Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA98-141 Vol. III
+o aLovcVwW C PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 5, TWN. 23 N., R. 5 E., W.M. I, axr. l:° SS R.11 4 m.e snL(Er 1 •f. N11111111111 111111111INMEIIMP/W /WNIIIL, I l 1==i..wA..:P -_-i;'. Ln•ITCH,Of WAr srAMr ` ' Wi i8 x� ..- -- 1;�I IIuI 1,.,� } ■ -• \ASPHALT ]O DEPTH Lr6 KWxMCO•`• ?(C 4 • ``�� _ _ �� �11` ,I�'.' — \rui: c`ro c�DUMasc Gus Eo 12 B •e- I,-,11,�,.�11'.`--'(/Cr it, G, Y GRAM VASE AS NEEDED S �!—\N - * `� • prim LAK£WASHINGTON BLED. ROADWAY SECTIONS �� T.I NE • LAKE WA ,D„ �V . I P,.'� il • SHOW L � � .\\ 13•R,.,I a R.r a•%. t# . ...,* iglir117 cl.,.. . - . tiL ... ._ -.. . ., .„,.. \ . 1 ... ,. 17.:,..--1,, , ..... N. `'{N e 0, Ili INpas\ N� N �° ,.•COMPACTED WIN CLASS•e• ks, r �a �� �� srnnr-1 Lrrs REQUIRED 0, . \ ,,..-. ......„.„ •,,,,, SURFAC•NG TOP COURSE th,... ',tit, F,„ ____ s" ' rY CRAWL BAY AS Nam SI ill LAKE. N.267H STREET • 2 3 ,/ • ` Y ROADWAY SECTKNS L.3i�"G. . wSKmw 4RE11:17-1 . ` Wli z >SNORE • Q Mr CZ .-e 11 h N MDENRK AREA.S THE°Iva.PAVEMENT EDGY SHALL Y YAW-CUT-TO LEAVE A _1x sS ` JOIN PONT ANY IRARIC STI P.REMOVED.,DAMAGED DURING MM.WORK .-.�--—.. .—--.— 0, _ SNIT?I(E a WNW WET __ \..—�.._ SNAIL BE REPLACED IN FWD G AS MRECTEO BY THE PUBIK*MKS 6 SHEET 1 OF a LEGAL DCSGWDOM aWVAGTEO o,n,CLASS•B• 2 1. COMPACT.TESTS ON SIBGADE AND ROGGADE SHELL Y R(aRKD.THE WWI?Of S%4i-1 Lrrs REWIRED y SHE(,J OF a PRnRRNARY PIA, N UI SHALL BE AI THE HE EXPENSE Of Cr,TRACTOR O TESTS AS h REQUIRED SHALL BE Al THE EXxCw a THE r,CONTRACTOR G OEKL.,G THROUGH ANY /•[roLLPACTEO DER,IH-CRUSKD SHEET 1 CrB RDADWAI PROFILES LICENSED TESRNG LA8 OF MS CHOICE.OE.NMWM COMPACT.FORIHE TOP 11• SUMACH'.,T.,COCOURSEr. WI OF DE SVBGADE•SHALL K 95R OF OS OFS RCLARK DENSY.MOW IHUT LEVEL SHEET S OF e ROADWAY PROWS THE I NIwM COMPACTION S4lL BE SOS Or MA+IWM RCLARK DENSITY.ROCK TY CRAWL BASE AS NUM SENESCES SHALL HALT A M.MUY COMPACT.OF 95R Of YAxRMLL MARK SHEET e OF e GROUCH Ann UTITS CLAN DENSITY SHEET r Of e Sax ANALYSTS PLAN I ADA/STUENT OF CATCH BRAN LOS G GATES MAMIOtE LIOS WMaENr CASES PLAT ROADWAY SECTION SHE B OF s TREES PLAN ALOE BOOS ETC.SHALL SE THE RESYO+NBIUTY a DE CONTRACT.,G w LC at, NAN BEEN AS R(OUNED AND SMALL BC AO.USIED AEILR DE ENAL LET OY ASPHALT P HAS BEEN RISTALLEO. Po.. % v ,M 81.41pM . 5wair 3 . o Io IZwIJ~.4 I I �„1 is S,^,I49 145�47 i dE �~4a 43 4: 41 I ccJj 1 3tl`37�s4T?'�3d� 1371 12 i 3:� i'9' Zo 12).42n ..._. If � -. „� �♦ S 29TH ST. ,QO 41 I 4 w:• • Is.,• S s0 "t5'1s Si_AN. 29TH N se 1 - ' - - ( I 44 1 I �.• 6 (�j s 2:fit ❑' c ! io o 10 I h• '' Y . -- so KO N 1j. «� 1 1 =55 d — 2 I �• • I �' ! e ta.l 1 IL c'; .4 . i3 Is 17 i I8 I�° 2,,• ®zl l 24 i " C' ± 20 .I I I Q I. (�1 9 ' R. .• 1 I , 'I-7S J5'94 133� �• 1 30•� i.8•Z7 26 dC i---'�d `-3-,i.n ^i :- ; ' W I e LiJ 4 ,',. F Z:s 10 II 1 •11 5^y4i T 4` 47 ;46:45T4a 7a3 j 4i i 46;39 35 137 I I i •,LI I _ �� ��i�! �� - 230ETAit f?I 5 n i ,1 --` 9 , ►EJo ► \, ^, -.r�U Ix •In 4 i Et.I ( Iso 1[s125 s� se ,a23 4o' 4, �'+ --.-o' _, r I(1 s s; �_1__ i " Mr i 28TH PL. \ o 11 GIi_-----� • VACAT- �• . . • 2 1 iir 1I W 1 N ' b +I All o I±y'Y('{I , „/ ^, s r 5• `� • i ' - I - - I • :R as lIs,SL I • 1 • i h i�� �d II I,},I 1 I� I y 12� •`, :�� yL:OJ~ I I I I t ! i i ; �7 I la I n �I i : I o 14, I1 ;n ni i.1 I ' - r� n . �� F� :/ J s �I 4 =5 1 6 .) /J' 8 ; 9 3 (� i2 I�i a+Ip 17 'Q1.3 120 I ZI 1 221 23 i '�5- ° �o is- j1 1 • 1 1 1 1 it,w,_ ' \ \ 6i5 �: � �� -1 ` .. ...===--- ` '. . - 1i�L i. •ST, . EGEND � • \ , 1 JAMES L.b MRS r[4e t71 ♦ S G LELAND F. MARENA KOS Q)L PETER SON LELAND F. x 0.1188. illT[ �,' o , \ �� � `;\ as PETER SON ( PPRo T.[.[e et 122e Zaf ,ice>�/,''- �� N •. r. a Y E.D. S-RIDE--, ' t ri , , 2 ►, Milo N �, \ I.46Ae. ,,. .e.,7 T.[.G ,� we. 1 O.7fI j'\ ,` \ ADINA RIVOLI \ \ r`'" ,!/r• G4 t.Loy. w a ; r.,.s! I• `2)• \\ I �•' FONTANA ELAND F. PETERSON -c.) A ` f /S1A�. �� �' r 2!I /O1AC 1, ' \ ��\ 2=.,•0 Ac. 51rc.9 ,•L./ c,... w'7; i • 1 13 / �` of 4.2 � 2b15 ,`1+ 1 • 34c ,..19 \\ \ �`/ , -I- / U i i �o 0/4 e,87it_ Q 4Is.: 6 • 1 11, I '1 oG.� \\ I' D'� c�N 1�iG I� opfN SimII O4 �c u �', � . 'J \ �o�� I D O / Ff,eAC • _Na` 1 .n..19. ro♦ ■,j 251, \ I ,‘, \ - .. • • ' _ ,5( \AK • . �• \ � - le i I > __ €�.�♦,'.; \ --D'T;. 'IP 1 y/ rn V4) i!?1�� rt37• i f�fr, — .� „NI '� fF N l 4343‘ WSJ I • \ 4 28 yes, , (i) 24 I ^ , / Sk ,3 ' s�%, • (3) sr34-e� na.z, ,9r'...s I.L. :Z..? CI) ♦ 1j \\\` r.. G3 'i ,n rs� wa ro 25 01 ,.:{ F O \`♦ 1 1 zQy 4N ♦ 2 W [:. I • /L \., I 4 (B) R 1a 5von•eo Mi..!` ui ::}`; 1 3,n (`, 1 1 �e . 1,;^ 50 27 sees c..3.(2)r5►04-so QI ` I 1 ,TZ-c it m (e) rt"JIS o^ �.rS S,rA-Cdrei =R. (C) Z - aia)�2 u >sar -i " ar ' ;. ' • Oie toe. . %.,1 ' JG 1GANN L .7K. WV LG R-8 R-8 I • • • rC�,;� - R , [ : Le L./ \ =8 ; ; , . I I1 ' I. : : -8 - K' Q�' R I ICI 8 - II I j ! ill N �'M�hlt �I 1 1 e , "Ir# \ . ' .. ' fr : i i 1 ,,e1, , i ,, _ lifr VT alt R 8 > • . ,_ _ IRV N F f� - . 1 •N 0 RM-I ` � 1 _ I P-1_ 1 ' I _ - 1 \% ',N' 24th St. !- I �� R-8 i Lam / ' hl 1 \ OD _1 __ ; . - , - \ `, __I .. I -1 1 z RM-I - i NE z `\ z i N R•M-I " - RC , Q - —I 6 - —� 1� , i iQ1 / \ / 1 U % w5 I n/ 0 - - / r .IQ� 'S i RM-I ' - - - NE 4t P-1 ' / IH CC r . � � R- ', Eoefr „ s ,, i . , ,z-A---N,--- ----1 • E4 - 8 T23N R5E W 1/2 6, .c,r o q ...z° apoD 4 ZONING 1"8 0 0 `a c0 P107/9 °`" �"`ITH 5 T23N R5E W 1/2 E'N{O 17J07/98 PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 5 E, W.M. ex. �fwD,.R.. r I I - '� II- rT--i- -I-- I----T -1 I I rT- iII- 1---1--I 1- -r1 I - --� ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I eLo k 12 I I I I I I I I I -i I 1 I ' I RI I .7 I U: I .5 1 .. I 4I I 4 1 .1 I .O I l9 II 39 II 37 I 36 1I 35 LII 36 I 33 132 I 3r I !O 1 is 1 29 1 27 1 2,1 1 ----- --- i �142 1 1 ` I A I I I I I I I I CO IHILLMA�'S LAKC WASHING iUN IGARDEN OF EDEN NO.II I I I I I I I `L ,q •h`_J._J.___I- I_ L__I_ __I __ 1 J I I L J J I L-1_1-J__L-L-J_J -- J GRAPHIC SCALE S��axroo ` e• - Now . 2Srf'LA �a A 1a fin-- r T-.�- 1 -� -T-� _�.-r- - - ---T- -� I -r may" • I-1 11 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I'! ' w''" { �'1 II° I _ I I , I" e l 7 1 e 19 1 ro l r1 I n I rs I u 1 rs I 16 I 17 I ra 1 19 1 20 1 2? 1 n 1 23 1 2. 1 25 ILL j CONC. ALL • j'I I ° 1. 6i w.er .01. II I I I r0�1.4 I BtiB;K rr 1 I I I 1 s P n.i I !` I MA1,s LAKE uns J Nuo I I lat.," RE$CgP I� r �• - -- 11-[- ..•- --_ _-- = s EASEMENT • . • ��:A.;-f N C. A fur-. _- - _ _ :� ''�,.,., j U . mli. 2j aZ '�41% : ' rf"T ® 1 TRA T "B" .. t I 1 j /%� l z 1 \ 176r,.r DUI. I i< is ;:�� �• flnn � zi \ SA 411I I-a3- • 11 :s� I ` 1 so 'r ... Ir' q O. .f6. 14\___ �.�e •\\ dir \\ 3 l .;i ` � 12 j6. TRACT ';�„ �- i� I P.YN z \\\ '�`�\4 �\�. �� i• 8 ~ � L/�'r 3 --/L, 7�--28�t , J7 ,'� /' n I - _/'''''''17L4. - �"9 \\ \ • ' �� ,�4, ... \ �.- n a, -. r= illy`-�•�l .' %/, • • \ \L ' Io`P ' ✓ \ \ I 1'4LL• II J r R w \\ '15 \' ` Lu �' ELDO/1 ft�/' 5\ I s+--.- :'e DEVELOPER/OWNERS > 0i \ \ � \1 \\ - ' 1. i I LA6RAOOX e3NTu6rs.uc i Q V ��A� ./ .e.�,. ..r // A Ui' -_ - 33 KV.IRKLND,WAAo6a6J Z \ \ •• <,-a / A+ .) ■ v"HONE .n-eDJ-a+oo Q\ ����\\• I // / \\ i - e i ' E r-.Z3-60J-667) Qv / / \ r LAND SURVEYOR\\\V ��.\/i \\ // \ \\\ �b l i•-'I\I�, a"iO6'0H':sR.°'s�T.u:"iccSwrTE EMS O f�� / 7 i / r • _ li `H0NE i:)3-131-0665 ax 1-415.-257-0015 I,1 `� \• «,1 li\ Mr•+l•ELL•}I!81111 .aL!!•td•IYL • it- V \ ��lFd:lllrsL!!FT1 3,1.1Y / \ •t!•EIId•�]!lrlll�lELI!!"ZFIfIY , IXR M"M• w Tv \ ��!=22.1 lF 2MMMi:alfllf M-Mtil �p E5.3 T ‹\ +mil-xol�r+llranl�.1(.1 / /r PLAT DATA r.�je A E 6 \ ` sZ. flE0l�ta Tfl l•!Iinr roS AREA r3.s3 ACRES so° .. \ \ +�laa:alll�� 1strl�=.ary l,�al.��s!•m-a� _ �•rzOlFa4]l�YII!!all�Yfstll S'IfEFL7•lEf6'l !S[i � R-6 ZONE AREA ACRES rr.31 ACRES x��]J5V.I!S 1�tr.1.1. 2anl�atlltrxlr = =EFaMAlEf1LlEiZFAl�IIi1 u Y R(� \ \ I�!•l52..,. .1�lt}2!�-fQJRY �t�Et�]!!Fd•_!!EliYII.FJI _- rv0 Q•LOTS__ .) LOTS 0'!�!C I6 t� \ • \ t4�ltd.,. 2d,..2 2'dilrlfyTy EFd' 6,2-?]!!]ii 1,,a2F1Li / R/w AREA___.1.56 AC 6AT!!Fa•4”MI i srai.1•I:YIYI]I FI•=MFMliRt%]IEEIPEMi1Ywww•1 >•OR SLOPES -Z.ZIAAC .M1_14 tg>♦tQ_,,,,,, .F3.FJI•!.'SIJllIF3QY s}='EFEMMMIl.dA!IKI MMip II HAZARD AREA. O C \ S4!!1-d15. 2..•J��A1llxI1IH !3>•Et...1 1l:EH�EItdIA!!.• - I TorAL J.76 AC o "vo sr;i f \ •➢ll1-2,, ,I.M.,IMM 1H!!:l°/ltll l::.IaEFa•:]!!.12 2,d.lt•I�FMIMM f sefv.' f, 'rwC �1•lFa._Ill21..1/ ldF]llLMEE%]I ltl>,1.81.1 tdLlalll•!ffiYFII DENS/Ty.)n 3..6.6 UMTS/ACRE I STD' )4j - \ �•I71•lta:A!!621! :)!!tx(El]I !�•iF&. 1..2.JIEIdEIl IZY➢01 / "JS 931 1 ]I ' O �3I•!!t&:.Illla.I]!�IDlISYfY•ZH �•LI1•Ef&-Jl MISMIZILI�Y�iClL R-3 ZONE AREA l.J ACRES .� to \ �;llFS:•JlFil!!_FSJll1mFJ1 �V±�M.2.1 Ei'drl !IDlIP2YSY I O.OE LOTS__ r5 LOTS - rr 14 i111.4-: / S4llta::A _,....J!ltd J!!IF Y J1 EIaAlEFdrl��l�ml R \ t21•MIIM,2 F,a 4,f!!.T•.v.[Y 63r1/12261MM •D!=INIMM;L a/.AREA---'o)Z LAC OTS tirl•!td•.:A!!}N!l331!!•'F-14r49 t�t11Ei&_I!!IL-,1♦EiFSAITFLRL I > OR SLOPES .0.26 AC DOWN II \ t=SF !ta•.;l !Z•Z•1!!,IF2. .732 l3rMIIIMEPZ'•] 1Ecdll!!E;•II ffRi7:1411 1 TOTAL HAZARD AREA-0.43 AC AC \ �4 22.2 .M 1 llll1YFYT•]1 li 25,1MM_ 0 Fl�4Sa 1P4 E•]I Mal•P YT St. =7"Fd:•Il1S10�lIZrlil'Ixil1 MIIM,M Rg31lf[._a-tl 1661/1 l 2DMMI I S};,12,.:]I�dFA�l:Sl!!T:•lf•_]I !II)♦MEOM] 251-12IEAS lxpg9l DENSITY I5/3.0.5.0 UNITS/ACRE m \ �iT1•!la./ 1lZ•iAMMlrYIl.LRYfY !•IIl•M12:2 I!®FI�EISFI�liRFYSY I MR NM."NM X . �,1•8-F4:•l!lraFl!!SA!!S}••xFY M1.1-1 EIIill E1•a0lE.II9]!!:2.121KM1 TRACT TRACT.4..1.73 ACRES WHIN RD ZONE Mt ac, I•/ •PPXV TRACT'C'_0..09 ACRES 'I�_!--' TRACT'O".0.1)ACRES TRACT-E-.0.17 ACRES 4 3> 8R.rn • . . swa,r 4 2-j4 . . • . W.0.04 ...., i..'•-ir Of .1 . 1. ..._1 __r 1__1__ PORTI O_F_I_T_HrE_NT_W 71/.14_ OF_rTH_ET_N_IW_1 1(4_rO_FT_S_TEC__15_,_ETW_Nr._2;3__IN., R 5 E, W.M. i 111111111111111acrics2IIIIIIIIIII I I !-.I 1 I .., I 4w ! 48 1 47 ! 46 I 43 I 44 I 43 I 42 I 41 I 40 I 36 I NI I 37 I 35 I 35 I 34 I 53 I 32 I 3' I 3° I 29 I 28 I 27 I 26 1 I ' ' ' ' ' ' . I I I I I f 0 IHILLMA111.5 LAKi WASHINGTON IGAROE14 OF EaN NO.11 I I I 1 I I I I 10 .. ‘ -1 J ..• Ai. 2.5714 PL IN ir 43 II li I 1- 1 - - I . 1 .. I - -i - -1--.-I-- 1---r- -1--1---1- -T---1-1--r-T 1 1 1 V T -11 0* .... • . 1-11 It 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 1 -:t1 !It I . 13 .1 4 I ., I $ I , I s I g I „7.34.2,64 sqdr/L. I I4 ITS I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 i 20 1 2r 1 ,72 1 .23 1 2.1 1 25 !1 '. I CO HILLMAN'S LANE WASHINGTON...41:0C Al or!DEN NO 1 I I II i , I el • I I I I '1°°. 5131 ores Nate," I I I I I I , 1 1 • 4.1r , . t_II_. I No.).VAIVI.2_1" ." •irr 11111• -79-27377-r ST--I 1 t_ 1014.601 ' • r- - , -..,.;.. w-- .., .• i..._....2,....Y../. - .. ."., - - - _ . , ,,,,ir.."f,e,..,•,/e/s////e.W..7.7:Far •.,„Eli - -r- - -n--- f- 1 ,,,,...„,40,..4,f..w/i.:-..,,,..,.m.,....7_,,,,,,,,,,,..,w/.„..,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,z/..,_-_,A747,,,,,.-mh.,/,,,,,,,,,_,,, vmw,7,eir,,,,44,-.4... 7,,, , cr, I 0 ' ' !lip, , f Fir / ( r . — I:\ . ELCION AIORES 1if \ , , 1 , . . .,...$;:.: r. .1g. Ns: n.60 n 40 I n \ . ''.11\ i 1414 4 A., Ar , , A ,_, A A /I' / A 4 A cs.... ..,, :$,V,,,,,,... 4,0v64. . .a._..d.N% ', I „ IirLao 1 1 I I 1 . • F Oce j2 , ‘ , 'iliz. ..70,&atm kw //,/NV:4 ills h,.. rd"...",.//1.1////////1/ --"Nipik fr .. x..,az.,Ian. -,-;.-,..,- --,.. •.s.,„,,,\ I •\ -V,. -.:---_ 6-Ziz',v,-Z1Z;;;':---------":"-w---""---"---" .=-. ..<-4 ::-S4:14: 47-0'7'',. :: ",QA1. • ../ '''18 ' r"I 1 - ./' ` it - Ao/ /r,./ p ; 4 i ,--,--•'/ „ ,• v. .; ,, /v•A / / / / ........ --1 i'ViVie''ir,F/77 ""-- Ka.-- '" .. 1111115 " P 2i . •t ‘, li d,•,,..N i i ,e i 4,-,,,,.. •-••••.-:-:::.s.-_,._/ . ,i.,:. ...„ . , ..,„_ .4.4.41, •••44:,:dx:::-:,v-- ....-, .„, _ --...._ ./.../7 ‘. \ ,\ , A....4,4 y /7/7 j/ Ar ..,,-;%:.,'''',-..k:,.;,,p':;' /4,:-.4-,, •, A -, .4 \ . ____/...411110111 'OA. A.'t..4,44:7,--!::::::.5.zit ••••:•„,f..!...,_„,,„.e:.,.(...„// / , ,, ,/,.p / ` -•(.1 6 • . /t 0 Y. \,. 11 1(0.: do. 97,;;;;I- , ./.,•ile" _ ••••,, 4,,,, • f, 4 ,___ _ • CZ— • ‘" \ 1 •.e 7 A>',. .•— • 10 ,;1-z.k... ,Is.6.4.-2:. - ,/,,, ? ,At /r/ pw..,/ .., 17 / -,3 , •,* <z- , sv,;. ,.., .. . • , . A AV ./. /A: /41;g1r- /, / e J', .,,_.. .., , .. ••• P. .ee . • • /r/i 7 :II: , /7 v ,,,,,',. ';K ci i• --1104\ \ , 7 ' ,•.4:1../'''''''' \,••• ' ' s s.,,'..r-'2..oslre s 1 7 V l.•/ AV / ' --i r•r) <41.\ ...;e'14%•./,' : / \ \ \- \ 1 , 0 •f 41;:,4 -.i 03\ N \\' Age/ ,‘ ,...• r.,X.s.'.•''.....-• --...ki -..•\ "C.-..\\ '• \ „,. / >, , \ ..•.,, ... • .01,:i i;,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,„,„/,.: n '5 •i 0 3;;IN \ X•i:::%..-.'.g*c:: : • '/ L-Lch0 Ac.,-P..., \ ).- ..: • ,.--...‘ --•$s<:,:,Y / \ ' ' 0 W/ ./' l';;!i , ) • \ 45- \-. ...-1:;:::;:>,. ..,.:<,,,,---• •,r /)( / • • • ..--- z , v• / :,. el ....i z\ \ -7._;\' \ 11 `,.:)f,I>. / \.\ 2 ,,.4111 -...••r,..•-4.-..."':::4 ' 0 ...-1 • 1 \ / \ 1-..p /*\/ . / \\ 6.4 o r r4": -----1! .."•••-,..... • \ '...Z, • /\ \ 1 ›. ab`" ---`‘ 0 cQ • • • •qc „.....p iiii:, \\ •---1..-. 267.H . % • \Z.i? \ / cr) ,/ \ G LEGEND i_ . • • LESS THAN 25% AREA = 10.69 ACRES • I - • <1.- 1 0,10.0 St \ , • \ s•-t_j----- 26% TO 39% AREA = 2.70 ACRES I 04•4.r 0 , Mao et \ :$ GREATER THAN 40% AREA = 2.5 ACRES . \ 1 . . . 7o, 8 1.41,3 a • • i . . • Z.tin drIr •I. /4/ . pp ki.R • • Er..., Ewgzeir /67, N 2- iE OF �f��/ i g NTEED � �)• ENTIRE - MAP_ �AENTS. ^f• -px � 1 SW 32 - 24 - 5 r04gA CITY OF RENTON • o��7 00 0 P, s� 7 ►moo I n ^elih• G • _ ` +� Q m ` 'l a O 2 1 V''l' re) /s io5•z4 N89-03-25W- �,r •8s.a6 S¢,o6 �� _ 1316.74 — -N ."----'1:-�— - ;- ,.- o. m:�9p • vea'ea 44 $•a5.5 63 �'' To -lb. 75 12.6 4 o i�i 00 V\zit Q ei+','.., r~ ..-,.,,-,,t_s' tm- ..=:t -. -6,� ''u .. 1 01" 'KJ i 94;0 M'M 4 `' \I a • v (,� • . 14! 0,D 11'' F(0� 1 ^ �00 ' g % �+� V2 YO1 3o B4. a - — ' g �^ h k :,:. ti r, O 9 0 • , • •: • k°1 1 lx �G1 61% Iz, • �, 1 ', �9S•X' "r \�` \p9 \yo1 �� {�{ Z �o k.9�1 I Z� �ti: ?m ' ,}. -` 5� \�,� \ti' 0 ; I�` -oti '�`,,�2• 0 (p nl 5° h1 I0c '';.� ® .: -"`• -', d 464 ti of 3/ leA as-54 O 6 , ' , ';.i s I ..:.e " k(�'-i x: a� �'/ /6 I, a v1 =': . /_3 .4.3 o� i,. • �.`�'SN pc ,, i - !'f SB9-o3-4•5 ® y� -¢ pl°� ' z5 Z� �� ��S v\9.,r .% r,"' Cr 31 90 tit /20 N - P 4i 3 '`,N � �' • \� �o� i0i3d Ph� 3 O�ofl t7 D \ �' J v, N z ' • ' ► fi o 103c, 1 ; —112,ptE � ' �'f , 'oo /a � a� � ' P -, 0 _ b� ,.. l •%\0 ,�h O° frit( ��p LOB �1 N \ PI(D �5�'' O' J df0 ' w Ion , . :,..� VJ sea-s4 0 0 N Ad a • i s 1:; . :, ,a:....;. :r,. o IZ k N °�p %�B9 4 zoo a ss '-332 - ' n $8 -J-.36x/ R 2 i. k a =a�E 9p N ,{\c, I 19/.69 N o Q C 1 v •N Q ''�0 t)� �\ 4 g0� /A9 • .1p 0 ' IE I D' A� /� (��\�� �s B9-ZJ=3LW (i 31 30 o ��2 I ����� �;N �, •z N - - N ,::-.�%one ;�1;~ r 7 4E 2 r 1LN- ri A18/47-Z4_W 120.14- K) (V , 01 �12 ��0 NBJ-/3-/5 w 2Qlo•!a9�1.14�Zo•92 ui J '� G��0,0O D. om� , �9.90 ,�� Go /o�.�q Q �E N. �a� -F. ' \2�,,h� 90 ��E�• ,v99.a3-46W� ' °o 'n ��1h� 0 2 0 t2 ,� ,�59•� W o�� ti 6 TH 3;p,y A(0 hh o� Lot A T Lo B I'� I _ 3 N 7�� �,�3e�So,�/ gfrF ST• ; \�/,p^ A yna9 01 hpo o I 000Q o ��o o 0 A to , N o m THIS MAP IS FOR THE P ill KING COUNTY ASSISTING IN LOCATIN Q PROPERTY AND IS NOT 1 �� TOSHOWACCURATEMEt DEPT. OF ASSESSMENTS , N z • 0 0\. . • -a�.i� l.� 3 , m ...,_1==.44==c:nE:1_ I I ‘') (k>X* ) ki .. _ . ...„ .... .._..... ,. . r----N. . ., . vo 66% • °\ O N I Z Z. 1.1tF' k3N-- : • h ' w •\.• N OL � `r N t — 2 .��` 4. mom" 1.4 .�� `1N�' `^ M �- 4, l t�. �6 \ \ N N S C) .:..., • � i P� s M/ o ,I ;,,, td/e3 3 _ p, z 32 s , N; C) ,7-:..• 34 __-..,.„ 6., •. s s .. 447_ �. , -35- • = _� L a • r l � Q 5 • PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 7/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 5 E, W.M. ""�, 'T-� r r I T T I r r r r r T I r I I F T 1 4SI 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L::Mi.: 1 ecock 12 1 1 1 11 ' 1 50 1 A9 1 A � •I9 1 38 1 3] I11 36 11 35 1L 3A 1 33 1 32 1 3130 I <'91 28 1 2] 26 1 ININ I I 1I 1 1 I 1 1 1 CO. LAKk WASHINGTON'GANA OF£OkN NO.11 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 12 I i 14 _L_1_J_-L-L 1 L 1 1 J _L_L-1-J_ I_ L 1 1 J -L_L_1__ I- J +""' ; AL.• N042` "i j�/• N 28TH PL ° , 1'';' IT-r-7— I -r-r--__1__1--r_T--1- I- 1- r 7 _1 -1--r-T--1` 43 ll �,'I-i 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 . 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I �. 1^ I1 ,� I' I 1 . 1 3 1 1 5 1 6 1 ] 1 8 I 9 I IO 1 II I I2 I lNit..." a�I I/ 1 ,5 I 16 I I] I /e I 19 120 I 21 I 22 I 23 124 1 25' !, C. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHING T�N i.AI(57 E. NJ 1- I - tee ' ' , 6°t7- I "'SDI_ ,�' 1I �I '�a 't L 'J t I+ °L 1 I <.'� I I I I a ��'� �� 1 rib �� ���.� � • ?T TI-T ST N .•t�� - -� = te e` "s r_._; �s —� �r 0 1 .• � �� I x y�` 1 1 I 4,0 i T `"\ ��, MEN ELCIUN Aljt'F_51 zk $5 `\. �` Mr. �� IL s rL cn rt an I rL 5 i I n 55 I 1 2J 2B _ I W r V1 •44s �� ,\ �' , 18 19 I k � o-,sl6` --\� - I ,;j' a ~4t @ Ira 04 . \.\ \s 00.- ylaiviimvoim, z ►\.��--,.... I-,,„ . Go. \%"‘', 'i tali kV1.1_111 .111"1"1111 -104 fifil I I I 1 j L 1,01111 - 2'1°' i I/ i '''''''''''—-L....217W ' 1j... ---"A 0.' 4Z- \\ ..• ®vl*.„-,.„AtA___,,vido- -, ,,.-,_ J4A/� ,� I �• �®� ice, a� :; P\ , I. - /, ., ;is, \\ \ \\41��� . .per \ 3 3CI -ram Ci \ \ ! / \ a �\\ I If 2� Iblb /p, �i N., ., ,., \\ ��I / h \ i/ ELDO/IG �6�i��5\\ �w r" a ;' 1 00 Q Ct . \ ..- ' ,'4 i -- j( / \ \ ,r-.-',-.--.., Ili i .32 1 I lib \ `\,' / 1 1 \ ..ry r s R ,k .....4,,, 0 11 . <, \. . 1 it Magee Dr o a 4 6a B�,rs • - i • E)('1I8i7f 2..A411 PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N. R 5 E, W.M. a . ..R.. I I1- r- 1 ,--r-T- --1--I -T- --I--r -T - T- --I--r-T- -�--r -T -T- I!``G 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I eLodr 12 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i t 1 I• I 1 1 40 1 43 1 47 1 46 1 t5 1 44 I 43 I 42 I 47 I 40 II 39 I 39 II 37 I 36 II 35 I 34 I 33 132 I 31 130 I 29 129 I 27 126 I11111111411:1L 1 I ' I I I I I I I I C D(HILL MAWS LAKJ WASHING TON IGAROEN OF EDCN NO.II I I I I I I I I J s op R jq ;1-_ 1 _ 1 __I__I__L_1_J— I_ 1 _ J _I _L_1__I_ I_ L 1 J. J _L_L_1_J p F 9� W `. _NQ . gift rid . N 28TH PL o.b l 43 E\,°I I I i T-�- I--I T-7 I- I- T 1 I I- T -I -f—T-T-J � ,, + •, I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,,9 I ~ :.e�.i II' I I I 17 I R 19 1 IO i II I 11 III � 2 3 4 II s d ypIpppp•• I 13 IIIf r4 15 1 ,6 I 17 I I8 I 19 120 I 2i I 22 23 14 25 II V I I ! ii 1• 1 .,°, I I I Nam'. ..- I I I eti&. .11 I I I I I I I I �� ,�'I C. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASMI OAFeDfN V ED(N�JO I Is -�. - ryLt 1.__. I;"P°7,T 4�w�L =— 74T '_I 1 _ — _c_ ..i , + — _ _ . f��fjJ _ Sa+_ .. b._ I•L aO • 7\7' '_ _ ST �11 ksz o. 4.;, ®>�:M�il�i�i®�il®ii��NI�0�� =�r���► T k,. I 1 1 h Iiiii iL E0 TL40iIL5l59 IN e T lo • '\ .h •• *.,0412. .„4„ir_aiii.,177 . ,.. _. 1._,, ,,r 2, „:, . I ,... .1, ___ 1p7i . ;,,, ,. ,. ,.. i, ,-,....,,,: !et :„, ,i2.. .,,..-.... --04,16-*A., -*.i....11‘ , ----‘„. .-,_ ___ _ . ... ... .,_ . . ,:, .1,.., . ,r;v4 4,1 P :1 �+A ..wiii, '� 1�I_Ir-I.-F. 7' Y. , h'41�Y•I R.v�" ��� �� / \ \ ll I I�✓i I. ry 1 O• 2 ' - 4,,,.)' /. Y. rit''' -....%7 . ,.. .:,.. ii, ._ ,.,: , .---,,,, ,.4 i: 4,L.,,4-51.1.."' ilirr in Nair s 7,.. 0...1!",, i:. g" z \ • kali'''.. . '''' ' ',.%;;;L:"..*:::.:7z1:7:-.--1•' :#-A, .-:::Ri,,,, A ,.. .t ma :. II ' ' *if.., I I. 4 6 0 .....• .. liplai , LI \\ \ lift !?\ \\ \ f2� iI I �l /I „\ ® ..\ \ f ®r\ \\ _ • co ,, , ,,,.. ,,,,,,,,...,,, 1,000,,,,„.• .„:„,„/,,,,, ,..., ELD, AcR..\\\.\:, - 1 - i " G:-'- -..--. i ',,-.''',1 • \ 1.'N\ 1 9 / x / \ \ 4 Ir. U Q CUT \ \•• • ��� \,\\\ EE ORR ABL \ r �� i W \ / \ UT TREES I �` J //C�\ ` T REES 1. REMAIN / ` \ \ J00 / / \ I �1 II iest.v� L - \\ 'CGS g \ \ j OAR .I,. 1 m c 8 a 8,.rn c k LtiA • lr l /• PP , VEc, 460#011."/0 2.• 1-qi im.2916EA 1# Bb A I ..�.,i i. 1 i 1 1 _Iiiih., iisi . -....-___ • am \ . 444 g ,A:A 8 W► ;�s4T r ,4111 ,„..: , .5ifk \ *lb \\ , • 4• 6 ;,S a • 8 ,b) onlkilill 111 'VI,1 1. ....1 w ilik g .e:. . l 14 12 thib N t;"Pf'. g aT. 4b g ,su ); ,felt et a .AS 4)1(% ,;-..S', . 1 i!;! V ('' liCe,I. i .a. 8 A:. 1 pV STREET PROFILES �TOUMA ENGINEERS MA NY 10:19 it iig 1, a a ! LABRADOR VENTURES L.L.C. ek LAND SURVEYORS skis KIRKLAND, WA 98083 NWeau MR.I31-^-+Mr/46'�it[-MI l01°p1-°� A1 $ REN ION WASHINGTON — - A iew Current Map v N 31 st St „.$4.a .wsm, ; xaa• ra. xasmrvk ' 0 ait i NE 30th St N 30th St z ; 4405 N 29th St ai i 11 a N 28th PI NE 8ih Sl N 28th St � -.�n• � 44,§ 5\ / , i ,r \ ri 1 ,'a' �� / fj ,' NE 27th Ct A p N281h 1 Z a„ N ,,, 3iiNEE 24th St LI t N 24Ih St ,,,,az„;,,i.a.,aaar ‘, , r ' ., \ \ , O �. z w Az m I. Q 6 t i. 0 I I. COFYRI,HT'5'9ea-1995 ETAK NC. © 1996 by Rand McNally & Company. All rights reserved. - e,cii.,u Li.. . _. . L 0!u GJAd h.. 0.040•Ii f+• km) ca►/tai ct, A too C'/4V 4q 0,e1-V0 El 8 " 6 9 0 N 38TH teaiL ®„ 405 N 33RD STILIZ0.-111111111111k-'111141 '1:' ems►. a 3 000 1.000,R. 41:). 4Qii) �41 4 10 O 0 CM./ 0 F l ® 8p .1 27TH ST 45 0 C! in e So n«p + .: d o 2000 NOR I :?,', V oZf a•K �u•4.4 o (444%S ® PARK DR 111 CFANk 9 • 07a &Oat /'4 eh" kmA�kwrr% `ter OR dk AMU �:J0 4.000 H sb*a jd. <il. A 8 J �� r Z20,too 1 4,000 ` M 0 Y ® ON ® ® NE 87H 8 a 7TH 0 ST ST • a 0•:)VIID i + lil a _ ® .1 0 0 z 1 Satt .1O N 6TH ST ria NW 3RD PL A . © 40r4 11 g A� :Um�" , , AIRPORT WAY S rr ® .2000 ® _ ® (ir y9 ii l� 41:1N11:7 ® 3 ® ® 8 co § � 0 ; 000 ` ST NE tZ, 3R -Si HE 0: 0 % . < � Q _ 16 RENTON � ® CD 0: 40) 0 N - 419 go S iii lliPlil 4-0Or i < 4N0r1y� '9 ` 0oytit* �QV g0 W 20 0 b S y < 03RD0 SW SUN A 90 I� CITY OF RE N TON0. `4 I . 0 1998--Goo oco A i< r ,.`r y � TRAFFIC FLOW MAP phi $ 5 1 $ S 4771 ST 52 < i i �S y 4)- boo L� ~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBUC WORKS t Ta!�nlcnnosenn�l cv�Tc►Ac V ci(1N W y 28,900 OPERATIONS SECTION 0"(Esb 44 1 I.0- ��. i L , �T ,' E O ® cm, EXAMPLE 1 — & ®�+ 0 ®7TM �ST �, 7TH a ST y 3,200 A CD ..' NW `'0 10 .�h . * 1y 5`° 2300 3 40 SCALE: 1" = 100,000 VEHICLES Or a Y ® 5 60 0:„' r, VI V 0 t' *IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES �® BIDIRECTIONAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 7,400 I NOTE: INTERSTATE 405 AND STATE ROUTE 167 (SOUTH OF 1-405) ARE SHOWN AT HALF CD SCALE. OYc ►-405 I-405 0 SE t o� y y :.. o P 7 Q� bt 0 0 F� 6,0 ° Cit 0 1en1 sT ... O o .. q�� S b S 21ST ST0 17 PUGET c SW A 27TH A h. ilD dip © " co 4,, S 31ST ST co N•.40 .I. I A '^ arsRs ., c SW 39TH ST t ® WSJ m ' A 7 .. A 5 -i 4 5 1 4:b ,0,,o. .11 0= 4, Ja to, w K 0)1S) & SW 43RD . :' ST cARR SE 180TH ST CITY OF RENTON 0 n U U 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS y 1998 - TRAFFIC FLOW MAP 7000 .. �, DESIGNED:RMII DATE: occnecll tole rat was AMMO ? ORAB4 DRL OSOQD: RMII(KJ4 SCIIE:1'- 100.000 BM Fes e as ma AFPRO twat 0F: 1 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2708 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CONCERNING PRESERVATION OF NORTH RENTON AND KENNYDALE NEIGHBORHOODS. FROM DETERIORATION DUE TO TRAFFIC WHEREAS the North Renton and Kennydale neighborhoods have protested excessive commuter traffic through their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS planned development could cause additional commuter traffic problems in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS the City Council has previously expressed a desire to protect these neighborhoods from the incursion of excessive or unreasonable traffic to the greatest extent possible; and WHEREAS citizens groups within these two neighborhoods have made specific recommendations to the City of Renton on steps that could be taken . to prevent deterioration of their neighborhoods due to traffic, NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: • SECTION I: One of the City' s highest priorities is preserving the integrity of single family neighborhoods . of Renton, including the Rennydale neighborhood, as a quality, .single family residential neighborhood 'where people choose to live. SECTION II: One of the City' s highest priorities is preserving single family neighborhoods of Renton, including the North Renton area, as a quality, single family neighborhood where 1 RESOLUTION NO. 270 people choose to live. It is recognized that much of this area is zoned multi—family and other zoning categories that may, in the future, result in a change in the use pattern in this area. So long as the North Renton Neighborhood remains primarily residential in character, the City will use its best efforts to preserve the single family character in this neighborhood. SECTION III: As part of the E & B projects, the City considered the use of traffic diverters in the North Renton neighborhood. While the City supports the use of traffic diverters, the exact nature and extent of those traffic diverters has not been established, but ,.is the topic of initial consideration of a citizens steering committee which includes residents of the North Renton area. All deliberate speed shall be utilized to arrive at and install a diverter program in the North Renton neighborhood, keeping in mind the needs of individual streets and sections of street for diverters and further keeping in mind the needs of public safety personnel for access and general safety in the neighborhood streets. Once the diverters are installed, they will not be removed unless there is a demonstrable problem for emergency vehicles, a demonstrable threat to public safety, or a change in the character of the area protected so that the diverters are no longer functioning as desired, or are no longer necessary, or after a public hearing the protected neighborhood indicates that the diverters are no longer desired. Diverters as used in this paragraph shall mean any means of redirecting, channelizing, stopping, blocking or otherwise diverting traffic that is without a start or end point 2 `" RESOLUTION NO. 2708e in the neighborhood, from travelling on the North Renton neighborhood streets. SECTION IV: The staff and traffic consultants are hereby directed to pay particular attention to the North Third corridor. It is a high priority to keep the traffic levels on this street at current levels or' below and to focus on creative reasonable alternatives to lessen the traffic burden at peak hours on this street and/or mitigate the impacts of traffic on the single family homes adjacent to that street Following receipt of any studies, the staff is directed to present recommended modifications to the North Third corridor to the City Council with all deliberate speed, so that the City Council can implement feasible alternatives while considering the fiscal capabilities of the City and the impacts of such changes on the entire City of Renton traffic flows. In addition, the issue of whether Factory Avenue should be used to carry high volume arterial scale traffic has not been resolved. Some neighborhood groups representing the North Renton area believe that it should not. This issue would be decided by City Council after a recommendation from the Neighborhood Steering Committee and City staff. SECTION V: As part of its traffic mitigation program for the E & H rezone and site plans, the City Council intended to °TrYLP1' preserve Gaen Avenue, south of North Fourth Street from use a rd s ) aerial street. The staff and traffic consultants arere - ~y directed to study the section of Garden Avenue from Bronson Way to North Fourth and determine practical methods of diverting 3 C'i RESOLUTION NO. 270 ,i ( including, potentially, diverters) commuter traffic from this street section. Garden Avenue shall remain a non-arterial street for the foreseeable future and will no.t be changed—without the , creation of a committee of neighbors living nearby that will work with the City to make recommendations and not until the City Council holds a public hearing. Garden Avenue will not be changed from its non-arterial street status -as long as it remains primarily residential in character and is being used as single family residences or by familes with children. SECTION VI : As part of the traffic mitigation program for the E & H Rezone and site plan approvals, the City Council eliminated direct traffic from Garden Avenue to Lake Washington Blvd. and eliminated the link of North 10th through to Houser Way. The purpose of these modifications was to prevent the business traffic from the E & H ' buildings from using Lake Washington Blvd. as a conduit to and from work. The staff and traffic consultant are directed to study and make recommendations that would direct business traffic from the Boeing/E & H area to and from the freeways and existing developed arterials and to keep Lake Washington Blvd. from serving as a business traffic corridor. For the foreseeable future, the two traffic lanes through the R-1 area on Lake. Washington Boulevard shall remain as is and the stop signs and speed limits on Lake Washington Blvd. shall remain 'intact. These features will not be changed without the creation of a neighborhood committee that will work with the City to make recommendations and not until the City Council holds a public hearing. If there are any changes to these 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2708 features, they will not be done until after a public hearing before the City Council and any changes will have the intent of protecting the single family neighborhood but shall not encourage commuter traffic. The change of Lake Washington Boulevard to a three lane section is not on the City' s Six Year Street Plan nor is there any pending proposal to make such a change. The City Council will consider potential changes, keeping in mind the fiscal impact of those changes and the impact on the. City transportation circulation. SECTION VII: The traffic consultants hired by the City and E & H Development shall consider the statements contained in this resolution as one of their primary, directives in preparing their studies. SECTION VIII: This Resolution shall be considered a SEPA policy statement and is adopted as such. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this lctbday of February, 1988. >-d-peze,„t_e_ e ?22,02z0_,,c. Maxine E. Motor,City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 15th da of February, 1988. nAli , -- 7(--;k 0 K t1yor Approved as to form: 4400v491.4.1, 13 Acidity-- Lawrence J. Warr .© City Attorney RES:04/2/4/88 5 INTERPRETATION AND INCORPORATION' OF RESOLUTION 2708 INTO THE NORTH RENTON/WEST KENNYDALE COMMUNITY PLAN SECTION I-II: The resolution states that "preserving the integrity of single family neighborhoods" is a priority. If an area is designated for multiple family unit development in the community plan, the neighborhood preservation aspects of the arterial plan and overall policies should not be as strong as in single family designated areas. Section II emphasizes preserving the single family character even if an area is primarily multi-family in use. The interpretation here is not to let any residential neighborhoods decline over time. Circulation policies should reflect the actual land uses of the neighborhood properties, and not encourage premature deterioration. Again, stronger policies can be put into place if the neighborhoods are designated for single family development only. SECTION II: Traffic diverters offer a way to try to direct traffic away from the residential areas. Traffic diverters should generally not be used to imped traffic on major or minor arterials since this would also increasing congestion. SECTION IV: Two ways considered to reduce congestion on third are the widening of N. 3rd from Sunset east, and the opening of N. 4th to Sunset. The question of the designation of Factory should be determined by the intensity of land use designations in the area. SECTION V: This section is confusing because Garden Avenue has been and continues to be designated as an arterial. The interpretation, then, may be to put less emphasis on Garden Ave. as an arterial. The difficulty here is that PACCAR redevelopment and other high intensity development may create a need for the additional arterial capacity that Garden could provide. SECTION IV: • While statements in this section are not all correct, the general intent to prevent Lake Washington Blvd. from being upgraded to handle additional lanes of traffic is consistent with present proposals. Since the widening of this road has been and continues to be on the T.I.P. , the community plan activities will focus on ensuring that this widening be used for safety and amenity features rather than for arterial capacity increases. Specifically, these improvements should be made to allow turning lanes, pedestrian crossings and a bike trail. In addition, the improvements should upgrade the boulevard status of the road and enhance the views and other amenities of the corridor. The statement that widening of Lake Washington Blvd. to three lanes is not in the T.I.P. is incorrect. %i �. CITY OF RENTON "LL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division MEMORANDUM DATE: August 26, 1988 TO: Mayor Earl Clymer Mike Parness Larry Warren Larry Springer Dave Baltz FROM: Gary Norris SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2708 We have spent some time exploring interpretations and understandings of Resolution No. 2708 with anticipation that an interpretation satisfactory to all parties could be reached. However, there are major issues within the Resolution which need further discussion and agreement. 1. Section IV, "It is a high priority to keep the traffic levels on this street (North 3rd) at current levels or below and to focus on creative reasonable alternatives to lessen traffic burden at peak hours and/or mitigate the impacts on the single family homes adjacent to the street. " 2. Section V, . . the City Council intended to preserve Garden Avenue, south of North Fourth Street from use as an arterial street. . Garden Ave. shall remain a non-arterial street for the foreseeable future and will not be changed without the creation of a committee of neighbors living nearby that will work with the City to make recommendations and not until the City Council holds a public hearing." 3. Section VI, "The change of Lake Washington Boulevard to a three-lane section is not on the City's Six-Year Street Plan nor is there any pending proposal to make such a change. " 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 'Si Page 2 August 26, 1988 It appears that two options are available: 1. Accept the Council Resolution as direction to the staff and proceed accordingly. 2. Modify the Resolution so that it accurately reflects existing situations and City intent. Accepting Resolution No. 2708 would probably require the following actions or considerations: 1. Regarding North 3rd Street a) No new development in North Renton or b) Terminating North 3rd at an appropriate location to curtail through and Boeing traffic. 2. Regarding Garden Avenue a) Reopen public hearing on the Arterial Map and eliminate Garden Avenue b) Continue with recently implemented diverter program at North 4th c) Identify other options to carry north/south traffic, i .e. widening Park Ave. to seven lanes or d) No new development in North Renton. 3. Regarding Lake Washington Blvd. a,) Reopen public hearing on Six-Year TIP and eliminate the Lake Washington Blvd. project. Modification of the Resolution to comply with the spirit would require: 1. Regarding North 3rd a) Focus on lessening the traffic burden at peak hours through landscaping buffers, reduction of vehicular delay, etc. 2. Regarding Garden Ave. a) Recognize Garden Ave. as an arterial b) Focus on lessening the impact of traffic on Garden through landscaping pedestrian amenities, etc. Page 3 August 26, 1988 3. Regarding Lake Washington Blvd. a) Recognize the widening of Lake Washington Blvd. to a 3-lane section is included in the Six-Year TIP. Hopefully, this memo will provide a basis for our discussion. Aty -17/7G7I/U41 GAN:ad cc: R. Houghton GAN126 Gi^ '�lidc ✓ i?. u cl..'A, -",..`tii ;,4 •o 0 CITY OF RENTON "LL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division MEMORANDUM DATE: July 19, 1988 TO: Earl Clymer, Mayor Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant FROM: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer 0 SUBJECT: Larry Warren's response dated June 29, 1988 Re: How the Approval of the Six-Year Street Plan Affects the Resolution (2708) on the North Renton Transportation System Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the subject letter. As a matter of background, the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program process has two elements. The first element is the identification and adoption of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program which is, as Larry states, a planning document. This document identifies potential projects which may be implemented• during the next six years. Projects may or may not be constructed within the six-year time frame based upon the availability of funds, staffing limitations, environmental constraints or a change in the City's desire to construct the project. However, at the time the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program is adopted, the projected list is the City's "best guess" of the City's future transportation development program. The ,second element of the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program process is the annual adoption of the arterial classification map. This document defines by resolution which City streets are classified as arterials. Although it may be used for planning purposes, it is essentially a policy statement. My perception is that many people believe that a street receives an arterial classification based upon its design and traffic volumes served. Although arterial streets tend to have higher traffic volumes and more elaborate design, the arterial classification is derived from the purpose of the traffic using the street. An arterial street provides service to traffic passing through an area whereas non-arterial serves a land access function to adjacent properties. There are, three rungs in the arterial hierarchy which relate to Inn 1Vfi11 eVPn71P Qnnth - Rantnn Wachin(rtnn ouncc - (Intl IZS-uIn Earl Clymer, Mayor Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant Page '2 July 19, 1988 the trade-off between adjacent land access and service to through vehicles. A principal arterial 's primary function is to serve through traffic with very little access to adjacent properties being allowed. Whereas, a collector arterial serves more predominantly adjacent properties with a minor amount of through traffic. A local street (non-arterial) serves specifically land access. Reviewing comments that have been made and Resolution 2708, I perceive there are two areas of conflict in the minds of the North Renton/Kennydale residents in regard to the resolution and the most recent Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program process. These two areas include the definition of Garden Avenue as an arterial and the inclusion of three particular projects, e.g. NE 3rd widening from Sunset to Edmonds, Lake Washington Blvd. widening to three lanes from North Park Drive to NE 44th, and NE 44th Street interchange widening. First, Resolution 2708 states that Garden Ave. is presently in a non-arterial status and will remain in that condition until a public hearing is held and residents agree. Garden Ave. has been defined and operated as a minor arterial street for longer that 20 years. The arterial classification of Garden has been approved by previous resolutions adopting the arterial classification and was recently approved without modification on June 20, 1988. Obviously, there is a conflict between the resolution (2708) and the resolutions adopting the arterial classification map. Secondly, it may appear to the residents that the proposed projects will attract more traffic into the North Renton/Kennydale area. But, in fact, these projects will improve existing bottlenecks which are or will severely impact these areas. For example: NE 3rd Widening: Will provide additional capacity on the east approach of the North 3rd and Sunset intersection thereby reducing the signal time required to serve that maneuver. This will allow more time to serve other legs of the intersection which will reduce the traffic congestion on North 3rd Street through the North Renton area. Lake Washington Blvd. Widening: This project is specifically to improve the safety of the boulevard for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. This will be achieved by including pedestrian walkways and crossings, bike paths and vehicle turning pockets. NE 44th Street Interchange: The purpose of this project is to provide enhanced freeway access for the proposed developments surrounding the interchange. Without this improvement traffic will be forced to use Lake Washington Blvd. as access to this area. Based upon the foregoing, it would be my recommendation that we inform the North Renton/Kennydale residents about the existing conflict on the arterial status and the intent of the projects. The issue should also be referred to ti k Earl ,Clymer, Mayor Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant Page 3 July 19, 1988 Council suggesting that we reopen the public hearing and modify the Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program and arterial classification if these documents are in conflict with Council intent. Prior to a public hearing, the Mayor and staff should agree upon a strategy to pursue. The staff should meet to identify the problems and potential solutions and to agree upon the "position" of the City. It is important that the Mayor and staff go into the public hearing with a "unified" voice. .Aorkla, GAN:ad cc: ' R. Houghton GAN1'01 J i'•i • '-mikCITY OF RENTON • -PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Earl Clymer, Mayor Traffic Engineering Division February 11, 1988 TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney FROM: Richard C. Houghton, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution Concerning Preservation of North Renton and Kennydale • I am very concerned about the proposed language in the subject resolution. It appears to me that the language of the resolution is at cross purposes with land use decisions that have been made recently and anticipated future decisions, i.e. E & H Properties development of Park Plaza and Garden Plaza, redevelopment of PACCAR, and future E & H development around Boeing. Although I support the desire to protect the neighborhoods, some tradeoffs will be required if high intensity office and industrial development is allowed. Specifically, refer to 1. Section IV: . Unless the character of North 3rd Street is drastically altered, it will be impossible to maintain current traffic • volumes at existing levels. 2. Section V: Garden Ave. is presently defined as a minor arterial. Unless a major arterial is developed with a north-south orientation, there will not be sufficient north-south capacity to address the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development. There has been considerable discussion of Houser Way providing that alternative. However, it should be pointed out that major problems exist with that concept, i.e. Houser Way will force traffic to Lake Washington Blvd. and secondly there is not a well defined southern terminus to Houser that won't create major congestion in the Maple 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2620 Larry Warren Page 2 February 11, 1988 Valley Wye intersection without substantial and costly disruption of neighborhoods and businesses. Before we lock ourselves into positions that will be difficult to get out of in the future, careful thought should be given to the issue rather than trying to appease a few residents today. Le6ej GAN:ad GAN16 t] r�"tV -)U • Co CITY OF RENTON Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney .11=111°LL Daniel Kellogg -Mark E. Barber - David M. Dean -Zanetta L. Fontes- ' Robert L. Sewell - M;- ono Assistant City Attorneys II • . , June 29, 1988 TO: Mayor Earl Clymer JUL 1 1988 JUN 301988 FROM: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RE: How the Approval of the Six Year Street Plan Affects the Resolution on North Renton Transportation System Dear Mr. Mayor: You have asked me to review the above-referenced topic and respond -°i to you. w ti riP 0� . ,4,1 n'r'� nitially, it should be understood that the six year street pla 'P �.{ aa is a planning tool and' r.that 'projects can be moved up and down o A� �1 the priority listing, or removed altogether, depending on changing �aGA i5circumstances. It should also be recalled that the Resolution on y 1r` ,-( 2Vpreservation of neighborhoods from traffic was aimed at the traffic of igenerated from the E&H developments.. One is a present day concer re* 15 1,i� tin° and the other is a planning tool. There are not necessarily an Lire f' t ade 1 'isfiU conflicts between the two. In fact, it is entirely possible tha VJ<the Resolution will become outdated due to changing circumstances / or that the six year street plan will continue to be modified yea to year until it is entirely consistent with the language of th Paft- 97 Resolution. As I understand it there are several semantics problems with the Resolution and the six year street plan. For example, in Section V of the Resolution, Garden Avenue is referred to as being in a non-arterial status. n the six year s ree p a enue is reterred Cu-as an arterial street. Apparently the long range uI planning was that Garden Avenue would necessarily become an �' j` an ere ore i is agnate a such. s my` "" " understanding that i is a as an arteria and therefore �07 its reference in the Resolution as to being in a non-arterial 7— 4r status. It should be' recalled that in Section II of the Resolution there is mention of the fact that the neighborhood served by Garden Avenue is zoned for multi-family uses and that in the future it may no. longer be of a single family character . Should that transition occur then the multi-family housing will necessarily require - : :•increased carrying capacity on the streets and Garden may in fact -reach its arterial status. Should the Council determine that• the v comprehensive plan and zoning for the neighborhood around Garden-4 Avenue should be changed to single family (undoubtedly an unpopular/ Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206) 255-8678 Mayor Earl Clymer June 29, 1988 Page -2- choice) then Garden Avenue quite likely could be removed from the arterial status on the six year street plan. However , that choice if better left up to the traffic professionals than to my office. In Section VI Lake Washington Blvd. is mentioned as not being on the six year street plan for a change to three lanes with no pending proposal to make such a change. I have been told that 4° .1 A y'ir statement is in error. I have been told that the widening to three i rpx,1E lanes of Lake Washington Blvd. was on the prior six year street tu.,, k5 plan and again is on the six year street plan. I know that I checked before making that statement and believed that I was' 7 provided with information consistent with the statements made in Section VI. If the statement is in error it should be noted that it has little or nothing to do with the E&H rezone. Rather, it is a long range planning issue with the Kennydale neighborhood and should be studied in greater detail. As I understand it the third lane would be for left turns and before it would be installed there would be attention paid to making other changes to the road section to prevent through business traffic. To summarize, the only conflict that I can find between the Resolution and the six year street plan is the original error made by me stating that the three lane section for Lake Washington Blvd. is not on the City' s six year street plan. That error was caused , by the drafting of the Resolution and not by the six year street plan itself, as the three lane section was already on the six year street plan when the Resolution was drafted. I would suggest continued discussions with the neighborhood to resolve this problem, if at all possible. If I can provide you with any further information, please let me know. Ve�y yours, Lawrence J. /Warren J8. 25: 09 • LAND USE: 210 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING (210) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: DWELLING UNITS On a: WEEKDAY DESCRIPTION nearby development, also had an effect on the trip generation rate. Any single-family detached home on an individual Single-family detached units have the highest rate lot is included in this category. A typical example of per dwelling unit of all residential uses because they TRIP GENERATION RATES this land use is a home in a modern subdivision. are the largest units in size and have more residents Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Dwelling Unit The average development density was 3.5 units per and more vehicles per unit than other residential are acre with 3.7 persons per unit. The average auto- land uses; theygenerallylocated farther awayAverage Range of Standard Number of Average Number of from shopping centers, employment areas, and other Trip Rate Rates Deviation Studies Dwelling Units mobile ownership measured was 1.6 vehicles per PP 9 unit. trip attractors than are other residential land uses; 10.062 4.307-21.900 4.36 320 366.5 and they have fewer alternate modes of transpor- tation available because they are not as concen- TRIP CHARACTERISTICS AND trated as other residential land uses. DATA LIMITATIONS The Federal Highway Administration' developed DATA PLOT AND EQUATION The analysis of correlation between average week- adjustment factors for average weekday trip rates day vehicle trip ends and all measured independent for residential land uses and their associated demo- variables is shown in the tables. graphic characteristics. These characteristics ❑ included household size, vehicle ownership, and Although the number of vehicles and number of dwelling density. The adjustment factors shown 200,000- residents have the highest correlations with average below are to be added or subtracted from the aver- weekday trip ends,these variables have limited use. age weekday trip rates, using dwelling units as the i 0 - This is because: 1)The number of vehicles and res- independent variable. Any combination of adjust- Z idents is difficult to obtain and very few of the stud- ment factors may be applied to the trip rate. How- a 160,000- ies contained these data, and 2)these data are also ever, if residential characteristics are not available, ! E difficult to predict. The number of units has a high then the average rate or equation would be utilized. f- - correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. Peak hour trip rates can be adjusted by the ratio of J The variable is best because it is contained in most the average weekday adjusted trip rate to the aver- U 120,000- 0 studies, it is easy to project and convenient to use. age weekday trip rate. I T w > - �; AVERAGE WEEKDAY TRANSIT Characteristic Adjustment Factor2 w Household Size 0 80,000- - TRIP ENDS 1-2 -3.4 I ; 2-3 -1.8 w - No data available. >3 0.0 r Q �/ Vehicles Owned II 40,000- '- • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 0-1 -1.5 I- 1i 1-2 ' ' This land use includes data from a wide variety of >2 +2.9 (1 ❑° 0.5) units with different sizes, price ranges, locations, Density (Dwelling Units/Acre) 0 1 I I I T t T T 7 I t I I t I and ages. Consequently, there could be as wide a 0-3 0.0 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 variation in trips generated within this category as 3-5 0.0 there is between different residential land uses. As >5 -0.1 X - NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away from the central SOURCE NUMBERS III ACTUAL DATA POINTS FITTED CURVE business district had a higher trip generation rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.94 Ln(X) + 2.6 per unit than those smaller in size, less expensive, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, R2 = 0.959 or closer to the CBD. However, other factors, such 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 71, 72, 91, 98, 100, 105, 108, 110, as geographic location and type of adjacent and 114, 117, 119, 157, 167, 177, 187, 192, 211 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Not available 'U.S.Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration.Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates.Kellerco, January 1985. 2Adjustment factor to be added to(or substracted from)the mean daily trip rate per dwelling unit. Trip Generation,September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation,September 1987/Institute of Transportation Engineers 257 256 ------------------- =Electronic Card File= Subject TOM 2306 Title 2306 DONE N 28TIIST SPEED STuDy Pi Filed By P65 01/04/94 Changed By P65 01/20/94 TOM#2306 Rec'd By KJH Date Rec'd 01/03/1994 Time Rec'd Person Making Req:F.Name L.Name Brown Address 1 1319 N 28th ST Address 2 City Renton State WA Zip 98056 phone TYPE OF REQUEST:Main Subject Neighborhoods 2nd Subject Speeders LOCATION:Problem on Street N 28th ST Nearest x-st Park AV N DESCRIPTION: Need to do speed study at the above location and report to Police Officer Bingaman. Spoke to complainents Mr. &Mrs.Brown,and set speed counter in front of their house, 1/5/93. No speeding problem;85% speed=28 mph. Memo sent, 1/20 Asgd to RWM Date Due 02/04/93 Indexed By TM1 TOM 2306 TOM NEIGHBORHOODS, SPEEDERS TOM BINGAMAN,T TOM PARK AV N TOM BROWN,A TOM RWM94 TOM N 28TH ST (EN 1'ER)Next (5)Remove (9)Change (12)Tag(13)Print(15)Info(16)Exit ,:.• ' a iL.4.. 4' .V.; ... JP, : :e_....f).: ...:Tr,.0.4,47 416' 4 *.i . 0.;"• :r.-aP •••iv- . . ., . ..A .... ! • .:•;'‘ '411.:016P.'":.'... ura ..' - . . ' ' . i •...X. •. ,7 . ' ,. • Ir./ I,... A. .41/110 eik e iiirt.:4. . • 1 o. I . in •1 :lett- ... .-. . . ..., -. , • '!. IL. !.' 7 tlik 4, a• - ,, •_ . - -:' .. .. - .4. ..,.. A,. .Y.r, . . ,.., • // ... s tt .•• • ..., ''ARrIto p 1' .. , ,, 1 . , • • .. ,. ., V ,,, .. .. .,...., k . r -. --. .,4.,., -:,- I oge!' '.• • I • , : , • . -• 1.",:c. ' #4. . . 4.. / -..74;,. ... , - , •,..--..v. , -. . . ,. ! i. a , .....„ • .. . • .,...,.,..•, , , . " , , . . ... •/04.7„ '. . . 4 • IS:-•—' ' - 1 ' . . - .•. , - . . ...... .' • 4 -..... ... 41."-failr Ns.. ,''''• . I ...0 4, ,IFA'-•e*'al•...... . -• v.. it 1.4. . C. % if ft.•'ti, .,,t• i. ' ..T. ' . . , • -1-4 - '., z '' Ot• 44 • . , . • • 1. . , •,-st • 4 ,, • . ,,.... I On 01. ... •41111.44,411V. .,. .' 0 .. 6 -• ,s. -•, - " . f.--,i. , . . . ', 2-.....::r.... . . . .. ., . s , •.-.-'..' I , ... t f /11,; • • ,.,:•:.-114‘. ... . . 0 , . .. ... : . ., ... lir.... I . • ,tC? :.. . ` t.!.. .. _• ; !,i . • .1 L ,i .... • • 6,.., w.• -4.; L..16. J • I': 1,.1 I i Ir......,:".• ....•- ijid '6 k . • J • . . ....... Nin,. . t • . i.: .. , A..,11.4:... . •• • . , . , . ., • ' • I • i ., ., 1 t 11111111.1 • . : 4W , il. ... - . '4 iw, -v,L .-..-'1 1 r,-k.'. ' . :4,,..,:r • I e . * v, ,t, , • I. 100.- *bit. et., ,,,,.„. . • ; • _.,,o.4 .--7-.....""=".;......--,' ‘ '•.14,,*..- V .1, ... • - `ram .1 . .-- . I111M..:vw. sue, •ti ,. it y 4 1611* I *a • •fir,; t 1; . • ;w • .j. � y. .' !:�: : :• r • y r � . • r � :� � 1. t . ' '' Ivr•%. ' ' ..:?L. 4,4-'-."-...,',.,, ',.-`:` ...%17.1.1t-°1‘7'. • •-:. #111t, { d f r1 ,' „tom ..-.• I. •;y► F 4 C,..II ,ii • ..` tie: .. .• I . . _ . - .,. •-...,01..*, t - . 40t/W—".....-•.i j'e• - ---,-,`... • 41 . . ,,s. • tvs.' 4 4.41' : ,Alt,..- ... ',0',:•;‘, . ...ii - • . """"I -.."..' .4"". .. . -- ,t4 4t. .. • ', , . • a - 4 .. . • • . . • . . , . 11 4 4 j 1, .... .. , • t. • . - -.,-, ..... -- - • • ' , ,..... , . I. - •IL • , '- • • , ,...... cit 10 .a.... I - • -. •••" ,'..1:-.. '‘ •- .,, l• .. ..• , , • 106- .1 •7 •I, -a?:NS ir .-tr.t. .li• -‘414‘ '‘' •.-..a '!"1 - V . .,........:4....., ' 1 .4.::•.' ...!''raa-i.- 4. . ' • •••••P:-.I.., .• . . • I! a.-4'.4*.ir 41 ....- ' -.7c.4 -.• -- —- - , . - •-._ "11 u Lel'e Ct• 'AZi , iliebia, . A 4' - ' ' :..?". • • ' 'IN '. ‘1 , . . - ) , t , • y • • .1' ...‘ •yy • ...... IIIN,y iff lit , . tt, \ . , \ 1 ••, '1."" .. . •, , •... ,,. ., ...„„ .., - , , .. •,, „. . ,t4 ....____ .. :-. • , .. . . - • • • .-;4 • • ...,;...g.,...,- -.... ... ..-.... .• '*• ' - i 7 • tt.' , oiler:,..:,' • , ., : 1,.. 4 . ,.- - • • k,. 14, ...‘40`, _....• 4r. . t••1'); • li)'N • '' . '''•• 4• t . • . . . . . 4 )41 •-- .•4?*.-1. • , , ....1•14., , • •.44.A '•I• 11A(Va"W i • . 4 ir r '3�! • z .sal '—.- -t --74 -n . ,li '; ' 7 4/11111 _ • •.#f it" ' • :411/4' „Al•-. .• ,7•...,. it; ,,, . A_VIP 1111k 1, - '-oit, :::‘$' iikt.t...dr : - 2• ... ... ...... 4,41.1 • . . . ... . . t ..„ a • forktu -, • ....,.; • .t.. . .,4; , . •E. , •t4 . Isir Str • , ,..,,, • V •_-_, . - • 1 Ir l. 4 =a t :11. . ., . ... ..,•=r, 4 '''.=:•.' ;• ..- . ,..--- iri. 3 .7 . . - ... ., -...,_ , . _„. ...... 1 , -,f •• '' • ... I , I •••• . , I — ',. - • is 4 i ' .4 • 1, . I, .... .! I • ' . ' d. ..... I ? ,.. ..... I • • ._ ; . • , 1 . , r . . . , I i • ,... t !. • • , .. il • jr-,,, v Ii . w . '• t . •. ...1 ....,.....•.I• •- . .. -V':( 4 1.1 - • .0 it , .4141.110....,...... 1. N A ;r 4tilis, , ,.,... *, ... • Alt . . N. ' VIE f!'firei i ,.'it',.4 o•" •t000'll'''''''....-' L , t 41V. " 4 ‘r•0 .00‘ , , •i ', • _ 44 .. • .. I, ,s.,.-:•1(''-'' firsi 2., : - ..\ . ISL• • • t As A4 • 11 41117 -- • 4. 46. .1 '• .g mis. s It s•—•‘ • MEI UM 'IV m. NI•i la- 1 ---• ••'.‘ 4., ......m. i ••••=11111•1116.111.4 liainiMiiiiiinXIMONni• ,g7r 111,1111111WAMEINIMI P. 1 . • ' ' Z' I .N;altilidEL„ i1' ,' ., . .6. ' ' •i . '. , ' ,.,.' e. 7,1 4 I S ' v..1,, 7: — 147 ..s, •-• . . , •,,. :: 7, .. ---..,:-: ' ' +'!!. ..•. 4' . ..iiii .. • Lair •i ... 4" • ''-ii%• . iP. ,'.... .'• .. .;!....f., Alai „. . . ....•, , re i I I 0 111 Ril I 1111 IV . „...• . _... 4 i e• —' • "'"". L. ...— . ...' "1 ..... , .:. , . ,. .... . , ... , ,..... .. .• ,:.......„,..- , A, ....„..., 111 511111 I 4 - .14* a AL. • { spit °IS' • 4, , „. ' 11 I " .. • irg rfl r , . . • • .t • . • 4 411. .4 • ..;••• . • • 0 '4,".4(1! • • ci• .1 e • ,•0fl 7 •*• -• • , • • 4fri 111P- ' . • . • •i•• -.• •"' 11. • •rz' p,7.1 • • r4 wider ofeSiktie Zp Plr.W 171 . " 4 /1 \ ‘ ,b' .,4,,,• 1 i t • . — • , ....:- • • t.,. , • 1 , •I 4 , , ... qf • 4 1 Ili .Z. . a. _.•'? J... .....c.• . • 4111.• A iii,:p-1 • ,,, --:44,-. - lk A . _ . • • ......LP-.0.2. liv 4 ilt - 1 :IC‘ r4111-11701-7b • III •_ —4" , : ."' • l 4 sy _ . 1 .-• •I , . .• - - (4 ii7. (AC:11.S 1. Z&Ill&t: ".• I- • : .•111v..••• •••• „ 7- 4111147. ••• •-":" 10' ^. • . .41/11 ;- ,O.'"" •411C , • .4."41:;••••• 1 . t ••• -• , 4. . - ' 4,--- '''......,.•-• , .otit. . ' . '•• '" z. • • i I . . .... ,AI Jig. irtivi. • . . ...... . .. I. • ...i......4iium..... I. J. .• . - • '. 41.' .3/4.••• . I ,..ir , , . _._ • . 4.- .7. - • ..440,.-.; i . '....... . I . ......... . . . .. . . • • offimmora _ 144 115: 1 •fri.. • • . •api, "A441 rig • -41081r4.1r. d 1'7 -x2 sz .,10„ ;;t - ,„ ...*..: • :• I „ .a . . .NIP— -4 , I. - . r • 1 1• - Wa , 3 b . f ..,4,wa--ei iriii. . tom_ .. . 10,. -.) ,...., iR , Y CL 16,4 E P.1 r :14 . :1 6) ::. 10. 1. ci) 14 tt .• 1 4•••• • • • .V1. 4 ____ t.• ..,• r ; • 11. ;4L.. r, • *. • • • • ctryi/,, 1119- id , Li 7 d o 117116-tin7 -AL\ 0_ 1,...I '.-.tiladri;1111\11%. 4 - c". ........=., % 5.5 1 ' .._ . .. .....--_,_.-----,-,,T.,..: .__..... 7-1 1 Vilaill I ari ;� �? d 48 : '1 \ . I I el % I .,....1.:_•..:\ Oki ji,mr-:•.-- --- -`i t.-� e/.•-: '. f: V. +-�L�T�y, ��` \ 3 N. 1 j 1 j1j . 19 20 I ' 22 I-•- �7 I/ ' - ->J ` \ \\ A\\\\ \\‘ se \ , , , \\is \ iii: ‘ NIV \ \‘ s''''-`‘‘ sl 1 4 - ..."\s, -- • .._ ., ., _ .. , , ( ea,-le!PI wi,i, Nkill...... ,::p 40/0, .... s,... ..._, A,-•.,;.2,r1/1. .i 1 i,e/-1 1 , ... 434711c......, 4111:_ 41101111.1., Ll:*.N•..NIA — ,......40' -12-..._ :,%x „e.p.;,-,.1../.... ---1 ( ' - 4111r/ \ \\ \ `�'•:=T• .�'-:: ; .; .:.; ". . : �;...%. iNcs, , --�� , r ' , , \ ,, , 1 \ia i �. :�:.:�:.. '' ` ., k \ \ \ \ _--?�•:: ;°s:.:::: \ \ _ \ ,' il I • \ .. .. . . \ ' , . :-*i.< .. ,.,::-z-.. . / . \ /, / \ \ \7 .' \ ".4- :', 6 \--. Ai - \\4:\ •-:/.:::,..v/i.? ,/ , ,, ,_. :1 4..3\ 0\ \ APPROXIMATE SCALE � \ \ 120 0 120 240 feet \ • \ CONTOUR INTERVAL: 5 feet LEGEND: 4-4LWUJU ( ® APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PREVIOUS TEST PIT 4 .-e.5 BY TERRA ASSOCIATES 6 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CURRENT TEST PIT R-FER-NCE: • BY TERRA ASSOCIATES (11/13/98) PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN PREPARED AND PROVIDED BY TE SHADED AREA REPRESENTS APPROXIMATE EROSION TOUMA ENGINEERS, JOB No. 741-001-981, SHEET 3 HAZARD AREA OF 6, DATED NOVEMBER, 199?. . __ AS Geote I I!5t - ,• 4 1 '''''''-'6-- if;11' , . . 1 . , ...1/2 1 .. ..,-,, Fti) .1 4' ''''61;', ',144 iki 1 1, ill . , :-Z' ".,'‘i.!!'' '!s'1..i!.:'‘!'•--j. '..-- ---- ",* A..' . . r, i A r r 1) (t , i il( L C, -1 \ - i I- - 0 .1 oft { . x * > . R' 1 ::` &lit Ott*. - — a . ,`Y a xe4 M p.. - r,. �i � .ram (.. 1 I � VA � FM � � � � • r R t !r i f x v II Juanita _ ♦ Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 13'-0"x 10%0" 13%5"x 10'-0" MC •str Bath Great Room 31'-0"x 19'-0" 12%0"x 12.-0" 11iiimol84/ �: r ® • • }Bath itclten Loft ( 1 H M 12'-0"x15'-3" -1 TOW(' 9'.6"x 13'd" 2 "„ iH iHH.vun. 1 1 Utility L > ---- --- 10'-0"x9'-9" .,,.,.� -- Mstr Bedrm I I - Garage Dining 20'-0"x2a'-8" -- Bedroom3 12'-0"x13%8" 11'-2"x 10%8" natal 0 Entry y IV P 4 - Living 12'-0"x 15'b" CI Upper Floor Plan Main Floor Plan 1495 square feet 1346 square feet L ° LID A. T { Bradley K.Hughes (425)803-0400 I�IC. AIN 1)1 KS()N I� General Manager (425)803-6877 FAX; ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING•LAND USE CONSUL1 N ��. r2�` P.O.Box 3344 (206) 679-3700 CEL : ': Kirkland,WA 98083 Iabrador4@aol.com E-MAIL V35 Datcy Street Edhaonds Wa 98020 E : * I iAkJ' �a I."r,'' . ;425)778.2085;t t42±} e ':iI AX •rcatr@prennert:tilt K- ( • Z c ..„ / \ ) -"7"---. •1 1 _ K t L ik (11 0 V 1r: li: t 11) Tr' ir 11 I LK , 4 • 5 - 4 4 •,,o •4 r - .., 4- .,,. "f , - / '11 . - i• --t`• ,'. .,. - •-1,41' v:-&•1,; II" - 4....k* '‘'` ' - _ -, .. . .. D:ik's•tl‘mita 4(41 44. ,- / ' ri 1, ; "t'. ' ' .4 :. .•4„ . -,4,-kw•-•:, Addillib. . f. - .. ...,1.2.•• -...it.. "4 .1-1,14:' .;,- r-- - ' , ' 4.; 14, ' •--:;$44:-, • • at '4. ..P.-.,'•';' -:'0 . !741.1f' .,,/,',;...!.."'s;'''',.'T`- -- .•;* 14, - , -'' • • • .•;`•'1,1j4; '41 . .• ,,,..,...,:!-0* . , • '' ; ' - . .14* ,• 4 ' , 141141,++; '?. 4,' ' ‘'' .‘1,,,,' ',.,_ ' '........,• ' ' 1:1-. ;I.,:...t.,..,,,,,....I . :'''''71.1144:7:1A1::'.. .' + 4 +4,• • :(.,,N.,.i.,- ..,*_,,iot., _. ,-- .. 1' • 4.444,,514,44,A,,,.. st5-v.444 ,1 li II i4, o 14,- ''"s' • %...., ‘. ." . ' 4. dull - Ill is .4,. •.. li. • • .1••• .. . ' V ..6 II II II IP NI NI ,- , ,,,, , 1.1 ) :a ;,' 411111 . IIIIII OM .' liWillf Air • ' — • !. •• ' •• 113;PV:41. 1 . . NO•••••••••.1.1;111_..... • t • .4. *..„-r- ,,,t•:,;..,, ' '.••••,. —_,__.:—' ''',:'-"•• :/:-.'' IN I . . . , . . _. • -riliii , _1_1 _ . f. ....4. :,,••• ...1- 14,..,,,.. • ; ____, . N.,44,-.,.• '1 .71 ,,.. .... A:". ..--.--..1 ••• 1 '''' . . , .. -- , °Ma . . Aladrona 1 , 1 II NIIII Bedroom 1 1 Bedroom 2 I 1 Bedroom 3 11'-3-411%0" Ir-Ox1V-0" + 11%6x 11'.0" I .tailrallpol I I I i re Great Room !E Bath MO It 27'-0"x 2T-3" Kitchen 12'-0"x 11'-2" I A i'‘ I Utility BRIE 11m 13.4"x 8%9" 4I, T ---1- ll • tlf. I I • I I 0 Mstr Bath I I I 11 12%0"x 12'.0' I I Den I Pov". la 1 II ,?4,... ..34_6. li Ilk FA 15'4"x 10'-r A ria . II , 1 .Iol .. 1 • Mstr Bedrm ; siimi f Garage . imm mom •sunm Entry 19'45"x 19'-2" 20'-0"x 23'-8" 11 i ,•,,,„,•. • ',Y • MI I , , , I •, Living 13'-1"x13'-6" II ' II '., . ,,...,.. 0 .\ it...:,, ' Upper Floor Plan Main Floor Plan 1630 square feet 1566 square feet A II .7Filre I . .... , _ .„_..... .. . Bradley K. Hughes (425)803-0400 . RR:.K ANDERSON .AIA'ri General Manager (425) 803-6877 - . ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING•LAND USE CONSULTING- P.O. Box 3344 (206) 679-3700 CELL . . al Kirkland,WA 98083 labrador4@aol.com E-M• 1 '......i):;:i'g'ii:::, ',?: 9.35 D.9 le y Street ficlOk Wo onds 90020 : *i 1 i ii.aVA • ' 11 \ !,r2 5'77 .2pas..;142.-tps.:ialoFAX •rcair@premier1.not gA 2 i ( LoVER C ,EEK (i...C) t r". "** a \ ' Bryn ,<, `,i r 1(; x � F , •Nt l,, - k„, w ,•.— , ' t• '. x .yti I w g " fia , � � a � .' -tta1 ., r� Zit: it -,,,, ' t ..., mi* , ,; ,. , , , , , , , i . ,.„....... ..„. A 1 iiiiiii ., i r , IF Afi A./4:4_, ....4-srt.: ,-, .,..."4„; Leschi Deck Deck Family Room • • P Great Room Mstr Bedrm Mstr Bath 31.0"x2o 9" 14'3"x18'0•• 9•-4•'x18'0" 0 Living 12'-8"x 16'-2" r- r) it Bedroom 1 ......... .... (� sipm 12•-8"x 11'-0•' O ,J Kitchen Bath Iz._o., 13•_0„ �. 0 ra r 511. µ' Pantry --o Bedroom 2 Dining 12'-8"x 11'-0" 12%8"x 13 6" rat Garage Entry Utility I1'-0"x 15'-2" Den 12'-e"x 11'-8" Upper Floor Plan Main Floor Plan 1791 square feet 1713 square feet , �� i ; t ?Ill i rt it: Bradley K. Hughes (425) 803-0400 cF RICK ANDERSON �� ��� General Manager (425) 803-6877 F' ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING•LAND USE CONSULTING XIV P.O. Box 3344 (206) 679-3700 C'1:, ZP Kirkland,WA 98083 labrador4@aol.com 935 Daley Street Edmonds Wu 9e070 ® r ey (425)778 2085•(425)776 1810FAX •rca(r@premmierl net; 4. X. 2 e 1 ,.. \,..... r____,., , t, fifloytit) .(11) { r1 1 _t_iv_K ._. K, F r j\ t.J'� ? t. =t• J• ,.. k;_.,%1,4:v ‘, ..40 . ,- ' .,....1 A... .._• 4.k:it A*• ,+.• ,*.. .1. •••;.., rlii 150 4 •' • • } io M 4: r t y-7SS4 "AA. . �; ` .ty4 • k`• •1 fy' t`'¢'In, -..... `A`, ;•^r / i s t+ •t.4 St .ilk •• • .4-4, •" . �'?` ti •oit 4 os 7.2- Y er. L. gyp. ''�'1MF4 `may. • . . f I '�'` t �• ..,t tP �`• 4w +w!!�r` '� 7C.0 '+� Ai ^` {/`r t[f- �'4`b;- T • •,rf.y 1'24¢• ` : �17C nj • _ I" IF Y��Gafi1.� �+'.•y fwa•J�•ip'{t���a-!* �t�•.�����f({ t��� -+•.a+%"4��� �i, �!�� ��j! .•�^• ...At ��` yy.�?:a, 1[xi, '• r /'it " 4 :-: r ai• �s� 4> .r. 1• .I I.1 Y, ` i_ ' s 141 f a+�p .Y "�-. s c .� • & .iJ7 •B' S .•V :NAZI: � `•4 t..c. b"7• i + !l t ".. ,;1y: ,6 Y �h t . Itt at iiiiix 11 ilk z4rl�r,�. tii. .._... ��.r: r. rutil C "k:.'y-:.•44;::t' 1!,� y 4 x yt 4,,3; t• t�• ,d ..v '.j4`^ "te. ;�'r' 1 N.A4 i '.' x ',• 1,.,, ,,E ��'', ` • •„ , •e .4 • •• • ,a, i.:L,..-s �', r' s- .�"W 1� lip . , ,,' i..4:'' '.i- 'ffive , yr/ .1y ,I,`,.../it 4 i4 •�•: . `.`'1 "r , fi - ,r�.rr``� '{"'A• rn,, 41 1 1 .'- • R , .if1 t+'Tii{•t 42 'Y �yC•,, ,Ay J� yYity+ .ft Tr T 4• • I r• _ **A i • .e<, r 4 . : 8�4. 3 ' . F, •.0 + 10 '- •..��► • d. '� 41C. 044,_*y .ate .=5 y: ., L . 14% f - r,., xy •:. ,.. r(. ` 'Ft . iL ale ''!4- : ^hi '! -• sty j,�t ) 1.t Jam' t ' rid J Irlit. At, te . 1:$0,1•t y,,oit.4, • .,,, - :,.• `1elf -?'S� . • ''1 ...sv,,,,, ,,, ,fF •1 et*" ,1.SA Y+ `- > . �i • y. 1a„�.{4 401t.... Mir - i • t. q. '• ..tt +144::vi Aitt..,•4 -:,,, -,.:.':--...,...\4:11' 1.---'' .,,,Ift„,-7,/,, ..i. 14. t31 ^� �' 90 tit a.. ••4,•'�w r"rit ♦ •. t' ! r +l0 ;, - # ,•f t t. t :. ,t „ wi . 'lr "Sf..) ', a, • ,4 ' `hr `. r yy, ' "t Stream Crossing Concept • • ' *Bradley K. Hughes (425)803-0400 k.IC C� � ! 1 X.l I V L 1I ; I • General Manager (425)803-6877 F ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING•LANDCONSULTING.USE '` P.O. Box 3344 (206) 679-3700 CELL N. Kirkland,WA 98083 Iabrador4@aol.com E-MAIL 935 Datcy,Street Edmonds wa 98020 1 'i 1 _ • ,l \ - - j4251 778.2085 425 78.STQ,�AX •rcojr@premierl Ref''':. k to -ly 2. 3 1 - - •1 1 1 I I I � - 1_` 1_. T T _1 -f-` — .r - --1-----1 - -I- --i� - T - 1.- -1- -1- -T - T - -I - 1 I I •�e•� I I I I I I I I I I i I ecodlc r2 I I I i I I I I I I I I - -� 9tnrl 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 47 1 40 I 39 )I 38 1 37 1 36 11 35 1 34 1 33 1 32 1 31 1 30 1 29 128 1 27 1 26 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 i I C.D. IH/LLMAIt'S LAKE WASHINGTON IGARD£N OF EDEN NO. 11 1 ( I 1 1 1 1 I_ l___ ' 41 _ L _...1 ___ -I___ ___I,___ L ___ 1 ___J - I_ L 1 _.(. J -_L -L __ 1,, J _ I— L 1 _I. __I _L_._ — L __ 1 ._ J 1` J -r- -1,7- I - -I- - -T— —1— F T -1 I 1- T -f -1 `I ` I T -1 I I-- T J -I I- 1-- -T - -1�r•p 43 I lmir 111° I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I Imo," ' I I ° 1 2 ' 3 I 4 1 5 1 61 7 18 1 9 110 111 112 113 1 14 1 15 1 ' 16 1 17 1 18 119 1 20 121 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 I I��.''r"1�• i I I ; hi I �I• ° I� I I I I 1 SLO�K 11 1 I I I I ��'J' � y �i C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GAkOEN OF EDEN NO. 1 _L - �..''*i�7 I- "'�� xr , I f r r—�__ Al°i' II r� I I I �r -4. ,r'f• ..r --' -a=-r.. -..�, _dr,�,� -�z-,_: -.- '-tr-'r:" --•-- . ^- ---- _ • ' am' — .: '+" - -_ - - - - -- I 1- r 'r rr sox. \ -r -•r - r —— ...- -� _'�--•y'— ,� a. —•' :r ri, ;�, - - - `.�, :r • .� .p. .f. rYA it t X'rar �.J/''� c \ 'r\ \ mp fir° +' \ r V' •+' ° r r a i>A'Y �v 3` , ';it Ir�v,r1°„ r ! rt. EL L�'J N A�R S ( TL 59 \ & ... VJ°'"° T I �7 o-n- ... ..4 ,tr. 1 rr` a '''4, .'.? z Y " tL 56 TL 60 TL 40 TL 58 \ \ \ 4L ` c� av I � ro-fav _:r Th. 57 j 1 'r ,' .p 'r/flsv .y,. '• �QI I°°t rem •,. 4k. af0• , r..' oema• / \ \\ „\ �_ •e' .Q. r .�.�' r0.r .... 1.1 sego.. .' „Iy� 1a r ��y��o,,Y� tir 1� /% \;W w- r K/ c r 1 .r r •p a� raA b ...'?, .� W•�.'. y A "'C. .r 'r .II. '# .r /r ° r. `+ ':� ' .®. r �;1v •r Zy.r7 fav >r \ -a... 'a;; ac I r I raiCm i .p •r 'a';r Iav , *.. \ IO %U. l' 4'4. - f1 ri ' 21,414 WI ''r 'y .p to A 1�5 LOOTS aln \ �" •� r r ` its •P 211 I r. ® p r r r s., / TL 73 r' ` I c !vy Sav en • VJ .�av 1u r ,g.' 411 \ 333000 r eat- �r� 3"r ,spv y y '��,•1�i'v A A. •vY \ \� \ \ 1 :�(' M. ;a en, �:3;Y; •.?: •.• iII ev `�v •r I "`•i5•c.p •�h .r•rl'�Z � '•�f yy.'� 'r°�G� \ \ r-..ov =°'b•'Y. .a. ,�„ .p I •r e a•A Q'- fO A °W ay'10 y �q f STY% ' zir \ �\ \\li`.��. Is�� .p NV•.B. \ rc .p i'�•r aluo I� •r 7 star."Yr '�+•.t a'el.' �" •� 3:ivA° 1 .r •'I A�lzg4! J4i.••..�w ,r •r la`4`i r 'O��' '\ ''yr •r J .r vu a ! +as�W fi�.ag 'r r, fr,2 ate, r- r'� / \ y \ ,L \ •r •e rrr ram` I .p -43, `C e, P ^IaTO • �•a°• / 9♦ \ •1•� lawre, .r•Q• HTelbw. + \ �, •r 1 •�,. as' tr "•r ,• STfr�Y1.�, e',v ,y.. �r �pl I 1.--tO• , 'Yam IL 54 \ IYr •r rrr wa 2':♦ IYY X'i r:Cyr--v > -,"2`•'; 'Y' I .r •!• .r \\ ik\\•� r \ ® r ay7Y re7r �ior z-wr•r 'fiF ° r_ ' . .v mr t ". •r 11 .gray -- - •r a r, tYr rya �r -' ^i '�' lifp,..,,N41":"7...._\ \N' �av :. �„ i' v ,�S ° e 1 av 1 ,YrII 'R. _. • .r \ •v s Day r lr1f�+• �y \ C 3`i. r J" •! + .w'r€Ov II�A I ' �'" \ art aav •.�. r. •., y7�iy 'ri"r'',r r J''r($ % �i I IV %•r �r •r I I a?r, IC E• °WY \ Fes. , \ 7� °v , •ry;� q�, jr r \ .r -r"." 742-+• /,', s" ,•�A Y„`11-fo7,21 isa'l i•-• . �t, 7119, i:. r 1m .y TL 46 r. rav a f�av r r r. r, Yi v = I # r wA., e.1272 �II r w_ r \ 11r ,r„f ® 'w' so 54412 y�:` r r av •r Yi 4..- ''.—`'r—z .°t ivil..'...°—° ° \ \ .. \ i•: ,— q IC \ I. - ` i±� roll" _ �' �+l - - .tr \ .�' �ravAo •r I ' ev y 1aA \ >< r I I—_ r aC�T •.,•r�'m'+" o/ \ \ �r z rov�Q_v �r el, tia/ \ \ •�I � i ! I 11\64 r ,�f TL 45 - ir _..._ ...._ ___ _ woo?. \ •r t _ _ _\ i: , ° o.1z a°�'?, ELDDom'! A\cRES\\ •°` .p % .ryy - - , \ \ \ 4 J,.Y; 2 'COi 2�613 �p --- .....:1,...._ .•� \ \ \ s'° / /'. \// / \ -- I ,v;r \ \\ \ / .rr 7 Zrmbar.. \ / .r .r \ �\ \ r »ga_, r�\ / / \/ r •r 'r .8t. I lar••• ni- •� \ / \\ .�� /�'\ / \\\ I>:' {�,i1rim ,� i�ha• +-'r` r r+ _ \ •5- \ TREES INVENTORY TABLE \ • +ic \ \ OL *IA.\ TO TREES TO ?'� - --• �' - I \ \ \ CUT REMAIN' p \\ \\ \\ 204 .308 rr'r •r - / �. r \ \ 40 PERCENT 60 PERCENT / /IdlAr \ \ / \ \\ \ I. \ I \ \ i I o . LI- b)41 2111Yr - i I - "I I I I I I I ---1 -- i- 1T T 7 `I -f` - T- - T , , -I-' - 1- -T--I- - -1- -I- -1-- -I- ._-1 — I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 - I 1 I I I BLOdK 12 f 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 `� 50 I 49 I 48 1 47 1 46 1 45 I 44 1 43 I 42 I 41 1 40 1 39 1 38 1 37 1 36 1 35 134 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 1 I , .11 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I1, II , L 1 I i I " I I I I I I C.D. H!LLMAfU'S LAKK WASHINGTON IGARDEN OF EDkN Nall I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1. _ l - 1 , J. - -1_-I_ - L _ 1 - _1 - I- L 1 _1. J -L - L- 1- _1 - _I- lL- 1 - --I- -f-- L- 1-_..I 1_ - l-- -14 fr I! T 7 - 1--- T 7 I 1 T -T 7 I I T -1 I T- T -T -I I- T- T --111..... ri. 43 I \_I' '{ , i 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I i f I I I I I I I1 1 I sill ' II ; 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 79 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 Kartro I 1 i / t l 1 I I I I I BLO K 11 i I 1 I 1 I I! f I 1 I G L MAN S LAKE WASHINGTON G DEN OF £DEN NO. 1 1 . .. , .. J _L _ %��. _ � . aj6. �I - �11�.. �a`. ._ ._ = .A �i� `` �Y•.'i^ �•^:ate.-'�`�' -`���.r� -mac r\: '.,•-_- ..ram �`r!�'' 1�^ - fc'JZ'j 4 Gi 1 > 1 AllfA ./r► fir► /' ► �` , - ► �� ;r r .a.,,, \ � � • , I/;;. ' , �:;' r, r lP.• ��: ELdON ACIRES I TL 59 r' �. 7. y r „i. , ;. ... 1,1; 1'L 56 TL 60 TL 40 7L 57 TL 58. a. l . N ki?!...- . "/A(.1:.1‘.;_,,.:"Niliwijory.,r7Aift• ,, Itar,.-. '7111 -7: ' �; �/'l, rj►.+/ �i,= ,tee I 1,.,. \ A. � A.- � ...,;-14,'. - _. -v. r. .,,4,,,,, _,, Ora `v. w�\ yt„ ,,,- �. a`r,,,, . . ,.._..,.,4 ;, �.,f ��'�.v:�e�;.• ' :�����rr w Wi '.'isi imihrOlffik'404...‘Sk"j.;C'444111r*:- A 'rgAi i It it )i.4111,111611""P:L+447'11: 'Y✓; 'rr1 /l It \' �:. ArAi-.tom— X' 7h :`..'Cid '�rl�: .4 Of' ''' ,i:-'7,171'' 'P' ,,-,.":7-al. 4:e: \ \‘.\?*.13.1111A7ArAlli ,,��//�di ),* r1.411k:. Si* ' n�.,.s 141%141 �. ;``aVir- ,,-,*- „•,,,,,,„ ..„, M�'I • Y,�r 1:;-.• _ :.ice_.:4fikkiHNI.4.4\��.. I' +/�.,►-i.\ if\ «��II'\ •�` �:, ;, ip'.4 410..-10401,A. it - .�s •..ter\ .. •-4 ir s .`i i"i. .,. I� `,� �� tl� — , — _... _ ,,,,...,, TL 46 -4-**4.-.4.iii,o.,,,,,,, ' .i' 4' ��/�! W 1.nr > -r -�►rb1�1�'—.�'ifv .' *At \ > 1141 li r �-/.AltlibM���`� ' ''.10../. 'lifillalattfe-. — .'-''''''''.217:All --- --- 7----440„ I 1 tirAirli.A.*Allillik4171*4;11 .'s - - 11411k 401r ' i Wiill — —— -- A NM ;21''.1i,i 0.01r- . , ,;1., .A'7,,,,47 ., .A .::: ..i.,. ' ;,- -- .'.'i s- •... \ \ Nateti, 4''''''' A, -:::: -. \ �►�, , 3 r_ 3 fit/ '�. '� �• \ \��� ``�:; ` il1i' ®,�. `y,,�/ \ \\ A '`'' !;r ;�'` ` 1(44411 ,4 �I��r'I� ' n 45 \ \ •V 14;'� 71AND2 < .X \ •* W '�1 �''r�► l.� ty`_ iF��: 1/ — — _ \\ � II Aim, Az j%� ELDO , �RES\\ _ la iffel-��r►�1I�,`M ,�� r, \ \\, Ait _......K e Ib 4110.- , ...,-, / \ \,, 41-1111-. "iiiivedif \ \\., A Nir \ ..,. - / \ / / \ it- ii2---,:'14,111141101iYap...- . ka\NIL roomy -,��,`%'. e / :.:. i`..fir 40 \ \ TREES INVENTORY TABLE \ �i�►v,s z q�r S\�••ice,t. \ \ \ CUTES TO REFS TO •Aor��,4i►....REMAIN \�Nlw�' .r T lefts./ 1 ---- -- - — —-- --------\ \ — 40 PERCENT 60 PERCENT l ------ -- ------ - - - - ------- - ----------- \ \ ` 1 cn rn \ m \ I ,n \ o \ • O I cu o; \ I \ I cn a) PC Z ' "(Zr. x-C 1 r 17,1:11H-n nr 2 sty;?': 3 4 5 6 HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 7 8 LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT File No. LUA-098-141, PP, V-H, R, ECF 9 LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC, APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING 10 REZONE REQUEST Applicant 11 12 RMC § 4-9-180.F (formerly § 4-8-14.C) states that the Hearing Examiner may recommend a 13 rezone to the City Council if"at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" 14 a) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of 15 the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or 16 b) That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and 17 conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate: or 18 c) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development 19 or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. 20 Only one of the three is necessary. Two of these three circumstances exist in this case. 21 The first circumstance exists because the proposed R-5 zone did not exist at the time of the 22 last area land use analysis and area zoning. As pointed out in the staff report, the "new" R-1 zone 23 restricting density to one unit per acre was imposed on the Labrador property during the last area 24 zoning in June, 1993. The ordinance creating the R-5 zone was adopted two years later in June, 25 1995. Thus the zone classification requested by Labrador Ventures could not have been specifically Bonneville,Viert 820•A•street,suite 600 APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING Morton & P.O.Box1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,1)121 11 98401 REZONE-1 Fax: 253)2 2 4338 G:1LAWTYPEIREUHIPLEADINGILV-MEM RE REZONE.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. 2 The second criteria for recommending a rezone is also clearly established for this 3 application. The proposed rezone is within the Residential Rural land use category in the Renton 4 Comprehensive Plant Plan Policy LU-26 states: 5 Maximum development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential Rural except in areas with significant environmental 6 constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood-plains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. 7 Thus, R-5 zoning is specifically authorized in the Residential Rural land use category except in 8 areas with significant environmental constraints. 9 A small portion of Wetland A and its buffer encroaches upon the northern edge of the R-1 10 zone on the Labrador property. The northern edge of the R-1 zone contains slopes in excess of 11 25%. However, all lots within the proposed rezone area would be outside the wetland, buffer, and 12 steep slope area. Therefore, none of the lots within the proposed R-5 zone will contain any 13 . significant environmental constraints. The second criteria for recommending a rezone is thus 14 satisfied. 15 Two of the three criteria are thus satisfied. Only one is necessary to recommend the 16 proposed rezone. The staff report erroneously concludes that without satisfying the third criteria 17 regarding a significant and material change of circumstances, the rezone cannot be recommended. 18 Because this conclusion is directly contrary to the plain language of the City Code, this conclusion 19 must be disregarded. 20 r If one of the three criteria is met, then RMC § 4-9-180.F.2 directs the Hearing Examiner to 21 22 1 It is apparent that the property was included in the Residential Rural land use classification by mistake. Objective LU-I in the Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this land use category is to preserve 23 open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential density in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within 24 the City. As discussed herein, the portion of the Labrador property in the Residential Rural land use category is not environmentally sensitive or in a critical area (defined in the Plan as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, 25 fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas), is not identified as part of an open space network, and is not used for agriculture. However, the proposed rezone will allow reasonable use without the need for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Bonneville,Viert 820•A•Street,sine 600 APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING Morton & P.O.Box 1533 REZONE -2 McGoldrick Tacoma,W)ashingg8ton 98401 ACROFESSOU LSERVCE +cN Fax?�z53j 272-4338 G:VAWfYPE\REUHIPLEADINGILV-MEM RE REZONE.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 1 determine if the change of the zone classification: 2 a) is desirable, 3 b) is in the public interest, 4 c) tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, 5 d) is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other ' 6 persons located in the vicinity, and 7 e) is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. 8 All of these findings are well supported by the evidence regarding this rezone application. 9 The loop road made possible by a bridge crossing the ravine is not economically feasible if 10 development east of the ravine is limited to one unit per acre. As discussed in the variance analysis 11 section of the staff report, the loop road is critical for providing safe access for the residents of this 12 new subdivision, as well as the other properties to the east and south which are currently served by 13 a single road access. As cited in the staff report, a number of policies in the Comprehensive Plan 14 discourage cul-de-sacs and encourage a flexible grid system to provide alternative traffic routes. To 15 obtain this infrastructure, the City must provide sufficient urban densities to support it. 16 In the absence of significant environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone violates the 17 state Growth Management Act (GMA). In a recent decision from the Central Puget Sound Growth 18 Management Hearings Board, Lawrence Michael Investments, L.L.0 v. Town of Woodway, Case 19 No. 98-3-0012 (1/8/99), a copy of which is attached, the Board held that "the GMA requires every 20 city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." (Page 23, line 24-25) 21 The Board went on to find that, "absent justifiable environmental reasons, permitting only 30 homes 22 on 60.8 acres would not achieve urban densities and would constitute impermissible low-density 23 development within the UGA [Urban Growth Area], thus failing to comply with Goals 1 and 2 [of the 24 GMA]." (Page 24, 26) Those Goals "encourage development in urban areas where adequate public 25 facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner, and reduce the inappropriate Bonneville,Viert 820•A•Street,Suns 600 APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING Morton & P.O.Box1533 REZONE -3 McGoldrick Taccm(253 627-8t13198401 PR6 "T°" Fax:(253)272-4338 G:1LAW1 YPE1REVHIPLEADINGILV-MEM RE REZONE.DOC16937.06 " EY ATTORN�" S AT LAW ' Y" 1 conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development." RCW 36.70A.020. The 2 Board noted that a land use designation of 4 du/ac or above is an appropriate urban density, and 3 that 1 du/lac is not an appropriate urban density. (Page 24) 4 There are no environmental constraints on the portion of the Labrador property zoned R-1. 5 Except for a small strip along the north edge where no development is proposed, the property 6 currently zoned R-1 is predominately flat and dry. The only environmental constraints on the 7 Labrador property, consisting of steep slopes and wetlands, occur in the area to the west zoned R-8. 8 In the absence of significant, justifiable environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone on the 9 Labrador property violates the mandate of the GMA. Bringing this property into compliance with the 10 GMA is clearly in the public interest. 11 This proposed rezone also preserves the property rights of the petitioner. Property to the 12 west, north and east of the proposed rezone area is zoned R-8, including that portion of the 13 Labrador property between the existing R-1 zone and the creek ravine to the west. The property to 14 the south which is zoned R-1 is currently developed with a youth detention facility. Virtually all other 15 property in the area is zoned for single-family homes at R-8 density. Virtually all lots in the area are 16 equal to or smaller than the lots which would be created in the proposed R-5 zone. In the absence 17 of any significant environmental constraints, there is no justification for denying a reasonable 18 development potential to Labrador Ventures. 19 The rezone will create no material detriment to the public welfare or other properties in the 20 area. Almost all properties in the area are already developed at equivalent density. The arguments 21 voiced by a few of the neighbors in opposition to the rezone have focused on the alleged 22 environmental damage caused by building new houses in the neighborhood, but apparently not their 23 own houses. This is a classic NIMBY response, which seeks to prevent others from developing their 24 property so the few who got there first can enjoy open space at another's expense. By adopting the 25 GMA, Washington has made a conscious policy choice to provide for development at urban density Bonneville,Viert 8z0•A•street,suite 600 APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Wagi n on 98401 REZONE-4 " ,,� Fax:253'272 4338 GALAWfYPEUMMAPLEADINGLLV-MEM RE REZONE.DOCt6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 in cities where the infrastructure and services exist, in order to prevent sprawl into rural areas. The 2 public welfare cannot be harmed by carrying out that policy. 