SURFACE WATER UTILITIES, AS DISCLOSED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 9606210966. SIDEWALK EASEMENT NOTE THE OWNERS OF LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED DO HEREBY GRANT AND CONVEY TO THE CITY OF RENTON, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS (THE GRANTEE). A PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN PURPOSES. AND CONSTRUCTING. RECONSTRUCTING. INSTAWNG, REPAIRING. USING AND MAINTAINING SAID SIDEWALK. TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS THERETO WITHOUT ANY PRIOR INSTITUTION OF SUIT PROCEEDINGS OF LAW AND I~ I;;) I~ RENTON CONTROL MON. NO. 1852 FLAT BRASS SURFACE DISC AT THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) AND 148TH AVE. S.E. FOUND 3" BRASS SURFACE DISK (BROKEN) WITH PUNCH IN APRIL, 1995, ('-II l'! I ~I I I I r---FOUND 1/2" REBAR WITH I I YELLOW PLASTIC CAP, STAMPED I ~ "CORE 30427" IN JANUARY I FO D 2" BRASS CAP --I CASE 06' S. I ~ <D 2002 PER REF. 1 UN \ n t W/PUNCH IN CONC. DN. O.S' IN 'T L NSS'10'50"W I ('-I r -----1309:35 --- ---- --------+--A ----------------k!88·10'5..Q'.'..W __ ----- ---if , " : " : r---FOUND 1/2" REBAR WITH YEt.LOW PLASTIC CAP, STAMPED i,\-y 1309.33 ----___ _ r \ ""i 1 1m IC'! i§ <D ('-II 01 ~l, &30.01 1\ N88'04'40"W ~ I) '--;:--1 15 16 17 ~_/ L 20 109S.61 ~ I >--,'-'--1_8 ........ ) (19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 ~i 12 NE 1ST 5T 11 'r-/ ~ r'3=-=91-illl-r--r--,..-_-..., I I I I ~I ~I I ~ \ 18~.01 I cq I~ <0 ...J I~ TR 998.J I -t I L5 ,w ~ -m ('-I b 0 Z 1 TR \)99 8 W 30 w L,j I I I-------v-~~-I---~--.j > I---~ 38 37 35 35 34 33 32 (f) I 1I.i I 1 0 9 7 -< 40 1---3-1-~ ~ ::J I vi ul rl--r-I--F--~ ~ r--,r--t-t---t--t--I--t---i----J 0 L1 :;; <~ vi Ir---:B 6 ~ 41 50 i t------,.I[::il ~ I~ til 2 3 4 I __ --I~ It: 52 <01 ~ ~ I ~ r--5 1--42.--1 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 1-- 5 - 1 ---1 ~ 53 I ~ ~ ~ ~.--~ : 5E 2ND ST ./ 5'~ ~: It: I 73 J r:-~ I .-----1 72 71 70 69 58 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57 55 55 I WITHOUT INCURRING ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY THEREFORE I "CORE 30427" IN JANUARY : w yO.03"" I t, I I TR 997 N88'01'33"W 823.45 t\, r--~ "7 ~O.1j 11 THE EASEMENT HEREBY GRANTED AND CONVEYED IS GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED AND IDENTIFIED ON SHEETS 4. 5, 6 AND 7 OF 7 HEREIN AS CITY OF RENTON SIDEWALK EASEMENTS. I 2002 PER REF. 1 15 f14.--___ ~1 ~O!.~ __ --+ _____ _ ~ l.C) N87'OB'22"W ~.I I 1j;~~:.i2'17" ~ ~ NOO'28'39"E ('-II L=38.57 ~ b 5.28 0 I i) 249.83 ~ ~~ . • , ,,----___________ ~ __ 1307.43 \ )) N88 00 19 W S.E. 2ND PL. --------------_~ __ 'L1~jE BEARING DISTANCE _/ L1 N8S'02'Ol"W 152.00 L2 NOO"29'11"E 127.71 FOUND 1-1/2" BRASS CAP L3 N88'04'08"W 152.00 W/PUNCH IN CONC. DN. 1.2' IN L4 NOO'29'11"E 59.71 CASE (CITY OF RENTON NO. L5 NSS'03'20"W 150.00 2105) HELD FOR CTR. SEC. L6 NOO'29'09"E 127.45 SHEET 3 OF 7 LUA-XX-XXX-FP LND-XX-XXX SURVEYOR'S NOTES 1. THE SECTION SUBDIVISION FOR THIS SECTION IS BASED A FIELD SURVEY BY CORE DESIGN, INC. IN APRIL 1995. 2. ALL TITLE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM CHICAGO llTLE INSURANCE COMPANY SECOND PLAT CERTIFICATE ORDER NO. 1175456, DATED OCTOBER 19, 2006 AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMMITMENT NUMBER 1 THERETO DATED JANUARY 22, 2007. IN PREPARING THIS MAP, CORE DESIGN HAS CONDUCTED NO INDEPENDENT TITLE SEARCH NOR IS CORE DESIGN AWARE OF ANY TITLE ISSUES AFFECTING THE SURVEYED PROPERTY OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE MAP AND DISCLOSED BY THE REFERENCED CHICAGO TITLE CERTIFICATE. CORE DESIGN HAS RELIED WHOLLY ON CHICAGO TITLE'S REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TITLE'S CONDITION TO PREPARE THIS SURVEY AND THEREFORE CORE DESIGN QUAUFIES THE MAP'S ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS TO THAT EXTENT. 3. AREA OF ENTIRE SITE: 789,203± S.F. (18.1176± ACRES). 