3 Finally, the rezone is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In 4 addition to the policies discussed above specifically authorizing density at R-5, discouraging cul-de- 5 sacs, and encouraging development of a flexible grid system of streets, the Comprehensive Plan 6 also states: 7 Policy LU-11: Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a) Development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant 8 land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown . . . 9 Objective LU-M: Provide more linkages within and between neighborhoods by developing a system of residential streets which serves both vehicles and pedestrians 10 and creates a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the city without unduly increases pass-through traffic. 11 Policy H-1: Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate estimates of market 12 demand for new housing provided through growth forecasts. 13 Policy H-4: Encourage in-fill development as a means to increase capacity: 14 The Labrador subdivision would provide quality new housing at densities compatible with the 15 neighborhood and contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, without encroaching on 16 environmentally sensitive areas. 17 The rezone proposed by Labrador Ventures meets all of the criteria for rezoning property in 18 the City of Renton. It will provide housing at reasonable and compatible density, allow the 19 construction of needed infrastructure, and comply with the mandates of the GMA. The rezone 20 proposal should be approved by the City. / r day of February, 1999. 21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this-r� 22 23 24 JA_ MES V. HA MACHER, WSBA#8 '37 Of Bonneville, Vied, Morton & McGoldrick, P.S. 25 Attorneys for Labrador Ventures, LLC Bonneville,Viert 820•A•street,suite 600 APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING Morton & P.O.Box 1533 Tacoma,Washington 98401 REZONE -5 McGoldrick (253)627-8131 G:UAWIYPEIREUHIPLEADINGILV-MEM RE REZONE.D0C18937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(2b3)272 4338 ifid5/9 - • CENTRAL PUGET SOUND 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON r {� , 5)0E ' ,p(r t. :. } fit 4 ` LAWRENCE MICHAEL ) si t:.= >tYtsY! INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.; CHEVRON ) Zn,.;�:. 5 USA INC.; and CHEVRON LAND AND ) Case No. 98-3-0012 6 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ) (LMI/Chevron) ) 7 Petitioners, ) FINAL DECISION and ORDER 8 ) V. 9 ) TOWN OF WOODWAY, ) 10 ' ) 11 Respondent. ) 12 ) 13 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14 A. GENERAL 15 On June 18, 1998, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the 16 Board) received a Petition for Review (PFR) from Lawrence Michael Investments, L.L.C., Chevron USA, and Chevron Land and Development Company (Petitioners or 17 LMI). The matter was assigned Case No. 98-3-0012 (hereafter referred to as 18 WI/Chevron). Petitioners challenge the Town' of Woodway's (Woodway or City) adoption of Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339 (Ordinances), amending Woodway's 19 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The general ground for,the challenge is noncompliance with various sections of the Growth Management Act(GMA or Act). 20 21 i On June 22, 1998, the Board issued a"Notice of Hearing." 22 On July 21, 1998, the Board held a Prehearing Conference. 23 On July 23, 1998, the Board received"Petitioner/Plaintiff's Revised Statement of Issues." 24 On July 24, 1998, the Board received a letter "Response by Town of Woodway to 25 Petitioners' July 23, 1998 Revised Statement of Issues." 26 On July 24, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Directing LMI/Chevron to Provide Citations for Legal Issues 4, 5 and 6." 27 28 Although Woodway retains the name"Town" in its logo and local enactments, Woodway is a city. It became a Washington State Code City in 1986. Woodway Response, at 4. As a city, it has all the GMA 29 duties and responsibilities assigned to cities in the Act. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 • Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 1/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 a ti 2 On July 28, 1998, the Board received "Petitioner/Plaintiffs Second Revised Statement of Issues." 3. i On July 29, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Amicus Curiae Status and 4 Prehearing Order." 5 B. MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT EXTENSION 6 On August 5, 1998, the Board received an"Agreed Motion for Settlement Extension." 71 On August 11, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Settlement Extension and 8 Amending Prehearing Order--Final Schedule." 9 C. MOTION FOR AMICUS STATUS to On July 13, 1998, the Board received"BIAW's Motion for Amicus Curiae Status." 11 12 On July 17, 1998, the Board received"Town of Woodway's Response to BIAW's Motion for Amicus Curiae Status." 13 On July 23, 1998, the Board received "1000 Friends of Washington's Motion to File a 14 Brief Amicus Curiae." The Town of Woodway did not respond to 1000 Friends' motion. 15 On July 29, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Amicus Curiae Status and 16 Prehearing Order." The Order granted amicus curiae status to BIAW and 1000 Friends. BIAW's participation was limited to a prehearing brief on part of Legal Issue 1 (Goal 1 -- 17 Urban Growth and Goal 4 -- Housing). 1000 Friends' participation was limited to a 18 prehearing brief on part of Legal Issue 1 (Goal 1 --Urban Growth and Goal 2 -- Sprawl). 19 On August 7, 1998, the Board received "Association of Washington Business [AWB] Motion to File Amicus Brief." 20 • 21 I On August 13, 1998, the Board received a letter from Woodway's attorney opposing the Association of Washington Business' request for amicus curiae status. 22 On August 14, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Amicus Curiae Status and 23 Correcting Index." The Order granted amicus curiae status to AWB. AWB's 24 participation was limited to a prehearing brief on Legal Issue 7 and part of Legal Issue 1 (Goal 1 --Urban Growth and Goal 4--Housing). 25 D. MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT AND AMEND INDEX 26 27 On July 20, 1998, the Board received Woodway's "Index of Documents in the Administrative Record." The Index included items noted as Index Nos. 1 through 182. ' 28 On August 5, 1998, the Board received "Petitioner/Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the 29 Record," "Petitioner/Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Time to Supplement the Record" 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Puget 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Sound Growth Management Hearings Boardouid page 2/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 , 1 a i and Woodway's "Motion to Correct Index" and "First Amended Index of Documents in 2 the Administrative Record." Thirteen proposed exhibits were appended to Petitioner's 3 Motion to Supplement the Record. Four items were included in the Corrected Index. 41 On August 11, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Settlement Extension and Amending Prehearing Order -- Final Schedule." The Order extended the deadline for 5 filing motions to supplement the record from August 5,1998 to August 19, 1998. 6 On August 14, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Amicus Curiae Status and 7 Correcting the Index." In this Order, the four items added to the First Amended Index by 8 Woodway were noted by the Board. These items were noted as Index Nos. 183 through 186. 9 On August 19, 1998, the Board received"Petitioner/Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Index to to Record and Second Motion to Supplement Record." Included in the Motion to 11 - Supplement was a request to Amend the Index. Twelve proposed exhibits were appended to Petitioners' Second Motion to Supplement the Record. No exhibits accompanied the 12 , request to Amend the Index. 13 On'August 26, 1998, the Board received "Respondent Town of Woodway's Response to 14 Petitioner's Motions to Supplement the Record and Motion to Amend Index to the Record." 15 On August 31, 1998, the Board received "Petitioner/Plaintiffs Reply on Motions to 16 Supplement Record and Motion to Amend Index." Six proposed exhibits were appended 17 to the Reply. 18 On September 1, 1998, the Board issued an "Order on Motions to Supplement the Record." The Order added Index Nos. 187 through 207 to the record. 19 20 At the October 21, 1998, Hearing on the Merits, the Presiding Officer granted Motions to Supplement requested by both Petitioners and Respondent. Three items were 21 inadvertently omitted from the record and are hereby included in the record, as Index Nos. 208 through 210. 22 E. MOTION TO DISMISS LEGAL ISSUE 8 23 24 On August 5, 1998, the Board received "Town of Woodway's Motion to Dismiss Issue 8." (Woodway Motion). 25 On August 11, 1998, the Board issued an "Order Granting Settlement Extension and 26 Amending Prehearing Order -- Final Schedule." The Order extended the deadline for 27 filing dispositive motions, from August 5, 1998 to August 19, 1998, and adjusted the briefing schedule. 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 3/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 t � s ' ll 2 On August 26, 1998, the Board received "Petitioner/Plaintiff's Response to Woodway's Motion to Dismiss Issue 8." (LMI Motion Response) 3 On August 31, 1998, the Board received "Town of Woodway's Reply Regarding Motion 4 ' to Dismiss Issue 8." (Woodway Motion Reply) 5 On September 1998 the Board issued an "Order on Dispositive P 2, Motion." The Order 6 denied the Town of Woodway's Motion to Dismiss Issue 8. 7 ' F. BRIEFING AND HEARING ON THE MERITS 8 ; On September 21, 1998, the Board received: "Petitioners/Plaintiffs' Prehearing Brief," 9 including 38 unbound exhibits (LMI PHB); BIAW's Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Petitioners," including one exhibit (BIAW PHB); "1000 Friends of Washington's Amicus to Curiae Brief," including four exhibits (1000 Friends PHB); and "Association of 11 I Washington Business Amicus Curiae Brief' (AWB PHB). 12 On October 13, 1998, the Board received "Town of Woodway's Response to Plaintiff's Prehearing Brief and Briefs of Amicus Curiae," including 13 exhibits (Woodway, 13 Response). 14 On October 20, 1998, the Board received "Petitioners/Plaintiffs' Reply Brief;" including 15 two exhibits (LMI Reply). 16 On October 21, 1998, the Board held a hearing on the merits in Suite 1022 of The 17 Financial Center, 1215 4th Avenue in Seattle, Washington. Board members Ed McGuire, Presiding Officer, Joseph W. Tovar and Chris Smith Towne were present for the Board. 18 Petitioners LMUChevron were represented by Robert I. Heller, G. Richard Hill and 19 Courtney A. Kaylor. The Town of Woodway was represented by David A. Bricklin and Jennifer A. Dold. Court reporting services were provided by Cynthia LaRose, RPR, of 20 Robert H. Lewis & Associates, Tacoma. The hearing convened at 10:00 a.m. and 21 adjourned at approximately 1:00 p.m. 22 H. PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY,BURDEN OF PROOF 23 AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 24 Petitioners challenge Woodway's amendments to its comprehensive plan, as adopted by 25 Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.320(1), Woodway's 26 Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339 are presumed valid upon adoption. 27 The burden is on Petitioners LMI/Chevron to demonstrate that the actions taken by 28 Woodway are not in compliance with the requirements of the GMA. RCW 36.70A.320(2). 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 4/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.320(3), the Board "shall find compliance unless it determines 2 that the action by [Woodway] is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the 3 board and in light of the goals and requirements of [the GMA]." For the Board to find Woodway's action clearly erroneous, the Board must be "left with the firm and definite 4 conviction that a mistake has been made." Dep't of Ecology v. PUD 1, 121 Wn.2d 179, 5 201 (1993). 61 III. BOARD JURISDICTION AND PREFATORY NOTE 71 8 A. BOARD JURISDICTION 9 ! Findings of Fact io The Board finds: I1 1. The PFR challenges the Town of Woodway's Comprehensive Plan amendments' 12 compliance with the GMA. PFR, at 8-17. 2. The Petitioners allege participation standing, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(2)(b). 13 PFR, at 17-18. Woodway did not challenge Petitioners' standing. 14 3. Woodway's Ordinance No. 98-338 was adopted by the Council May 18, 1998, and published on May 21, 1998. PFR, at 7. is 4. Woodway's Ordinance No. 98-339 was adopted by the Council May 18, 1998, and 16 published on yay 21, 1998. PFR, at 7. 5. The PFR challenging these Ordinances was filed with the Board on June 18, 1998. 17 Supra, at 1. 18 Conclusions of Law 19 The Board concludes: 20 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(1)(a), the PFR, on its face, raises issues over which the 21 Board has subject matter jurisdiction. 22 2. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280(2), Petitioners LMI/Chevron have standing to bring the challenges set forth in the PFR 23 3. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.290(2), the PFR was timely filed. 24 B. PREFATORY NOTE 25 The PFR challenges two ordinances adopted by Woodway -- Ordinance No. 98-338 and 26 Ordinance No. 98-339. Both ordinances amend Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. 27 Ordinance No. 98-338 amended Woodway's Comprehensive Plan to include Special 28 Study Area Criteria(SSAC) as a Subarea Plan (Subarea). The SSAC applies only to the 60.8 acres owned by Chevron U.S.A. This area is the same area affected by Ordinance 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 5/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 No. 98-339. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 1. The SSAC includes the following 2 headings: Framework, Statement of Purpose, Criteria for Residential Development, 3 Character, Land Use, Site Ecology, Utilities, Transportation and Public Services. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 1- 5. 4 s Ordinance No. 98-339 amended three maps in the Woodway Comprehensive Plan. The same 60.8-acre area(Plan Amendment Area) was affected by each map amendment. 6 7 The Comprehensive Plan Map was amended to: • 8 delete the designations of IPS and C for the Chevron property and replace them with the designation of Urban Restricted [UR]. The Chevron property should be 9 ! shaded, with shading tone also added to the legend, with the words: "Pursuant to 10 the UR designation, development is limited to compact urban growth (four units per acre) on the identified disturbed areas of the site: (1) the 10.2 acre 11 I disturbed/grassland area on Parcels K and L and (2) the 0.3 acres of disturbed deciduous-shrub area in the southwest corner of parcel J.2 Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98- 12 339, Sec. 1(b), at 1. 13 The Development Potential Map was amended to: 14 is delete the shading of the Chevron property, which indicates "undeveloped parcel." There would be no shading of the property, thus indicating that it is to be 16 developed pursuant to Urban Restricted. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 1(c), at 2. 17 18 The Critical Areas Map was amended to: 19 shade the areas outside of the disturbed areas of the site (identified in 1(b) above), 20 thus indicating they are permanently protected as wildlife habitat, wetlands, steep slopes, greenbelt, open space, and other natural resources on-site in their 21 undeveloped natural state. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 1(d), at 2. 22 Ordinance No. 98-339 also amended the text of the Woodway Comprehensive Plan in ten 23 places: four goals or policies were changed; explanatory text or discussion was modified in three places; and the remaining changes were technical amendments to tables or footnotes. 24 The challenged goals and policies, as amended, now read as follows: 25 26 27 2 The 60.8-acre Chevron property, or Plan Amendment Area, consists of four separate connected parcels: 28 Parcel I is 4.27 acres,originally designated Conservation(C)on the Comprehensive Plan Map;Parcel J is 8.46 acres, originally designated (C); Parcel K is 7.76 acres, originally designated (C); and Parcel L is 29 40.31 acres,originally designated Industrial Products Storage(IPS). Ex.33,FEIS,Vol.I,at Fig. 1-2. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget BSoard 6/57 Growth Management Hearings Board page The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1 ! Land Use Element: • 2 3 Goal -- To sustain low density residential development where appropriate and provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the 4 goals of the Growth Management Act. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(k), at 3; 5 Ex. 20, at 19. 6 i Policy LU-5 -- Continue to develop low density residential sites according to existing policies, ordinances, and development regulations where appropriate and 7 provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the 8 goals of the Growth Management Act. New development should be compatible with the character and quality of existing developments. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98- 9 339, Sec. 3(1), at 3;Ex. 20, at 20. to j Policy LU-8 -- Recognizing that the 60.8-acre Chevron Property presently zoned 11 Conservation and Industrial Product Storage within the Town may become available for development other than present usage, designate the property as a 12 Special Study area. The Town will make every effort to preserve the area as is or 13 to retain the character of the Town. 14 The Special Studies described above have been completed for the Chevron property, and applications for development of that property have been reviewed in is light of those studies and other considerations. As noted elsewhere in this Plan, 16 1 the Conservation and Industrial Product Storage designations of the property referred to have been changed through an Amendment to this Plan. Ex. 180, Ord. 17 No. 98-339, Sec. 1(a), at 1;Ex. 20, at 23. 18 Conservation Element: 19 Policy C-3 -- Preserve low density residential land use where appropriate and 20 provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the 21 goals of the Growth Management Act. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(h), at 2; Ex. 20, at 12. 22 The amendments to the Plan's explanatory text or discussion now provide as follows: 23 24 Vision for Woodway: 25 Land Use: 26 • Continue the historic land use patterns of low density single family residential use where appropriate and provide for compact urban growth consistent with 27 the policies of this plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act. The Vision of Woodway. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(g), at 2; Ex. 20, at 4. 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Groff,Management Hearings Board page 7/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 Land Use Element: 3 ; Land Use Inventory and Analysis: The Town of Woodway consists of 648 acres, excluding tidelands. Existing 4 zoning allows for single family development on one-third acre, one acre, and two- acre lots. There is no commercial development in the town and industrial use is 5 limited to industrial products storage. One Conservation Zone protects an 6 undeveloped watershed owned by Olympic View Water and Sewer District. There is also an Urban Restricted Comprehensive Plan designation for the 60.8 acre site owned by Chevron U.S.A. which will be zoned consistent with the purposes of 8 1 that Comprehensive Plan designation. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(i), at 3; Ex. 20, at 14. 91 to Discussion following Policy LU-1:3 Discussion Housing density will continue to range from four single family homes 11 ' per acre to one single family home per two acres. To maintain this density, land use development patterns and (sic) are expected to change very little. Ex. 180, 12 Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(j), at 3; Ex. 20, at 19. 13 The remaining changes to the Woodway Plan accomplished by Ordinance No. 98-339 14 correct table references and footnotes to reflect the substance of the map and policy 15 revisions noted above; therefore, they will not be reiterated here. See Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(e) and (f), at 2; and Sec. 3(m), at 3. 16 Nine Legal Issues are presented for the Board to resolve. Ordinance No. 98-338 is not 17 challenged in Legal Issue Nos. 2 or 3; however, it is included in Legal Issue Nos. 1, 4, 5, 18 6, 7, 8 and 9. Ordinance No. 98-339 is challenged in all nine Legal Issues. The Board will first address Legal Issue No. 8 (amendment process, p. 8), originally raised in 19 dispositive motions; then the Board will resolve the remaining Legal Issues in the 20 . following order: No. 2 (critical areas, p. 15), No. 1 (goals, •p. 21), Nos. 4, 5, 6 (all involving consistency, pp. 34, 43 and 47 respectively), No. 7 (mandatory elements, p. 50), 21 No. 3 (open space corridors, p. 53) and No. 9 (invalidity, p. 55). 22 Any findings of fact that should be conclusions of law, but have been improperly indicated, 23 are deemed conclusions of law; likewise, any conclusions of law that should be findings of fact, but have been improperly indicated, are deemed to be findings of fact. 24 IV. LEGAL ISSUES 25 26 A. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 8 27 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 8: 28 3 LU-1 provides: Protect the character of Woodway by maintaining existing land use categories and • 29 zoning districts. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8✓99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 8/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 • (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 i lr 11 2 Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(7), .130, and .470 when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 because Woodway 3 failed to act in a timely and fair manner on LMI and Chevron's application for a comprehensive plan amendment? 4 + 5 In its PFR and briefing on Woodway's motion to dismiss Issue 8, LMI contended that the provisions of the GMA cited in Issue 8 establish a duty for Woodway to consider 6 LMUChevron's application for a comprehensive plan amendment in a timely (on an annual basis) and fair manner. PFR, at 16; LMI Motion Response, at 2. Woodway asserted that the GMA provisions cited in Issue 8 do not create such a duty, nor do they provide a basis 8 i for Petitioners' claims. Woodway Motion, at 5-6; Woodway Motion Reply, at 2 and 7. The Board denied Woodway's Motion to Dismiss Legal Issue No. 8, deferring 9 consideration of the matter until the hearing on the merits. 10 The Board now addresses Legal Issue 8. 11 12 Applicable Law and Discussion 13 LMI reads RCW 36.70A.020(7), .470 and .130, in combination, to create a duty upon Woodway to consider plan amendments in a timely and fair manner each year. LMI's 1.4 reading of these three sections of the GMA is in error. These sections, read individually or 15 collectively, do not create the duty LMI asserts: 16 RCW 36.70A.020 provides, in relevant part: 17 The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively 18 for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations: 19 20 (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. 21 i (Emphasis added.) 22 Goal 7 indicates that plans and development regulations shall be guided by the goal to 23 process applications for permits in a timely and fair manner. The issue before the Board in this case is a challenge to two ordinances amending Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. 24 Both ordinances involve proposals or"applications" for comprehensive plan amendments, not applications for permits. Goal 7 is not implicated for either Ordinance No. 98-338 or 25 98-339. 26 Petitioners challenge compliance with RCW 36.70A.470(2). RCW 36.70A.470 provides 27 in its entirety: 28 (1) Project review, which shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of chapter 29 36.70B RCW, shall be used to make individual project decisions, not land use 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 9/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • lI planning decisions. If, during project review, a county or city planning under 2 RCW 36.70A.040 identifies deficiencies in plans or regulations: 3 (a) The permitting process shall not be used as a comprehensive planning process; 4 (b) Project review shall continue; and 5 (c) The identified deficiencies shall be docketed for possible future plan or development regulation amendments. 6 ! (2) Each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include in its development regulations a procedure for any interested person, including applicants, citizens, hearing examiners, and staff of other agencies, to suggest plan 8 ; or development regulation amendments. The suggested amendments shall be docketed and considered on at least an annual basis, consistent with the provisions 9 of RCW 36.70A.130. to (3) For purposes of this section, a deficiency in a comprehensive plan or development regulation refers to the absence of required or potentially desirable 11 contents of a comprehensive plan or development regulation. It does not refer to whether a development regulation addresses a project's probable specific adverse 12 environmental impacts which the permitting agency could mitigate in the normal 13 project review process. (4) For purposes of this section, docketing refers to compiling and maintaining a 14 list of suggested changes to the comprehensive plan or development regulations in is a manner that will ensure such suggested changes will be considered by the county or city and will be available for review by the public. 16 (Emphasis added.) 17 RCW 36.70A.470 was added to the GMA during the 1995 Legislative Session as one of 18 the products of regulatory reform efforts. The legislative findings and intent for this amendment are instructive and provide, in relevant part: 19 20 • The legislature finds that during project review, a county or city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 is likely to discover the need to make various improvements.in 21 comprehensive plans and development regulations. There is no current requirement or process for applicants, citizens, or agency staff to ensure that these 22 improvements are considered in the plan review process. . . . It is the intent of the 23 legislature in enacting RCW 36.70A.470 to establish a means by which cities and counties will docket suggested plan or development regulation amendments and 24 ensure their consideration during the planning process. 25 Laws of 1995, Ch. 347 § 101. 26 The legislature's intent was clearly to provide for consideration of potential amendments identified or discovered during project review. The Board holds that the docketing and 27 consideration of suggested amendments referenced in RCW 36.70A.470 pertains to 28 comprehensive plan or development regulation deficiencies or potential improvements identified during the project review process. These docketed 29 suggestions must be reviewed, at least annually, and scheduled for consideration as 8312FDO DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 10/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 I 1 2 possible future amendments during the jurisdiction's next RCW 36.70A.130(2) plan amendment review process's or development regulation review. 3 Regarding Ordinance No. 98-339, LMI's proposed plan amendment was submitted to 4 Woodway on November 13, 1995, concurrent with LMI's petition for rezone and prior to s LMI's subdivision application. The subdivision application for the Woodway Highlands project was submitted to Woodway in July of 1996. Consequently, LMI's suggested plan 6 amendment could not have been identified, or discovered, during the project review process for either the rezone or subdivision application. Further, Petitioners do not characterize the proposed plan amendment as addressing a plan deficiency or 8 improvement. 9 : Likewise, Ordinance No. 98-338, which incorporated the SSAC into the Plan as a subarea to plan, was not identified during project review. The staff recommended the SSAC's incorporation as a subarea plan to comply with the GMA, since the SSAC was a land use 11 policy document that applied to a localized and discrete area of Woodway. Ex. 36, at 3. 12 RCW 36.70A.470 does not apply to Ordinance No. 98-338 or to LMI's application for a 13 plan amendment, as ultimately addressed in Ordinance No. 98-339. Therefore, only RCW 36.70A.130 potentially applies to the challenged ordinances. . 14 Is RCW 36.70A.130 provides, in relevant part: 16 (2)(a) Each county and city,shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures whereby proposed 17 amendments or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered by the 18 governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once every year except that amendments may be considered more frequently under the following 19 circumstances. 20 (Emphasis added.) 21 I LMI argues that Woodway must consider plan amendments annually. LMI Motion I Response, at 9. LMI points to RCW 36.70A.470(2) to bolster this assertion. LMI 22 Motion Response, at 9-10. LMI points out that it took Woodway two-and-one-half years 23 to consider the proposed amendment, not one. LMI PUB, at 70. Woodway contends that the GMA does not require an amendment decision on LMI's proposal in the same year it 24 was submitted, or even within a year of submittal. Woodway also claims it actively is considered the proposed amendment over the two-and-one-half year period, and acted upon it in 1998. Woodway Response, at 68. 26 The GMA duty set forth in RCW 36.70A.130 requires Woodway to establish and 27 disseminate a public participation program whereby proposed plan amendments are 28 4 The Board notes that RCW 36.70A.130(2)sets forth the parameters for review of plan amendments,not 29 review of development regulations. This case involves only plan amendments. 83J2FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision'and Order Centre Puget Sound page,11/57 Growth Management Hearings Board The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 considered no more frequently than once a year. The Board recognizes that each local 2 government has discretion in establishing and designing its .130 plan amendment process.5 3 Here, LMI does not contest whether Woodway has a public participation program or whether Woodway followed its plan amendment process.6 Instead, LMI argues that 4 taking two-and-one-half years' to reach the decision on its proposed amendment is not 5 timely or fair. LMI PHB, at 70. The plain language of RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) limits consideration of plan amendments to no more frequently than once every year,8 it does not 6 require annual review.9 LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how Woodway's consideration of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-339 failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.130. 8j Regarding LMI's timeliness argument, LMI has failed to show that RCW 36.70A.020(7), 9 .470, and .130, read individually or collectively, establish a duty upon Woodway to to consider specific plan amendments, such as the one proposed by LMI, on an annual basis. i l Lastly, Petitioners argue that not only was Woodway's timing in processing their amendment unfair, but also that Woodway failed to act in an evenhanded manner since 12 Mayor Drummond and Councilmember Saltonstall, who were "staunch opponents of 13 development of the property," participated10 in Woodway's consideration of; and decision on, Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339. LMI PHB, at 70. For this case specifically, the 14 appearance-of-fairness question has been resolved by the Snohomish County Superior is Court. The Court declared that "the Town's decision regarding whether to amend the Woodway Comprehensive Plan is legislative. Consequently, the participation of Mayor 16 Jan Taylor Drummond and Councilmember Kent Saltonstall in the Town Council's deliberations and decision on LMI's application for an amendment to the Woodway 17 18 5 The.130 plan amendment process may include various components,such as: categories of amendments 19 (e.g. map,text,UGA,capital facility element, subarea plan,shoreline element);cut-off dates for receiving proposals; submittal requirements; notice, publication and hearing procedures; the frequency with which 20 categories of proposed plan amendments are reviewed and considered; and decision points to provide certainty as to the status and disposition of proposals. 21 6 Woodway's plan amendment procedures and process are codified at Chapter 15.04 Woodway Municipal 22 Code. LML's proposed amendment was submitted in November 1995; the final decision regarding the 23 designation of the property occurred in May 1998 (Ord. No. 98-339). Exs. 1 and 180. The Board notes that the FSEIS was not completed until May of 1997. Ex. 33. 24 8 More frequent consideration of plan amendments is authorized only in certain circumstances,as set forth 25 in RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(i-lii) and (b). However, these exceptions are not argued as being applicable here. 26 9 The Board notes that the parties do not dispute that Woodway's Planning Commission and Town Council held public hearings, considered, deliberated and acted on the challenged Ordinances between 27 June, 1997 and May, 1998. 28 10 Mayor Drummond did not vote. In Woodway,the mayor votes only if there is a tie vote of the Council; here,the vote was unanimous. If Councilmember Saltonstall's vote was eliminated,the Ordinances would 29 still have passed four-zero. October 21, 1998,Hearing on the Merits transcript,at 93-94. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Growth Management Hearings ings B Board page 12/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle.WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 Comprehensive Plan does not violate the appearance of fairness doctrine or plaintiff's due process rights." Ex. 206, at 3. Nonetheless, Petitioners argue that Goal 6 provides a basis 3 ! for the Board to hold that the GMA establishes a higher standard of fairness that applies to legislative actions. October 21, 1998, Hearing on the Merits transcript, at 47-48. 4 ' Notwithstanding LMI's urging, the Board does not find the basis for such a standard in 5 ; the GMA. 6 Regarding LMI's fairness argument, LMI has failed to show that the GMA establishes some extraordinary standard of fairness for legislative actions above that already required by law. s ; Findings of Fact 9 The Board finds: to 6. Woodway first adopted its Comprehensive Plan by adopting Resolution No. 159, on 1 i June 21, 1994. Ex. 20, at 46. 7. Woodway then adopted its Comprehensive Plan by adopting Ordinance No. 297, on 12 August 11, 1994. Ex. 20, at 47-48. 13 8. Other than the amendments challenged in this action, Woodway has not amended its Comprehensive Plan since its adoption in 1994. Woodway Response, at 5. 14 9. LMI's proposed Plan amendment requested: a redesignation on the Comprehensive 15 Plan Map for the 60.8 acres owned by Chevron U.S.A. that is located in the south portion of Woodway from IPS and C to SR-14.5; a change to Plan Goal LU-8 to 16 reflect completion of the special studies; and appropriate amendments to the Plan that would limit development of the Plan Amendment Area to no more than 86 lots. Ex. 1. 17 10. Ordinance No. 338 amends the Plan to include Special Study Area Criteria (SSAC) as 18 a subarea plan and new section or chapter to the 1994 Plan. Ex. 179, at 1. 11. The SSAC applies only to the 60.8-acres that is owned by Chevron U.S.A. and is at 19 issue here. Ex. 179, at 1. 12. Ordinance No. 98-339 made 13 amendments to the 1994 Woodway Comprehensive 20 Plan: ten (10) text amendments --Section I, Vision of Woodway (1), Section II, 21 1 Conservation Element (1) and Land Use Element (7), Section DI, Implementation Strategy (1); and three map revisions, affecting the Plan Amendment Area -- Section 22 IV, Comprehensive Plan Map, Development Potential Map and Critical Areas Map. Ex. 180, at 1-3; and Supra, at 6-8. 23 13. The Plan Amendment Area is the 60.8-acres owned by Chevron. Ex. 1. 24 14. The land included in the Plan Amendment Area in LMI's proposed Plan amendment is the same land as the Plan Amendment Area redesignated in Ordinance No. 98-339. 23 Exs. 1 and 180. 26 15. The land included in the Subarea and the Plan Amendment Area is the same 60.8-acres owned by Chevron. Exs. 1, 179 and 180. 27 16. On November 13, 1995, LMI submitted its application for comprehensive plan 28 amendment to Woodway. Ex. 1. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 13/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 . . • 2 17. On November 13, 1995, LMI submitted its petition for rezone to Woodway. The request sought a rezone of the Plan Amendment Area from IPS and C to R-14.5. Ex. 3 2, at1. 18. On July 18, 1996, LMI submitted its application for subdivision to Woodway. The 4 application sought 86 lots for the "Woodway Highlands" project for the Plan 5 Amendment Area. Ex. 3, at 1. 19. LMI's application for comprehensive plan amendment was filed with its petition for 6 rezone and prior to the application for subdivision of the Woodway Highlands project 7 ; proposal. Exs. 1, 2 and 3. 20. Petitioners did not characterize their proposed plan amendment as a response to a plan 8 ; deficiency or as an improvement identified during project review. Ex. 1. 21. Woodway staff recommended incorporation of the SSAC into the Plan as a subarea 9 plan, since it was a land use policy document that applied to a localized and discrete 10 area of Woodway. Ordinance No. 98-338 accomplished this incorporation. Ex. 36, at 3 and Ex. 179. 11 22. The Woodway Planning Commission and Town Council held public hearings, 12 i considered, deliberated and acted upon the proposed plan amendments (Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339) between June, 1997 and May, 1998. LMI PHB, at 10-11, 13 and Woodway PHB, at 14-16. 23. Woodway amended its Plan, on May 18, 1998, to change the map designation of the 14 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area and change policies and text in the Plan. (Ordinance 15 No. 98-339). Ex. 1, 36, 180 and Woodway'Response, at 68-69. 24. Woodway amended its Plan, on May 18, 1998, to incorporate the SSAC as a subarea 16 plan for the Plan Amendment Area. (Ordinance No. 98-338) Ex. 36 and 179. 25. The Snohomish County Superior Court determined that the decision regarding 17 whether to amend the Woodway Comprehensive Plan is a legislative decision. Ex. 18 206, at 3. 19 Conclusions of Law 20 The Board concludes: 21 4. RCW 36.70A.020(7) provides guidance for processing applications for permits. 22 5. Neither LMI's application for plan amendment nor Woodway's SSAC subarea plan 23 amendment is an application for a permit, subject to Goal 7 -- Permits. Therefore, Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339 are not subject to the provisions of RCW 24 36.70A.020(7). 6. The docketing and consideration of suggested amendments referenced in RCW 25 36.70A.470 pertains to comprehensive plan or development regulation deficiencies or 26 potential improvements identified during the project review process. These docketed suggestions must be reviewed, at least annually, and scheduled for consideration as 27 possible future amendments during the jurisdiction's next RCW 36.70A.130(2) plan 28 amendment review process or development regulation review. 7. Neither LMI's application for plan amendment nor Woodway's SSAC subarea plan 29 amendment was identified during project review as a plan improvement or a response 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 14/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 t. I to a plan deficiency. Therefore, Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339 are not subject to 2 the provisions of RCW 36:70A.470. 3 8. RCW 36.70A.130(2) does not require annual review of plan amendments. 9. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how Woodway's consideration 4 of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.130. 5 10. LMI has failed to show that RCW 36.70A.020(7), .470, and 130, read individually or collectively, establish a duty upon Woodway to consider specific plan amendments, 6 I such as the one proposed by LMI, on an annual basis. 11. LMI has failed to show that the GMA establishes some extraordinary standard of fairness for legislative actions above that already required by law. s i 12. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in establishing that RCW 36.70A.020(7), .470 or .130 create duties with which the Town of Woodway has failed to comply in 9 adopting Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339. The Board is not persuaded that on this 10 Legal Issue, Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 11 B. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 2 12 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 2:11 13 Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.170, .172 and.050 14 and WAC 365-190-080 and-040 when it adopted Ordinance No. 98-339, which identified without compensation approximately 50.511 acres of the property as a is critical area which may not be developed? 16 Applicable Law and Discussion 17 RCW 36.70A.170 provides, in relevant part: 18 19 (1) On or before September 1, 1991, each county, and each city, shall designate where appropriate: 20 21 (d) Critical areas.13 (2) In making the designations required by this section, counties and cities shall 22 consider the guidelines established pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050. 23 " The Board notes that this Legal Issue does not involve a"failure to act" challenge. Woodway adopted a 24 GMA critical areas interim protective policy in 1991. Ex. 192. Additionally, Woodway's 1994 Comprehensive Plan includes a Critical Areas Map. Ex. 20. Nor does this challenge involve compliance 25 with RCW 36.70A.060(2)which requires the protection of designated critical areas. Instead, the focus of this Legal Issue, as framed by Petitioners, is the identification and designation of critical areas through 26 adoption of Ordinance No. 98-339. 12 This is the acreage figure contained in the PFR and the PHO. The actual acreage, as described in the 27 briefing and exhibits,is 50.3 acres. 28 13 "Critical Areas" include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) 29 frequently flooded areas;and(e)geologically hazardous areas. RCW 36.70A.030(5). 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 15/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax: (206)389-2588 • 2 RCW 36.70A.050 provides, in relevant part: 3 ! (3) The guidelines under subsection (1) of this section shall be minimum 4 guidelines that apply to all jurisdictions, but also shall allow for regional differences that exist in Washington state. The intent of these guidelines is to assist counties and cities in designating the classification of . . . critical areas under RCW 6 I 36.70A.170. Chapter 365-190 WAC contains the Department of Community, Trade and Economic 8 Development's (CTED) Minimum Guidelines to Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands and Critical Areas (Guidelines). Part Three of the Guidelines includes WAC 365- 9 190-040, which provides guidance on "Process," and WAC 365-190-080, which provides to guidance on"Critical Areas." 11 RCW 36.70A.172 provides, in relevant part: 12 (1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and 13 cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In 14 addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or 15 protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. 16 The Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, at WAC 242-02-570(1), provide: 17 A petitioner, or a moving party when a motion has been filed, shall submit a brief 18 on each legal issue it expects a board to determine. Failure by such a party to brief an issue shall constitute abandonment of the unbriefed issue. Briefs shall 19 enumerate and set forth the legal issue(s) as specified in the prehearing order if one 20 has been entered. (See also, Prehearing Order, Section X., July 29, 1998.) 211 In briefing Legal Issue No. 2, LMI offered no argument regarding how Ordinance No. 98- 22 339 fails to comply with RCW 36.70A.172. LMI PHB, at 38 - 48. Issues not briefed are 23 abandoned. WAC 242-02-570(1). 24 On this Legal Issue, LMI challenges only Ordinance No. 98-339. LMI contends that when Woodway adopted Ordinance No. 98-339, it failed to comply with the GMA's 25 substantive and procedural requirements for identifying and designating critical areas. 26 LMI also argues that Woodway cannot ignore GMA requirements for designating critical areas. LMI PHB, at 38-48, LMI Reply, at 10-11. Woodway counters that in adopting 27 Ordinance No. 98-339, it did not designate critical areas pursuant to RCW 36.70A.050, 28 .170 and .172. However, it did protect environmentally sensitive areas through the Urban Restricted (UR) designation for the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area, pursuant to RCW 29 83I2FDO DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 16/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 ' 2 I 36.70A.130; consequently, many of Petitioners' arguments are irrelevant. Woodway Response, at 42. 3 ( It is undisputed that the GMA requires that local governments identify, designate and 4 protect critical areas. Nonetheless, Woodway asserts that it is entitled to protect s ; environmentally sensitive areas through the use of land use designations in its Plan. Id "Woodway chose to protect the environmentally sensitive areas on-site through the 6 Comprehensive Plan amendments process (pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130) not through designating the areas on-site as "critical areas" through the provisions [of] RCW 7 36.70A.050, .170, .172 and WAC 365-190-080 and-040."Id. 8 Woodway offers an alternative to the requirements of the GMA for designating and 9 protecting critical areas under the Act. However, the alternative process offered by to i Woodway evades the analytical rigor and scientific scrutiny required by the GMA in RCW 36.70A.050, .170 and .172. Identifying and designating critical areas pursuant to RCW 11 36.70A.050, .170, and .172 requires local governments to consider the Guidelines established by CTED (RCW 36.70A.050, .170), and to "include the best available science 12 I in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of 13 I critical areas." (RCW 36.70A.172.) The results achieved through the application of these GMA requirements provide the scientific foundation to bolster and support performance 14 standards and development regulations that protect critical areas as required by RCW 15 36.70A.060. This scientific and analytical process may also, in certain limited instances, provide information to justify supplementary use of land use designations on the Plan's 16 future land use map as an additional layer of critical areas protection. See Litowitz v. City of Federal Way (Litowitz), CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0005, Final Decision and Order 17 (Jul. 22, 1996). While local governments have some discretion in identifying, designating 18 ! and protecting critical areas, they may not ignore the critical areas requirements of the GMA. Thus, the threshold question is whether Woodway's adoption of Ordinance No. 19 98-339 identified and designated critical areas. • 20 A review of Ordinance No. 98-339 and its supporting documentation is instructive in 21 i resolving the question of whether Woodway identified and designated critical areas through its adoption. 22 23 On May 27, 1997, the Woodway Planning Commission received a Staff Report on the Woodway Highlands Applications. The report includes an evaluation of the [LMI's] 24 request to amend the plan, wherein critical areas (wetlands and wildlife habitats) are ss discussed. Ex. 36, at 8 -18. The report includes a "Habitat Quality Map" for the Plan Amendment Area. Ex. 36, Figure 2-2, at 26 (See also, Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. I, Figure 2-2, 26 at 2-25). This 1997 report stated: 27 The Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-8 set the stage for thorough analysis of the 28 environmental conditions on the 60.8 [acre] parcel and of any adverse impacts that development might cause. The requirement for special studies prompted the 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth M Central p Sound Beatings s anagement BoardHearing page 17/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 II • 2 preparation of a detailed and lengthy EIS which includes a range of alternatives and detailed sections on critical areas and wildlife habitat. . . 3 The EIS established the location,function and value of a 2.4 acre wetland which 4 was mapped as a priority habitat by the Washington Department of Fish and s Wildlife Habitat and Species Database. Ex. 36, at 26-27 (emphasis added). 6 On May 4, 1998, Woodway's Town Council adopted its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision on the plan amendment in question. This decision document, which 8 ; includes the amendatory language contained in Ordinance No. 98-339, provides, in relevant part: 9 ' 10 [Finding of Fact] 21. The SSAC call for preparation of special studies to evaluate wildlife habitat areas and other environmental resource areas on the Chevron 11 Property [Plan Amendment Area]. The Draft and Final EIS for the proposal included those special studies, among others. As a result of those special studies, 12 important wetland and wildlife habitat areas were identified. These areas qualify 13 as "fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" under the State Guidelines for identification of "critical areas" subject to designation and protection under the 14 State Growth Management Act. See WAC 365-190-080. Ex. 181, at 6 (emphasis is added). 16 On May 18, 1998, Woodway's Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 98-339, amending its Plan. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 98-339 provides, in relevant part: 17 18 d. The Critical Areas Map in the Comprehensive Plan shall be revised to shade the areas outside of the disturbed areas of the site (identified in 1(b) above) thus 19 indicating that they are permanently protected as wildlife habitat, wetlands, steep 20 slopes, greenbelt, open space, and other natural resources on-site in their undeveloped natural state. 21 Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(d), at 2 (emphasis added). 22 Notwithstanding the assertions of Woodway's counsel that "Woodway did not designate 23 critical areas," the actions of the Town Council demonstrate otherwise. The staff report indicates that critical areas were mapped and discussed in the EIS prepared in 1997. The 24 supporting decision document adopted May 4, 1998 by the Council clearly indicates that 25 the CTED Guidelines were considered and that the areas within the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area were identified as critical areas.14 The Council's adoption of Ordinance 26 No. 98-339, Section 1(d), clearly directs revision of Woodway's Critical Areas Map to 27 14 The Board notes that LMI's challenge under RCW 36.70A.172 regarding"best available science" was 28 abandoned. At the hearing on the merits,Woodway suggested that it had scientific evidence in front of it when it made the challenged decisions, but since the challenge to .172 had been abandoned, Woodway 29 had not specifically briefed the issue. October 21, 1998,Hearing on the Merits transcript,at 69. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Sound 18/57 Growth Management Hearings Board page The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 • (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 designate portions of the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area to indicate that it is to be protected. In adopting the May 4, 1998 decision document and Ordinance No. 98-339, 3 ; Woodway identified and designated critical areas within the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. Therefore, the question before the Board is whether Woodway's action complies 4 with the procedural and substantive requirements of the GMA for identifying and 5 designating critical areas. 6 LMI suggests that Woodway failed to follow the Guidelines procedures for designating critical areas. LMI PHB, at 42-45. The Guidelines discuss the "Process" for identifying and designating critical areas at WAC 365-190-040. In discussing the designation 8 amendment process, the Guidelines suggest that: "Procedures for designation should provide a rational and predictable basis for accommodating change" WAC 365-190- 9 : 040(2)(g); the public should receive "early and timely public notice of pending 10 ' designations" WAC 365-190-040(2)(a); and critical area designation changes should be based on changed circumstances, errors in designation or new information on natural 11 resource land or critical area status, WAC 365-190-040(2)(g)(i-iv). The special studies 12 and EIS developed to accompany LMI's proposed plan amendment15 was a rational process that evaluated a range of alternatives, thereby enhancing predictability. The 13 studies and EIS contained new information upon which to base changes in Woodway's Critical Areas Map. Also, the public process that accompanied the special study, EIS 14 development, and the review of the amendment provided adequate notice to LMI and the 15 public of the pending designations. Woodway properly considered the Guidelines regarding procedures, in identifying and designating critical areas in the Plan Amendment 16 Area. 17 LMI also contends that Woodway improperly identified and designated wildlife habitat 18 conservation areas as critical areas (WAC 365-190-080). LMI PHB, at 39-42. Local governments have discretion in identifying and designating the critical areas defined in the 19 Act. In this Board's first case, the Board stated: 20 The GMA's definition of"critical areas" at RCW 36.70A.030(5) is not exclusive 21 and prescriptive: local governments must consider, but are not bound by, that definition and the definitions used in the minimum guidelines developed by 22 CTED. Tracy v. Mercer Island, (Tracy) CPSGPHB Case No. 92-3-0001, Final 23 Decision and Order(Jan. 5, 1993), at 23 (emphasis added). 24 Woodway's May 4, 1998 decision document is evidence that Woodway considered the Guidelines and exercised its local discretion in identifying and designating certain 25 wetlands16 and wildlife habitats as critical areas. Woodway properly identified and 26 designated wetland and habitat conservation areas, pursuant to the Guidelines, when it 27 15 The Board recognizes that the EIS was prepared to respond to a proposed comprehensive plan 28 amendment,proposed rezone and proposed subdivision. Ex.33,at FS-1. 16 The Board notes that the Legislature's addition of RCW 36.70A.175 in 1995, likely constrains local 29 discretion in identifying wetlands as critical areas. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8✓99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 19/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 adopted Ordinance No. 98-339. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.170, .172, .050 or WAC 365-190-040 3 and -080 when it adopted Ordinance No. 98-339. The Board is not persuaded on this Legal Issue that Woodway's action was clearly erroneous. 4 5 Findings of Fact 6 The Board finds: 7 26. Petitioners have failed to brief Legal Issue No. 2 regarding compliance with RCW 8 36.70A.172. LMI PHB, at 38-48. 27. The decision document adopted by the Council on May 4, 1998 identifies lands within 9 the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area as critical areas. Ex. 181, at 6. 28. Section 1(d) of Ordinance No. 98-339 designates lands within the 60.8-acre Plan to I Amendment Area as critical areas on the Woodway Critical Area Map. Ex. 180, at 2. 11 29. LMI and the public had notice of the special study, EIS development and the review of the plan amendment. Exs. 33, 36, 180 and 181. 12 30. Woodway considered the Guidelines in identifying and designating critical areas. Exs. 13 180, at 2, and 181, at 6. 14 Conclusions of Law 15 The Board concludes: 16 13. Pursuant to WAC 242-02-570(1), LMI has abandoned its challenge to Woodway's 17 compliance with RCW 36.70A.172. 14. RCW 36.70A.050, .170, and .172 provide the analytical process and scientific 18 foundation for identifying, designating and protecting critical areas. 19 15. Application of the GMA's scientific and analytic critical areas process may, in certain limited instances, provide information to justify supplementary use of land use 20 designations on the Plan's future land use map as an additional layer of critical areas 21 I protection. 16. Local governments may not ignore the critical areas requirements (RCW 36.70A.050, 22 .060, .170 and .172) of the GMA. 17. Woodway identified and designated critical areas in the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area when it adopted Ordinance No. 98-339. 24 18. Woodway properly followed the Guidelines regarding procedures in identifying and designating critical areas in the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. 25 19. Local governments have discretion in identifying and designating critical areas. 26 20. Woodway properly identified and designated wetlands and wildlife habitat conservation areas as critical areas, pursuant to the Guidelines, within the 60.8-acre 27 Plan Amendment Area, when it adopted Ordinance No. 98-339. 21. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway failed to 28. comply with RCW 36.70A.170, .172, .050 or WAC 365-190-040 and -080 when it 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Sound 20/57 Growth Management Hearings Board page The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 adopted Ordinance No. 98-339. The Board is not persuaded on this Legal Issue that Woodway's action was clearly erroneous. 3 C. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 1 4 . 5 ' The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 1: 6 Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-339 (Land Use Designation and 7 Policy Amendments) and 98-338 (Special Study Area Criteria-SSAC), because 8 these Plan amendments do not further the goals of the GMA? 9 I Applicable Law and Discussion 10 A central premise of the GMA is that "uncoordinated and unplanned growth" and a lack 11 of"common goals" presents a threat to both the economic and environmental well-being of the residents of this state. RCW 36.70A.010.17 The GMA's design addresses these 12 deficiencies by first setting forth, in RCW 36.70A.020, thirteen" goals to "guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations." These 13 goals guide local governments in achieving coordinated and planned growth. The goals 14 and requirements of the Act constitute a decision-making regime described as a"cascading hierarchy of substantive and directive policy,flowing first from the planning goals to the • 15 policy documents of counties and cities. . . [such as] comprehensive plans. . ." Aagaard v. 16 Bothell, CPSGMHB Case No. 94-3-0011, Final Decision and Order (Feb. 21, 1995), at 6 (emphasis added). 17 Significantly, the Act requires more than mere consideration of the planning goals. In an 18 early case, the Board concluded that "the substantive element of RCW 36.70A.020 is the 19 heart of the GMA. . . . Comprehensive plans and implementing development regulations will be held to the highest standard of compliance. . . ."Association of Rural Residents v. 20 Kitsap County (Rural Residents), CPSGMHB Case No. 93-3-0010, Final Decision and 21 Order (Jun. 3, 1994), at 29 (original emphasis omitted, emphasis added). The Board recently affirmed the substantive effect of the planning goals first articulated in Rural 22 23 17 RCW 36.70A.010 expresses the Legislatures findings and intent in enacting the GMA. It states: 24 The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a 25 threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, 26 communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further,the legislature finds that it is in the public 27 interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing 28 insufficient economic growth. '$In 1995,the Legislature added RCW 36.70A.480 to the GMA. This section adds the goals and policies 29 of the Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW)as a fourteenth goal in RCW 36.70A.020. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order _ Growth Management Hearings Board page 21/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • 2 Residents. In Rabie, et al., v. Burien, CPSGMHB Case No. 98-3-0005c, Final Decision and Order(Oct. 19, 1998), at 5-6, the Board stated: 3 Many of the GMA provisions argued by [petitioners] . . . are planning goals, RCW 4 ` 36.70A.020. The GMA planning goals "guide the development and adoption of 5 comprehensive plans and development regulations." RCW 36.70A.020. The first prong of the mandate to "be guided by" requires procedural compliance. The 6 ' second prong requires substantive compliance. First, the elected decisionmakers must consider the planning goals when adopting or amending the plan or 7 development regulations; second, the adopted or amended plan or development 8 regulations must substantively comply with the planning goals. See Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 93-3-0010, Final 9 Decision and Order (Jun. 3, 1994), at 23-28. Local governments must use the 10 planning goals"to point the way for the enactment of development regulations and comprehensive plans that substantively comply with the GMA." Id., at 27. The 11 Board will review the challenged enactments to "determine whether [they] achieve the legislature's intended result: consistency with the planning goals of the Act." 12 Id, at 28. In other words, to show substantive noncompliance with a planning 13 goal, a petitioner must identify that portion of the challenged enactment that is not consistent with, or thwarts, the planning goal, and explain why the identified 14 portion does not comply with that goal. (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted.) 15 LMI's Legal Issue No. 1, challenging compliance with certain Goals of the GMA, involves 16 provisions of both ordinances enacted by Woodway, Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338. 17 Ordinance No. 98-339 amended three maps in Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. The first 18 map amended was the Comprehensive Plan Map. It was changed to include a new land use designation, Urban Restricted (UR). The UR designation applies only to the 60.8- 19 acre Plan Amendment Area. Within the UR designation development is limited to 20 compact urban growth (four units per acre) on 10.5 acres of the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(b), at 1. The remaining 50.3 21 acres of the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area, is to be permanently protected in an undeveloped natural state. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(d), at 2. 22 The stated purpose of the UR designation is"to preserve and conserve the wildlife habitat, 7.3 including wildlife corridors, open space, greenbelt areas, and other sensitive and critical 24 natural resources on the Chevron site." Ex. 181, at 18. Permitted development is limited to "detached single-family residential use to the extent not inconsistent with the preservation and conservation of wildlife habitat, including wildlife corridors, open space, 26 greenbelt areas, and other sensitive or critical areas on-site." Id Woodway concluded that allowing four du/ac on 10.5 acres of the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area and 27 prohibiting all development on the remainder of the area was justified. Ex. 181, at 18. 28 Consequently, the Board concludes that the range of densities permitted in the UR land use designation is 0-4 du/ac. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8✓99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order ���Puget Board 22/57 Growth Management Hearings Board page The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 • (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 t,. 2 As discussed in Legal Issue No. 2, Ordinance No. 98-339 also amended Woodway's Critical Areas Map to designate 50.3 acres of the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area as 3 . critical areas, permanently protecting these lands. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(d), at 2. 4E 5 The final map changed by this Ordinance was Woodway's Development Potential Map. This map was changed to indicate that the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area is to be 6 developed pursuant to the UR designation. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(c), at 2. 7 8 ! Although Ordinance No. 98-339 also amended the text of Woodway's Comprehensive Plan, thereby modifying several goals and policies, LMI offers no argument challenging 9 whether these text amendments comply with Goals 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. LMI PHB, at 18-37; LMI Reply, at 7-32. Therefore, the text amendments to the Woodway Comprehensive to Plan made by Ordinance No. 98-339 are not part of LMI's challenge and will not be 11 discussed in this Legal Issue. 12 Ordinance No. 98-338 amended Woodway's Comprehensive Plan to include Special Study Area Criteria as a Subarea plan. The SSAC applies only to the 60.8-acre Subarea 13 owned by Chevron U.S.A. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 1. This area is the same 14 area affected by Ordinance No. 98-339, and referred to as the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. The SSAC for the Subarea includes the following headings: Framework, Statement 15 of Purpose, Criteria for Residential Development, Character, Land Use, Site Ecology, 16 Utilities, Transportation, and Public Services. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 1- 5. 17 Underlying this controversy is the allegation that Woodway does not comply with several of the Act's Goals (and other requirements) because it has not designated appropriate 18 "urban densities" in the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. This allegation rests on the 19 premise that the Act imposes a duty upon all cities, including Woodway, to designate all lands within their city limits (UGA) at appropriate urban densities and that Woodway has 20 breached that duty. 21 This premise is correct because: 1) all cities are included in UGAs, RCW 36.70A.110(1); 22 2)the Town of Woodway is a city19; and 3)the Act mandates that each UGA"shall permit urban densities," RCW 36.70A.110(2). Therefore, all cities, including Woodway, are 23 directed by the Act to permit urban densities. To clarify, the Board holds that the GMA 24 requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities. 25 26 LMI argues that Woodway failed to comply with GMA planning Goals 1 (urban growth), 2 (reduce sprawl), 3 (transportation), 4 (housing), and 6 (property rights), because 27 Woodway, through the application of the UR designation, has prohibited all development on approximately 80 percent of Petitioners' property and has allowed only 4 du/ac on the 28 29 19 See supra,footnote 1,at 1. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 23/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • remainder of the property. LMI also complains that the Subarea Plan perpetuates a 2 historic low density development pattern. The Board will review the challenged 3 i provisions of the Ordinances for compliance with each goal; however, the Board's discussion of Goal 1 and 2 is combined. 4i 5 I Goals 1 (Urban Growth) and 2 (Reduce Sprawl): 6 ! RCW 36.70A.020 provides in relevant part: 7 (1) Urban Growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public 8 facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2)Reduce Sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into 9 sprawling, low density development. to Ordinance No. 98-339: 11 Fundamental to a city's complying with Goals 1 and 2 is that its land use element, 12 including its future land use map, permits appropriate urban densities throughout its 13 jurisdiction. The map designations in Ordinance No. 98-339, which permit 4 du/ac on only 10.5 acres of the area designated UR, will allow, according to LMI, the development of 14 approximately 30 single family residences20 on the entire 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. LMI PHB, at 12. According to LMI, allowing only 30 homes throughout the whole of the 15 60.8 acres designated UR amounts to density of 1 du/2 ac and therefore fails to achieve 16 urban densities. ,LMI PHB, at 12, 20-25. Woodway argues that, since environmental considerations make 50.3 acres of the UR designation non-buildable, 4 du/ac on the 10.5 17 buildable acres is an appropriate urban density. Woodway Response, at 24-26. 18 All parties agree that a Comprehensive Plan's residential land use designation of 4 du/ac is 19 an appropriate urban density;21 also, the parties do not dispute that 1 du/2 ac is not an appropriate urban density and constitutes low density development, or sprawl, within the 20 UGA. The Board agrees that, absent justifiable environmental reasons, permitting only 30 21 homes on 60.8 acres would not achieve urban densities and would constitute impermissible low-density development within the UGA, thus failing to comply with Goals 22 1 and 2. Therefore, the question before the Board is whether Woodway's UR Comprehensive Plan designation for the Plan Amendment Area permits appropriate urban 23 densities consistent with Goals 1 and 2. The Board concludes that Woodway's UR land 24 use designation does not. 25 26 .20 After calculating gross density for the 10.5 acres(42 units),LMI then subtracts rights-of-way and other 27 infrastructure requirements to arrive at 30 units. Woodway does not dispute LMI's calculation. LMI PHB,at 12,footnote 2. 28 21 Likewise, the Board has previously stated that a residential pattern at, or above, this density is clearly compact urban development. Bremerton v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039c, Final 29 Decision and Order(Oct. 9, 1995),at 50. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget So»ud 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 24/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1 2 In Litowitz v. City of Federal Way, the petitioners challenged a land use designation of 1-3 du/ac in Federal Way's comprehensive plan. Litowitz, at 10-12. Federal Way argued that 3 "environmentally sensitive features" justified the plan's land use map designation for low residential densities. Id The petitioners argued that the record did not contain sufficient 4 foundation for the City to use "environmental concerns" to depress densities across broad s areas and that Federal Way disregarded the GMA mandate for compact urban densities and against sprawl in urban areas. Id The Board agreed with Federal Way and 6 ' determined that the plan's land use designation was an appropriate urban density because 7 I the "environmentally sensitive feature," a critical area, sought to be protected in that case was a wetlands system that was large in scope with a high rank order value and complex 8 in structure and functions.22 Id 9 The Board affirms and restates its holding in Litowitz: When critical areas are large io : in scope, with a high rank order value and are complex in structure and function, a city may use its future land use map designations to afford a higher level of critical 11 areas protection than is available through its regulations to protect critical areas. In 12 these exceptional circumstances, the resulting residential density will be deemed an appropriate urban density. 13 Applying this test to the record in the present case does not reveal such a large, high rank 14 order value critical area with complex structure and functions, that would justify the use of is the UR land use map designation, which excludes a majority of the Plan Amendment Area from any development. 16 There is a 2.4-acre portion of a wetland23 within the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. 17 The FEIS rates this wetland within the UR designation as moderate for water quality 18 improvement, storm and flood water control, biological support function, and aquatic study areas, sanctuaries and refuges. Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. I, at 2-18. This wetland rates 19 low for hydrologic support to streams, and low to moderate for groundwater recharge and cultural and recreation values. Id "Overall, the functional value for Wetland A merits a 20 MODERATE rating."Id24 (emphasis in original). 21 The FEIS identifies freshwater wetland priority habitat, priority snag habitat and urban 22 natural open space priority habitat in some areas within the 60.8 acre UR designation. Ex. 23 22 An additional factor in Litowitz was the context of the Board's review. Federal Way's adoption of its 24 entire comprehensive plan was at issue. It was not disputed that other land use map designations throughout Federal Way did accommodate urban growth and did provide for appropriate urban densities. 25 The context was similar in Benaroya v. Redmond, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0072, Final Decision and Order (March 25, 1996). Like Federal Way, Redmond had provided for appropriate urban densities in 26 other land use map designations; however, in Benaroya, the designation of natural resource lands (agricultural lands)was the focus of the challenge,not critical areas. 27 23 The wetland continues off the site to the north and west of the Plan Amendment Area designated UR. 28 Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. III, Wetlands Study, at D-6. The off-site area was not designated as critical area or otherwise affected by Ordinance Nos. 98-339 or 98-338. 29 24 See also, Ex. 33,FEIS,Vol.III,Appendix C,Wetlands Study,at D-8 and D-9. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 25/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1I 33, FEIS, Vol. I, at 2-22. The FEIS states: "Development of priority habitats is 2 considered as [sic] significant adverse environmental impact." Ex. 33. FEIS, Vol. I, at 2- 3 ' 25. A map depicting habitat quality within the UR designation shows a small area of high quality habitat (the wetland), a greater area of moderate-high quality habitat (priority snag 4 ` habitat), and a larger area of moderate quality (forest and shrub) and low quality habitat 5 (disturbed/grassland).25 Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. I, at Fig. 2-2. 6 The 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area, designated UR, does not contain any endangered, threatened or sensitive wildlife species or sensitive plants or high quality native plant 7 communities. Ex. 33 FEIS, Vol. III, Appendix F, Wildlife Study, at 2-3. However, the 8 area is thought to contain a Washington State candidate species, pileated woodpeckers, and a Washington State priority game bird species, band-tailed pigeons. Ex. 33, Vol. I, at 9 2-34. Although no pileated woodpecker nests were recorded in the UR designation, "it 10 j [is] likely that nesting occurs on the site." Id (reference omitted). Band-tailed pigeons have been observed on the site. Id. 11 West of the city limits, and below the area designated UR, is a railroad right-of-way that 12 serves as a habitat corridor connecting several King and Snohomish County parks along 13 the shores of Puget Sound.26 Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. III, Wildlife Study, at 6. Uncontested testimony in the record shows that areas within the UR designation are an offshoot of this 14 railroad right-of-way habitat corridor. Ex. 117, Conolly Testimony, at 95. 15 In reviewing the record, the Board finds that it does not support the proposition that 50.3 16 acres within the UR designation contain critical areas that are large in scope, of high rank order value and are complex in structure and functions. Also, the Board finds that the 17 record does not support the notion that the 50.3 acres within the UR designation are a critical part of an identified and designated critical ecological system that is large in scope, 18 of high rank order value and is complex in structure and functions. Absent these 19 exceptional environmental attributes, the land use map density designations within the entire 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area (UR designation) must reflect appropriate urban 20 densities. Woodway's decision to permit 4 du/ac on only a small portion (10.5 acres) of 21 the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area (UR designation) and prohibit development on the remainder does not permit appropriate urban densities within the UR designation. 22 The Board concludes that the amendments to the maps in Woodway's Comprehensive 23 Plan, as set forth in Ordinance No. 98-339, do not comply with, are inconsistent with, 24 and thwart GMA Goals 1 and 2. Specifically, the amendments to the comprehensive plan 25 26 25 All of these habitat assessments and rankings are apparently confined to the site. None of the habitats has been acknowledged,identified or designated off-site. 27 26 Unlike the situation in Litowitz, wherein King County bad prepared a"Hylebos Creek Basin Plan" to 28 prevent degradation of Hylebos Creek and South Puget Sound,there is nothing in the record that indicates this habitat corridor was afforded the same degree of concern or attention by either Snohomish or King 29 County or adjacent municipalities. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and OrderBoard Management Hearings Board page 26/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 mapdesignation and legend wordingSec. 1(b)), the development potential ma 27 P� 8 -- P map 27 1(c)) and the critical areas map (Sec. 1(d)) do not comply with Goals 1 and 2 3 because these map designations do not permit development at appropriate urban densities. The Board will remand these map designations to Woodway with direction to amend the 4 designation for the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area to permit appropriate urban densities 5 within the entire area. 6 ' Ordinance No. 98-338: 7 ' Petitioners also challenge whether Woodway's adoption of Ordinance No. 98-338 8 , complies with Goals 1 and 2. This amendment to Woodway's Comprehensive Plan identifies the same 60.8 acres affected by Ordinance No. 98-339 and designates it as a 9 Subarea within Woodway's Plan. Residential development within the Subarea is subject to criteria (SSAC) set forth in the Ordinance. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338. LMI 10 asserts that Ordinance No. 98-338 is aimed at maintaining existing, low-density sprawling 11 development patterns. LMI PHB, at 25, 30-32. Woodway counters that no language in the SSAC is inconsistent with or thwarts Goals 1 and 2. Woodway Response, at 34. 12 The criteria for the special study area apply only to the 60.8-acre Subarea and are for 13 evaluating proposed uses or developments in the Subarea. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98- 14 338, at 1 and 2. Under the land use criterion of the SSAC, the Ordinance provides: 15 Woodway is a residential community of low to medium density single family 16 residential neighborhoods (one unit per two acres, one unit per one acre, and three units per acre zoning). Any proposed uses in the Special.Study Area should 17 protect the [sic] maintain the town's residential character and the natural features of the town. Ex. 179, at 3 (emphasis added). 18 19 To discern the nature of the residential character Woodway seeks to protect and maintain, the character criterion is instructive; it provides: 20 The character of Woodway was established by the original Woodway Park 21 development: large, single family detached homes in a quiet, wooded natural 22 setting. Lot sizes of two or more acres, many sited on the bluff overlooking Puget Sound, create an image of walking or driving thorough the woods as you proceed 23 down the main thoroughfare. Incorporation and rezoning have reduced the average lot size, but the quiet wooded environment and preservation of open space 24 remain unchanged and characteristic of the Town and its planning goals. 25 26 27 28 27 The remand will affect the development potential map to the extent that the development of the area is 29 limited pursuant to the UR designation. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 27/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 2 Currently the average lot size is 1.7 acres. Under existing zoning, at build-out28 (all areas developed to the maximum allowed), which is unlikely to occur, the 3 ' average lot size build-out would be approximately one acre. Ex. 179, at 2. a Petitioners also reference letters and statements from the minutes of planning commission 5 meetings to support their contention that Ordinance 98-338 is aimed at perpetuating large lot, low-density sprawl. LMI PHB, at 31-32. 6 The Board concurs with LMI regarding Ordinance No. 98-338. The Ordinance seeks to 7 i protect and maintain the large-lot, low-density, residential character of Woodway without 8 encouraging urban growth at appropriate urban densities or reducing the conversion of undeveloped land to low-density development. Therefore, Ordinance No. 98-338 is 9 ' inconsistent with, thwarts and does not comply with Goal 1 and 2. The Board will remand Ordinance No: 98-338 to Woodway with direction to either repeal the Special to Study Area Criteria (S SAC) and the Subarea or amend the SSAC to provide for compact 11 urban growth within the Subarea at appropriate urban densities. 12 Goal 3 (Transportation) 13 RCW 36.70A.020 provides in part: 14 l (3) Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are is based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. 16 17 LMI argues that Woodway has failed to comply with Goal 3 because the residential densities allowed within the UR designation, and the City as a whole, are not "transit 18 supporting densities." LMI PHB, at 33. LMI relies on the Board's observation in a prior 19 case that some planning literature suggests residential densities of at least 7 du/ac are necessary to "support transit objectives." Bremerton v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case 20 No. 95-3-0039, Final Decision and Order (October 6, 1995), at 49-50. Petitioners also cite "A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation for Snohomish County, 21 Washington" for the proposition that residential densities of between seven and fifteen 22 du/ac are necessary to support local bus service, and may support rail transit. Ex. 197, at 23 3-5. Woodway counters that its small size and limited amount of remaining developable land preclude meaningful impact on the region's mass transit system. Woodway Za Response, at 36. The Board notes that on August 5, 1996, Woodway passed Resolution 178, which"[Expressed] Support for the Regional Transit Authority." (RTA) Ex. 191. 