4. AREA OF DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY 126,190± S.F. (2.8968± ACRES). 5. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND WERE FIELD VISITED IN APRIL. 1995, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE. 6. ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET. 7. THIS IS A FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY. A SOKKIA FIVE SECOND COMBINED ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION WAS USED TO MEASURE THE ANGULAR AND DISTANCE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE CONTROLLING MONUMENTATION AS SHOWN. CLOSURE RATIOS OF THE TRAVERSE MET OR EXCEEDED THOSE SPECIFIED IN WAC 332-130-090. ALL MEASURING INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT ARE MAINTAINED IN ADJUSTMENT ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. BASIS OF BEARINGS N88'22'17"W Bi;:TWEEN THE MONUMENT NOS. 1851 AND 1852, FOUND IN PLACE AND DESCRIBED BELOW PER CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 15, 1994. REFERENCES 1. THE PLAT OF MAPLEWOOD ESTATES PHASE 1, RECORDED IN VOLUME 205 OF PLATS, PAGES 51-62, IN KING COUNTY, RECORDING NUMBER 20020213001277. REFERENCE MONUMENTS NO. 1851 -3~" DOMED BRASS SURFACE DISC W/PUNCH MARK AT TrIE-eOt!STRUCTED !NTI:-RBECT!ON ·()~·N£4TH ST:-(S.E. 12rm·! ST.)~ AND 140TH AVE. S,E. NO. 1852 -3" FLAT BRASS SURFACE DISC AT THE CONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION OF N.E. 4TH ST. (S.E. 128TH ST.) AND 148TH AVE. S.E. GENERAL NOTES 1. THE STREET TREES SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ABUTTING LOT OWNERS. 2. THE ROAD AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLAN AND PROFILE ON FILE WITH RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AND ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPER AGENCY, CURRENTLY RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION. 3. ALL BUILDING DOWN SPOUTS. FOOTING DRAINS, AND DRAINS FROM ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES SUCH AS PATIOS AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE PERMANENT STORM DRAINAGE OUTLET AS SHOWN ON THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ON FILE WITH RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, THIS PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. ALL CONNECTIONS OF THE DRAINS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL. SCALE: 1" --200' o 100 200 400 ! --I ! II coRE \,; ,/'DESIGN 14711 N.E. 29th PI. Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425,885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING· PLANNING· SURVEYING JOB NO. 0:1..0:1..9 SE 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 14, ntVP. 23 N., RG£ 5 £, W.M. ----------------------------------~------------------------~~-~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------------------------------------------------~~~~ SCALE: 1 " 50' 100 ! o .1") . , -._-- . S.E. ·2ND PL. . ---- ~~~ .. ~~~~~~~~~--~--------- TREE RETENTION CALCULATIONS EXISTING TReES ON-SiTe, SIGNIFICANT TReE&, (8" DIA 4 LARGeR FOR CONIFeROUS/ 12" DIA 4 LARGeR FOR DECIDUOUS)' NON-SIGNIFICANT TReES, TReES WITHIN R-O-W AReA 4 STOF1M WATeR FACILITIES TO 6E Ret10VED FROM CALCULATIONS, NET TReES ON-SiTe, TReES PROPOseD TO 6e SAVED (%), +/-~2~ +/-863 +/-66 +/-246 +/-683 +/-m~ (:25.3$) Tf~EE RETENTION LEGEND EXISTING TReES ON-SiTe TO RS1AIN (DRIFINES ARe ESTIMATeS), CONIFEROUS DECIDUOUS EXISTING TReES WITHIN ROSARIO AVE. TO l"-EMAIN (DRIFINES ARe ESTIMATeS); NOT ACCOUNTeD FOR IN ReTENTION CALCULATION, CONiFeROUS 4 DECIDUOUS EXISTING TReES TO E~E ReMOVED, • CONiFeROUS • t::'ECIDUOUS EXISTING TReES TO EIE ReMOVED, • CONIFEROUS. I::>ECIDUOUS , TREE rJrlTIGATION LEGEND , ® DEbiDUOUS STReET TReE $ i CONIFEROUS TReE \ \ I i I \ \ \ w v:i i~ i« « , ~-en i W I i> , i I if) z o Vi ;; w '" o z ~ C'l >-Q:: ::§ ~ ~ w I-« 0 -0 -.~ ~ V) Il ~ -£ (). '" u.. Z --"-" - ~ 'S 0 w Z Cl (f) w 0 M '" (). "-to; "' 0 <Xl <Xl <Xl "' (). '" ~ " 0 ~ t;, .E .5 -<: ~ ~ ~ qj' l() ~ <Xl > <Xl ~ l() ~ '" '" " ~ ~ "':; 0 w > Z 0 S a: « Q a: Q 0 « SHEET 1 ~ Z >- llJ >- <>< ::> V) ~ Z -Z z -« ..... a.. ~ Z <>< llJ llJ Z -~ Z llJ 0" 1 PROJECT NUMBER 01019 L-____________________________________________ . ________________________________________________________________________________ , ____________________ i~--------------------------~--~~~~ . ----c'+---,. -.-.. -·~--.--=c,-"'-:.=c,',c.._- SCALE: 1" = 50' r o n ~I~ ~, .-. '-'-."---.-.. - . ---,_: ~---"-"':--' • • • • . . • -S.E:. ·2ND . PL. SE 1/4, NW 114, SEC. 14, TWP.23 N., RG£ 5 £, W.M. • ... . • • • • • • • • TREE RETENTION CALCULATIONS EXleTINC:. ~Ee ON-eITE' elGINIFlcANT ~Ee, (8" DIA • LA~R F'OR CONIFEFWU$/ 12" DIA • LA~R FOR DECIDU0U5)' NON-eIGINIFICANT TREEe, ~Ee WITI .. IIN R-O-LU AREA • eTORM WATER FACILlTIEe TO 6E REMOYED FROI-I CALCULATIONe, NET ~Ee ON-eITE, ~Ee PROPOSED TO 61, eAYED (%), +/ -':l2':l +/-863 +/-"'''' +/-2-<.;;;;.0 • • -TREE RETENTION LEGEND EXleTINC:. ~Ee ON-eITE TO REMAIN (DRIFINEe ARE EeTIMATEe)' . DI:. ...:IDUCUS EXI6TINC:. ~Ee WITHIN ROSARIO AYE. TO REMAIN (DRIFINES ARE EeTIMATEe); NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN RETENTION CALCULATION, CONIFEFWU$ • DECIDU0U5 • CONIFEROUS. DECIDU0U5 EXleTINC:. ~Ee TO 6E REMOYED, • CONIFEROUS·. DECIDU0U5 I • -l&J . . , . I/) 'lliJ.li1l"l , TREE MITIGATION LEGEND ~ DECIDU0U5 S~ET ~E ~ CONli-£,ROIJ5 ~E if> Z o f7> :> w '" o z 8 ~ )... Q:: ::§ <t ~ w f-« o -o -.~ oil ~ v a'! -£ (). " ~ -"-" ~ -s 0 w z C) VJ w 0 "-0 0 co (). ~ 0> ., -:;; ~ ~' ~ > ~ ~ '" ~ -s z S « It': 0 SHEET 1 '-' CO) Z -0 C>-"->-'" co l1J co :> '" '" "" " :::> '" ~ V) ~ ~ '-' z co '" -'" z " z « ~ Il.. '-' Z "" l1J l1J Z -'-' Z l1J ~ 0 w > 0 It': D- D-« OF 1 PROJECT NUMBER 01019 L-________________________ ~ __________________________________ . __ . ______________________________ --------____ --------------------------____________________________________ L-~~~~ '. TRACT J 58 30 29 28 - 27 26 tI) 1 n N ± I o W ()l ~ I! ~,( )' .~ ~ '-\ 3Q,(lO I 'i" " Lei (!] LJ.! Z :::i w Coin t[)~ ;"1 . N'i" • 'i" on ~I I I 30' . 1 10 N88'02'44"W \ 63.66 \\J-;/ , 'O~. ,/ ).~ \ 6000 HIGHLANDS PARK A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4. SEC. 14. TWP. 23 N .• RGE. 5 E .• W.M .. CITY OF RENTO~I, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 9 N8~'02' 44"W SEE SHEET 4 FOR CONTINUATION 40 60.00 7 3a 87 SHEET 6 OF 7 LUA-XX-XXX-FP LND-XX-XXX co "S././ -"-500 '<C ~~~./././ • ~3V.D~)/ ./ 60.00 I N88'02'44"W ·t1-r------~~~~~------__ ~--~N~88~·g02~'~44~"~W~~L___ 109.24 60.00 , ./ ./ ~ ./ (L 5' PRIVATE s,ct'mARY I SEWER AND D AINAGE I I EASEMENT SEE ~WTE 3, I~ SriT. :2 0J 614::: I-N89'36'02"r 31.42 .. o 0 ..... ' '0 o . t[) r-, ~ CD I I I I I r - - --- - - - - - --__ ,~ ____ _ CD r-, I ~I I I I L --.32,00_ 60.00 60.00 TRACT 997 STORM DETENTION 51636± SF SEE DEDICATION SriT. 1 129.96 ------ 60.00 I ~ ~ -- [ 10' PDE SEE . NOTE 33, SHT. 2 ------- 1 60.00 N88'01'33"W I 1-+-1~10' PDE I SEE NOTE 19, B I SHT. 2 ;C I I , I I 41 8193± SF @Y o o tI) " o o ci ~ 43 ·tl~II ______ ~N8~8~·0~2~'4~4~"~W ________ --4 109.24 w CD I o I o ci I L0 I R=25.00 1I=90'OO'OO" L=39.27 42 8059± c::- c§l 130.24 o o L{) " ~') o z 8963± SF @Y " .----10' PDE • w SEE NOTE 20, SHT. 2 SE 2ND ST '-10' PDE SEE NOTE 29, SHT 2 88 7413± SF cgXX9 --------------_. - 6000 823.45 --- 6000 FOUND 1/2" REBAR 60.00 WITH~I CAP STAMPED "WPD 21710", ON PROP. LINE W 1O (D f-.-.-co ~~ o~ z , • w z o -~ Z -- 65 E-t Z o u 11 --40' SCALE: 1" o 20' 40' 80' ... ' -=1-=-1_ ..... 1 LEGEND SET STANDARD CITY OF RENTON CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE AS SHOWN. I --.:, iii ~ I .,. (!j ,..: • SET 1/2" X 24" REBAR W!YELLOW PLASllC I g ~ 3 2 CAP STAMPED ·CORE 37555" I Z KING CO. SHORT PLAT NO. 484106 0 FOUND CORNER MONUMENT AS NOTED. I REG. NO. 8505170617 I :.: SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER "37555" ON I \~ PROPERTY UNE EXTENDED 4.75 FEET IN I UEU OF FRONT LOT CORNERS UNLESS l R=25.00 ~ 10' PUGET SOUND POWER NOTED OTHERWISE. lP88"24'17" AND LIGHT EASEMENT \ L=38 57 REe. NO. 8503010803 C§) CITY OF RENTON STREET ADDRESS 't-~----''-~--,.