25 Goal 3 requires local governments to "[e]ncourage efficient multimodal transportation 26 systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city 27 comprehensive plans." RCW 36.70A.020(3). Goal 3 does not require that each and every 28 - 28 These calculations do not reflect development of the 60.8-acre subarea. See Ex. 20, Table 4, Footnote, 29 at 18;and Ex. 180,Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(f). 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Board Management Hearings page 28/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 • (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1 2 I land use designation of a jurisdiction permit residential densities that support all modes of transportation. To show noncompliance with Goal 3, LMI must explain how Ordinance 3 ; Nos. 98-338 and 98-339 are inconsistent with, or thwart, multimodal transportation systems in the context of regional priorities, and county and city comprehensive plans in 4 the aggregate. Merely relying upon urban density designations alone, especially in light of 5 Woodway's express support for the RTA (a regional priority), is not enough to demonstrate noncompliance with Goal 3. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in 6 I showing that Woodway failed to comply with RCW 36,70A.020(3) when it adopted. 7 Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339. The Board is not persuaded that, regarding Goal 3, Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 8j Goal 4 (Housing): 9 ' to RCW 36.70A.020 provides in part: 11 (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities 12 and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. 13 LMI argues that Woodway has failed to comply with Goal 4 because Woodway's 14 "detailed and unusually lengthy review requirements [for the plan amendment] violated Goal 3 [sic] by raising costs to such an extent that the development of affordable housing is is, from a practical standpoint, infeasible." LMI PHB, at 34. In addition, LMI argues that 16 Ordinance Nos.. 98-338 and 98-339 "ensure that nothing but single-family detached residences would be developed on the Property29 and that the Property would not be 17 developed at densities that permit affordable housing." LMI PHB, at 35. Woodway 18 asserts that LMI's arguments are pure conjecture, not supported by evidence in the record, since no economic data has been provided. Woodway Response, at 37. The 19 Board notes that Woodway's existing Plan and zoning designations30 do provide for a variety, albeit limited, of single-family densities within its city limits. Ex. 20, at 17 and 20 Comprehensive Plan Map. Petitioners counter that evidence in the record and common 21 sense support the conclusion that Woodway's actions have increased the cost of housing to be developed on the property. LMI Reply, at 30. The Board is not persuaded by 22 LMI's argument. 23 Goal 4, as relevant to LMI's arguments, requires local governments to "[e]ncourage the 24 availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state" RCW 36.70A.020(4). As with Goal 3, Goal 4 does not require that each and every land 25 use designation of a jurisdiction provide for affordable housing. To show noncompliance 26 with Goal 4, LMI must explain how Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are inconsistent with, or thwart, the availability of affordable housing in Woodway. While Petitioners 27 28 29 The 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area owned by Chevron U.S.A. 29 30 SR 14.5 (3 du/ac),FRP R-43 (1 du/ac),and FRP R-87(1 du/2ac). 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 29/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 might have presented evidence to demonstrate non-compliance, they have not done so here. 3 : Although common sense suggests that longer, more detailed project review will increase 4 ' the costs of developing property, common sense alone is not probative. To prevail, LMI's s argument must be accompanied by factual evidence. For example, LMI has not shown that the single family residences permitted by Woodway's adopted [now noncompliant] 6 amendments would be any less affordable than the single-family residences proposed in LMI's original plan amendment proposal. The only evidence of housing costs presented by LMI is that according to a"Directory of Wealth" Table on page 82 of the July/August 8 1997 edition of Worth Magazine,the median home price within Woodway, Washington is $650,000. LMI Reply, at 31 and Ex. 44. However, LMI has not shown how Ordinance 9 Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 fail to encourage the availability of affordable housing. LMI has to failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(4) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339. The Board is not i l persuaded that, regarding Goal 4, Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 12 Goal 6 (Property Rights) 13 RCW 36.70A.020 provides in part: 14 is (6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be 16 protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. 17 Petitioners acknowledge that the Board does not have jurisdiction over takings claims and 18 are not asking the Board to decide whether Woodway's actions constitute a taking. However, Petitioners do ask the Board to find that Woodway's. actions in this case are 19 arbitrary and discriminatory, as prohibited by Goal 6. LMI PHB, at 35. For LMI to 20 prevail in this type of challenge, it must prove that the action taken by Woodway is both arbitrary and discriminatory. Hapsmith v. City of Auburn (Hapsmith), CPSGMHB Case 21 No. 95-3-0075c, Final Decision and Order(May 10, 1996), at 44. 22 LMI argues that adoption of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 was arbitrary because the 23 ordinances act to limit development to a very small portion (10.5 acres) of the 60.8 acre property without adequate environmental justification. LMI PUB, at 36. Woodway 24 responds that the record supports its action to preserve, in an undeveloped state, the zs majority of the 60.8 acres designated UR. Woodway points to the FEIS's identification of priority wildlife habitats and wetlands, and its public hearing and deliberation process, to 26 show that its action was not arbitrary. Woodway Response, at 39. 27 Although the Board has found Woodway's actions clearly erroneous in the context of 28 Goals 1 and 2, a clearly erroneous action is not necessarily an arbitrary action. "Arbitrary" 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 30/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • means to be determined by whim or caprice.31 Washington's courts have further defined 2 "arbitrary and capricious" action to mean willful and unreasoning action taken without 3 regard to or consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the action. Kendall v.. Douglas, Grant, Lincoln & Okanogan Counties Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 6, 118 Wash.2d 4 1, 14, 820 P.2d 497 (1991) (footnote omitted) (quoting: Abbenhaus v. City of Yakima, 5 89 Wash.2d 855, 858, 576 P.2d 888 (1978)) City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, Wash.2d _, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998) Here, 6 I Woodway's record and process for adoption of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 indicate it considered the facts and circumstances surrounding the ordinances, and took 7 action. Although its actions were clearly erroneous, they were not arbitrary. 8 LMI also asserts that Woodway's actions were discriminatory because Woodway 9 exhibited a "cavalier, discriminatory attitude towards [Petitioners'] property rights" and to application of the SSAC only to Petitioners' 60.8 acres has no rational basis. As evidence of Woodway's cavalier attitude, LMI cites to a letter sent to the Town Council by 11 Councilmember Saltonstall, prior to his election. LMI PHB, at 37. Woodway correctly points out that the letter cited to illustrate Woodway's "cavalier attitude" was written by 12 one Councilmember prior to his being elected to office.32 Therefore, this "one-time 13 statement by a member of the public is not evidence of discrimination by [Woodway]." Woodway Response, at 40. Additionally, Woodway relies upon this Board's decision in 14 Hapsmith to support its argument that application of the SSAC only to the 60.8 acre 15 property is not discriminatory. Woodway Response, at 40-41. In Hapsmith, Auburn designated a large area owned by one property owner as a special planning area. The 16 Board determined this was not a discriminatory action, stating "Jurisdictions are free to designate areas that are subject to additional or more detailed planning such as the `special 17 planning areas' technique used by Auburn. Such localized planning does not constitute 18 discriminatory action." Hapsmith, at 46. Exs, 179 and 182. Likewise, Woodway's use of the Subarea Plan designation, for more localized planning, is a permissible "special 19 planning area".technique and authorized pursuant to RCW 36.70A.090(2). LMI has failed 20 to, show how Woodway's adoption of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 was discriminatory. 21 The Board concludes that LMI has not shown how Woodway's actions were arbitrary and 22 discriminatory. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway 23 failed to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(6) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339. The Board is.not persuaded that, regarding Goal 6, Woodway' actions were 24 clearly erroneous. 25 Findings of Fact 26 The Board finds: 27 28 31 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company 1980,at 67. 29 32 See also Legal Issue No. 8. 8312FDO.DOC I/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Croce Management Hearings Board page 31/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 31. Ordinance No. 98-339 amended three maps in Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. Ex. 3 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec 1(b), (c) and (d), at 1 and 2. 32. The Comprehensive Plan Map was amended to include a new land use designation, 4 Urban Restricted (UR). The UR designation applies only to the 60.8-acre Plan 5 Amendment Area. Within the UR designation, development is limited to 4 du/ac on 10.5 acres. The remaining 50.3 acres in the UR designation are to be permanently 6 ! protected in their undeveloped, natural state. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(b) and (d), at 1 and 2. 33. The Critical Areas Map was amended to designate 50.3 acres of the Plan Amendment 8 Area as critical areas. These are the lands to be permanently protected in their undeveloped, natural state. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(d), at 2. 9 34. The Plan's Development Potential Map was amended. This map was changed to to I indicate that the 60.8 acre Plan Amendment Area is to be developed pursuant to the UR designation. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 1(c), at 2. ll ( 35. Ordinance No. 98-338 amended Woodway's Comprehensive Plan to include a Subarea Plan. The Subarea Plan includes criteria (SSAC) that apply only to the 60.8 acres 12 owned by Chevron U.S.A. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 1. 13 36. Woodway is a city. Woodway Response, at 4 37. There is a portion of a 2.4-acre wetland within the 60.8 acre UR designation area; the 14 functional value of this wetland is rated as moderate. Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. I, at 2-18. is 38. A map depicting wildlife habitat quality within the UR designation area shows only the 2.4 acre wetland area as high-quality habitat. Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. I, at Fig. 2-2. 16 39. No endangered, threatened or sensitive wildlife species or sensitive plants or high quality native plant communities were found within the 60.8-acre UR designation area. 17 Ex. 33, FEIS, Vol. III, Appendix F, Wildlife Study, at 2-3. 18 40. The 60.8-acre UR designation area is thought to contain a candidate wildlife species (pileated woodpeckers) and a priority game bird species (band-tailed pigeons). Ex. 19 33, Vol. I., at 2-34. 20 41. West of the UR designation is a railroad right-of-way that serves as a wildlife habitat corridor. Areas within the UR designation are an offshoot of this railroad right-of-way 21 wildlife habitat corridor. Ex. 117, Conolly Testimony, at 95. 42. The criteria in the SSAC apply only to the 60.8 acre Subarea and are for evaluating 22 proposed uses or developments in the Subarea. Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 1 23 and 2. 43. Pursuant to the SSAC, proposed uses and developments to be permitted within the 24 Subarea need to protect and maintain Woodway's residential character. Ex. 179, at 3. ,s 44. Woodway's residential character is described as large-lot, low-density development. Ex. 179, at 2. 26 45. The record and the language of Ordinance No. 98-338 support the contention that Ordinance No. 98-338 perpetuates large-lot, low-density sprawl within the city limits. 27 Ex. 179, at 2 and 3;LMI PHB, at 31-32. 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 nd 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order CentralPugetso GrowthManagement Hearings Board page rd page 32/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 • Conclusions of Law 3 The Board concludes: 4 22. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(1), all cities are included in UGAs. Pursuant to RCW 5 36.70A.110(2), each UGA must permit urban densities. Therefore, the GMA imposes a duty upon cities, including Woodway, to designate lands within their city limits 6 (UGA) to permit urban densities. The GMA requires all cities to designate all lands within their jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities. 23. Fundamental to a city's complying with Goals 1 and 2 is that its land use element, 8 including its future land use map, permits appropriate urban densities throughout its jurisdiction. 9 24. A future land use map designation for residential development that permits 4 du/ac 10 within city limits (UGA) is an appropriate urban density. 25. A future land use map designation for residential development that permits only 1 du/2 i i ac within the UGA is not an appropriate urban density and constitutes sprawling low- density development. 12 26. When critical areas are large in scope, with a high rank order value and complex in 13 structure and function, a city may use its future land use map designations to afford a higher level of critical areas protection than is available through its regulations to .14 protect critical areas. In these exceptional circumstances, the resulting residential is density, within the city limits (UGA), will be deemed an appropriate urban density. 27. The record does not support the proposition that 50.3 acres within the 60.8-acre UR 16 designation includes critical areas that are large in scope, of high rank order value and are complex in structure and function. 17 28. The record does not support the proposition that 50.3 acres within the 60.8-acre UR 18 designation are a critical part of an identified and designated critical ecological system that is large in scope, of high rank order value and are complex in structure and 19 function. 29. Absent the requisite environmental attributes of a critical area that is large in scope, of 20 high rank order value and is complex in structure and function, the future land use map 21 density designations within the entire 60.8 acre UR designation must permit appropriate urban densities. Woodway's decision to permit 4 du/ac on only a small 22 portion (10.5 acres) of the 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area (UR designation), and to 7.3 prohibit development on the remainder, does not permit development at appropriate urban densities within the UR designation. 24 30. The amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map (UR designation), Development Potential Map, and Critical Areas Map, in Woodway's Comprehensive Plan, as set 25 forth in Ordinance No. 98-339, do not comply with, are inconsistent with and thwart 26 GMA Goals 1 and 2 (RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (2)), because these map designations do not permit appropriate urban densities. The Board will remand these map 27 designations to Woodway with direction to amend the designations for the entire 60.8 28 acre Plan Amendment Area to permit appropriate urban densities. Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 33/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 2 31. The SSAC and Subarea Plan seek to protect and maintain the large lot, low density, residential character of Woodway without encouraging urban growth at appropriate 3 urban densities or reducing the conversion of undeveloped land to low density development; therefore, Ordinance No. 98-338 is inconsistent with, thwarts, and does 4 not comply with Goals 1 and 2 (RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (2)). The Board will 5 remand Ordinance No. 98-338 to Woodway with direction to either repeal the SSAC and the Subarea or amend the SSAC to provide for compact urban growth within the 6 Subarea at appropriate urban densities. Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 7 32. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway failed to comply with RCW 36,70A.020(3) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98- 8 339. The Board is not persuaded that, regarding Goal 3, Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 9 33. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway failed to to comply with RCW 36.70A.020(4) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98- 339. The Board is not persuaded that, regarding Goal 4, Woodway's actions were 11 clearly erroneous. 12 34. For purposes of analyzing challenges to RCW 36.70A.020(6), a clearly erroneous action is not necessarily an arbitrary action. 13 35. Designating localized special planning areas does not constitute discriminatory action. 36. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that Woodway failed to la comply with RCW 36.70A.020(6) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98- 15 339. The Board is not persuaded that, regarding Goal 6, Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 16 17 D. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 4 18 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 4: 19 Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble) 20 when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, because: (a) the Plan amendments of Ordinance No. 98-339, itself, are internally 21 inconsistent; (b) the Plan amendments of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are 22 inconsistent with each other; and 23 (c) the Plan amendments of Ordinance No. 98-339 are inconsistent with the following provisions of the Woodway Comprehensive Plan: Policies C12, 24 LU1, LU2, LU4, LU8, H1 and H3; the Development Potential Map; the Comprehensive Plan Map; the Land Use Element, Land Use Inventory and 25 Analysis (p. 14); the Land Use Element, Future Needs and Land Use 26 Alternatives (pp. 17-18); Capital Facilities Element, Existing Conditions (p. 24); Housing Element, Inventory and Analysis (pp. 31-32); and the Utilities 27 Element(p. 34)? 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 34/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 Applicable Law and Discussion 2 3 The preamble to RCW 36.70A.070 provides in relevant part: 4 ! The [comprehensive] plan shall be an internally consistent document and all 51 elements shall be consistent with the future land use map. 6 In interpreting this provision of the GMA, this Board has stated: 7 [C]onsistency means that provisions are compatible with each other — that they fit together properly. In other words, one provision may not thwart another. 8 West Seattle Defense Fund v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case No. 94-3-0016, 9 Final Decision and Order (Apr. 4, 1995), at 27. to The burden rests on a petitioner to identify those provisions of the challenged comprehensive plan that are uncoordinated or inconsistent. 11 Hensley v. Woodinville, CPSGMHB Case No. 96-3-0031, Final Decision and 12 Order(Feb. 25, 1997), at 13. 13 LMI asserts that (1) Ordinance No. 98-339 is internally inconsistent, (2) Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are inconsistent with each other, and (3) Ordinance No. 98-339 is la inconsistent with unamended plan policies. 15 Internal consistency of Ordinance No. 98-339 16 LMI argues that Plan policies amended in Ordinance No. 98-339 are inconsistent with the 17 residential densities permitted in the UR designation.33 Ordinance No. 98-339 amended 18 four goals or policies of the Plan and the explanatory text or discussion was modified in three places. The amended goals and policies (new language is underlined, deleted 19 language is shown as strikeout)now read as follows: 20 Land Use Element: 21 Goal -- To sustain low density residential development where appropriate and 22 provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(k), at 3; 23 Ex. 20, at 19. 24 Policy LU-5 -- Continue to develop low density residential sites according to 25 existing policies, ordinances, and development regulations where appropriate and 26 provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the 27 33 No Plan policy describes the residential densities permitted in the UR designation. That information is 28 provided in the notes or legend of the Comprehensive Plan Map,the Development Potential Map,and the Critical Areas Map. Also, the map designations are described in Legal Issue No. 1 and the Prefatory 29 Note. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 35/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 goals of the Growth Management Act. [New development should be compatible with the character and quality of existing development.]34 Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98- 3 339, Sec. 3(1), at 3; Ex. 20, at 20. 4 ! Policy LU-8 -- Recognizing that the 60.8-acre Chevron Property presently zoned Conservation and Industrial Product Storage within the Town maybecome s ; g available for development other than present usage, designate the property as a 6 Special Study area. The Town will make every effort to preserve the area as is or to retain the character of the Town. 7I8 , The Special Studies described above have been completed for the Chevron property, and applications for development of that property have been reviewed in 9 light of those studies and other considerations. As noted elsewhere in this Plan, 10 the Conservation and Industrial Product Storage designations of the property referred to have been changed through an Amendment to this Plan. Ex. 180, Ord. 11 No. 98-339, Sec. 1(a), at 1; Ex. 20, at 23. 12 Conservation Element: 13 Policy C-3 -- Preserve low density residential land use where appropriate and 14 provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the 15 goals of the Growth Management Act. •Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(h), at 2; Ex. 20, at 12. 16 The amendments to the Plan's explanatory text or discussion now provide as follows: 17 18 Vision for Woodway: 19 Land Use: • Continue the historic land use patterns of low density single family residential 20 use where appropriate and provide for compact urban growth consistent with 21 the policies of this plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(g), at 2; Ex. 20, at 4. 22 Land Use Element: 23 24 Land Use Inventory and Analysis: [The Town of Woodway consists of 648 acres, excluding tidelands. Existing 25 zoning allows for single family development on one-third acre, and two-acre lots. 26 There is no commercial development in the town and industrial use is limited to 27 28 34 This sentence is contained in Policy LU-5 in the Comprehensive Plan. Ex. 20, at 20. However, the amendatory language of Ordinance No. 98-339 does not show it as existing language that remains, or 29 indicate if it is deleted. Compare:Ex.20,at 20 and Ex. 180, Sec.3(1),at 3. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 36/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • . • . • industrial products storage.]35 Two One Conservation Zones protects an undeveloped watershed owned by Olympic View 3 Water and Sewer District, the-other 2 acre site ea by Che_.ro: U S There is also an Urban Restricted Comprehensive Plan designation for a 60.8 acre 4 ' site owned by Chevron U.S.A. which will be zoned consistent with the purposes of 5 that Comprehensive Plan designation. Ex. 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(i), at 2-3; Ex. 20, at 14. 6 ! Discussion following Policy LU-1:36 Discussion Housing density will continue to range from thrcc four single family 8 ` homes per acre to one single family home per two acres. [To maintain this density, land use development patterns and (sic) are expected to change very little.]37 Ex. 9 180, Ord. No. 98-339, Sec. 3(j), at 3; Ex. 20, at 19. 10 With the exception of LU-8, LMI challenges each of these amendments. Particularly, LMI 11 attacks the Goal, LU-5, C-3 and the amended Vision of Woodway. LMI PHB, at 50. These goals, policies and text share a common theme: continue and sustain Woodway's 12 historic low density residential development "where appropriate and provide for compact 13 urban growth consistent with the policies of [Woodway's] plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act." 14 is This common theme raises a threshold issue. The language of the amended goals, policies, and text is ambiguous. To continue and sustain Woodway's existing low density 16 residential development"where appropriate" could be read to mean that Woodway intends any new residential development or redevelopment within the City to occur at existing i7 densities, but that somehow"compact urban growth" would be permitted elsewhere in the 18 City. Such an interpretation would not be "consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Act," specifically Goals 1 and 2. However, this same language could also be 19 read to mean that Woodway recognizes that its existing low densities are "appropriate" 20 . only as a description of already-developed parcels within the City. Such an interpretation would recognize that while the GMA does not compel redevelopment of existing 21 developed parcels, the GMA does require that the plans that govern new development or redevelopment in Woodway allow compact urban development at appropriate urban 22 densities in order to be "consistent with the goals of the Growth Management Act." 23 Because of this ambiguity,38 the Board will remand the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, 24 35 This language is contained in The Land Use Inventory and Analysis. Ex. 20, at 14. However, the amendatory language of Ordinance No. 98-339 does not show it as existing language that remains, or 25 indicate if it is deleted. Compare:Ex.20,at 14,and Ex. 180, Sec 1(i),at 2-3. 26 36 LU-1 provides: Protect the character of Woodway by maintaining existing land use categories and zoning districts. 27 37 This sentence is contained in the discussion following Policy LU-1. Ex. 20, at 14. However, the 28 amendatory language of Ordinance No. 98-339 does not show it as existing language that remains, or indicate if it is deleted. Compare:Ex.20.at 19,and Ex. 180, Sec. 3(j),at 3. 29 38 See also, footnotes 34,35 and 37. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8✓99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order. Growth Management Hearings Board page 37/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1 � 2 to Woodway to clarify that the amendatory language means that low density development is appropriate only as a description of existing development and any new development or 3 redevelopment shall consist of compact urban growth at appropriate urban densities, consistent with goals and requirements of the GMA. 4 s Given this interpretation, the Board now addresses the consistency of the Plan Policies amended in Ordinance No. 98-339 with the residential densities permitted in the UR 6 designation. LNG argues that "[d]espite the new Comprehensive Plan text requiring the maintenance of historic densities only `where appropriate' and the provision of`compact 7 urban growth' elsewhere, Ordinance 98-339 failed to designate the Property for compact 8 ; urban development." LMI PHB, at 51. The City responds that it "has designated the portion of the property that does not contain sensitive environmental areas for quarter- 9 acre lots [an urban density]," consistent with the amended Plan policies. Woodway PHB, to at 56. 11 It is true that,Woodway's UR designation would have permitted development at 4 du/ac for 10.5 acres of the 60.8-acre UR area. However, as discussed in Legal Issue No. 1, 12 there is inadequate environmental justification for Woodway to permit 4 du/ac on only a 13 small portion (10.5 acres) of the area (UR designation) and prohibit development on the remainder of 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area. The Board determined that such a 14 residential density designation is not an appropriate urban density that provides for is compact urban growth. Further, it is not appropriate for Woodway to "continue" or "sustain" its historic low-density residential development within the 60.8-acre Plan 16 Amendment Area. Therefore, the entire 60.8 acre area(UR designation) must provide for "compact urban growth" at appropriate urban densities. It does not. Consequently, the 17 UR designation adopted in Ordinance No. 98-339 is inconsistent with the policies 18 amended by Ordinance No. 98-339. Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 19 Consistency of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 with each other: 20 LMI argues that Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are inconsistent with each other. The 21 amendments to Ordinance No. 98-339 are set out above. Ordinance 98-338 amended Woodway's Plan to add a Subarea Plan, consisting of the criteria (SSAC) governing 22 development of the 60.8 acre Chevron property, which comprises the whole of the UR designation. LMI argues that the Plan policies amended by Ordinance No. 98-339 23 "require `compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the goals of 24 the [GMA].' [citation omitted.] Yet Ordinance 98-338 adopts [SSAC] that were developed to ensure, among other things, the maintenance of historic, low densities in the 25 Town. [citation omitted.]" LMI PHB, at 52. Woodway responds that it "did not violate 26 the GMA by considering factors highlighted in the SSAC, such as existing neighborhoods and the preservation of open space and greenways and protection of environmentally 27 sensitive areas on the Chevron site." Woodway PHB, at 57. 28 In describing the City's character, Ordinance No. 98-338 states that "the average lot size 29 is 1.7 acres." Ex. 179, Ordinance 98-338, at 2. The Ordinance provides that "[a]ny 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 38/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 2 proposed uses in the Special Study Area should protect the [sic] maintain the town's residential character and the natural features of the town." Id at 3. The Board agrees 3 with LMI: "Ordinance 98-338 did far more than `consider historic development patterns.' The Ordinance adopted the maintenance of an average density of 1.7 units per acre as a 4 planning goal. See Exhibit 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, pp. 2-3." LMI Reply, at 34. The 5 text of the SSAC, adopted as a subarea plan by Ordinance 98-338, is inconsistent with the policies amended by Ordinance No. 98-339, because Ordinance No. 98-338 seeks to continue and sustain the large-lot, residential character of Woodwaywithout 6 ; low-density 7 encouraging compact urban growth as provided for in Ordinance No. 98-339. Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 9i Consistency of Ordinance No. 98-339 with unamended Woodway 1994 Plan Policies: to LMI argues that policies amended by Ordinance No. 98-339 are inconsistent with ll preexisting portions of Woodway's 1994 Comprehensive Plan. LMI PHB, at 52-54. Woodway responds that LMI's argument "is an untimely attack on the 1994 12 Comprehensive Plan" and should be rejected by the Board. Woodway PHB, at 58. 13 Woodway's defense is misplaced. The GMA is unequivocal: a comprehensive plan "shall 14 be an internally consistent document." RCW 36.70A.070. Amendments to a plan are not exempt from this requirement and must not result in an internally inconsistent plan. See is RCW 36.70A.130(1) ("Any amendment or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall 16 conform to this chapter"). The Board holds that for an internal consistency challenge, it is appropriate and necessary to review plan amendments for consistency with 17 preexisting plan provisions.39 18 Specifically, LMI alleges Ordinance No. 98-339's amended policies of "providing for 19 compact urban growth" are inconsistent with the following preexisting 1994 Woodway Comprehensive Plan policies, text, and maps: 20 21 C12 —Preserve wooded areas and low density residential development. Ex. 20, at 12. 22 LU1 — Preserve the character of Woodway by maintaining existing land use Z3 categories and zoning districts. Ex. 20, at 19. 24 LU2 — Preserve an abundance of light and air through the continued low density 25 residential development and absence of commercial and industrial uses. Ex. 20, at 19. 26 27 39 The Board notes that it may not rule on Plan policies that were not amended by the challenged 28 Ordinances; however, the Board may conclude that amended policies are inconsistent with pre-existing policies. The means by which an inconsistency is eliminated is within the local jurisdiction's discretion, 29 subject to the requirements of the GMA. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8✓99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 39/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 LU4 — Maintain current zoning districts and other regulations to accommodate 2 limited population growth. Ex. 20, at 19. 3 H1 — Add new development in keeping with the character of existing development 4 as demand occurs. Ex. 20, at 33. 5 H3 — Attempt to accommodate housing needs as they arise with sensitivity to historic character, residential density, and changes in the demographic 6 composition. Ex. 20, at 33. 7 Land Use Element, Land Use Inventory and Analysis (stating that existing land use 8 : designations and zoning permit single family residential uses on lots no smaller 9 ; than one-third acre and that development under existing land use designations and zoning would meet the Town of Woodway's population allocation). Ex. 20, at 14. to Land Use Element, Future Needs and Land Use Alternatives (discussing a "likely 11 development scenario" for the future in which no lots are smaller than one-third 12 acre). Ex. 20, at 17-18 13 Capital Facilities Element, Existing Conditions (stating that the Comprehensive Sewer Plan assumed existing zoning, with no lots smaller than one-third acre). Ex. 14 20, at 24. is Housing Element, Inventory and Analysis (assuming the continuance of existing, 16 low density development patterns). Ex. 20, at 31-32. 17 Utilities Element (assuming the continuance of existing, low density development patterns in determining that adequate utility capacity exists). Ex. 20, at 34. 18 19 Development Potential Map (showing low density development throughout the Town). Ex. 20, at 40. 20 Comprehensive Plan Map (showing low density development throughout the 21 Town). Ex, 20, at 41. 22 • LMI PHB, at 52-54. 23 Each of the policies, text, and maps identified by LMI in Woodway's existing Plan Za contemplates only low-density residential development. The policies amended by Ordinance No. 98-339 require Woodway to "provide for compact urban growth 25 consistent with the policies of this plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act." 26 Except for the amended policies, the Plan assumes a continuation of the City's historic low-density residential development; the Plan is devoid of even the possibility of the 27 "compact urban growth" called for in the policies amended by Ordinance No. 98-339. 28 The policies amended by Ordinance No. 98-339 to "provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act." 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Sound page 40/57 Growth Management Hearings Board The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 • (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 and the preexisting 1994 Woodway Comprehensive Plan policies, text, and maps identified 2 : by LMI to "maintain" and "preserve" the existing pattern of low-density residential 3 development are inconsistent. Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 4 Findings of Fact 5 The Board finds: 6 46. Ordinance No. 98-339 amended four goals or policies of the Plan and the explanatory 7 text or discussion was modified in three places. Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 3, at 2-3. 8 47. The amendatory language of Ordinance No. 98-339 is unclear; it can be subject to 9 several interpretations. Compare: Ex. 20, at 20, with Ex. 180, Sec. 3(1); Ex. 20, at 14, with Ex. 180, Sec. 3(I); and Ex. 20, at 19, with Ex. 180, Sec. 3(j). Also, the goals 10 I and policies, as amended, can be subject to two interpretations. Compare: Ex. 180, Sec. 3(g), (h), (k) and (1). 11 i 48. The challenged goals, policies and text share a common theme: continue and sustain 12 Woodway's historic low density residential development "where appropriate and provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of [Woodway's] plan 13 and the goals of the Growth Management Act." Ex. 180, Ordinance No. 98-339, Sec. 14 3(g), (h), (k) and(1). 49. Woodway's amended goal, policies and text are intended to provide for "compact 15 urban development." The Board has determined in Legal Issue No. 1 that Woodway's 60.8-acre UR designation does not provide for"compact urban growth" at appropriate 16 urban densities. 17 50. In describing the character of Woodway, Ordinance No. 98-338 indicates that it is a large-lot, low-density community and that in Woodway "the average lot size is 1.7 18 I acres." Ex. 179, Ordinance 98-338, at 2 19 51. Ordinance No. 98-338 provides that "[a]ny proposed uses in the Special Study Area should protect the (sic) maintain the town's residential character and the natural 20 features of the town." Ex. 179, Ordinance No. 98-338, at 3. 52. Ordinance No. 98-338 seeks to continue the large-lot, low-density residential 21 character of Woodway without providing for compact urban growth as set forth in 22 Ordinance No. 98-339. Exs. 179 and 180. 53. Woodway's amended goal, policies and text, as set forth in Ordinance No. 98-339, are 23 intended to provide for "compact urban development." Each of the preexisting r24 policies, text, and maps in the 1994 Woodway Comprehensive Plan, identified by LMI, contemplates only low-density residential development and does not provide for 25 compact:urban growth. LMI PHB, at 52-54. 26 27 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Sound 41/57 Growth Management Hearings Board page The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • Conclusions of Law 21 31 The Board concludes: 4 37. The language of the amended goals, policies and text is ambiguous. Because of this ambiguity, the Board will remand the amendatory language "where appropriate and 5 provide for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the 6 goals of the Growth Management Act" to Woodway with instructions to clarify that the meaning of this language is that low-density development is appropriate only as a 7 description of existing development and any new development or redevelopment shall 8 consist of compact urban growth consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA. 9 38. Ordinance No. 98-339 is internally inconsistent, and does not comply with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble). The UR designation adopted in Ordinance No. 98-339 is 10 inconsistent with the goals, policies and text amended by Ordinance No. 98-339. The 11 I Board will remand Ordinance No. 98-339 to Woodway with direction to remove the internal inconsistencies consistent with this Order, specifically Legal Issue 1, and 12 consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA. Woodway's actions were 13 clearly erroneous. 39. Ordinance No. 98-338 is inconsistent with Ordinance No. 98-339, and does not 14 comply with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble). The criteria (SSAC) adopted for the Subarea Plan by Ordinance No. 98-338, are inconsistent with the goal, policies and is text amended by Ordinance No. 98-339. The Board will remand Ordinance No. 98- 16 338 to Woodway with direction to either repeal the Special Study Area Criteria (SSAC) and the Subarea Plan or amend the SSAC to provide for compact urban 17 growth within the Subarea at appropriate urban densities. Woodway's actions were 18 clearly erroneous. 40. RCW 36.70A.070 provides that a comprehensive plan"shall be an internally consistent 19 document." Amendments to a plan are not exempt from this requirement and must not 20 result in an internally inconsistent plan. RCW 36.70A.130(1). 41. For internal consistency challenges pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070(preamble), it is 21 i appropriate and necessary for the Board to review plan amendments for consistency with preexisting plan provisions. 22 42. Ordinance No. 98-339 and the unamended preexisting Woodway 1994 Plan Policies are inconsistent, and do not comply with RCW 36.70A.070(preamble). The goal, 23 policies and text amended by Ordinance No. 98-339, "provide for compact urban 24 growth consistent with the policies of this plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act." The preexisting 1994 Woodway Comprehensive Plan policies, 25 text, and maps, identified by LMI, are to "maintain" and "preserve" the existing 26 pattern of low-density residential development. These goals and policies are inconsistent. The Board will remand Woodway's Plan, as amended, with direction 27 to remove the inconsistencies between the amended policies of Ordinance No. 98-339 28 and the existing 1994 Woodway Comprehensive Plan policies, consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA. Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Sound page 42/57 Growth Management Hearings Board The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1 E. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 5 2 3 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issues No. 5: 4 i Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.210 when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, because these Plan amendments 5 are inconsistent with: 6 (a) Policies RG-1, RG-1.2, RG 1.3, RG-1.4, RG-1.5, RG-1.7, RH-4.2, Ru-II- 4.3, RH-4.5, RT-8, RT-8.17, RT-8.18, RT-8.20, and RT-8 25 of Vision 2020 7 (1995 update); and (b) Policies UG-5, UG-8, UG-9, OD-1, OD-2, HO-2, HO-3, HO-4, HO-5, 8 HO-7, HO-12, HO-13, HO-1 S, HO-16, and TR-12 of the Countywide 9 Planning Policies for Snohomish County? to Applicable Law and Discussion tl RCW 36.70A.210(1) provides, in relevant part: 12 For the purposes of this section, a "county-wide planning policy" is a written 13 policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a county-wide to framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter. This framework shall ensure that city and county 1s comprehensive plans are consistent as required by RCW 36.70A.100. 16 In interpreting this provision of the GMA, this Board has stated: 17 . The CPP "framework" of.210(1) is to ensure the consistency(required by .100) of 18 the comprehensive plans of cities and counties that have common borders or 19 related regional issues. Snoqualmie v. King County (Snoqualmie), CPSGPHB Case No. 93-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order(March 1, 1993), at 8. 20 Comprehensive plans must be consistent with county-wide planning policies. 21 1 Vashon-Maury v. King County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-008c, Final Decision 22 and Order(October 23, 1995), at 34. 23 Consistency means that provisions are compatible with each other, that.they fit together properly. In other words, one provision may not thwart another. i24 Consistency can also mean more than one policy not being a roadblock for 25 another; it can also mean that policies of a comprehensive plan, for instance, must work together in a coordinated fashion to achieve a common goal. West Seattle 26 Defense Fund v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case No. 94-3-0016, Final Decision 27 and Order(April 4, 1995), at 27. 28 RCW 36.70A.210(7) provides: 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget Sound 43/57 Growth Management Hearings Board page The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 Multicounty planning policies shall be adopted by two or more counties, each with 2 a population of four hundred fifty thousand or more, with contiguous urban areas 3 and may be adopted by other counties, according to the process established under this section or other processes agreed to among the counties and cities within the 4 ; affected counties throughout the multicounty region. s In briefing Legal Issue No. 5, LMI offered no argument regarding how Ordinance Nos. 6 98-339 or 98-338 failed to comply with Snohomish County CPP HO-4 or HO-16 and MPP RG-1.3. LMI PHB, at 54-63. Issues not briefed are abandoned. WAC 242-02- 7 570(1). a The GMA requires a city's comprehensive plan to be coordinated and consistent with the 9 comprehensive plan of the county and cities with which it has common borders or related regional issues. RCW 36.70A.100. This consistency is ensured by the framework of 10 County-wide Planning Policies (CPPs) and Multi-county Planning Policies (MPPs), where 11 I applicable. See Snoqualmie, at 7-8; and RCW 36.70A.210(7). Thus, Woodway's Plan must be consistent with Snohomish County's CPPs and with the MPPs of VISION 2020. 12 13 LMI asserts that Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are inconsistent with numerous CPPs and MPPs. LMI PHB, at 54-63. Woodway argues that compliance with CPPs and MPPs 14 "cannot be determined by this Board's review of Ordinances 98-338 and 98-339 which pertain to one property in Woodway." Woodway Response, at 58. Woodway relies on 15 Litowitz to support its position. In Litowitz, in response to a housing goal challenge . 16 (RCW 36.70A.020(4)), this Board stated that it "finds nothing in the Act to suggest that either the,. planning goal or the housing element requirements are determinative of a 17 specific land use outcome, as to any given parcel of property." Litowitz, at 19. In making 18 this statement in Litowitz, the Board was not responding to a challenge to consistency with CPPs or MPPs; Woodway's reliance on Litowitz on this issue is misplaced. The GMA 19 requires that comprehensive plans, as a whole, be consistent with CPPs and MPPs. 20 Amendments to a plan cannot cause the plan to be inconsistent. The Board holds that amendments to a comprehensive plan may not cause the comprehensive plan to be 21 inconsistent with CPPs and MPPs. 22 To determine consistency of the Plan, as amended, with the CPPs and MPPs, the Board will examine the challenged amendments to determine if, on their face, the amendments 7.3 are. inconsistent with the CPPs and MPPs identified by LMI. If the challenged 21 amendments are consistent with the identified CPPs and MPPs, LMI's challenge fails. If a challenged amendment is facially inconsistent, the Board will examine the challenged 25 amendment in the context of the entire Plan (to the extent argued by LMI) to determine if 26 the amendment causes the Plan to be inconsistent with the CPPs and MPPs identified by LMI. 27 28 LMI first alleges inconsistency with CPPs. Specifically, LMI argues that the densities permitted by the UR designation as adopted in Ordinance No. 98-339 (as illustrated in the 29 three map amendments) are inconsistent with the following CPPs: 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central Puget sound page 44/57 Growth Management Hearings Board The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle;WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 31 2 Orderly Development CPPs: OD-1 and OD-2; 3 Housing CPPs: HO-2, HO-3, HO-5, HO-7, HO-13, and HO-15; Urban Growth CPPs: UG-5, UG-8, and UG-9; and 4 Transportation CPP: TR-12. 5 j LMI PHB, at 56-61 6 ! The amended map designations argued by LMI are not facially inconsistent with the Housing CPPs cited by LMI. The cited Housing CPPs generally address affordable 7 housing concerns and encourage the use of innovative land use techniques; nothing in the 8 I map amendments of Ordinance No. 98-339 or the Subarea designation of Ordinance No. 9 98-338 is, on its face, inconsistent with the Housing CPPs cited by LMI. LMI PHB, at 57- 59; and Ex. 195, at 13-15. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how 10 i Woodway's map or subarea plan designations (Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338) are inconsistent with Snohomish County's CPPs for Housing. 11 12 Also, the amended Plan provisions argued by LMI are not facially inconsistent with the Urban Growth CPPs or the Transportation CPP. CPPs UG-5, UG-8, UG-94° and TR-12 13 pertain to encouraging transit and public transportation. LMI PHB, at 59-61; and Ex. 195, at 5-6 and 27. Nothing in the map designations or Subarea Plan (Ordinances No. 98-339 14 and 98-338) is facially inconsistent with these CPPs. LMI has failed to meet its burden 15 of proof in showing how Woodway's map amendments or Subarea designation (Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338) are inconsistent with Snohomish County's CPPs for 16 Urban Growth dr Transportation. 17 Likewise, CPP OD-1 requires Woodway to "[p]romote development within urban growth 18 areas" and to "[i]dentify six year growth areas geographically within each UGA or establish policies which direct growth consistent with the land use and capital facilities 19 element to meet state law." LMI PHB, at 56-57; and Ex. 195, at 8. LMI has failed to 20 meet its burden of proof in showing how the urban density provisions of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are'inconsistent with the direction of CPP OD-1. However, CPP OD- 21 2 requires Woodway's Plan to "include strategies and land use policies to achieve urban 22 densities . . . ." LMI PHB, at 56; and Ex. 195, at 8. As argued by LMI, and previously determined by the Board, Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 do not provide for 23 appropriate urban densities. Therefore, the amended Plan provisions are facially inconsistent with CPP OD-2. 24 25 In examining the amendments in the context of the entire Plan, the Board concludes that the Plan,as amended by Ordinance No. 98-338, contemplates only low-density residential 26 development; the Plan as amended by Ordinance No. 98-339's UR designation does not 27 provide for compact urban growth at urban densities. Therefore, the Plan, as amended, does not "include strategies and land use policies to achieve urban densities." The only 28 4° CPP UG-9 relates to "planning for urban centers and mixed use developments." Ex. 195, at 6. This 29 CPP has no relevance to the challenged amendments. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound • 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 45/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 ( 2 provisions in the Plan that contemplate urban densities are the goal, policy and text amendments adopted in Ordinance No. 98-339.41 However, nowhere in the Plan, as 3 ; amended, are there strategies and land use policies to achieve urban densities. The amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, when considered in the 4 context of the entire Plan, as amended, are inconsistent with Snohomish County CPP 5 OD-2. The Board will remand the Ordinances with direction to Woodway to remove the inconsistency with Snohomish County CPP OD-2. 6 7 LMI next alleges inconsistency with MPPs. Specifically, LMI argues that the densities permitted by the UR designation, map amendments, adopted in Ordinance No. 98-339 are 8 inconsistent with the following MPPs: 9 " Housing MPPs: RH-4, RH-4.2, RH-4.3 and RH-4.5; 10 Urban Growth Area MPPs: RG-1, RG-1.2, RG-1.3, RG-1.4, RG-1.5 and RG-1.7; and 11 Transportation MPPs: RT-8.17, RT-8.18, RT-8.20 and RT-8.25. 12 LMI PHB, at 61-63. 13 The amended Plan provisions argued by LMI are not facially inconsistent with the Housing MPPs identified by LMI. The cited Housing MPPs address affordable housing ..14 issues; nothing,in.the map designations or Subarea Plan (Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98- 15 338) is facially inconsistent with the cited affordable housing MPPs. LMI PHB, at 62; and Ex. 193, at 32, 16 17 Also, the amended Plan provisions argued by LMI are not facially inconsistent with the Urban Growth or the Transportation MPPs. The Urban Growth and Transportation 1s MPPs address the relationship between land use and transportation Nothing in Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 is facially inconsistent with these MPPs. LMI has failed to meet 19 its burden of proof in showing how the amendments to Woodway's Plan, as contained in 20 Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, are inconsistent with these'MPPs. LMI PHB, at 61- 63; and Ex. 193, at 20, 21, 59 and 62. 21 1 . 22 Findings of Fact 23 The Board finds: 24 54. LMI has failed to brief Legal Issue No. 5, regarding how Ordinance Nos. 98-339 or 98-338 failed to comply with Snohomish County CPP HO-4 or HO-16; and MPP RG- 25 1.3. LMI PHB, at 54-63. 26 55. The cited Housing CPPs generally address affordable housing concerns and encourage the use of innovative land use techniques. Ex. 195, at 13-15. 27 56. The cited Urban Growth and Transportation CPPs pertain to encouraging transit and 28 public transportation. Ex. 195, at 5-6 and 27. 29 41 See:Supra, at 7-8 or 37-38 for the complete text of these amendments. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Pug 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Central et ound Growth Management Hearings B Board page 46/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 11 . t 2 57. The cited Orderly Development CPP OD-1 addresses promoting development within the UGA. Ex. 195, at 8. 3 58. The cited Orderly Development CPP OD-2 requires Woodway's Plan to include strategies and land use policies to achieve urban densities. Ex. 195, at 8-9. 4 59. The cited Housing MPPs generally address affordable housing concerns. Ex. 193, at s 32. 60. The cited Urban Growth and Transportation MPPs generally address the relationship 6 ` between land use and transportation. Ex. 193, at 20, 21, 59 and 62. 71 Conclusions of Law 8 The Board concludes: 9 10 j 43. Pursuant to WAC 242-02-570(1), LMI has abandoned its challenge to Woodway's compliance with RCW 36.70A.210; specifically consistency with CPP HO-4 and HO- 11 16 and MPP RG-1.3. 44. Amendments to a comprehensive plan may not cause the comprehensive plan to be 12 inconsistent with CPPs and MPPs. 13 45. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are inconsistent with the cited Snohomish County's CPPs for Housing, 14 Urban Growth, Transportation, and Orderly Development CPP OD-1. Woodway's 15 actions were not clearly erroneous. 46. Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are facially inconsistent with Snohomish County 16 CPP OD-2,• since they do not provide for urban densities. In the context of Woodway's entire Comprehensive Plan, the Plan, as amended,. does not "include 17 strategies and land use policies to achieve urban densities." The Board will remand 18 Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 and direct Woodway to remove the inconsistency with CPP OD-2. Woodway's action was clearly erroneous. 19 j 47. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how the amendments to 20 Woodway's Plan, as contained in Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, are inconsistent with the cited MPPs in Vision 2020, for Housing, Growth and Transportation. 21 t Woodway's actions were not clearly erroneous. 22 F. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 6 23 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issues No. 6: 24 Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.100 .when it 25 adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 because these Plan amendments 26 are inconsistent with Policy PE-1.A.2, Goal LU-2, Objective LU-2.A, LU-2.A.3, Goal HO-1, Objective HO-1.B, Policy HO-1.B.1, Policy HO-1.B.2, Objective 27 HO-1.C, Policy HO-1.C3, Objective HO-1.D, Policy HO-1.D.1, Policy HO- 28 1.D.2, Policy HO-1.D.3, Goal HO-3, Objective HO-3.A, Policy HO-3.A.1, Policy HO-3.A-2, Policy HO-3.A.4, Goal UT-1 and Objective UT-1.B of the 29 Snohomish County General Policy Plan? 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 47/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 1 2 Applicable Law and Discussion 3 � RCW 36.70A.100 provides: 4 5 The comprehensive plan of each . . . city. . . shall be coordinated with, and consistent with, the comprehensive plans . . . of other counties or cities with which 6 the county or city has, in part, common borders or related regional issues. In briefing Legal Issue No. 6, LMI offered no argument regarding how Ordinance Nos. 8 98-339 or 98-338 fail to be consistent with Snohomish County General Policy Plan Policies PE-1.A.2 or HO-3.A.2. Issues not briefed are abandoned. WAC 242-02-570(1). 9 10 ! The GMA requires Woodway's Plan to be consistent with Snohomish County's GMA Plan. RCW 36.70A.100. As was discussed in Legal Issue Nos. 4 and 5, consistency 11 j means the respective policies must work together and cannot thwart one another. The same consistency test applies in evaluating plans of adjacent jurisdictions for consistency; 12 the Board will examine the challenged amendments to determine if, on their face, the 13 amendments are inconsistent with the Snohomish County General Plan policies identified by LMI. If the challenged amendments are consistent with the identified Snohomish 14 County Plan policies, LMI's challenge fails. If the challenged amendments are facially 15 inconsistent, the Board will examine the challenged amendment in the context of the entire Plan (to the extent argued by LMI) to determine if the amendment causes the Plan to be 16 inconsistent with the Snohomish County General Plan policies identified by LMI. • 17 LMI argues that Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 are inconsistent with numerous 18 Snohomish County General Plan policies because the Ordinances "preclude urban, affordable and transit supporting residential development on the only large, undeveloped 19 parcel remaining in the Town." LMI PHB, at 65. Woodway counters that LMI has not 20 explained how the Ordinances are inconsistent with the various Snohomish County General Plan Policies; therefore, LMI has not met its burden of proof. Woodway 21 Response, at 64-66. The Board is not persuaded by the arguments of LMI. 22 LMI asserts that the Ordinances are inconsistent with the following goals, objectives and 23 policies of the Snohomish County General Plan: 24 Urban Growth in Urban Areas Policies: HO-1.D, LU-2, LU-2.A, HO-1.D.3 and ` HO-1.D.1; 25 Housing Policies: HO-1, HO-1.B, LU-2.A.3, HO-1.B.2, HO-1.B.1, HO-1.C, HO- 26 1.D.2 and HO-1.C.3; Permitting Policies: HO-3, HO-3.A and HO-3.A.1; 27 Critical Area Mapping Policies: HO-3.A.4; and 28 Utility Policies: UT-1 and UT-1.B. LMI PHB, at 63-67. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 48/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 F fa, • 11 2 The cited Urban Growth in Urban Areas policies generally speak to providing adequate land within the UGA, providing for infill and a mix of housing opportunities. Ex. 196, at 3 HO-5 and LU-6. The housing policies address the need to provide various types of affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. Ex. 196, at HO-3,4,5 4 and LU-6. The Permitting and Utility policies encourage efficient permit processing to 5 minimize costs and efficient provision of utility services. Ex. 196, at HO-6,7 and UT-2 and 3. The Critical Area Mapping policy encourages the pursuit of mapping to provide 6 the most current information available. Ex. 196, at HO-7. Nothing in the map, text or subarea plan amendments contained in Ordinance Nos. 98-339 or 98-338 is facially inconsistent with the Snohomish County General Plan policies cited by LMI. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how Woodway's map, text or subarea plan amendments are inconsistent with the cited Snohomish County General Plan Policies. 9 Woodway's actions were not clearly erroneous. 10 Findings of Fact 11 The Board finds: 12 13 61. LMI has failed to brief Legal Issue No. 6 regarding how Ordinance Nos. 98-339 or 98-338 fail to be consistent with Snohomish County General Policy Plan Policies PE- 14 1.A.2 or HO-3.A.2. LMI PHB, at 63-67. is 62. The cited Urban Growth in Urban Areas policies speak to providing adequate land within the UGA, providing for infill and a mix of housing opportunities. Ex. 196, at 16 HO-5 and LU-6. 63. The cited housing policies address the need to provide various types of affordable 17 housing for all economic segments of the population. Ex. 196,.at HO-3,4,5 and LU-6. 18 64. The cited Permitting and Utility policies encourage efficient permit processing to minimize costs and efficient provision of utility services. Ex. 196, at HO-6,7 and UT- 19 2 and 3. 20 65. The Critical Area Mapping policy encourages the pursuit of mapping to provide the most current.information available. Ex. 196, at HO-7. 21 22 Conclusions of Law 23 The Board concludes: 24 • 48. Pursuant to WAC 242-02-570(1), LMI has abandoned its challenge to Woodway's 25 compliance with RCW 36.70A.100, specifically consistency with Snohomish County 26 General Plan Policies PE-1.A.2 or HO-3.A.2. 49. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how Woodway's map, text or 27 subarea plan amendments are facially inconsistent with the cited Snohomish County 28 General Plan Policies. Woodway's actions were not clearly erroneous. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 49/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 G. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 7 3 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 7: 4 Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.070(1), (2) and(6) when it adopted Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, because the Plan 5 amendments (a)fail to designate land for development at urban densities where 6 ' appropriate; (b) fail to identify sufficient land for housing, including, government assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured 7 housing, multi family housing and group homes and foster care facilities and 8 to make adequate provision for existing and projected needs of all economic i segments of the community; and (c) fail to plan for transportation facilities, 9 ' including transit, to serve urban densities? to Applicable Law and Discussion 11 RCW 36.70A.070 provides, in relevant part: 12 Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the 13 ' following: 14 (1) A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and 15 general location and extent of the uses of land, where appropriate, for. . . 16 . housing, commerce, industry, recreation, open spaces . . . public utilities, public facilities and other land uses. The land use element shall include 17 population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth. . . . 18 (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established 19 residential neighborhoods that: (c) identifies sufficient land for housing. . . and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all 20 economic segments of the community. 21 . . . (6) A transportation element . . . 22 LMI argues that in adopting Ordinance No. 98-339, Woodway failed to comply with the 23 mandatory requirements for the land use, housing and transportation elements. Regarding 24 Ordinance No. 98-338, Petitioners assert noncompliance with the GMA's requirements for a housing element. LMI PHB, at 67-68. Woodway responds that Petitioners' 25 arguments challenge the 1994 comprehensive plan, which they are not entitled to appeal in 26 this proceeding. Woodway Response, at 67. 27 The cited sections of the GMA set forth the mandatory elements of a comprehensive plan and detail, to varying degrees, the required components of each element. These 28 requirements are to be met and maintained when comprehensive plans are adopted and as 29 various elements are amended. The Board holds that when a plan revision amends 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 50/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 4 x, 2 one of the mandatory elements set forth in RCW 36.70A.070, the element, as amended, must comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070. 3I Ordinance No. 98-339 amends only one mandatory element of Woodway's Plan, the land a use element, including the future land use map. In Legal Issue 1, the Board found that the 5 ! amendments to the land use element, particularly the UR designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map accomplished by Ordinance No. 98-339, did not comply with 6 Goal 1 and Goal 2 (RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (2)). In this context, RCW 36.70A.070(1) 7 imposes a similar, but separate, duty to include a plan, scheme or design to designate land for urban growth at appropriate urban densities. Woodway has not done this. The Board 8 i finds that Ordinance No. 98-339's UR designation does not comply with RCW 36.70A.070(1) since the amended plan fails to designate the Plan Amendment Area to 9 i accommodate urban.growth at appropriate urban densities. The land use element, 10 including the Comprehensive Plan Map, will be remanded to Woodway with directions to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(1). 11 , lz Ordinance No. 98-338 adopts a Subarea Plan, with development criteria (SSAC) for the Subarea. The Subarea Plan is incorporated into the Woodway Comprehensive Plan. 13 Subarea plans are optional elements that may be included in comprehensive plans, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.080(2). However, once a city decides to adopt a subarea plan la for the purpose of guiding land use decision-making, the subarea plan must be adopted as 15 part of the comprehensive plan. Subarea plans are "subject to the goals and requirements of the Act and must be consistent with the comprehensive plan." West Seattle Defense 16 Fund v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0073, Final Decision and Order (Apr. 17 2, 1996), at 25. 18 As a practical matter, the only "mandatory" component for a Subarea Plan is a map, legal description or other notation clearly depicting the boundaries of the subarea to be affected 19 by the subarea plan. Typically, a subarea plan would refine the jurisdiction's 20 comprehensive plan provisions, and policies for a specific geographic subarea within a jurisdiction. Thus, a subarea plan for a city may refine the land use, housing, utility, 21 capital facility or transportation policies or projects affecting the subarea. However, these refinements must be consistent with the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and comply with 22 the goals and requirements of the Act. Where the subarea plan modifies only certain 23 i portions of the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan for the subarea, the unaffected provisions of the comprehensive plan continue to apply and govern in the subarea. The Board holds 24 that when a subarea plan refines one of the mandatory elements of the jurisdiction's zs comprehensive plan the requirements set forth in RCW 36.70A.070 apply to that subarea plan. 26 27 Woodway's Subarea Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 98-338, includes policy direction listed under the following headings: Framework, Purpose, Criteria for Residential 28 Development, Character, Land Use, Site Ecology, Utilities, Transportation and Public Services. Ex. 179, at 1-5. Although there is no specific heading for housing, the heading 29 of Criteria for Residential Development implies an intention to direct housing decisions, 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 51/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle;WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 , .mac �• 2 therefore suggesting refinements to the housing element. However, the only evidence LMI points to in support of its challenge to Ordinance No. 98-338's compliance with the 3 housing element, are citations to the 1994 Woodway Comprehensive Plan, not the provisions of Ordinance No. 98-338.42 LMI PHB, at 68. Consequently, LMI has failed 4 to meet its burden of proof in showing how Ordinance No. 98-338 failed to comply with 5 the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(2). 6 Findings of Fact 7 The Board finds: 8 ' 66. Ordinance No. 98-339 does not amend the housing or transportation element of 9 Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. Ex. 180. 10 67. Ordinance No. 98-339 amends the land use element, particularly the UR designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map, of Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. Ex. 180. 11 68. Ordinance No. 98-338 incorporates a Subarea Plan into Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. Ex. 179. 12 i 69. Ordinance No. 98-338, by implication, refines Woodway's housing element. Ex. 179. 13 i 70. To support its challenge to Ordinance No. 98-338's compliance with RCW 36.70A.070(2), LMI relied upon Woodway's existing Comprehensive Plan. LMI 14 PHB, at 68. 15 Conclusions of Law 16 The Board concludes: 17 • la 50. When a plan revision amends one of the mandatory elements set forth in RCW 36.70A.070, the element, as amended, must comply with the requirements of RCW 19 36.70A.070. 51. Ordinance No. 98-339 does not amend the housing or transportation element of 20 Woodway's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, RCW 36.10A.070(2) and (6) are.not 21 I applicable to Woodway's action. 52. Ordinance No. 98-339's UR designation does not comply with RCW 36.70A.070(1), 22 since the Plan, as amended, fails to designate the Plan Amendment Area to accommodate urban growth at appropriate urban densities. 7.3 53. The land use element, including the Comprehensive Plan Map (future land use map), 24 � as amended, of Woodway's Comprehensive Plan will be remanded to Woodway with directions to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(1). Woodway's 25 actions were clearly erroneous. 26 54. When a subarea plan refines one of the mandatory elements of the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan the requirements set forth in RCW 36.70A.070 apply to that 27 subarea plan. 28 42 Likewise, amicus curiae AWB refers to current residential zoning and lot size as not complying with 29 RCW 36.70A.070(2),not provisions of Ordinance No. 98-338. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Board Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings page 52/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 a " 11 2I 55. LMI has failed to meet its burden of proof in showing how Ordinance No. .98-338 failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(2). The Board is not 3 persuaded that, regarding RCW 36.70A.070(2), Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 4 5 ; H. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 3 6 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 3: Did the Town of Woodway fail to comply with RCW 36.70A.160 when it 8 adopted Ordinance No. 98-339, which identified without compensation approximately 50.5 acres of the property as an open space corridor which may 9 not be developed? 10 Applicable Law and Discussion 11 RCW 36.70A.160 provides: 12 13 Each county and city . . . shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, ..14 trails, and connection of critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030. Identification of a corridor under this. section . . . shall not restrict the use or is management of lands within the corridor for agricultural or forestry purposes. 16 Restrictions on the use or management of such lands for agriculture or forest purposes imposed after identification solely to maintain or enhance the value of 17 i such lands as a corridor may occur only if the county .or.city acquires sufficient 18 interest to prevent development of the lands or to control the resource development of the lands. The requirement for acquisition of sufficient interest 19 does not include those corridors regulated by the interstate commerce commission, under provisions of 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d), 16 U.S.C, Sec. 1248 or 43 U.S.C. 20 Sec 912. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to alter the authority of the 21 state, or a county or city, to regulate land use activities. The city or county may acquire by donation or purchase the fee simple or 22 lesser interests in these open space corridors using funds authorized by RCW 84.34.230 or other sources. 23 • 24 LMI argues that in adopting Ordinance No. 98-339, Woodway improperly identified 50.3 acres of property as an open space corridor, since the property is an offshoot of, but not 25 part of, the north/south wildlife habitat corridor. Further, Petitioners assert that .160 26 cannot be used to prohibit all development of the property. LMI PHB, at 48-49. Woodway counters, citing numerous provisions of the FEIS and expert testimony, that the 27 record supports the identification of the property as an open space corridor and therefore 28 supports Woodway's decision to prohibit development on the property. Woodway Response, at 52-55. 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 53/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 i .4' • . 2 RCW 36.70A.160 clearly requires Woodway to identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. The open space corridors identified must include lands 3 useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connections of designated critical areas. Here, the record, as cited by Woodway, supports Woodway's planning effort to identify 4 the area as an open space corridor. Woodway has complied with RCW 36.70A.160's 5 requirement to identify open space corridors. 6 ` RCW 36.70A.160 encourages the acquisition43 of identified open space corridors, and 7 addresses procedures for imposing restrictions on agricultural and forestry lands in such areas, and emphasizes that "[n]othing in this section shall be interpreted to alter the 8 ; authority of the. . . city, to regulate land use activities." Thus, while .160 requires identification of open space corridors, it does not require regulating to protect open space 9 corridors, it does not provide that mere identification is protection of an open space to corridor, nor does it provide an independent source of authority for regulating land use activities within an open space corridor. Any authorized land uses, or limitation, 11 restriction, or prohibition of land uses Woodway might choose to employ within an 12 identified open space corridor must be grounded in separate legal authority, not RCW 36.70A.160. 13 Findings of Fact 14 is The Board finds: 16 71. The record supports identification of the property as an open space corridor. Ex. 33, Vol. III, at 10-11, Ex. 117, at 93-95 and Ex. 180, at Section 1. d. 17 72. Ordinance No. 98-339 identified an open space corridor. Exs: 180 and 181, at.7 and 18 15. I 19 Conclusions of Law • 20 i • The Board concludes: 21 • 56. RCW 36.70A.160 requires Woodway to identify open space corridors within and 22 between urban growth areas. 57. Woodway's adoption of Ordinance No. 98-339, that identifies an open space corridor, 23 complies with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.160. 24 58. RCW 36.70A.160 does not require regulating open space corridors or provide an independent source of authority for regulating land use activities within an identified 25 open space corridor. 26 27 28 • 43 The Board notes that discussions occurred regarding acquisition of some or all of the property, but the 29 discussions concluded unsuccessfully. Exs. 50, 100, 188,and LMI Reply,at 33. 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 54/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • 4 I I. • Iv 2 I. LEGAL ISSUE NO. 9 3 The Board's prehearing order set forth Legal Issue No. 9: 4 Does the Town of Woodway's enactment of Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338, 5 which amend its Plan, substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of RCW 36.70A.020(1), (2), (3), (4) and (6), within the meaning of RCW 6 ' 36.70A.302(1)(b)? 7 Applicable Law and Discussion 8r RCW 36.70A.302 provides in relevant part: 9h (1) A board may determine that part or all of a comprehensive plan or 10 development regulations are invalid if the board: 11 (a) Makes a finding of noncompliance and issues an order of remand under RCW 36.70A.300; 12 (b) Includes in the final order a determination, supported by findings of 13 fact and conclusions of law, that the continued validity of part or parts of the plan or regulation would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of 14 the goals of this chapter; and (c) Specifies in the final order the particular part or parts of the plan or 15 regulation that are determined to be invalid, and the reasons for their 16 invalidity. 17 Conclusion 18 • 19 59. The Board has found that Ordinance Nos. 98-339 and 98-338 do not comply with several provisions of the Growth Management Act. While Woodway's noncompliance 20 is a serious matter, the continued validity of these enactments for the four month 21 period of remand will not substantially interfere with the fulfillment-of Goals 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 of the Act. Consequently, at this time, the Board will not enter a determination of 22 invalidity. However, the Board will advise the Governor of Woodway's noncompliance; 'if compliance is not achieved within the compliance timeframe, the 23 Board will reconsider the question of invalidity and a recommendation for sanctions. 24 V. ORDER 25 Based upon review of the Petition for Review, the briefs and exhibits submitted by the 26 parties, having considered the arguments of the parties, and having deliberated on the 27 matter the Board Orders: 28 1. Woodway's Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance Nos. 98-338 and 98-339, 29 does not comply with: a) RCW 36.70A.020(1) and (2); b) RCW 8312FDO.DOC .1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 55/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 2 36.70A.070(preamble); c) RCW 36.70A.070(1); and d) RCW 36.70A.210. With regard to these provisions of the Act, Woodway's actions were clearly erroneous. 3 � 2. In order for Woodway to achieve compliance with the Act, as set forth in this Final Decision and Order, the Board remands Woodway's Comprehensive Plan, as 5 amended, to Woodway with the following directions: 6 a) Regarding compliance as noted above in this Order at la, b, c and d, amend the map designations, as contained in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 98-339, to permit 7 appropriate urban densities consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA 8 for the entire 60.8-acre Plan Amendment Area; 9 , b) Regarding compliance as noted above in this Order at la, b and d, repeal the to Special Study Area Criteria (SSAC) and Subarea, as contained in Ordinance No. 98-338, or amend the SSAC to provide for compact urban growth within and 11 I throughout the Subarea at appropriate urban densities consistent with the goals 12 and requirements of the GMA; 13 c) Regarding compliance as noted above in this Order at la and b, amend the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, to clarify that the amendatory language, as la contained in Section 3 of Ordinance No. 98-339 ("where appropriate and provide 15 for compact urban growth consistent with the policies of this plan and goals of the Growth Management Act"), means that low density development is appropriate 16 only as a description of existing development and any new development or 17 redevelopment shall consist of compact urban growth at' appropriate urban densities, consistent with the goals and requirements of the GMA. 18 19 d) Regarding compliance as noted above in this Order at lb, remove the inconsistencies between the amended goals, policies and text, as contained in 20 Section 3 of Ordinance No. 98-339, and the Woodway Comprehensive Plan, consistent with the goals and requirements of the Act. 21 22 3. The Board directs the Town of Woodway to comply with the goals and requirements of the Act, as set forth in the Final Decision and Order, and as noted in this Order at 23 items 2a, b, c and d of this Order, by no later than May 11, 1999. Woodway is instructed to submit to the Board a "Statement of Compliance" (SOC). The SOC 24 shall include: 1) a description of the legislative actions taken to comply with the Act, 25 as directed in this FDO; and 2) copies of all legislative enactments adopted to achieve compliance with the Act, as directed in this FDO. Woodway shall provide four copies 26 of the SOC to the Board and a copy to the parties by no later that 4:00 p.m., Friday, 27 May 21, 1999, 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8✓99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 56/57 me Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 I d • • 1a 2 ' . So ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1999. 3 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD 4 5 9,44-4, 6 � Ivv` 7 Edward G. McGuire, MCP Board Member . 8f 10 . ovar, AICP Board Member 11 12 , oz. R0—...."4*-42—. I (94-A- 13 Chris Smith Towne Board Member 14 is : Note: This order constitutes a final order as specified by RCW 36.70A.300 unless a party files a motion for reconsideration pursuant to WAC 242-02-832. 16 • 17 ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 8312FDO.DOC 1/8/99 Central Puget Sound 98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order Growth Management Hearings Board page 57/57 The Financial Center,Suite 322 • 1215-4th Avenue Seattle,WA 98161-1001 (206)389-2625 • Fax:(206)389-2588 • CPSGMHB Case No. 98-3-0012, LMI/Chevron., DECLARATION OF SERVICE: I certify that I mailed a copy of the Final Decision and Order to the persons and addresses listed hereon,postage prepaid, in'a for United States mail at Seattle,Washington,on January 8, 1999. Signed: / 1q4t— -et-C p; TeL 7144271217;Fax: p; Tel. 415-89-0065;Fax:415-8942538; chg address 6/29/98 Brian Shally Malcolm McCulloch Chevron Land and Development Company Chevron USA Inc. 3100 S.Harbor Blvd., Suite 340 225 Bush Street,Room 1509 Santa Ana, CA 92704 San Francisco,CA 94104 pr; TeL 2066243600;Fax:2063891708 pr; TeL (206)448-1818;Fax:(206)448-3444 Robert I. Heller, G.Richard Hill, Graham&James L.L.P. Phillips McCullough Wilson Hill&Fisko 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 4500 2025 First Ave., Suite 1130 Seattle,WA 98154 Seattle,WA 98121 p; Tel. (425)775-8661;Fa3c:(425)778-0822 r; Tel. 206-542-4443;Fax:206-546-9453 Larry Sunquist and Michael Echelbarger Lorraine Taylor,Woodway Clerk-Treasurer Lawrence Michael Investments,L.L.C. 23920-113th Place West 7127 196th Street SW#201 -P.O.Box 958 Woodway,WA 98020 Lynnwood, WA 98046 rr; teL (206) 621-8868;Fax: (206)621-0512 rr; teL (206) 621-8868;Fax: (206)621-0512 Michael Gendler-Bricklin&Gendler David A.Bricklin -Bricklin&Gendler 1424 Fourth Avenue-Ste. 101 1424 Fourth Avenue-Ste. 101 Seattle,WA 98101 Seattle,WA 98101 rr; teL (206) 621-8868;Fax: (206) 621-0512 Amicus: 8312: teL (206)343-0681;fax. 343-0683 Jennifer A.Dold -Bricklin&Gendler Tracy Burroughs 1424 Fourth Avenue-Ste. 101 1000 Friends of Washington Seattle,WA 98101 1305 Fourth Avenue,Suite 303 Seattle,WA 98101 Intervenor; teL 360-352-7800;fax 360-352-7801 Rep. ofAmicusAWB: teL 206-583-8888 Greg Overstreet --BIAW Charles E.Maduell and.Michael P. Witek McCleary Mansion Perkins Coie 111 W.21st Avenue 1201 Third Ave.,40th Floor • Olympia, WA 98501 Seattle,WA 98101-3099 page 1,8312 DOS rev.6/24/98 EASEMENT • The Grantor , Barbara Preuss , as her separate estate , for valuable consideration , does hereby convey and grant an easement for ingress, egress and utilities, over , under , through and across the easement area described below unto James L. Marenakos and Georgie M. Marenakos, husband and wife , James B. Scott and Sally A. Scott , husband and wife , and Edith Stride-Shaw and Robert Shaw , husband and wife, and their respective properties. The land over which this easement runs is described as follows : Beginning at the. intersection of the Northwesterly margin of the Pacific Coast Railroad Company ' s ( successor to Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad Company) right-of-way with the North line of Section 5 , Township 23 North , Range 5 EWM , in King County , Washington ; thence North 89 0.3 ' 45" West along said North line 150.