-. --_.-----.--------_. ________________ --I PDE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT S.E. 2ND PL -+-'--~-------T-------__ .224~9~.8~3L _______________________ ! _________________ --_______________________________ L ________ ~SWE CITY OF RENTON SIDEWALK EASEMENT SEE SIDEWALK EASEMENT NOTE ON SHT. 3 '0 n N8S'OQ'19''w 1307.43 '0 n S LINE SE. 1/4, NW. 1/4 SEC. 14-23-5 \,\ .. c.... e",,,+;~ ... d.eo,(v.w ~r~~' n ~ c.o,,~ +. -coRE 14711 N.E. 29th PI. Suite 10 1 Srr~ \: /DESIGN Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 ENGINEERING" PLANNING" SURVEYING JOB NO. 0:1..0:1..9 74 73 71 >- TRACT J I i , 1") TR. A '" .~ 30' Ii) HIGHLANDS PARK A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4. SEC. 14. TWP. 23 N .• RGE. 5 E.. W.M .• CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 8 END OF FENCE IS 1.2' N, OF PROP. LINE. PCL. B 7 / t, WILLOWBRO,JK LANE VOL, 170, I 'GS. 1-4, REC. NO. 9·108011505 SHEET 4 OF LUA-XX-XXX-FP LND-XX-XXX 7 -~~0_-I/l"~----------------i1333I.6644L.--------------1"------66AC~----~---l~60irc~~~1".-.. ~~~~::~~~~;OF~~~~~~:;~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ ~~~nF~~ __ ~ __ ~ ________ *-__ __ 6640 15 'b / \ w en w Z ....J w 'OJ '" ~ICD 0.1 c , " O~ o Z I , I 30' 14 8192± SF c§> 7299± SF ~\ / L ~~ N ," "-3',( ~ FENCE IS 0,2' S, ~. ~,. 16 ~ 17 '7 / / ~10' JOINT UTILITY OF PROP. LINE. (Co 9126± SF ~ / EASEMUn (TYP) :3 o o --i 00 <I.\ o N88'02'44"W 131.99 5' POE SEE~I NOTE 8, SHT ::' I 13 8515± SF '-'" (~ , '-'------ I 1 21fi4 5' PRIVATe: WATER~ EASEMENT SEE / NOTE 41, SHT 24" I 12 If 7204± SF ,11,=60'42'44" R=55.00 ~ L=582S' i,XXXX) \ ------- / 5' PRIV/',TE WATER EASEMENT SEE ,w NOTE 40, SHT. 2 " LD ,Wl I"- 7849± S" 20' PRIVATE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENl SEE NOTE 42, SHT. 2 LD . .. ~ ~lC' PDE U / SEE NOTE 9, SHT. 2 o Zo o '/ ~ ~ c§> ;/ J &=07'23'50" 7544± SF 1'7 /9' Lj 43.12 cEXX9 N88'04'03"W 123.25 , ~!~v! !eo , 1 0' PDE~, fl. SEE NOTE " ~ 18 10, SHT. 2";"711 II I ' 7840± SF R=25.00 I ~X-':) 6=78'16'OO'SI _ ___ ~ _ -':=341':' /j , ·v/~. 5.1 / .f7-r------____ ~N8~8~·1~3'~17~"~~'------------_J / 2" /!~ , Q) ;-') 27' : Ol ~ I r\j "I£) /.' "1-1 " ~ / / I I / /6=06'57'43" ! L=40.58 / / / ;' 130.35 10' PDE SEE NOTE 11, SHT. 2 19 I-~ R=25.00 9716± SF I I ~~ II \ 6=105'18'06" ~ ",0 \\ L=45.95 ~~) -:>--' o o ci " 21 R=25.0U 6=50'23' 4D" ',,''-L=2l99 _ '-.~---;;--~"..-.j --+-~~4-~ ______ ~84~.~69~ ________ l-)\ .. 'Q/,o I:;; '\\,,". S~ ~~ ------------T -I-) 98.29 t.,l~ w If) f") f 1/ I Q' __ 209.93 --------\ - 10' SWE-'" 10' SWE , " 153.46 0.1 HE 1ST ST 10' SWE~ .. 363.39 -'€BR=6580Cl ~=05'26'55'ffi _/ L='·2.57 N 88 '02' 44"W ...--t-;-;~:;-:;-:H" ____ ~~--_-N-8...j.8_'O_4' 03~-'~-0-5-' 4-' 2::/$ -LoGO' < C -, 11993 . 74.99 L=35.47 ' \ • • ~. /' -------:,:) I I / ~;IC-:====e8:44J. :s5-----t--:2:::-;4;-;.9::::9~-6::-=~0~2~'5"'l'7""'='.,.,.().L---+-- 10'X13' PDE~6=34'09'20" . '0 1'> 1(\' SWE --" ~I \ t SEE NOTE 7 L=3279 r-,0(';-,,0-, I" '\\ ~.o R=2500 \ "" / R=25.00------------_L=32",02.... ------ , T~ 0,; 'IV / '0·U"u~ . '=90'01'19" II /6=89'58'41" 10' PDE SHT. 2 13 ix:j ___ ::y \\ /' '\Y<P;.'o 1:2 U I "I \ 'if' ~'c}' 0.0 L=39 28 ~L=39.26 SEE NOTE 18, N31'25'15"E(R) , \,.0' -i. "" '0. w .J 10' SWE~ I 21" 21' I "-10' SWE SHT. 2 ('oJ o o <.0 11 600 ---£'=88'39'28" ./ ,/ \ . '00 c) I 39 9029± SF \' I '\ -~PDE ;E TRACT 999 ;::. ;r 8 \ O'J LD 7482± SF ~ 13'-1 '-IN1T25'06"E NOTE 6, PRIVATE PARr:. 11 7266± SF I ~ ; 1~/3) SHT 2 6S10± SF ~ cE~y I ~ '" ~ SEE OEOICA TION N88'O?'44"W SHT. 1 I -N88'04'03"W N88'02' 44"W 118.68 ,/ 26' PRIVATE ACCESS" AND UTILITY EASEMENT SEE NOTE 43, SHT. 2 " " 1 09.86 10000 10 ''--N46'S7'16''E ,w 18.38 '" o 0J W ;£'0 9 Ow , 0 ° , r;; r--: 7287± SF 0 <0 7767± SF :..... ~ <.0 i:. cE~8) ~ c§> W-11 7 7292± SF c§> 1 0 I 0 ('oJ I l"- !oJ Z N87'46'17"W 109.25 UTILITY 1---10' JOINT USE I EASEMENT iii I (TYP) cO I <0 I 7253± SF . QX!9 130.05 \ 63,66 r;j".\IJ./ \ 60.00 N8 '02' 44"W 122.85 I I I I o o ci ,.... 58 8179± SF ~ 37 1:-~3.6iN~8~8~'O~2~'4~4~"7W~~ ____ ~~~~ __ ~~~ __ ~~~ __ ~~~i£~~~~~~~1 °z ~ ,.t,S'S/'/ ././ -"5,00 60.00 60.00 6; 9.24 r-: J "ro'':>"./ ./ ai N8i'04'03"W ~';\'----~/'~ -------......;.~~~::....!!~----_l_U I ./ 1 wi 109.24 .. I I I I I .... N88'02'44"W ~T~r-------~N~8~8R'~02~'~44~'~'W~ ________ -1~ __ ~~~~~ __ ~ __________ __ 109.24 60.00 ( L 5' PRIVATI: 2 3 ~ 6 10' PDE SEE I SANITARY 11 NOTE 5, I SEWER AND 0 SHT. 2 DRAINAGE z I 1-10' POE SEE NOTE 19, (,1 I SHT. 2 I EASEMENT SEE NOTE 3, SHT. 2 SEE SHEET 6 FOR CONTINUATION LEGEND SET STANDARD CITY OF RENTON CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE AS SHOWN, • SET 1/2-X 24" REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "CORE 37555" o FOUND CORNER MONUMENT AS NOTED, :. SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER -37555-ON . PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED 4.75 FEET IN , .. LIEU OF FRONT LOT CORNERS UNLESS NOlED OTHERWISE. @) CITY OF RENTON STREET ADDRESS' POE PRIVAlE DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1" 40' SCALE: -- o 20' 40' 80' , '-1 .. __ ' (,5 coRE \; /DESIGN 7477 7 N.E. 29th PI. Suite 1 0 7 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 SWE CITY oF RENTON SIDEWALJ< EASEMENT ENGINEERING PLANNING· SURVEYING SEE SIDEWALK EASEMENT NOTE ON SHT, 3 JOB NO. 0:1.0:1.9 6 5 HIGHLANDS PARK A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M., CITY OF RENTON. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 4 WILLOWBROOK LANE VOL. 170, PGS. 1-4, REe. NO. 9408011505 3 2 .I FENCE IS 0.2' S. OF PROP. LINE. 1 r-:FENCE IS 0.3' N. LL ___ 1098,61 OF PROP. LINE. I ~ 1::; FENCE IS 0,5' S. 60.'00 60.00 0.2' N, X 0.3' W . • r 60.'00 60.00 " 60n O' 6' VBF .... OF PROP,CORNER FENCE I~ .v 60.00 42' SHEET 5 OF LUA-XX-XXX-FP LND-XX-XXX N to ~I I ~---r------6~or.at06~~-'~~--~6~01,o~0~~--r-~l~~~nt;----'lr----"6Q]a;;::-:r-'---;~N~8~8fU~4~'4~0~"w~ ____ ~sitO~~ ____ ~O:F~P:R:OP~.~LI:N~E' ____ "1 ____ ~clOri-. ____ ~~~~~~ __ ~_c~~:rrFENCE CORNER IS 0.3' SOUh-H 60,'00 ----~--~-------150.00 20 - 1") o co n w r-, l{) 19 c') 21 8049± SF m:;:x, "'-------/ ,W r---ee L[)co L[) L[)-. /") o Z 22 7775± SF c§V ,w "r---"', "l.() D.:5 cO r---~ C'J o Z 23 7612± SF @) \0 OF PROF LINE. 24- 7583± SF ~ C • .0 x X:X:) 25 7687± SF 26 7925± SF @) ,w 1'-_I 27 ,w ,W m\,. :?>~ ~ L[) 'I B158± SF In '. 26 [;:j ;;::; ~rl -----...... ~~ U) o . QXX~) 0 ~ 8192± SF ~ :::; r -10' PDE f-1O' PDE ~ z ~ z C@V ~ ~ 885~~ SF ~ '\ r' ~ SEE NOTE 12, SEE NOTE 13, JJ c§..) y! w • Olll) 9 ... ~r-: o~ o z LOT 2 KING CO. SHORT PLAT NO. 67806:',-R REC. NO. 7812110857 30,01 / I 30' lf1 ! n N I " u W if) W ;§~ '\%s;, SHT. 2 14'-I-SHT 2 ,;-~,v'b --k~/~~TE 15, , S' rr c:/o, o.Lr,_--/:'~LDI31~ -_ .. --~=02'Oi·18" I' - - -'-0?'0-"1c-"-__ , _ .$','J-' / . SHT. 2 --'4 7-C ----~',-f-' L 60.13 I ~hn n.,C 1=~=jl'-'~,f,ll;nW.0~i{C~='=lf-----~t,§!0~2~'O~/j·2:14:,",=_~1 0~'\' \~,/O <\..,q'o ; FENCE CORNER IS FENCE IS 0.4' N .• ~ _~~:-:/:~f~~~"~~~~~~~~~~~1.~~~~~~~~!.~~~~~~~~~~:l~Bi3nt~(,t'~~~_~~~~ii:~~~~~-~j~~~~~~.~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~l-~ 2~ ~ X 0.7' ~ OF P~~. UN~ .. ~~v/ • • '-.' , L\ 04' ~ '..,;:,'{y,-OF PROP, CORNER L 21.5 .~ ,"'G L4747~p,1"~8,..!...1,,,-5_" _~-;-;;-/ __ ~_~' "'--2,-~ -4-> ., N88'03'20"W NE 1ST ST R 1600.00 ) !c-' ,1" 19 47.34 o-~ ---'':'2'", 1S'-~~r-~~T-~~~~~R"""~15~0~.0~0~~ __ ,,*, .... /:,::-'jf '12.00 R 658.00~ __ ~a~j __ ---~~~-_____ _ !J 10'~3'50" 10' SWE' 1-• ; L, "':!.(j"<1;>,> ~<-/' -k -1\138.00 s' elF i U) W Z :::::i 6=05'26'55" 0::1':---&;. '1·6 ----', ,:,0,..'b f 20' WATER L=304.31 -q-1, txV ~) I L=62.57 ' --___________ LTo R=6 c) 0', /rO"'7-''''5'' -S ,,;:\ ;(' EASEMENT SEE TRACT 998 L=27.u ~':." L -..J ~b J N88'04'03"W c, _ .... Ix "J "i\) NOTE 38, SHT. 2 PRIVATE PARK I .. • .. _----" .. L=62.57 ill ~-5 ~ '" • 6=02'10'')1'' 6 02'10'40"1" 5953 ~ 500 • " /1><'0 '\\) , 9073± SF I r::: r::: 1_<.'»