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing along said North line Westerly- 17. 92 feet ; thence South 01 33 ' 45" West 66. 37 feet ; thence Southwesterly on a curve to the right having a radius of 93. 08 feet for a distance of 52 feet , more or less , to the center line of the creek ; thence Southeasterly along the center line of said creek to the Westerly boundary line of said abandoned railroad right-of-way ; thence Northeasterly along said West boundary line of said right-of.-way a distance of 12. 05 feet , more or less , to a point on said West boundary of the abandoned right-of-way which bears North 0 33 ' 45" East from the true point of beginning ; thence North 0 33 ' 45 " East 114. 00 feet , more or less, to true point of beginning. The easements herein granted are subject to the restriction that the established roadway cannot be extended or expanded Westerly at any time in the future . The easements hereby granted shall be for the benefit of the land now owned by Stride-Shaw, which adjoins the easement on the South, and Tracts 30 and 31 of Eldon Acres , per plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats , page 86, records of King County, Washington , now owned by Marenakos and Scott . It is intended that the easement herein granted shall run ,with the land and continue all rights and benefits granted and reserved to the first and second -1- EASEMENT - parties and the lands described in that easement dated June 6, 1950, which was recorded June 9, 1950 , under King County Auditor ' s Number 4023743. James L. Marenakos and Georgie M. Marenakos , husband and wife , are the fee owners of the following described property: The North 123 . 12 feet as measured at right angles to the North line of Tract 30, and all of Tract 31 , Eldon Acres , according to .plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats ,. page 86, in King County , Washington. SUBJECT TO : Easement for roadway over the Easterly 30 feet of the North 123. 12 feet of said Tract 30 , as disclosed by instrument recorded July 3, 1953 , under Auditor' s File Number 4359638. James B. Scott and Sally A. Scott, husband and wife , are the fee owners of the following described property : Tract 30 , E.ldon Acres , according to plat recorded in Volume 11 of Plats , page 86 , in King County , Washington , except the North 123. 12 feet thereof. Except as modified by this grant of easement , all rights and benefits as granted and conveyed by that easement dated June 6 , 1950 , recorded June 9 , 1950 ; under King County. Auditor ' s Number 40123743, shall remain in full force and effect and run with the respective lands as provided therein. DATED this day of June , 1985. Barbara Preuss • STATE OF ALASKA •) )ss. COUNTY OF ) On this day of June , 1985 , before me , the undersigned , a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska , duly commissioned and sworn personally appeared Barbara Preuss , to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument , and acknowledged to me that she signed and sealed the said instrument as her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. -2- EASEMENT WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year in this certificate above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska , residing at • -3- EASEMENT • 1 wilh S-119(iziv-rLeAJ— A24,et-)-A-- 0-v\ f-e-Co-rk-S I atM, C.I S 1 5 OPENING STATEMENT nn The City has determined upon review of reports provided by the applicant and 0' after developing mitigating measures, that the proposed subdivision will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. — a.�-1� - W- ,� I would agree with this finding if the only environmental consideration was the subdivision's impact on soil erosion. And by looking at the proposed mitigation measures, it seems that erosion was the only issue considered in great detail. — Of the 22 mitigation measures, 15 concern the natural environment. Of these 15, 13 concern mitigating erosion potential. vu-- - -�� a<;- u_ .5 Q' • I will show this morning that once the emphasis on environmental impacts is expanded to include impacts to : i wa 1. Wildlife and its habitat 2. Wetlands 3. Water Quality IAA. ✓keismAsi,t 4. And Fisheries Then it will become apparent that the proposed Labrador Venture subdivision will result in probable significant impacts to the environment and thus an EIS evaluating alternatives should be done and the proposal should be substantially modified to minimize impacts to the environment. EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES CPLAI Vtb O '. '-^ t�si c:1-e plw' \ The property in question is unlike any undeveloped acreage within Renton. It is an oasis of biological diversity within an urban environment: iQ A steep/forested ravine traverses the site and contains a year-around stream that flows into Lake Washington. -1-avi iQ The sidewalls of the ravine are about 20 to 60 feet high, with inclinations of approx. 20-40% at the western ends and about 65 to 70% in the central portion of the site. A Broadleaf Deciduous forest covers over 70% of the property and includes 7 different tree species including, Big-leaf Maple, Red alder, Madrone, Black locust, Lombardy poplar, Douglas Fir and Western red-Cedar. 512 trees with a caliper 6-inch or greater. Including trees, about 47 plant species were observed on-site by Terra Associates, a environmental consulting firm that did a wildlife and habitat evaluation of the property. .DLA-0L-A- (,tc �.,•, "Because of the vegetative diversity of this (broadleaf forest) habitat and the <) proximity to the wetlands and stream channel, this habitat is expected to have a relatively high diversity of wildlife species." lQ Contains forested wetlands -"The forested wetlands associated with the stream channel are likely to have a relatively high diversity of animal species." iQ According to the study, 116 animal species were observed or expected to reside on the Labrador property. 'cQ At one location on the property, excavations made by pileated woodpeckers were observed. This species of woodpecker is a candidate species for listing as a threatened or endangered species by Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. ,� <s,,,,� „�,. s �-�"' � -Q American Bald Eagles use the site for perching and currently are trying to .-6. �R- establish"ahest. 'Q Contains two wetlands — one that is almost % acre in size. iQ Within 300 feet of Lake Washington's shoreline. iQ 33.5% of the slopes on the site are greater than 25%. (, tom 4-tv u j iQ Portions of the site have steep slopes and the property is located in an area of the City that is shown on the Sensitive Areas maps as having the potential for medium landslide hazard, low seismic hazard, and high erosion hazard. "�Q Site is a back drop to Gene Coulon Park and is therefore visible to many people. IQ (show aerial) IMPACTS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE The potential impacts to wildlife from the proposal have not been adequately addressed in the City's environmental determination. According to the wildlife study proposed for the site, "The loss of forest habitat will reduce the vegetative structural diversity of the site, leading to a decrease in animal species diversity." And "the overall carrying capacity of the site for wildlife will be reduced by habitat conversion and removal." In addition," the proposed density of residential construction and the network of streets will form barriers preventing the free movement of animals across the property. These barriers will fragment the remaining forested habitats on the property and could isolate remaining habitats adjacent to the site." The analysis of impacts continues... "Other aspects of the proposed residential development could have adverse impacts on wildlife and habitats. Fencing of individual lots could further restrict free movement of many species,.... And "The use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides on lawns, ornamental plants, and gardens will reduce populations of insects and weeds and will lower the quality of foraging habitat for small birds and mammals that feed on insects and weed seeds. Improper use of pesticides could result in direct poisoning of small birds and mammals." And "street lighting systems ... will increase the nighttime levels of ambient light. Nocturnal species could be affected by changes in lighting..." oN ise from bars ancldevelopment and diminished water quality in the 1 ream would also impact wildlife. 2 • 4`/j:cle} }}sfad Although the report acknowledges impacts, i does not recommend mitigating measures. Reasonable efforts to protect wil life and its habitat include prohibiting construction of a ravine crossing; establishing larger buffers between development and the creek, and maintaining current zoning. (Show Preferred Plat) Eagles Visuals: Video, tree plan, picture of eagles, show color aerial The property is frequented by American Bald Eagles. There is evidence that an eagle pair is trying to establish a nest in the tallest Douglas Fir on the site, located in the backyard set-back of lot 18. (show video) An evaluation of impacts to the eagles was omitted from the environmental review. 1. Read Threatened Species paragraph. 2. Read Title 16 of the US Code regarding take and the definition of take 3. Read general elements of nest site selection 4. Summarize conversation with Region 4 Biologist with the State Fish and Wildlife Service (Steve Negri). iQ Was not surprised iQ This is the time of year for nesting activities 'cQ Build nest between Feb 1 and third week in March, lay on eggs until 20th of April, fledglings leave nest in July. iQ He advised me that prior to any clearing or construction activities, he would like to come to the site and confirm nest building activities and nest establishment. Conclusion: Evidence that sign. Impacts will occur. Consultation with Mr. Negri should be made. No activity should occur until confirmation of nesting activity is made. If nest, then plat will need to be modified to minimize disturbance. Salmon Visuals: Mention video, pictures, topo map Witnesses: Michael Moore The environmental review also omitted analysis of potential impacts to Lake Washington salmon, possible salmon recovery in Kenndydale creek and the proposal's impact on the State's Salmon recovery efforts. Salmon have been seen near the mouth of Kennydale Creek as it flows into Lake Washington. (Call Michael) As most people are aware, the Puget Sound's Chinook salmon, along with other fish species, are likely to be listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Governor Gary Locke has released a draft of Washington's 3 Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy. Parts of the plan pertinent to the plat proposal are: Increased enforcement of environmental laws. Forcing developers to protect wetlands from increased stormwater runoff. Less residential development in critical salmon habitat areas. Protecting water quality and water quantity: establish limits for water pollutants under the Clean Water Act. Support local efforts: Grant funding and technical assistance will support local efforts such as removal of fish passage barriers such as road culverts. The plat includes development along the stream's ravine slope. The proximity of residential development and the ravine road crossing substantially increase the possibility that urban contaminants such as oil, pesticides, and fertilizers will enter Kennydale Creek and thus Lake Washington. In addition, stormwater is planned to be discharged directly into the stream and within Wetland B's buffer. If the stormwater is not adequately purified in the proposed wet vaults, contaminants will affect the water quality of both the stream and wetland. Diminished water quality could impact salmon. Water quality could also be diminished by siltation caused by erosion of the ravine slopes. The ravine contains highly erodable soils and disturbance of the vegetation on the slopes could cause erosion. Conclusion: Impacts to salmon should be evaluated and mitigating measures recommended for any probable impacts. In order to protect water quality in the stream, lots should not be permitted within the ravine area (lots 6-1 tip) and the ravine in its entirety should be protected by a Native Growth Protection Easement. The ravine should not be crossed with a bridge. No human activity should be allowed in the easement. People have a tendency to significantly modified creek slopes for private use (show photos). Every effort should be made discouraged this activity. In the event the project is not modified to eliminate development on the ravine slopes, then setbacks from the homes and the ravine should be protected by a Native Growth Protection Easement. Maintenance of vegetation would minimize the possibility of pollutants traveling into the stream. The proposed outfall should be relocated to minimize impacts to the wetland and open detention ponds rather than wet vaults should be used for stormwater detention. Open ponds would provide better water cleansing. 4 OTHER ISSUES Topography / Slope Analysis Based on my observation, it appears that portions of proposed lots 6 through 11 contain slope areas in excess of 40%. How was the slope estimated? Were numerous elevation points used to estimate slope within the ravine in the area of lots 6-11? Slope averaging may have overlooked internal slope variations. (show topo, show cul de sac profile, draw example) Page 4 of the Sept. 8 1998 Geotech report: "The preliminary drawings provided to us show six of the proposed building lots (Lots 7 —12) and a roadway cul de sac situated on the slope north of the ravine. Existing slope grades in this area range between about 25 and 50%. Inconsistency, how could they be off 10%? In a subsequent report, the geoconsultant writes: " Topographic information on a Plat Map by Touma Engineers and Land Surveyors, dated November 1998, indicates that slope grades in the vicinity of Lots 7 through 12 and the cul de sac range from about 26 to 39 percent. This is generally consistent with our field observations. I request that the slope area encompassed by proposed lots 6 through 11 be resurveyed. It is my understanding that the on-site survey work was completed in May or June. During this period of time, the foliage of both trees and dense underbrush could have obscured the ground surface. At this time, the leaves have fallen or thinned and the ground surface is more visible. Confirmation of actual slopes is imperative given the soils in this area. All of the property within lots 6 — 10 and parts of lot 11 are within a "Erosion Hazard Area" as specified by the geotechnical report completed for the project (see Terra Associates Figure 2 of the Geotechnical Addendum). In addition, these lots are within an area identified in the City's Sensitive Areas Folio as "Slide Potential Area". The recent slope failure on Lake Washington Boulevard above the Burlington Northern right-of-way is evidence of slide potential in this area. This information should be attained prior to any threshold determination. If slopes are in excess of 40%, the applicant would have to either modify the proposal or apply for another variance to the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance. Reliable slope information is also necessary to carryout the geotechnical report's recommendation of maintaining a minimum distance of 15 feet between building foundations and the slope face. Traffic The traffic study did not include an analysis of trips on N 26th Street. Since this is a principle site entrance, this information should be provided. Soil / Slope Stability According to the Geotechnical report, soil conditions at the proposed crossing have not bee investigated. This should be done to determine possible impacts. Error in Fact The stream flow is not seasonal. Objection to Mitigation Measure December 29, 1998 geotech report recommends clearing and grading activities to occur May through September, not April through October as stated in the ERC recommendation. 6 CLOSING STATEMENT The labrador property contains unique biological diversity that warrants preservation. The current proposal does little to protect valuable wildlife habitat. Any development that is allowed on this property must be designed to minimize impacts to the environment. With the exception of the western reaches of the ravine, current city rules and regulations serve to protect most of the sensitive areas of the site and help safeguard the property from intense development. In an effort to bypass these safeguards, the applicant has asked for exceptions to existing regulations including a rezone and a variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance. Granting of these exceptions would result in a level of development that is not compatible with the site's environmental constraints. As proposed, the subject plat would result in significant impacts to the environment. As proposed, a threshold determination of non-significance niitigatedikis fpappr_o�riate. Governor's Salmon Recovery Office Page 1 of 2 r,7 it` 4 13*::AV e4 o 'C t Vcj f a CsVi4 Governor's Salmon Recovery Office . Welcome to the Salmon Recovery Office Home Page. This Web site provides information about the state's salmon restoration efforts and implications of the tAi' Endangered Species Act on the lives of Washingtonians. j Governor Locke has said, "extinction is not an option." Salmon are important to Washington, both culturally and economically. The Recovery Strategy (Extinction is Not an Option) is one important The Salmon piece of a three-part effort which also includes the Governor's Team budget proposal and comprehensive legislative package. The goal of"Extinction is Not an Option: A Statewide Strategy to /614: "? Recover Salmon" is to restore wild salmon and their habitat. It identifies the state's responsibilities and serves as a roadmap for weer Golu� bi local salmon recovery plans. It outlines what salmon need to recover; LRiver local communities need to be involved in how to get there. , While this document represents our first complete draft; it is still ,} 4 months away from becoming a final version. We will continue both "' ill public dialogue and our work with local government federal it agencies, the tribes and stakeholders. The Legislature will help define the level of state commitment to salmon recovery in its 1999 session now underway. This summer, we will submit a comprehensive salmon recovery strategy to the National Marine Fisheries Service. If you intend to pick up your copy of the draft strategy from the Salmon Recovery Office, you may do so after 10 a.m. on January 19. We will be mailing copies that day to those on our mailing list. Please let us know if you'd rather pick up your copy in person or if you would like to be added to our mailing list. What's New? 1. A Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon 2. Governor Locke's January 19, 1999, press release proposing water law changesto save salmon s • http://www.wa.gov/esa/ {$ (Fy>,�;f ,�. `,�rON[ � ���' ' 2/1/99 t�'`1,..f� �i..u]�t�tU Governor's Salmon Recovery Office Page 2 of 2 • o Additional Information 3. Governor Locke's State of the State Address 4. End of Year Report (Summary of Implementation of ESHB 2496) 5. Governor's proposed budget for salmon restoration: Policy Brief (issue paper), Budget Highlights and a Budget Spreadsheet 6. Governor Locke's October 19, 1998, press release announcing a $250 million federal-state conservation partnership to protect streams on agricultural lands that are home to endangered species of salmon 7. Governor Locke's October 9, 1998, speech to the Chamber Leadership Conference 8. The Governor's September 25, 1998, news release concerning the release of the working draft of the Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy 9. A letter from Governor Locke to the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet members regarding his expectations 10. The Governor's July 3, 1998, news release: Sockeye fishing agreement reached; Locke commends tribes and Canada for conservation efforts 11. The Governor's June 26, 1998, news release: Salmon agreement stresses conservation 12. Fact sheet on "The Development of a Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy" 13. Timeline 14. List of Joint Natural Resources Cabinet Members 15. Updated list of Salmon Team Members Here are upcoming key dates: Spring 1999 —This spring, when a state budget and salmon-related legislation are approved, the Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy will be further refined. The goal is to submit a comprehensive draft salmon recovery strategy to the National Marine Fisheries Service next summer. Updated: January 19, 1999 http://www.wa:gov/esa/ 2/1/99 Summary of Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy Page 1 of 6 Governor Gary Locke 1999 Policy Brief The Governor's Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy IN THE NEXT YEAR, more than three-quarters of Washington State, including urban areas in the Puget Sound region, likely will be affected by nearly 20 salmon listings under the federal Endangered Species Act. Unless the state offers a salmon restoration plan acceptable to federal authorities, the federal government will impose one of its own. Declaring that salmon extinction "is not an option," Governor Gary "The stakes are very Locke released a draft of Washington's Statewide Salmon high. The overriding Recovery Strategy, developed over the past year by the Governor's goal of our strategy is Joint Cabinet on Natural Resources to restore wild salmon and their to restore healthy and habitat without federal intervention. The long-term strategy,which abundant runs of will be submitted to the federal government next summer after salmon — and to incorporating any changes adopted by the 1999 Legislature, control our own identifies the state's responsibilities with regard to salmon and destiny." water in the years ahead. It also invites local communities and tribal governments to join in a new partnership to preserve the state's —Governor Gary Locke vital water resources in the 21st century. In unveiling the draft strategy to lawmakers in Olympia,the Governor also announced his new Water for People and Fish plan to put those strategies into action. The Governor's legislative plan calls for new laws to ensure that both Washington's growing human population—and its native salmon runs —have the fresh, clean water they need to survive. These proposals promote the wise use of Washington's finite water resources and are backed by $201 million in the state budget the Governor proposed in December to support state programs in the 1999-01 Biennium. Salmon Recovery Regions Areas with Salmon,Trout,or Steelhead that are Listed,Proposed for Listing,or have a High Potential For Future Listing Under the Endangered Species Act �,,,,� ,.,,.:,�.,- ,� .,�:<�. ^::�s;.�;a •. «+�mx?z .'s�ta�° `=w,'�"<'"?*o��-,>'7r.:<+;�ee <;•.,r,",;?d'^.�,,;�„y=w`u'.' '���;:FS ; y. Of le . Fk`iG .<. 37 �`4111111diafIVer=xSnipUll> G iit;adli,pro edaa._. f .•: s. ,:,,• � k.:.,r-�._` - • elixotliAtOps,; „ullTinutlis� 2d -s ;• rsSl.>.»2, .� .: tid3 reil"':,Ftjraa�ered E <';^:1>,•, .- - "r- .Full'(fou pN ge±'aar e.:,; r" .: .-� r':';' .IPle01sb3 G 4. ��� --� x'7•`--,:�';�'"� �� R,lk. ,,,5pfi FiLn6tnr►7�k°� � �f= _ ilab�§, r e r "tell 8 ..-C a:r Ii +7Jt-h4Nd. td(I�Blf0.d„• y� 3f.. � �'v-,�zae„ ... :.v�x�,�7,�'��r,b- z �R.,�°P�'�d� #�. 9t�-�i^a�`k':_ y� d;G`?ar ISurrvTFJ�Cl1uR1Z �g;3"i,"Ihti s�11reatenedm • .:. ;l>,�^>..,.,R4 �, y � G ar,r y,-x!;SY. {h} s t ,.,�5� �;' , s3:a yt:y gy.r`1F L pIGkD99(12fl tFitA[i33INd • rro P„Fg?, • �' • f � e.. S:;, Bull � -%��`�'>°_ ' 2,>, 'sue. - i ��^"'s?�°'' 's a,� r..A. >' s . a>- i�3�F"'"_ic�3''�,✓s. k�`-'�c `�`°'^'^"zSr � •S'.,<:., A.'+;S> . c.$. Ali i � s.,zig,n. Y�.,.,;,=}:"i0�tltfi'3#0, 'tx:k»r"' .., y ,„.- ,,; ut I�B9A�,1DF7a��Umlt�!&1�to � --9,aS�d t,04 ..Oaad `�9fs`a`ndidata° = -t'. _hg, 614tf�Mi3ti ae x.�ki:3 �°t _iS,�c���y�5::'3lr L%f�'='a>as;i:��.`�a'c'3,C?•,.�"�,'x� ��..,t:.;:�, ea. �. .. .. BuII T'I ilit e z `"�i�t,s�„V}- �y.:.,`�:. >yY ili;�iQd» .. aro, NSnk pspQd �. ,Maddl . • aa.°throti-0Y`�"'rs°t 3a < <;,. ;,s•;.��>�(�.r r::Coluinboltargr . • ,.. • y -_ Go In p¢�artLalaa°gliiea�-r �' :..�:., '�If�ad��ro• end, // '�..�'':�''`�;:"�a �yH.z ` A: {� a- iigS'4k7f""a- r ��'r�'=S'.�.�.""..d"` ��:Q4-xcx''.� @ ��,�, {�.,. r.,�;a �.'� �S(.,•�,R, • ;va f S 1 r'..,- - `C s f'r< a; + is • !.'.,t:o k t. ..�1�'-`,. ':0`-.4.4. .,4�.y �✓a 5\"�. �� �P. � ������ti "N},:Gi:`r.A �•' G�^'`�eL neNi� 04 �.. ciw��11�11 b1� , ; A; y�.4�.s, ^;a,f ' yp4 -�y�,nC>�- �v�,. R ,S.t�2`.w.^`�3?`,v; �a`„.�' c��:��-;�<_�t-c:einro3'u'',.:..�ti�?��,:'� ,�ri.�ri."': .,i.:%3.,.:.;iS?:,:>.;d;.w http://www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbrief.htm 2/1/99 Summary of Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy Page 2 of 6 ':Sbeltiaatl1"0.*itg3fistlBdAy&s`RM 1N;6!a' gp��3.;GUtIratf h r?, 'F.:rTY.anr r,n 9-N .€�° , .,Chumpropoa : z s eila�'4hraiibaned'° �; �?, Trot,f:hr�h-P4�iitgl'�1�,. �=.�°tli�irfrsd VxKt:::<.. .Chir»oF m ,d�aa'�ttirea� `d gas tat�p�°9tirea�aigd ' " llChinoohla�dara'hreatened'° i,�: ,•Bull Trout 1'� re" ` '3 z„ rs ,S�elhead I��d'ae°9treateried°. i :!,p0tihioatThitthb.06**16.611. Bull Trout t bd:ae 9hieatened"a rl' ie."threaiarad" SOURCE:Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife DECEMBER 1998 Like the state's long-term Salmon Recovery Strategy, the Governor's new policy proposals recognize that people in Washington State will have to change their ways with regard to water use—or face serious environmental and economic consequences. They also recognize that if the state succeeds in saving salmon, it also will succeed in preserving clean water for people, managing population growth, and achieving the needed balance between economic development and environmental protection. The draft strategy was a year in the making and has been reviewed twice by the National Marine Fisheries Service. A final version will be submitted to the federal government next summer, once any changes adopted by the 1999 Legislature have been incorporated into the plan. Strategy Makes Long-Term Commitment to Salmon Recovery By developing its own salmon recovery strategy, the state can maintain control and certainty over how people live and do business in Washington State. Gov. Locke's salmon initiatives represent steps the state needs to take in the next two years to move forward with a long-term recovery plan. The statewide strategy calls for: • A collaborative, incentive-based approach to salmon recovery—but one that also is coupled with increased enforcement of environmental laws. • Identifying what actions must be taken immediately to prevent extinction. • Clear performance measures for determining if restoration efforts are getting results. • Establishing an action plan that can be put into place if restoration performance goals are not met on schedule. Every Citizen Will Be Affected by Salmon Restoration Effort Restoring salmon runs will affect every resident of Washington State — even those who don't fish, don't live near streams, or don't even like to eat salmon. Whether state or federal, a salmon recovery plan will mean changes in the daily habits of Washington residents, and sacrifices will have to be made. Effects will vary because every region of the state differs in landscape, status of fish species, reasons for their decline, and the solutions necessary to restore wild salmon. The state's draft restoration plan could affect people and businesses by: • Requiring timber harvesters to leave more trees along streams to protect water quality and fish, and forcing ranchers to fence cattle away from water. • Restricting salmon fishing by shortening fishing seasons and prohibiting fishing in certain areas. • Requiring farmers to improve their irrigation systems to use less water. • Forcing developers to protect wetlands from increased stormwater runoff. • Imposing local water restrictions that could mean less water for lawns and washing cars. http://www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbrief.htm 2/1/99 Summary of Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy Page 3 of 6 • The "4 H's" of the Governor's Draft Salmon Recovery Strategy Y s er s n * AF Rre " ,,,. •r' i 11.Tf 4YN-; .-4. - • • ♦' `2 t -" •Pamt-';- • Habitat -y+ :' 2"A' .�-—" ' a , — .- 1,,- Y. r ti g - r. .,J-'y� t --= N. ' t a .i�ew. • .. . � ti• Harvest rr :y '^ :4 Leh.s: ,,A;-c:;: .. :¢Si..:.�Y ,'�n�t . ,r ie s!� ,� ._ ice,. ` �s 'a� • • ... �..r .sa:;�:':?r� 's;� 3. 3. "ems ti;:lw.t:,; t`''5�^tir`•..'. Hatcheries • ,:�a . r:- : � .r � :,.. :`- .., ., ; :yyi..if',�t-G ^Sy. - s... ''... .. S ;ti • Hydropower .... =s _. : A � -sc, ; ,...>A - •.?t n}. 'ip; ; ,• - ;may- ...-:.;''.A•. apF. .,,...p r;. :". .,,,- ��a�.�,,� y �J� �.r,•=:.y tip.. 'F-�4�'+1J4�b���ei�SIGSJ�'�]Iw.E' W.. �'H . riaA?' "E��1.'s£ - ... :' a~`Yii!r;^° k:y• :.�� .r '-'.s�..:-_'.ry]i:o:;a{y '`'•' -.1,�•ii... Habitat Is Everything To Salmon When it comes to salmon survival, protecting their habitat is everything, and salmon habitat extends beyond the streams and rivers they swim in. Habitat is the focus of the recovery strategy developed by the Governor's Joint Natural Resources Cabinet and its efforts represent the first coordinated state approach to protect this kind of habitat. Carrying out the strategy developed by the Joint Cabinet means: • More trees will be left along streams on forest lands to protect fish. • Restoring up to 4,000 miles of stream habitat in agricultural areas over the next 10 to 15 years through incentives that encourage buffers between farm lands and streams. • Less residential and commercial development in critical'salmon habitat areas. • City governments will have to develop water reuse and conservation plans that could affect how much water people can use. Golf courses might have to reuse treated wastewater instead of drilling new wells. Harvest, Hatcheries, and Hydropower • The Department of Fish and Wildlife, tribal governments and National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for fish management decisions in the state. Under the Joint Cabinet's proposed salmon recovery strategy, fisheries will be managed to ensure enough wild salmon reach spawning grounds to preserve their stocks. Smarter management of hatcheries will not only protect wild salmon stocks but http://www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbrief.htm 2/1/99 Summary of Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy Page 4 of 6 also help rebuild them. At hatcheries, emphasis will be switched from producing fish in quantity to producing those less likely to compete with wild salmon. Because hydropower projects—which are partly under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Power Planning Council—present barriers to migrating salmon runs,the Council is represented on the Joint Cabinet. The draft strategy calls for reducing the impact of dams on salmon survival and requiring compensation for the effect of those dams to boost stocks in rivers where hydropower is not a threat. Conditions will be sought for hydropower permits to change the way dams are operated. The state will oppose all proposals for new hydro projects that will harm fish. Governor's Budget Plan Supports State's Commitment The draft Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy reflects the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) requirement that a successful recovery strategy have 1) substantive protective and conservation elements, 2) a high degree of certainty that it will be implemented, and 3) a comprehensive monitoring program. A successful recovery strategy must also recognize state government responsibilities, local governments' substantial role, and the need for a partnership between federal, state, local, and tribal governments. In his 1999-01 budget proposal to the state Distribution of Water Use in Washington, Legislature, the Governor recommends 1995* committing a total of$201 million in new funds to support the state's new salmon strategy, including $99 million in federal funding. Of the total amount, $64 million is dedicated to help the state meet its .• responsibilities under the plan and $136 Indust million is earmarked to support partnerships it rig pp P p with local governments. `" Domed i. 7_9%, Funding for local governments is targeted to provide grants for local salmon restoration iuermosledrlo 4i% efforts and to provide technical assistance and '"'I' ' 1 ".:Otherfin data to support local decision making. Specific measures funded in the Governor's budget include: x Total average water use is 8,738,700 gallons per day.Water use includes ground and surface water from public sources and self-supply.This chart does not include water used to produce hydroelectric as opposed to thermoelectric power(e.g.,nuclear,coal fired,gas turbine generated power). SOURCE:Data is from the U.S.Geological Survey,1995. • Enforcing natural resources laws: Although the state has existing laws against poaching, habitat destruction,water pollution and withdrawing water without a permit, it does not have adequate staff to enforce these laws. Using $6.1 million in new funds, additional enforcement officers and staff will crack down on poaching and enforce laws against nonpoint pollution and illegal water withdrawals. Efforts will be targeted to critical basins. • Improving forest practices: The state, timber industry, and tribes are developing changes to state forest practices rules to provide additional protection for salmon and improve water http://www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbrief.htm 2/1/99 Summary of Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy Page 5 of 6 • quality. The Forest Practices Board is expected to approve these proposals through adoption of new forestry rules. The Governor's budget provides $21.6 million in new funds to enact these changes and give assistance to landowners with small parcels that will be impacted disproportionately by the new rules. • Protecting water quality and water quantity: A$33 million investment will help protect and restore in-stream flows to provide water for fish and will establish limits for pollutants under the Clean Water Act. State and federal funding will be used to target conservation and reuse of water, monitor water flows for consistency with existing permits, restore flows through the purchase of trust water, and provide grants and technical assistance for clean water projects. • Measuring progress through monitoring and evaluation: An independent science panel will review the draft Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy. Performance monitoring will determine its effectiveness. The Governor's budget proposal includes $3.7 million to fund the collection and analysis of data on the timber harvest rate, the status of fish stocks, and the status of land use, water quality, and other factors that affect salmon survival. • Supporting local efforts: The state will spend $136 million to continue building partnerships with local governments and private landowners. Grant funding along with state technical assistance and data will support local watershed planning, volunteer efforts, removal of fish passage barriers such as road culverts, and changes in agricultural practices. State and federal funding will also support the commercial fishing license buy back program,upgrades of critical area ordinances, and improvements to stormwater management. Legislation Promotes Water for People and Fish Fully implementing the salmon strategy will require many years of work and investment, but the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet agrees that updating Washington's century-old water laws is a vital first step. Accordingly, the Governor is sponsoring comprehensive legislation, titled Water for People & Fish, that will work in combination with his 1999-01 budget proposal to establish a foundation for responsible water management that meets the needs of the 21st Century. Highlights of the Governor's legislation include: • Increased use of reclaimed water: Water conservation is defined in the legislation to include use of reclaimed municipal and industrial waste water. When reasonably available, as determined by the state Department of Ecology(DOE), this treated wastewater shall be used for non- potable purposes. Ecology may reject a water right application where reclaimed water is available. Rather than taking new water from streams or rivers, treated wastewater may be used instead for watering golf courses and industrial processing. This will help accommodate growth needs, yet not at the expense of removing water from streams. • • Requiring additional conservation for public water systems: For the first time, small public water systems (15 or more connections)would be required to implement a water conservation plan. The Governor's proposal would require large public water systems (1,000 or more hookups),which are currently required to have water conservation plans, to also implement a leak detection and repair program, conduct water audits, and use a commodity-based rate structure(water use fee is based on the amount used). • Promoting conservation of agricultural water for fish: The Governor's measure provides http://www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbriefhtm 2/1/99 Summary of Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy Page 6 of 6 that up to 50 percent of irrigated water that is saved through conservation measures may be transferred to new lands. But it also requires that at least 50 percent(more if conservation improvements come from public funds)would be transferred to the state as a trust water right for use in meeting instream flow needs for fish. New conservation tools for irrigated agriculture are an important step in putting water back into streams for fish. The proposal provides incentives for farmers to do this by allowing them to keep up to half of conserved water for use on new lands. . Modifying the ground water exemption: Currently, wells that use up to 5,000 gallons of water per day are exempt from needing a water right. The growing number of such wells is reducing stream flows, thus harming fish. The legislation would end the automatic exemption for future wells, and instead require Ecology and each county to reach agreements defining the appropriate level of exemption for each area. In areas defined as "critical to salmon," the exemption would be severely restricted or prohibited until the state-local agreements are reached. • Increasing civil penalties for water violations: Current law contains a penalty of only $100 for a water use violation,which does not serve as an effective deterrent for unauthorized use. In the proposed legislation,three classes of water code violations are established and civil penalties are adjusted to fit the nature of the violation. A minor violation penalty is between $100 and $1,000. A serious violation penalty would range from $1,000 to not more than $10,000. A major violation penalty— such as continuous unauthorized use of water after a notice to cease —would range from $10,000 to $25,000. These penalties for water use violations would be more commensurate with those civil penalties established for water quality violations. . Resolving water rights uncertainty for public water systems: A recent state Supreme Court decision has created a great deal of uncertainty about the right of public water systems to use water that is not now being used. While these corporate entities may hold a certificate granting a right to that unused water, the court decision has raised questions about the validity of those certificates. Under the Governor's plan, the holder of the certificate would receive a water right permit—but not a final water right,which is like a deed of final ownership—to any or all of the unused portion of the water. Under the water right permit, the public water system could develop ways to tap that unused water, but only under certain conditions spelled out in the legislation which promote the instream flow needs of fish and water conservation. These measures, together with the Governor's budget proposal and the Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy, are designed to help meet the growing pressure on our water resources and promote the recovery of native salmon runs, without the need for federal intervention. For More Information Salmon Recovery Strategy: Curt Smitch, Governor's Executive Policy Office, (360) 902-0634 Legislative Proposal: Bob Nichols, Governor's Executive Policy Office, (360) 902-0642 Budget Proposal: Kay Baxstrom, Office of Financial Management, (360) 902-0566 http://www.wa.gov/governor/budpol/polbrief.htm 2/1/99 More About Bald Eagles Page 1 of 4 13aid Eagle The U.S.A.'s National Symbol Photo:''Twwn&Pat Leeson '=AY . -,,,,i 4 _. NAME: Bald Eagle or American Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ' f U.S.A.'S NATIONAL EMBLEM: The Bald Eagle u r' was officially declared the National Emblem of the a .�.f United States by the Second Continental Congress in ~'�' 1782. It was selected by the U.S.A.'s founding fathers Bald Eagle Keeping Watch Over Eaglet because it is a species unique to North America. Ben Franklin wanted the wild turkey to be the national bird, because he thought the eagle was of bad moral character. The Bald Eagle has since become the living symbol of the U.S.A.'s freedoms, spirit and pursuit of excellence, and its image and symbolism have played a significant role in American art, folklore, music, and architecture. COLOR & SIZE: The feathers of newly hatched Bald Eaglets are light grey, and turn dark brown before they leave the nest at about 12 weeks of age. During their Photo:t Toro&Pat Leeson third and fourth years, Bald Eagles have mottled brown and white feathers under their wings and on their head, tail and breast. The distinctive white head and tail el- feathers do not appear until Bald Eagles are about 4 to 5 years old. Their beak and eyes turn yellow during the fourth and fifth year, and are dark brown prior to that J, time. Bald Eagles are about 29 to 42 incles long, can - ; ^ weigh 7 to 15 pounds, and have a wing span of 6 to 8 . ..;,1-4 feet. This makes them one of the largest birds in North fi„""° America. Females are larger than males. Bald Eagles 4 = residing in the northern U. S. are larger than those that -psk reside in the south. They have a life span of up to 40 Young Bald Eaglet http://www.eagles org/moreabout.html 1/31/99 t'xt,, 31 More About Bald Eagles Page 2 of 4 VOCAL SOUNDS: Click here to listen to the voice of an eagle. (Download time is 15-20 seconds.) Photo W Tum&Past Leeson A much longer version of eagle cries can be heard if you have "RealPlayer". Click Here to hear the longer version. If you would like to hear the longer version but do not have "RealPlayer", you can obtain it at no charge by Clicking Here to navigate to the site for tti4 downloading. Follow the directions given on the site. HABITAT & RANGE: Bald Eagles live near large bodies of open water such as lakes, marshes, seacoasts Soaring Bald Eagle and rivers, where there are plenty of fish to eat and tall trees for nesting and roosting. Bald Eagles have a presence in every U. S. state except Hawaii. Bald Eagles use a specific territory for nesting, winter feeding or a year-round residence. Its natural domain is from Alaska to Baja, California, and from Maine to Florida. Bald Eagles that reside in the northern U. S. and Canada migrate to the warmer southern climates of the U. S. during the winter to obtain easier access to food, especially fish. Some Bald Eagles that reside in the southern U. S. migrate slightly north during the hot summer months. Photo: Tarn&Pat Leeson FOOD SOURCE & FLIGHT: Bald Eagles feed primarily on fish, but also eat small animals (ducks, coots, muskrats, turtles, rabbits, snakes, etc.) and occasional carrion (dead animals). They swoop down 4 to seize fish in their powerful, long and sharp talons (approximately 1,000 pounds of pressure per square inch in each foot). They can carry their food off in flight, but can only lift about half their weight. Bald - _ Eagles can fly at speeds of about 65 miles per hour in level flight, and up to 150 or 200 miles per hour in a dive. They can fly to altitudes of 10,000 feet or more, and can soar aloft for hours using natural wind currents Baldle and thermal updrafts. Bald Eagles can swim to shore CatchingA Fish p g with a heavy fish using their strong wings as paddles. However, it is also possible that they can drown if the fish weighs too much. http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html 1/31/99 More About Bald Eagles rage or 4 NESTING & BREEDING: Bald Eagles are monogamous and mate for life. A Bald Eagle will only select another mate if its faithful companion should die. They build large nests, called eyries, at the top of sturdy tall trees. The nests become larger as the eagles return to breed and add new nesting materials year after year. Bald Eagles make their new nests an average of 2 feet deep and 5 feet across. Eventually, some nests reach sizes of more than 10 feet wide and can weigh several tons. When a nest is destroyed by natural causes it is often rebuilt nearby. Nests are lined with twigs, soft mosses, grasses and feathers. The female lays 1 to 3 eggs annually in the springtime, which hatch after about 35 days of incubation. Hunting, egg incubation, nest watch, eaglet feeding and eaglet brooding duties are shared by both parents until the young are strong enough to fly at about 12 weeks of age. Eaglets are full size at 12 weeks of age. Only about 50% of eaglets hatched survive the first year. POPULATION SIZE & DECLINE: Bald Eagles were once very common throughout most of the United States. Their population numbers have been estimated at 300,000 to 500,000 birds in the early 1700s. Their population fell to threatened levels in the continental U.S. of less than 10,000 nesting pairs by the 1950s, and to endangered levels of less than 500 pairs by the early 1960s. This population decline was caused by humans. The mass shooting of eagles, use of pesticides on crops, destruction of habitat, and contamination of waterways and food sources by a wide range of poisons and pollutants all played a role in harming the Bald Eagle's livelihood and diminishing their numbers. For many years the use of DDT pesticide on crops caused thinning of eagle egg shells, which often broke during incubation. RECOVERY & PROTECTION: Strong endangered species and environmental protection laws, as well as active private, state and federal conservation efforts, have brought back the U.S.A.'s Bald Eagle population from the edge of extinction. The use of DDT pesticide is now outlawed in the U.S., although still used on crops in South America. This action has contributed greatly to the return of the Bald Eagle to America's skies. There are now about 4,500 nesting pairs and 20,000 total birds in the lower 48 states. There are over 35,000 Bald Eagles in Alaska. The Bald Eagle is presently protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Lacey Act. It is listed as a "threatened" species in the lower 48 states. Although Bald Eagles have made an encouraging comeback throughout the U.S.A. since the early 60s, they continue to be harassed, injured and killed by guns, traps, power lines, windmills, poisons, contaminants and destruction of habitat. Public awareness about their plight, strict enforcement of protective laws, preservation of their habitat, and support for environmental conservation programs can assure a healthy and secure future for the U.S.A.'s majestic and symbolic national bird. Explore These Links! http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html 1/31/99 More About Bald Eagles Page 4 of 4 Eagles Home Page Ai+ All About Eagles Save the Eagle®Programs Eagle Educational Resources w Adopt An Eagle Program For Schools Imo What_Is The NFPAE? Save The Eagle®Song 410 Help Save America's Eagles® NFPAE_Photo Gallery Our Tennessee Mountain Home ++ American Eagle Day Other North American Birds Of Prey Eagle Mail' — Eagle Merchandise Birds Of Prey Progam For Schools National Foundation to Protect America's EaglesTM �� t- to Post Office Box 333 t14) 0 Pigeon Forge,TN 37868 0 4ir►tfi - y:tri is Toll Free Phone:1-800-2EAGLES t " . Office Phone: (423)429-0157 *' v7ezt;i " Fax Phone: (423)429-4743 E-Mail:EagleMail@a Eagles.Org http://www.eagles.org/moreabout.html 1/31/99 Eagles.Org All About Eagles Page Page 1 of 4 All About Eagles Photo:r'Tosn&Pat Leeson The world's 59 species of eagles are found on every continent except Antarctica. There are four major groups of eagles: fish eagles, booted eagles, snake eagles and giant forest eagles. America's eagles are the Bald Eagle, which is a fish AoN,,,, eagle, and the Golden Eagle, which is a _ ,. booted eagle. Both Golden and Bald rEagles reside in the United States. Mature Bald Eagle The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) is the only eagle species living strictly in North America. It is a fish eagle that has a presence in every state in the U.S.A. except Hawaii. The Bald Eagle can have a wing span of up to eight feet and can weigh up to 15 pounds. It inhabits areas near large bodies of water where there are plenty of fish to eat and tall trees in which to nest and roost. Bald Eagles are monogamous and remain faithful to their mate until death. Females lay one to three eggs annually in the spring time, and the incubation period is approximately 35 days. Photo:•:'NFPAE • I oung (immature) Bald Eagles are dark brown in color when they fledge the nest at about 12 weeks of age, and the head and tail • 1 feathers turn predominantly white in their fourth or fifth year. Bald Eagles can live up ` to 40 years in the wild and longer in Immature Bald Eagle captivity. They are primarily fish eaters. Other fish eagles that can be found outside the United States around the world include: White-bellied Sea Eagle (White- breasted Sea Eagle), Solomon Sea Eagle (Sanford's Sea Eagle), African Fish Eagle, Madagascar Fish Eagle, Pallas' Fish Eagle (Band-tailed Fish Eagle), White- tailed (Sea) Eagle (Gray Sea Eagle), Lesser Fishing Eagle, Greater Fishing Eagle (Gray headed Fishing Eagle) and Steller's Sea Eagle. http://www.eagles.org/all.html 1/31/99 Bald Eagle, birds of prey, large birds, American eagle, fishing eagle, eagle, north American .. Page 1 of 4 .,.,.. .-- — ,.. .,,.-- - The Bald Eagle America's national symbol since 1782, is a bird of prey unique to North America. Although an estimated 75,000 pairs nested at the start of the 19th century, by the 1960s only 450 nesting pairs remained in the lower 48 states. The Bald Eagle population was decimated by habitat destruction, hunting, pesticide use and lead poisoning (from eating water fowl containing shotgun pellets). Alarmed by the magnitude of V,,,,.#� . . environmental degradation, the American public supported a series 'jellti° , " of laws in 1972 that sharply reduced the use of pesticides such as Mir4 DDT. By 1995 the population had rebounded to over 4,500 nesting T` -'. ,"'A pairs, allowing the US Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the bird from its list of endangered species. The Bald Eagle is truly an impressive bird, with a wingspan averaging nearly seven feet! The Bald Eagle is identified by it's distinctive white head and tail, and the bright yellow beak. These distinguishing traits, however, do not show up until the bird reaches adulthood, taking three or four years. Juvenile bald eagles have brown heads and tails, and only a yellow tinged beak; and hence, they are easily confused with those of the mature golden eagles. The coloring of juvenile bald eagles looks more mottled and blotchy than the crisp patterns of the golden eagle. The breeding season of bald eagles varies with latitude. The general tendency is for winter breeding in the South with a progressive shift toward spring breeding in northern locations. In the Southeast, nesting activities generally begin in early September; egg laying begins as early as late October and peaks in late December. The female does most of the nest construction but the male assists. The typical nest is constructed of large sticks with softer materials such as dead weeds, corn stalks, grasses, and sod added as nest lining. Bald eagle nests are very large, sometimes measuring up to 6 feet in width and weighing hundreds of pounds. Many nests are used year after year. Eagles may lay from one to three eggs, but the usual clutch size is two eggs. A second clutch may be laid if the first is lost. Incubation lasts 34 to 38 days. The young fledge 9 to 14 weeks after hatching but parental care may continue for another 4 to 6 weeks. Bald eagles reach sexual maturity at 4 to 6 years of age. Life span is not known, but it is potentially long since eagles have been known to live for 50 years in captivity. There are certain general elements which seem to be .. consistent among nest site selection. These include (1) the proximity of water (usually within one-half mile) and a clear flight path to a close point on the water; (2) the { , largest living tree in a span; and, (3) an open view of the Y surrounding area. The proximity of good perching trees r may also be a factor in site selection. An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in "y the area. Bald eagle wintering areas possess many of the http://www.enteract.com/--eaglegb/indexpcs/eagles.html 1/31/99 Bald Eagle, birds of prey, large birds, American eagle, fishing eagle, eagle, north American .. rage L of 4 1 same characteristics as nest sites. The birds, however, are 'ab` not as closely limited to shores at this time, with both adults and immatures gathering food where it is most easily available. Roost sites are an important component of wintering areas. Eagles may roost singly or in groups exceeding one hundred birds. Eagle Links • Adopt a bird of prey at... Raptors at Audubon's Center for Birds of Prey • The National Audubon Society • The Eagle's Advocate . Bald Eagle Release and Recovery . The Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve " • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Discovery Park Bald Eagle Update .`. • ADF&G's Wildlife Notebook Series: Eagles F;`If K ft" • Nova Scotia's Bald Eagles • Eagle River,Wisc. On-Line ;' -_+ `' • Bald Eagle Watching on the Mississippi! • Montana Fish, Wildlife& Parks • Eagle Watching Tours • Send an E-CARD and help the World Wildlife Fund. If you know of other good links to Eagle pages, please e-mail them to me so I can add them here. But you never were made, as I, On the wings of the winds to fly! The eagle said. Will Carleton EAGLE FACTS Scientific name: Haliaeetus leucocephalus RANGE: Formerly common throughout North America. Healthy populations are still present in Alaska and Florida. HABITAT: Lakes, large rivers and coast lines. DIET: Mostly fish, also eats water fowl and carrion young. http://www.enteract.com/—eaglegb/indexpcs/eagles.html 1/31/99 Bald Eagle, birds of prey, large birds, American eagle, fishing eagle, eagle, north American .. Page 3 of 4 Two or more chicks may be hatched but only one is usually raised. NEST: A stick nest is often built in a large tree. The nest is added to annually and may become huge after many years of use. Available books about the Eagle. Barnesanaubierom "" BUY THE BOOK TO e-mail: eaglegb cr enteract.corn Thanks for visiting my Bald Eagle page. I'm from Aurora, IL I'd like to know where you're from. I'm from: (City/State or Country) I Renton, Washington E-mail address: (optional) Nbrowne@halcyon.com Comments: (if any) Glad I found your site. We have eagles in our back yard, but a developer is plan' clear 15 acres and put in homes. I am afraid the eagles will not return. I thin} ;building a nest. Today, I say a pair of eagles in the highest Douglas Fur on the One of the eagles were carrying twigs to the tree. On Tuesday, I will be addressi THANK YOU! Send Info Reset l I also have a page about the TIGER and one about the GIANT PANDA. THANKS FOR VISITING! This site has been selected as a featured site in StudyWeb as one of the best educational resources on the Web! Click on logo to visit them. http://www.enteract.com/—eaglegb/indexpcs/eagles.html 1/31/99 Bald Eagle, birds of prey, large birds, American eagle, fishing eagle, eagle, north American .. Page 4 of 4 ACAfEKJC EXCELLENCE If you are looking for information on other endangered species, please visit Marilee's Endangered Animals Links. This web site created by: SKANERZ DIGITAL IMAGERY http://www.enteract.com/—eaglegb/indexpcs/eagles.html 1/31/99 1 ! '. -:tom., ti '� "•� � 'dt� i tdtl t 1, 4 '* ,i`, rya• M.A 1 + -q1?R 6, i 4 . + F V II .4.PAW lir .. ,, ,lir:::,, 1 fir, \\ \ ' ;1 NY r,y•c4�,, f 1111111P it}. !. 1.01 1.....1:1::*:,.1..:`,.1..,':...sl, „...„...44.4 .. \„...i— I* ' ,it c r t� y 11.7 x r vA N ' f PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. TT--1 E—T 7 I 1 T T - I r T 7 -1 IT T T F I r T 7 -t IT T T 7 r 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 BL Odr,2 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I a9 I JB I a) I 6 I IS 1 Ja I 43 1 42 1 al I IO I 39 I 38 1 37 I 36 1 35 13I I JJ 132 I 31 130 I 29 128 I 27 126 I I 1 ; 1 1 I I I I a I I I I I I J. I 1 L ? J CD. HILLMA..'S LAKE WASH.NGTON-ARM.OF£O-N NO.11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 f _Lz Iq IL—1—_L_J_ L L 1 J I L L _I J L L 1 _I I L L 1 J L L 1 J WF GRAPHIC SCALE - u �,'a, j {Ie• -- N 28TH PL Ma Q 4J _ —�m pl��IIIME �i� ;t -T�--71 rfr—T 7 I 1 T T -1 I I- T 7 `-1 1 1- T 7--ITTITT I--7---I--r--i---l--11 1 R �" < Imo • kill! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I ��` ' II° 12 I , I I I"5"T'"6 I 7 I a 9 qq1� 20 I 11 I 12 I ,3LLppI 14 I 15 I 16 I r7 I 19 I i9 1 20 121 1 22 1 23 1 2J 12s t I COKC.�u I f tb' I I I -JBO7I- I 1 1 810.�,•11 I I I I I I -� I C. MILLMAN-S LAKE WASHINGTON GA6OEN.0-EVEN NO. I I IW 1 II rnu'PRE�T ' I -1___-- ---— -I 1 N°° rI 'II"E N 9 J 'W °o I EAs£ME r _�2 �. I "7 � / ! - _1 a_�-�1'° -_ :•.:•' I 1��_�-I , �.�.� -a�9Sd0 � ;"��� �-... � �>�'� /V 8�/-7 J7 �. CO 4.;1 r����®i�i�ii ��i�L'fl� A�{� '-: ,� �r► ` G . I I 1 la W tc 1 a\ a ON 11 sr dq�\11L1s9 1 I." 11 sq 1 r.a411 1 sz I %�'r.�r r4 ��-�_z�' �`�p ELC10N„Alk E`'I rL 59 � 9� ,\ `1 'moo �,J L-J '...;1`II\ J �',y:'�I L©�L�L J W �''' ��f..o�---i`• :may'..... `\ Ir Sep rL SD rL ao i ri I 1 L s -1�v 1 to *,; \ ..\ L►''' u ' �fi-. —� �a .*,' �n-o'r.Lasso �»,r�-, ��� v I I r iri l ` �° ` �\NI' '• ■.- y 1aJ a,!r fG�Y - O— ` 1 •"r=4 I I 1 :� - P. '3! 1d ,\\ ' 3 \ 1 r—.� i•. � r,. >:La.,,_ J�g� Uif4 .�`. .rr ,n. 1 ,'- 4/ r, r1. 73 +7 \ / �a..-- `\ , �- '-1 I ;� 15 y 116 J���'-- •o-a rt a te' i; .r'���'.��%�� ' �_ •�/! ----- � I'- ?? \1, ' 1 _..I LI ( J •oram~ a��.,. 4 1,,,*�(0 4 4s 1 ► �I �1 ad , = i :�' 1• \i , e�L'\� 1 c 73` �ii�� , •" /�' 4 � � a \ I I.4p " ��'\\ �: `� 64.7.FAIN.k.lia-u / \,s:: � �% �rt�;- r`r:/,��f.� �,t, � ;.�°,a._ 1 II -- I' L'b •_rt _ ,...,... z . \\\ t a �`„®... --_ �.-.�.- :.ti:�.+.°�, ._1 �,-e,,.i,Qt., �� „ �.• , 37 r ` asaff , tI''"_"-- --L� 90 r1 J6G \ v •%j. v ice'. �3'/f ifr5 zm..__ �4�3'.�!i:i i.Th +sMIE11: I ,} \ � ti ���� j .�1�` a�9A7 J70.7' r.. ��--cr:t Ti� .`© A'__._Q_ 2 .\ \\\ `; icf"'� 9 gyp., Ioo-• \ e 1... • .T_�—I— reI (� QU % of '40 0 ; �\ iii.• Al , I �, 1 1 1 •d �——---- o \ CV14 ---/ 6 °'< • / ELD(.0 Ack 5\\ Ilk —\III -1 a ..i i \ \ I-• 6...,s. kb \!_. / \ \ i 6 3.9 1 1 IJs 1 r. z •Q 1 , ......t.isi ... \ / . „ \ / / \ tee \ v Q._ 14.1 CO \ ` 1 TREES INVENTORY TABLE \ I /�/ /^ •.,_.„.. / kJ Q �— N. �'J.\ J-' races TO TREES To 2 TL' \*-A 0\ \ \ CUT REMAIN '7 i• Zri - lCC-4 1-_-.L, \ <\ .°PERCENT 60 PERCENT •A �r _ !( \ I \ 1 mama.ram \ I \ I r a1 C Nm 10!fM1:1 I••1 CI 33 r " PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., .R 5 E, W.M. - - T 1 r I T -I -1- I I --1—I---r-T- 1-- ,--r-1 -T- --I--r- r- - --r-T - r- 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I BLodr 12 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I .i1 1 1 i I I 43 I 47 I 46 I 45 I 44 I 4J I 42 I 41 I 40 11I 39 11I J8 I J7 1 J6 II JS IL J4 135 132 137 130 129 11B I 27 116 IZ I I I 1 4a I I I I I I 1 c0 IN,LLMAIV'S LAK. WASHINGTON-ARO£FI OF EOLN NO.11 I I I I I I I I I GRAPHIC.__1_ J L I . _1_-__I___1___1__ 1 __J___I_-- L._-1-J_J- L L 1 J I L 1 _1 J -I _L_1_1 kJ 1- J 1 (3121-0:<•,''. W 4.. N 28TH PL > I ''- - -IQ- R I - �-�-- �..- . f--I- --I- -r-7--�---I--L--r --r--i I----L---r---1-�--I--r--T-, ,l�`� :,..._ I 1 1 11 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I� "I 1 , Icw+c. IALL4 I+co':q»` I / 19 I J I r2371,2$4 1sq;J. I 14 I 15 I 16 1 77 1 IB 1 19 120 I 2I I 22 I 23 1 24 1 75 IW I I rabp, r I /aoo I I I Noo�e°O�•5I31 'Yes 8102•I/ I I I I I I I s O Q1 c. .HILIMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GA`r0£N OF EDEN NO. 1 I I Na0'Sa t1 f I u°Y15'PRf/I—n . 1Z 1„ 1 1 "7 ,,. -°.°T7 T 1 NB91r46•W1 0 0a 14E usf✓e r i- - � ff �--- ;'�;' "L_1,'J '_I�+_-'129aao]...* _ I�d38,7: � 1� � � N 8_TN-ST- - ------------ - ' k 1 \.%ii";i7INJ///.:.•////J' //saiiiiioiaaiva...... iaai/d!�llih/ aiyiauaiiifiiarriaia/`airi✓;:✓/il///////%'HP/////Ol!///////_%✓///�'////✓1,_! IW rc� 11 �\V /��� ��//����/ /1,.�i -4 '', :yt'•; , .- -56 El.(1ON AICI'RF_S 1 n s- 2CC II 11Soo /♦// ..7 �` /� /( /`` :?,::::;A:9 r�'''"'1.c 4 1 n 57 I 1 I Wtn \ \ ' 4 i : / 'i' \ � A/�� �l� I/ �/ i/ ;;r 4 i7�lli_ �l�l"` .� - O K4t-\ \ �L � / I /���j4iggf0.___ :0167/•4"/' �.�C/ -��� /4/%////�/�� %'/ - �1•:•-` •WL'17 �:'1'S'r $� ' ;. r \ ® � ��iJ, � �� �� Vyr- r^ .`7• ♦ _' ��i/ �/•ij- .�,4_s ..-j.,x .•vY _ Y ii / .1} , �/ _��s +a/°,At., �//,/ 4 4 / / —'\ \ 1 %as./f v „�,,,7 4,. . :y ` 14: i•/,�,,,✓i�r%- �� ,,, , /�//�� ••,� o. \ ,,., \, I ,• , / �///J'i' 4 .4 L7-4.. 4i ��/A////////�f/.// % i,/'/// '/ , •• n 40 P, . \ \� i ,-J'.�. '.4'..r l, N 9DJ'6 W J7R72' //////.%�%/%%%//.j///.4 %�i�% �%/ '•——— \ \ \� \ rt. 45 \ 17. • ,-•• �/•••• ./ / \ .2 acres (\\ ��% //j ',AI . //��//�`0"4.,l Q U -.34/ ,<, , v w::,r.; -' .. i ' 1/''' : '''cl:-"."-- (.0 cn,,,n'z. . 1 . A `A-,-/"Zzi.-'?!1,,,if.,4'"i''' •!... / \\\\ ...-r--- — la,i, ...,, — \ \/ C 'C4..9 / // \ / // \` ,9� 1 J/*. _I�/� Y1 • Q� Q \\ 9s,-., Ct \ / \\ ' -a-,'$4 q - - 1 111141 ‘L Al � Do \ er —� �� _\.\-., \ \ti y/s� r It/ \\ / .• / I \ �\ LEGEND -----� \ / \\\ ® LESS THAN 25% AREA = 10.69 ACRES I \ • I \ Ill26% TO 39% AREA = 2.70 ACRES I ow!or \ I Kr \ iP' GREATER THAN 40% AREA = 2.5 ACRES I \ ••0 Amp raw I Y g - 7d B,aM R 5 E, W.M. magorw 4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., II,—. nommi ON OF THENW 1/I ----------------------------------------------- II 1 I I, I I I I I I I I II 29 127 I6Ido 95 I 192 I 90 39 I 3B Ji J6 131 II Y2 I I I JI•' l iiI9B I i I I I I13 I1 CDINILLMAS LAK WASMGTgN ARDE1 0E EDLN NO.It I1 _J- _I__L_1_J--I--L_ -1-J--1 _ _J--1-_L_L_1— J � -1 - 1-J Q 4 1,"p )3 I'l •``_ N 28TH f I T 10< (J I 7 1 I r T 7 I I 1--7 I I I 11 I I I I I mil 17 18 19 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 29 I a5•%1 1 I,I LI MAN 5 LAKE OASNIN(TON LAFEIN OF(OFN IA, I � '-N I II' 12 I 3 d I ;ail I 6 1 7 1 R 1 9 I iD I f1 II ,2 I1 F3 IIK 11 115 1 16 i I I I ...•I I a — - W 1111 �' -� 11 �•--_c'1': - Si•[ 1 i. p 1 3�L 2D360 E--�c��"s�,,`r' t `.._ :—I 1. I I Z)- •- CC i �•� '. -- ■�u�tmt'.7I(�IA�!/ f a F_LC11�11J AU J Oct E Z��IIIIENININIVIIMIkilligiI:... ' r Gl aY�` '.v r {L 56�y ,I ,:.:, TL .O i IL s7 i I1` 5 I— , a` ///111WWW111 • �• Y• i •T `Y \ r �Y�Y Y,.iimook -' ,��-�' S alio-am•' �1` •� i 1 - .111 I /fir. �: nnp Z '1, 411(k. / -0,-Oofrsit,..\ I r:� 4. � , \Y� , .,, .r.7��r1�!lm,,bLEa:m �o `�,,. lit III Ila�0 �, •� r `� \‘, \ \st 1 pr , • \:\‘` e ilk: '',- e 1 tagesiffri-- „ 1;7-• h(Oirt f:-. ,, !ILI i '41 "i VW sill, 4 c7 . Will Iil 10;-. - Aii's- --,.. ' - ..e)iiiii,,,,'-1.4..ty is!"... - _I-. A , -1.. MR .-..----.1e--wi, 111014 e_ _ g N - Air. '1"- ' / / l'At\ . . irm t-r-i 7.2; rii;-: \\ \\ NA r4"`Yf ®®• yid / \� ;\ 1 '�.....,I. ,_"-� -- ..liaitii O(°' , ,, ,...._,. \ `�� 1P4` \\/ / \� \v��y �; ihi I33 I �1 Z \ I// r G�'y y Q CO \ •/� 'A�` \�, TREES MKNIMY TABLEril F 1 1� IV 1I ' • L_ — _J \ I \ I \ I ., `r \\ Lp I ,.R*we R. SST C T T :,a L\,. 34\ TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M.PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, :=� T—, f —T— --1-- —r—T—�--1 r — r— T—�— —T r I--I--1 —T— — ——r—r—T_ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 36 1 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I WO 1 1 , 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 .2 1 If 1 .O 1 J9 1 JB 1 J7 1 J6 1 J5 1 Y 1 JJ 1 J2 I JI .1 JO 1 29 12B I 27 1 16 1 L J i ,`gyp M T.• . 50 .9 .9 .] 46 15 .1 IJ 11 I II I L 1 -� I•I I �1 I 1 I I I I • I I I C.O.INILLMAR•5 LAKE WASNWGTON IGAROE�or EON NO.II I I I 1 I I I I I � 1 1 J� !,L.`_1___1__J—_L—L_ _J—_I__L_1-1_J— L L 1 J _I _L—L-1—J—_L—L_1—J .• 1 N 28TH PL Q 4a !� LI ��' k I -1� 1eL 1r-T- 7- - r-T--T-,- I--1--T- j-�- r T T 1 I r Y T -I -I T T �� 11111111 1 I 1.11 II 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I 1' I r IJ r. I I I I 1 1' 1 1 1 I 1 ,C 1 I C.. NILLMANS LAKE N'ASNING,„,„A6,-,7E ECEN Ni, I I I.1 I� 11 ! I . I y I 6 1 l I K I A I 10 I Ir I 2 1 1 15 16 17 IB 19 0 11 17 2! Io 25 1 ll _ I" I I t I „I.. 1 i 1 1 I ,moo . 1 1 1 B'�ZRa 1 1 .,1 r_ 1 aas 1 1..w.., I .'1"' 1•♦ (1'9- ,�° ► T- 8TH ST - 1 �y it 1Z- s ' m« r4,�t" I �=--r �s�^ J I- -Tr� e- d e6�r� ` 1 �- I i = 2 It rr % i1 e ELf10N AkaFE: 1 n ' uz a? CO 1 i\ \ t$ 5J 52 5 5° - .- '�' 4 1c .. F rL e7 rL .0 I rL 57 1 I rL 59 I K• Wy CO e ` 61 •.60 3D s� sa ss - , a t 1 1 1 . 1 —, 4,1._. 41,1.,.., ,i‘"ii.0,\,1 .'•IM_L,I.„ri1\i.v-l.lrii ,116L1Is, ot.c.1-8.!..._1 9 I1....r2i0 . 21<-,.-c-.-,,-,.---,-i-,- /11-..-i—I,0tl0!7...-0---,-2--irl.W1i111!12:..e.s,„,Nifi.,4_....j."1,4 1.al-i-1 i.l la-ivtp,i IIIIIi !!!! ii! o-.-- , Ii. ` r aa2 ���� arafT V[ A�graG. :�� = L.�.�� ��/1`+s`w\ � , 11�.., . 1 r1 r y/w n 4" d$ ` i.� IIIII�W' 1. - _.?_ -'.,-_-, / ,,,, 1„),1,10,,„, ii- , e-i_J- ..,c,',4_. ,(:). • \`''s 4 iii,114-1koN.:-•te• r_ ii, -�- rtikirt , 1_1„., ---A . (,, ,f — 4t-. 1 . ii4i, . 111 r. v _ ,_.; _ . . , A_ , ,, , . U.): 3. ':1 r'i +nricjn "LI \\ , litirivirar- ille 0111111111111r,,,!.',,,,Z1141K, ,ly va 7._ ,\ lin k . :...rr_77 , rill!,.4.- N. N . 404,- •,...... - 1.0", 4/ /„ . „., Li . 1141,;(3.)."))r.\\\ \\Nat gra,i ,• ,p4,(v . v \ 1 • --i . '• / \t V., .•• \ I r'24 4 \ 1/77/ , 4, i \ \\'‘ . Ala p /., , ,/ 1..._.J _ „ ... s.p..„.„,_ •i. , I"-'-'— e, 0, . >. . -NI\ ., . 0...., 1 . ilt.,L. ' / ELogi4 Ack- 5\\ - '1 .., . ,.... -c \ _.... \ . x i \ ,, \ NN\, / cEl \ I my,row.. toe �� I• a 01 -.&'A g r • -1 Issues for 2/9/99 Labrador Ventures Hearing Update Reports, etc. Very misleading and inappropriate for the applicant to change the plat one day before the hearing and after the ERC decision. It seems that the plat has changed more significantly than meets the eye. In the short time I and-t e y have had to review this new version, it is difficult to adequately analyze the proposal. In addition, it is apparent that this preliminary plat is extremely preliminary and will likely need to be substantially revised after these proceedings. Therefore, I ask that after you, Mr. Hearing Examiner, provide comments on the proposal and the plat is revised, that a new public comment period be established and a new hearing set. In addition, update reports with correct lot reference. Afraid enforcement problems may arise after the institutional memory has faded. Tree Cutting Plan Comparison Extent of tree cutti g-hat-b en expanded. (SHOW PLATS) Topography Issue t?�Sb t Show figures showing discrepancies:2) r,,o•5 5 Explain cul de sac area should contrast more greatly with topography in Lot 7. (S.W.)-iC Did computer figure slope areas? According to a surveyor I called, surveyors take ground shots or spot elevations where '1 there are changes in elevation. I request that the City be provided a map showing where .-.1-'ground shots were taken and that the survey data be reviewed by City engineers for accuracy. \`/\ Review by Army Corps of Engineers Corps has regulatory jurisdiction over wetlands and should be consulted regarding this proposed plat. Compatibility with Adjacent Neighborhood The Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner (pg 10) states: "These (proposed Labrador) lot sizes are compatible with other existing lots in this area located to the north of the site which are approximately 5,000 sf in size." Our neighborhood has mixed lot sizes. The site plan is misleading in this respect. (SHOW AERIAL AND PLAT) Lots in outlined in green are owned by 1 property owner and in most instances, the home covers multiple lots. The proposal would introduce a very uniform neighborhood style which would highly contrast our existing characteristic: ramblers, large lots, small lots, 2 story, new, old, etc. e-xl,o 3 fo A mix of lot sizes along the northern property line and a cedar fence along the north property line would help shield differences. Griffin Home (compatiblity with adjacent uses) Griffin Home tries to keep a low profile. Development without a buffer(lots 6-11) could jeopardize operation of the facility. The GH buildings are perched along the southern boundary of the ravine and generally are situated facing the northwest. The homes proposed within the ravine would face the GH buildings raising the neighbors awareness of the facility. Also, the ravine crossing would make the facility more visible, people would look down above the campus. In addition the ravine crossing would increase noise to the facility. Leaving the ravine undeveloped would provide a necessary screen and buffer between two arguably incompatible uses. Alley Make the proposed concrete wall a rockery for aesthetic purposes and limit its length. Move the alley to correct location and regravel. Stormwater Existing drainage problems in N 26th Street area. These problems should be rectified with the development. Can the soils handle the proposed discharge method? Sewer Can soils support sewer line between lots 6 and 7? Topo Site plan should show contour lines of existing lots in SE portion of site in accordance with Section 9-12-9 (E,5) of the Renton Code. Protection of Douglas Fur • Eagles are territorial and have indicated that the douglas fur is significant to them for perching and possibly nesting. Have arborist consult on how to protect tree from man and wind. (greater buffer) Substantial bond on grading, clearing and construction activity to make an incentive to protect the tree and environment. Before grading and cutting is allowed, trees should be clearly marked to be cut and a representative from the city should supervise and approve. Consultation with Steve Negri. WA Fish and Wildife 425-379-2301 Compare before and after plans for ravine (show tree cutting plans). New plan saves fewer trees. 2 - Ravine Clearing How much additional site distrubance is needed outside the road width to build crossing? Traffic Safety Without ravine crossing, there would be fewer through trips and traffic safety on Burnett would occur. (start with variance discussion) CONSISTENCY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS Greenbelt Has the ravine area of the site been designated as a Greenbelt and thence subject to- City Ordinance 3849? If not, this appears to be a gross oversight by the City. Based on the ravine area's (encompassing the slopes that are 26% or greater) characteristics, it should have been designated a Greenbelt and should be subject to these regulations. At a minimum, development of the site should be done with the intent of these regulations in mind. According to Section 4-745: Greenbelt areas are characterized by severe topographic, ground water, slope instability, soil or other physical limitations that make the areas unsuitable for intensive development... The purpose of these regulations is to supplement the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan regarding Greenbelts by the control of development, by minimizing damage due to landslide, subsidence or erosion, by protecting wetlands and fish-bearing waters, and providing physical relief between expanses of similar land uses. Physical criteria specified include steep slope areas (areas with slopes that exceed 25%), severe landslide or erosion hazard exists, and areas with wetlands, stream corridors and other criteria. The proposed stream crossing and lot development (lots 5- 11) are proposed in areas with slopes in excess of 25%, proximate to two wetlands, within a stream corridor, and are in areas identified by the applicant and City as erosion and landslide hazard areas. Within Greenbelt areas with slopes between 25% and 40%, the maximum residential density is restricted to one unit per acre. In addition, these areas are subject to special review to assure stable building conditions, safe and convenient access and minimum disruption of the natural physical features of the land. The analysis of this proposal should be kept to this high standard. Minimal disruption of the natural physical features of the site would be accomplished by restricting development on the slope area encompassed by lots 6-11 and prohibiting the construction of a ravine crossing. Subdivision Ordinance 3 Section 9-12-13; Environmental Considerations I ask that this proposal be held to the standards of this section (detailed below): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 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 ground water 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... The current proposal is not in conformance with the stated environmental goals: "Preserve Drainage Patterns" I would have to question the Environmental Checklist description of current drainage as: "Existing drainage from the subject property drains as sheet flow into a drainage swale which traverses the site..." Sheet flow is bit of an overstatement and misleading. In addition, the drainage swale they are referring to is a densely forested creek ravine that traverses the site. At present, drainage from the site is primarily handled through infiltration given the absence of permeable surfaces. With the proposal, 2.28 acres of road area plus the building sites will significantly change the drainage patterns of the site. Compacted soils due to heavy machinery will generate more sheet flow that will drain directly into the ravine from back yards of lots 6-11. This would result in the transport of contaminants such as oil, grease, lawn fertilizer and heavy metals into the creek and thence into Lake Washington. These contaminants would affect the health of Wetland 2 and the water quality of Lake Washington. This is a significant environmental impact that would need to be mitigated. "Protect Ground Water Supply" With the increase in impervious surfaces, the proposal would result in a reduction in ground water. The reduction in ground water may affect the wetlands on site. In addition, contaminants associated with road and residential development would affect the quality of local ground water. This site is within an Aquifer Protection Zone. Any approved development should be done to minimize impacts to ground water. 4 Mitigating measures for significant impacts to ground water would be to reduce the amount of impervious surface area developed. Prohibiting the proposed rezone, ravine crossing and development on the site's sensitive areas would result in a lower density of development and would accomplish this objective. "Prevent Erosion" The applicant is proposing to disturb a large area of highly erodable soils to make building pads and to build a ravine crossing. Development activity within erosion hazard areas would result in both temporary erosion impacts and future erosion. Significant removal of vegetation on the slopes in excess of 26%would increase the potential for slope failure and could pose a significant public safety hazard. I would think this would not be a liability the City would be willing to take on. At a minimum, the City should require that any crossing of the ravine be accomplished with a bridge structure that spans the highly erodable soil areas of the ravine rather than allowing the proposed culverting and substantial fill. Erosion of the creek slopes would also result during substantial storm events when water flow rates would be accelerated from the proposed discharge point. This would affect the Wetland 2 and Gene Coulon Park further down stream. "Preserve Trees and Natural Vegetation" The proposal calls for the excavation of approximately 7,953 cubic yards of soil and 4,733 cubic yards of fill. To put this in perspective, this amounts to 770 dump truck loads (assuming 14-ton capacity dump trucks). The amount of site disturbance is immense. Approximately 40% of the site's trees (204) would be cut. Constructing the ravine crossing would result in the deforestation of about 8,000 square feet of land with slopes ranging from 26%to greater than 40%. This1planned activity is not in conformance with the provisions of the subdivision environmental considerations. The proposal does include the protection of ravine slope areas in excess of 40%. While definitely a positive aspect, the plat does not include any protection of sensitive areas not specifically required by code. And in fact is asking for a variance to destroy a sensitive area currently protected by code. In addition, a significant portion of the lot area is within marginally developable area—areas with slopes potentially in excess of 40%, containing soils with high erosion potential and dense tree coverage with high habitat values (see lots 6-11). C. Trees: Reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing trees. More effort needs to be done to preserve trees and the valuable habitat created by them. Thte ravine crossing should not be'allowed and development along the creek ravine should be modified by moving all lots to areas with slopes less than 25%. D. Streams: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water and wetland areas. 5 I would interpret this as not only preserving the streams water flow, but also the slopes and vegetation within the stream's ravine. With this, the current proposal is not in conformance. 4. Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. By allowing a stream crossing with a public road, the City would be increasing the potential for debris and pollutants to enter the stream corridor. Sources could include • illegal dumping, litter, and pollutants from stormwater runoff. Section 9-12-15;Streets E. Street Pattern: • 2. Exceptions: a. The flexible grid pattern may be adjusted by reducing the number of linkages between roads, in consideration of two the the following factors: 1. Topographical Constraints 2. Environmental Constraints 3. ... As proposed, the subdivision includes a ravine crossing that would result in significant impacts to the environment. According to this portion of the code, the requested crossing is not necessary to meet City street pattern regulations. The site does contain topographical and environmental constraints justifying the use of cul-de-sacs. I request the evaluation of an alternative that uses cul-de-sacs rather than the stream crossing. Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance Please see section 4-9-2: Purpose for the City's justifications for"the protection and preservation of trees and associated significant vegetation." All stated purposes justify minimizing the greatest extent possible tree cutting on the proposal site. Section 4-9-6; C. Performance Standards 1. The land clearing and tree cutting will not create or contribute to landslides, accelerated soil creep... Issues already discussed. 2. The land clearing and tree cutting will not create or significantly contribute to flooding, erosion, or increased turbidity, siltation or other form of pollution in a watercourse. Issues already discussed. 6 3. Land clearing and tree cutting will be undertaken in such a manner as to preserve and enhance the City's aesthetic character and maintain visual screening and buffering. The proposal site currently enhances the City's aesthetic character. The site is densely vegetated with both underbrush and trees, including a Madrona grove. The slopes of the creek ravine are visible from public places including Gene Coulon Park and Lake Washington Boulevard recreational corridor. The property is an oasis of nature in the heart of a metropolitan city. The tree covered slopes contribute to South.Kennydale's park-like setting and to the aesthetic beauty of the area. Renton's waterfront area, of which this proposal is situated, is one of the City's most . picturesque and beautiful neighborhoods. The open and green spaces provided by the Labrador property and the hills paralleling Lake Washington contribute to the area's aesthetic character. With development of this proposal, Tamaraon Pointe Apartments and The Bluffs Apartments, most of the green spaces residents and visitors have become accustomed to will be gone. The cumulative impacts to the area's aesthetic quality are significant. Precluding development within lots 6-11 and establishing a Native Growth Protection Easement would preserve a portion of the area's existing open space and help safeguard the area's aesthetic character. In addition, the expanded greenbelt would maintain visual screening and buffering between single-family homes to the north and institutional and multi-family uses to the south. Prior to removal, the owner should tag trees and wait for authorization to proceed in cutting from the City Building Department. This would allow residents and the City appropriate overview of site clearing. • Requiring the preservation of trees and vegetation along the western slope of the property on Lots 1-7. • Requiring the preservation of trees and vegetation along the southern boundaries of Lots 21-23. It should be noted that the environmental checklist submitted by the applicant states that no views in the immediate area would be altered or obstructed and that no measures are proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. The project will have a significant impact on the aesthetics of the area and alter existing residence's views, which are currently of Lake Washington and tree covered property. The above mitigation would minimize aesthetic impacts. In addition, I request that the applicant complete an aesthetic impacts study with before development photos and after development renderings of the site. This will aid in evaluating the project's impact on views from Gene Coulon Park. 4. Land clearing and tree cutting shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, consistent with an approved build-out schedule. If allowed to proceed as planned, clearing and grading should only be allowed in the very driest months of the year. That is in the summer. 7 5. Land clearing and tree cutting shall be conducted so as to preserve habitat consistent with reasonable use of the property. Already discussed. According to the City's Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance (4-3610, C.): For all properties, no land clearing, tree cutting, or ground cover management activities except enhancement activities are permitted in areas with slopes over 40 percent; slopes over 25 percent with class ll or class 1/1 landslide hazards, and slopes over 25 percent with class ll or class Ill erosion hazards, as identified by the King County Soils Survey, King County Sensitive Areas Map or the City of Renton Environmentally Sensitive Areas Maps. . WHICH CLASS OF EROSION AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD (Class II or Class III, etc.) APPLIES TO THE SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25% ON THE SITE? This information is necessary to adequately evaluate the proposal. Designations of class II or class III landslide or erosion hazard would preclude development on lots 3-11. What regulations apply to Slide Sensitive Areas, Erosion Hazard Sensitive Areas, and Class II, Ill landslide and erosion hazards? SITE ACCESS The new intersection, however, would create a safety hazard for pedestrians walking south on Burnett from North 28th Place. This would occur due to the site entrance's proximity to North 28th Place, the additional traffic, and the absence of sidewalks along the short road segment between North 28th Place and the proposed site entrance. I request that as a mitigating measure, sidewalks be installed on the east side of Burnett between North 28th Place and the proposed site entrance. Continuity of sidewalk location. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The following construction mitigation measures are requested: Limit construction activities to Monday through Friday. Limit hours of operation to between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm with no approval for hour lengthening. Applicant should improve alley with gravel prior to using it for hauling. Applicant must fix any damage to alley. Alley and site must be sprayed with water to minimize ambient dust. Truck tires should be swept and/or washed prior to leaving site onto public roads. Do not authorize burning of trash on site. Sweeping of affected public streets should be done routinely. SHORELINE 8 • - The applicant should show the edge of Lake Washington on the site plan. Is the proposal within 200 feet of a Shoreline of The State? Is the creek protected by the City's Shoreline Master Program? EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVISION I would like to point-out that there are other ways to minimize this risk without significantly impacting the environment by clearing and filling the ravine. 1. Have an arborist evaluate the health of trees lining Park Ave N and N 28th Street and cut the trees that would pose a risk of falling and blocking the roadway. VARIANCE The applicant requests a variance to clear and fill within a stream corridor to install a 20- foot-wide culvert. The construction activities and resultant road crossing would result in the destruction of quality wildlife habitat as substantiated in the applicant's wildlife study. The environmental impact that would result from the ravine crossing is in contrast to numerous Comprehensive Plan Policies that encourage the protection of stream corridors, steep slopes, wildlife habitat and erosion hazard areas and unique natural features, including: Objective EN-B, Policy EN-1, Policy EN-4, Objective EN-C, Policy EN-70, Policy LU-12, Policy EN-6, Policy LU-268, Policy LU-269, Policy LU-278, Policy LU-280, Policy LU-285 and Objective LU-RR. Objective EN-B: Protect and enhance water quality of surface water resources. Policy EN-4: Limit discharges of pollutants such as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, and other hazardous wastes to surface waters. Policy EN-6(read) Policy LU-269: The City's unique natural features including land form, urban form, vegetation, and river should be protected and enhanced. Objective LU-RR: Preserve vegetation for aesthetic and community character and as a means of safeguarding the environment. Policy LU-12: Residential development should be limited in ... hazardous landslides and erosion areas. Policy EN-1: Prevent development on lands were development would create hazards to life, property, or environmental quality. Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. Policy EN-70. Land uses on steep slopes should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance greenbelt and wildlife habitat values by preserving and enhancing existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible. 9 According to the discussion included in the Rivers and Streams section of the Comprehensive Plan: The rivers and streams within the City hold great importance for the citizens. These waterways can be protected through three measures: preservation of their courses, their banks, and the vegetation next to them. The burden of proof as to the appropriateness of a variance application lies with the applicant. According to the Variance Application, the Hearings Examiner must find that ALL of the following conditions exist. In my view, the applicant's justification for the variance does not meet all of the conditions. a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances...and the strict application of the Building & Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity... Yes, the property does have special circumstances such as topography that require the variance. It is these same circumstances that necessitate the strict application of the Building and Zoning Code, which implements the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The ravine contains steep slopes that contain significant tree coverage and provides high quality wildlife habitat. Any disturbance of the subject area would be contrary to City policies. Regarding "undue hardship", failing to approve the requested variance would not preclude the property owner from developing his property. Also, practical measures can be undertake to ensure adequate emergency provision in the area. Please keep in mind that the current owner just recently purchased the property and was aware of its sensitive environments and site constraints at that time. The subject crossing site is already protected by City code and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. If an alternative to the crossing is even slightly acceptable to the City, then the variance should not be approved. READ OBJECTIVE LUM AND POLICY LU-70 OF THE COMP PLAN'S LAND USE ELEMENT (SEE ATTACHED PAGE) 1. Emphasize "without unduly increasing pass through traffic. 2. Emphasize "... cul de sacs and pipestems should be discouraged. The proposed plat uses cul de sacs and pipestems and a plat without a ravine crossing would not substantially increase the use of these discouraged road elements. Asr stated in the Report to the Hearings Examiner, the proposal includes 2 cul de sacs and 6 lots served from pipestem roads. A plat that excludes the ravine crossing could be developed with similar attributes: 3 cul de sacs and 7 lots served from pipestem. (with rezone) Without rezone: io 2 cul de sacs (same#in applicant's proposal) and 7 lots served from pipestem roads. The applicant states Objective LU-M and Policy LU-70 in support of his request. The Comp. Plan also contains policies that support preservation of the sensitive environments. The variance has significant costs to the environment that must be weighed against the benefits of an interconnected road system. In addition, the ravine crossing would unduly increase pass through traffic and change the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is essentially a big cul-de-sac. This feature contributes greatly to the neighborhood desirability. The area is very quite and the streets are safe. Serving the new development with cul-de-sacs would be consistent with the existing neighborhood and Policy LU-311: The character of existing residential neighborhoods should be -strengthened. b 1 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare... I disagree with the developers contention that"There will be... no injury to the environment" with approval of the variance. c. That the approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege ... The developer seems to want to characterize the stream corridor in a way that makes it unworthy of protection. In his view, there have been substantial man-made impacts to the stream and that his proposed impact would be no different. I strongly disagree with this assessment of the stream and the ravine. I would encourage all decision makers concerning this proposal to visit the site and walk up the stream corridor. As substantiated by the developer's wildlife consultant, the ravine contains quality wildlife habitat. Most of the ravine is in a natural state and is densely covered with trees. The ravine is a unique environment within Renton. It is a community landmark and an object of our neighborhood's pride. I ask the City to support preservation of the ravine. d. That the approval ...is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. A minimum variance would be construction of a bridge that spanned all of the highly erodable slope areas. The proposed "bridge" is not a bridge, but rather a large culvert. This culvert design still necessitates the disturbance of the ravine's steep slopes. A bridge, while would still require tree cutting, would not require as significant of grading and filling to accomplish the desired purpose of crossing the ravine and probably more importantly, it would allow free movement of wildlife within the ravine. PROPOSED REZONE Presently, the south-eastern 4.43 acres of the subject property is zoned R-1. The current designation was originally determined in the last comprehensive planning process through careful examination and considerable community involvement both to reflect the views of the neighborhood, and provide stewardship of the area's environment. Neither the views of the neighborhood's residents, nor consideration of the area's environment, has since changed. Hence, the rezone should not be granted. 11 The applicant does not provide sufficient reason, or burden of proof, to justify a rezone. Circumstances affecting the subject property have not undergone significant and material change,and the current zoning was established in the most recent comprehensive land use planning process. Existing zoning is consistent with GMA because it was established in the City's land use map within its current Comprehensive Plan. This plan was deemed consistent with GMA. The City council consciensly decided to keep density lower here and intensify density elsewhere. In Kennydale, at both ends density is planned to be increased (Bluffs, tamaraon and Port Quendall). Not approving the rezone will not jeopardize the City's compliance with the Growth Management act but would rather tell the City's citizens that the City rather take a piecemeal approach to land use than stick to a pre-developed previously agreed upon plan. It has been my pleasure to participate in this public process and hope that my efforts will do some good. Thank you. 12 ' Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-345. Officially designated historical urbanization occurs throughout the Planning Area, sites should be preserved and/or incorporated into historic structures and sites are in danger of being all development projects. eliminated. These policies recognize the Discussion: The City of Renton has a rich history importance of historic resources and establish a as a pioneer settlement and mining community. As framework for developing programs to protect them. PARKS/OPEN SPACE Open Space System Objective LU-VV: The open space network should be interconnected and include public lands such as parks, public open space,trails, environmentally sensitive areas, private open spaces, public rights-of-way,waterways, and visual open spaces. Objective LU-WW: The function of the open space ` $ ;: kq network should be to: " rt' a. preserve land resources; 7 b. provide relief from urban development; g ,. .£ 144,: c. maintain a habitat for wildlife; d. provide physical access and visual connection within the City; and ° • e. define the form of the Cit y. Objective LU-XX: Adequate open space lands should be preserved to meet the needs of present and future generations. Objective LU-YY: Multiple open space uses should �� , be provided on lands whenever feasible. 3 ", Discussion: The concept of an open space network ,` `= , , includes the notion that the available open space would 4 function together to create a sum greater than its parts . � � � y and that, where possible, the pieces of the system would s. `o w , 044 be connected visually, or physically connected through ,- the use of an interconnected trail system. 1.40444,1 S x y , 6 ;� The following types of lands are examples of the variety of d yes � �, "' lands which should be preserved as part of the open space �' � •" network: a. Natural areas and natural features with scenic, environmental or recreational value; b. Lands that may provide public access to creeks, rivers, and lakes; c. Lands that define the boundaries of urban and rural communities; d. Lands that visually or physically connect natural areas or provide important linkages for use as recreation, and provide habitat for plants and wildlife (i.e. utility right-of-way, water easements); e. Lands valuable for active and passive recreation; f Lands which are environmentally sensitive; and g. School sites. I-42 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT City and County Open Space Lands Parks and Recreation Objective LU-ZZ: Develop and maintain a system of high quality parks and recreation facilities to serve Renton residents. Policy LU-346. The park system should include neighborhood, community, and regional parks with sufficient acreage and facilities to meet standards ` adopted by the Renton Parks Commission. {j} 11. Policy LU-347. Public land holdings should be .$ increased when population projections indicate i growth within the urban/rural boundary. Sufficient ��_` • a park land should be acquired in anticipation of ` growth to adequately meet future demand for park services. U � ' 441 Policy LU-348. Existing undeveloped park lands should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of accommodating needed facilities within them. Policy LU-349. New park facilities should be � ,. `' developed when parks are not located close enough _ w to population centers and when existing holdings cannot feasibly be developed or redeveloped with needed facilities. �k. Policy LU-350. Recreation facilities should be $: provided based on surveys of user demand and Y adopted standards. Policy LU-351. Existing parks should be more • ..intensely developed to provide needed recreation facilities where feasible. Policy LU-352. All parks development should be Policy LU-353. Public/private and multi- undertaken in a way which considers the.impact of jurisdictional partnerships should be entered into to traffic,noise, litter,glare, light,and hours of provide park and recreation services. operation on adjacent uses. Discussion: These policies will be implemented through the Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan. Trails Objective LU-AAA: Develop and maintain a comprehensive trails system which provides non-motorized access throughout the City, maximizes public access to open space areas, and provides increased recreational opportunities for the public. Policy LU-354. The trail system should serve local handicapped, and other people engaging in either and regional users and be linked to the regional trail passive and/or active pursuits including: system. a. pedestrians, Policy LU-355. Trails should provide for the needs b. bicyclists, of a diverse population of users including groups c. joggers/runners, such as adults, children, seniors,workers,the d. equestrians(in outlying areas), and e. bicycle commuters. 1-43 -Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-356. The trail system should be Policy LU-358. Linkages should be provided with recognized and maintained by the City as distinct surrounding communities within major regional from informal or private pathways. corridors such as the Cedar River,Green River,the Lake Washington Loop,and the Soos Creek Trail. Policy LU-357. Informal or private pathways should form a secondary system with linkages to Policy LU-359. Within the City, linkages should the public system. These trails should be developed be provided among residential areas,employment and maintained under joint public/private areas,Centers,and recreation areas. partnership. Discussion: The trails program for the City will be implemented through the Trails Master Plan. Additional trails policies are also included in the Transportation Element. Public Open Space Objective LU-BBB: Expand the City's open space network as population and employment density increase. Policy LU-360. The City should place its emphasis appropriate, archeologically or environmentally on acquiring open space that is either sensitive areas should be protected from intrusion. archeologically or environmentally sensitive or Policy LU-363. Public open space should also unique,or can fill a gap in the existing open space include critical areas. network. Policy LU-364. Structures should be minimized Policy LU-361. The City should give priority to within public open space areas. land acquisitions which preserve natural resource based areas or environmentally sensitive areas, Policy LU-365. A management plan for provide wildlife habitat or provide relief from urban miscellaneous dedicated lands should be developed. development. Discussion: The public open space program is also Policy LU-362. Where feasible, encourage public implemented through the Comprehensive Park and access into public open space areas. Where Recreation Master Plan. Critical Areas Objective LU-CCC: Private open space,comprised of the undevelopable portion of critical areas, should be recognized as part of the open space network. Policy LU-366. Private open space should primarily benefit the adjacent private development. Policy LU-367. Private open space should function as a project amenity providing a buffer between land uses,shaping urban form,maintaining wildlife habitat,and providing visual relief for the developed portion of critical area sites. Policy LU-368. Public access should be encouraged through private open space where these open space areas can form a link in the community- wide system of trails, natural areas,and wildlife corridors. Policy LU-369. Connections via trail easements should be considered where private open space abuts public open space. I-44 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Secondary Open Space Private Residential and Commercial Open Space Objective LU-DDD: Establish a system of private urban open spaces which provide relief from the built environment, contribute to the amenities of the street,or provide amenities for the residents of a development project or employees and customers of commercial and industrial projects. Policy LU-370. Encourage provision of open d. public plazas, space areas as part of the development of e. public view areas, commercial, industrial and residential projects. f. trails available for public use,or Such open space areas should be a functional g. wildlife corridors. element in the open space network providing any of the following: Policy LU-371. Where mutually agreeable to the a. recreation, City and private parties,private open spaces should b. buffering, be connected to other elements of the open space c. high amenity landscaping, network. Public and Private Rights-of-Way Objective LU-EEE: The open space functions of rights-of-way should be assessed in evaluating land use and transportation decisions. Policy LU-372. Criteria should be developed to Policy LU-375. A boulevard designation should be evaluate which public rights-of-way are most considered for roadways which are major appropriate for open space treatment. Open space transportation corridors in the City and also have considerations could include criteria such as the the potential to function as open spaces. Boulevard following: status would indicate a higher priority for a. access to light and air for abutting property, landscape, sidewalk and trail improvements which b. whether a street or alley is part of the open would increase the amenity value of the street. space character of a neighborhood, Boulevard status could be based on criteria such as: a. landscape character, c. whether the street is a potential boulevard, b. significant views, or view corridor, and c. linkage to other open space elements, d. whether the street gives access to or is part d. location in relation to scenic elements such of public open space. as ridgelines or waterfront,and e. potential to develop a non-motorized Policy LU-373. Where compatible with traffic transportation corridor. rights-of-way and circulation needs, portions of existing streets may be considered for development Policy LU-376. The open space functions of of open space amenities such as small linear parks, railroad and utility rights-of-way should be or landscape areas. assessed.Abandoned utility and/or railroad rights- of-way should receive high priority for designation and acquisition as trail and/or open space corridors. Policy LU-374. A city-wide boulevard plan should be developed. ANNEXATION Summary: Urban growth is occurring in many areas of the county which may eventually become a part of Renton. The City is challenged to determine when and where future annexations of these areas will occur. The annexation policies are intended to provide the City with guidance when undertaking decisions about future annexations. They encourage the City to carefully identify, evaluate and conduct annexations that will enhance the quality of life, improve the efficiency of services,protect the environment and promote land use goals. 1-45 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT d Discussion: Community separators are intended to define neighborhoods within the City and to s a �°lir5,04; "" establish edges between Renton and adjacent ." areas. These areas will be especially important as �'ti urban areas intensify both within the City and • outside of its ultimate growth area. In many cases, A�. natural features such as water bodies and stream A. � k �F t courses, landform, and vegetation already serve as community separators. The built environment also presents appropriate forms such as building <„� clusters,plazas, major institutions, industrial areas ` :`.�' ;' and urban parks which could be used as community 9 � � � ` r,..: separators. .' ; ',f spy c A t ,A ,„ , - Sy. E, it 4 t• r, Gateways _ = x t � P M �. kt.. Objective LU-QQ: Define entrances to the City and the t _ w downtown area through the use of gateways. a Policy LU-273. Identify primary and secondary gateways to the City. defined and preserved through land use and development controls. Policy LU-274. City gateways should have Policy LU-278. Visual focal points and landmarks identifying design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage, street in neighborhoods should be established as a way of furniture,paving, and street width. increasing neighborhood identify. Policy LU-275. A variety of development Policy LU-279. Access from public roadways to intensities at gateways should be used to reflect public views of distinction should be enhanced whether it is a primary or secondary gateway. through the development of public viewpoints where appropriate. Discussion: Community identity can be effectively communicated at City and district/neighborhood Policy LU-280. Private views of distinctive visual entries through the use ofgateways. Gateways are elements should be encouraged. New commercial one means to call attention to the entrance of the and residential developments should preserve views area and bid welcome. of significant visual elements both within proposed developments and as seen from adjacent parcels. Views Policy LU-281. Landscape plans should reflect the Policy LU-276. Protect and enhance views of potential impact of mature vegetation on view distinctive natural and man-made visual features corridors,views of significant visual elements and within the city and the surrounding area. landmarks. Policy LU-277. Scenic roadways and view corridors along roadways in the City should be Vegetation Objective LU-RR: Preserve vegetation for aesthetic and community character and as a means of safeguarding the environment. Policy LU-282. City-wide comprehensive Policy LU-284. The installation of landscaping landscaping standards should be developed. located within the public right-of-way and adjacent to freeways and major highways should be Policy LU-283. A vegetation plan for the City promoted and encouraged. Plant materials that are including a tree list should be developed. 1-36 -4.,;I: , 1.. : s' I ; 1. Amended 8/12/96 • ' �' CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT 4k, ''41, 4 t' y4 ,, 4`o 21* adaptable to harsh conditions should be selected for 411, o` use within these areas. ,` . I 4 Policy LU-285. Existing mature vegetation and 7- = „� ` x, °' distinctive trees should be protected and retained in Eli-t x ' sig F. '1- developments. 0'. / _ Policy LU-286. Maintenance plans should be :,� ..>� t` f required for landscaped areas in development0:0004, 4 , ., �t° 4, ,/�'� �'` projects. _, -4 4. . Policy LU-287. Vacant commercial sites should be , 1 ,' + 1 ` , , :a maintained and/or treated as appropriate(e.g. , -' #ti ; screened, mowed, landscaped)to mitigate adverse ! t visual,economic, and health/safety impacts on the f , , V' / . , .. surrounding area. Policy LU-288. Landscape plans should be Signs coordinated with the drainage plans for individual Policy LU-295. Sign guidelines should be projects to maximize percolation of surface water developed which direct the size, design, and and minimize runoff from the site. placement of signs in order to insure reasonable aesthetic and safety considerations. Streetscape Policy LU-289. Aesthetic improvements along Policy LU-296. All billboards and signs with street frontages should be provided, especially for moving parts should be eliminated. properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incentives should be provided for the inclusion of Policy LU-297. Interpretive and directional signs streetscape amenities including: landscaping for major landmarks and viewpoints within the City themes, street furniture, paving, signs and planting should be provided. strips in developing and redeveloping areas. Policy LU-298. All bulky and unusually large or Policy LU-290. Street trees should be used to tall signs such as "highway" signs should be reinforce visual corridors on major boulevards and eliminated. streets. Policy LU-299. Sign placement should be limited Policy LU-291. Beautification and screening of to on-site locations. parking lots should be encouraged through Policy LU-300. Signs should be regulated as an appropriate landscaping, fencing and berms. integral part of architectural design. In general, Policy LU-292. Freeways should be visually and signs should be compatible with the rest of the acoustically buffered from adjacent uses. building and site design. Policy LU-293. Private development projects Lighting should be encouraged to orient toward the street Policy LU-301. All exterior lighting should be and to encourage creativity in project design and focused and directed away from adjacent properties landscaping in the abutting right-of--way. and wildlife habitat to prevent spill-over or glare. Policy LU-294. Supports for overhead traffic Policy LU-302. Lighting should be used as one signals should be designed to diminish visual means to improve the visual identification of impacts. residences and businesses. Policy LU-303. Lighting fixtures should be attractively designed to complement the 1-37 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-247. Siting and development of school Policy LU-253. School sites which are facilities should be master planned to be consistent redeveloped for a different use should comply with with the Comprehensive Plan,and should be development standards for surrounding uses. coordinated between the school district and the Policy LU-254. Elementary schools should be City. located near a collector arterial street. Policy LU-248. Alternative funding sources(e.g. Policy LU-255. Safe pedestrian access to schools impact fees)should be explored for facilities should be promoted(e.g.through pedestrian necessitated by new development. linkages,safety features)through the design of new Policy LU-249. Allow schools in residential subdivisions and roadway improvements. neighborhoods which mitigate adverse impacts to Policy LU-256. Vehicular access to middle the surrounding area. schools, senior high schools and other large-scale Policy LU-250. The City and the school district facilities(e.g. bus maintenance shops, sports should jointly develop multiple use facilities(e.g. facilities) should be from minor or principal arterial playgrounds, sports fields)whenever practical. streets. Policy LU-251. Community use of school sites and Policy LU-257. Post secondary(beyond high facilities for non-school activities should be school)and regional school facilities five acres and encouraged. larger in size should be designated as Centers Institution. Policy LU-252. Facilities which are planned for closure should be considered for potential public use before being sold for private development. Health Care Objective LU-LL: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the development and expansion of facilities to serve the health care needs of the area. Policy LU-258. Small-scale health care facilities Policy LU-259. Health care facilities larger than on parcels smaller than five acres should be five acres should be designated as Institution designated using the same land use category as Centers. adjacent uses. Religious Facilities Objective LU-MM: Site religious and ancillary facilities in a manner which provides convenient transportation access and minimizes their adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. Policy LU-260. When locating in predominantly Policy LU-262. Large-scale facilities should be residential areas,religious facilities should be on encouraged to locate contiguous to an existing or the periphery of the residential area rather than the planned transit route. interior. Policy LU-261. Parking should be provided on-site Policy LU-263. Religious facilities should be located on and have direct access to either a and buffered from adjacent uses. principal,minor,or collector arterial street. Policy LU-264. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Regional Commercial-Recreational Objective LU-NN: Accommodate large commercial recreation that depends on open land and intend to serve consumer demands within a region which includes the City. 1-34 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU-265. Recreational commercial areas Discussion: As with the regional institutional uses, should be located in areas with immediate access to the plan must also consider the siting and design of an interstate or a state route and contiguous to a regional recreational uses such as sports facilities principal arterial. and amusement centers. These policies are similar to other regional policies and reference regional Policy LU-266. Recreational commercial areas recreational uses in particular. should be located outside of the trade area of other recreational commercial areas offering similar While this use is not mapped, it is included to recreational opportunities. provide for potential developments which may locate either within the City's Sphere of Influence. Policy LU-267. Vehicular access to the site should be from a principal arterial street with the number of access points minimized. COMMUNITY DESIGN Summary: The purpose of the communtiy design policies is to provide a vision for community identiy and improvement of the aesthetic and functional quality of the City. The policies address issues such as: how the physical organization of development can create a more desirable place to live; protect views; character of the streetscape;vegetation; gateways; architectual and urban design; and,community separators.Additional community design policies are located in the Residential, Centers and Employment Area Chapters. Natural Features Objective LU-OO: Provide for orderly growth of the City, while enhancing the downtown and neighborhood areas, and the City's natural features. Policy LU-268. Improve the visual, physical and Policy LU-270. The site design of developments experiential quality within the City. should maximize public access to and use of public areas as well as shoreline areas in locations Policy LU-269. The City's unique natural features contiguous to a river, lake, stream,or wetland including land form, urban form,vegetation,and where such access would not jeopardize the river should be protected and enhanced. environmental attributes of the waterbody. Community Separators Objective LU-PP: Provide physical and visual distinctions both within Renton and between edges of urban growth. Policy LU-271. The function of community Policy LU-272. Locational criteria should consider separators should be to: the following types of lands for inclusion in a. reinforce the character of the City's community separators: neighborhoods; a. Individual and interconnecting natural b. establish boundaries between the City's features, critical areas,public and private urban growth area and other areas; open space and water features; c. separate high density urban land uses from b. Existing and proposed individual and areas of low density, semi-rural and conser- interconnecting parks,boulevards,utility vation uses; and, easements,and other rights-of-way,and d. protect environmentally sensitive or critical agricultural areas. areas. c. Areas which provide a logical and easily identifiable physical separation between urban uses. 1-35 *Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT Center Office/Residential Objective LU-U: Encourage projects throughout the designation which create cohesive,quality,and landmark developments integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact,urban development with high amenity values that is a gateway to the City. s;ntta rera r, "e`a,„ '�-.. Center Office Residential 1 ,,. C'< 12- �. ��'� a 1. \ Distinguishing Features 11 rt it0 .. • i '4, • i r/Y:_ -. �� �"•� : • i story height limit j1 S� + Distinct iwwnlel around Genoa , `t, ,.) NeXto /i•l 'N. `. • Residential density 16-33 da/ane + Coma ttw^e `• a ,a• - a 4 �� �• 4 �~-�. High quality,master rytanncd da:vrloryr,e•.ne 7 fir--: „ii6''p,,r.,. t 4 '�. Zie:4;1\"\ioannd � .. Pa41k.Auua ev Shvrsitne +,L .11 1, �A ' :.i�f \� �� \\��/�- Typical USES \ `t e s^d x 1 /1�(�\ \ 1 ,. \ s..+•ansr�. . ilotclicuiiveniioii centers \1 ..:lib dl.%`a�. t ra'"a'ri `y noittu.o^.mra.^Cancer M.L use residential oMOWida^aal wish i 4D jt08�atl b1 d,e' �p p, . \ / ` ).\\ • Retirement residences Cround Visor Rrna `p ( 1 'rl Oei 1 / s. p \\\ VIY' .'. let' t = .�` ' l J ( 1 .�� • rtn ci..vr..uvr 1 r \ \ ^A \ �a'r va i' �.i'v '7,7rt t1" I \ � � Ro.ind and Sa:f d Ca re, \ I 1 , v o^t,Jj ~} v' 1' '1tf7f V ,,� r1. `a p n tl 1� �7 '-. A•. fl,i • 1 i a o ri?r Y . tu+ ,,. o w.`;1`?t (�` 11 o n r a a l^(�` 1,1 a \iJ /,r'"�i..t.,� Wilo,„.• i t,t ��rya �,:. j .:t i-t i. �..t. }. � 0 • • nw rar,.a.a `\ tY rj �d d r { r r. dO rr4 i^ � y� 1 Cl '4 :-•-:,-...-/7:C4,,yk. .'..' \\�/� /' /y'`. .,""��✓✓• 4 / S�ti v , � �� )14:,-.:64 Swam Enleseasmene-..- A � ^ -. 'r¢Lik Adana ro&Ureaa ,a xle rwilp Policy LU-124. Primary uses should include Policy LU-127. Incentives which encourage a mix complexes of offices or residential development, of uses and structured parking should be provided hotels and convention centers,research and in development regulations. development facilities,and corporate headquarters. Policy LU-128. Flexibility of use combinations Policy LU-125. Commercial uses such as retail and development standards should be allowed to and services should also be permitted provided that encourage redevelopment of sites which have they support the primary uses of the site and are significant constraints including environmental, architecturally and functionally integrated into the access and land assembly constraints. development. An exception to this limitation on Policy LU-129. Private/public partnerships should commercial uses may occur if a major commercial be encouraged to plan for infrastructure use providing high economic value to the City is development, public uses and amenities. proposed with small-scale, multiple businesses, and is designed with the scale and intensity envisioned Policy LU-130. A public review process should be for COR. required for proposed development plans of each Policy LU-126.Individual properties may have a parcel with separate ownership or abutting parcels single use if they can be developed at the scale and of the same ownership within the Center. intensity envisioned for the designation,or if Properties may be combined for public review. proposed as part of a phased development and Such plans should coordinate the mix and multi-parcel proposal which includes a mix of uses. compatibility of uses,residential density, conceptual building,site and landscape design, 1-20 Amended 8/12/96 CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT identification of gateway features, signs, Policy LU-135. A combination of internal and circulation,transit opportunities, and phasing. external site design features should be encouraged - Policy LU-131. Maximum residential density such as: should be 35 dwelling units per acre. The same a. public area plazas, area used for commercial and office development b. prominent architectural features, can also be used to calculate residential density. c. significant natural features, When proposed development does not involve a d. distinctive focal features, mix of uses,then minimum residential density e. gateways, should be 5 dwelling units per net acre. f. structured parking,and g. other features meeting the spirit and intent Policy LU-132. Site plans and proposed structures of these policies. should be designed so as to fully integrate signage, Policy LU-136. Reserved building height, bulk, setbacks, landscaping,and parking considerations across the various Policy LU-137. Reserved components of each proposed development. Policy LU-133. Internal site circulation should be primarily pedestrian oriented. Policy LU-134. Vehicular access to each proposed development should be from a major street with the number of access points reasonably minimized. Center Institution Objective LU-V: Assure that adequate land and infrastructure are available for the development and expansion of facilities to serve the post secondary educational and health care needs of the area and protect adjacent uses from impacts of these more intensive uses. ..__..._ ....... . SCnglc n dy . .5 t « ,,.Putd�c Om 5pc<a } h'`'f3f y 44 nt ''S ".ter } �i:li) Vet t�� ,1F`f•'; i H' A14." ..0. ,.e a'.LJ. �Siottek'amay tie i "1 } .. ,A f"T ���;'#l/i, l n{n� _.. - J /A»aci.cs0 S7rd:cd LRn ff t, �, 1� Ii ,�4��� ,��,.�,{�i��r art'� �'` ts; �`�< 1 �� ;,,, �'" i i ;. . `q �w rr,; ,i Th,A... .....• .5,4: ...' �� •,r T•j..• •�`�•:-,.+;j� ;ia:J..:..l ,r \ ..'_• \ .\,,\• ref /. kr fRlr=:'•fir f`' t..�, ., Y 1, { i; CS r t- 8 :.j .- • .. ruanaoP«sp... J � ert" �` tlmpinl � • �j x„(-9• } .- �'•.,� EI. 4 `h , M�"'�.�.,�^ y AawtC.la/Atdrt►1 Uses ,; ,:,..., .-----.. -----,=:--, '.-!:-----,--'t,--.--,7,,. ,,,, .4/1‘.3)-(;4M-Y-,, ' ' s '-.-.‘,. ''''--1-:;_- ,,, "--,,j2.--V • ›,,) ...---.::„.......... __,..„,... ...m„...„..... -,.... �,,_ ,. ,, ��1et gat ra.rg Center Institution )/ � -,..6. ,1.4ti ft !4 ` Distinguishing Fenturca a",r/7 '3�•� / .f fh ! • Jnified uunpus design /� b •\ ��!. ,. U \ , • 'ahlicty scces:ible*tint apace //'� ..,..` aV 1•,\ �- . eN .•• i)isiitut b wnttsry around Center �y \�` '\-,�`` Typical Uses `'.` `•- \� • Medi IItentnl clinics • Medical offices 1-21 • ATTACHMENT B LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES AND TEXT The Land Use Element policies and text are amended as follows.Policies not listed remain unchanged. RESIDENTIAL Summary: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a vision for future development in Renton's neighborhoods and throughout the City. The Residential policies address the location of housing development, housing densities, non-residential uses allowed in residential areas, site design, and housing types in neighborhoods. (See Public Facilities Section for policies on schools, churches, and other facilities in residential areas. See Housing Element for policies relating to densities, housing types and neighborhoods) Policy LU-11.Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a. development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; b. development of vacant parcels in Renton's established neighborhoods; c. development of single family/multi-family mix neighborhoods in appropriate locations; d. new multi-family development located in Renton's downtown, as infill in existing multi- family areas, and in specified Centers; e. mixed use commercial/residential projects in employment areas. Policy LU-16. In established single family neighborhoods and new low density areas, encourage single family housing types. Policy LU-16.1 In areas bordering Center designations and in areas with an existing mix of residential use types encourage a mix of single family and small scale multi-family housing types designed to look like single family development with ground related entries, i.e. duplex. triplex, fourplex. Policy LU-17. Larger multi-family development projects are encouraged in the downtown area and the Center Office Residential and the Multi-family Residential - Infill designations. Policy LU-18. The City should encourage large lot single family development in Rural Residential designations providing a more rural life style in environmentally sensitive,habitat-valuable, or agriculturally resource laden areas. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Policy LU-20. Encourage enhancement and stability in those neighborhoods which have significant numbers of legal non-conforming uses through the designation of Neighborhood Conservation areas. Policy LU-21.Within Neighborhood Conservation areas encourage developments which increase the percentage of conforming uses to allow eventual transition of these areas. Transition of uses should be implemented in a manner which recognizes the overall character of the areas while at the same time encouraging the eventual transition of the uses. Policy LU-22. Encourage the city and neighborhoods to jointly work toward identifying Neighborhood Conservation areas as needed. Discussion: This category is intended to be applied within one of the existing land use designations to help stabilize neighborhoods in transition and to revitalize and enhance their appearance. The LUFINAL.DOC\ -1- intent is to establish policies and development standards for older, established neighborhoods that have a large number of non-conforming uses and structures. This designation is an opportunity for residents and property owners to initiate added protection of their neighborhood. Policy LU-23. New development within all residential designations except Rural Residential should achieve a minimum density. The minimum density may be adjusted to reflect constraints on a site. Policy LU-24. New development within all residential designations except Rural Residential should be platted in a way which does not preclude eventual development at the required minimum density in each residential designation. Objective LU-J: Protect and enhance Residential Single Family areas, encourage re-investment and rehabilitation resulting in quality neighborhoods, improve opportunities for better public transportation, and make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-34.Net development densities should fall within a range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family neighborhoods. Policy LU-35. A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet should be allowed in single family residential neighborhoods except when flexible development standards are used for project review. Policy LU-38. Development standards for single family neighborhoods (e.g. lot size, lot width, building height, setbacks, lot coverage) should encourage quality development in neighborhoods. Policy LU-39. Development standards for single family neighborhoods should address transportation and pedestrian connections between neighborhoods and compatible boundaries between neighborhoods. Policy LU-40. New plats developed at higher densities within existing neighborhoods should be designed to incorporate street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes which address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Policy LU-40.1. New plats proposed at higher densities than adjacent neighborhood developments may be modified within the allowed density range to reduce conflicts between old and new development patterns. However,strict adherence to older standards is not required. Policy LU-40.2. Site features such as distinctive stands of trees and natural slopes should be retained to enhance neighborhood character and preserve property values where possible. Retention of unique \ site features should be balanced with the objective of investing in neighborhoods within the overall \�context of the Vision Statement of this Comprehensive Plan. Policy LU-41. Provision of small lot single family detached unit types, townhouses and multi-family structures compatible with a single family character should be encouraged provided that density standards can be met. Policy LU-46. Condominium ownership may occur in any unit type. Policy LU-47. Townhouse development should provide either condominium or fee simple homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-48. Buildings should front the street rather than be organized around interior courtyards or parking areas. LUFINAL.DOC\ -2- CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Rivers and Streams Objective EN-C: Protect and enhance the City's rivers, major and minor creeks and intermittent stream courses. Policy EN-5. Degraded channels and banks ,„- should be rehabilitated by public programs and ,t. . new development. it: ` saw f. Policy EN-6. Develop land use regulations which t� "' establish and enhance setbacks along all waterways *ergot,. and intermittent stream courses. The purpose of � t „ • s the setbacks would be to retain an enhancement of k ry the natural vegetation for infiltration, maintenance , of wildlife habitat and normal water temperatures, filtration, and the retardation of run-off and ero- • ,,• ,", sion. ' Policy EN-7. If crossings and/or access points are • r*` ` •+ required across fishbearing river and stream channels, improvements should be made in the '* • ,I following order of priority: t AlikA 1. Crossing and bridges which access several • \ properties. - p . 2. If crossings and bridges are not feasible, 2 •'1116, culverts could be used which are oversized and have gravel bottoms which maintain that have already been degraded, all efforts should the channel's width and grade. be made to restore them. For new areas, the natu- ral systems should be protected. For example, the Discussion: The rivers and streams within the City use of closed pipe drainage systems for streams in hold great importance for the citizens. These developments should be prohibited except where waterways can be protected through three no other feasible alternative exists and where the measures: preservation of their courses, their closed system will not cause any significant banks, and the vegetation next to them. For areas degradation of water quality or habitat. Wetlands Objective EN-D: Preserve and protect wetlands for overall system functioning. Policy EN-8. Achieve no overall net loss of the stable water temperatures, provide for the City's remaining wetlands base. biological regime, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat. Policy EN-9. In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing Policy EN-11. Water level fluctuations in wetlands. wetlands used as part of storm water detention systems should be similar to the fluctuations under Policy EN-10. Establish and protect buffers along natural conditions. The utilization, maintenance, wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain VIII-4 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT and storage capacity provided in existing wetlands should be encouraged. Policy EN-12. Pursue all potential funding °• r ' ' '' , E"# _ ,,; sources in order to purchase significant wetlands. ,, , "1; ii , PolicyEN-13. When development mayimpact P P l°, t ., -. wetlands, the following hierarchy should be followed in deciding the appropriate course of z * s action: 4 ' ,v 'i7 . a. avoid impacts to the wetland, 4 ,,,,it b. minimize impacts to the wetland, i ' 'ii k'f':. ` , i f n °� $ c; - $'#'''',0,:' ' e c. restore the wetland when impacted, { �� ,,,. 0 , . ' �'� ;, d. recreate the wetland at a ratio which will ,,..it,',A i ' r , '. _.414,�'"�:' provide for its assured viability and k� ' i , i �' \el success. ��! " �.'f +a �'' 4.7;;;. ','' ,4.?' , k Policy EN-14. Provide a ranking system for ,1`,"'ki t Nt, �_ '1 'i i ', i' i,,,,; 4h,,,,, ,, ,k _. wetlands based on their acreage and quality. High quality wetlands should have more protection under this system. Discussion: The City has over 350 acres of wetlands at the time of this writing. These Policy EN-15. Provide incentives for an overall wetlands provide flood storage, wildlife habitat, net gain of wetland functions and values of new water quality protection, water quantity or development. infiltration, aesthetic relief, erosion and sedimenta- Policy EN-16. Encourage public access to tion control, and pollutant removal. In some areas wetlands for use when sensitive habitats are of the City, the natural functioning of these protected. wetlands is integral to protection of properties from flooding. Policy EN-17. Meet water quality standards prior to discharging surface water into wetlands. Flood Plains Objective EN-E: Protect the natural functions of 100 year floodplains and floodways. Policy EN-18. Prohibit permanent structures from Policy EN-20. Restrict land uses to those which developing in floodways due to risks associated do not cause backwater or significantly increase with deep and fast flowing water. the velocity of floodwaters. Policy EN-19. Limit development within the 100 Policy EN-21. Incorporate design features which year floodplain to that which is not harmed by are intended to keep harmful substances from flooding. Roads and finished floors of structures flood waters in any development which is allowed should be located above the 100 year flood level in the 100 year floodplain. and new development should provide compensation for existing flood storage capacity Policy EN-22. Emphasize non-structural methods due to filling. in planning for flood prevention and damages reduction. VIII-5 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page General Objective And Policies VIII-3 Surface Water VIII-3 Rivers And Streams VIII-4 Wetlands VIII-4 Flood Plains VIII-5 Stormwater VIII-6 Ground Water Resources VIII-7 Fisheries And Wildlife Resources VIII-8 Process VIII-8 Atmospheric Conditions VIII-9 Steep Slopes, Landslide, And Erosion Hazards VIII-10 Seismic Areas VIII-10 Coal Mine Hazards VIII-11 VIII-2 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Summary: The purpose of the environmental policies is to provide the policy background and basis for future environmental actions by the City of Renton as it attempts to balance urbanization, economic development, and natural area protection. Environmental policies address substantive issues such as development within floodplains, wetlands, and steep slopes and procedural issues such as how these areas should be mapped and how they should be regulated. Environmental policies will be implemented through economic development decisions, critical areas regulations, and incentives for environmental protection. (See the Employment Area -Industrial and Open Space Sections of the Land Use Element, Stormwater Section of the Capital Facilities Plan Element, Stormwater&Aquifer Protection Sections of the Utilities Element for policies related to Environmental Element.) General Objective and Policies Objective EN-A: Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality through land use plans and patterns, surface water management programs, park master programs, development reviews, incentive programs and work with citizens, land owners, and public and private agencies. Policy EN-1. Prevent development on lands Discussion: Development clustering, preservation where development would create hazards to life, of significant natural features, and retention of or property, or environmental quality. establishment of vegetated corridors are examples of development patterns that implement these objectives. Surface Water Objective EN-B: Protect and enhance water quality of surface water resources. Policy EN-2. Manage water resources for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water supply, energy production, and open space. Policy EN-3. Minimize erosion and sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction techniques .` x , . and farming practices. Policy EN-4. Limit discharges of pollutants such , ,�' as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides and other I � hazardous wastes to surface waters. 1 � Discussion: The quality of surface water resources is important for the City of Renton for public health and saf reasons, as well as recreational and environmental reasons. Surface water pollution may ultimately mean aquifer pollution. effects such as erosion and sedimentation. Further protection of surface water will come through High water quality can be achieved through the aquifer protection policies and ordinances, which use of Best Management Practices for industries could limit discharges of pollutants. Land uses are and businesses. Preservation of riparian corridors suggested in the plan which will also secondarily can protect receiving waters from storm water address surface water impacts. VIII-3 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Policy EN-23. Dredge the Cedar River bed as one method of flood control. Stormwater Objective EN-F: Conduct a stormwater management program which optimizes Renton's water resources. Policy EN-24. Maintain and enhance natural and sedimentation and to prevent pollutants from drainage systems to protect water quality, reduce entering ground or surface waters. public costs, and prevent environmental degradation. Policy EN-31. Implement surface water management systems which protect natural Policy EN-25. Preserve natural surface water features whenever feasible. storage sites that help regulate service flows and recharge groundwater. Policy EN-32. Promote means of flow control, when required in waterways, that maintain the Policy EN-26. Provide local funding for the channel in as natural a state as possible. stormwater program through Storm Water Utility. Policy EN-33. Use, maintain, and enhance the Policy EN-27. Control quantity and quality of natural stormwater storage capacity provided in stormwater run-off from all new development to existing significant wetlands. be consistent with or improved over existing conditions. Policy EN-34. Use interlocal agreements and cooperative planning programs to coordinate, Policy EN-28. Minimize on-site erosion and where appropriate, with King County, Tukwila, sedimentation during and after construction. and Kent and other agencies for stormwater management. Policy EN-29. Route stormwater run-off from new development to avoid gully erosion or Policy EN-35. Actively participate in non-point landslides in ravines and steep hillsides. source pollution watershed plans including those for the May Creek, Cedar River, and Green River Policy EN-30. Industries and businesses should Basins. use best management practices to prevent erosion Objective EN-G: Provide a storm and surface water control and drainage system capable of preventing threats to life, property and public safety during a 100 year flooding event. Policy EN-36. Promote the return of precipitation Policy EN-38. Manage the cumulative effects of to the soil at natural rates near where it falls storm water through a combination of engineering through the use of detention ponds, grassy swales, 1 and preservation of natural systems. and infiltration where feasible. Discussion: With the average annual rainfall as Policy EN-37. Promote development design high as it is in the City, storm water control is an which minimizes impermeable surface coverage by important concern. Regional and localized limiting site coverage and maximizing the flooding is found in downtown Renton and in the exposure of natural surfaces. Green River Valley. While various agencies manage the rivers for flood control, large amounts of storm water from impervious surfaces contribute to the flooding situation. As the drainage basins continue to develop in King County and other VIII-6 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Green River Valley cities, more storm water passes systems. However, the cumulative effects of storm through Renton, the final downstream jurisdiction water can only be managed by a combination of for these basins. engineering and preservation of natural systems such as streams, rivers, and wetlands. These Engineering techniques can control much of the policies work in concert then, with the previous stormwater through detention and retention natural system policies. Objective EN-H: Support and sustain educational, informational, and public involvement programs in the City over the long term in order to encourage effective use, preservation, and protection of Renton's water resources. Policy EN-39. Provide information for and Policy EN-41. Create the long-term community participate in informing and educating individuals, commitment that will be necessary to sustain groups, businesses, industry, and government in efforts to protect the City's water resources and the protection and enhancement of the quality and maintain and improve water quality through quantity of the City's water resources. educational programs. Policy EN-40. Increase the community's Discussion: Individuals can aid in stormwater understanding of the City's ecosystem and the management through Best Management Practices relationship of the ecosystem to water resources. at the single family home or single business level. Ground Water Resources Objective EN-I: Ensure the long-term protection of the quality and quantity of the groundwater resources of the City of Renton in order to maintain a safe and adequate potable water supply for the City. Policy EN-42. Designate and protect areas of Policy EN-45. Any businesses relocating to the critical recharge and other associated aquifers downtown that use or store materials regulated by within the City and the sphere of influence through the Aquifer Protection Ordinance should be sited coordination with surrounding jurisdictions. outside of Zone 1 of the aquifer. Policy EN-43. Emphasize the use of open Discussion: In 1988, the Environmental ponding and detention, grassy swales, clean roof Protection Agency designated the Cedar River run-off, and other stormwater management aquifer as a sole source aquifer for the potable techniques that maximize water quality and water for the City of Renton. 98% of the City's infiltration where appropriate and which will not water supply comes from that aquifer or from endanger groundwater quality. springs in the Talbot Road area. Strong policies protect these supplies through a variety of Policy EN-44. Acquire the most sensitive lands methods, including protection of natural systems such as wetlands and flood plains for conversion to and careful regulation of development in sensitive parks and greenbelts. aquifer areas. Objective EN-J: Increase the participation by the City of Renton in resolution of regional ecological issues that may impact aquifer protection. Policy EN-46. Promote the use of interlocal possible sources of pollution and the potential for agreements with other agencies to restrict land use erosion, and to increase infiltration. in sensitive aquifer recharge areas to minimize VIII-7 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Policy EN-47. Actively participate in regional Policy EN-48. Discourage the continued use of, highway planning, construction, and traffic and hauling of waste to, the Cedar Hills landfill restrictions. through the City of Renton. Policy EN-49. Participate in land use and sewerage decisions in outlying areas of the City's aquifer. Fisheries and Wildlife Resources Objective EN-K: Protect and enhance wildlife habitat throughout the City. Policy EN-50. Identify unique and significant of habitat. The Cedar River supports major fish wildlife habitat as defined by Washington State runs during the year. Springbrook Creek, Honey Habitat and Species Project and ensure that Creek, and May Creek also provide habitat for buildings, roads, and other features are located on salmonids. The Black River forest provides habitat less sensitive portions of a site. for over 35 species of birds, including heron and eagles, and many small mammals. The Cedar Policy EN-51. Identify and preserve corridors River, May Creek, and Panther Creek corridors connecting habitat acquisition, regulation of have forested, meadow, and shrub habitats that development proposals, and other means. provide shelter and food for many species. Deer have been spotted migrating through the power Policy EN-52. Encourage preservation and line corridors which criss-cross the City. enlargement of existing habitat areas through Besides these east-west corridors, a north-south development incentives. corridor of habitat exists stretching from the Cedar River drainage to the May Creek drainage directly Policy EN-53. Re-establish self- sustaining outside the city limits on the plateau. fisheries resources in appropriate rivers and creeks through encouragement of hatcheries and salmonid These policies provide for preservation of these use. habitats. A variety of methods could be used to implement these policies: conservation easements, Policy EN-54. Retain and enhance aquatic and large lot zoning, city open space purchase and riparian habitats by requiring vegetated buffers for wildlife management, setbacks, retention of all new development along waterway corridors. vegetation in various areas, and landscaping regulations specifying native vegetation which Discussion: The City of Renton, unlike many would provide food and shelter for wildlife. major Puget Sound cities, has several unique areas Process Objective EN-L: Environmentally sensitive areas should be identified and regulated to protect life and property according to the severity of the natural hazards. Policy EN-55. The following should be c) unstable or water bearing soils; considered in designating and controlling d) unique flora and unique fauna; environmentally sensitive sites: e) historic and archeological sites; and a) critical areas and resource lands inventory; 0 unique natural features. b) steep slopes drainage swales, lakes, wetlands, bogs, streams, rivers, or other surface water bodies; VIII-8 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Policy EN-56. Maintain an inventory of Policy EN-62. The final identification of environmentally sensitive areas including environmentally sensitive or critical areas, descriptions of criteria for designation and maps. hazardous sites or portions of sites should be established during the review of project proposals. Policy EN-57. Regulate areas identified on the Greenbelt Overlay map through the Policy EN-63. A review process should be implementation of Greenbelt Regulations RMC 4- established to make any changes in the inventory 31-35, by providing for regulation on uses, of environmentally sensitive areas. densities, clearing, grading, and/or vegetation removal. Policy EN-64. Critical areas, or portions of critical areas, may be included in community Policy EN-58. Designate setbacks around separators. environmentally sensitive areas to protect both the areas and the users. Discussion: These policies provide an integrated approach for the regulation and management of Policy EN-59. Establish and maintain a secondary environmental areas based on the value of the system of corridors to protect agriculture, timber, resource and/or the severity of the hazards. The forest lands, and wildlife habitat and to provide maps reveal that several of the critical areas often linkages between critical areas. occur simultaneously and provide wildlife habitat if undeveloped. The policies envision a two-tiered Policy EN-60. Encourage preservation of these approach to these areas: the most hazardous secondary corridors through incentives and should be designated as critical corridors; the regulations which will provide for public health second as environmentally sensitive and should and safety, and provide visual relief from urban include agriculture, mineral,forest lands, and structures and development. wildlife habitat not associated with a critical area. Regulations and land use designations could be Policy EN-61. Where appropriate combine all provided to these two groups allowing for critical areas and environmentally sensitive areas development where appropriate. with recreational facilities to provide public access and trail linkages through separators. Atmospheric Conditions Objective EN-M: Protect and promote clean air and minimize individual and cumulative noise impacts to ensure a healthful environment. Policy EN-65. Maintain high air quality standards Policy EN-68. Limit the use of public address through efficient land use patterns. systems to ensure that noise does not spill over to adjacent land uses and activities on a daily basis. Policy EN-66. Promote air quality through reduction in emissions from industry, traffic, Policy EN-69. Ensure that the design, placement, commercial, and residential uses. and use of any on-site equipment, such as air conditioning units or other equipment is accom- Policy EN-67. Limit noise from construction plished in a manner which minimizes noise activities to reasonable hours of the day and days impacts on adjacent land uses and activities. of the week. VIII-9 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Steep Slopes, Landslide, and Erosion Hazards Policy EN-74. Retain or replace native ground cover after construction in areas subject to erosion Policy EN-70. Land uses on steep slopes should hazards. Special construction practices should be be designed to prevent property damage and used, and allowable site coverage may need to be environmental degradation, and to enhance reduced to prevent erosion and sedimentation. greenbelt and wildlife habitat values by preserving Limitations on the time when site work can be and enhancing existing vegetation to the maximum done may also be appropriate. extent possible. Policy EN-75. Incorporate design elements which Policy EN-71. Allow land alteration only for preserve and enhance the natural drainage system approved development proposals or approved into developments in an effort to control erosion mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary and sedimentation. erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or unnecessarily scar the landscape. Policy EN-76. Design, locate, and construct utility systems in a manner which will preserve the Policy EN-72. Mitigate problems of drainage, integrity of the existing land forms, drainage erosion, siltation, and landslides by decreasing ways, and natural systems. development intensity, site coverage, and vegetation removal as slope increases. Discussion: Renton is located in a geographically unique area. The walls of the plateaus and river Policy EN-73. Protect high landslide areas from valleys contain both steep and erosive conditions. land use development and roads. Numerous landslides create costs borne by the public agencies every year and private owners often suffer property damage from these same events. Due to the high annual rainfall and soil conditions, erosion damage can occur on relatively level areas as well as steep ones. These policies set up standards which will protect public health, safety and welfare and allow development to proceed in appropriate areas. Seismic Areas Objective EN-O: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to seismic events. Policy EN-77. Minimize the risk of structural Policy EN-78. Prior to development in high damage, fire, and injury to occupants, and prevent seismic hazard areas, builders should conduct post-seismic collapse by using special building special studies to evaluate seismic risks and should design and construction measures in areas with use appropriate measures to reduce the risks. high seismic hazards. VIII-10 • . - 4.1 CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Coal Mine Hazards Objective EN-P: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to abandoned coal mines, and return this land to productive uses. Policy EN-79. Identify areas which may be impacted by abandoned coal mines. Policy EN-80. Develop land use plans and zoning to reflect the hazards to development in identified areas. Policy EN-81. Allow land uses to locate in coal mine hazard areas, provided the hazards are precisely located and all significant hazards associated with the mines are eliminated, making the site as safe as a site which has not been previously mined. Policy EN-82. Show the location of coal mine hazards on any plat or site plan maps. Such documents should be recorded. Discussion: The City of Renton has a long and rich history of coal mining. Most mining ceased by the end of World War II but the mines still remain. Some entrances have not been properly sealed, some shafts present potential for collapse, and some areas may generate methane gas. These hazards are often unnoticeable on the surface, but may present subterranean dangers for the property owners. These policies reflect the importance of identifying and regulating these areas. VIII-11 ji, :. Ur 1• IP. Ar ii% I.hEFIFS M IP,im ir•Ploa -.. - - - — I I li' '14"1;;;e4i1 I i rD •"\—'1- 71-="' I‘;- I I' I ' -4,T,- Illigainlin 1 mu ' I nissiu.TARITrWM-M1-3 El TM.,"" ‘-c.-li'. - ; 1 S2t.11,:t °_ _s ! -,F•VP•g14,:.1-',,isC Ili;LIJ PI WI f"-I' ! A.,..1g-L ssail Is rr_IU.,.._!. r-4--F-'--.y•—• N. 28TH PL. 41:" • :,‘ -'4' .41.0 IiiL firp I 10:-ti'uliirib 011 : i ,.4 ...p.,1• 6,,. .P;3 i 112 1 Ms2 ,S VI li;12,2E. .,., .s._ ,p; \ • • !..X X —• •-••••.I.'•-•••. '..".. 4-111;. . A ---:-.. .--.7. --.'-'....1.1. •— —28TH'--1-= •ST.—• ' •-,- , • a i JAMES L IL MRS 'Mkt'Lit 11:/ ''.1 1: h 1 1El3END \ ,, — N \\L,E,L,....TPROsoF. iolvttnoF 41 MARENAKOS... cl, ” .:• fl t". '' ' - In• " 5 ' E r• s. " " ./. N \ NO \ 4\ MA NiVOL I \`,'* FONTANA s \ :. 'RI',..: , ELAND F PETERSON itr \I 1-cti!i, ,„. ,., P") Air IA '--j I. 01.- \ ie \ c--4. \• 00Sc ' wi..,h 7,, , . . - 2a17;'-- Ch 32 , 31 01 30 :a s - ' -VP #.1 , , ..:4 .. ''''' ; COI& r r • • s\. a,' ,1^,..,% ts •• „ if,,, ._ . 15 .. s , I :Pt s\... .._le's5. ,,,,, ':\ •. ,JII .. I. ,..:1 5__ri : 2.:,\* 29 4 N. .2. .TH , ST ; \----, wily6:lb'icrscai- 4--4-- -- c- --p-• ,, x tot,,,: .. .,,,,,,, I - -y10- 4:—' — ..• • I., so 24 la-......-2•• tr-1 --ii, s- "r March 4, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT.RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Kim Browne Appeal of ERC's Determination for Labrador Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA99-009,AAD APPLICANT: Tom Touma Labrador Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-98-141,PP,V,R LOCATION: 2700 block of Lake Washington Blvd.N and Burnett Avenue N • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To subdivide 15.55 acres into 62 single family residential lots SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Request that the applicant be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES: APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the February 2, 1999 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, LUA99- 141,PP,V,R,containing the original application, proof 009,AAD, containing the appeal, proof of posting and of posting,proof of publication and other publication,and other documentation pertinent to the documentation pertinent to this request. appeal. Exhibit No.3: Aerial photography Exhibit No.4:Videotape Exhibit No. 5: Topographic map Exhibit No.6: Plat map Exhibit No.7: Plat map indicating ravine Exhibit No.8: Photographs of existing back yards (3) Exhibit No.9: Calculations re slope Exhibit No. 10: Street profile for Street B Exhibit No. 11: Tree location map Exhibit No. 12: Vicinity map Exhibit No. 13: Topography map Exhibit No. 14: Native growth map Exhibit Nos. 15: Slope analysis map Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 2 Parties present: Representing Appellant Representing City of Renton Kim Browne Larry Warren 1003 N 28th Place 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Representing Applicant Jim Handmacher P.O. Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Warren expressed several concerns regarding the wording of the appeal,the limitation of issues and people testifying, particularly if the matter should proceed further in an appellate process. The Examiner explained that because this was a combined appeal and land use hearing,that the public was entitled to testify, particularly at the land use hearing. Further, during the SEPA appeal the testimony should be limited to legal issues as to whether the City's determination was adequate,were proper decisions made, and would an EIS supplement the information that was already in the file. Kim Browne, appellant herein, stated the City had determined upon review of reports provided by the applicant and after developing mitigation measures,that this proposed plat would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. However, it appeared from looking at the mitigation measures that the only issue considered in detail was the proposal's impact on soil erosion. The inclusion of impacts to wildlife in its habitat,wetlands, water quality and fisheries makes it apparent that the proposed plat will result in probable significant impacts to the environment, and thus an EIS evaluating alternatives should be done and the proposal should be substantially modified to minimize impacts to the environment. A video was shown highlighting the property and a recent eagle sighting on the property. Ms. Browne elaborated on the habitat and protective status of the eagle according to various governmental rulings, and the necessity to further evaluate modifying the plat to protect wildlife. The appellant described the physical aspects of the site, including the topography,the vegetation and the stream which flows year around through the property. She questioned the impact of the plat on the ravine,particularly Lots 6 through 11,-which seem to be partially in the ravine, and the concern over erosion hazards. Appellant further questioned the lack of mitigation measures regarding impact to fisheries, and presented documentation regarding state-wide salmon recovery strategy. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056,testified on behalf of the appellant,and stated that he has fished where Kennydale Creek enters Lake Washington and has observed salmon spawning at this point. • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Browne continued that a Native Growth Protection Easement should be established in as great a width as possible around the stream to limit human activity. The measurement of the topography was questioned, as well as the omission of the soil condition where the ravine is to be crossed. Appellant further requested that the discrepancy in the seasonal construction time be resolved. In closing, Ms. Browne stated that the current proposal does little to protect valuable wildlife habitat and that any development that is allowed on this property should be designed to minimize impacts to the environment. With the exception of the western reaches of the ravine,current City rules and regulations serve to protect most of the sensitive areas of the site and help safeguard the property from intense development. In an effort to • bypass these safeguards,the applicant has asked for exceptions to existing regulations including a rezone and a variance from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance. Granting these exceptions would result in a level of development that is not compatible with the site's environmental constraints. As proposed the subject plat would result in significant impacts to the environment,generally wildlife,eagles, salmon, potential water quality. As proposed a threshold determination of significance is appropriate. Tom Touma,6632 S 191st Place,#E-102, Kent,Washington 98032, engineer for applicant herein,explained the mlethod used by his firm to produce the topography maps, including physical field work on site with the location of all trees,the placement of points and the use of computer software to generate the final data. He further explained that based on the calculations and the way the topography was generated, the southeasterly boundary of lots was matched to the 40% limits. Some of the lots may have contours up to 38% or 39%. Larry Warren , City Attorney, stated that the appeal has two elements: whether the environmental determination was appropriate and whether an EIS should be required. The environmental rules require the City to view the material that is available to it, and if the material is available the City may not require additional studies and may not require an EIS. The information that was available to the City in this instance was adequate to make the necessary decisions. As noted,the issue of soil erosion was considered in great detail by the City, and almost all of the mitigation conditions outside of the normal fire,traffic and parks mitigation concerned steep slopes. The City has certain constraints it operates under when it is considering environmental impacts, and one of the things the City may not do is speculate about impacts. There was no substantive testimony that there was an eagle's nest on this site,and even if there was, the tree in question is to be retained. The wildlife in the area will be in the ravine and a substantial portion of that ravine will be preserved. The City must consider a broad number of policies, including all of those that have been imposed by the Growth Management Act, and those are very difficult for the City and the general public to live with at times,but require intensified development within urban growth areas. Jim Handmacher,attorney for applicant herein, stated that staff had conducted an intensive review of this project, proposing page after page of mitigating conditions. It is apparent from the extensive record all environmental factors were considered-- a traffic study was done,three geotech reports were provided,a wildlife study was done as well as a wetlands study. It is apparent from that history that the City did undertake a rigorous analysis as required. . The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 12:10 p.m. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 4 SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION 1. The appellant, Kim Browne, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS- M) issued by the ERC. Ms. Browne, hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on January 21, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. The appellant noted in the appeal letter that the appeal was filed"on behalf of the residents of Kennydale" but there is no organization represented by the appeal. The appellant, as a neighbor who would be affected by the development,has standing to bring this appeal. The appellant was supported, by other neighbors and residents of the area during the appeal. 3. The applicant,Tom Touma,Touma Engineers,represented Labrador Venture, L.L.C.,the property owner. The applicant proposes developing a 62-lot Preliminary Plat on approximately 15.55 acres. 4. For a description of the subject site,zoning and surrounding area, as well as a description of the proposal,see the Site Plan portion of this appeal included below. 5. The appellant alleged in the appeal that the mitigation measures would not adequately mitigate the impacts caused by the proposed measures and requested that an environmental impact statement(EIS) be prepared. The areas specifically mentioned and to which the appeal was confined were impacts to: earth, trees and vegetation, aesthetics,wildlife habitat,and surface and ground water. 6. The appellant noted that the ERC conditions were in the main directed at erosion and very few dealt with the natural conditions or environment. 7. The applicant supplemented the Environmental Checklist with a series of additional reports. Included as part of the file were a geotech report, a tree inventory and removal plan,wetland report and wildlife report. There was also a traffic analysis. 8. The applicant has applied for two variances to remove vegetation from the bank along Burnett Avenue North and in the ravine to support the "bridge." 9. A routine vegetation management permit is not required when removal occurs incident to other construction permits. In addition, it is clear that a large portion of the site will be disturbed for development and will be relandscaped. 10. The checklist contains information on the general animal population and may have omitted some types of animals. No threatened or endangered species nor dens or nests of such species were found showing residence on the site. - 11. A pair of eagles has been seen flying over the site and perching in a tree located near the north center of the site. The activity has occurred more than once. There does not appear to be any evidence of a nest at this time. No definitive survey has been done. Eagles are classified as threatened or endangered specifies by the Federal government. 12. The site is a heavily wooded parcel with a steep ravine and creek. The ravine starts near the northeast corner of the site and generally runs across the north portion of the parcel and then turns southwest near the center of the site and runs to the southwest corner of the site. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R Marche 4, 1999 Page 5 13. The tree inventory only counts trees of certain dimensions which gives the effect of underestimating the tree coverage on the site. The site is very wooded. There are at least seven tree species and 47 other plant species on the site. 14. A mitigation measure aimed at controlling light was one of the few measures taken to protect the wildlife habitat. Approximately 116 animal species were observed or expected from the characteristics of the subject site. 15. The subject site is approximately 300 feet from Lake Washington and therefore not governed by the Shoreline Master Program. 