-. f;--'-"t-r--#'L=-6~Qj~Q..~L--.-j'I-L 50.01 ~J~=-==-=TIt--tC~~~~~,-~~~,~'4KOc...-==r==2i/jEi02'10'''1'''' • t?'",,'O'l' -z.-. SEE DEDICATION SHI. 1 01 ai 12' DEDICATED TO THE CITY I-_~yo .V I-r '4L L 6~0 1 A 01:rr---.. V,.----I L[) Il) OF RENTON FOR PUBLlr' .. ''''' "" .(J,<i) t------9 _ ~ ~_ '04'05"~li=O " ' ---+--~ 38 >.9<5'~\b. ~ --+-L-2~.4i.. L=3 35 41 ~ 02'51'14" 1 ,(", \.., -~ - - - --- - - ---'t -I _~ _ ~ -±:::==: I----ROAD PURPOSES UPON THE v '-C~o :?""r:/ "-10' PDE 1--10' PDE -Q)~ f-l=3382 5953 6'~o,~ \ -I 1_ RECORDING OF THIS PLAT 'V 1/ SEE NOTE 17, SEE NOTE 16, / ------------~ ',7 0' ,v. 14000 1- _J SHT 2 SHT. 2 L lO . POE L'F88'3'3'14" ~'X) / N8B·04,OB·W L 152.00 / -1200 37 8361± SF @Z) \~ N88'02'44"W 6000 o L=52.55 \ ;c, '> 23 43 L END OF FENCE IS 10' INGRESS, EGRESS SEE. NO'l en \' 07' N. OF PROP. EASEIv1ENT REC. NO. r--- ,UJ !-'--' 15, :::;:-T 2 R "L I -I-E~\ lJ... ~ LINE, 7612100059 ~ cO cO W ,w n 30'" I 1 -.l t-: FENCE CORNER IS 0.7' MODIFIED BY REC. ~ ;: fA:! 'tIl~ ~ ,~ ~ 'co OJ ,w ~ 8643± SF I ~ ~ ~ N. X 0,1' E. OF PROP. NO. ---------I L[) ,-,-u, r---• .~ N CD <D f -~ ~-CORNER I -q-36 -q-35 tIl to r---. -rr) r::;:;:"x X Y, ,~v, <0 E; ~ 8626± SF 6 ~ . -q-34 ~ '!) "r---~ ~ I n '-15' SANITARY SEWER I z z 8763± SF §? -8763± SF 0 ~ 33 ~ ~ 32 N88'05'39"W EASEMENT SEE C2<~::D~, z 8626± SF 0 ~ 8352± SF "Jr-------...:.::..;~~~!!.-.-----ll_l.. UNPLATTED NOTE 37, SHT. 2 N88'02' 44"W 60.00 45 ~ c§:l C@V Z @) ," 128.27 I I :=X--==-__ I It I N - N88'02' 44"W BO.OO 46 N88'02' 44"W BOOO 47 ., NBS'02' 44"W N88'02'44"W BO.OO 60.00 46 ),' I ~ " n r co I lJ... -31 0 CD») w to I ~ • <0 BB14± SF ~ i.o ~ ~ I to w z ~ en UNPLATTED I I Z OF PROP.CORNER 1,1' N, OF PROP. N88·02' 44"W 129.98 I I ~o -q- ()) . NOCl f'lV FENCE CORNER IS o 2.9' N. X O.S' W. r= FENCE CORNER IS .. t---~ NB8'q-?'Ol"W 152,6bNE /--12.00 I 14000.lX X I ON o z , I w 00 ~ o o z 49 50 I I I I FENCE CORNER IS J ~'VBF I I 3,51' S. OF PROP. ~ I tIl UNE~, ~ 6 I 52 END OF FENCE I 8 co 1--12' DEDICATED TO THE CITY o OF RENTON FOR PUBLIC LEGEND EB SET STANDARD CITY OF RENTON CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE AS SHOWN. • SET 1/2-X 24-REBAR W/YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED ·CORE 37555" o FOUND CORNER MONUMENT AS NOTED, I I 10' POE ----II SEE NOTE 23, I' SHT. 2 I SEE SHEET 7 FOR CONTINUATION to I 8402± SF IS 3.9' S. OF I c:i I ~ PROP. LINE. I CD ~ I I N ROAD PURPOSES UPON THE ~ RECORDING OF THIS PLAT ·1-t-,---__ ~N~8~8~·0~2~'4~4~"W~-----~I-l I 140.00 I 30' 7 .: SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER "37555" ON PROPERTY UNE EXTENDED 4.75 FEET IN LIEU OF FRONT LOT CORNERS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ~ CITY OF RENTON STREET ADDRESS SCALE: 40' () 20' 40' 80' I :_1 .. _ .. 1 coRE \; ~DESIGN 14711 N.E. 29th PI. Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 POE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SWE CITY OF RENTON SIDEWALK EASEMENT ENGINEERING PLANNING· SURVEYING SEE SIDEWALK EASEMENT NOTE ON SHT. 3 JOB NO. 0:1.0:1.9 HIGHLANDS PARK SHEET 7 OF 7 A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4, SEC. 14, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 5 E., W.M., CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SEE SHEET 5 FOR CONTINUATION LUA-XX-XXX-FP LND-XX-XXX 37 36 I I UNPLA TTED N88'02'44"W N88'02'44"W 35 34 33 I FENCE CORNER IS --r-~~550~0~0~L_t_~~6%0~.0~OPL_t_~N!8~8'~0~2'~4~4~"WL-t-~N!8~8~TI~2~'4~4:"~!' __ ~_lN!8~8~TI~2~'4~4C·!W __ ~_lN!8!8~TI~~~~~4[,,!~_~ ______ ~~~3~1~~ _____ J'_1 ~ I ~~9'N,XO,8'W ~~NCECOONERIS 60.00 60.00 6 N88'02'44"W l...Jo.. w / OF PROP.CORNER 1.1' N. OF PROP. 000 50.00 N L NE 129.98 I --8: ~ .. -x. 88'O$'Ol"W 152.ob ~ ,w <.Oro r-.-.[XJ ~v 0- 2 « 8742± SF ~ w CDC'.} .~ <D 1"-C'.} ~"i' 0- 2 w , CD L['; .~ L{) 1"-. L{) L[') • t<) \~ • 50 9821 ± SF @) 10 liN 0:) I 140.00 IX X I / I D:: 8 C'-J I FENCE CORNER IS J ~'VBF I ~ 2 I 3.51' S. OF PROP. \ \ J. 1 I :::) I :g I LINE.., ~ -"---- I 8 0 I 52 END OF FENCE I 8 I ~ CD 8402± SF IS 3.9' S. OF I ci , 'I PROP. LINE. I CD I I c§) I ~ 10' PDE --~I' CD " 1.' SEE NOTE 23, I ; CD U> SHT. 2 I ·1l!~------____ ~N~8~8~·0~;:>~'4~4~"~W ____________ ~I~ 47 ~ ('.l t 1 8380± SF 0 48· "i' ~9 N88'02'44"W I Il 14000 I 8168± SiC 2 ~ ~ r-----------:.:.~~i7-...!!...---------~ll I I @) ~X! 8158± SF 8380± SF g 8742± SF ,~ 131.91 I" ~10' PDE 'I 0- 2 45 ~ c§t-rXXXX} ~~ -I 1"-: I SEE NOTE 23, ~ I ,----10' POE • ~ I "i' v 53 I c', \'> ~ (~,) ~, 1 01 I SHT. 2 L0 I 0 11=00'08'33" SEE NOTE 21, ,----10' PDE §? I g 8400± S I ci L=2 54 \~ ___ ,~,~y.::.. __ ~H~.;:> , -,,_ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~ N20TE r' ,,')' ~ 965~± SF I 21' 21' :11=04'29'06',,@):<D Z __ ---[:,=03'2251 I 11=032208 11'=03")2'08"---_ '0'0 -r--~, I· t' -I-IL=5.95 o ~-~!t:<~0~3j'2~2~' 4~':" ::~~=~L.::-'6~n/~4=: 1~~~L_-:6:0:0:3\~~~~L:':fii:(): ~~~ '-~--~~=:1~i:it:==.:.~~':l~O~:t~Qe:::i-=LlK~::::':::'::~~~X~X~X~X~) ~~l"~91~'~28~'05" .1 I '/ ~ .. 1-r1------.....!N~8~8~·07.2~' 4~4!:..."'!:!..W----------~1 -.J _ " '.1), t---~22':'C;1I';--1~""ri9" / c; 1 E-4 L 57.73 ...... ! ~"r; ~ / . L ">4'8 ~ 4:i I / 140.23 r ....... '. ... "4 -~_ 6 ~ .' / CJ Pv I J I ~ ... ~ SE 2ND ST i '=032<"42' '---/"/ ;? ~. I 5" I -Z 0J ... ".7 ~,~ -6, 03'30'50' ~ >N 't/ / L\=2~n6'29' , 06'53'3"" EE' ----__ -,-,R~1",,000£0.~____ I. 00.04 3695, '7; / /=3379 8393± SF ~ I E= R 10000020b=~ < ~ I1L ~34'0475804 ~_ _... / /,::;'. 'Y. , ~ ""~ I '" Z -L=1 ._. L=14.0·-", =~ . ------$______ c '.:6\:-.",0. ~t:<... ,20' ACCESS Af~D" I:~ :g o 0J / '" • L = 13. (]' -" --...i= 101)(-. ':!(I ~ r;.,c:)~/ .,' U . '0 C'J u ==--~.~~~====~~~f·:-:1A"1~J'3~2'2'8:" l"=~~I~~fi!::.~io~3~'3~0Z'4~6Z"~~~~1:_:tEt'&-;-;=i' =::'1' '~'j;[]12;::-~~i=-r~~~~;fJ~~:6:'5:3~"~'-;}" Q~=:=:EE':' :N~8i8:'O~7~' 4~4,"'~w:a:. ~1(:"",,:~ ~:-"" ~lS. 7, vO" UTILITY EASEMEtH !;;:; • D _ L'F03'JO'5'" I ' --38.95 W 'u /::;0' S·. SEE ~WTE 44. ! f'Y _----j~------'-L· 6.0.22 ..L ,. _L 60.02 L 60.06' '-tJ 00'5 • L 120.29 1 .,. 'eO ty SLIT? I _ _ rv '--~ .. .L. -~ 2 25 _~ ",'~ . ..( 75.,./ '--7" 1 .-o -/'Z .") f-L-49 iQ --';'L _!'. • "1'·. , ~. \/~/"<,~uO"" ,N88'02'44"W 120.28 I ~ '", 0, iI,',..., v ,----E 03'22'42 I • i \ 8"C,~, ..-/ ' ,''V 5763 -12.00 1-----12' DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES UPON THE RECORDING OF THIS PLAT L.J S;;, Vb C':}'< i\""'--l 60"20_ --t-c' 02'5306" 'S.6 30'34 ~ .~ . _____ /"cs"Cr,; .~.-> Sf:. 'L " 62.65 I CO <5"\;; if' -10' PDE SEE .") c, ----_L 5i 41 ~ 1y--4:i .~ ~,9,y" I ~ '(,)" '-0 ~~+[)~e... ;;~,,::'V '-10' PDE SEE ---,~ sw~t -'-/7 :,:~V;; ? 00 yl ~J -+ L' ---:=---=---=;=l = = = = =rr,' + __ 15' SflJmARY SEWER _ I~OTE 27, " J = W }'-' w SHT. 2 / -0 1/ 5' PDE EASEMENT SEE NOTE 36, 00 ~ m <D 0 CD t<) CD <D ,w L 1O, PDE S~ 5' PRIVATE SEE NOTE 25, I SHT. 2 .~ 01 -~ 00 -~ 0:) <D ~ w WATER SHT ° , ~ r;:; ~ ~ 0 V; :::l 1"-. ,~ 0::1 ':.0 co ,w NOTE 26, EASEMENT . L w 20 DR41NAGE I ~ 0 ~ 65 Eo ~ 64 0 -83 ~ ~ r;:; ,:!; ;:: co CD 0 w SHT. 2 ~ co SEE NOTE 39, ':.0 ''-' EASEMENT SEE I 00 2 7557± SF 2 8017± SF 2 §? 62 0 -81 ,n ~ 80;..... ,co ;;j .~ co SHT. 2 ,w -~ 1"-NOTE 35, SHT. 21 C'.} 8208± SF 8178 SF 2 0 -Ltl :: 59 1"-('J 1"-oj ~ ~ r;:; ci I D'J ~ ~ ~ :::: 7926± SF 2 7572± SF I?/ ~ 7391± SF ~ ;-: 740598± SF ~ S:! 57 9; ~ 56 6 ~ ..., i ~ ~I '~ @V C:XXXX) ~ z ~ 2 7947± SF o~;:: 9~,05± SF 2 uu I -~ '-..~l::yYXY) ~ 2 8443± SF ,1. --~ ~,...--i ,><,-1 LLl 't'~ ~~ ~ ~ QX!g) I 60.00 \~ "'t"P ~,,'-+,J.... +£J NOD"."