16. The geotechnical information identifies the site as having medium slide potential but high erosion potential. These considerations resulted in the ERC scrutinizing those aspects more carefully and when drafting its conditions. 17. Approximately one-third of the site has 25% or greater slopes. 18. The appellant is also concerned about the use of pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers on the subject site and the potential impacts on the creek and wetlands. This creek runs directly into Lake Washington at Coulon Park. The creek outlet at Coulon is an enhanced wetland focal point at the park. It is the area with a bridge pier over part of the wetland and creek. 19. The appellant suggests moving the lots further up the slope or away from the purported steeper slopes. 20. Wet vaults are located in the vicinity of Proposed Lots 9 and 12 and 31 and 32. The appellant was concerned that open wetponds had more cleansing ability than closed vaults. 21. All Findings from the Site Plan decision are incorporated into this decision. 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 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 of the ERC is affirmed with one additional-mitigation measure. 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 SEPA requires a thorough examination of the Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 6 environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination 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 determined 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. (1) 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. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "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) 6. The appellant is correct in a number of regards. Most importantly,the site will be significantly altered by the proposed development. Any time wild,woodsy open space with a ravine is developed there will be significant changes to the ecosystem. Generally such significant changes would warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. But, as we have here most if not all of the concerns raised by the appellant except possibly alternative development scenarios are addressed in supporting documents. Even significant changes to an environmentally sensitive area do not necessarily bar development. If more than a moderate impact is anticipated then that triggers further environmental analysis, but such further analysis does not mean a site will be protected from development. If significant impacts are expected,then an EIS would ferret out that information with data on soils, topography,vegetation, wildlife and water quality as well as traffic. While traffic was not challenged, even in that area a substantial traffic report was prepared. In the areas that were challenged,there were two geotechnical reports prepared, a tree inventory, a habitat survey and a storm water analysis. 7. In other words, a number of detailed reports were prepared that cover the same ground as one would expect from an EIS. While those reports may be wanting in some particulars, overall they provide the decision-maker a pretty complete view of the subject site and its unique ecosystem, its soils,slopes and ravine. More information probably would not be attained by the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. 8. The major area where there might be concern was over the absence of alternatives of less and in fact, more dense development scenarios. But this is well-covered in the staff analysis of the proposed rezone. A rezone which in fact is not recommended by staff. • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 7 9. Again,there can be no arguing with the fact that development of the site will create profound changes to the site's environment and the environment of the surrounding community. Wooded open space which is privately owned will be changed to developed homesites that are privately owned. At the same time,the steepest slopes,the creek and the Category 2 wetlands will be preserved. 10. The appellants are looking for a full EIS to uncover missing facts. They believe that the current information compiled for the project is either incomplete or erroneous. That does not appear to be the case. The application,checklist, supplemental reports and other submissions provide a wide range of information which allowed the ERC to reach the conclusions they did. 11. It is clear that the appellants have a sincere belief that the City's SEPA determination is erroneous. Unfortunately sincere beliefs have to be bolstered by factual evidence that the determination is erroneous. The appellant failed to introduce much in the way of factual evidence to show that the City's determination was erroneous. In the absence of such fact,compelling or otherwise, it is extremely difficult to agree with the appellant that a mistake was made. 12. The one area in which valid questions were raised and for which no definitive answer was available concerns the "eagle tree." It is an area in which further mitigation may be required. The State's Wildlife and Fisheries Department will have to be invited to survey the site and the perching tree to ascertain definitively if nesting occurs or if protection of it and a perimeter is required. Any mitigation recommended by that agency shall be incorporated into the mitigation already required by the ERC. 13. Even using the relaxed standard that leans toward upholding a challenge to a DNS,the appellant has failed to persuade this office that the determination was based on other than a thorough analysis. 14. 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. No such conviction results from hearing this case. Therefore,the determination below must be affirmed except as noted above. 15. In conclusion,the appellant's arguments and case are not convincing. Nothing in the record reveals that the preparation of an EIS that was specifically scoped to the critical geotechnical and habitat issues would reveal substantially more information than currently can be found in the existing record. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. DECISION: - The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is generally affirmed and the appeal is denied subject to the inclusion of one additional mitigation measure as follows:. 1. The State's Wildlife and Fisheries Department will have to be invited to survey the site and the perching tree to ascertain definitively if nesting occurs or if protection of it and a perimeter is required. Any mitigation recommended by that agency shall be incorporated into the mitigation already required by the ERC. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 8 MINUTES: PRELIMINARY PLAT,VARIANCE AND REZONE The following minutes are a summary of the February 2, and February 9, 1999 preliminary plat, variance and rezone hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 2, 1999, at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Because of time constraints, Mr. Sager, Ms. Cullers, Ms.Job, Ms.Nimmo and Mr. Scott testified regarding the preliminary plat during the appeal portion of the hearing. Their comments appear later in the minutes. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, LUA99- 141,PP,V,R,containing the original application, proof 009,AAD,containing the appeal, proof of posting and of posting, proof of publication and other publication,and other documentation pertinent to the documentation pertinent to this request. appeal. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Vicinity map(assessor's map) Exhibit No.5: Zoning map Exhibit No. 6: Preliminary plat map (2/1/99) Exhibit.No. 7: Slope analysis map Exhibit No.8: Assessor's map of preliminary plat Exhibit No. 9: Map of rezone area Exhibit No. 10: Tree clearing plan Exhibit No. 11: Cross-section drawing of bridge - Exhibit No. 12: Videotape by Mike Moore Exhibit No.13: Petition Exhibit No. 14: Area traffic study map Exhibit No. 15: City of Renton Ord. 2708 Exhibit No. 16: Traffic generation study Exhibit No. 17: Photos of area residences Exhibit No. 18: Redesigned plat map by K.Browne Exhibit No. 19: Video from M. Moore dated 2/8/99 Exhibit No.20: Architectural drawing of proposed Juanita style house Exhibit No.21: Architectural drawing of proposed Exhibit No.22: Architectural drawing of proposed Madrona style house Leschi style house Exhibit No.23: Drawing of proposed bridge Exhibit No.24: Point map by Touma Exhibit No. 25: Triangulation map by Touma Exhibit No.26: Memorandum from Handmacher Exhibit No.27: Seattle Times article dated 1/24/99 Exhibit No.28: Scott Easement Exhibit No.29: Appeal statement of K. Browne Exhibit No.30: Salmon study Exhibit No.31: Eagle study Exhibit No.32: Composite photo Exhibit No.33: Previous tree cutting plan Exhibit No.34: Current tree cutting plan Exhibit No.35: Topography map with highlights Exhibit No.36: Prel.. Plat statement by K.Browne The preliminary plat hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager,Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant has applied to subdivide a 15.55 acre site into 62 parcels and five tracts for the eventual development of single family homes. There are two existing homes on the site and one will be removed. This site is located in the northwest portion of the City just east of Lake Washington Boulevard. Adjacent neighborhoods include the Griffin Home and single family residential developments. There is split zoning on the parcel,with 11.2 acres zoned Residential - 8 Dwelling Units per Acre with a Comprehensive Plan (CP)designation of Residential Single Family. The eastern 4.43 acres is zoned Residential- 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre with a CP Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 9 designation of Residential Rural. The applicant is proposing to rezone the eastern 4.43 acres of the site to Residential - 5 Dwelling Units per Acre. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the tree cutting and land clearing ordinance in order to build a creek crossing and street improvements along Burnett Avenue. The property has a ravine with steep slopes which bisects the site from the southwest corner to the northeast corner with a creek running through it. There are two Category 2 wetlands on the property. Wetland A is 7,093 square feet located in the northeast portion,and Wetland B is 20,643 square feet in the southwest portion of the site. The proposal primarily does not interfere with the wetlands or buffers. To cross the ravine the applicant is proposing a box culvert bridge to contain the creek in its natural flow and pattern. The location of the bridge is at the narrowest point of the ravine. There is an existing concrete dam to the east of the proposed bridge location. There is considerable diverse vegetation on the site. There are over 500 trees primarily located in the steep portion of the ravine. The tallest fir tree on the site where the eagles have been seen will not be disturbed. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated and an appeal was filed requesting a Declaration of Significance requiring an EIS.The ERC required erosion and sedimentation controls to be implemented before, during and after construction. Also required of the applicant were payment of fire, parks and traffic mitigation fees. The revised preliminary plat indicates all lots in the R-8 portion of the site meet the minimum size,width, depth and setback requirements. Within the R-1 portion they do not meet code, but the R-5 criteria are met if rezone occurs. The streets being proposed are reduced width streets which are permitted, and the bridge crossing is within the footprint of the City standard streets. The walls of the bridge are concrete which are keyed into the slope with earth fill above. The platting proposed for both zones of the property is consistent with policy language that applies to areas designated Rural Residential and Residential Single Family in the Comprehensive Plan, including density, compliance with zoning designation, development standards for lot size and setbacks, and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Within the R-8 area the applicant is proposing 47 parcels and the minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet. A density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre is proposed in the R-8 zone. All lots within the proposed R-8 zone meet the zoning requirements of lot size and dimension. In the R-1 portion of 4.43 acres, the maximum density permitted is one dwelling unit to the acre, or a maximum of four for this parcel. The applicant is proposing a total of 15 homes in this area and as proposed does not meet the development standards of the R-1 zone. If the R-5 rezone is granted, then up to 13 additional homes with the existing two homes is possible. This proposal is expected to generate approximately 592 vehicle trips per week day. The primary access would be from Burnett Avenue N and the street would be 42 feet wide with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The current location of this street with Burnett Avenue N meets the sight distance requirements of AASHTO. The secondary point of entrance to the plat is N 26th Street. Applicant is required to construct a 28 foot wide roadway at N 26th,which is currently a narrow roadway. - Renton School District has indicated they have the capacity for the students expected from this plat. The police and fire departments have indicated they have adequate resources to provide service to this proposed plat. The storm water runoff from the site currently drains as sheet flow into the existing creek which passes through a Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 10 series of culverts into Lake Washington. There are two storm water detention vaults proposed on the site. There is an existing 8 inch sewer main located in Burnett Avenue as well as N. 26th Street. Because of the steepness of the slopes,the applicant requests variances from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance in order to provide the City-required sidewalk improvements along Burnett Avenue, as well as construction of the bridge in the ravine. Ms. Henning described the policies and criteria to be met to receive a variance. • The applicant requested a rezone and Ms. Henning cited the criteria to be met, including property which had not previously been considered for rezoning classification,that it is consistent with the CP elements and policies, and that it is timely. The entire City was rezoned in 1993 and at that time this parcel was divided into R-8 and R-1. The R-5 zone was not created until 1995, and therefore that designation could not be considered. According to the CP,the rezone area is permitted in the CP designation and is consistent with its elements and policies. Both the R-1 and R-5 zone satisfy the larger lot single family development described in the policies and would preserve the steep slope and wetland areas. There have been no significant changes to this area since the last area-wide rezone, and therefore this rezone could not be considered timely. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to conditions. The conditions included compliance with the ERC's mitigation measures and revisions to meet the applicable zoning, as well as the wetland buffer requirements including adequate building area for proposed Lots 8 through 11, a minimum 15 foot setback from the top of the slope, and a minimum 50 foot wide buffer for the wetland. Also included is a restrictive covenant recorded on the face of the plat that precludes the construction of any buildings with foundations within that 15 foot setback line, and any non-exempt structures within the required wetland buffer. Staff is further recommending establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement to maintain any common plat property or improvements, and establishment of a native growth protection easement. Staff recommended approval of the variances, but was not able to recommend approval for the rezone because there has been no significant and material change affecting the subject property. Christina Cullers, 2506 Meadow Avenue N, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, stated her concerns about the drainage patterns on this site, having experienced many flooding problems in the prior years from other development projects in the area. She was further concerned about the increase of traffic flow as a consequence of this project, and the reduction of her property values as a result. Joanie Job, 1127 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, expressed her concerns about the impact to wildlife,the increase of water runoff,the loss of trees which potentially could cause erosion, and traffic congestion. She was further concerned about the use of the existing alleyway behind her house being used by construction vehicles. Natasha Nimmo,911 N 38th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, expressed strong support for the appellant, and further stated that she had witnessed the eagle nesting behavior on January 31, 1999.. • Jim Scott, 1405 N. 28th, Renton, Washington 98056, whose property is located at the southeast corner of the proposed site, was concerned about the traffic impact on NE 26th and Meadow Avenue, which is a very narrow Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 11 street at this time. Ms. Henning pointed out that the ERC required NE 26th be widened to 20 feet from Park Avenue to Meadow Avenue. On 26th abutting the plat half-street improvements are required. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, presented a video he had taken of the site in late October 1998,pointing out various features. He further stated his objections to the rezone and variances, citing increased drainage and traffic problems, and questioned the findings made regarding impacts to the ravine and adjacent properties. Pam Jackson, 2707 Meadow Place N, Renton, Washington 98056, stated that she was not opposed to this proposal, and felt it had been very well conceived and presented. She pointed out that this property had been zoned single family housing for some time and it was inevitable that it be developed as such. Marleen Mandt, 1408 N 26th Street, Renton, Washington 98056, stated that she had been part of a group which petitioned the neighborhood regarding this project. She was concerned about the lack of traffic study done on the eastern boundary areas,and the inherent impact of the additional traffic in that area. Ms. Mandt presented several photographs of the adjacent homes and streets to stress her point. Joan Jensen, 2620 Meadow Avenue N, Renton, Washington 98056,stated that because her house was on a slope up from the proposed site, she was concerned about sliding into the development at some future time. She was further concerned about the easement that runs along the eastern boundary of the property. Mr. Handmacher responded that once that property is developed,this road will not be needed by anyone. Gail Shure, 1201 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, stated she was concerned about the increased traffic, particularly onto Burnett Avenue. She questioned the slope indicated on Lots 47 and 48 and the building of homes on this slope which has a very steep drop-off. She stated that the creek is not an intermittent creek;there is not a time when it is not flowing. She also indicated that there are deer on this property and that it should be maintained as a greenbelt for wildlife. Richard Hopkins,2511 Park Place N, Renton, Washington 98056, stated his concerns pertaining to the potential traffic increase on 26th and the resulting safety hazards. He also requested that the R-1 zoning be retained as many of the adjacent lots are large and this designation is more compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Corey Thomas, Renton Fire Department, 1055 S Grady Way, Washington 98055, stated that this plat meets the existing requirements of the Fire Department-- basically dead-end streets are allowed in the City of Renton up to 500 feet. Beyond that they are allowed to 700 feet maximum as long as anything beyond that is equipped with an approved fire sprinkler system. Through streets are required beyond 700 feet. The western portion of • this plat could have some dead-end streets up to the 700 foot limit;the eastern portion would not be approved at all to be subdivided without some type of secondary access roadway. Kim Browne, 1003 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056,presented a revised plat map which she had prepared to give an alternative which she felt was more sensitive to the environment and the area. At 5:00 p.m. the hearing was adjourned,to be continued on Tuesday, February 9, 1999. ************************************************** Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 12 The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at 9:55 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056,presented a video of the subject site which had been taken on February 8, 1999. Jim Handmacher, P. O. Box 1533,Tacoma, Washington 98401,attorney for applicant herein, stated that they have responded to the staff and neighborhood concerns regarding this project. They have relocated the entrance road twice, have counted all trees on site, have reduced the footprint of the bridge, and conducted extensive geotech research. Rick Anderson, 935 Daley, Edmonds, Washington 98020, architect for applicant herein,explained the craftsman style design theme for this project, and presented three preliminary model designs. He also presented a preliminary bridge design and explained its components. The model is designed at 46 feet wide to include the road,the sidewalk and thickness of the bridge structure. The culvert at the base would be 46 feet and the stream bed would remain the same. Tom Touma, 6632 S 191st Place, E-102, Kent, Washington 98032, applicant's project engineer,explained in detail how today's technology is used to generate the topography measurements. Regarding the bridge crossing, it has not yet been decided whether to use a concrete culvert or a CMP or metal culvert to span the creek. Tom Strong,Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Kirkland,Washington 98034,wetland biologist for applicant herein, described the nesting and courtship habits of bald eagles in the Puget Sound region. He further stated there is no indication of any eagle nesting on the subject site at this time. Brad Hughes, P.O. Box 3344, Kirkland, Washington 98083,applicant herein,gave a brief history of this project, including preliminary investigation regarding zoning and environmental constraints. He stated that this project will protect the sensitive nature of the property and the proposed CC&R's would further maintain that protection. John Sadler, Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Kirkland,Washington 98034, engineering geologist for the applicant herein, responded regarding the lots on the steep slope just north of the greenbelt in the southwest corner of the site. He stated that the soils were very dense, glacial till which is an inherently stable material that will stand at near vertical inclinations for long periods of time if protected from erosion. The proposed development is not going to involve the placement of any fill on that slope,nor any water runoff directed to the slope. Mr. Handmacher,P.O. Box 1533,Tacoma, Washington 98401, addressed the variance and rezone issues. He stated that the land and tree clearing variance is necessary,regardless of the type and length of bridge span selected. Despite the claims that this bridge would have a tremendous impact to the environment,there is no evidence that has been presented of any impact of this bridge to the environment or to wildlife that use the site. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Handmacher reviewed the criteria which much be met for a rezone,and the ways in which the applicant had met them. He concluded that even though staff had not supported the rezone,the public interest was served, applicant's property rights were preserved, and the rezone was in harmony with the purposes of the CP. Jim Scott, 1405 N. 28th,Renton,Washington 98056, an adjacent neighbor, pointed out the permanent road easement on his property, and the necessity for maintaining access to his property. Dan Brewis, 528 19th Place, Kirkland, Washington 98033, stated that he is one of the builders for this project, and confirmed the applicant's intentions to construct a quality project. • Pam Jackson, 2707 Meadow Place N, Renton, Washington 98056,questioned the traffic flow predictions, and what recourse was available if Meadow Avenue and 28th become heavily traveled in the future. Kim Browne, 1003 N.28th Place,Renton,Washington 98056,questioned the appropriateness of the last- minute changes made by applicant in its proposal. She was particularly concerned about the discrepancy in the tree-cutting plans for the project. She also questioned the topography markings on the various exhibits. The compatibility of the proposed project to the general neighborhood was discussed, including the location of Griffin Home to this site. Ms. Browne offered many suggestions to be considered to protect this sensitive area in the build-out of this project. She also addressed the rezone of the property, particularly growth management and the City's compliance. Timothy G. Miller, 1607 E Main, Auburn, Washington 98002, applicant's traffic engineer, addressed the issue of traffic going through the existing neighborhood to the east as a result of this project. The estimate is 15% of the traffic volume, or 10 trips through this neighborhood during peak traffic hours. Regarding the sight distance at the new location on Burnett Avenue,the requirements of AASHTO will be fully met. Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, responded to several earlier questions. He stated that the alley along the north side of the subject site is not a public alley and that portions of it lie on private property to the north. The developer would be limited in its ability to use this alley or do improvements to it. Regarding drainage, he stated there are several discharge points to the north that wind up directed at this property on the north property line. This project will have to tight-line those drainage points into the project drainage system. Detention requirements for this site will exceed the City's normal requirements because of the hydraulic permit conditions from Fisheries. Pertaining to the roadway to the east,the connection is needed for any platting on the east side. They could get permits for building houses on existing platted lots,but there could be no further platting on the east side without this connection. Mr. Watts detailed the pros and cons for opening up this neighborhood by development of this parcel. Regarding the easement on Mr. Scott's property, it remains in place. 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 12:15 p.m. - PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings • File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 14 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Tom Touma, for Labrador Venture L.L.C.,filed a request for approval of reclassification of property from R-1 (Single family/one unit per acre)to R-5 (Single Family/five units per acre),a 62- lot single family subdivision,together with variances to permit tree cutting and land clearing to allow two roadways to be constructed. 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 official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at the 2700 Block of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Burnett Avenue North. The site is located on the east side of the boulevard just southeast of the Burnett intersection. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Griffin/Friends of Youth home and wraps around it on the north and east. 6. The subject site is a very irregular parcel of approximately 15.55 acres. The parcel is almost dumb-bell shaped, being wider at the ends and bridged by a narrower middle section. The parcel is approximately 1440 feet long(east to west)by approximately 600 feet wide. The parcel is comprised of 16 separate legal lots that would be consolidated and redivided by the new plat. 7. The parcel has very complex topography. A ravine with a stream runs from the northeast corner of the parcel generally in a west-southwest direction to the southwest corner of the parcel. The ravine is characterized by slopes that range up to and over 40 percent. The Burnett frontage along the west side of the site also has 40 percent slopes(both of these 40 percent slopes will be discussed as reasons for the variance request later in the report). The rest of the site also has slopes ranging from gentle to 25 percent or more. The more gentle slopes are located in the western and eastern portions of the site. The elevations on the site range from approximately 200 feet near the eastern edge of the site to approximately 60 feet where the site abuts Lake Washington Boulevard. 8. In addition to slope constraints, two wetlands are located on the subject site. There is one in the north central portion of the site near a dam across the ravine. The dam is approximately 12 feet tall. The wetland is approximately 7,093 square feet in size. The second wetland,approximately 20,643 square feet, is located at the southwestern corner of the site. Both wetlands are Category 2 and will not be disturbed. They are to be preserved and wetland buffers will be established around them. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1821 enacted in March 1960. -10. The City-wide zoning that was approved in June 1993 reclassified the western portion of the site, approximately 11.12 acres,to R-8, and the eastern portion of the site, approximately 4.43 acres,to R-l. It is the eastern portion that the applicant proposes the City rezone to R-5. 11. The Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City was adopted in February 1995. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family use but does not mandate such development without consideration of Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 15 other policies of the Plan. The plan suggests that the eastern acreage is suitable for Residential Rural and the western section for eight unit per acre single family residential uses. The "rural" designation may support either the current R-1 or R-5 zoning according to staff. Terrain, access and adjacent uses would be considered when reviewing any proposed changes. 12. Two existing single family homes are located on the subject site. One is located near the northeast corner of the site. The second is located in the south-central portion of the eastern section of the site. Originally both homes were going to remain. Those plans may have been altered. Offsets against fees based on the number of dwelling units would use any net changes to the site. 13. An access roadway runs along the north boundary of the site,providing access to a tier of homes located immediately north of the site. This narrow "alley" runs from Burnett to Park near its intersection with N.28th. 14. Another access corridor runs along the eastern edge of the subject site. Both private access routes would be retained. 15. In addition to the frontages along Lake Washington Boulevard and Burnett,the site has access to an unopened segment of N. 26th Street along its southeast boundary. The intersection of Park Avenue N and N. 28th Street hits the north boundary of the subject site north of the ravine. 16. The applicant proposes reclassifying the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5 to allow increased density in the eastern section of the site. Fifteen total dwellings could be constructed on this portion of the site if it were rezoned to R-5. 17. The applicant proposes developing a total of 62 single family lots. As noted, 15 dwellings could be developed if the eastern acreage is rezoned and another 47 dwellings would be developed on the western portion of the site. 18. A roadway entering from Burnett and generally running east and then jogging to the south would cross the site and connect to N. 26th Street. In the middle of the site,this roadway would swing to the south and use a proposed earthen filled bridge to cross the ravine. The road would swing or jog back to the east and then south to N. 26th. N. 26th would be extended from the subject site to its open leg east of the subject site. The ERC required widening of this roadway between Park and Meadow. A looped road system would be created from 26th east to Meadow, north to 28th Street, west to Park and north to 28th Place back to Burnett. Currently,the developed area east and south of the subject site, generally east of Park and south of 28th, only has one method of access. Opening the roadway through the subject site would create a second access and is favored by the Fire Department(see below). 19. Two cul-de-sac roadways would be created off this main east-west roadway. One cul-de-sac would provide access to the southern area of the western lobe of the site. A second cul-de-sac would provide access to the easternmost portion of the eastern lobe of the subject site. The new, open section of N. 26th would provide access to the extreme southern portion of the eastern site. 20. The lot arrangement has been altered since the staff report and main plans were reviewed, altering lot numbers and relative locations. In general there would be two tiers of lots aligned on the north and south of the main roadway through the site. The two cul-de-sac roads and some pipestem roadways would provide access to the lots located off the main roadway. Four lots would be accessed from N. 26th at the south end of the site. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 16 21. Lots 6-11 are a tier of lots located on the north side of the ravine(lot numbers vary depending on the set of plans)which are close to very steep slopes. One geotech report indicated that they may encroach on 40 percent slopes. The other report is less definitive. The applicant's submission indicates the slopes in this area are approximately 39 percent. 22. The bridge structure is controversial amongst some neighbors for two main reasons. The bridge would create a large,tall barrier and basically divide the ravine in half physically; and it would possibly increase traffic and open the quiet community east and south of the subject site to more through traffic. 23. The bridge would be constructed on fill between two retaining walls. It would not be a typical open girder support bridge. Basically the entire ravine would be filled in from bottom to top and the stream would flow through an open bottomed culvert approximately 20 feet wide burrowed through the fill. The roadway,and therefore the bridge,would create a tunnel approximately 42 feet long for the creek to flow through. The existing dam was cited as precedent but it does not come to the top of the ravine and natural ravine sidewalls and open space allow wildlife passage around the dam. This type of bridge structure would basically cut the ravine into two halves. The new bridge would require wildlife to pass under the tunnel or cross the top which would be a developed roadway. Suspending the bridge on a girder or truss structure would retain most of the natural side hills on both sides of the ravine. The second alternative has been termed much more costly but figures were not available. I-405 does provide a similar barricade for this creek east of the site. 24. Because any work to bridge the ravine will necessitate work in slopes exceeding 40*percent,a variance is required to disturb vegetation. Either the proposed fill bridge or a girder bridge would require a variance. 25. As noted in the appeal, much of the ERC's emphasis,based on soil types and slope information,was directed at erosion. The slide hazard was not judged extreme as long the as the steeper slopes were not impinged upon by buildings. The applicant will be required to maintain 15 foot setbacks from the steep slopes. Some of the slope information was not clear and some of the slopes near buildings were very close to 40 percent. 26. The City was concerned about the originally proposed western access to Burnett due to sight distance issues complicated by the topography and angle of the intersection. This intersection has been reconfigured and now meets engineering standards. In order to create this intersection and appropriate street improvements including curbs, gutters and sidewalks,the applicant will be working in an area where slopes exceed 40 percent. Another variance to remove vegetation in this area is also required. -27. City Code requires that any new lots be located within 700 feet of a dual access situation,meaning that there are two roadways that provide access to within 700 feet of the proposed development. This distance requirement is why the bridge,which would create a looped,therefore two access situation, was proposed. Both areas of the site closest to the ravine from both the east and the west are more than 700 feet from two points of access.. A bridge connecting the two sides of the ravine would overcome this limitation on access. This provision would not hamper development of pre-existing parcels that may otherwise violate this requirement. 28. The development of the subject site will necessitate grading portions of the site including the _ intersection with Burnett and the creation of appropriate gradient roads. There will be both excavation Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 17 of approximately 8,000 cubic yards and filling of approximately 5,000 cubic yards. The numbers could vary depending on actual field work. 29. The site is heavily wooded with larger trees, mid-sized trees and heavy understory including on the steeper slopes. A variety of wildlife either inhabits the site or visits the site including bald eagles, woodpeckers and a variety of larger and smaller mammals. Many of these species would probably be displaced by the development of the subject site. 30. In addition to the 62 single family lots,the applicant proposes creating tracts encompassing the open spaces on either side of the proposed bridge as well as including the access right-of-way along the north boundary of the subject site. A native growth protection easement was suggested for the open space and steep slope areas. 31. The net density for the R-8 portion of the site is approximately 6.3 units per acre which falls within the range of 5 to 8 units per acre. As proposed,the R-5 density would be 4.4 which meets that zone's maximum of 5 units per acre. There is no minimum range in either the R-1 or R-5 zones. If the R-1 zoning were retained, only 4 dwellings would be permitted after the roadway and steeper undevelopable portions of the site are subtracted as provided by code. 32. The lots appear to meet the code standards for the R-8 and the R-5. The portion of the plat proposed for the eastern part of the site would not meet the R-1 zoning if the reclassification were denied. The R-8 zone permits lot areas of 4,500 square feet and greater. The R-5 zone requires lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. 33. , There were some ambiguities for some of the pipestem lots which would have to be resolved with designations on the plat map. 34. Development of the proposal will generate approximately 9.55 trips per home or a total of approximately 592 trips per day for the 62 lot plat. Approximately 60 trips would occur in each of the peak hours. The traffic analysis indicated that the intersections most likely to be affected by the development have capacity and will not be adversely affected and staff concurs. 35. Neighbors to the east are concerned that providing the bridge will encourage through vehicular travel in a currently isolated neighborhood. The bridge would also provide residents of the eastern neighborhood a shorter access to Lake Washington Boulevard. 36. The development of the subject site will generate approximately 47 students using historic school district calculations. The school district has indicated it has capacity for these students who will be assigned to schools on a space available basis. 37. The subject site will be served by the City for water and sewer service. 38. Storm water will be contained by vaults located in the eastern and western portions of the site and released to prevent erosion of the ravine. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 18 CONCLUSIONS: REZONE 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition,complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. 2. The site was rezoned during a City-wide effort in 1993. The eastern portion of the subject site was specifically designated for the large lot, R-1 zoning,while the western portion of the site was designated for the more urban sized lots of R-8. Due to the irregular boundaries that separate the R-1 and R-8 portions of the site, it would appear that it was a deliberate reasoned determination. It clearly also respected property lines. The subject site and its companion Griffin home site were both designated R-1 and this might have been an effort to preserve the larger lots and slopes near the headwaters of the creek. 3. While it is true that the R-5 zoning category did not exist when the site was classified R-land so was not considered,that does not mean that it is appropriate. The current zoning is not only compatible with the Comprehensive Plan but it is compatible with the zoning on the adjacent R-1 Griffin Home parcel. The larger lots will permit the preservation of more of the open space and provide an opportunity for home ownership of larger parcels that enjoy the environmental amenities that this unique site holds. Rezoning the site to R-5 would create approximately 3 or 4 times as many lots and essentially carve up the land near the unique ravine, slopes and forests into small parcels where less of the amenities would remain. 4. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan would permit an R-5 designation for the land designed rural residential but that does not mandate such development. Again,while there are more rugged portions of the site that might have been as suitable for R-1 as that portion that is currently zoned R-1, that does not mean that this site is unworthy of maintaining its R-1 zoning. 5. There have not been any material changes in the area since the last rezoning effort. There certainly are no changes planned for the area that were not forecasted when the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning were applied to the subject site. The City specifically designated stretches along Lake Washington Boulevard for multiple family uses,urban density single family uses and rural single • family uses. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to alter this arrangement. - 6. The applicant's arguments regarding the density required under the Growth Management Act is not at all persuasive. The City's current land use policies and zoning has already passed muster. The City Council was very deliberate in adopting its housing elements to make sure that the City, in total, • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 19 accommodated its forecasted housing units and populations. It balanced its various Zoning Districts and their respective densities and arrived at a mix of housing types to meet the required goals. The Council clearly divided the City for a mix of housing types and densities. This resulted in a variety of neighborhoods and uses separated from one another or adjacent to one another in trying to achieve a balance of larger apartments, duplex and triplex buildings and small lot and larger lot single family housing types. Courts have been very clear that during area-wide zoning initiatives a zoning line must finally be drawn somewhere, and as long as it seems fair it is acceptable to draw a line through a neighborhood and divide it into more and less dense districts. This area along Lake Washington Boulevard seems to provide a residential mix of RM-I accommodating apartments, R-8 accommodating smaller lot single family uses and R-1 accommodating larger lot single family uses. 7. There does not seem to be anything inherently wrong with the juxtaposition of the R-1 and the R-8 districts. It appears as if the natural open space and ravine as well as the then existing property lines and owerships provided the basis for the R-1 versus R-8 demarcation. There certainly is no compelling reason to alter the zoning on the subject site. 8. Therefore,the City Council should deny the application to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to R-5. PRELIMINARY PLAT 9. The proposed subdivision appears to serve,the public use and interests with the exception of the eastern part of the site where existing R-1 zoning would not support the density proposed. The underlying, existing lots are entitled to be developed notwithstanding the R-1 and any access issues. In the main, developing the subject site is envisioned by both the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The site, while representing a fairly unique island of environmental values in a growing urban setting, is private property and is entitled to be developed. 10. Developing the site with its combined R-8 and R-1 zoning would provide a varied range of single family housing opportunities from smaller lots with less yard maintenance to larger expansive lots for those who seek additional privacy. 11. Developing a site with available urban utilities will also prevent sprawl and is in keeping with the City's own Comprehensive Plan as well as the Growth Management goals of the state and county. 12. It would appear that the subdivision on the west side of the site provides lots that meet both the dimensional requirements of the code as well as the goals to try creating rectangular lots with more or less reasonable building envelopes. That does not mean that given the impact of terrain and lot shape all lots can meet those general standards. The proposed cul-de-sac appears to provide access to areas that could not otherwise be reached by a through road. Similarly, if a bridge is not constructed, a cul- de-sac to reach interior lots near the ravine is a suitable solution to providing access to this large, irregular parcel with terrain constraints. 13. • The development of the site, as limited by the geotechnical conditions regarding setback, should also prevent damage to the natural areas of the site as well as to any homes built near the ravine or steeper areas of the site. Due to the nature of the slopes and the local variation in those slopes as well as the difference in the early geotechical report regarding some of the areas that might be subject to 40 percent slopes, a third party consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant should be used Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 20 to verify slope information. This new information shall govern the setbacks and constraints normally applied to any slopes determined to be constraining. 14. There is no doubt that developing this currently mainly vacant site will alter the terrain and the habitat value of the site and community. It will change the nature of the area vis-a-vis its neighbors who have grown used to this natural island in their midst. Again,such impacts were envisioned when both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning were applied to this site. Urban noise,traffic and the introduction of lighting were anticipated but will clearly have impacts that change the character of the site and general vicinity. 15. Since there were some ambiguities for some of the pipestem lots,the applicant will have to resolve those. 16. This office will not deal with the eastside portion of the site since it is already platted and may be developed according to the underlying lot delineations. 17. There is still the issue of the need to create a looped or somewhat gridded pattern of streets. While that is an objective, it is not mandated when it is unsuitable to either the terrain or community. Clearly, emergency access is a major concern but it appears that a number of areas of the City are not easily accessible. When it can be reasonably achieved,creating a grid or loop road system is very desirable. It appears that the existing neighborhood to the east and south of the subject site have been well-served even if somewhat isolated. That does not mean that eventually a second access would not have proved crucial in fighting a fire or delivering emergency health services. This office believes that if a bridge is necessary then it should be an open girder bridge that impinges on the ravine as little as possible instead of walling the ravine and creating two somewhat isolated halves. It would minimize the extent of the variance needed but not eliminate it entirely(see below). 18. What is not clear is that the access easement running along the north edge of the site cannot be used for emergency access in an extreme emergency. If the bridge is not appropriate,the applicant should be required to improve that "alley" for emergency access. In addition, if necessary for public health and safety, the City could acquire a public right-of-way over that roadway with the applicant funding the acquisition. 19. In conclusion,the plat for the west side of the site should be approved subject to the ability to create another cul-de-sac instead of a bridge if such crossing does not become feasible. VARIANCES 20. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography,or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 21 c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The applicant's property appears ripe for some level of variance relief due to the topographic constraints found on the subject site. The need for a variance to allow the construction of a safe intersection with Burnett and the main access roadway is clear,but the variance relief sought which would fill in the entire ravine leaving a culvert and large tunnel for the creek is more than the minimum necessary. 20. The site has very steep slopes in a number of areas which would impede reasonable use of the subject site. There are steep slopes exceeding 40 percent along the western edge of the site along its Burnett frontage. The ravine is also flanked by very steep slopes. Any work in either of those areas will require disturbing vegetation whether it is to provide for a safe intersection between the new access road to the plat and Burnett, or to bridge the ravine to allow a through street and looped roadway. In order to provide safe access into the plat and provide appropriate sight distances, a variance is needed to allow the applicant to cut into the slopes along the western edge of the site. There is no other location in which safe access can be reasonably provided. While this office is not absolutely convinced a bridge is needed to link the two halves of the site, it appears that emergency concerns may require a through street. If there is no choice and alternate emergency access is not available from the northern easement,then a bridge will be necessary and what necessarily follows would be disturbance of the natural vegetation along at least some portions of the ravine's steep slopes. 21. It does not appear that granting either variance would materially harm other property in the area. While both variances will lead to the development of the subject site,normal urban development cannot be considered materially harmful to adjacent properties. If the work is done in a safe and reasonable fashion, any disturbed areas should be structurally sound after completion of the slope work. 22. It does not appear that granting either variance will be a grant of special privilege. Similar variances to work in vegetated areas of steep slopes have been approved where it would allow reasonable development of a subject property. This would not be the first ravine to support a bridge nor the first hillside to be altered to allow for roadway construction. 23. The criterion which does divide the two variances is one requiring that the variance approved be no more than the minimum, meaning that variances are only granted to the extent necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. Economic hardship alone does not generally allow a variance. The variance to allow the appropriate improvements along Burnett appears to be the minimum necessary to allow reasonable and safe access to the site for both vehicles and pedestrians. On the other hand, a variance that allows the bridging of the ravine by essentially filling the ravine and dividing it into two halves connected by a twenty foot wide,46 foot long tunnel is unreasonable.-That is not the minimum variance necessary to allow a bridge to be built; it is merely the most expedient manner to accomplish that goal. An open trusswork or girder bridge would only need to disturb areas where the support columns were constructed and where the bridge connected to the ground on either side of the ravine. While a dam also is located to block the ravine in some fashion, it is clear from the record that it does not present a formidable obstacle to wildlife passage that filling in the entire ravine would create. Wildlife that did not want to enter a 46 foot tunnel would have to cross a roadway at the very top edges of the ravine. And while I-405 also presents an impediment to passage, further carving Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 22 and dividing this ecosystem does not seem appropriate. Hopefully,we have learned since the construction of I-405; one does not necessarily have to compound errors. 24. In summary,the subject site is private property and can be developed,but it contains constraints that limit its development potential. Rezoning the east side of the creek from R-1 to R-5 due to the proximity of the ravine and surrounding zoning is not justified by the record. As a matter of fact, if the criteria cited by the applicant were to hold,the City probably should just as well consider down-zoning the west side of the creek to R-5 or R-1 as consider up-zoning the east side of the property to R-5. The zoning demarcations seem appropriate in light of the area,the goal of providing a variety of zoning districts and preserving to some extent the open feeling of a portion ofthis unique site. The plat of the. west side of the site appears generally appropriate. How the building of a bridge and the potential denial of the rezone affects that plat is hard to judge, but overall the idea of dividing the west side to accommodate dwellings in conformity with both the Comprehensive Plan and underlying zoning seems appropriate. As noted above,the variances in general would allow reasonable development of the site but the variance to allow disturbing vegetation on the slopes where a bridge may be built should be limited to only that necessary to allow an open,non-earthen filled bridge. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat for the western 11.21 acres subject to the - following conditions: - - 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures which were required by the ERC; 2. The applicant shall be required to redesign the plat to meet the lot size and density requirements of the zoning applicable to the plat. If the rezone is denied,the applicant would need to revise the plat to meet the R-1 zone. If the rezone is approved,the applicant would need to modify the plat to meet the development standards of the R-5 zone. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is adequate building area for proposed Lots 6 through 9 (see attached maps) in consideration of the required 15 foot setback form the top of slope, and minimum required 560-foot wide wetland buffer requirement. Alternatively,that applicant could revise the plat to meet the requirements. 4. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the face of the plat precluding the construction of buildings with foundations within the 15 foot setback line as measured from the top or the slope, and which also precludes the construction of any non-exempt structures within required wetland buffers. A draft of the restrictive covenant language must be approved by the Development Services Division Director and the City Attorney. 5. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the maintenance and repair of any common plat property or improvements. This includes the stormwater detention facilities and any tracts of land created for purposes other than for sale as single family residential lots. 6. The applicant shall establish a native growth protection easement for Tract A and Tract B as shown per the January 26, 1999 preliminary plat map submitted to the City. The easement shall be shown on the plat map and recorded on the face of the plat. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 23 7. An independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant shall.be used to verify slope information. This new information shall govern the setbacks and constraints found in the previous conditions. 8. The applicant shall clarify access issues related to any pipestem driveways or other easement roadways or driveways. 9. The applicant shall pay for the acquisition and necessary improvements to the "alley" running along the north side of the subject property if determined that it is the only feasible method to provide access for extreme emergency conditions in the event a bridge is not constructed. 10. The eastern lots of the western half of the subject site and access to those lots may be appropriately altered if a bridge is not constructed. Such alteration may include an additional cul-de-sac turnaround as well as a connection to the alley noted in Condition 9 above. DECISION: The Variances are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The bridge shall be an open girder or truss bridge and shall not be an earth filled structure. 2. All slopes disturbed and not used for infrastructure improvements shall be restored as soon as practical using native plant materials. The applicant shall remain responsible for maintaining all disturbed and restored areas for five years after the plat is completed to assure that the site has stabilized after disturbance. ORDERED THIS 4th day of March, 1999. FRED J. KAU'44,1AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 4th March, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev. Administrator South County Journal • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 24 Because the Parties of Record list includes approximately 150 names, it was not included in this report but is available for review in the Examiner's office. Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 18. 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, . after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • • R 5 E, W.M. ersewn vem . PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., "- - T- I- ..-'I-----1 ---I -- -I--T---r--I--I---I--- T--1--I--I--T--T--I--I--I--1---T--I--I--T-T---1 1 • 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 &OC% r2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------11 • I I I I4. I 4a I .., I I .S I 44 I 4,1 I ,; I 41 I 4O I 38 I .ra III 37 I J6 I _M 1 J• I JJ I`2 I J, 15D I `' 1 P8 1 " 1" 1 I Ir1J\��\ ON Iz 1 ,1 1 5n I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ' co.INrLLMA�•5 LA1 WASANGIVN IvARDEA or COIN NO 1r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I GRAPHIC�� +�:{e . 1` _ ,' I�,.__ L .-_J __..I. ._I___1-__l___I_ __I____I__1_1_.J_-I__L-1-_1__I__L__L.-J.__I... _L._ L_._I ._..1 WI-- -- -' --- -J• - - r;� Lu 14• N 28TH PLO. 0: iQ. II '.(1- T - 1 I I- I- - T- 'I--I T- T- I--I--T -T--1 1=-( -T-'T--I I--T _- _- I I1 •:,� : !� I� 1 II I II I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I' I I N �'I� ' II° 1 1 ; I 4 1-- T E 1 r 1 8 1 O,1 ro 1 n 1 1 rt 1 r. I rs I 1 v I 18 1 19 1 1 11 1 1 : I `• 1 f i I. Mt1MnN;rnre na52uN,-wu rn rrN I rr•,,rn• r I 'LLLI I II a ,a.. CCNC.TALL .i I 1 I I NAP,.- 1 I 1 ENE1,1 " 1 I 1 I I I r'Asi�iiamn.� . 1 •a1` I I A i2 1. r , .. .WE ;.,,•.. "L4'L'`_IL._.. I P9 wl� . rodpQ, : 4r.r 1 1 L 1_ 1sw16o1� °eq•` ... •. . • -'28TH ST _ . ,r, W (z '11 •—L F•...._— -- -m _•-_,:,,..;,---_ w. >•m " NeDW 4..W-.. —*'__ .--.. - --••'- ___.-- s - �- F _ Vly r I: t I r ,, ., _.7R f=""D'-` �7RA T:E •C.� 1 i I t1 - i Z m ``I� r\;�----• il�- I I I 1 •,•y4 .L11'.;./ ;:1r.Ir:L.. I f ?�' If 6•-• 1 611�60 3�9. ..37 ;.b6 33 :••,„,., 151� 6222 _ !.! • , 1 ,q,.. 3`l t .k alcwwr I 1 :r r. I Ir Wvji 4i L 11 ����,,pp I \ •� .rr �`_� ;...� _ ``\ _ I TRA T ,eBr. I 1 , gS a M s ta�, .. r-2�--� o.O�a I ,4� . •...� 1 i3fi 1 o 'rY :zs T� ��`` \,.. I 14 15 '�Q\18 ,r r 20� , i� I , •'C; IJ , •e •{/m- ar ', { late. F.•._. N 1 3 44 Iti I.7 I •::s /• • Vl ♦ \\ \1 I F 13 f: r 11-'\ '•r 7 1 I 22 ` L \ 11.40 J9 Je 'U� 6 \ ` I a J��',2� air.. ., , 1 TRACT 'Aer --- :::�- I, — i` �•' • - N. \\ ♦l 1 . .� '\f.��as�r•�/ /r1 2J 24 25�1 26�1 27 � ,28 " 1••. .•�• � rvgv /� i \ �i 1.= /,�rAi�� \ \svw.e w Jran' �� a //'. QER..I \ \ /- av A.. \ \ H�. --1fr� T-1 / Jos. / eJ \\ \\ 1 r B�i: Ate-', �b.0 ' " \ • = �° 0� 1 1 r29 I I- 7.,..:AN �•;r// ,: . U "�Q� \ \ .`1. e 7 oR \ 1 d,�? I I•.� I` I , /.� ao• 0•• • 32 JI. P.M 1-2123-251-069 row 1-425-251-095 ' Ct \\� CJA \- �rr:r• =� •u. �r nA�.:t.c>.. 26 /Sr �� �f a•l J E \ ,{\ \ r�=� raE Ate— LU l• / • - \ �\ }'�n,� �� ,. / / PLAT DATA 111 '• I.J� yfJ.l•! Y JI • A . imml !._;!t•S:<•L:•�t41L.i4a \ `\\ S �rArD��pyr11N/l�lYltY • rob it 1e.56 ACCCS �.!•iM.ryf]tll:ld� \ U. �.trfl•.;1�111CD� )llU`+FIY .f vcM r-vGVI P!` .. R-e ZORC AREA 11.21 ACRES � crY .! {+� _o .far x.:�!• � �lrD1UY f • r Ji o•cots--"u Lors r, ,rE•:it a! f+� \ \ �� b�. D�=+M.lar•>y - wArAao ARu- o AC ...r ACRES ¢ .t n!x•a a :aRl.• ' 3 r. w/�.R � ii Acc �` s••.s y,e!((II��>, \ ♦ �vz•.1�E sl1� rrtfYIMAMIlf[ 1. 1411 i,3 7{1�—• r"•t / �>.rn.I•rnr.Li,iTl� \ � �. �J�! •:J� !l:Yllfll , e Q .jJe 1 DEMTT 47/7.24"6.4R eMTx%CRC '•' � ) �li� \ �f I•�i tt�=yRll:Y4Ci 1.1 �rF!•i.fA•uf lFRr1� r,�ir/rE•r , , e - -r• s:r,>•�saztrmlrxz� �n> E r•.•a•� •ram (r•!tr(m as ra+[ARu YnY. \\ trr•1•s t•.:rallR r !r.]zrY • e, -- :•]� !•n�..>zcn• j re , . ,,.• 1 D.or LOTS--.O))LOTS \ IM!t. .lY r _ • , 0 1 w/�AREA- onr room..� r \ •:, .,- > oR ARCH -one AC �R�le x2•>. s I MMIN,�`12•r' 3 '-79� ) ,.Az.ao ARCA-o AC jam!• r� !R ,r ) • lJ bf i ) e,,rJ•` 1 TOW. r !AC • \ r:rI �r c=�s�t���f� yn •1. LS� o[avn a/R.o-s o MIS/ACRE • \ �itr•!•t:>a�nr�� ls•-z=n _ Qlor LP I TRACT-A•-r.rJ ACRrs as o r•,c+- 11n> s r•:/111M .•=>•�w��°zeYtr eou s • •♦ �asrrfsrr>•�;xar �, r�MINFr•Ytr ao °eryo I meer'e'"ros^CR[5:,1,",;', nRN ae zavr "e.rl CRCs Mmar R!ZDRC TRAcr.C."-031 ACRES _ TRACT V'-0T7 ACRES 11 TRACT'C'"O.e.ACRES , r J.• 8,41" a C • . * • �u I 11, v • 1 • 3 /fi^r I - • I ; �� 1IIri • • 4.. \ . 13SA Xi ` tJ•QN\.a X - • , m xro ''� ,-{7•z Gar'd n•- ru -- -' - x 00 - ct• .1 N _. —"1.i... •--7i-- DD SOD . -1� 1 N P H 1 __; ,_� Meadow Ave.'N'�: l '1111111111 .'. 1 1 ; I . ' 1 R-8 1-3 Jones Ave.,NE' J • -R-8" ' JonesJl Ave.•.NEr _:7 i� r 1\ • tt / _ • __ 1 1 . _. _'..L i r-j , 1 : , _ - 1 ; 1 1 . _ 4�— , - : 1 -_ `�`. Kennewick Ave:TII ;� z� N1: -f -. ,_ _tV=-__---.••z•, ._._ I•'-II.: ....LJ•-.' 1 u •.' \C. }— VT a asx H£u.s • i --_ •+1�-s _ Lf .. b' 12 I] •a ,1r��], icy■ I FaTIZ-1471;11fifl..,11417{ZISP.37:1•3g-jr;r171-7127.17.1-illIJI )S�1 ]f-�tT1yJ.,1 I,�=y`jto7 tt.tao, IQt. i 'J .vu1.l'>�7 9 . i. I i . II' .1 I • .•-1- .1 31i l.,1 . I`s1 --- ... I ^ I 4y; I a . N. 29TH �ST. - ''40 i 41 42 • "J' I StN. 29TH ST. e �r I MIN u I I1 • r � � - I- ay _i . M1Z. � �� I• a 13. 1.IT.LT_ei!`��I 12, pain 16 17 t4� r� 1I 0_' �,4 - I ip1 �• - 11 N ,.?:4 -47 16;6ST4S 1.3; I61 Ja ]e Al I77 rl iii• I]S I]a I S 52 I]e o•ri 27 ti sitsi :,.`-,�_,-'. Sp oJff ! lT a, ^�•n r a ILf1.•Y ST d I. i_I ' Elf �nnLirl _ �-r _�- 'r_'y.'.. 11® t'1i L' • I VA CAT N. 28TH PL. - �I' 1►----i i IwfJ1 i 1 1Y ..a . 1•I ' Ir 1� t 11�I�.LJI1111i W . Al , ' J 72(}.+ IIrr��I�I� �el I 1Ly1 1I I'a•�yI I KIT EI 1 I ; i. I' i% I u'i1P. ,„. tea: , •`t'• p•4 LJIli as a .4 1412-FYLYI. +If n;'t7',13 VI t1.tt l,2� � - .�.�i i \'' \' e,11,,.s x / \ \ �•rf • .- •28YA'1 A _,.rs N. ® L.I��„IH'r g -.ST,_.I EGEND \ IIT 'f JJ7 an.1 ql I I D , I \ rt. JAMES L.&MRS : iliw- LM•1 �. �m ' ♦ • $ \'\LELAND F. MARENAROS > atu. ' • 'IP (� PE TER S ON , PETERSON. Of''. Kt a iXAr 11' raj % ;i�iniii I „i n u R.. •• 1 t� c - `,5.Y E.D.S'RIDE-- ;qIfigy4'i <: o ��; > It.. aJJJiE _ ,' — • � \ 1 ADINA RIVOLI it?. ILIA < p 5,,,, al• P .' \ FONTANA • \ ELAND F.PETERSON it7 F tp7 Ja /.ft4, t•.L .-_—.. .• , I �`!, ./ d d` • 3I - ._ 30 I..t27�,/ ;�{ 4r, '.1L I� • • tcy -'1• • • cola /r21• • p6 r7y,.r. ; oA r o`:..i. ry,a`,�. a 1a .. 2 r f :0,....;i.:24, 7lw 1. 29 1 a N. 2-TH ST. . E` ' 11 O a9li I 41 ,j�•• I : p`Z� .-\ -1 e, IO ,(al • 24 laic a`c, Tl. a ES: 1 , iLF \ '� f 1; _ .I .a 6'TIL'1�a1oY•e CQ" �\ ,• . V' ;; 1 rrd. r \ . : 27 j row • a(D ' a, O ! }r. ` 9 L�uuri�.^..A.i tA! (CI w x. - ,r r I .M' c: p CITY OF RENTON - i, _ :-r .--,�. • 4- .- -'c 1055 Sou h Grady Wa -Renton,Washington 98055 ' `',, ;_ w iihR 0 4'9 '� 0 j .. # ,' ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ) k;RV uNDELINLISUFFcRABLEICIENTAppRESS 1�' A DD,�ESS INCO AS ADpREc INCOMPLETE WITHp T SUIT E N0, RED TOM STRONG At', t lizNo TERRA ASSOC. '-10/ 'oF9 12525 WILLOWS RD KIRKLAND, WA ' 98034 FA �O� .0 9�cSS March 4, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT,RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Kim Browne Appeal of ERC's Determination for Labrador Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA99-009,AAD APPLICANT: Tom Touma Labrador Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA-98-141,PP,V,R • LOCATION: 2700 block of Lake Washington Blvd.N and Burnett Avenue N SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To subdivide 15.55 acres into 62 single family residential lots SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Request that the applicant be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES: APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the February 2, 1999 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, LUA99- 141,PP,V,R,containing the original application, proof 009,AAD,containing the appeal, proof of posting and of posting,proof of publication and other publication,and other documentation pertinent to the documentation pertinent to this request. appeal. Exhibit No.3: Aerial photography Exhibit No.4: Videotape Exhibit No. 5: Topographic map Exhibit No.6: Plat map Exhibit No.7: Plat map indicating ravine Exhibit No.8: Photographs of existing back yards (3) Exhibit No. 9: Calculations re slope Exhibit No. 10: Street profile for Street B Exhibit No. 11: Tree location map Exhibit No. 12: Vicinity map Exhibit No. 13: Topography map Exhibit No. 14: Native growth map Exhibit Nos. 15: Slope analysis map Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 2 Parties present: Representing Appellant Representing City of Renton Kim Browne Larry Warren 1003 N 28th Place 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98055 Representing Applicant Jim Handmacher P.O. Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Warren expressed several concerns regarding the wording of the appeal,the limitation of issues and people testifying, particularly if the matter should proceed further in an appellate process. The Examiner explained that because this was a combined appeal and land use hearing,that the public was entitled to testify, particularly at the land use hearing. Further, during the SEPA appeal the testimony should be limited to legal issues as to whether the City's determination was adequate,were proper decisions made, and would an EIS supplement the information that was already in the file. Kim Browne, appellant herein, stated the City had determined upon review of reports provided by the applicant and after developing mitigation measures,that this proposed plat would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. However, it appeared from looking at the mitigation measures that the only issue considered in detail was the proposal's impact on soil erosion. The inclusion of impacts to wildlife in its habitat,wetlands,water quality and fisheries makes it apparent that the proposed plat will result in probable significant impacts to the environment, and thus an EIS evaluating alternatives should be done and the proposal should be substantially modified to minimize impacts to the environment. A video was shown highlighting the property and a recent eagle sighting on the property. Ms.Browne elaborated on the habitat and protective status of the eagle according to various governmental rulings, and the necessity to further evaluate modifying the plat to protect wildlife. The appellant described the physical aspects of the site, including the topography,the vegetation and the stream which flows year around through the property. She questioned the impact of the plat on the ravine,particularly Lots 6 through 11,which seem to be partially in the ravine, and the concern over erosion hazards. Appellant further questioned the lack of mitigation measures regarding impact to fisheries, and presented documentation regarding state-wide salmon recovery strategy. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056,testified on behalf of the appellant,and stated that he has fished where Kennydale Creek enters Lake Washington and has observed salmon spawning at this point. • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Browne continued that a Native Growth Protection Easement should be established in as great a width as possible around the stream to limit human activity. The measurement of the topography was questioned, as well as the omission of the soil condition where the ravine is to be crossed. Appellant further requested that the discrepancy in the seasonal construction time be resolved. In closing, Ms. Browne stated that the current proposal does little to protect valuable wildlife habitat and that any development that is allowed on this property should be designed to minimize impacts to the environment. With the exception of the western reaches of the ravine, current City rules and regulations serve to protect most of the sensitive areas of the site and help safeguard the property from intense development. In an effort to • bypass these safeguards,the applicant has asked for exceptions to existing regulations including a rezone and a variance from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance. Granting these exceptions would result in a level of development that is not compatible with the site's environmental constraints. As proposed the subject plat would result in significant impacts to the environment, generally wildlife, eagles, salmon, potential water quality. As proposed a threshold determination of significance is appropriate. Tom Touma,6632 S 191st Place,#E-102, Kent, Washington 98032,engineer for applicant herein, explained the method used by his firm to produce the topography maps, including physical field work on site with the location of all trees,the placement of points and the use of computer software to generate the final data. He further explained that based on the calculations and the way the topography was generated, the southeasterly boundary of lots was matched to the 40% limits. Some of the lots may have contours up to 38% or 39%. Larry Warren , City Attorney, stated that the appeal has two elements: whether the environmental determination was appropriate and whether an EIS should be required. The environmental rules require the City to view the material that is available to it, and if the material is available the City may not require additional studies and may not require an EIS. The information that was available to the City in this instance was adequate to make the necessary decisions. As noted,the issue of soil erosion was considered in great detail by the City, and almost all of the mitigation conditions outside of the normal fire, traffic and parks mitigation concerned steep slopes. The City has certain constraints it operates under when it is considering environmental impacts, and one of the things the City may not do is speculate about impacts. There was no substantive testimony that there was an eagle's nest on this site, and even if there was,the tree in question is to be retained. The wildlife in the area will be in the ravine and a substantial portion of that ravine will be preserved. The City must consider a broad number of policies, including all of those that have been imposed by the Growth Management Act, and those are very difficult for the City and the general public to live with at times, but require intensified development within urban growth areas. Jim Handmacher, attorney for applicant herein, stated that staff had conducted an intensive review of this. project, proposing page after page of mitigating conditions. It is apparent from the extensive record all environmental factors were considered-- a traffic study was done,three geotech reports were provided,a wildlife study was done as well as a wetlands study. It is apparent from that history that the City did undertake a rigorous analysis as required. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 12:10 p.m. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 4 SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS&DECISION 1. The appellant,Kim Browne,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS- _ M) issued by the ERC. Ms.Browne, hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on January 21, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. The appellant noted in the appeal letter that the appeal was filed "on behalf of the residents of Kennydale" but there is no organization represented by the appeal. The appellant, as a neighbor who would be affected by the development,has standing to bring this appeal. The appellant was supported by other neighbors and residents of the area during the appeal. 3. The applicant,Tom Touma,Touma Engineers, represented Labrador Venture, L.L.C.,the property owner. The applicant proposes developing a 62-lot Preliminary Plat on approximately 15.55 acres. 4. For a description of the subject site,zoning and surrounding area,as well as a description of the proposal, see the Site Plan portion of this appeal included below. 5. The appellant alleged in the appeal that the mitigation measures would not adequately mitigate the impacts caused by the proposed measures and requested that an environmental impact statement(EIS) be prepared. The areas specifically mentioned and to which the appeal was confined were impacts to: earth,trees and vegetation, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and surface and ground water. 6. The appellant noted that the ERC conditions were in the main directed at erosion and very few dealt with the natural conditions or environment. 7. The applicant supplemented the Environmental Checklist with a series of additional reports. Included as part of the file were a geotech report, a tree inventory and removal plan,wetland report and wildlife report. There was also a traffic analysis. 8. The applicant has applied for two variances to remove vegetation from the bank along Burnett Avenue North and in the ravine to support the "bridge." 9. A routine vegetation management permit is not required when removal occurs incident to other construction permits. In addition, it is clear that a large portion of the site will be disturbed for development and will be relandscaped. 10. The checklist contains information on the general animal population and may have omitted some types of animals. No threatened or endangered species nor dens or nests of such species were found showing residence on the site. - 11. A pair of eagles has been seen flying over the site and perching in a tree located near the north center of the site. The activity has occurred more than once. There does not appear to be any evidence of a nest at this time. No definitive survey has been done. Eagles are classified as threatened or endangered specifies by the Federal government. 12. The site is a heavily wooded parcel with a steep ravine and creek. The ravine starts near the northeast - - corner of the site and generally runs across the north portion of the parcel and then turns southwest near the center of the site and runs to the southwest corner of the site. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 5 13. The tree inventory only counts trees of certain dimensions which gives the effect of underestimating the tree coverage on the site. The site is very wooded. There are at least seven tree species and 47 other plant species on the site. 14. A mitigation measure aimed at controlling light was one of the few measures taken to protect the wildlife habitat. Approximately 116 animal species were observed or expected from the characteristics of the subject site. 15. The subject site is approximately 300 feet from Lake Washington and therefore not governed by the Shoreline Master Program. 16. The geotechnical information identifies the site as having medium slide potential but high erosion potential. These considerations resulted in the ERC scrutinizing those aspects more carefully and when drafting its conditions. 17. Approximately one-third of the site has 25% or greater slopes. 18. The appellant is also concerned about the use of pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers on the subject site and the potential impacts on the creek and wetlands. This creek runs directly into Lake Washington at Coulon Park. The creek outlet at Coulon is an enhanced wetland focal point at the park. It is the area with a bridge pier over part of the wetland and creek. 19. The appellant suggests moving the lots further up the slope or away from the purported steeper slopes. 20. Wet vaults are located in the vicinity of Proposed Lots 9 and 12 and.31 and 32. The appellant was concerned that open wetponds had more cleansing ability than closed vaults. 21. All Findings from the Site Plan decision are incorporated into this decision. 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 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 of the ERC is affirmed with one additional mitigation measure. 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 SEPA requires a thorough examination of the Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 6 environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination 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 determined 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. (1) 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. 5. . Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "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) 6. The appellant is correct in a number of regards. Most importantly, the site will be significantly altered by the proposed development. Any time wild, woodsy open space with a ravine is developed there will be significant changes to the ecosystem. Generally such significant changes would warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. But,as we have here most if not all of the concerns raised by the appellant except possibly alternative development scenarios are addressed in supporting documents. Even significant changes to an environmentally sensitive area do not necessarily bar development. If more than a moderate impact is anticipated then that triggers further environmental analysis, but such further analysis does not mean a site will be protected from development. If significant impacts are expected, then an EIS would ferret out that information with data on soils, topography,vegetation, wildlife and water quality as well as traffic. While traffic was not challenged, even in that area a substantial traffic report was prepared. In the areas that were challenged,there were two geotechnical reports prepared, a tree inventory, a habitat survey and a storm water analysis. 7. In other words, a number of detailed reports were prepared that cover the same ground as one would expect from an EIS. While those reports may be wanting in some particulars,overall they provide the decision-maker a pretty complete view of the subject site and its unique ecosystem, its soils, slopes and ravine. More information probably would not be attained by the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. 8. The major area where there might be concern was over the absence of alternatives of less and in fact, more dense development scenarios. But this is well-covered in the staff analysis of the proposed rezone. A rezone which in fact is not recommended by staff. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 7 9. Again,there can be no arguing with the fact that development of the site will create profound changes to the site's environment and the environment of the surrounding community. Wooded open space which is privately owned will be changed to developed homesites that are privately owned. At the same time,the steepest slopes,the creek and the Category 2 wetlands will be preserved. 10. The appellants are looking for a full EIS to uncover missing facts. They believe that the current information compiled for the project is either incomplete or erroneous. That does not appear to be the case. The application, checklist, supplemental reports and other submissions provide a wide range of information which allowed the ERC to reach the conclusions they did. 11. It is clear that the appellants have a sincere belief that the City's SEPA determination is erroneous. Unfortunately sincere beliefs have to be bolstered by factual evidence that the determination is erroneous. The appellant failed to introduce much in the way of factual evidence to show that the City's determination was erroneous. In the absence of such fact,compelling or otherwise, it is extremely difficult to agree with the appellant that a mistake was made. 12. The one area in which valid questions were raised and for which no definitive answer was available concerns the "eagle tree." It is an area in which further mitigation may be required. The State's Wildlife and Fisheries Department will have to be invited to survey the site and the perching tree to ascertain definitively if nesting occurs or if protection of it and a perimeter is required. Any mitigation recommended by that agency shall be incorporated into the mitigation already required by the ERC. 13. Even using the relaxed standard that leans toward upholding a challenge to a DNS, the appellant has failed to persuade this office that the determination was based on other than a thorough analysis. 14. 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. No such conviction results from hearing this case. Therefore,the determination below must be affirmed except as noted above. 15. In conclusion, the appellant's arguments and case are not convincing. Nothing in the record reveals that the preparation of an EIS that was specifically scoped to the critical geotechnical and habitat issues would reveal substantially more information than currently can be found in the existing record. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. DECISION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is generally affirmed and the appeal is denied subject to the inclusion of one additional mitigation measure as follows: . 1.. The State's Wildlife and Fisheries Department will have to be invited to survey the site and the perching tree to ascertain definitively if nesting occurs or if protection of it and a perimeter is required. Any mitigation recommended by that agency shall be incorporated into the mitigation already required by the ERC: Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 8 MINUTES: PRELIMINARY PLAT,VARIANCE AND REZONE The following minutes are a summary of the February 2, and February 9, 1999 preliminary plat, variance and rezone hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 2, 1999, at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Because of time constraints, Mr. Sager, Ms. Cullers, Ms.Job, Ms.Nimmo and Mr. Scott testified regarding the preliminary plat during the appeal portion of the hearing. Their comments appear later in the minutes. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, LUA99- 141,PP,V,R, containing the original application,proof 009,AAD,containing the appeal,proof of posting and of posting, proof of publication and other publication,and other documentation pertinent to the documentation pertinent to this request. appeal. Exhibit No.3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Vicinity map(assessor's map) Exhibit No.5: Zoning map Exhibit No.6: Preliminary plat map (2/1/99) Exhibit No. 7: Slope analysis map Exhibit No.8: Assessor's map of preliminary plat Exhibit No. 9: Map of rezone area Exhibit No. 10: Tree clearing plan Exhibit No. 11: Cross-section drawing of bridge Exhibit No. 12: Videotape by Mike Moore Exhibit No. 13: Petition Exhibit No. 14: Area traffic study map Exhibit No.15: City of Renton Ord. 2708 Exhibit No. 16: Traffic generation study Exhibit No. 17: Photos of area residences Exhibit No. 18: Redesigned plat map by K.Browne Exhibit No. 19: Video from M. Moore dated 2/8/99 Exhibit No.20: Architectural drawing of proposed Juanita style house Exhibit No. 21: Architectural drawing of proposed Exhibit No.22: Architectural drawing of proposed Madrona style house Leschi style house • Exhibit No.23: Drawing of proposed bridge Exhibit No.24: Point map by Touma Exhibit No. 25: Triangulation map by Touma Exhibit No.26: Memorandum from Handmacher Exhibit No.27: Seattle Times article dated 1/24/99 Exhibit No.28: Scott Easement Exhibit No.29: Appeal statement of K. Browne Exhibit No.30: Salmon study Exhibit No.31: Eagle study Exhibit No.32: Composite photo Exhibit No.33: Previous tree cutting plan Exhibit No.34: Current tree cutting plan Exhibit No.35: Topography map with highlights Exhibit No.36: Prel.. Plat statement by K. Browne The preliminary plat hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager,Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant has applied to subdivide a 15.55 acre site into 62 parcels and five tracts for the eventual development of single family homes. There are two existing homes on the site and one will be removed. This site is located in the northwest portion of the City just east of Lake Washington Boulevard. Adjacent neighborhoods include the Griffin Home and single family residential developments. There is split zoning on the parcel,with 11.2 acres zoned Residential - 8 Dwelling Units per Acre with a Comprehensive Plan(CP)designation of Residential Single Family. The eastern 4.43 acres is zoned Residential- 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre with a CP Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 9 designation of Residential Rural. The applicant is proposing to rezone the eastern 4.43 acres of the site to Residential - 5 Dwelling Units per Acre. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the tree cutting and land clearing ordinance in order to build a creek crossing and street improvements along Burnett Avenue. The property has a ravine with steep slopes which bisects the site from the southwest corner to the northeast corner with a creek running through it. There are two Category 2 wetlands on the property. Wetland A is 7,093 square feet located in the northeast portion, and Wetland B is 20,643 square feet in the southwest portion of the site. The proposal primarily does not interfere with the wetlands or buffers. To cross the ravine the applicant is proposing a box culvert bridge to contain the creek in its natural flow and pattern. The location of the bridge is at the narrowest point of the ravine. There is an existing concrete dam to the east of the proposed bridge location. There is considerable diverse vegetation on the site. There are over 500 trees primarily located in the steep portion of the ravine. The tallest fir tree on the site where the eagles have been seen will not be disturbed. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated and an appeal was filed requesting a Declaration of Significance requiring an EIS.The ERC required erosion and sedimentation controls to be implemented before,during and after construction. Also required of the applicant were payment of fire, parks and traffic mitigation fees. The revised preliminary plat indicates all lots in the R-8 portion of the site meet the minimum size,width, depth and setback requirements. Within the R-1 portion they do not meet code, but the R-5 criteria are met if rezone occurs. The streets being proposed are-reduced-width streets which are permitted,and the bridge crossing is within the footprint of the City standard streets. The walls of the bridge are concrete which are keyed into the slope with earth fill above. The platting proposed for both zones of the property is consistent with policy language that applies to areas designated Rural Residential and Residential Single Family in the Comprehensive Plan, including density, compliance with zoning designation, development standards for lot size and setbacks, and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Within the R-8 area the applicant is proposing 47 parcels and the minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet. A density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre is proposed in the R-8 zone. All lots within the proposed R-8 zone meet the zoning requirements of lot size and dimension. In the R-l portion of 4.43 acres, the maximum density permitted is one dwelling unit to the acre, or a maximum of four for this parcel. The applicant is proposing a total of 15 homes in this area and as proposed does not meet the development standards of the R-I zone. If the R-5 rezone is granted,then up to 13 additional homes with the existing two homes is possible. This proposal is expected to generate approximately 592 vehicle trips per week day. The primary access would be from Burnett Avenue N and the street would be 42 feet wide with curb, gutter and sidewalk. The current location of this street with Burnett Avenue N meets the sight distance requirements of AASHTO. The secondary point of entrance to the plat is N 26th Street. Applicant is required to construct a 28 foot wide roadway at N 26th, which is currently a narrow roadway. - Renton School District has indicated they have the capacity for the students expected from this plat. The police and fire departments have indicated they have adequate resources to provide service to this proposed plat. The storm water runoff from the site currently drains as sheet flow into the existing creek which passes through a Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 10 series of culverts into Lake Washington. There are two storm water detention vaults proposed on the site. There is an existing 8 inch sewer main located in Burnett Avenue as well as N. 26th Street. Because of the steepness of the slopes,the applicant requests variances from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance in order to provide the City-required sidewalk improvements along Burnett Avenue, as well as construction of the bridge in the ravine. Ms. Henning described the policies and criteria to be met to receive a variance. • The applicant requested a rezone and Ms. Henning cited the criteria to be met, including property which had not previously been considered for rezoning classification,that it is consistent with the CP elements and policies, and that it is timely. The entire City was rezoned in 1993 and at that time this parcel was divided into. R-8 and R-1. The R-5 zone was not created until 1995,and therefore that designation could not be considered. According to the CP,the rezone area is permitted in the CP designation and is consistent with its elements and policies. Both the R-1 and R-5 zone satisfy the larger lot single family development described in the policies and would preserve the steep slope and wetland areas. There have been no significant changes to this area since the last area-wide rezone, and therefore this rezone could not be considered timely. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to conditions. The conditions included compliance with the ERC's mitigation measures and revisions to meet the applicable zoning, as well as the wetland buffer requirements including adequate building area for proposed Lots 8 through 11, a minimum 15 foot setback froth the top of the slope, and a minimum 50 foot wide buffer for the wetland. Also included is a restrictive covenant recorded on the face of the plat that precludes the construction of any buildings with foundations within that 15 foot setback line, and any non-exempt structures within the required wetland buffer. Staff is further recommending establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement to maintain any common plat property or improvements, and establishment of a native growth protection easement. Staff recommended approval of the variances, but was not able to recommend approval for the rezone because there has been no significant and material change affecting the subject property. Christina Cullers,2506 Meadow Avenue N, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, stated her concerns about the drainage patterns on this site, having experienced many flooding problems in the prior years from other development projects in the area. She was further concerned about the increase of traffic flow as a consequence of this project, and the reduction of her property values as a result. Joanie Job, 1127 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein,expressed her concerns about the impact to wildlife,the increase of water runoff,the loss of trees which potentially could cause erosion, and traffic congestion. She was further concerned about the use of the existing alleyway behind her house being used by construction vehicles.. Natasha Nimmo, 911 N 38th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, expressed strong support for the appellant, and further stated that she had witnessed the eagle nesting behavior on January 31, 1999. • Jim Scott, 1405 N.28th, Renton, Washington 98056,whose property is located at the southeast corner of the proposed site,was concerned about the traffic impact on NE 26th and Meadow Avenue, which is a very narrow Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 11 street at this time. Ms. Henning pointed out that the ERC required NE 26th be widened to 20 feet from Park Avenue to Meadow Avenue. On 26th abutting the plat half-street improvements are required. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, presented a video he had taken of the site in late October 1998, pointing out various features. He further stated his objections to the rezone and variances, citing increased drainage and traffic problems, and questioned the findings made regarding impacts to the ravine and adjacent properties.. Pam Jackson,2707 Meadow Place N, Renton, Washington 98056, stated that she was not opposed to this proposal, and felt it had been very well conceived and presented. She pointed out that this property had been zoned single family housing for some time and it was inevitable that it be developed as such. Marleen Mandt, 1408 N 26th Street, Renton, Washington 98056, stated that she had been part of a group which petitioned the neighborhood regarding this project. She was concerned about the lack of traffic study done on the eastern boundary areas, and the inherent impact of the additional traffic in that area. Ms. Mandt presented several photographs of the adjacent homes and streets to stress her point. Joan Jensen,2620 Meadow Avenue N,Renton, Washington 98056, stated that because her house was on a slope up from the proposed site, she was concerned about sliding into the development at some future time. She was further concerned about the easement that runs along the eastern boundary of the property. Mr. Handmacher responded that once that property is developed,this road will not be needed by anyone. Gail Shure, 1201 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, stated she was concerned about the increased traffic, particularly onto Burnett Avenue. She questioned the slope indicated on Lots 47 and 48 and the building of homes on this slope which has a very steep drop-off. She stated that the creek is not an intermittent creek;there is not a time when it is not flowing. She also indicated that there are deer on this property and that it should be maintained as a greenbelt for wildlife. Richard Hopkins,2511 Park Place N, Renton, Washington 98056, stated his concerns pertaining to the potential traffic increase on 26th and the resulting safety hazards. He also requested that the R-1 zoning be retained as many of the adjacent lots are large and this designation is more compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Corey Thomas, Renton Fire Department, 1055 S Grady Way, Washington 98055, stated that this plat meets the existing requirements of the Fire Department-- basically dead-end streets are allowed in the City of Renton up to 500 feet. Beyond that they are allowed to 700 feet maximum as long as anything beyond that is equipped with an approved fire sprinkler system. Through streets are required beyond 700 feet. The western portion of • this plat could have some dead-end streets up to the 700 foot limit;the eastern portion would not be approved at all to be subdivided without some type of secondary access roadway. Kim Browne, 1003 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056,presented a revised plat map which she had prepared to give an alternative which she felt was more sensitive to the environment and the area. At 5:00 p.m. the hearing was adjourned,to be continued on Tuesday,February 9, 1999. ************************************************** Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 12 The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at 9:55 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056,presented a video of the subject site which had been taken on February 8, 1999. Jim Handmacher, P. O.Box 1533,Tacoma, Washington 98401,attorney for applicant herein, stated that they have responded to the staff and neighborhood concerns regarding this project. They have relocated the entrance road twice, have counted all trees on site, have reduced the footprint of the bridge,and conducted extensive • geotech research. Rick Anderson, 935 Daley, Edmonds, Washington 98020,architect for applicant herein, explained the craftsman style design theme for this project, and presented three preliminary model designs. He also presented a preliminary bridge design and explained its components. The model is designed at 46 feet wide to include the road,the sidewalk and thickness of the bridge structure. The culvert at the base would be 46 feet and the stream bed would remain the same. Tom Touma, 6632 S 191st Place,E-102, Kent, Washington 98032,applicant's project engineer, explained in detail how today's technology is used to generate the topography measurements. Regarding the bridge crossing, it has not yet been decided whether to use a concrete culvert or a CMP or metal culvert to span the creek. Tom Strong,Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Kirkland, Washington 98034,wetland biologist for applicant herein,described the nesting and courtship habits of bald eagles in the Puget Sound region. He further stated there is no indication of any eagle nesting on the subject site at this time. Brad Hughes, P.O. Box 3344, Kirkland, Washington 98083, applicant herein, gave a brief history of this project, including preliminary investigation regarding zoning and environmental constraints. He stated that this project will protect the sensitive nature of the property and the proposed CC&R's would further maintain that protection. John Sadler,Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Kirkland, Washington 98034, engineering geologist for the applicant herein,responded regarding the lots on the steep slope just north of the greenbelt in the southwest corner of the site. He stated that the soils were very dense, glacial till which is an inherently stable material that will stand at near vertical inclinations for long periods of time if protected from erosion. The proposed development is not going to involve the placement of any fill on that slope, nor any water runoff directed to the slope. Mr. Handmacher,P.O. Box 1533,Tacoma, Washington 98401,addressed the variance and rezone issues. He stated that the land and tree clearing variance is necessary, regardless of the type and length of bridge span selected. Despite the claims that this bridge would have a tremendous impact to the environment,there is no evidence that has been presented of any impact of this bridge to the environment or to wildlife that use the site. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Handmacher reviewed the criteria which much be met for a rezone, and the ways in which the applicant had met them. He concluded that even though staff had not supported the rezone, the public interest was served, applicant's property rights were preserved, and the rezone was in harmony with the purposes of the CP. Jim Scott, 1405 N. 28th, Renton, Washington 98056, an adjacent neighbor, pointed out the permanent road easement on his property, and the necessity for maintaining access to his property. Dan Brewis, 528 19th Place, Kirkland, Washington 98033, stated that he is one of the builders for this project, and confirmed the applicant's intentions to construct a quality project. Pam Jackson, 2707 Meadow Place N, Renton, Washington 98056,questioned the traffic flow predictions, and what recourse was available if Meadow Avenue and 28th become heavily traveled in the future. Kim Browne, 1003 N.28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056,questioned the appropriateness of the last- minute changes made by applicant in its proposal. She was particularly concerned about the discrepancy in the tree-cutting plans for the project. She also questioned the topography markings on the various exhibits. The compatibility of the proposed project to the general neighborhood was discussed, including the location of Griffin Home to this site. Ms. Browne offered many suggestions to be considered to protect this sensitive area in the build-out of this project. She also addressed the rezone of the property, particularly growth management and the City's compliance. Timothy G. Miller, 1607 E Main, Auburn, Washington 98002, applicant's traffic engineer, addressed the issue of traffic going through the existing neighborhood to the east as a result of this project. The estimate is 15% of the traffic volume, or 10 trips through this neighborhood during peak traffic hours. Regarding the sight distance at the new location on Burnett Avenue,the requirements of AASHTO will be fully met. Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, Development Services Division, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, responded to several earlier questions. He stated that the alley along the north side of the subject site is not a public alley and that portions of it lie on private property to the north. The developer would be limited in its ability to use this alley or do improvements to it. Regarding drainage, he stated there are several discharge points to the north that wind up directed at this property on the north property line. This project will have to tight-line those drainage points into the project drainage system. Detention requirements for this site will exceed the City's normal requirements because of the hydraulic permit conditions from Fisheries. Pertaining to the roadway to the east,the connection is needed for any platting on the east side. They could get permits for building houses on existing platted lots,but there could be no further platting on the east side without this connection. Mr. Watts detailed the pros and cons for opening up this neighborhood by development of this parcel. Regarding the easement on Mr. Scott's property, it remains in place. 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 12:15 p.m. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings • File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 14 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Tom Touma,for Labrador Venture L.L.C.,filed a request for approval of reclassification of property from R-1 (Single family/one unit per acre)to R-5 (Single Family/five units per acre), a 62- lot single family subdivision,together with variances to permit tree cutting and land clearing to allow two roadways to be constructed. 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 official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at the 2700 Block of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Burnett Avenue North. The site is located on the east side of the boulevard just southeast of the Burnett intersection. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Griffin/Friends of Youth home and wraps around it on the north and east. 6. The subject site is a very irregular parcel of approximately 15.55 acres. The parcel is almost dumb-bell shaped,being wider at the ends and bridged by a narrower middle section. The parcel is approximately 1440 feet long(east to west)by approximately 600 feet wide. The parcel is comprised of 16 separate legal lots that would be consolidated and redivided by the new plat. 7. The parcel has very complex topography. A ravine with a stream runs from the northeast corner of the parcel generally in a west-southwest direction to the southwest corner of the parcel. The ravine is characterized by slopes that range up to and over 40 percent. The Burnett frontage along the west side of the site also has 40 percent slopes (both of these 40 percent slopes will be discussed as reasons for the variance request later in the report). The rest of the site also has slopes ranging from gentle to 25 percent or more. The more gentle slopes are located in the western and eastern portions of the site. The elevations on the site range from approximately 200 feet near the eastern edge of the site to approximately 60 feet where the site abuts Lake Washington Boulevard. 8. In addition to slope constraints,two wetlands are located on the subject site. There is one in the north central portion of the site near a dam across the ravine. The dam is approximately 12 feet tall. The wetland is approximately 7,093 square feet in size. The second wetland,approximately 20,643 square feet, is located at the southwestern corner of the site. Both wetlands are Category 2 and will not be disturbed. They are to be preserved and wetland buffers will be established around them. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1821 enacted in March 1960. 10. The City-wide zoning that was approved in June 1993 reclassified the western portion of the site, approximately 11.12 acres,to R-8, and the eastern portion of the site, approximately 4.43 acres,to R-1. It is the eastern portion that the applicant proposes the City rezone to R-5. 11. The Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City was adopted in February 1995. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family use but does not mandate such development without consideration of Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 15 other policies of the Plan. The plan suggests that the eastern acreage is suitable for Residential Rural and the western section for eight unit per acre single family residential uses. The "rural" designation may support either the current R-1 or R-5 zoning according to staff. Terrain, access and adjacent uses would be considered when reviewing any proposed changes. 12. Two existing single family homes are located on the subject site. One is located near the northeast corner of the site. The second is located in the south-central portion of the eastern section of the site. Originally both homes were going to remain. Those plans may have been altered. Offsets against fees based on the number of dwelling units would use any net changes to the site. 13. An access roadway runs along the north boundary of the site,providing access to a tier of homes located immediately north of the site. This narrow "alley" runs from Burnett to Park near its intersection with N.28th. 14. Another access corridor runs along the eastern edge of the subject site. Both private access routes would be retained. 15. In addition to the frontages along Lake.Washington Boulevard and Burnett,the site has access to an unopened segment of N. 26th Street along its southeast boundary. The intersection of Park Avenue N and N.28th Street hits the north boundary of the subject site north of the ravine. 16. The applicant proposes reclassifying the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5 to allow increased density in the eastern section of the site. Fifteen total dwellings could be constructed on this portion of the site if it were rezoned to R-5. 17. The applicant proposes developing a total of 62 single family lots. As noted, 15 dwellings could be developed if the eastern acreage is rezoned and another.47 dwellings would be developed on the western portion of the site. 18. A roadway entering from Burnett and generally running east and then jogging to the south would cross the site and connect to N. 26th Street. In the middle of the site,this roadway would swing to the south and use a proposed earthen filled bridge to cross the ravine. The road would swing or jog back to the east and then south to N. 26th. N. 26th would be extended from the subject site to its open leg east of the subject site. The ERC required widening of this roadway between Park and Meadow. A looped road system would be created from 26th east to Meadow, north to 28th Street, west to Park and north to 28th Place back to Burnett. Currently,the developed area east and south of the subject site, generally east of Park and south of 28th, only has one method of access. Opening the roadway through the subject site would create a second access and is favored by the Fire Department(see below). 19. Two cul-de-sac roadways would be created off this main east-west roadway. One cul-de-sac would provide access to the southern area of the western lobe of the site. A second cul-de-sac would provide access to the easternmost portion of the eastern lobe of the subject site. The new, open section of N. 26th would provide access to the extreme southern portion of the eastern site. 20. The lot arrangement has been altered since the staff report and main plans were reviewed, altering lot numbers and relative locations. In general there would be two tiers of lots aligned on the north and south of the main roadway through the site. The two cul-de-sac roads and some pipestem-roadways would provide access to the lots located off the main roadway. Four lots would be accessed from N. 26th at the south end of the site. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 16 21. Lots 6-11 are a tier of lots located on the north side of the ravine(lot numbers vary depending on the set of plans)which are close to very steep slopes. One geotech report indicated that they may encroach on 40 percent slopes. The other report is less definitive. The applicant's submission indicates the slopes in this area are approximately 39 percent. 22. The bridge structure is controversial amongst some neighbors for two main reasons. The bridge would create a large,tall barrier and basically divide the ravine in half physically; and it would possibly increase traffic and open the quiet community east and south of the subject site to more through traffic.. 23. The bridge would be constructed on fill between two retaining walls. It would not be a typical open girder support bridge. Basically the entire ravine would be filled in from bottom to top and the stream would flow through an open bottomed culvert approximately 20 feet wide burrowed through the fill. The roadway,and therefore the bridge,would create a tunnel approximately 42 feet long for the creek to flow through. The existing dam was cited as precedent but it does not come to the top of the ravine and natural ravine sidewalls and open space allow wildlife passage around the dam. This type of bridge structure would basically cut the ravine into two halves. The new bridge would require wildlife to pass under the tunnel or cross the top which would be a developed roadway. Suspending the bridge on a girder or truss structure would retain most of the natural side hills on both sides of the ravine. The second alternative has been termed much more costly but figures were not available. I-405 does provide a similar barricade for this creek east of the site. 24. Because any work to bridge the ravine will necessitate work in slopes exceeding 40 percent,a variance is required to disturb vegetation. Either the proposed fill bridge or a girder bridge would require a variance. 25. As noted in the appeal, much of the ERC's emphasis,based on soil types and slope information,was directed at erosion. The slide hazard was not judged extreme as long the as the steeper slopes were not impinged upon by buildings. The applicant will be required to maintain 15 foot setbacks from the steep slopes. Some of the slope information was not clear and some of the slopes near buildings were very close to 40 percent. 26. The City was concerned about the originally proposed western access to Burnett due to sight distance issues complicated by the topography and angle of the intersection. This intersection has been reconfigured and now meets engineering standards. In order to create this intersection and appropriate street improvements including curbs, gutters and sidewalks,the applicant will be working in an area where slopes exceed 40 percent. Another variance to remove vegetation in this area is also required. 27. City Code requires that any new lots be located within 700 feet of a dual access situation,meaning that there are two roadways that provide access to within 700 feet of the proposed development. This distance requirement is why the bridge,which would create.a looped,therefore two access situation, was proposed. Both areas of the site closest to the ravine from both the east and the west are more than 700 feet from two points of access. A bridge connecting the two sides of the ravine would overcome this limitation on access. This provision would not hamper development of pre-existing parcels that may otherwise violate this requirement. 28. The development of the subject site will necessitate grading portions of the site,including the intersection with Burnett and the creation of appropriate gradient roads. There will be both excavation Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD. LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 17 of approximately 8,000 cubic yards and filling of approximately 5,000 cubic yards. The numbers could vary depending on actual field work. 29. The site is heavily wooded with larger trees, mid-sized trees and heavy understory including on the steeper slopes. A variety of wildlife either inhabits the site or visits the site including bald eagles, woodpeckers and a variety of larger and smaller mammals. Many of these species would probably be displaced by the development of the subject site. 30. In addition to the 62 single family lots,the applicant proposes creating tracts encompassing the open spaces on either side of the proposed bridge as well as including the access right-of-way along the north boundary of the subject site. A native growth protection easement was suggested for the open space and steep slope areas. 31. The net density for the R-8 portion of the site is approximately 6.3 units per acre which falls within the range of 5 to 8 units per acre. As proposed,the R-5 density would be 4.4 which meets that zone's maximum of 5 units per acre. There is no minimum range in either the R-1 or R-5 zones. If the R-1 zoning were retained,only 4 dwellings would be permitted after the roadway and steeper undevelopable portions of the site are subtracted as provided by code. 32. The lots appear to meet the code standards for the R-8 and the R-5. The portion of the plat proposed for the eastern part of the site would not meet the R-1 zoning if the reclassification were denied. The R-8 zone permits lot areas of 4,500 square feet and greater. The R-5 zone requires lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. 33. There were some ambiguities for some of the pipestem lots which would have to be resolved with designations on the plat map. 34. Development of the proposal will generate approximately 9.55 trips per home or a total of approximately 592 trips per day for the 62 lot plat. Approximately 60 trips would occur in each of the peak hours. The traffic analysis indicated that the intersections most likely to be affected by the development have capacity and will not be adversely affected and staff concurs. • 35. Neighbors to the east are concerned that providing the bridge will encourage through vehicular travel in a currently isolated neighborhood. The bridge would also provide residents of the eastern neighborhood a shorter access to Lake Washington Boulevard. 36. The development of the'subject site will generate.approximately 47 students using historic school district calculations. The school district has indicated it has capacity for these students who will be assigned to schools on a space available basis. - 37. The subject site will be served by the City for water and sewer service. 38. Storm water will be contained by vaults located in the eastern and western portions of the site and released to prevent erosion of the ravine. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 18 CONCLUSIONS: REZONE 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not. impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. 2. The site was rezoned during a City-wide effort in 1993. The eastern portion of the subject site was specifically designated for the large lot, R-1 zoning,while the western portion of the site was designated for the more urban sized lots of R-8. Due to the irregular boundaries that separate the R-1 and R-8 portions of the site, it would appear that it was a deliberate reasoned determination. It clearly also respected property lines. The subject site and its companion Griffin home site were both designated R-1 and this might have been an effort to preserve the larger lots and slopes near the headwaters of the creek. 3. While it is true that the R-5 zoning category did not exist when the site was classified R-land so was not considered,that does not mean that it is appropriate. The current zoning is not only compatible with the Comprehensive Plan but it is compatible with the zoning on the adjacent R-1 Griffin Home parcel. The larger lots will permit the preservation of more of the open space and provide an opportunity for home ownership of larger parcels that enjoy the environmental amenities that this unique site holds. Rezoning the site to R-5 would create approximately 3 or 4 times as many lots and essentially carve up the land near the unique ravine, slopes and forests into small parcels where less of the amenities would remain. 4. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan would permit an R-5 designation for the land designed rural residential but that does not mandate such development. Again,while there are more rugged portions of the site that might have been as suitable for R-1 as that portion that is currently zoned R-I, that does not mean that this site is unworthy of maintaining its R-1 zoning. - 5. There have not been any material changes in the area since the last rezoning effort. There certainly are no changes planned for the area that were not forecasted when the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning were applied to the subject site. The City specifically designated stretches along Lake Washington Boulevard for multiple family uses,urban density single family uses and rural single family uses. There does not appear to be any compelling reason to alter this arrangement. 6. The applicant's arguments regarding the density required under the Growth Management Act is not at all persuasive. The City's current land use policies and zoning has already passed muster. The City Council was very deliberate in adopting its housing elements to make sure that the City, in total, Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 19 accommodated its forecasted housing units and populations. It balanced its various Zoning Districts and their respective densities and arrived at a mix of housing types to meet the required goals. The Council clearly divided the City for a mix of housing types and densities. This resulted in a variety of neighborhoods and uses separated from one another or adjacent to one another in trying to achieve a balance of larger apartments, duplex and triplex buildings and small lot and larger lot single family housing types. Courts have been very clear that during area-wide zoning initiatives a zoning line must finally be drawn somewhere, and as long as it seems fair it is acceptable to draw a line through a neighborhood and divide it into more and less dense districts. This area along Lake Washington Boulevard seems to provide a residential mix of RM-I accommodating apartments,R-8 accommodating smaller lot single family uses and R-1 accommodating larger lot single family uses. 7. There does not seem to be anything inherently wrong with the juxtaposition of the R-1 and the R-8 districts. It appears as if the natural open space and ravine as well as the then existing property lines and owerships provided the basis for the R-1 versus R-8 demarcation. There certainly is no compelling reason to alter the zoning on the subject site. 8. Therefore,the City Council should deny the application to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to R-5. PRELIMINARY PLAT 9. The proposed subdivision appears to serve the public use and interests with the exception of the eastern part of the site where existing R-1 zoning would not support the density proposed. 'The underlying, existing lots are entitled to be developed notwithstanding the R-1 and any access issues. In the main, developing the subject site is envisioned by both the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The site, while representing a fairly unique island of environmental values in a growing urban setting, is private property and is entitled to be developed. 10. Developing the site with its combined R-8 and R-1 zoning would provide a varied range of single family housing opportunities from smaller lots with less yard maintenance to larger expansive lots for those who seek additional privacy. 11. Developing a site with available urban utilities will also prevent sprawl and is in keeping with the City's own Comprehensive Plan as well as the Growth Management goals of the state and county. 12. It would appear that the subdivision on the west side of the site provides lots that meet both the dimensional requirements of the code as well as the goals to try creating rectangular lots with more or less reasonable building envelopes. That does not mean that given the impact of terrain and lot shape all lots can meet those general standards. The proposed cul-de-sac appears to provide access to areas that could not otherwise be reached by a through road. Similarly, if a bridge is not constructed, a cul- . de-sac to reach interior lots near the ravine is a suitable solution to providing access to this large, irregular parcel with terrain constraints. 13. The development of the site, as limited by the geotechnical conditions regarding setback, should also prevent damage to the natural areas of the site as well as to any homes built near the ravine or steeper areas of the site. Due to the nature of the slopes and the local variation in those slopes as well as the difference in the early geotechical report regarding some of the areas that might be subject to 40 percent slopes, a third party consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant should be used Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 20 to verify slope information. This new information shall govern the setbacks and constraints normally applied to any slopes determined to be constraining. 14. There is no doubt that developing this currently mainly vacant site will alter the terrain and the habitat value of the site and community. It will change the nature of the area vis-a-vis its neighbors who have grown used to this natural island in their midst. Again, such impacts were envisioned when both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning were applied to this site. Urban noise,traffic and the introduction of lighting were anticipated but will clearly have impacts that change the character of the site and general vicinity. 15. Since there were some ambiguities for some of the pipestem lots,the applicant will have to resolve those. 16. This office will not deal with the eastside portion of the site since it is already platted and may be developed according to the underlying lot delineations. 17. There is still the issue of the need to create a looped or somewhat gridded pattern of streets. While that is an objective, it is not mandated when it is unsuitable to either the terrain or community. Clearly, emergency access is a major concern but it appears that a number of areas of the City are not easily accessible. When it can be reasonably achieved,creating a grid or loop road system is very desirable. It appears that the existing neighborhood to the east and south of the subject site have been well-served even if somewhat isolated. That does not mean that eventually a second access would not have proved crucial in fighting's fire'or delivering emergency health services. This office believes that if a bridge is necessary then it should be an open girder bridge that impinges on the ravine as little as possible instead of walling the ravine and creating two somewhat isolated halves. It would minimize the extent of the variance needed but not eliminate it entirely(see below). 18. What is not clear is that the access easement running along the north edge of the site cannot be used for emergency access in an extreme emergency. If the bridge is not appropriate,the applicant should be required to improve that "alley" for emergency access. In addition, if necessary for public health and safety,the City could acquire a public right-of-way over that roadway with the applicant funding the acquisition. 19. In conclusion,the plat for the west side of the site should be approved subject to the ability to create another cul-de-sac instead of a bridge if such crossing does not become feasible. VARIANCES 20. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 21 c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations o property in the vicinity; and d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of subject site. The applicant's property appears ripe for some level of variance relief due to the topographic constraints found on the subject site. The need for a variance to allow the construction of a si intersection with Burnett and the main access roadway is clear, but the variance relief sought would fill in the entire ravine leaving a culvert and large tunnel for the creek is more than the necessary. 20. The site has very steep slopes in a number of areas which would impede reasonable use of thf site. There are steep slopes exceeding 40 percent along the western edge of the site along its frontage. The ravine is also flanked by very steep slopes. Any work in either of those areas require disturbing vegetation whether it is to provide for a safe intersection between the new road to the plat and Burnett, or to bridge the ravine to allow a through street and looped road order to provide safe access into the plat and provide appropriate sight distances, a variance i to allow the applicant to cut into the slopes along the western edge of the site. There is no of location in which safe access can be reasonably provided. While this office is not absolutel a bridge is needed to link the two halves of the site, it appears that emergency concerns may through street. If there is no choice and alternate emergency access is not available from the easement, then.a.bridge will be necessary and what necessarily follows would be disturbanc; natural vegetation along at least some portions of the ravine's steep slopes. 21. It does not appear that granting either variance would materially harm other property in the both variances will lead to the development of the subject site,normal urban development c considered materially harmful to adjacent properties. If the work is done in a safe and mass fashion, any disturbed areas should be structurally sound after completion of the slope wor 22. It does not appear that granting either variance will be a grant of special privilege. Similar work in vegetated areas of steep slopes have been approved where it would allow reasonabl development of a subject property. This would not be the first ravine to support a bridge no hillside to be altered to allow for roadway construction. 23. The criterion which does divide the two variances is one requiring that the variance approv more than the minimum, meaning that variances are only granted to the extent necessary to reasonable development of the subject site. Economic hardship alone does not generally al variance. The variance to allow the appropriate improvements along Burnett appears to be minimum necessary to allow reasonable and safe access to the site for both vehicles and p- On the other hand, a variance that allows the bridging of the ravine by essentially filling th dividing it into two halves connected by a twenty foot wide,46 foot long tunnel is unreaso is not the minimum variance necessary to allow a bridge to be built; it is merely the most manner to accomplish that goal. An open trusswork or girder bridge would only need to d where the support columns were constructed and where the bridge connected to the groupo side of the ravine. While a dam also is located to block the ravine in some fashion, it is cl record that it does not present a formidable obstacle to wildlife passage that filling in the e would create. Wildlife that did not want to enter a 46 foot tunnel would have to cross a ro very top edges of the ravine. And while I-405 also presents an impediment to passage, fu )r Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Plat Hearings s.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R I, 1999 and dividing this ecosystem does not seem appropriate. Hopefully,we have learned since the construction of I-405; one does not necessarily have to compound errors. In summary,the subject site is private property and can be developed,but it contains constraints that limit its development potential. Rezoning the east side of the creek from R-1 to R-5 due to the proximity of the ravine and surrounding zoning is not justified by the record. As a matter of fact, if the criteria cited by the applicant were to hold,the City probably should just as well consider down-zoning the west side of the creek to R-5 or R-1 as consider up-zoning the east side of the property to R-5. The zoning demarcations seem appropriate in light of the area,the goal of providing a variety of zoning districts and preserving to some extent the open feeling of a portion of this unique site. The plat of the west side of the site appears generally appropriate. How the building of a bridge and the potential denial of the rezone affects that plat is hard to judge, but overall the idea of dividing the west side to accommodate dwellings in conformity with both the Comprehensive Plan and underlying zoning seems appropriate. As noted above,the variances in general would allow reasonable development of the site but the variance to allow disturbing vegetation on the slopes where a bridge may be built should be limited to only that necessary to allow an open, non-earthen filled bridge. MMENDATIONS: The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat for the western 11.21 acres subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures which were required by the ERC; The applicant shall be required to redesign the plat to meet the lot size and density requirements of the zoning applicable to the plat. If the rezone is denied,the applicant would need to revise the plat to meet the R-1 zone. If the rezone is approved,the applicant would need to modify the plat to meet the development standards of the R-5 zone. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is adequate building area for proposed Lots 6 through 9 (see attached maps) in consideration of the required 15 foot setback form the top of slope, and minimum required 560-foot wide wetland buffer requirement. Alternatively,that applicant could revise the plat to meet the requirements. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the face of the plat precluding the construction of buildings with foundations within the 15 foot setback line as measured from the top or the slope, and which also precludes the construction of any non-exempt structures within required wetland buffers. A draft of the restrictive covenant language must be approved by the Development Services Division Director and the City Attorney. . The applicant shall establisha homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the maintenance and repair of any common plat property or improvements. This includes the stormwater detention facilities and any tracts of land created for purposes other than for sale as single family residential lots. The applicant shall establish a native growth protection easement for Tract A and Tract B as shown per the January 26, 1999 preliminary plat map submitted to the City. The easement shall be shown on the plat map and recorded on the face of the plat. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 23 7. An independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded by the appli shall be used to verify slope information. This new information shall govern the setbacks and constraints found in the previous conditions. 8. The applicant shall clarify access issues related to any pipestem driveways or other easement r or driveways. 9. The applicant shall pay for the acquisition and necessary improvements to the "alley" running north side of the subject property if determined that it is the only feasible method to provide a. extreme emergency conditions in the event a bridge is not constructed. 10. The eastern lots of the western half of the subject site and access to those lots may be appropr altered if a bridge is not constructed. Such alteration may include an additional cul-de-sac to as well as a connection to the alley noted in Condition 9 above. DECISION: The Variances are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The bridge shall be an open girder or truss bridge and shall not be an earth filled structure. 2. All slopes disturbed and not used for infrastructure improvements shall be restored as soon a using native plant materials. The applicant shall remain responsible for maintaining all dis restored areas for five years after the plat is completed to assure that the site has stabilized a disturbance. ORDERED THIS 4th day of March, 1999. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 4th March, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admi Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Direc Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Di Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Off Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson, Econ. Dev. Administrator South County Journal dor Preliminary Plat it and Preliminary Plat Hearings fos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R 4, 1999 2.4 ise the Parties of Record list includes approximately 150 names, it was not included in this report but is .ble for review in the Examiner's office. ant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in tg on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 18. 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the iner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact,error in judgment,or the very of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written st for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This st shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, • review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. peal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal d with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. s of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the ed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. ay contact this office for information on formatting covenants. .pearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may oncerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not nicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use . include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. munications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all ed parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the e. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. ctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as . to the City Council. R 5 E, W.M. PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 _ _ _ _ __ I _ . 1 I. I..---1 -- 1 -- -1-- r--T- -1--I----1--T r_ _1 I I r T -I I r- ----1 ----I-- --1-- 1--- 1. -- _1 ----1 1 • 1 I 1 1 I I 1 . I 1 1 1 I I .lock,: -1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- - 1 L,11 s<I I .. 1 .� I u I .•; 1 43 I .. I .� 1 .. I a I .o II _,9 II x I Js I .16 I is 1 J. I 31 i e: I 31 I 30 I s I:e i :, i.e i Z I i .1 i I I I I I 1 I I I I cO.IHIC(MAN's LAKr WASHINGrUN LANAAAA or WIN NO I, i GRAPHIC SCALE . "' _ , 11--_ 1 -_.J___.1. .-I_--1._1--_I_ _I__-•L_L_1_.J_ L L 1 1 _I _L_1._1__._.I._ _L__ L._._I ._..J 1--• -- -• ----- � As ►' . N 28TH PL sai . �___ ,^ti.. ..f..rr I 43 Irr MIF Iii 5n. "'IT- -• - --- - - -- - - -- rl 1 I•; Ir i - I I- r --1--I--r- r- 1-`,--1--1 - -, I- 1--T- T- I -- I_ r _ I 1 , 1.1 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I !'•I J— N I_t,j'-4 1 111' I I , 14 I"go.-.'ems I 7 1 e I p I w I II I 1: I rJ I 14 1 I I ,7 I re I r9 I'O I " I " I � I '' I -• r r 1, nr,,., ,tort un:,<nr,.r.•a .nI, ..•+ ,tart n• . 1 I I ra•• cart rkC I I I • I N00 I I I n I I I I I I �ICsiLICAwvn.{ I I b I. I A iZ -=MT -1!JI. I v1•• If1�T7CJOR °,adp.r i 1 179.160]� •` 41T Llksw6nf•.R p� . :1'� 2 T�l__ST - ___ _ sot to �CC + .. w:<. �1 _•_ _ .:. --.: .. _._.. __. --- =7Rn f-�'O ACT 'f �, 1 1 r 4 _ w" 13 w m I i 1 1 • J - - I- .0 i- a- I er• °r.°4 I,'(j .�,Ir•;!_ '• 1 r ; W En* �' `1`\ 67,. I 6r l 60I,�.SW9 4e`...37 �36 33 4..1 >ol I , 1 ,447 46,^ 1 1 .. •/" I x 1 21 . • _ ,00 's... s,o N \ ra Imr wr I I 22 y a \ ` \\'yr. J -1 I' J L J L J l-J I-J L J•I.�L J' - J °. 'I • I • I I1 I ,�• W 1n ` 10 ~ .,sz\ e��hiI *, , ---1--..... TRA T "B' j , .// ,r reO .,%\•- r I I 4 ' rs 4.S6 14 I7 , , I9�t�.�2Olisir-2! �' 1 SOS Ia , - I �` mail"- ik I I ; I.A„. ,.. J' Na J�p_I' • JL_I�--/ • I ` 1 44 kcl 43 1 17 FI / _ 7 Cn \\ \ \'' I 2 1 r r3— C A. 1-rr �\ �; 7 0. /I 22 \'.. •' 's ' 1,... r J9 li Je r .. -.0 !^ \ \ NI 1..,.✓ . I', �• ,,TRACT;A" I ^, L�<� = 11 .,".'�' �" 2 \ �,\\,..,, 1„. „ 10h._ � \\•.• r ,\/0.,)✓ �I2J` ,,,4 25�� 26I 27 I r2B I... -,/ V• r•`�32. ; A,. ., • e \ \• �...L. •/. �,/ \� \N69AT461,1 •J7a77. I,�_.. .... - ' • \- /--ti"• �: .� \���\ ^�. ---^-I r_r'�"_'.'TI /J6 ��/// Q ., I-�Ci \ \A I 6 </• A ---41 ./\ \ \ 3O- I I ('2� I 1J4 1 J-Jr.. ••• ••/.rr/ 1'1 N. 4.6 / \\\ II "" /7 I 1.-'.4.."-),_ _I 'I,, N ^ \\ \ (- /// /�.--)\ i6 31�t l `JI FJ se9W16T -r.9.••, DEVELOPER/OWNERS � !�I ELDO/l�l �,� Q _ e \ `\ 7 \ r✓f�.n,.a 1 p� 1 0.O.°o smrmas.uc \ r`�.t.. �' \/ / \ \ i -` -_J et r 32 141 33 ,n sr ? 0.O.eO.:w ufo°s Z �S \ \ �t�t �qS /\ / \\ art .• L,.r.I I most r_.»-°w-o.00Mr 1-422-110.1-11111,1 \ / \. // / \ — J 'j >•-r LAND SURVEYOR Z C �+ \\ / x / \ \ \ --• eowamuiA n.D•rirwr rIf i \ °iw:,::•isrroi,•cc salt nef • J Q JJ: . E • \• \• -I \ \ �� >•, .g' PLAT DATA .•\\ =E == 1a �r�� 4 I re• \ err f�=LrO�M.� •�pp,[r t ��r �y R-.IDMC AIIu 10,A CRS f� Fr�a� re \ ���� .e...r�r•• a 7^ d; .`.•� .ter t r ,� �� r••a� +,� tk 5�77�j NO.or Tors---o Cors r , : n.r r�,I. (�f' �•-!, i�l� V7'i- ••• AREA-__' .se.c rT' Irr "6, \ \ as .\�� •a� I �,.i d' �,�'^f / ;•of ua•rs -zra.c - __-a=....- .rW/7 M.Z. }v}r K.r�t \ _ '•+••r �� �!-p• •i ij �ari-->'s5.!' / x•,�.no.rrcA-�,,::c t.}•!'.1iSs * \ a ' .�=_ �I�� 11�=_r r 'Y, J:7�' .,��� ff DENSITY n/,.2•-e.uNers/Ater rr Yu'i \ r�E •'i�rrr ),ere �! Ss•C �•�'�—,,I• •;- .-s IOW.Au ..0.c.rf A Ras • n!1,1� ales yl�'! •1� 1�1,f '� 1 TH. o.a-1D1S---U Cors --A. W �rrrres . ►n� N. ns�s •.r•�u�� �nIY rr � 11 or ___A.7=1 s•ems,_.. {,� \��f r . °-.� I - -�• �� i/,.ARCH o n AC _im =,Mliddr:,a�:+a \\ � a1i 1,� f 1.=- ¢+i 'i' r 1 ioui▪ o wis-o!:i AC ....r. r•JmE '— lam. 9 1�� , , —37 #_- DCxLrT 19/J.O-3.0 UM rf/.CaC \ .r{1}arm r om�(#.„,==:..gym •n{•�11 ,,,, e,$�,, I a.cr NSI T 15/0- ..x • \ �.1."=11:�=r fi•�i i i.i-rsa.-i1r - ' -� - 1RA"-r--1.°A..: res e,pM eR OZC' r+4 r•m \ I mAC1-C--o n ICwC9.1"rx RS IWC EMAC! -D 12ACRES C I muterM"e--0. ACRCS 9 J' 5`' ti - F . c.....iir .. ' . • I • . i kh ../ .../.....:0•1 I i. . I ; I • •". CO .: a . I. .. . .� 1 - • ; I . . , 1 . . ._. , , .,. . .__ N. • z �, '�•���a .I. I- .,� ,Z7 z Gar'd-n, LV = x. H (7 ,. • - '-i 1 .• .. _ r I 1 I R-8 (� t t n' 1 - kb3 • z -=R-B - JJonesiAve.•.NE � 7 • � ; ' • • ,]ones Ave..NE' •' . -- =- T r� • t=i. _ L yR 118_ -;, r'1 I . _ _I! . j "- - . - -- tn Kennewick Kve:N �7 zl , L�7, l_ .p A - --:P r _rR-8 �_'._._� - ` N•--'-•- --- - ' •--- I.-11 ' 1..11-'z 11 N ..—a -- --- VI S 351I DI£Z.L S i u'.."' rt. 3 +iT7aT 1u 1.�, e"c1,•t5i S'e-ar:4 ;IF ..� ....JI4,�,If��' J�3-+-rJ�iQa,�t��I s; .- .- • T n�f��jl '©r U I r.17 I . I. 1 1 . I I Til I .lil.I La E 1 �,-10(1 . 1°e _ .., ; : `�.; • , .N. 29TH �ST.% • : N. 29T}I 5T. '•;4 0 =I 41 42 w Ki H i • , I 1• { ! • ��°;1r t ' _i,I .F. ' IF: !� `J.t •'. . .L'!'�,"S;1 . it. �;I•S,la �T l'Iia� ; .�, ilT sal cc :I 1°. a, e• r , J '1 :a ,�43 �x1}� � ��4� ,� E''+10 11 I 3 Ul4S';at'L •a3Taa a77 Ia,I-'73.1±I A ri I l3 ISAI 3 R - 3o{aL' 171.ti a +-L..17, -- i • �-� I < Sit r-cl�L•-7, 4 I SaLfI lil 8 J' Ii Ir ^rs I n_ }_ i It -- L.=I0 +,r. ••�- LI I � .�►1J I,r ;,�'n r 1�i I y I I I. i_1....6 n I = _A__Z__ay,.,� 11 • rlclr N. 28TH PL. a t; !, = li .= . it `'.. 4, 1127 7 41 4 icy. —J LL . , il VP ,• •• • • , ! ,, -•ST.•— I ♦ \\ 'IM "� !: \\ "" ... rra 744 u - IH[° ("S-.1 t i :jjB • `EGEND ; I ♦ �mG [� JAMES L.6 MRS tTi_to g � `• ei ,\\LEL►ND F. LELAND F. aI'tRENA1cOS t e Art` . • .=S: PE 7 EN SON a PETERSON la.0. iuf u n laXj.'t! •'� .. , t!^ .aal.ar. IS .0.s Y E.D.S-R1OE_ '' :04'�Di• L.o • `,,, ADINA RIVOLI141 �, ��" `- I \ \ iONTAnA EUNO F.PETERSOH tal '�+ �S A`• au", ,if7r�'I•a,/ _-- i t \, C� • . 2�AD Ac.• .ryrr.,.l t,.r / d r 3'�E'' t ey•)! 1 i \. �'`� S O r .� r t +L '� d 32 31 - 30 1: 7. ae 'W ' no.I \` iw`• / ,3?,, 'y•. ,_~___—'____�, r ..au •4 21s3 ) _ 1. NC0/6 ,O �P .K , ey „, „ .;°n - !la. I. • / - �'•/'`O,. ^'off' ; `, Y pel = 4W 1-SI N . _ .e`' " h2, 29 'a N. •26TH ST. • v -1A1 _ _II7S�43-ciEiioa:. ri , •7,•\,��� by. ' 3oL'.1 W a°3DM 24 Rt7Z•: 3 ,�� f�'1 , am �.' ' 1.a ` tILItti 0.I G' ; % . a. SEff� �2 I i i• a 'i II a..' 121•aru•n�` 1. - I ` n .' 1; a r sp: $J ?. o r DIini Dy 0�' S 1-; 2 ,(utirt!e..14,•i ,.Y _ICI ■ w I€"1.. V Cr -- -..:-,-,, O 4 CITY OF RENTON . - QN., ',,, . :- . ,,, ------- •i, • -ft usIL Is, . 1055 South G dy-War-Rentorn-Washin on 98055 ' ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED . . 'ft Ns. ........ 47-1;j0e4.-' 4/4/0 FA--/C 40a9 /1/ / 1/ 4.9 1 NI le is. 4> ItIA. ine ° ° , 6S8 mic Ic?',qs4, 47-40,-) ---19 8400 04/ -48 Ss io,_ 4. .0 ipLz., '7/.44) 1 • `--/6'14/12, ijihZ "4st94§7 SZ/p7-- / JOHN SADLER TERRA Assoc. 12525 WILLOWS ROAD KIRKLAND, WA 98034 • .._ a 4, --CITY OF RENTON •-• . ... .. _-_ 4,.., • 4,,,,N, •,-.7.,,,-- ..u. —Planning/Building/Public,Works--".'''' ,„..,... . i 1--. = :,.... -,-, .-,...,....,. i 0 2 9 ...1 * .,.. ir 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washingt‘,6rg8055 ,, ',/'' -„-,,, .2 ,.41'* ,,;-: 7„ '64,.1,* f, ,., , .„..':-.',. •'t,'•%i-1.A.a I F q : ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTER-tr. A03414',. 0 i. ..-- ." biel •.,-,_ : ..r.----„,,,,,,,t&,,,,.-4...-. , ... . , -., ., , -,.,, Dz... it 4,...:, fie1:‘, low, -% "‘ ,-•',If',.. ,-- 4, ,- ttitir. ., ,,,i. . 111111:'1:11;a15 ::..T, -Fit-;r7 . fED f,-.3E121 VIA 981 - . '''iq,) e.:1714' " --:,'i,- : -:,, - - It •'- "!:•:',N,-lis&-v- ' „.. e t.L. ,, t,x,p,150-xe,„,.. •:.r:1 if F 4,11,0, ,,,,s -4,te,j,, •;'!,:ii.-.143".4 ..:,• -14° ILI p'......... #..;3, ..:,.."'•'.- ' ',2,,,,•,. 4..'1,- , ri: F r:f 1.., .Pr '" '''. 'FY'" —4 ti...,1. —tifv-Pil ,, r.,,Xt?(...;,:., 0 Terumrily 1..way ---. I Harry Sloan '''--YA; P4L/ -Iirr 4 ' fi-41.Y-i, '.•., t--. 9665 Wilshire Blvd ,1.: -l414-Stich t 1•-:.,',-Vi`.. 0 Vac2nt ...- Beverly Hills,CA 90212 b: Nuriter e ..,‘ftafi-!•"1;iti-pitrsAli 0 No Mail Recei..-,,.ada - o Other • -- — ---- —,--,—— — - _____, -. • • • - 1 lihililitullillIdiillitifililslillt illii ii" I , „ • a p CITY OF RENTON f-47 �� a.a Planning/Building/Public Works ' "` :ate" u: c. p t .... a- x. 97 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 .' 0 ,2 9 L C.: ..,...: I ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ct - 1. t. 72;82 U.S. PE9ST«PE `,,,;, 12 nR CIS FT:M PRESDR:TED SEA WA 981 Kelly Jane&Lawrence Catuzo 4J•'ley� q` 470 Deermont St IV4' Ketchikan,AK 99901 cv30 ilaiaaljuisiaaliaaaaaailaii:;,iiiiiiaaaiaiialaaaiiiaaaaiaLi . I 0 4, CITY OF RENTON IA Planning/Building/Public Works io (:, 1-- ,-,. 45.,,,, .1,_,;---r• 4.,..st_....--..—...._........,...5 ; \‘,',,,----' .J 89 s ,, ' ,r, ,, — 9 5 : 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 c,-) I DEc 0 1 0 2 P: C' r• ' .1 * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED 0- El- bY A 7242ci 11,S. Pn8TAGE 12 n9 ';IR FCM PRESORTED SEA UA 981 (.04) Greg Leach 1020 North 30th St Renton, WA 9' LEACO2O 980562004 1898 19 12/12/98 ! RETURN TO SENDER , - ---; -- LEACH'GREG 4 :4\ MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD r:srt 1 RETURN TO SENDER CI 536 i ‘ 1 L.___ --_-___ _ _ _1/4 L21* Z s' Iti 76 2-Tif,2.- -a:A 1 itIttlitiiiniliiiiltettlisitillittlitiltittsilltitsithi Intl 0 p CITY OF RENTON - - -1 �. : _:, - .,7r�^ ' NA Planning/Building/Public Works , " :=' 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 0 DEC 0 819 ^� 0 .� 5 w 111 L. .... .;_:.;.1 Yr ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ]Lby26JyfI.S: r�STAQE 12 C9 98 FCM PRESORTED SEA WA 981 Timoteo Alvin 1309 N 28th St Renton, WA 98056 iR ,.URN <3661 ITO WRITER' aaa IV d ADDRESSEE . °'zs. V�d lU N �UIN� ! 4 �-; d fl sevd1� -.4.-s�..'3 11,1,s1„Ii11,,,,1;t,}l ttilliil 1,1,1,Anti,i;11;1,,,11„1�1,,,1,1„lil,il„li • ern c: © CITY OF RENTON j ,. -- ._._ - ._ ea Planning/Building/Public Works - _ 4 7 �`'L� - v`~`' �=~ CDcr DEC 0n3 `= 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 co ;.. o .� G ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED `L " 1`f:`!-TER 4'��` 72 ;42c,3 U_ . 6sTAGE it 12 09 9;3 FCM PRESORTED SEA -1...1A 981.. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON ®EC111995 Res t RECE���D Re No on 9th St REFUSED ;- Renton. NOT KNOwN= DRESS NO SUCH" ATTEMPTED;MOVE'- LEFT NO AD olCA t- CLOSED NO'FWD S' �, " CLAIMEDLE BO 1TIAI:So.--R.:*_=_ a © -CITY OF RENTON - _ - i; u 41•+1 Planning/Building/Public Works u: '~ V F 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ' DEC �'9 ,;j' ,2 9 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED a ' 1.1`'` 11!A 72g426 j 11. POSTAGE : — •-• is 12 08 w 1 FCM PRE DRTED SEA 1.)A 981 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Benett Tse 2202 n N 29th St DEC 11 1998 Renton,WA 98056 RECEIVED i-DELI./HR ISLE . _ ��`�65ti / `'� '-- 030 60 ; PS ADOi: �BED G� a r� CD 'U��. 3L1= is FD; IARG041, —` � ' rn �E3l1RP� 0 SENDLi3 \E. i d � ;41%,te'll '� Ii,{„1,�I,11„►,I,1„1,1,,,II�I 1,i,1,i1,1�„lI,a,I I,tIl,,,1,{�I,1,�1,1,II,►II .._.a.. _ - -.��� 7 1 L� am i I i� a e, CITY OF RENTON . ••• ..._•--, ----,j7r 1-4-.:6\-,... ::,:-•-: , -:,:,:,:z..z._------7-.. ,,,• amIL . Planning/Building/Public Works ILI C.- \\ -,-1:`, ,,:,,i' 1' Iff — 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 0 - cc) , \\DEC 0 T'9 4 • ;- ::;N .:):, — 0 2 9 5 : ,,.., i... r,...„:„.--:, * 1,1.f * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED. a_ EL i u fil E T F.,'il I -',.....t..0.,,,, 72, U.S. P T efiApE : 12 OR 98 FCM PRESORTED SEA WA 981 ,..) z i . Abdullah&Kathry Vafaeezadeh Dv 1100 N 28th P1 Renton,WA 98056 ,R ET UR N I1TO WRITER--< —c I .•- ADDRESSEE i i - It • IIJNKNOWN • ' , °C)cn iAld : 1---:..... , .47 4., Inswwvs/tAi.:74.% 11,WAWAnhtulluAjulluAdddAtinliii 31.1.\- ' 1 . ___._ _ - -,----.-e OP= 1 - „ ® CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works :7 `:. _; 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 D5C 0 7'9 a a °`' ,: ; 0 ,2 9 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED p:-.. , i' {i7t:;`PEfi V 72st26e_u_s. Pe T/I0E - ,t 12 08 `_98 FCM FRESDRTED SEA WA 981 George Robbins r 1220 N 28th PI Renton,WA 98056 r-- ---- _-- --_ --�__ -- --- -- -- - R ROE3a220 980569019 1997 17 12/10/98 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND ''"�"�'� BOBBINS 'Mr..1- fEt,�,-1:1PBs1E 4 / 4d o/ 27408 144T1-0 LN SE • KENT WA 98042-8004 FiA A13 iliii JJIL L^ ....- - 1. JF1llt3LE €. FORWARD ° co m as RETURN ,a SENDER � W � 11)s SAaar-VSSi're.Vre.:*.c2. II.,1ti1„I IImililtillItOlbsi1,IiiiintliirithullittilI,I . 1_ a p CITY OF RENTON .. ; i7.',:T�__�..,a. v. —, *: Planning/Building/Public Works �� .1 U? "a 'Q'' ;, — +e 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton,Washington 98055 /t/ F V `' Po 0 .2 f1 c, 1 h ._.. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Q- "- ` di ::r_ ki,,,A 7204260 U.S. POSTAGE 11 0+7 98 FCM PRESORTED SEA t,)N 981 Greg Leach 1020 North 30th Street— —---- �__—- --------- ----�, Renton, WA 98056 LEACO2O 950562026 1698 20 11/17/ce RETURN TO SENDER LEACH GREG ._ : ..:..-.--:._emu.=--gut-- ec-7 -`�.-- I MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS 1 iiitr, . . 4E,,,,;,_ A -' UNABLE TO FORWARD G.. �i RETURN TO SENDER _ (l::t,`; _tT.E U F(..: .'<'('.;i.�) � f �1� '^'` c 3 1(rr." �4 T;1 'pr;rW s� 3C5, 8tla , .,, ice' 'T O „' ,,� CITY OF RENTON .r y .:. _� �,, r r ,,... •�., * r' Planning/Building/Public Works �4ww'” 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 OCT 0 9'�8 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED v � ¢ y t prittENER 9: • 4 _ t260 gli. FRATAge ** • James Denton 11504 SE 82nd St Renton,WA 98056 — —_ ____ —s_ __ - _____- -_ -_ DENTO48 98O56301i iN 14 iO/14/q8 d RETURN TO SENDER i - NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER r 1 L.___-__- -- ------ --- _-----j 1 a © CITY OF kENTIL0N ` Planning/Building/Public Works ` 5t.A r r44. � " di 1P) ''5 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 o �. OCT 0 9'9 8 11 : 0 .2 9 5 W VC. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED it al e ` P1 F ç: 72 60 $uE.I. Posraa'E i Timoteo Alviz 1309 N 28th St Renton,WA 98056 f U�ri(`�_ `�=--- - `- ./ g i 1 4 311`h:i'CO '__r___rr;1. .: _ „i,ss,ssm,„ „s11,131„"1.i11 ,s,_1,1i,iiii,ss,iii.,s111111111s,s,ss,s,si,s it,, „ © CITY OF REiNTTON _ 4. Planning/Building/Public Works , ` 66 T r_ Al . --- .,,,5 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Q ®�`� m M. OCT 0 9'9 8 oe„4a A8 a 0 .Z 9 5 * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED al. T' PBMETER i A7x®42y0U.S. POSTAGE Lamont Caul 1016N28thP1 Renton,WA 98056 (',�. Y L,E.!,9 7 ram((`•,,l!,,�, ` {F/r 1 1 1UNKN0 iN - ;"'� .., 4r gq �. e4a-.�sr:.;�:...: 11,1„1„I,##,,,,#,#, #,#„sll°,}.4i#i,ii,,,l;t,l3l,}l,l„,Il,l. .. a © CITY OF RENTON - selL Planning/Building/Public Works . 4e.A T r<. � �' "" l,,:;5 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 I.E. OCT 0(' 9'98F[: Qkm cr, 2 9 5 *. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED P / ' • 1 a; 0 -& e l -FIE Ota ff R i ii ` Fi ���J 7204260 U.S. POSTAoe (---9 % \' . . __,,, _ ___ ._ ._ l 't' - Abdullah&Kathry Vafaeezadeh I SJJe-.J 1100N28thP1 Renton,WA 98056 CSC;J, OF f i',TON Ej`}rYineeiTh- r_.,-)-;. �LJIILS�P- w. `_ Wd u �U iKPdO���i'• �, �� A3,4 4s�c..Avsr:s" 2.., iitillii,hill.if3iJ itilidifililirailirhi,ixi,liaititili, _......__..., . a 0 CITY OF RENTON :'-iz--, ".'1' , :giSt-'31-_.....11'- ----=-T ..,,,,,, a og,A r IwIf_ ...,;'• -r- mil. Planning/Building/Public Works ,...., 4' 1r 04 r 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 ..y ,44., .. ; ,.. a. OCT 1 0'9 •2 9 0 8 0/4.4" :': 5 * .....axism . *** ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Otc,''.. — —. '4.- v..- NN u.S POSTAGE , A 26 7P2Bomir eon - 4. cedfi, I ' )--, - . n • 0476:410,..,:e,i,04,9 --74," ,:' „...ct_rsz,A-ere a64,,,a.ei th4 -Q____ Harry Sloan 4'4,:^,-.. it 9665 Wil re Blvd )er7 ,A:9--.., •fl -_,,,,,,,-.-n •-;,„? :5,, ... , ,., ,-;,4 J.,,, ".;.:.•:.;.p r,..,..: Bever ills,CA 90212 I 0 mo'::11 Mnier D V:::_nt Attempted,Nat KnOWil 0 N...Mail 0 Other Nut°iluesr /VI/ Initials Pie *Art 1G Ilthii if 4 la hir i i 1011'11 H H H ' ' \ „ p CITY OF RENTON :44----, WI Planning/Building/Public Works a�,�r► 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 Q i. 'co I— OCT 10'9 8 04®®i Vs E 0 .2 9. 5 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED R PBMETER . 14414144... 'of 7204260 U.S. POSTAGE ' : Pam 1 Jane&Lawrence Catuzo �'� C Kelly ' ,� 470 Deermont St °���j ���`„Q -- — ` — -- _ Ketchikan,AK 99901 CATU470 499013016 1N 46 10/14/96 RETURN TO SENDER NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER A U._T 0 400111111 Hindi II IIII111IIIIIIIIII ,• a 0 CITY OF RENTON -- -40,- -,---. ..,------_-:___I— - 16 i j 40,10 Wk.*• •••••••••••........ * =IL Planning/Building/Public Works •-•—•.--.----; * = - rofnep,.-71 E . 1055 South Grady Way - Renton Washington 98055 o c OCT 0 9'9 8 r,fie,Y;itt 0 2 9 5 WI- .ro mt.'II tu ci * ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED %. a PB METER I , . 7204x0 U.S. FR F C-1A r", SU: M -7/E ..".; 0 . Bennett Tse ' OCT 21:1998 2202 N 29th St Renton,WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON . Engineering Dept. NOT DELI V ERABLE ,------..,... AS ADDRESSED , , '47 _.,1‘...•< ,....:„.40),.......ja.„‘_ , . . , !, ,., , „.,, , ,, . ,,,, , ,,,,,„,,,,,,,,„,.,,,,„,„,,„„,„„„,„,„ 11 'RETURN DI SENDER 1ii i iii ii hi iii Hi ii n Li n iiii lin 1 1 , . • ..3:r I---+-r .� . N 1 I , \'::::.::41:1:....:.:: A IIO' I ~Ie SOr 49 48 47 4E I A(4 43 4'. 4i 4�33 ' 38 . 3'7 ' - 1 z- 3 33 I 12 3i 129 1 28 I 271112b �" c��iii 0/��TA 12 13 ;4�i EV I I -�� 1 4 i a �! r. I II I1 I O [xi • M, i f °°- ►Z- lV • I - i ; ll l , - .. I �I .. I ' f " _ ; • •cN:'r © Qi/v/V;,1, - �4!1 1t .• 1 sc Ali jo• ; sc 5 '"' - 1 ' o ---- ek. I I 8 'N Y o 29TH ST. . N. •• 29TH ST. 00 ; 4 f w ' I ��Ofr 49,90 c wigit w>. l•zr�� I. se ; ! � I � � ! I h i ( 1 I .., ! o _ Ioo � 'S' --I--—1—• � 1ze.s Iza.s � :Z.,E I�� I - O I 0 '� I N Y 1301 120 130 1 .\ �,111111 P• Ei oIN of v 1 4 ., '�'� y. 1L T3 j i4 i5 f5 17 118 L1:J 2u 2�I =-' •� a' s � I o � °I I�. �. 2 - � � I ® - Q �o `7 �� - I ; I ..7 ....11 - "�^ 27~26 1._../4� _ _ Ill In I l __ �'':_ 1 :,� :: , . d Io I I 13N _• 5^ ' 4 1 43. 47 4b ; 45 4 w43 al i Au ! 39 s8 37 ,3S 35 ; 34 13 3� 1130 ; c S -- - s9 ai 1 ,I;10i a a 1 : � ` o. i o o I i i H,� �; i IC7N-i_7----_�.I t mL--- 20 f. 9�P. I28 :I� j ►---I I .. °� Iu. -?r II 1 -J' °,.�__ co , nso :w x' I SD _i25!25i SD I • I „ I - t i SD Izs,zi so Iz525, SOi so ---i4O , r 1 - III °I VACAT ' :; t N. 28TH PL. f >n oah 1 1 -----�+ 1 50 zs is: Z-,r_tL7� 7;,]I' b I O I i�� s • I I 50 I 5. • =' IN I I 1 yN I I I! I I- `�'� 1 50 .1 50 I • • i • I . t ,:� ; N I I I 1 a a It I V� I W I I I, s1 •// ; -o> 3 1 ,,, St• - 1 ti t o .. ti I 1 1��� n', 1 � i � 0 1 1 11 1 I I I p l l 1 �-I /� � .1 w a 1 a I •'� ! '.ar• O 1 I ^' , 11 I 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 // 1 O ^ ! o i '„ 1 �� I i_S i IL e i 23 30 lo0 1 • �C F " 4 `'S 6 7�1 8 9 i J 1 12 i(5 17 1�. I3 20 i 21 22 23 i ,7,5 .•SO ' 1 : 1 1 1 e,/ �a B ; j+/`ji• • .L�• 1� .I .i �• I `f .1 . . i a.� .+�n� J l i ,o ` �N .13 f _ 6►s I — N. 12$YA —' Q - - N. — 8TH — � • gT,•— •- a .�o' ; rs¢s 228 zzz.3 — IT LEGEND • 1 . - — -- ( -\ \ 1/2 s - Bs.d 1� � 1 ';I a �� i s r 1 \� d ` \ JAMES L.& MRS - co - _ 1 271 LELAND F. +D� " 1 \ �\y MARENAKOS zt49 . . 0.2ZAc. - � + I I LELAND F. • 0.114c. z[.�: r` o \ \ \ PETERSON �-, \-. . \ m a. PETERSON ppRox T.[.1B 5s 0.15Ac. ''r.s`//l` �;% 7c �\ �„\ \ `\. ( n A n vi •7L.60 ZL.40 T.t.•S_ j f•' ,�, a o 4. • ��z �.< „ Y .� E. D. S-RiDE,^ -' '� 9 z�15 2�1iilo ; I i; :`I\ } „._,\ 1.46Ac, aA`'t` L.17 T.L.G N Z c ern' ! / ' i' --� N �\ \ ��t_ w ] 7 0.19Ac \ \ I \' ADINA RIVOLI \ zL.1y /.4iAc �Q_�t. LOB a i / zt.sq� _2ll l '!27 \ \� FONTANA \\` ELAND F. PETERSON 7-L,7 /.02Ac. /.5ZAc � di ______�\ L` 42528.00 Ac. Es.zr.L.9Tz.1 [ o. �"` ' I - ' �'��..yy11���,pp • TO +14i9�G 7f, `� '� 3 2 i 31 M 1-^,; 30 n21 �'� 1 N::1 z6 un ' N 1 '2 9Ac I n 2 10 T.L.12 35 �j• � . , r. \ =�* / .A-'*-v ' De , ., 100 a ^' /3 T.L.44 1-�12o_I/�•�', -y Via' ti;b '` . . 41 .., , .4,. ..... \ 6 - pi 1 o : - - Cal 6 I V s. a:*.iti, . \ �`� F�nhi`/:�''_ `, �� ooGN Zs/4`,.. oc. a `•���� `i .-� h 15 I �, / yo"Z . I (os1,4: 1os 1 . i 40 1 1ad.79•�---�— Ty 29 N26T,H $T a_ I �/ • / ,]^� I ��`` - \ - ��� �� `�/ .moo 30 l — iL? _ 1 62 i (pa n� • 'r J•A, ..,!t gE '4,..‘ ". , . • ,,,‘ , , • ,„ ....,,,,i. ...\ .,.-. _ , .•_•,,-„ ..,,. _. - , , , ‘ __ - N ‹- , __,•\ -„,t; i,,.../ '7.,, -,,,(4) torRIPiz* rz. 1 1 - , --CZ( , •:::, r':::: c,), �_ '\, i _? -, —• 1a343 • ; L W• I s' ���\+� �v\ ' - es3 2 ° (I) bii13:2_4____R_.2.,;_ri,-,,==-7%, : Q .:�:-; Q ' 308 I .. ; �a/, ,J- 11 (3) a S.P. 34-B175.71 ZI r-7 %85S ~�.':. C �\ A i IC1,3 ( 1z79197 , ..16 ,szso 5 °I 24►9 --\ 1 0 . . \\�\ ' ' l 1 249 1824{LN1 _ _�/ OW �.:•• V�.I • ‘`�b � 1/ 113 \ ( yeIte >� 22 ` C :. • '• 1 = (B) 4Z PBp^ �7i[-• R (50. + 111 ,ffILE /( 1\\ y0 0 27 I68C3 ON 11402)17�.m�-P(I� B`v �''� 2 IS `V .• . '�T _JJJVI _._1225- \ m ` c (a) r LJIS m �� i� I • S1 r.VAS Ed_/"=:t�,'. - !9B a (C) Z ' 10509'"I2 II 231.E __/_�Si'vzi� G; ': . :: _ PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. = ° - 7- - l -- 1- -T--I r-r T -1--I--F--1r-7--I--r--T 7- -I--1- T 7 711--1---T--T-7 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I BLOCIK 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I - 1 - I 44 I 4.H 42I 14 I 39 I 38 I 3] I 36 I 35 134 I 33 -� 1— -�4] 4' 45 a] O I I� 32 31 30 29 28 2] 26 1 - - - 2 I-I I I 1 4' aP 1 ° I ,..D.IHILLMAIU'S LAKE WASHINGTON IGARDEn1 OF ED£N NO.II I I J �' GRAPHIC SCALE \9A N To q 1___II-_ L-1 J L I L 1 J L 1 J J L L 1 J ;F W I m.\ N 28 TH PL Q 4 3 I e�a�, ,i�' TQ 1cL /Fr I T ---I--T -T-� --I- 1 _1- T-7--I--r -r- r-� 1��._�_T_�_�--I -T -7 -fie o. 1~i4j` 11� ralpi , I - 1''S"7-6 I ] 1 8..,1,9 1I 1O 1"n 1 ,2 1 ,3 1 ,4 1 ,5 1 ,6 1 1, 1 ,8 1 ,9 1 20 12, 1 22 11 23 1 2a 1 25 : 1 �- I��- I 1JOOS'ftt`E CONC.WALL 1QI�00, N�9 , N0096�4 1 N005„-,14 E —J L_.� 1 I EASEMENTRIPP48 Iola_• 1 28 T!-T STHINGT��N GA DEN OF EDCN NO 1 - _ I 0'pp'1t — �91 1I • ---###}LL- md.oD• 93.60 ••-,.e 1 I '..1 --_ 62 'gg• 61 ff- 60 II 1 59 $8\;j,57A56 55 54 3 i.)y}52 i 51 50 4 48 47�f 46 -"9'Y EL CIOPI A RES . 2 \ Ik \ +o.T°4s, kF.,soo44,soo n.s'.s0ors :.,5°°; ,soo: U. , ,soo n, a o r�,s°o' a,soa,. soo,/ a °, 1 ss r 5 TL 60 TL 40 E TL 5.,, \ J °.s05• u .soo Boar mm f b so _ -J—.�I J L`J L J L J L J L J L.J L J L��J L J'L J 4L'°`� °°'J'='' Et ICON DAM TL s] /I _ �!!m M $ w� • r r.i.,.-1 f-- d'L_-d--.1--i s-iI:1- ';1--1- r 2 --� �i�U 4\-• ..,.•.,•E f..69 . I is I 54',,, / TL ]- I41 '„ rt \\1 \ L JII �' °6 2(�U �/ �� ` 4s — 56643 3/ DABd \ \ as, J r 9-3 °\ '€ r 11 .%, 4"» ;'m..>o.,r.°„4 / / \``.-- —J I f 4o a .�` 22 z \ \ \\\y I\Milk `I• em s'?j' ��TRACT jA' _z ,' :4 — �,`�1- 36��,'� -�,,,, 2 , 6z°, 4 ,.\ ` �` / ` 23 24 F 251 261 r27, 2B—' I • \ ,. ° �. .s, ,/ 5 4 //•. \ �w�,.•,-\ / \8 W4s w 370.72' a,w--. ° /•• �'., — �- Q 4 ;� \\ \\ �. .,•'` 5.58s/ /t�,- \\ ` ° \ n 3p ea°� } J.� ( �- ---^� 3s� /'�- ?r. �Ci �1 I / ja \ \ ^II rise„. j '1 I� 129 3`�,•I-35 •1O�/°!�- Q J \\ \\ \ \\\ f• fj/, 1� •; / \ �4a _ .�1.F�rI... hon 1 <If:zee.,M vl /,!t T/ 4$ J In \ \�\ CO ` S N'E1jAND2 , /` \ jC — ':T' I • s:"-_u�a�.• M1 -4 "1 \ \ I \ ', / e °e; EL DO/l 1 Act- • S\\ o ,,: �.... ;� 589'03' j °' po 31 "1 46'E --to-.00, DEVELOPER/OWNERS \ \ `, °�,nernym \ / \ \ , N \sue F fL 32.r;•—I•f1 ,'',.N, LABRADOR VENTURES LLC Q J �, P.O.BOX µ3344 CI: • NN'r •Oy �" / \ ���� -'s�.�`,r 33 K RKLAND. 58083 IZ. \ \ \�\ �i:•�` y -- / - '�� T\a s.,' Q I•.s°°s,! '' HONE 11-4425-803-0400 W \ �L\\ r 41 / \ / / \ '�%t:;y` J I42'''.�; -25-803-6877 O \\ I�\/\\ <" / \\ // / \\ \.. ���\\ \!�f` J „J no • LAND SURVEYOR ?� Z \ —. �\ / x / \ \ .. ' �`o'*•::;' MouNIR H. MA PLs O Q \ �1. � ,111 V/' / \ \ \ . M fNpHEERS \ , _ -`v� u r 3U2 5 1915T PUCE.SUITE E10.1 J O \\A �� \`\\/ / \\ r \ \•�\ �\\(r \\\ /AXNEI fA]9>-251-0615 • \\ CURIE RA.15 LENGTH TANGENT DELI, 6TyTT 1.' -�• ' J �!\ 9090 /,. \\LINE 01PLCOON DIVAN. \ j\ / PLAT DATA \ �JJ \ J TOTAL AREA 1555 ACRES I R-8 ZONE AREA 1.21 ACRES 2 \ 3627 2,4270 NO.OF LOTS--=47 LOTS O \\ I 6/W AREA--- 1.56 AC W _ I HAZARD AREAA= O 2 AC AC \ I TOTAL -3.78 AC -961 54 \\ I R DENSITY 47/7 34=6.4 UNITS/ACRE Y1 MINN OT .r5 soo56 r4 w 2000 \ _ -5 ZONE AREA -- /.4J ACRES T Na OF LOTS- 15 LOTS F \ I /AREA----0>2 C DAS rgm/gm S. \ .0 2500 5665 5342 r295015 cso 5100 80 IF' 5,m 9090 00 O%SLOPES =0.28 AC HAZARD AREAA=0..43 C 040/u 74101rw TOTAL 1 43 AC DENSITY 15/3O-5O UNITS/ACRE 3.r 8 PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. va 2220,8606/1602 B` -T-1 r-T 7 I T T -1 1- T - 7 I T T -1 1 1 T 7 I I- T T -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0LOCV<12 I I I I I I I I I I I I - -1 - II 50 1 49 43 47 1 46 I 45 44 I 43 I 42 I 41 I 40 I39 I38 I 3] 36 III 35 LL 34 33 32 31 30 29 23 2> 26 1 1 1 I 1 I1 I I FD IHILLMAIV'S LAKE WASHINGTON!GARDE,'OF ED N NO.11 1 1 1 1 I Z LZ L-1.._J L 1 J I- L J. I I L 1 _1__ I_ _ I 1 L __L--_1-J l�_�_ GRAPHIC c --__ _-1_ - _- - _---___- --___-_ _ _ _- _ - - - J GR SALE -- _ N 28 TH PL I " d. 4. Q T T T 7 l T 7 T T 7 �I D-�1T 7 - T T 7vct Ir"' 45 II I I I I I I 1 1 I I I III ;D' 1\ ��" , 2 - I�`5 i1w.n 7 I 8 9 1 I�10 I 11 I 12 13 II 14 I 15 I 16 17 I 18 I 19 120 1 21 1 22 I 23 I 24 I 25�I Q1 C.D. HILLMAN'S LAKE IVASHINGTON GAkOEI`I CF ECEN NO I '1\� f III II ID.bp•" CON'"i" 10.00• N00g6Y{' I I BI0.00'11 .I 15'PRE$CRIPT/yg \ W�•�•• ����•�' N00'S 7 E 00 '1.'E N89 346'W N00 14 E oo��ppOO EASEMENT 1 Q. 1 _ I ....g: .� a J._p -L- - ,,.DD -J rJ _I,a -aLzs38o1 Ls6;14 E 9 N 8TH ST - CO • FPo "' �� '• °\`' a a s omr '\ • / i - �_. --f-t- - `'�2.er 1 1 -22 WO :; 1 62 - 601,59 --58-8s-57- _56 55 54 i5 a 52� �° �_� '�,-__ -�- • .6�[ ELC10�\l AQRES rL s9 ? _" • • 00, ....�,soo,it sop I bE0'0,'.'°,soor s00, 4500 ,soo, 9 4z �-"' •`� t p° T ' \ f" I y3 IX COAL GAM-\ - -Cr 1 L 60 TL 40 TL 57 1 I TL 53 6� T�'4,sa 56Y \\ �' \,em Po w - oiy \ 9 ,w1 I --1 Wv�i _ eras- '�- - ��ail, " 9 R I o 'kW ''' ' ,,, ‘,,,,, 'L, »_ ft?�4 E - za 1 1 I \ z Q g � ' \-'\ 0, 3 16•• 16 t7 18 219 20 21 22 23� _- .�'�� _ - / \_,o...Tr 1 - . a L oa rL 7_ I�qy �, `i \ ,._ s.z,3 \\>611 0.73°.eeo,l�.cs ' J J . ,�`'.�� 454µ • _ _ SBBW Y/// Pi h \ ss , I- % /� .zos=r "R 436 �.i°m£ ,w \ \ s9 I �\ \ _ ;� ice/ I \ � ,,, 42 q •r0. \\ \ 613 ��� 6. 24 fl 72.TT='„ 4o TL V 8 IIM.\ s \ „„ .. 4 \\ ,� '._ �.i// I^°� I z6,�\ q 27 \30 _31 s I3s ov rL a�t�0 `\� _. 3` N89roJ W`. 370.7 /k o^ . li D ,'•�' ` . 4,0_ 4,077-,:„, ,//,;.-1,7:-„,:',/ \ \ \ 0 D \,. _ \ \� \ 1,127 I 32a \,I 36=�a 37 ,�i, ,' n 45 Q r.,� \ \ f/ % j/ wM/ r^\\ I• 0, a It 7 ELDIc \ ''o° iL---- se�+ro3 es E g A7800' DEVELOPER/OWNERSit \_ LLABRADOR VENTURES.LLC 1 \\ \\ .� `��/ %„a".,q,,, A6 \4/' ."-.> / /.,, 3�l\ L. a ar r D.Box 3344 /� / \ \' XIRO.BOX WA 9803- I • rtsoo= PHONE 1-425- 3-6870 \ \ IJ 1 \ , / �\ \ f I 1 3 FAX 1-425-803-68]] \ \ /.- \4. \ LAND SURVEYORCt w ` "''2 / X / \� \ - `f14,J• M ouMA O \\\ ��,� / \ ' •S ,�\ I9� \ h 663I25 MA ENGINEERS PLACE.SUITE E102 Jt CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA J WA 9BOJ2 Ct Ct \ ^ \\ CI 1]3.24 ,1.8a' i3'S0'11" - \\ a l / \ FAX 1PHONE�a25-15f-062s m \I v \ \\ C2 100.22'00' .17' O 1'17'38" Y j0� _ W /'� CJ 25 00' 67.29' 1J1'I]'J8" ,(� V• \ CO 33 00' JO 20' 5225.53" \ • '26 \T S\ I , Q \ /" \ C5 ]5 00' a3.83' 33'29')1" \ �O ,'\ \ C6 1]J24' a6.28' 15'IB'2a" 2 \ CJ 7324' 31.01' 1'03.39' /S,S I \ ce I R.24' 41 12' D'JB'02" I J '% - \ / C9 17324' 1831' 06'03'17" ,6 \ \\ CIO 12500' 31.41' 14'2358" CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA / .° / = LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE CII 125 OW 36.57' 16'45'45" C35 55.00' 35.00' 3627'," LI N36'3>'S3"W 30.18' \ C12 686.34' 3724' 03'06.31" C36 5500' 3619' 37.41'57" L PLAT DATA L2 N36'J]'S3"w 30 IB' \ a\ C13 55.00' 645' O6'a3.11" C37 5500' 4841' 50'26.16" J L3 S00'22.34"W J674' \ \ C14 5500' 3500' 3627'39' .8 5500' 4221' 43'58'13" TOTAL AREA 15.55 ACRES L4 N00'S6'J5'E 23.92' C15 1880.08' 5253' 01'36.OJ" C39 25 00' 24.33' 55'46," L5 S0022'34"W 17..82' \ \ C16 55.00' 35.00' 3627'39" C40 25.00' 32.75' 75'0352. / R-8 ZONE AREA 11.21 ACRES Z L6 N38'S1.O6"W 2E60' C17 5500' 35.00' 3627'39'. C41 71.00' 74.71' 5977'04. NO.OF LOTS-- 47 LOTS 1O L7 N32'2521"W'39 J4.37' \ C18 55.00' 35.00' 3627'39" C42 72.00' 1962' 15,36.48" / R/W AREA---=f.S6 AC 2 CO N57.05 "E 11.74' \ 679 55 00' 20.20' 21'02.5.3" C43 8300' 8918' 61133'54" L9 N3225'21, 29.55' C20 5500' 35.00' 3627'39" C44 12200' 31,42' laws'15" / AREA W OR 2..AC 2 L9 N42'S8.48E 15 64' \ C21 55 00' 36.48' 38'00'20" C95 122.00' 34,13' 16'01'37' HAZARD AREA a O AC ., L IO 857'34.39"W 34 00' \ C22 25.00' 44 26' '2 1 016'37" C46 112.00' 8 40' 22'4354. I TOTAL J]8 AC MT L 10 689'03'46"E 14 08' C23 25.00' 39 27' 899'39" C47 121.00' 16 46' 07'43.54" DENSITY 47/734=6.4 UNITS/ACRE Cu N2]'2953"W 23.38' \ C24 80.00' 5601' 405'06.57" C48 _ 33.00' 30.20' 5225.53" MAW pr L11 N27'2951"W 31.61' \ C25 125.00' 19.57' 08'58'10" C49 '04.00' 60.56' 33'2156' ' R-5 ZONE AREA 443 ACRES L13 589'03.46"E 20.00' C16 115.00' 20.48' 0923'12. C49 75.00' 6863' 5225.53" 1 NO.OF LOTS--=15 LOTS L14 S8903.46'E 1011' \ C17 11500' 41.47' 19'00'34" C50 13022. 426' 152'31" Dow 9Ls MP'0 L15 5>O'4J'JO"E 2904' \ C28 12500' 52.19' 2411.58. 22 58" C51 iJ0 ' 9021' 39'41'33" I ;/W AREA--- 0.]1 AC Lib S893.46"E 16 39' C29 30 00' 4712' 90'00'00" C52 54 00' 49.41. 52'25.53" OR SLOPES -028 AC L17 N32'19'26"E 876' \ C30 25.00' 4700' 107'42.3]" C53 54 00' 4942' 522553" IPM L.mow,HAZARD AREAA 0.43 AC L18 S89'O3'46"E 33.59' C31 25 00' 3927' 90620.00. C54 10100' 108.53' 61'J354" TOTAL 1"43 AL L19 S89.03616"E 15.54' C32 25.00' 14 33' 55'46.16" C55 143.24' 122.08' 48'49.55" DENSITY 15/0=5.0 UNITS/ACRE L20 S89103.46"E 13.54' C33 55.00' 76 16' 792023- C55 104 00' 1 11.75' 61'33.5e B L21 500'S6.14"w 20.00' C34 5500' 35.00' 3627'39" C56 51.00' 80.11' 90100'00" 3a 896E6 • VO LP ReAmed ciao .veAeced,e, Mtvow 0.1E B. PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. _ p1 — 1-- -I I—-r—-T——I——I——T-— ---I--I--T--7---T--I--I--T--T--1--I-- --T----1--I--r—T--I ,_ „ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DLOdc ,2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I l I J I I 43 I 47 1 46 1 45 1 44 1 43 I 42 1 41 1 40 11 39 11 38 I 37 1 36 III 35 11 34 I 33 132 I 31 130 I 29 128 I 27 126 I I _ Ivl ^0 ,o I I I I C.D_IHILLMAk'S LAKE WASHINGTON'GARDA OF EDIEN NO.II I _J- _ I I - I---I--I- -1 __ 7.7 =�q -I\1`1—_1-1 I— L 1 _I L L _1 J L L 1 J 1 L 1 J I L 1 J ;I- ` I n GRAPHIC SCALEso aB r j I I m-___ N 28TH PL 'i,t, 1 sx43e m' it ' . rQ-II T r T r r r T s,�i.;i; �-,,r r T ' \I1 I o 12 I Ir"'ejn'^�r'°,6 Z 16 9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 74 I 15 I I6 17 I 13 19 120 1 21 22 1 23 24 1 25 ft szp-a0 11�� N III.