?:> 11 ,'I: 50.00 50.00 5,28 I ---~~--+-~6~0'0~O--~~5=0'0~O~~~~ __ ~~~ __ 1-~~ __ ~~~ __ 1-~~ __ J:::~~~ ----823.45 /1 6000 50.00 60.00 53.41 ~i3 65.36 4'CLF I 2 ~/ N88'01'33"W __ "(j~ N87'OB'22-W 56.03 I FOUND 1/2" REBAR WITH 1 150.13 4,f)'WF~ CAP STAMPED "WPD 21710" . n 0.1" N. OF PROP. LINE FENCE CORNER IS FENCE CORNER IS j LEGEND SET STANDARD CITY OF RENTON CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE AS SHOWN. • SET 1/2" X 24" REBAR W/YELLOW PLASllC CAP STAMPED "CORE 37555" ' • o FOUND 1/2" REBAR W/YELLOW PLASllC CAP STAMPED "CORE 37555-, EXCEPT AS NOTED Oll1ERWISE. :. SET TACK IN LEAD W/SHINER "37555" ON PROPERTY LINE EXTENDED 4,75 fEET IN LIEU OF fRONT LOT CORNERS UNLESS NOTED Oll1ERWISE. ~ CITY OF RENTON STREET ADDRESS PDE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SWE CITY OF RENTON SIDEWALK EASEMENT SEE SIDEWALK EASEMENT NOTE ON SHT. 3 o t<) I s.E. 2ND PL 1 ON PROP. LINE 1.7'S. OF PROP. LINE KING ('I J, SHORT PLAT NO. 484106 I<EC. NO. 8505170617 1307.43 N8S'OO'19''W S. LINE SE. 1/4, NW. 1/4 SEC.14=-23-5 I PARCEL B CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LUA-06-052-LLA RECORDING NO. 20061011900002 --..../'1-: FOUND 1-1/2" BRASS CAP ----r-, W/PUNCH IN CONC. DN. 1.2' IN CASE (CITY OF RENTON NO. 2105) HELD FOR CTR. SEC. o n L0 / to") N I -T i3- I' 2 \. -.i '30.0:3--) -----. (I = 30' (/) w 2 .....J ----:{i4 SCALE: 40' o 20' 40' 80' coRE \.,; /DESIGN 14711 N.E. 29th PI. Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98007 425.885.7877 Fax 425.885.7963 I 1 __ 1 __ 1 ENGINEERING PLANNING· SURVEYING JOB NO. 0.:1.0.:1.9 J~ ~ . IT! .~~, ( • TRACT 997 STOf/i,/ POND g 17 16 ,MJ <SO' 18 NE1STST SE2NDPl Wlt -'Wf R001< \/~:-.~_ --:n, PC-S_ ---~'\"" B 20 APPROVED TREE RETENTION CALCULATIONS AS SHOI#N ON SHEETS L.1 01 .t £.1 02 (F OHICINAL SITE MlPHOItfll£NT PlANs, OA TED JJN£ 2006. £)(fSTlNG llIEES ON--Sl/E.· I +/-929 SIGNifiCANT T1IE£S: (8' DlA. .t LARCE!? Fcy/ CONIF£RO()S/ 12" DlA. ,t LARCER FCY/ OECiDUOUS): I +/-86J NON-SIGNifiCANT TREES: I +/-55 TREES /If THIN R-D-W AREA .t STORM WA TEl? FACILITIES TO BE REAlOff]) FROI.t CALCULA TlONS.' I + /-2-16 .M;:'" .7?-...:D" YI:-Si',""E T"/ -S,fJ llIEES PROPOSED TO BE RETAINED: I +/-174 (25.5%) ORIGINAL TREE RETENTION INVENTORY AS SHOI#N ON TR£F R£7ENTION INVENTORY EXHIBIT; DATED 11/8/06 TOTAL SiGNifiCANT TREES RmINEO ON-SITE SUR'EYEO AS OF II/J/06' +/-197 (28.8%) (8' OIA. .t LARCER FOR CONIFEllOUS/ 12" OIA . .t LARCE!? FOR O£C!OUOUS) TOTAL SiGNifiCANT T1IE£S CY/ICINALL Y PROPOSED TO 8£ RETAINED: +/-174 (25.5%) NUl.t8£l/ OF EXTRA TREES RETAINED: 2J " --' 23 NE 24 ST TREE RETENTION LEGEND EXISTING TREES REMAINING ON-SITE AS OF 2/13/07 (DRIPLINES ARE ESTIMATES)- ~I~ ~ir(!! CONIFEROUS (8 DECIDUOUS EXISTING TREES IWTHIN ROSARIO A l.£; 4/[lT ~pD!..'::~B!..! TO DFTT.~/n~:w CALCULA TlONS (DRIPLINES ARE ESTIMA TES)-o CONIFEROUS &-DECIDUOUS \If'1U.(lV.<Eir?O()~~ l __ ~J'·jF ": :-~~ (-;:-::, o ~~ a ~ -_ .. __ ._------- UPDA TED TREE RETENTlON/MITlGA TlON CALCS. BASE/J ~ SITE txNJITlONS EXlS7lNc; AS (F 2/1.1/07 TOTAL SIGNifiCANT T1IE£S CY/ICINALL r R£TAlNED ON-SITE AS OF II/J/1!8 S1JRIfl +/-197 (28.8%) TOTAL SIGNifiCANT llIEES REMAINING ON-SITE AS OF 2/1J/07: +/-1-/1 (20.5%) DIfFERENCE: 56 I OF /.tITlGA liON llIEES REWIRED: (BASED ON /."I RA TlO OF 2' /.tIN. C4L Mr.-S) 56 I OF MITICA TlON llIEES PROPOSED: 5$ TREE MITlGA TlON SCHEDULE QTY 80 TAN/CAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE 14 FRAXINUS LA TlFOUA a-/EGON ASH 2" CAL. /.tIN. 14 ACER MACROPH"tlLUM 8Jfl£AF MAPLE 2" CAL. /.tIN. 10 THUYA PLICA TA /tJ,-STERN REDCEDAR 5-6' HT. /.tIN. - 9 lSUCA H£7£ROPH"tlLA IFS/EIIN HEAlLOCK 5-6' HT. /.tIN. 9 PSEUOOTSUGA MENZI£s/1 OI.lUG/AS fiR 5-6' HT. MIN. SPACING COMMENTS AS SHOIll/ JIlli. BRANCHED AS SHOIll/ JIlli. BRANCHED A5 SHOIll/ JIlli. BRANCHED AS SHOIll/ JIlli. BRANCHED AS SHOIll/ JIlli. BRANCHED tlf2K;. TREE /.tITlGATlON REOUIR£l.tENTS ARE BAsa; ,W CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPI.tENT SERI4CES DlI4SiON INTERPRETATION/pouCY DECISION REGARDING TREE RETENTION ANO ,iPLACEMENT FOR NEW OE'ELOPMENT, EfFECTI'E MARCH 9, 2006 () .., -0 Z § " R; ti a ~ >- .'!:: 0 co W ~ ~ 'C) >- ~ 2 f.I '" <i: D> ~ ::> $ ~ ~ V) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t'l -~:g " . ., ~ "\t ::: iii -~ ~ ~ ~ "" ~ lIif · " ~ () ~ z 81 ~ ~~ t/'.:) w ~B~ ~aJ ~~ ~ ~ r--~ ~ - w '!Ill' L ~'" (l~ I-ill ill -~ ~ § ON ~ C,.J S CI:l § Cj "'t1 ~ ~ CI:l ~ CQ Il w ill !jGl z-GS} !l(} [