•\ 11 II �36Y1'E CONK TALL Imo• I I I N000J�4 1 1 el1aDK•11 I I I I 1 15'PRE CRIPiI 'I 1 C D HILLMAN'S LAKE IYASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN l.'0. I W Y •.9W'I6' 00T I E I' '96 DO "o0 5 VH _ 1 Z_ _L I I — N�9 3 W i 1— N00•J;YI E J.—J L L— 9,I60t I I s6 1�E EASEMENT I I k , !■ ,, ``,.,_ �ciWO p3. — maramm6n4 L— ' :Tx!. m� 1�28TH ST _I m ;I X.—— , �; " ssw uw W W w f 1e�',eJ„ I 1 _ Wo o.\ l ,o.28.c. 29# q 31 ':J 2 d'.'1 33 3�4 r �.0• 6 3 ' Tr—Tr'—'�r— r--1 rI r �6pe. :..app pp. 6s. »> 4Te ELCON ArRES 59 1. p2 A 38 y 39 40 qqq41 P� !•.\ J . J I—J I J L J L J L J I_'J sJ L J J>L 2 43 ExIc oau 1- /er-- rL 56 TL 60 iL 40 TL .57 I TL 58 2Z 7 p6.r 4 p ./p�q ys5 J J 'p 4 � > _ a a� k � �y� �■ .. T Al T "B'. Ra MCI 1 I �i - J 1T.37,. !� �4 S 73 e� 2 77 70 .; 9 8 �g7 �J .�(.` • :.: ... p /`-...cuT•r Nam. I o,72• '10-�.vr� .I 7_ ~R�l gry : • 'if•L 66o JoJ �5 N•1 ,'/ I�jn�p y �l.. o, w6 47 — —- Y - gffi \ \\ \ L969J , � tV Iw .�, `. I w xm /I ,/\ \ ` li -/-- , m mew \\ \�, ` e16 �Y�` I TRACT jA' �_a1 ^�� 48 V �,� ,c5.. J 1 \ \1j • 1 24 -1 . • ,18 Y - ——/ 5„ %`;4 .3 I' Z,. r.„ 1—� i c.p,p --�-1; ,4,°�__�.-._ e p ,, �, 19 `.. '' • ., __" -_JLa- + _>a _"3re.s.aaa /% TL 46 Ai \ N �\ \ /.4 L- \�, N8903'46'W 370.72' ..w I ...In I.— —� —. L. - L._. d�' ,,,k' /�Q in• CO \\ �\ \ \l 1 ,Iasi ,',.' ,� // \\ \ a,.6-.p ' .pe i I - o6 rL 45 QJ \ \}\�_ I ,z, WER eND1 !' • \ VI g `� JL_..1 O \ ( %- ;• 6 .. ,.°.,/ ELDO/lG Aci .• 5\\ o T — - i 5891046E -711 00,/ DEVELOPER/OWNERS C \ \ - �, /AL"uc".n:ryrm \ '... / \ \ r LABRADOR v£NZURES.LLD I- \ -\‘‘, \1 .'A QS-_ - /�-.. / - y I,7 P.O.BOX JJ44 i „ ..J.. / \ \/ '': �r zpzJF.� I S pIIRKLANO.WA 9BOBJ \\ \\\\ \` / \\ // //\ \ \ sa.v �. FAX NE I-425 BO sari j j Q \ \ / \ / / \ " LAND SURVEYOR `� / MOUNIR H.TOUMA PLS \ / _ _• TWMA ENGINEERS \• \ ��� / / \ pq \ '\„ KENOT,WI 9BOJ2�CE SUITE E101 I1Q.. A A`\\ / \\ m V\\ AXNE 1A�33 3311 0613 LLIQ \`-p ems, \ \ \ s N j y__ LINE \\ 2G1�\\ 9. /I PLAT DATA ...'. 1" O\ 52 • L _ / TOTAL AREA m 15.55 ACRES Z 34 w \ /4�\ c Jzz e6z pJm4 R-B ZONE AREA 11.31 ACRES 2 75 ie E \ /i \ Ir • r r NO.OF LOTS-- 4> AC t s \ \ j '/W AREA--- 1.56 C 5'Iw \ �/ r rasa pe aS.T PT: •pr.T6 pJ pso sr,m e0rr sr op spn▪p op / HAZARD AREA= 022ACL \ J� DENS' 6 4 TOTAL B UNITS/ACRELU \ LQ - iYx / DENSITY 9>/>.J4 981 ns i5 i \ Y R-5 ZONE AREA 4.4J ACRESJOBNO. _�_ \ I O.OF L079-- LOTS p LrY ssr rz.0 w sop \ ' R/W AREA---=O..71 AC \ _ > OR SLOPES =O.ZB AC \ Fa Ft 1629'10 ' HAZARD AREA v0,44J AC DRAM DAN T. roraL J COREXED WIT \ CDI som .zrz JpW apmm I DENSITY 15/3.0 5.0 UNITS/ACRE - ()Mr aS 1D*9 TRACT'A'm 1.73 ACRES I prvpp TRACT'B'-1.05 ACRES TRACT'C"a 0.37 ACRES TRACT"0'a 0.17 ACRES TRACT'E" 0.09 ACRES 3a 800rn 1 L:4 - ..11, .14111 tt..5.t. W Lik ' ,..-.. \ _ 11 4• i ' . P , , , ' ' ' ' I I I 1 [ R t 81,1,1 i i I i 1 ! I • -3 R4.8 , l—ri l., 1 1 i 1 1 li 1 60Lii, ,p,i, ,o, ., :Ti-ii__R-„ 8:,_ ; , , , , ,• , , , , , , ,IN7..0 I ..___: ii:. -- •••... ... !_11.. 1.i..LI 1 ... .*_IE! I 1111... _ N Zathl 8t \ , „ ._., , . ...., . 17 ....-..:-N . !. _ n t 4 . ,:-...‘. • , , ,.., ,-._c. I— , _ _.,__. _ ;:•-• ---i 1 • . , 1 , 1 /, \ \ / . \ \ . • \-- r.-- - • # ! • -- , ...... -- \- \ / , i> .. • _\ / . - * R---8-,.4. • cx),_ 4 --- , .. , ,z. -•, . „ 0.., lw N 26th 1.S.t-.- II? _ - f- • -- - , , , T — \ ' .• . R-1 -itir , cy' • - - \ - IR\ 7: \ \ L 8 - \ --.I-R--- E. • _ ._ _, - _.1 , . cn . -----k • _..i _ \ . \ - — _ _ . , _ 1 . (1 .. .. - I I A A, . \.\ i 7:1 I r----' -- i___"..i. 7--1__CD — • ____0_ --- ... , - , e .., --zi •,,..,.\ ' RM-I I P-I % 1 1 1 , _. \ . . \-\N-I-24th St. , v , s.4 — V - — R-8 I. 1 . ,-4\ .---'• \ • I• % -- \ • % 1 ,4 --- • i % __ \ 0 CO _ -. - -- • • -- — \ 9-' ,t % 1, - I''• — L---- ' - . . _ 1 --- CO \ .. _ i uz I . CK , _1 .. . i \ % --- \ C.)" \ \ —I' •- ---1 1 11 1-3 N '-1 % . --- - -- -- --- '.0` . \ - ' ---- 1__II - - % 1 .- ... I % ."---..-‘ .. - .____ __ • ---- -• i•. •, _ .__ . _. _ — — — \- \ RM-I . , 1 , • _. ....._ t •/ I I Cri - • - • \ % . 1•••- 1 ___ ,_. ---- • — % t \ . . • • % \ -, bi _-- — -•-• - - -- - - — -A •• , RM' -I i - ,.,-- - - - RC . .. 1/4„ .._ ›.• 1 . \ .• ,a % r — - — ,4 ,. ._ ._ . ; , ,4 % , -- • -- . _t__. ._1 • .----- . • 1 — • -0 'IlD. .__ , t-- % \ • • I- 4... \ . ____ • . - - --- - — _. .— '' \ I . ---r---I -- — 1- . ..... \ --- - - — j> ! , \ —I [• I-cz ----j sr ...... - . - - - - \ !I I ! i \ .. . . • ....— • , - / \ _. • . \ . \ , .-. 11 \ .-- . / • •• - - •e \ . \ - - —I. •. ..- i 1 . • __ .... _. / e , • 74.109 !.$ . : e ' \ • •\ . -I - '•-, ---, d, 1 RM-I ' .___1 I. — --- -— -- — ( - - -- -' ' ; 1 __ . , I 1 - _,..., . •/ ' 1 1 . • . . . , 1 - 1 ' P-1 I• \ ,_I!--- , , . , . , , - , i• , ___ -- e e _ IH i. „ e ••. , _. . •-- i V, " ' , .• , . •. -- -R- . /. . . .. . \ f,- \ . I . .>• ,/,' / Az.4--,— --- --1 E4 - 8 T23N R5E W 1/2 . lairi;10 : IC)0471.N'“ 94 14E100 + ZONING 10.4; 1 P/B/PW A TECHNICAL SERVICES kIX 5 T23N R5E W 1/2 4,/,\TIO 12/07/98 Rod - a DESGWIaR•..9AT HT. LEGAL DESCR/P7/0N PARCEL 1: PARCEL 7 PARCFI 17' --��VR T TO ' - THE NORM 12312 FEET AS MEASURED ATRIGHT-ANGLESTO-THE-NORTH-LINE THATPORTION-OR`GOVERNMENIYOT-I,-SECPON-S.-TOWNSHIP-23-NORTH• RIAT-PORTION-OFCOVERNMENT LOT-I,-SECTION-&TOWNSHIP-23-NORR1, PARCEL-16 - , OF TRACT JO AND ALL OF TRACT 31,ELDON ACRES ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RANGES EAST W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINCTON,DESCRIBED AS RANGE 5 EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY.WASHINCTON,DESCRIBED AS THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS,PAGE 86,IN KING COUNTY, FOLLOWS' FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORM �✓, WASHINGTON RANGE 5 EAST WM,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON.DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS 1I;I BEGINNING AT A POINT JO FEET SOUTH AND 30 FEET EAST OF THE BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF HILLMAN'S W PARCEL 2 NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5• BOULEVARD/f04T1 AVENUE SOURIEASTI,AS SHOWN ON 1TO PLAT OF BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 WHERE TIE EASTERLY !f THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST,554.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF HILLMAN'S LAKE GARDEN DF EDEN ADDITION TO THE LILY OF THE WEST 100.00 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WEST LINE BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; SEATTLE NO.1.ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 LINE OF HILLMAN BOULEVARD AS SHOWN UPON THE PLAT OF ILLMAN'S LAKE ''.• ACT OF TRACT JO,ELDON ACRES,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES EAST 254 FEET• OF PLATS PAGE 6J IN KING COUNTY•WASHINGTON,PROLONGATED WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO.1,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT eHxnv VOLUME 11 OF PLATS PAGE 86.IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; ]HENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES EAST TOO FEET,' SOUTHERLY WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5; THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS,PAGE 6J IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THE NORTH 123.12 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE THENCE SOUTH 40 DECREES EAST 160 FEET THENCE WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF EXTENDED,WOULD INTERSECT THE NORTH DINE OF SAID SECTION 5:THENCE SOUTH NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT JO,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES EAST,109 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO A POINT BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION J91.40 FEET,MORE OR LESS.TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO COED W. IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS,PAGE 86,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON. SOUTH OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST 83.80 FEET, RARE,'AND HELEN RAREY,HIS WIFE BY DEED DATED AWE 1,MIT,RECORDED IN THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST 228 FEET' THENCE SOUTH AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 TO VOLUME 1129 OF DEEDS,PAGE 152,UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO 1469521, PARCEL 3L THENCE NORTH 276 FEET. THE CENTERLINE OF A STREAM.SAID CENTERLINE BEING THE NORTH LINE OF RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST,228 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO JAMES L MARENAKOS AND THENCE EAST 195.50 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT T.LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 20 FEET OF BEGINNING' GEORGIA MARENAKOS HIS RIFE,BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING WAY OF PIE COLUMBIA AND PUGET SOUND RAILROAD COMPANY,' UJ In THE WEST 1042..7 FEET OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT.' NUMBER 510921T THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG TIE WESTERLY UNE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY,0T THE t a' n 8 W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A POINT SOUTH OF TIE TRUE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5; BEGINNING AT A POINT 30 FEET SOUTH AND 30 FEET EAST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING,AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE NORTH LINE THENCE WEST ALONG Tl£NORTH LINE OF SAND SECTION TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING W O E EXCEPT THOSE PORTIONS WHOSE IN.52-S WERE QUIETED UNDER KING NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5' OF SAID SECTION 5; EXCEPT THAT PORTON THEREOF LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH UNE OF THE CREEK; W COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE N0.9T-2-24469-1. BECNNINCOOFH 89 THE TRACE HEREIN DE5CRB FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF EXCEPT TH£NORTH 2RTH TO 0 FEET iPF10EREOF T OF BEGINNING AND EXCEPT ROADS' 2� THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST,2545 FEET' THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES EAST 240.5 FEET,' PARCEL TT ALSO THE NEST JO FEET OF THE EAST TOO FEET(AS MEASURED ALONG THE NORTH LINE PARCEL d THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES EASE,TOO FEET' OF SAID SECTION)OF THAT PORTION OF THE TRACT HEROINABOVH DESCRIBED LING 2 Ct .0 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,BECKON 5.TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES EAST FOB FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO A POINT THE EAST 1088 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: SOUTH OF SOUTH UNE OF SAID SECTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE TRACT WO E, RANGES EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS SOUTH OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; HERUNABOVE DESCRIBED CR50 NORTH Of THE SOUTH UNE OF THE CREEK; FOLLOWS THENCE NORTH TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF QC) SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 2J NORM RANGE 5 EAST,W.M IN KING COUNTY, SAID SECTION 5 CONVEYED TO THE ESTATE OF AARY P.AUGE UNDER KING COUNTY BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE EASTERLY LINE OF HILLMAN BOULEVARD ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 1 CITY OF RENION LOT LINE AOJUSIMENT NUMBER COB- WASHINGTON LYING WESTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE RECORDING N0.850B280BIT IN SETRERENT OF KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE SL i AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN 85 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8602139002. EASTERLY THATCH OF HILLMAN'S BOULEVARD(TOW R1 AVENUE SOUTHEAST)AND NQ 85-2-0 0294-6,MORE PARnCULARGY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. J - ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO.f,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED LONG EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF NEAL TURNER ROAD; Q a. IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS,PAGE 63,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE EAST 108.8 FEET THEREOF; COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF THE h EXTENDED,INTERSECTS THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION. PARCEL B' ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 20 FEET OF ABANDONED PACING COAST RAILROAD COMPANY'S NEW CASTLE BRANCH WITH THE S I' THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, THE WEST f0622 FEET OF SAID SECTION n '7` 168.8 FEET SO TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEGINNING AT A POINT 30 FEET SOUTH AND NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST 812.5 NORTH UNE OF SAD SEIXOxS; ''Iln THENCE SOUTH THE T FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF ELDON ACRES,ACCORD/NC FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 5.TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, TOGETHER WiTI AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS EGRESS AND UTILITIES OVER THENCE NORTH 8993,45"NEST ALONG S AID NORTH UNE I20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE 'uJ_ TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME t1 OF PLANS PAGE 8S IN RANGE 5 EAST,W.M.,KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE SOUTH 276 FEET' THENCE CONTINUING NORTH NT AL 5"WEST 1T.91 FEET TO AN EXISTING FENCE; . KING COUNTY WASHINGTON;FEET' THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST,228 FEET, THE NORTH JO FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THENCE SOUTH 0172W"WEST ALONG SAID 10321 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY • THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST,112.5 FEET,' THENCE NORTH 276 FEET, BECKON 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY, MARGIN OF SAID ABANDONED RAILROAD.SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE TO THE THENCE NORTH 391.4 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST,228 FEET TO BEGINNING; WASHINGTON,LYING WESTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 41H4'12"EAST' THENCE EAST 112.5 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: EASTERLY MARGIN OF HILLMAN'.BOULEVARD(f04TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST)AND THERE NpeTHEAST£RLY ALONG SAID MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HANNC A EXCEPT THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE COUNTY ROAD; LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF REAL TURNER ROAD RADIUS OF D/EAST FEET FORA AID DISTANCE OF 2526 f££T. EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF LYING WTHIN]HAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND BEGINNING 1040.5 FEET EAST AND 306 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST EXCEPT THE EAST 1108 FEET THEREOF, THENCE NORTH 00'JJ'45"EAST 86.52 FEET TO TIE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. AS DEEDED TO PAUL A.LAPP BY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT T SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION LONG WITHIN THE NORTH 20 FEET OF THE WEST Z NUMBER 2882752. EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; 1042.7 FEET OF SAID SECTION; N THENCE SOUTH 85 4 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTH GIN£%'gar', ALSO EXCEPL THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE WEST PARCEL 5' OF FL ATS ACRES, LIN ONG O THE PLAT(HEREOF RECORDED/N VOLUME ll 554 5 FEET OF SAD SECTION. BEGINNING 1040.5 FEET EAST AND 306 FEET SOUR(OF RICE NORTHWEST OF PLATS PAGE SAID IN KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON; CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,SECTION 5.TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,RANGE 5 THENCE ALONG PLAT LINE,SOUTH B9 DEGREES WEST,425 FEET,MORE pARCFL 14' OR LESS TO THE ANGLE CORNER OF SAID PLAT,' EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON THENCE ALONG SAID PLAT LINE SOUTH 45 DEGREES WEST,356 FEET,MORE THE NORTH JO FEET OF THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THENCE SOUTH 85.4 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OR LESS TO THE EASTERLY UNE OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD: SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH.RANGE 5 EAST.WM„IN KING COUNTY, OF ELDON ACRES,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID BOULEVARD LINE,75 FEET,MORE OR WASHINGTON,LYING WESTERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF THE OF PLATS,PACE 86,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON; LESS TO A POINT ON A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 75 FEET EASTERLY MARGIN OF HILLMAN'S BOULEVARD(104TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST)AND THENCE ALONG SAID PLAT LINE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST,425 FEET,MORE NORTHWESTERLY FROM SAID PLAT LINE,' LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF NEAL TURNER ROAD, OR LESS TO THE ANGLE CORNER OF SAID PLAT,' THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES EAST 410 FEET.MORE OR LESS TO A POINT EXCEPT THE EAST 1108 FEET THEREOF; THENCE ALONG SAID PLAT LINE SOUTH 45 DECREES NEST,356 FEET,MORE WHICH IS SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 20 FEET OF THE NEST V OR LESSNORTH TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD; THENCE 89 DEGREES EAST 456 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT 1042.7 FEET OF SAID SECTION THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID BOULEVARD LINE,75 FEET.MORE OR OF BEGINNING ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE WEST LESS TO A POINT ON A LINE MI/CH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 75 FEET EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING 554.5 FEET OF SAID SECTION. 0 J NORTHWESTERLY FROM SAID PLAT LINE,' DESCRIBED LINE.' 1� • 1'T) THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES EAST,410 FEET,MORE OR LESS TO A POINT PARI:FI •I54 ^J WHICH IS SOUTH 89 DEGREES NEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEGINNING AT A POINT 30 FEET SOUTH AND NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST,812.5 00 THENCE NORTH B9 DEGREES EAST 456 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTIONS TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NEAL TURNER COUNTY 0 OF BEGINNING; RANGE EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON, ROAD AT A POINT WHICH IS JO FEET SOUTH AND JO FEET EAST OF THE a_ EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED UNE.' THENCE SOUTH TO INTERSECT WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF ELDON NORTHWEST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH,_ •\W BEGINNING AT A POINT JO FEET SOUTH AND NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST 812.5 ACRES PACE 886N IN KING COUNTY,AT THWASHNGTEONO RECORDED IN TERMNUS 11 CF SAID RANGE 5 EAST,W.M. IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON C FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, THENCE SOUT 20 DECREES EAST JOGS fEEE LINE. THENCE SOUTH 20 DECREES EAST 240.5 FEET f` Q RANGE 5 EAST W.M.,IN KING COUNTY, NORTHWASIIINGTONLINE THENCE SOUTH 40 DEGREES EAST 160 FEET,MORE OR LESS,TO A POINT ON V THENCE SOUTH TO INTERSECT WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE PLAT OF ELDON ALSO NNONN AS LOT I,CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NUMBER A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 75 FEET NORTHWESTERLY FROM THE ACRES ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUTE 11 OF 009.85 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8602139002 NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF ELDON ACRES ACCORDING TO THE PLATS,PACE 86,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUTE 11 OF PLANS PACE 86,RECORDS OF LINE. PARCEL 9 SAID COUNTY' THENCE ON SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 45 DEGREES WEST TO THE NORTHEAST ALSO KNOWN AS LOi J COR OF R£NTON L80 LINE AD✓USIMENT NUMBER 009- O Q BS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 860T1J9002 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1,SECTION S TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH, LINE OF LAKE SHORE BOULEVARD; RANE 5 EAST,W.M.,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID BOULEVARD LINE 280 FEET,MORE OR pARCFL 6 FOLLOWS: LESS,TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE NEAL TURNER COUNTY ROAD; Q THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID ROAD LINE TO BEGINNING Q J THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT T SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF HILLMAN RANGE 5 EAST,W.M,IN KING COUNTY,WASHINGTON.DESCRIBED..15.0.11, S BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF HILLMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTONGARDEN Q FOLLOWS OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO.T.ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF Ct RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS.PAGE 6J,IN KING COUNTY, BEGINNING AT A POINT WHERE THE EASTERLY LINE OF HILLMAN'S BOULEVARD WASHINGTON,WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5: CD r.. WASHINGTON GA SOUTHEAST), EDEN ADDITION TTO SEATTLE PLAT OF O.T,ACCORDING TO TRAKE UE POIINT OF BEGINNING OF THE(NE OF TRACT HEREIAID N DESCRIBED;CTION e FEET TO THE W THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS PAGE 63,IN KING THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 60 FEET' Q COUNTY,WASHINGTON,EXTENDED COULD INTERSECT THE NORTH LINE OF SAID THENCE fSOLITH TERLO THE CENTERLINEiOFL OF CNE 0 A POINT SOUTH OF THE TRUE J SECTION 5; POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE RUNNING ALONG SAID NORTH UNE.NORTH 89E3'45"WEST,168.8 FEET. THENCE NORTH NO THE TRUE POINT E FBEGINNING;ROB THENCE SOUTH 9INT OF FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF AN EXISTING STREAM AND EXCEPTING THE NORTH JO FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD. THENCETHE UCONTNUING F BEGINNING; 293.67 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF ELDON PARCEL IG THENCE TROUTS THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THENCE NORTH 2005 F"EAST ALONG SAID INE OF UNE,1TRE FEET' SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH.RANGE 5 EAST W.M.,IN KING COUNTY, • THENCE NORTH NORTHWESTERLY FEET L THE CENTERLINE OF SAID FEET STREAM; WASHINGTON,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS THENCE PI FOLLOWING CENTERLINE 194 MORE OR LESS TO THE TRUE ORTO OF BEGIOFI EXERT ANY PORTION THEREOF LONG EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING BEGINNING AT A POINT JO O S SOUTH AND JO FEET EAST OF THE p DESCRIBED UNE. NORTHWEST CORNER EEID SECTION 5; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES EAST,554.5 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF 2 BEGINNINGR AT A POINT ONW THE NORTH UNECOUNTY, OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIPTHE THNCEBEGINNING DESCRIBED; W EASTH,RANGE EAST,ANU CO AS S W NCTHE WHERET THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES WEST,254.5 FEET EASTERLY UNE OF HILLMAN BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES EAST,160.5 ET; - _M ACCORDING LAKE WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN ADDITION TO SEATTLE NO,1 THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES EAST 108 FEET' MT AC OR DING 10 THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN C THE II R PLATE,PARE SOUTH NORTH DEGREES PINT EAST 108 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT DESIDNED S3/N KING COUNTY,DI BAARINGTOF,WOULDINTERSECTS NORTH LINE OF THENCE ON THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SAIDR BBHS'5(THE. NI OF SAID NORTH RLINE BEING THERE NORTH TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING DRAW DT ETH 8 'WEST,KING COUNTY AERIAL SURVEY FEEIT T I: °' THENCE SOUTH CENTERLINE WEST AK,DISTANCEID IOFN 18EI8 THE MORE OR PARCEL LESS IN THE CENTERLINE MARENAKOS CREEK SAID POINT BEING THE NORTH END a< THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE NORTH JO FEET OF THE EAST 554.5 FEET OF DEC rage OKTIOED MT THE CEE ONTWEEN OUH01'AND STRIDE ST, THE WEST 584.5 FEET OF GOVERNMENT LOT T SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 23 - EETCE MORE CONTINUING SOUTH E NORTHO'RT"NISI,A ELDON OF NORM RANGE 5 EAST W.M.,IN KING COUNTY.WASHINGTON. DM H G 74101. ENDS, OR LESS.TO THE LINE OF ELDON ACRES AND THE SOUTH END OF UNE BETWEEN MARENAKOS AND STRIDE. ii 20, 8mom5 -7-4-4-21i5z01 - •71 1:!so4]AI s[o• , V„ ° i.I 3L s-o 1II 49 11 • -- •-'.4- flin:±..f.''71.:11'''.-':14-41 3"1-.'.-.d3,.li. 3 -a7I:.:M l34.4-1I1L751.11171 .1_2i11111_-_17,11/1E3 1l1' _. .__i_.:.... i :'•;,;i:<-Ii C._•C-;...•:;.. .'•'-...,.;". 13 4T ff 4847T43 4 4 iC17 .3620I 27, , f ..•••.'.(4:', F --1--A•14. 29TH ST-% I. . N. 29TH -ST. g '4 0, 4 I I .4 .;\ ..... r-i. 50• • 1 - 1 - 1 • ' 1 " ! - ' .. • I " * i..- 1 ' ;- •' " 1 ' --- ... so-95-pi-So--- V= _, I tn ' • "... ' ' ioo 1 157 1 11: DEr•illEINI , : - i '.i.--1--.,• ; ....- i . ; , 1 i iz i i 1 •••1^ "" < L143 1 -T T . 1 ..•' - 1 37 Ill 35 1 341 33--52 I '3o2.51 i 27 26 °-.1___14_L P.-I-.tn----IS 1 C'Sk :;•.; 11 .:',:- a;LI to 1 1 ELA 1 • Sc,-.4:i 1 4:Y;47 i 46 4p_....4 43,A2 I 4., 1..L,i 35 05 i i T . , ,....1 ! , • , ,9 \"Y'-'4i I, ! < ' '1;1/ 212i 9 1 .1110 l?Ti191 il 1 I ail 10 IL;1 1 iil ; I i ' i aj: NI ; .,.. .2 ...,,, E .(...__ s__, 0 1.9 . -,. ..3,...:, .4 .5D in 125:5.) - I . I., i •,... . I . A . . . .. I 51) 1450 ••• I RI 1E52.5, wi - so M.....,---_...1 t i I I ...i • • • - ••'. ';'.• .*.:. r ; . 1 C,,_ . .. .. . VA CAT 2 i .7. •N. 28TH PL. g i123 1. I; ' <-:v' -1 1 :::':' '' :' :'4........•• 4., . , •r., • i'' !,!1:n;r 1,4,;...!'„:MI:Mu II I 1 A •,....;••• ::: .; , .. -• •:-.., : - ' . 1 - 1 - 11 • 1 1 4 n - 72; 0 I so i - 1,1 • 1 : '..• ti • I ..1 irli. i . 'iti 16 1 5016 XI.: .1:-.1 1:1 1 I : I • ,' ''..:.•...:. •';'' •I I !I i;•.... ,...EL: ,..r.a.,. , ; 14J: Ig I 1 1 ilal' • I ! 1 ip 2 . ,..\ I.Iii....:,,....s.,,,...,-‘,.:, .1-,...., ihti3p,It, , ,/,'-‘ ‘: iP. • - -i J 1 2 . .:: .1 4 ' 1 6. '121 8 i 5 ! i3 i'llsr4 12 ‘ I I ....frit,.4.17 ! .1 15 Zo 1 21 1 22 1 23.t....42,5...'so ii:5% ., •, • 1,.,,..,. .:, •,..,,, , ..,,_,.;,_ ..,,, . . \ \ 6 i 5 g \ \ I-L. ;re • ....... /i , 1\ \ - zsa.s" •,•;:"- 228 222.94 • 112.5 60 "8 .111 ;I 'V "172 .0•-• , I . ' , im ... • r \ , , PI \ \ LELAND F. ' JAMES L.& MRS MARENA K OS . 0.2 ZA e.LELA N D F. • • ‘,, ‘ \ PETERSON ' ' ' • • •" A., . . Fo , ' r.c.11 Z4 .1.,./ .1-.,...,."..; ,..>/r."Ls?,'•-.4 56 t. aifICAC .iL.5' ..,'-',. ' // .::;1 -03- ...f, •i::: s' \ • \2, . a„L.r.41.9 t2...- .,'' .....: ,___,..•,,, . •• ....-, r,- , , K 'vi 2 ''' ,-.7 •••',...• i 6,04', ao ..! , - o •• \ k ‘z c g .6 E.D. S7 R'Irli ' %' ' t ri-JP' ' 2715 ' tt43110 ' NI • < • -- •;,/ .,./-. % .i.. ii", .1.9 I A, 0.93 4c, -4 , .17'' 414c. -• ,...,_ •4-,7- 71-6 IT\ . J •-....... ‹§1 N A D1FNOAN T RA INVA0 L 1 . \7:,•/..9 \\-N k,k.‘. .. . e \• c-,L a-cy\s„ ,r .... 3.214.c.... , \\0' E LAND F. PETERSON 4Z4L1.47:c. GS W0't0.LAotc IL4a.1- tA I, i 1...•.• r - . .. - w 0 32 31 30 , 37e 7,4 4,.....•-_----2-z-fr-'-i.-EI-rL1-l--,I--2--a--.t...," ' 1i4'nnn? :zy•_6-_ . i•:'•:-f-.:.,- ..;- 7 j,;,'N.'.--thl ;Et ... ... f.'- .....; ' \ I \• Z1.12 / 55.•' ")) ,.t . ' . . • ----, . \ , • st.,,,,•,,, 04 k&. •' ''Z 3 r 21:124' ... ' -- • \ .1 -- '; , • 7_=_,, „. -.1 M.,- ?m ';';. '::::!. c\ . , s . , .,. ..... - . • \. ft \ ... 1...- ,I.,c,'----. , .,..: ..... Cole. I r 2.-0 . .. , 1,,c„.. • , . ,. „(....p • k\ _ 1" -.. -, ./ it ( ,) 7,,,, 1.1 1 1 •3 ,, 0,--...- ' tk ' . I \ '.- \.. PeS/ - le 71-‘ ' --"- k N :t. 7:448 0. "° b - -, II 17-7*. •251' 1 /of.. oos ji . ! 44 I, ..."....:- .::'.!:. \,, . ------------ / 711.,./ \,S,sv 29 ,r-, 4 N. . 267TH . ST. 4 , i'? •:.•.: Is., . \ . ----,2,! • „;\ •,. ‘ • , s-kc . -iv 47 :::: .,: ,z,,,t4j3, ...1c;17-11 . ,,,,,,. 4..: - f.Y.1 • KE -- • • • s,k‘...:..... • -----. \‘‘, ,Ilt i we, . v if___%.> m.,.., ...*,,,:.jr". s s.>...... ....,/./ td / \ - z - . 1144' ros4.3 40A50 . .fk•.', 9Z (c• ---, o i (B) „t‘i:ord:gI'Von2:013:1E:1. .A51) isr;51:0 I , . \ ‘\• ,...,, , 4' •.z.0 V:. 2•3.9S I -••'-.2-I".5.---,-, P1:1121. -r.• ::-.....4 , \ • W,,, \\.0 \\\ it r, iI 1%, i • Cs 13oe P014-80 27 zf hmos t ", ,4(6F)fi...,• ,,, \ .v, k It ,B418 • 1-..: , I V A_CA.,'El ....`.7.1, ,.' rge Et.• - - loses,'"24E1m2.4 _72----,17 IN..; . W..OrS ;NAVE B. PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 5, TWN. 23 N., R. 5 E., W.M. 1 I{-�II I N J/sl STREET yS 1 1 g ,r•.. g\ J9 266,STREET JO.KOHL OF WAY =\il • ' _ _ SCALE B 6 y 0Lp+ ceix a WO J.29NJ STREET --� e —zR , J ( I dz CWPACIED DEPTH CLASS'B"56. JN 2BLh IMAGE a SURFACING TOP COURSE 2 — 12"GRAVEL BASE AS NEEDED ,Q 8 1 am L� O'L ..a ti \ ��, LAKE WASHNGTON BLVD. hh�-� 7 \ " 1 �, ROADWAY SECTIONS 1 • LAKE WASHING \ ��e��•'I� . in SHORE USE - d • • 25J RIGHT OF WAY \\ 14*\ r�. 6"COMPHALT-T2 LIFTDEPS R CLASS R. l I ASPHALT-Y LIFTS REWIRED J 1 6"COMPACTED DEPTH-CRUSHED Q 9 _ SURFACING TOP COURSE I 1 I fy�, 1 u f2"GRAVEL BASE AS NEEDED LLI LLI 9 ..o,c�FFT v J~ •C LAKE _ N.26TH STREET ROADWAY SECTIONS M�U WASHINGTON Q \, CS G • a joQ LAKE WAS SHORE LINE'ROTOR J O CI '— CO Q 62.RIGHT OF WAY J 4y f 6 S y SHFFT IFGFND GENERAL NOTES zz�� • �2X R 2R f I. IN WIDENING AREAS,THEE STING PAVEMENT EDGE SHALL BE YAW-CUT"TO LEAVE A �-1 q SHEET 1 OF B COVER SHEET JOIN POINT.ANY TRAFFIC STRIPING REMOVED OR DAMAGED DURING WIDENING WORK L� • SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND OR AS DIRECTED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 1 OE B LEGAL DESCRIPTION I"COMPACTED DEPTH CLASS:B" Z 2. COMPACTION TESTS ON SUBGRADE AND ROCKGRADE SHELL BE REQUIRED.THE NUMBER OF ASPHALT-2 LIFTS REWIRED W SHEET J OE 8 PRELIMINARY PLAT TESTS SHALL BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR ALL TESTS AS h REQUIRED SHALL BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER THROUGH ANY 6"COMPACTED DEPTH-CRUSHED SHEET I OF B ROADWAY PROFILES LICENSED R5TING LAB OF HIS CHOICE THE MINIMUM COMPACTION FOR THE TOP 26• SURFACING TOP COURSE -991 OF THE SUBGRADE SHALL B£957 OF MAXIMUM RELATIVE DENSITY.BELOW THAT LEVEL. SHEET 5 OF B ROADWAY PROFILES THE MINIMUM COMPACTION SHALL BE 907 OF MAXIMUM RELATIVE ROCK 12"GRAVEL BASE AS NEEDED SURFACES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPACTION OF 957 OF MAXIMUMMUM COLATIVE SHEET 6 OF B GRADING AND UTILITIES PLAN DENSITY: COMP.Or SHEET 7 OF B SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN S AOA/SNLENT OF CATCH BASIN LIDS OR CRATES MANHOLE U0S MONUMENT CASES PLAT ROADWAY SECTION SHEET B OF B TREES PLAN VALVE BOXES ETC,SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR OR • DATE DEC F.I. DEYLOP£R AS REQUIRED AND SHALL BE AD..USTED AFTER THE FINAL LIFT OF ASPHALT HAS BEEN INSTALLED. Dm NA 7.101NC C Ia 8ean • • PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. 406 —r--1 r—r-7-- —I-- —T-7--I-- T-7--1-- r , I--J--7-7--I-- —r-7-7--r--r—T— I I I — r r— I I I I I- I I I I I I I I aodr me I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 l I I-'I I I so I sa I to I as I Aa I ,s I " I " 1 Az I ma 14nu.►�.Llir each or:w I el OF mI 1i u 11— I s I so I ao I x I 27 i sa i 2 I —J`J� 1,lr_1_1—J— L L I J Nil I L L 1 J _I__L_1._J_ 1_ L I 1 _1 . F GRAPHIC —.:s II' -_- _ _ _ N 28TH PL ��` 43 tT 1 I rr—_Tl--r--r—T—, � -T—,—_I--r � _,, mo.. R. iiuif1T I I I II II IIIII I11 I II 11N2 J 1 4 1 s Q 1 7 I a ID I rO III Ifs I Is I I4 I rs I Ia I /7 1 /o I f° 1 pO I r 1 22 123 .I 24 I � _ ; If r ..�';CM?W. I I I Iy I I 1 I -, :. n I I I ' 1 I Is r "19 I 11'a1 as IilLWAMS LAME Irt40yemN e1Oelr OF mFa/NO. r �' t i I..�_:_--�i_�.-o — . ......... r-. _t _.e. — —-- , tr _ �....ia: ... •—— —— — - • /Y �O/I7 .7 _ �� m I tl --- I I 62 tr I ELCIOIN A RES 1In k :i•\V_J • I 7aa.c. sl�ror 1._.. • (C sa I rz cO IL 40 S7 I IL se rz se jlt \� ,N� f ,,��>_ STREET A . ==_. l � ___ I I i 5 .��\` TRACT '� I •f \ e El. :. a.411•ad",''''. ```-+` 1 \ . MN: ,12,,,7 g,\" "` _ III lF • - .\\.\\ \\ `r�,\` \., : y awl,` `���' w w weL2c ` i ��• — ''''..\ I — s�.r `W ' n' \ 1 W TRACT A N 1/1 I�� =�° \ •• r Jf •H VVV a 46 G \ ....I/ .; —J .III, aval.L'/: �, -, -T — — \ \ \�, ITMT go 1Ir- �' �,-• /\ • \ 3° I I J r` �.�7J01 L I. c3 \ \ >,Q. 7 if. :, / \ \ s,..e 12��L I V] 17347.721. J4 1 �/�/ rz+s Q J \' \ ! \ '\Z 1a.n.�{ • % / \ \ — _11 I ' 7AJ..e. 733.20.e /.I/I J \ I'L co ♦ \� \ / EL0914 Acre- - - \ \. \., �: • •• UAW! \ »�fir. C17 �- OSVELOPER/ONNERS CC CP) ♦ \ �� ,•' S: < ♦�'. / \ \ ice— ��-I .2 -1 -,. iiy RL,RA uc � 3\\ ". , `, ......�lae• // �\ • \/ r �- w.c ` ! (� maw t-rs NOW maw.N.ILIUM MCI RTT•4 a 1 ,�/0- ROM NA SIR= / \ \ , al k) IMOt f MST NAM.>♦IIR Om J°A•,....,` _. "" •Perite 1.>11"1"1"- ts,.. • -1•1 I ci.." n i mil, M j�� __ j PLAT DATA = ■ LI t I \ sU ii Mri i)M!]i 4 II i= a C.y =-=�1 i•!.1 S .tyH`.Al mTAL AREA -IAx AOfgd lo �. -•v�•1lr.. \\ \ =31 to f-!-r--1.! - I I/-.ZINC AMA 11.7•ROMS ♦ i t•�i 1'.lS IR R[ice- ?yG .� MO. r�tr•i ,\ maJ� 1 =E •ia !il.l-1 - , Na OF EOM--.47 LOU a■ I •).l! .m2 ��ri! f'i!1 i�'IEil r!r ���� f �r li AJa�- :[r / O/Ir.tlEw___ Lx AC �I la■ l )- .1l.x 11� \ mil.•r� .i� ;�.. .==f'1!!`.r i!�! .a .. . •402 CS �OM AC 1 .11a. ..1L.rl i.i� • M'•'F�!R':��iaM!'�•T ={I!Mr/ EEI1a 1•.. Lr I orA1D A11CM- 0 AC \\ .==.Iva La ENIE a=ee.. 1 t o -.'W 1 1. c_1! .:" I mr L Jae AR a.11.-w-w .1[ala i•1. r!T. \ s-I>_t'i•;t i .4.R�s. r� t�rai)r ��� 1lMii•a�-'..'.� 'LlX9IV',Aso c4 WI!/AOE 5 1 �Ita..•...[1.IlJ:1_� \ =�.f.i 'M�i'ii r t.'�m (,ll: =t i,llt...•}:L w-e BLOC AIFA LY ACRES ir�Ir \ =- J .•.Tm,•',MM.it=—...... OMB Er J �J . t.. IJ.. I ..{Y tt 1. r 1�.'.- it .lath•':J1 BL Or --.ID LOIS \ _ -•li J �,l�MINN, i Amami.,!•tIRA�=1Y`_� I NZ.o.tRs ` ��.MM.1'AM!.•it•Ci MI/).ifL 1r.•m .. i.�86[S -nffi AG I HAZARD Aa[AA.0.43 ACTom 1.43 AC cz TO R,w.r• 16719IY I6/SO•AO UN1WAOR' • 3. 5... A'\7115ro2 C.g mrj 11-1 ,N $ r MI Esz SAC ,01 oY 120.9 0 0 121.1 121.4 121.6 121.4 APPROX CL NE 29th STREET v l W 121.1 �TyI TCv 0 120.1 rn Z • 1191 Ty �. _v 118.0 • o 1165 1PP0X CL NE 28th PACE � Z m o I h N 1096 C 0 103.9 98.6 _ . NEW ROAD 91.4 85.0 79.3 73.6 66.4 _ STREET PROFILES -/�1TOUMA ENGINEERS of \ IS& LAND SURVEYORS ��i= LABRADOR VENTURES L.L.C. i3> KIRKLAND, WA 98083 //.�;9IS'PLACE SI""`—'F.:Ml2I 'A MOM �g5CO MTV 251_0525 .,4~ 1,9 RENTON WASHINGTON — c VIIP110..1 an 6]1 a F 0 S o . o 8 a 99.61 tI'0e BVC.i 1+28 S S y 14 36 BV.•99 a 0:1 99.69 E4 , II .m m ;7 1. 06 29 L S 0 1 b oS 6 11186 I ''I'' ]30 I a 5.59 EVCS +25 £VCE IIJ 117.65 5 36 19 97 121.29 a 123.12 \\\ ]6 86 • 26.]6 128.59 \I\ +a 3 7 �4 1 18 1 132.24 I a• 134.06 \ /35 59 135 68 \ 235 • 137.71 \ 139.53 10+OC ]9135 E: 141 a106I▪ 02 1,(. 19].J02 3 tl mo 5 1 ml_ NN,•- to m 151.00 \ 155 21 .\\ £VCS 12+00 • I57.86 EVC• 158 • '•164.29 Ja 170 oa • BV:S: 13+00 • 1]O]I SVCS: 171 1]6.19 \ 2 • 22 2 JO a I79.]6 Np2 zos yo 6 onnn rer.a.i % a ti 9.05 / SVCS. 16+00 • 175.00 I SVCS: 175 71' 3 ,r A wm I EVC" iJ+00 a a 1..91 EV E: 169 � 168,2 i ^n3' 168.2.1 a a B o o STREET PROFILES �,�TOUMA ENGINEERS o R "e L & LAND SURVEYORS - v �f"``' 5 co s a °a LABRADOR VENTURES L.L.C. 92,M 331�4� I .91V4Wa Mt, a KIRKLAND, WA 98083 W MS)251-1693 M(u3;=31-33J3 1 —a REN70N WASHING70N in Jan 99 1E35.20 1999 • Ed I e 6 i,. fi d d e e a all 1 ,MA a RH, fi'i \ .°Y s IddL a�P Ea Igi e H,b g ,SNA 8 ,S;i W , • • It, ai. " 1 'At "fig' k I. —,,. 8 ;li e,-,ee ,..- .. Is # a k /.; a �� rn a { ` • ;id.;'. s 57ac / 95 - • S t o 4 STREET PROFILES ��AND SURVEYORS4 _ 5 = §'• ' LABRADOR VENTURES L.L.C. a i co `$ m e,sr cux aerz c-Im�caA a+caw ;(.:•t,\:!: 1 - $ KIRKLAND, WA 98083 ___,=s,-�w J,=3J„,-:w, RENTON WASHINGTON 5 44: s cscx>Kw�c..R er PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. ,°-�„,, .. Ti. I 50 1 i9I 48I 47 1 46 45 44 1 43 42 I 41 I 40 fI 39 I 38 I 37 I 36 I 35 1L34 I 33 132 I 31 130 I 29 128 1 27 126 I Z I J CO. HILLMAIII'S LAKE WASHINGTON IGAROEIJ OF EDfN NO 11 1 1 1 1 1 J § \Q K —_ _ 0: ,L L__l—_J— I— L 1 J I L 1 7 J —L—L-1—J--I--L—L=1---J--LL—± 1 WL — ,��� 1.m N 28TH PL ems . lit o —TQ_1 1 7—T 7 1 I T T 7 I P T 7 1 I— T- T —I 1 1— T 7 —1 1— T T 7 5 a3 1.1 II 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 I1 ti.a< I� \I 1 11 I 12 13 I 4 5 1 6 1 7 I a 1 9 O�11 10 1 I1 1 12 I 13 IT1� 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 120 1 21 I 22 I 23 1 24 I 25 I i\ IW I II o�-�1E f0I00' 1 I 1 1 N00760Y1 1 I I BIf�00'J1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1LLMANS LAKE WASHINGTON GANOEN OF EDEN NO 1 I OOE6 I F +� I CO. H 1 _1� ILb . '' ,: '° G--�L 11._'N 9 yLjr, f••CC. 1 N'''1 4=_i_ _ L 1 _—,"L9a4O71 r %19...` ., 4,m. N PitazfuL. tB TH sr — r. t CO \ EEL �� I f' 1 1 `q Wo �R C , 61 60 59 446,, 57 5• 11-5 4 5,i ®52 I 4 Y a4 b - F ;r, 5 „I r�rG Ya�`r \ ELL�ON AC1RES I rc so 2� $ a t- I ®• x � o x :, �-{c 56 n s7 1 I R 2j sw TL 60 TL 40 iL 58 4 \ Volok4 ,.., �� awi=. — y— ;tr �" r. ' �t �..+.�p >a �„Y1. �w1 I i �' 1'°° "a .•�I�\ QO d a \\\\ t:. 15 ,\)6 way*.T@.®1 20 ®r. � r 4 �.dY .i���I�a r �!!� ,S•.' — —_ \" "� .'' / �'In aF \\\ \i , ,, Mil _ ._ . ar o rz '; \ 6ew p / $ k' 1 cc� �j T` y 41r ram' ,, •\ \ '• �rz, � r a G� 14 e ' O \\ ,' ♦ \•�5 :.. . NVY d �12 � il�t y�11 fir, *w as 4,y �Z.'; 4 ` 11' I J. it,z i• o A-- ,y ' Likisisallitoikir ..• y f Y . , / „.,4- 1 2. ,A ii -,;,,, .3.,07 p,, 'Ck- i' \ r 11V-41.11"19 -4,4. ,.-- 4-7:::' i '''"?..4., ,... .Alk 21* 1.r,l__4110*-71: igek 1 4 i TL ''° \\ ,,\ \ „ Illk ,,,,,,.•*,:,,,,, , / ,-,--Nlairc9125 •w ,,,,-, _2770.7 I 1(4., ?IN 1411104 T.:.I"_1•11;ir*,, 4 , Of---•CZ-- \ „„ 41" -----4•00:1 `'4..' / / \ L \ \ '. ' Sivii 3;5:04* ":" e- 4i / \ -, \\ \ - -",\ : El *. 1 LT 1 ° \I :\ 111)1112',/ it \ s ,,, \ie.-7- .,, \\,„/ ELD9rG A.ci/\72 :.....2.......*Atiiii 9'"" V 2 -1.3:MP:.4 ''' 0 i... .0 \ '''' '' k, ' e.'" 4s //\ / \ \\/ ';`:- ,Ikk \ ,,.... \ ..,. r, ., i / \\ // 1 c., - \ t 'U TREES INVENTORY TABLE \ ' \ �J�y ' \ 'P�+� <"\ _ \'�� TREES TO TREES TO \ •�• 1 �` ) Q ..w`\.� w \ \ CUT REMAIN 26 TN / ` `1�.-1� J \ \ 204 30e ,d I --- I \ �lJ:\ 40 PERCENT 60 PERCENT 0' /' A \ / x \ 0 \ / w CU.OT MC An MOFFAT MSG.hIT 8or 8,wirs i i 11 ( 11 1 1 i I I I 1 i I I ( II 1 1 Ei + ! I 1 il 1 -----i- ,tL_ ii ii ', Hill IIi II II, , __.. i ,_ ,._.. I ii : I ; I ' i I HI ! IH ! / HIII I :.___, . I. _._ 1 1 I �� Iji ! i , IjII if 1 I �� � i _..... /� 1 ,per I/ 7 „ f y ''.,. ., >t . \c„,. , , \ 0 i fit' LVt ,.....„., • ql,,/......_.........___ *7 \ -,•• -----------------------'----------.___/ Jrni i — \\ \ \ LtJ �+ t i t \ \ N. \ ,..,,,,,x‘ ...,: ,,,,,,, \ :\., , ii \ \ ,„ ..,‘ \ \ : • \*,, r i a� - • • THIS MAP IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING IN LOCATING YOUR PROPERTY AND IS NOT GUARANTEED TO SHOW ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS• . 6) i° 40f/. 'F',- -,.- I-4 SW 32 - 24 - 5 04.ig A . - 0,1'7 000 1,,41=11.'_ 13 0 C J. '7 ‘o 7 1d,) I v•°20111,/1•1.7• 3 . qfPzc) 6. on 60 7 . „, i /05.z4 -„ - ,, //'‘ 'Q2—.) ./A4:torod- N89-03-25W -6.6r7514 ''' ''' 40. - :a-a5.5 6,3 sb• 70 -1- . ...:1.-....;,. ...-..........;...: • • • 4.39*--- :-. •-::::...-..-.;- ..7,:,-;;;:: . _. - • , ,•,-Ef3-;Er--Ti zs Af,g,-. 6".• 22g.O 6 .,! i fl• I i:I. !: C • \'• ,- -- • 1' h(1) •:1)1.1 ,G1C39 4 ; • • ?„,,,. I.? , t= -). -. ?-,,, IC u;.., , v•-•- u, • . .. : .,:.•%• :::,,--' I ,,IZi ..H4., • 0 ' . •,. 4/11 II Ai In ‘fi L .N . C . \ i-.\ y ‘ — 02,5 — 41v;:c3 : . .,,, .,..s. „ 0 i l'',c) tft .riN• :1,, •1:1 : !::.• • v.0 \0 .'' i -;..... (4)N! 0, ____,.‘ _ : ' .• /6) i • . . :I ::,• i e.., ' a r e k..(4, -I I •••3 • . /AO 10 0 ,,-\''' - I '• 1\ tli/ q) \.9-1' CA . I 0, :,-fn .01 ‘Is)! hOttliKiti IN: 43 .. •A'-'' V3 ' \a' k 1.,•T 1/1 N (01 l .' a Olt/ .L. —//2.0 •,. 'PI c) Pao olliC) • . -; •. ,--7 0 tob tm v : if ..g , ,e9- aioa -- lb °' • .: .gli, — • /o° 4 . -3°4.!/th- • - " `-;c?,fj -7.;f5.6 - ' '.36 -• • -• —go° • •--• -•-• .-- • • 33 2 • °- • 6 . . . i • s:3 0 \o° oi • . - r---, 10, •. ,--, 32 t.,0 ad 3 / -t-, -' • 1— ) bi)AD 1 , 6,0 : g 01 < • .-..,c, it,(9- ' 30 • ,t, VI LS' •• o, c--%, /5: • tr. ft:- • - ......::.,. c., p..7.5 ....,a". _ N '1 ‘s• (S ipL O. V iv. . 7z. • •W 5 • of i.. //9 • .:, 3.c3' . 67-ti • ''' 'z.'...: -. ..-S; 0 )\6: .--,-- 4,Iii• ,ip t, , -- .. rees, Sr • -•<-4-.. -:.-fl PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. °° �`°' T T f I 1 T T I i T f —I I T T I > T 7 I i T l , - I I I I I 6LO— 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 5D 1 49 43 1 4] 1 46 1 45 1 4M1 1 4J 1 42 1 4/ 1 40 I11 39 11 36 1 3] 1 36 11I J5 11I�34 1 33 1 32 1 3J 1 30 1 29 1 25 1 2] 1 26 1 �� IZ I I 1 I CD.IHILLMAIV'S LAKE WASHINCTON ICARDEN OF EDtN NO.III I I 1 I 1 Z 1 L— I L_L—J —J_ L L 1 J L L 1 J _1 —L_1_—_J�-1 L_J�_-J_ _ GRAPHIC SCALE �n H ro, J I--L-1—J j �< N 28TH PL r Q 43 I 0me�Im °' '-T 7 Ir—T-7--1— 1— T T -1 —1 —1--T-7 —1— 1— T T -1�� ''1 —T-7--1--�—T---7-7 2 A -E I� 1 1 II I 1 I .ss° I I I I I I I I I 1 1 •'�" rro _�'I 1 1 2 I J I 4 'x°eesn..p6 I 7 8 9 +1 1R-3�.21�4 ISC)2f.1 r 14 1 15 1 16 17 1 ,8 19 120 27 122 I 23 1 24 1 25 1 1 I O.b' CONC. HALL 1 00' i I N0094'5131 O re6 B K 1 i 6'PRE CRIPR N003 P4'E 1 49.80' I 1 1 I b 't LHILLMAS.SLSKEIVASHGWNG4DESOFEOEHSOI I + , —f= •x •,< 00 n. N69 3.46V N00' 14"E ? , EASEMENT I 1 —— l -I°, - �—�,_,�4 L_ — fodoo• s .v a zssdo' L�bsBRoE � rc r i �-—J-.�J . — � 'L • 1•°" • N 8 TH ST_. j ralt-iiJ//�IIliiiii�r�iiii./iiiiiiio.."'oii—J .''ar7.-._'":wiiiiii—.. * riiii�iiii iiif�,;:WiffiiffrffJiil%/ %ii,.., �. ' ..4f///,/// % 1 — ' 1 r $"' 12e2 q I \ �� I�/,/�11, � ///� y � �/// / 7 /��/ _, ` £_se. •"" t1. :---,d, N IQ 1 n s9 W} fi N. „,w co ELC,ION A RES 2� �I' / /� rd /r 4 ,, ,... ....♦. •*. .: „,,,.S°+ ... �___ n 6o rL ao I n s] 1 n s6 ' 2J ,i ��//I / ��I // I / ���A/////. 4 h < °moo.•'_: :��.•�. I & b\\� f /�/ / _ A� '��r ///0� �”..f i.“1,' - ' ."t 8•.•,_:./ I BSc W to W ♦/ (� '�� ///91 ///////�I//tiro U// .i `s . ♦`�r,'W S. .:.'O 12,1108 sq.�t e.r. Q O ./// / ✓////�i%/ i�i�i/////%/////�//./// /// i`!�///!ir_re �s rz� P a%`•�>' �''' � a.°1r. 0.28 ores I� \ �Z �^ v711.882°sq.f \ ♦i♦�����/,-4G����� p r /// is.Ing;$: cte I �/ /// I Ar tit �,.-,•4'eta .. 4a'zr n_n a A27 ccr \ ♦ �U /�� / y �� '%9'�b:,.i•Y'e a� �����1 ♦, �cre� �4,44t.�t'..^• - „€ p. /% /�//)G. i,'s.,,__� st' .a< . ,�.vS.rt, //I,I�/ ,j. II�/ /.�` ��✓�/ /' p 4, Ar "e 4V s,, / / - I ♦ oi /� j P . / �/ce// j• . �1*4:4;; - /�4 ,r i - , .r r � �\ C , \ \ 'k‘Illi\p". .. ..1'..---41111,00 -.....7-41C.T.4.,41C.:S.Ai/ / 40 ,.,_,AI d./'' ji4 AO '4.e''',,r-'4, -4'.* A A ##. r .,\ \ \ \/ ik.\\‹,1,\*-.k\\\5N.\\. \ ��.T�', r.�.•i,' F%.4o p 6.6 ,, w \ /�' ,'r/r..,-/A ,.,-, 1�1// ♦ /� ♦♦ ,:y�'D.Oe• �(\ .2 acres , / / („\\\\ e.,•?A..p.,:.b•,,i,rr,,,,.t .c,.,\-.,o,'.,,'.. ,,/1/. orr " 1 11,. 8 / ♦// / \ \\ vr:•6''j7 •i9A werzalloz ',,? \ •) I .4 /A% "%// i `i, c0 � ,,,�. sa �o airs ELD'O Ac� 5� :! / ��Ir /, rv//�/i�' gsE'$ 1ss.00 e I \ 4C-- ' ��\\ \ \\ 6Ty ST J \ \ ,• a \ �16 LE. END..\ . L-- —/ \\ \ . / g \ / w \ E ••LESS THAN 25% AREA = 10.69 ACRES / JOB NO.711-001-M1 \\\ ❑ 26% TO 39% AREA = 2.70 ACRES • I DRAM DT \ I PM.UT \ "I GREATER THAN 40% AREA = 2.5 ACRES I DATE[gr.MS ,.ra,P< 7or 8 • • PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. - "°®"p"" -T-7 1-T-7-71--I--1--T--1--1--1- --I--7---1--1- --I--T--1--1--1--1----T--1--1---T--T-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BLOB 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - l I` I I 1 50 1 49 I 45 1 47 1 46 I 45 44 I 43 42 I al i 40 39 33 I 37 I 36 I 35 EAT! 34 33 I 32 31 30 29 1 28 I 27 126 C C.O. HILLMA 'S LAK WASHINGTON IGARDEI�OF EDEN NO II I I I I GRAPHIC SCALE �a�ft 1L , -L-J ® L-1 _1 J I- L 1 J I L -L J. I I 1- _- _1 __II<_-1--J,-J_-1--L-1-J LIF- - J . A 3 _s d m N 28TH PL > I ,°°fo- . •1; --R -10. 1i---1--7--1-- _r_T--1--1--1--�--7- 7717717 _ _ °-°••> , 6_,0l< 0 ;�� 1 1 0 '11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-sal I I I I I- I I I I. I "O I t.- I2 -- I 4 I"`5'�""e I 7 I a 19 I 10 I rT I 12 I 13 O I 14 1 16 1 16 I 1] I 13 1 19 1 20 I 21 1 22 1 23 I 24 I 25 °�� Ityl I I I0.q. CONC.WALL I Ioo• I 1 I NAP, I I Bip 6K 11 I I I ‘� QI O, HILLMAN'S CAKE WASHINCTON GAkDEN OF EDEN NO. N00 It'E •,� d 00 15'PRE$CR-ri (�00 It E Ne9 3.46�W N00 I{•E N I . 1 sal- 1 - J 11p-- t� _.J�_P L-,:�- -- Od:°°• T� J. ?-I T-1 e° _.nL9d8a1 P /r36y{E EASE. T N 8 TH ST W 1 , \2 i. 67 ,s9 'S6 SS s4 s ELdON AiQRES I TL 59 f . Z ' \I ` \• 1 _(z-set° rL s0 rL 40 I TL 57 1 I it,sa 1 Cl� I r -,, \ \ \A -...„„r\.. ._., \ ,, .,. .. .., .... _ 11 a 'o\ \ . \ \w�j,`� 15�' 16 ' j,7: :3 19 20 21 22 `23 �>';� �b•�, rr °fr�'' •/ �' rr 73 tivY. ,,,,,_re ,, , . , X 41.. Ir \.\\' ,,\ , •, , •,, , • • . • . - ' ..., ... 111111k....:. . „,..111,i3 .... ''.' -------' /A1‘,,\N ', ,; iti 140,1„ .,... _ __..„140,_,, ;010,1„ , 1100..k,. ___,----.__/ ... . . 040„,i1,,„,,,..,,,,..„frmi. 1 .2 Al _ • , 1 \ :la'N'Vtv \Kin. ;..f.4VEIR7.- -- . - ' . ' A ,.,. :i. -4.'===-m9m.,,r1---- -1- .. 1 1 a \\ \ } \1 6 ` �= //yiallia , ���' fY>11\ \ \ \ - 4IQ.- Willita',....---- ..,./'.%;.,.--''' ,;"--- ' ' \\V---._ r., \ 7''' _l�l� i 39 y TL a6�f!Il � y C/r • k ,Ii .1"4 •kit• L'=!4::7:. Q ''''T lio _, ik, .);,, ..,.. '. la". '..,,: -/ „,0 , , \ , \\ ....._ co \ 4,_,. ,:,,, \ . ..,\ \ _, r... \ `° I / a JO.D2 y /, \ Y> ,......,, , � t it I-- , ,��.' I.� ' I \ \ � a,1. EL D ON q cF� 5\\ so' - , i, sa�roa 96'E s, I6:oo CT) \\ X+II-/\gyp 7/ / x . \ ,a \ \�� I. Z J \ /�� / CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELI \ SJ `�,�I�.�" Q' \t� �%/ CI 1]J.2a' 41.84' iJTO'N. / \ �1`� \ Q C_ C2 100.27 14 17 08'05'57` 9 .+^� • . r,� \'v /��\ �y CJ 15.00' 57.29' IJI'I>'JB'- \ + /�' ' �,� �J m V•\ \ Cd 33.00' 30.20' 5275'53- \ '✓` �] T .y \ CS 75.00" 43.BJ' 3379'11- 26 / 2 Q \''P O\ \ C6 173.24' 46.28' 15'18'2a" Ty /S' i. \• Z\ \ c7 15.00• J1.Or n•oJ'J9" JIIIV O CB 173.14' 4122' iJ JB'01' \ ,�((\ N C9 1>J.2d' IB JI' 06'OJ'1>" _ - �j• C10 173.24' 18 41' 1473'17- CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA d QM LIN£ DIRECTION DISTANCE \ • `\ C11 125.00' 36.57' I6'a5'45" CJS 55 00' 35 00' J677'J9" :. NJ6 J7'SJ"W JD.18' \ _ C. 686.J4' J>.1d' OJ'06'Jl" _ CJ6 55.00' J6.19' J]'41'S]" L - _ L2 NJ6 J7'SJ"W JO.18' \ \ C. 55.00' 645' 06'43'11" C37 55.00' 48.41' 50'26'16" -/// f IN LJ 50072''34 V J6 74' C14 55.00' J5 00' 3677'39" C38 55.00' 01.2)' 4J'S8'iJ" Le 190056•J5•E 23.92' \ \ C15 1880.08' 5253' 01J6"0J" C39 25.00' 24 JJ" 55.46'16" L5 500'22'34"W 27.82' \ \ CIS 55.00' 3500' 3677'39" C40 2500' 3275' 75'03'52- I J 5055550' d4.16' IOt'26J]" Cab LIO SB9'0!'46"E 14.OB' C2J 25.00' J927' B9'S9'J9" _ C47 122.00' 16.46' 07'43'5▪4" Lli N1]'29'S2"W 23.38' \ C24 80.00' 56 or a0'O6.57" C48 33..00' 30.20' 52'25'53. I • - - C12 N27'29'S2"W 3I.61' \ _ 15 125.00' NAM DT 1957' OB'S8'10" C49 10400' :28 f1-0' 2a JJ' S5'46')6" C55 1aJ 2a'- 18' 48'49'55▪" L20 S89•03,16'E 1354' CM 55.00" 76.10' 7970'23• C55 104.00' it t.75' 61'33'54" /�2) 50056'1O"w 2000' CJ4 55.00' J500' J677'J9_ C56 5100. 80 II' 90.00'00. F. 6 e. 8,,,,m, ,4Lo ,= lr 81. PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. Pam` IT—T -1- I 1- T - I F T 7 I IT T T -I I F T 7. I I 1- T —1 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I BLOC 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I - "r 50 48 4] I 46 I 45 44 I 43 42 I 41 I 40 II 39 II 38 I 3] I 36 II 35 ILL 34 I 33 132 I 31 30 29 128 27 26 40 I CD IHILLMAIV'S LAKC INASHINGTON IGARUEM OF ED£N NO.I1 I I I I I I 1 I0 'L J GRAPHIC SCALE $7a H.T0, _1— in IL—L L 1 J L 1 1 L 1 J L - 1 J L L 1 J �ll� g' 4 ' W 1 IO° N 28TH PL > h - u J I 6 Q 43 (e w l `- ,�b . -TQ-II ITT—T 7 I T T -1 T 7 Ti I— T T 7 i.,_¢Wa��^T 7 —1 I— T T 71 \E ft #4 .; , II.,\\I I 1I I L_,2 CONC. aLL4 45[- 6 7 I B 9 1 �]D 11 12 1 13 14 15 16 17 I 18 19 12D 21 22 23 I24 I 25 I I Co HILLMAN'S LAKE IVASHINGTON GAkDEN OF EDEN NO I rows l //' NLO�614 64ddo" 11 I ��- -. _. ��I — L£ •W�I—— •.!.0O. NOO'J 14 E 293.60 "36"14e'C • EASEMENTRIP I•e. — �. F �s -- -- _ _ ..... �:...r..,.� - - --1 _ I N� I �l N 28TH�T — L MMI=F I -, - f--I, \ .,� ,>od -.. ... •— - .. ~ 146e nJw I{. I I 2 _ WO <a m Y—— - a— a—1 1 t— 46 I ELdC 1,V,'A{U'RES F 2 I,, ` \ 0 62• , 61 60 15,\ 56 55 54 5.'J 52 51 I I `v40� y,� , 59 \ \ T J � �I I• LoJ LL L_-IL �_LSJ fJ •I• IXICON DAM • .� \ , 9' ° rL 56I TL 6G TL 1t0 11 R 3]` T.58 �' As• T »8» 1e6al' I \ t 3 31 ;a II ./ \ 7 .4 1 6 .1 17,, .„ , „ 1 \\ \ ��s� EI �4-3— � �:rll5�\ .�„ " /I 22 \�` J 41 �'2 f�o 7,7 & , �gO. z • a, 39 36 P. \\\ \�`, Iz3a 11 , ?J,�4 ,� TRACT;A'' �� ^�� rt °\v'II- Ir e �_ �,, Z \ I L..- A sib e s/241r _ _I " 7 ,r : _ 3 F26\ / 25 28 \ \ z0 , j.4ji L 'If.' /La os a a -a.Bator• u .fro J :�r.l '"37I,�'•{//O VlYFR 40 0 • \\ ,. �',✓ A t /, e/,1 VA, N89'03'4614, 37072• .I>P-,-.-,.,.— ,.., • l///-''°� — c \ \' r r�/ �4n /\ \ I• I� 1 2� I• �3, 11.11��35 .7o`I�E/..,r," I \ Ii 6„ Q, \\ \\ \s1 ,Isa 9',0 / \ \\ 37^°i'&�-i. I 1a I.',:'', dk 4 /nA' r1 45 'C in \\ \ / ELDCy4 A\f'' 5`\ q'Tz31t t' ' •As' "�� � S89ro346£ r6-.oa, DEVELOPER/OWNERS \ \ . / /Lk"e: i' \/ / \ \ _. _ r 32 ,n—, LABRADOR JJ4a VENTURES,LLC \ ��Z��: t / �q'� /\ / \ ��., �,. 33 .+IaKLANo,WA 98083 G. \ 1 \`Y�.r^r, e / \ / /\ \\/�� '�s�sf 6.soo., • 111 '. .. FAX -25-803-6877 Q W \111� PHONE 1-415-80J-0400 \\ �F\\� \ // \\ // // \\ \. <__,_\\ '.,�1.• >_;_J� LAND SURVEYOR ?k 2 \ �_ / x / MOUNIR s Q / \ \ \> ,���1� WNA PL o '$i / \ WA 98032 q /r . �. W � \\*'A A. N26 FAX 1-425-251-0625 \\ \\ I p% PLAT DATA \ \ Y TOTAL AREA\ \ Dr, ROT ZONE AREA\ \ 5500 - NO.OF R/pW AREATS-�' \ > OR SgORPES\ AC TOTAL EA DENSITY 47/73 /CE412 413 <15 \ 32,204 R-5 ZONE AREAJOB NO'S1ew - \ - N0.OF LOTS_R oAREA- 09. SLOP£5092,12 RO REA TOTA DENSITY,5/3 % DAM 140111.15ER moa 30 OW TRACT'A' 1.7J TRACT•'- a 0.05 ACRES WITHIN RS ZONES Am An 74101ro • ,� TRACT-C'=0.37 ACRES , TRACT-0•=0.17 ACRES TRACT E.=0.09 ACRES 3 aT 8 R,'1S • • • ;,..,,n , PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 9/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 2-3 N., R 5 E, W.M. , T -1 I---T-7 I I--T--7-J--1--r---T-- --1-- --T--T--1--1--1--T--T--1--r--T--T--1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BLOCk 12 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 —1 I 1e 1 150 I I 46 I 47 1 46 I 45 I 44 1 43 I 42 I 41 140 I39 1 38 I 37 I 36 11I 35 1LL 34 1 33 1 32 1 31 1 30 1 29 1 28 1 27 1 26 I l I J1 1 I I I 49 I 1 I • I CD IHILLMAtIFS LAKE WASHINCTON GAFDEN OF£OtN NO.I' I ` I Z S 1Z ` l‘L_1-J._J- L L 1---1 I L 1 _ 1 I L 1 J I L L J. I L.-L. J--_ )I- J- . r•,.� j b6'.�-_- N 28TH PL ki ttli -TQ-1't 1IT-T 7 1 I T T 7 1 P T 7 TT T 7 1 1- T 7 7 I 1- T 71 h '. 1-1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I' II I °. ` •� I�\{ 'i,l l i 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 1 7 1 8 I 9 1 1�10 I 11 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 23 1 24 1 25%p IiINN:,..; CMAN'S LAKE WASHINGTON OAIDEN OF EDEN NO. I 1 W I . ro.bp I folpppp I I Noo�s rs I I B'rd3oK•'1 1 I t II1-1 wl 00 'to K 1:907•/6' 00 YLE N�9�3.4 W NOO f1E p �'oo d�® — JZ -41- 1 _ L r ,�.�• 'j 1—PJTL1,, ,L293.80 •/.1.,E • ..., I . ' e e �/ ' 8TH ST c1 i V "�`• — • - _ •,._--. - �_ -_..�...�:''" —— — -.. _ — aIII 59 .8\‘,57 56--55�_54 5'J 52IMO! � '-�A4°�` ELd'ON A,IC{'RES I rL 59 i Z�" c • H\ Ex«w�� �'�,(L �6'F rL 60. . ao..I n s7 11'rc sa 1 2j lkN b\ r „r rllr p�i�,t�i i - 1- �>.ia.m•e 3 i.1• I ,my`./ s� „o ki »- 7- ammo \ lir-, 7\iik 74 �S 18 19 20 21.. 7-_-_-,;-7,----- �*e':+�� - ma•' y r Iliiii 'IIIIII\\';., ,-, W'� �� I_r _ : / 22 \ � 14o 3Cn.548. _ \ i ". .Ft -----w."- 10‘\ -fra7_--- -- /1'/Ale/ 119111,41rUihk \\ 1 \\4: \ _ � � �� / plimmvp . 37 / T- 6 N. 07 \\ ,\ �` 1����' % j _ 1\B9V.7• •W\ 370.72 I. ._ —' / ;/� ,-•-_�� \ \ �< \� \\ \ rr�..l CS \ \ ,a7(\ ` \ O 1 J \I 3 124 ' I I r� r J \\\ \\.,\ \s,\. /7,,'% '�9�6 // \\ ��\ • s I\ '-I,I L-I - i�_ I"/, I/ �I a 45 — Q O \\ • \ \ \// ELDO 1 A\cf�' S\\ q 1 '. 58r03'46£8 r6 .o I �j / \ \ ._ \\ I '32.- 1 • \ . , \\\4X \ / / \ < I pat / ; • •d' J r 'F R \ J� ' / - ,p /' _ 1 -J \ It L . ' \ z \\ / w \ <SS< / \\ p I \ / PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. -T7-1 177T 7 I I T T 7 I H0JUSLAK 1 18 47 46 45I44 I 43 I 42 132 1 3130 29 28 27II E WASHINGTON GARDEMI OF£D._N NO I1 I Z \FH., I _�J�__L_-_1 I_ __I L 1 J I L 1 1 I L L 1 J I L 1 7 J L L 1- Jj4 J � j ,• N 28TH PL , �" 3 4 Q 43 „'� --MC i't'rri-3'T-7 I I T T 7 I 1- T 7 - 1- T T -1 I 1- T 7 -1 1- T T -1 i AL� IL I_I , 11 I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I I 1� 11 , 1 , I 3 I 4 1 5 I 6 1 7 1 8 19 1 11'311,2J34 Fg2,c. 1 14 1 15 1 I6 I 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 r I 1 1 1 1 ` 5131 OGt•ES CO HILLMAN'S LAKE 4VASHINGTON GAkDEN OF£DEN NO. 1 I W 11 I I„�.4.E I wig,. I I I 1 NAM- ei28a 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 ie 1 _ l gpJ•4g. 00 �, E N 9 3'4 'W NOO ,4 E _�- � r : —�-L�-_ 1—�_�� _ . ,moo' —� —�--�—�I--�9�6o,�i ,..�,�.E .. _ _ .• � • �'28TH �T Et inE ---tlS.FlxrLLa9ti - .fvyg i� -,i `- — x 1 ���:1�o?uis.fr�� _!:"�!�!?!_+wt jet%�ry_�i,�iil.��yd���tGettH'e s s ems�E�t�i�i�i ice„>ca=-= -=�i�' n� C�;I I�6r.BSc=-. f_sf.n ii l� I 8 kce 8 I _ �ss�sisi--- -�_t__r -�:�a_�./z/_�ls��si i_%--.7,e -_rJ__-- :any Wz COii (W\ � .�'�/ % � �/.i �r .o ���/��/ /��� r e /i".L;,° 'w::, G c 1 TL 59 ' to- n f / •�,w s+�.' .. i .;;E;LD'ON A R�S 2 �•r t6, iL"ad;`r�- •ao 1 I n sa A K s. \ a\ \���-----_„„ ---'' �iiio"iiaiaaiiiiiiiiiaaiiioiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiisa� �� o f -: �,p = rc'4 :r . �„I; , Q -�ata.. .tai��i�z .Bi. .•r 1 a„ ,•�•;' ♦ it�I,l"Ai%,/ �p i r � � ♦'.'44i�r0•r dj.-• .� �� n-E ^ ii'.' II f, '�.1 �� -4 ���/���/� ��� ip4t:X♦IOW i/ /7--, =�....:. ' .tea y �y ����� %///I yLs Jf� TL -J3 In^�gp� ,`�.ti� III, r � �����0: 24r,": dili:�•e."•a.,j�"///L/ j j, ,r•e:s Y - E e• : A ' :: or0. 4 ti • . ♦ �M l iei i .........." N\ \ \ ',\ 4lll. 'r/, / � fil :9•.'S♦♦♦Vr••♦'. 'ra 4%, /r/ ''''''''!%///// //.Gr ,.., /5"/01 KZ:�Qr s U \\ \ , /___. v ti - •.714 4:�`4•ioay ,/� j// Irsii�%///////// %/////isfr��� , - - g vzi \ `�- ,'S: • -♦4•-• �� /�I��/�4.I,_�__, ....�ZZ'%OI/% TL 46p� \ •` �- N89Y13S6'W 370.72' 7/' �_ _ __ _ iii.%///� it 0,��,��� ��ye•—— l� b`JCS •t / ., /��cf . q- 1.1'7-n. ft.8 y M �1 \\ \\ "2.7 I ocr-- A.....„ /\\\- �22 oc es ��// /�����1%0��� % �,� rL as J \ \ \ ,%, ' -♦ / in >, \ - ✓/�� ✓/� /e1�r� �I IG!".% ram^W \ ,\ ' ro e' / \ / / \ \,. — \ .� �iII z 2 -vi-s\ �Cyps:$ / \ / / \ < _-• 4• 'oil'/ Q Q \ 234;484 ',`'��rV\ W Q t � �}y\ \y\\ 26TyTl � +�� j J \\\ � LEGEND L --- _ \\ .6) ® LESS THAN 25% AREA = 10.69 ACRES '02 \\ <Lq] 26% TO 39� AREA = 2.70 ACRESMOM DT \ COMP Dr \ I \ W GREATER THAN 40% AREA = 2.5 ACRES I DAT HOWLS. 1 D E I Tor 8 soms ol • NETTOYS TCN PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. `° "OPPO"rz"' 1 T--1 I--7 - --I--1--1 -T- --I--r- r- I- I--r -r-T- I----1--T- T- --1--1 - I --1 1 I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I eLOc 12 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 50 1 49 I 48 I 47 1 46 I 45 I 44 I 43 I 42 I 41 1 40 I39 11 38 137 1 36 I 35 ILL 34 I 33 132 1 St I J0 I 29 128 I 27 126 1 LJ�1 IZ 1vl I I 1 1 I I I I 1 C.D.1NILLMAV"5 LAKE WASNINGTON IGARDE�OF E0 N NO.11 I 1 I I I I I I L J GRAPHIC SCALE L—_q _(L_L--1-_ I-_ 1_ _L- 1-- - I-- -L---1 J. _I---L-:-- L -J -J 1 L _L J.--J----L I_-1 J j/ ,., j b,m _ N 28TH PL - __ — it,„6„ .\\;t3 owrm `ITQ7°� Irfr-T-7- 1- r T T -I I- T 7 I T T -fi ��.T:.,,,. .�l -�-1 -T-fie "I11 II J a1ic� I! 11' 1 2 3 4 1'�`5 46 1 7 1 8 I 9 1 10 1 11 1 ,2 1 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19. 120 •1•21 '•1 22 1 23 1 24 1 25 1 1I I I I I I 1 I 1 I Ib I - I I II I /0. CONL. ALL ]W OO• B K i1 - - � 1I CHILLMAN"5 LAKE WASNINGTON GA DEN OF EDEN NO. 11, ' 1 / �• 1 1 1 N00•g 1 1 I S8ff6 1 1 1 1 I .I 1 t 4 1®QL .J 1 00 II'E ,,,,RE LR1PR I 00 'IfE I /`N00 11 E Y EASEMEi 1• • Tc�R1 � � �� s,o,KW�"} _IlvV oo,o I —�— ' ' LLsaBo' P1•.� 9 'L l�\ 8T1-7 JT m „I r �i��il�®®i�ii��l�i��r'!MIWANNI abligi ` 6,._ I I I g Wo �fi • � 5$ ps4 sz Fr' g ELdON ACRES I TL 59 �k V1,,,\ ', ,.:,,,-). 410 W 11111141\5,911111M11.1111 I 1 1 jr 111/15 t 1 y— -56�° rz 6o rL aD I rL v rz s6 \ 1_,\ 4 . lk ,n7PAMIZSEAT=4 ,__i..___44-x---.111V-144'1;.fftalker'''4,,,i0—,i:i::',,,i _Fillf-:‘,:-.b,„„,_ LI „T' 1 r , / \ zz ,i \\\ 1 t- ,7 a,'` w -r,-.�.1,5�� �,,,•1 � mittfr. �' ,vx 1� .r '�.Y�, rL 73 �4i La Fi * '\ , �; 1 16 J 1\17 1 Ar} `�" I ` : jl��� r r..�� ` /� a tl \ \ �1 VI �L 1�' d �� r����«l ��!I'li�e�a �i� ;-,4 ors' _.// ,,, ,,,,,,,.4, ,.... ,A. , I 4.-:-,i. \\ \ w: may. / 13` lt;�- jil r�•1til�, rT"'*s~ Tit ` I 1 — Y}I ao �� ' TL `�J imailita los, \ , i /Y. �. . ,4 fir t r Aw" 1 �N P \ �— Y l ,, n"'e i'''- .x,_r _ �4L�'..�4 IuC1a1LR�Jl _ \ N._ _� •. ` � �.ez:sro3 W 3�a�' m,_ Rl_ ice..,: _ \ , .„ _,,,t- 1—"I I :v•• /10. \ \ \ 03 .�>.r'� .- � Y. ©" / \. 1 .l!i,• 37111. ,41 TL 4�5 Cl 1•� -., ,,T. 1 --.1, I I r' . i vori- ` rim;, \ I \ .� \loss, ... Nio, ,;..{zo\:,./,,,,y ,,,,,,..i,ED70/iv A Ft.c,\ y\ ,,,T;_. WEANL2' CCcern \ 111er \ � \ - '',REES INVENTORY TABLE \ 26 T `�1I,w Ct"I\-/ \ 'R O; RREMFSTO TB �� .- \.1? \ O\ \ �\. 1 a I x\ i / .p II ` R\ <\ 40 PERCENT 60 PERCENT L\ \ I LI \ - I \ W \\ I STY;W1 Yn \ corm \ 1 a2v ]R \\\ I ChM]IImaSlaLl V tY8 sQT .1 • •• CITY F RENTON Board of Public Works Jesse Tanner,Mayor August 29, 2003 Labrador Ventures LLC Bradley Hughes General Manager PO Box 3344 Kirkland WA 98083 SUBJECT: NOTICE FOR COMPLETION OF DEFERRED ITEMS CLOVER CREEK PLAT(LABRADOR PLAT)-LUA 98-141 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD & BURNETT AVE N Dear Mr. Hughes: On August 21,2002,the Board of Public Works granted an extension of your deferral for Clover Creek Plat. The deferral will expire on September 1, 2003, and all items need to be installed. The City of Renton is granting you a 30-day grace period to have all items completed(completion by September 30, 2003). The City is also withholding an Irrevocable Letter of Credit for the completion of the deferred items. The deferred improvements are: 1. Final lift of asphalt for the new streets within the plat. 2. Repair of damaged curb and sidewalk sections. 3. All items on the inspector's final Punch List. Please coordinate the installation of these improvements with Arneta Henninger,the Project Manager,at(425)430-7298. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Juliana Sitthidet(425)430-7218. Sincerely, f � , ,' / /: (Neil Watts,Chairman Board of Public Works cc: Kayren Kittrick,Engineering Supervisor Arneta Henninger,Project Manager Juliana Sitthidet,Board Coordinator Dan Thompson,Field Inspector Crystal McMeans,Recording Secretary LUA 98-141 File 1055 South Grad Way-Renton,Washington 98055 RENTON �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE 0..0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer Owwic KeyBank KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT PROCESSING AND SERVICE CENTER MAIL CODE: OH-01--51.-0435 4910 T:IEDEMAN ROAD CL..EVELAND, OHIO 44144--2338 TEL NO: 2.18--813--3698, -3701, --371:3 FAX NO: 216--81.3--371.9 !� SEPTEMBER 25, 2002 OUR PRE CONVERSION REFERENCE NO: WSL092384/ BENEFICIARY: APPLICANT: CITY OF RENTON LABRADOR VENTURES LLC BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS P. O-. BOX 3344 1055 S GRADY WAY KIRKLAND, WA 98083 RENTON, WA 98055 U. S. A. WE HEREBY AMEND OUR IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER S302337 AS FOLLOWS: AMENDMENT SEQUENCE NUMBER: 00$ EXPIRATION DATE IS EXTENDED TO: NOVEMBER 04, 2003 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. THIS AMENDMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE LETTER OF CREDIT AND MUST BE ATTACHEI) THERETO. KEYBANK NATIONAL_ ASSOCIATION AUT RIZED SIGNATURE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ;y CIT OF RENTON • "LL Board of Public Works Jesse Tanner,Mayor August 29,2002 LABRADOR VENTURES,LLC Bradley K.Hughes PO Box 3344 Kirkland WA 98083 SUBJECT: ON/OFF SITE DEFERRAL EXTENSION CLOVER CREEK PLAT-LUA 98-141 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD.AND BURNETT AVE. Dear Mr.Hughes: The Board of Public Works met on August 21,2002 to review your application for an extension to your previously granted deferral for the Clover Creek development.The Board granted your request until September 1,2003. The current items being deferred are: 1. Final lift of pavement for the new streets within the plat. 2. Repair of damaged curb and sidewalk sections. -3. All items on the inspector's final Punch List. A new security device will be submitted to the City in the amount of$50,000.00 to cover the estimated costs of the above item. Your current security device expires on November 4,2002. A City-approved form is enclosed for your use. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this action,please contact Juliana Sitthidet, Board Coordinator,at(425)430-7278. Sincerely, - Mickie Flanagan,Recording Sect;e cc: Board Members Juliana Sitthidet Jim Briere Dan Brewis I AFtteS \BPW Board Lnubli w ,ks\BPW 02 „_f__l&JJPW 02 Deferrals 2002leloverkextdoeleer R E N T O N ma--�� crs nc:rrrma 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE I.: This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer Board of Public Works August 21,2002 Page 2 Action: Moved by Christensen, seconded by Meckling, to waive off-site improvements per the applicant's request. The improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving. MOTION CARRIED. 4. OLD BUSINESS: • On/Off-site Deferral,Clover Creek(Labrador Plat) LUA 98-141,2313 N. 28th St. - The applicant requests an extension of the deferral for final lift of asphalt and repair of damaged curbs and sidewalk sections. Action: Following a brief discussion it was Moved by Christensen,seconded by Meckling to grant a deferral extension until September 1, 2003. The current items being deferred are: 1)The final lift of pavement for the new streets within the plat;2)repair of damaged curbs and sidewalk sections; and 3)that all items on the inspector's final Punch List be signed off. MOTION CARRIED. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Watts adjourned the meeting at 9:08 a.m. J BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 8:30 a.m. City of Renton Wednesday,November 7,2001 Conference Room No. 511 AGENDA• 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting minutes dated, October 31,2001. 3. REQUESTED ACTION: • OFF-SITE DEFERRAL, JACQUES QUEEN SHORT PLAT, LUA 01-142, 1400 Queen Ave. N.E. - applicant requests a waiver for off-site improvements on the southerly portion of the property for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. 4. OLD BUSINESS: • OFF-SITE DEFERRAL,ROY SMITH SHORT PLAT,PRE 01-057- 2427 Aberdeen Ave.N.E.- applicant requests a deferral(waiver)for off-site improvements on the frontage at the property on Aberdeen Ave.N.E. for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. • OFF-SITE DEFERRAL,LECKIE SHORT PLAT,PRE 01-069, 1604 Aberdeen Ave.N.E.-applicant requests a deferral (waiver)for off-site improvements on the frontage of the property at Aberdeen Ave.N.E. and N.E. 16th St. for curb,gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. • OFF-SITE DEFERRAL,RIELY& OYLER SHORT PLAT,PRE 01- 053/01-054,2509&2517 Aberdeen Ave.N.E. - applicant requests a deferral on the frontage of the property at Aberdeen Ave.N.E. for N.E.24th St.to N.E.27th St. for curb, gutter, sidewalks,street widening and paving. • ON/OFF-SITE DEFERRAL, CLOVER CREEK(LABRADOR PLAT)Lake Washington Blvd.and Burnett Ave.N.,LUA 98-141- applicant requests a deferral extension for final lift of asphalt,curb,and sidewalks. • ON-SITE DEFERRAL,TAYLOR SHORT PLAT,LUA 099-116,601 Bronson P1.N.E.- applicant requests an extension of the deferral for final lift of asphalt, and a downstream drainage ditch until September 1,2002. 5. ADJOURNMENT: BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 8:30 a.m. Renton Municipal Building Wednesday,November 7,2001 Conference Room No. 511 IN A FI ENDANCE: Dave Christensen,Utilities Systems,Acting Chairman Larry Meckling,Building Official Jim Gray,Fire Juliana Sitthidet,Plan Review Kevin Milosevich,Police Mickie Flanagan,Recording Secretary VISITORS: Jim Hanson,Hanson Consulting James Jacques,Jacques Queen Short Plat Leckie,Roy,Riley& Oyler Short Plats Ron Leckie,Leckie Short Plat MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairman Christensen called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting minutes dated October 31,2001 were approved as presented. 3. REQUESTED ACTION: • Off-site Improvements Waiver Request,Jacques Queen Short Plat,LUA 01- 142, 1400 Queen Ave.N. - Applicant requests a waiver for off-site improvements on the southerly portion of the property for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. Action: Moved by Meckling,seconded by Gray to grant a waiver for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving on the southerly portion of the property at Queen Ave.N.E., subject to the following condition: 1) Applicant shall place a type III barricade or beam guardrail and dead-end sign for public safety. MOTION CARRIED. 4. OLD BUSINESS: • Off-site Deferral/Waiver Request,Roy Short Plat,PRE 01-057,2427 Aberdeen Ave.N.E. - Applicant requests a deferral/waiver for off-site improvements on the frontage of the property at 2427 Aberdeen Ave.N.E.for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. Action: Moved by Meckling,seconded by Gray to deny the request for a waiver; and approve a deferral, subject to the applicant agreeing to participate in any future Local Improvement District(LID)to provide said improvements. All lots shall participate equally in the frontage improvements. MOTION CARRIED. C i Board of Public Wor]<cs November 7,2001 Page 2 • Off-site Deferral,Leckie Short Plat,PRE 01-069, 1604 Aberdeen Ave.N.E. - Applicant requests a deferral/waiver for off-site improvements on the frontage of the property at Aberdeen Ave.N.E. and N.E. 16th St. for curb, gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. Discussion: Jim Hanson,Hanson Consulting, gave a brief presentation. There are currently no improvements in the area. Power poles need to be moved if improvements are required. The city would pay for this if an L.I.D. were in place. The board agreed on the likelihood this would occur in the next five years. Action: Moved by Meckling,seconded by Gray to waive improvements on N.E. 16th St.; and to approve a deferral for the property on Aberdeen Ave.N.E., subject to the following condition: 1) Applicant agrees to participate in any future Local Improvement District(L.I.D.)to provide said improvements,by completing a Restrictive Covenant to be recorded with the Short Plat. Motion Carried. • Off-site Deferral,Riley& Oyler Short Plat,PRE 01-053/PRE 01-054,2509 and 2517 Aberdeen Ave.N.E. - Applicant is requesting a deferral/waiver on the frontage of the property at Aberdeen Ave.N.E. from N.E.24th St.to N.E. 27th St. for curb,gutter, sidewalks, street widening and paving. Action: Following a brief discussion,Meckling moved,Gray seconded to deny the request for a waiver, and approve a deferral, subject to the applicant agreeing to participate in any future Local Improvement District(L.I.D.)to provide said improvements by completing a Restrictive Covenant to be recorded with the Short Plat. All lots shall participate equally in the frontage improvements. MOTION CARRIED. • On-site Deferral,Clover Creek(Labrador Plat)Lake Washington Blvd. And Burnett Ave.N.,LUA 98-141 - Applicant is requesting a deferral extension for final lift of asphalt and repair of damaged curbs and sidewalks. Action: Moved by Meckling,seconded by Gray to grant an on/off-site deferral extension at the Clover Creek plat for final lift of asphalt for the new streets within the plat; and repair of damaged curb and/or sidewalk sections, subject to the following conditions: 1)An extension is granted until September 1,2002; and 2)the existing Letter of Credit shall be updated to leave an open-ended expiration date with Keybank National Association. MOTION CARRIED.On- site Deferral,Taylor Short Plat,LUA 099-116, 601 Bronson Pl.N.E. - Applicant is requesting a deferral extension for final lift of asphalt,and completion of the downstream drainage ditch,until September 1,2002. Action: Moved by Meckling,seconded by Gray to approve a deferral extension at the Taylor Short Plat, 601 Bronson Pl.N.E. for final lift of asphalt and completion of the downstream drainage ditch, until September 1,2002. MOTION CARRIED. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Acting Chairman Christensen adjourned the meeting at 9:17 a.m. CITY F RENTON Board of Public Works Jesse Tanner,Mayor DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON November 20, 2001 NOV 2 6 2001 LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC RECLWD Bradley K. Hughes P.O. Box 3344 Kirkland WA 98083 SUBJECT: ON/OFF-SITE DEFERRAL EXTENSION, CLOVER CREEK (LABRADOR PLAT) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD, AND BURNETT AVE. N. LUA 98-141 Dear Mr. Hughes: The Board of Public Works met on November 7, 2001 to consider your request for an on/off-site deferral extension at Clover Creek plat. The board granted your request to defer 1) final lift of pavement for the new streets within the plat; and 2) repair of damaged curb and/or sidewalk sections, subject to the following conditions: 1) A one-year extension is granted until September 1, 2002; 2) the existing Letter of Credit shall be changed to leave an open-end expiration date with Keybank National Association. I have enclosed an approved city form of Letter of Credit if you choose to use it. Once the improvements have been installed, then written documentation shall be submitted for the record and the security device will subsequently be released. You may call Juliana Sitthidet, Board Coordinator, at (425) 430-7278 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Mickie Flanagan, Recording , cretary cc: Board Members �J Juliana Sitthidet LUA File#98-141 into 901 2001 18P A 4Rj/hrs `i Mashington 98055 - (425) 430-7204 / FAX (425) 430-7241 C.1 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer e11 tPn461 y .., o DC''TTY OF RENTON I �' �a BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS du � \TTO qq 8 -[ 4 I , i' 1 Jesse Tanner, Mayor October 11,2000 Bradley K. Hughes LABRADOR VENTURES,L.L.C. PO Box 3344 Kirkland WA 98083 SUBJECT: ON/OFF-SITE DEFERRAL FOR CLOVER CREEK(LABRADOR PLAT) LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD.AND BURNETT AVE.N.,RENTON,WA LUA 98-141 Dear Mr.Bradley: The Board of Public Works met today to review your application at the above location. The Board granted your deferral of on/off-site improvements,only for the following items: 1. Final lift of pavement for the new streets within the plat; 2. monumentation,channelization,and replacement of damaged curbs,gutters and sidewalks within the plat; 3. raising the utilities lids, grates and covers from the temporary grades established for the existing pavement elevations to the final elevations of the final lift of pavement;and 4. installation of mailboxes for the plat. This approval is also subject to the following condition: Applicant shall provide a security device in the amount of$75,000(150% of the cost of the improvements). Be advised that the date the Board grants the deferral is the temporary effective date of the deferral,subject to the applicant providing said security device within 30 days,which would be November 4,2000. If the security device is accepted,the deferral then becomes permanent, subject to any other conditions placed by the Board. If you fail to submit an approved security device within the 30-day period,the deferral becomes null and void. Please ensure that the effective date of the set aside is November 4,2000,with an open-ended expiration date to expire when the deferred improvements are installed and approved. Once the improvements have been installed,then written documentation shall be submitted for the record and the security device will subsequently be released. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 (425)430-7204 Facsimile (425)430-7241 Document4\cor 4114111 ill October 11, 2000 Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns,you may contact Paul Lumbert,Board Coordinator,at (425)430-7204. Sincerely, d ? . /, , Mickie Flanagan,Recording Secretary cc: Board Members Paul Lumbert,Board Coordinator LUA 98-141 Arneta Henninger,Plan Review • H:\DIVISION.S\BP W\CORRESPO\clovercrk.doc\cor CIr cel l Pp J U L 1 1 2000 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 8:30 a.m. Renton Municipal Building Wednesday, May 10, 2000 Conference Room No. 620 IN ATTENDANCE: Jana Hanson, Chairman Larry Meckling, Building Official Dave Christensen,Utilities Systems Jim Gray,Fire Prevention Dennis Gerber,Police Paul Lumbert,Board Coordinator Judy Walter,Acting Recording Secretary VISITORS: Jim Briere, Delta Excavating for Labador Plat Bradley Hughes, Labador Plat Fred Armstrong, Windwood Division II MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hanson called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Christensen,seconded by Gray to revise the meeting minutes dated April 19,2000 for the Neighborhood Grant Program by removing the Earlington Daffodil Project and Highlands Bulb Project from the right-of- way permit request. MOTION CARRIED. 3. REQUESTED ACTION: • ON/OFF-SITE DEFERRAL,LABRADOR PLAT,LUA 98-141, 2313 N.28th ST- applicant requests a deferral of code required plat improvements to complete recording of the plat. Action: Moved by Christensen,seconded by Gerber to grant the deferral for street paving, street lights, landscaping, sidewalks and storm vaults,with a completion time of September 1,2000. Applicant shall provide a security device acceptable to the Board at 150%of the estimate cost of the improvements which is $598,806.00. MOTION CARRIED. • ON-SITE DEFERRAL,WINDWOOD PLAT DIV. II,5000 BLOCK of Quincy Ave. N.E.- applicant requests a deferral of sidewalks and final lift of asphalt to complete recording of Division II of the plat. Action: Moved by Christensen,seconded by Gerber to grant the deferral for sidewalks and final lift of asphalt with a completion time prior to September 15, 2000. The applicant shall furnish a security device in the amount of$75,683.00 which is 150%of the estimated cost. MOTION CARRIED. • Board of Public Works May 10,2000 Page 2 • RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT,WALKER'S RENTON SUBARU, Rainier Av. S. & S.3rd St.- applicant request a revocable permit to use a section of unused public right-of-way. Action: No action was taken. The Board made the determination to remove this item from the agenda because the applicant is requesting landscaping which is not required. • RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT,TOMMY FERRER,R-0041,2920 N.E. 4th- disposition of right-of-way property that appears to be abandoned. Action: Moved by Christensen,seconded by Gerber to send correspondence by registered mail. MOTION CARRIED. 4. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Hanson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 a.m. CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: June 14,2000 TO Arneta Henninger FROM: Jennifer Toth Henning S SUBJECT: Clover Creek Final Plat(aka: Labrador Plat) File No. LUA-00-065,FP I have reviewed the green folder materials for the Final Plat submittal and have the following comments. The, Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's) submitted for review need to be amended to include language required by the Hearing Examiner (Condition No. 5) for the maintenance and repair of common plat property and improvements. Specifically,the CC&R's should address the storm' water detention facilities, and tracts of land — other than those sold as single family residential lots. Hearing Examiner(HEX) Condition No. 5 states: "The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the maintenance and repair of any common plat property or improvements. This includes the stormwater detention facilities and any tracts of land created for purposes other than for sale as single family residential lots." With regard to the Native Growth Protection Easement language shown on the face of the plat, the City Attorney should review this, and advise staff as to whether this language must also be included in the CC&R's. The language gives enforcement authority to the City of Renton. I'm not sure that we want or need to have this authority. Also,the NGPE should refer specifically to Tracts"A"and"B". The approval of the Preliminary Plat (LUA-98-141,PP,R,V,ECF) was conditioned upon the applicant complying with ERC and HEX conditions,plus three additional conditions added by the Council at their June 7, 1999 meeting. Those conditions are as follows: 1. The recording of language suggested by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife on the face of the final plat for the protection of the eagle perching tree (as discussed in Steve Negri's letter ofMay 10, 1999). NOTE: The agreed upon language is as follows: "Lots 18, 19, &20 are buildable lots, however, no building footprints will lie within the drip line of the eagle perch tree. This large fir tree located in the southeast corner ofLot 19 may not be removed or altered in any way without an hazard tree assessment conducted by a certified arborist and a report submitted to an reviewed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)prior to removal. Further, if this tree does become an active nest tree for bald eagles at some point in the future, WDFW will be notified and possible timing conditions on additional clearing and external construction may be needed to avoid disturbance during the critical nesting season." \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.ING\]TH\labrador final plat doc\cor NOTE: "Lots 18, 19 and 20"referenced in the condition correspond to Lots 8,9 and 10 on the Final Plat map (see attached drawings). 2. Recording of language on the face of the final plat to protect a minimum of 50% of the stand of fir trees on what has been shown as proposed Lot 30 (the specific language should be drafted by staff and the City Attorney); NOTE: "Lot 30" is not the current correct reference to the area of concern. This condition refers to the area that equals the west half of Lot 51 (see attached drawings). As I understand it, the trees have been cleared, and were not retained. We need to question the applicant about this. See the attached signed letter agreeing to the condition. 3. A requirement to mark and protect around the drip lines of the eagle perch tree on Lot 19 and the trees that would be retained on Lot 30, with bright colored construction fencing, prior to and throughout the duration of construction. NOTE: "Lot 19" on the former plans is actually Lot 9 on the Final Plat drawing. "Lot 30" refers to the west half of Lot 51 as shown on the Final Plat map (see attached drawings). cc: Neil Watts,Plan Review Supervisor \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\PBPW\DI VISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTHUabrador final platdoc\cor P, c7/ ' ( S // - '4?7107 rI IPORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N R 5 E, W.M. R" I I I I I I 8WC' 12 I I I i I I I I I I I I - CUP t , ",l i I i 45 i 4 4i 4 I 4r 1 40 I to I 38 II 37 II 36 I 35 134 I J3 132 I 31 I JO I 29 128 I 27 126 Ict, I 2 I U.,INLMAII AKI WASHi46.1,rN I'.ANOLI!c. C N Nu II I I I I I I I I g 9 e�`- ' -' . _ _ L -_1 .__I J GRAPHIC SCALE N pax.)� F e ` II�� L I. I I 1 1 J--1--L 1-1--1--L-j -1-� F • 9 t L-I • NO 2� PGA _ imi _ _ _ 1 ro ''.1. oL r'. w.N1:mar I 43 �C•w)1L \ ��• �Q -, I- I- -- T 1- I--L I 1 1 I I T--1. I -r-T-_T--1--I-- r--r- I ►, )27 OSA 1� " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r ''� I ! I ICCWC. ALLC I" n I J I 3 I n NAM I I Ir I l2 I 13L[�,rl -la I 15 I 16 I 17 I IR 1 r9 120 I 21 I 22 12J 24 125 II I , (' 1 4,1 ;I at! . �' ,.� I I t 710Y'- I I Bry/p'It I I I ��R�I I '--IE PRr5CR'nwr I I�• .L' HILLM N'<LAKE WASN:N.:Ti:N iiAkDCN Of EDEN N•=.= ._. l mil` 11 =.-+�..� ��. -- mpg 4c�_411Ill� 7 I_- I 11. 11-1. - I .T�_=^III %"� MrN) ���A8 ___ illiggs. • m Is I-� 1 r 61-� I I 11 I Wo• \ORM. `` _ .. nL'cwoAN. r ,y , rL $eI , 6o n ,„ I Ti 57 I Ill ,.e I ! : 23'' 414P° \ ' *pi 1.0----1----11121.1.MalMr-illi-lIVI!44r- r -- 3_r fo �I� _ , ---. ‘,,,,,\ O%\ t 1 11 1 P ... 11►t I I • ' • aggi: I. ‘.\ \\4 ..M Ifili ,14. ,-,z- ' \ intiA,..-00116,...._- .. ...-1.: •. - -:,,,,,,,,,,,,,... . , . 0. • \ \ ,�` • ~ � ;2; � 1I 1 TRACT "A"4147.1130 \\ i n `�� - I,-•,m,-..„I•.-,A I. \ 3_,,,A7,,a,.,„,,/'),.'i.,/ ? , IL m,.., ,_-'7_-2,_--,a_-,_-.,-•-I""0..\i, • \ j \. ' ,ALL. . . , . , . \ 1 \L \\ j i •\ \ , ..,F.--- 'Fr---1 -I I�4 I I I W.L_i' l.11l 31z-.A.�^ Cl.J CO )t i' 31 DEVELOPER OWNERS 1 Q < -\. \ t\` '� / \ \\`// • ppt� 26...,. -'I • IjI LAeaAOOR KNIURE3 LAC ,••••I.'r �.r'+ / \ �/ ..... , 33 Y+ WROCLAW.WA ee0el Z lib \\ .'�\4 \. // //\\ _` a ` , b.loo32- .i t1, !WOW r'=:n e i a'eii Q I,u \ �y �� k / \\ •' �J LAND SURVEYOR ...,...Kr . 99 111.....n 1WNA KS ._ . . („. ... ._,, \ S / \ \ V�. _i. �q�4 60222 5 191-'`n cc sw1E rlor Y \v �/ i� \/ \ r �.`� �"�c`rr-.ei°eisr-Dees Q ___ CC ft] \ ��c.,��.c.al�cl� e,dea 26 '� \• ��/\/� \ FI.%] lFR1lliFl�ltYJtIf1 �J \' $Oy\ \ �d�iiu1Eu:�lr� irnAyi �I altai,1671allitlliFlJia1::1:%)(Y /! \ \ ltasrI.16 �l32.3) 3Yfasdtlt.l I I. / T � falure,:.^�lalt.�+� \ M . ixlr:•11l.all1 -14A l;YtA•DI il, /\ 'lrllrl �,./..0 F)➢mmtlY_IFY �iM7f6 FYll.l73•� \ - a21r1a�la �nlat�r•Lvr �.sES:FIY11eiMfa \ lrar3lrnll�><��laA1 1,+..s, �c.T.i.�rcr•�!r^rMENIMM I _ / PLAT DATA �TMEZ.n.n ra! Su••0lal4ll-d.Ll�n1M�r Jad1 t4ll�d•_l�=6.1 lsl�lfurr J �4ct_.FIY_11C1lCID! \\ \ •isat.:2Yalfsrla��dfla�4r 1lY t4fallA•:1�ldr. .rn1mmSti61111 S4AE�fF.01-X4 121� tisalFr] �LFIllsFl�t•:.PtdY1 142�1,d•:•l�l3.1, fdil�!_s4.111 -8LL NE 1190 ACRES IES �.A•CFSR•-1ZYi���L1�� ///��� �9,alFb9�lll•:1l�.diall:ifl•111 aril!•1•41,•ll.larr llFaYl:acrier 1 / R-e Z(Wr AREA 11.I1 AgLS �rJ•Efi•F'lFli�d•:l 1 \ \ �iraljZe./MI fl:•aa7fa Ass1G11 !42>•=4.16,l1l!EE�II fl 22tlfbll g �lEEfr•F.F1A�! of"FMr•sz6laNFtlliti7A1MINWE IMI ari.1•l1-11, llltl�illl�ltA�f1RY NO.OF LOTS-- .) LOTS -� \ CO �gtaf.!!•!FI•:.�7fa:!'ll8F'21 ar{•FMMiLI:aY�fl I.1 a 60M 1 / R/W AREA----1.50 AC y2 aifi 111.7AIXIX 1�t1J! h \ S;talLl•71lfZ3 2Ml�lkf£Ff1 tt]]lIFI:;aRllI47:3 11fl�arllarar >MI SLOPES -222 AC h ff�E../i-I-3.t�d•: \ •Y 1611m. �6RIr•;1�1111I11 IflfgF �fidrl:•1�IA5a d1.40 l HAZARD AREAA- 0 AC a SF 5IPa0141l2111� • \ fA�tiair.16:4 �ilal:4ftaar•Isi1Y1 [4:32•!O16 r1G n _w5HlY / TOTAL 1)1 AC As ma 741-40-66 ��1•Efl•Yt/K...i .,= dill}d•:•allllltl6S774, tI}f)fl1 •B ILIXIK•1•l1L 21===1.d:•1 :1:XR1IF11 11M1•4Rl•E7.7171,44 d(i! \ 11122M.Fai3IOIal:d.1.1 i lilaIMC•iIYIM 1 •It11=8l766. 1MLlfl=mlu741 7071411 / OrNSTr.7/7.54-6.4 UNITS/ACRE �14 114 TrC•AYilfl£]! S.11iFl�la1llIM�d:.111=1 y t•O-l•!t[:9�fII9. irtN�EfCfYLL R-!ZONr MEA -LOTS 41J ACEd 4JEE:::FI.lRY.1iZ=•]! \ �fij•�YFd!•!M)ram llr�tYF �•�Q�iFI:•)•f I�LY.•Rt��ld{�ll COW III • \ I�;i=liFl4l•t161.•!i•d{jj��,�1,7.01>•,1.•��y�y6}�111 S{31 21fuc .1.,.1--tli�i�il� .3..Y,l MITI / R/or LOT-_-_ 75 AC \ Si�� Fl:iE f}I�f A'lr�F}THL t.:•>=EIR.%�fhlO�ililjl•�5?Y Y I' >4 AREA___-O)2 AC Ms nW.RP rw oR sLrR rs -5.2e AC cream r \ HAZARD EAA-0.3 C a NWw y epitilitr" i TAL uAc �JP ePR1R 6DENSTI•15/10-10 IMRTS/CRE S fldin'7 eetie_. .TRS°15 p,.,A..o a R, ON OF THE N W 1/4 OF THE N W 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. - -PORTION �xa"..RD ° I I I I -1 I _ .- T- ---1 ---I --I-- - 7 - -1----1--� --T--1--I-- ---I---T--1--I--r-T -� A-,_ 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 8LOL1r 12 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I F- -i_I i'1 1 i l - I 5> I R9 I A] I IC 1 e5 I AA 1 03 I 42 I 01 I AJ fII 39 I 38 fI 37 II 36 II 35 II to I 33 132 I 31 130 I 29 129 I 27 1 26 1 Z I I I I I I I I I I 1'C IHILLMAN'S LARC WA SHIM,.TON 6AROEFI OF£0kN NO 11 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 lq <<E _.. I _ .1 _- .I___I--L.-1- _I _ L.. L . 1_ 1-._I_ I__L-1-J--I.--L I _ I I L__ 1_J --� GRAPHIC SCALE "a N 28 TH PL " ?,a°r Q4; 1•rml ° l r P r J 1 IH I71try I I I I I I IZIS"rIr I I rsre HU1TPrTT 20 I n I - :; I p I�, .... V.5•N u t I I1 N�9Jy W Noo�eOO I I I ..„..r„ ;��fA7 I I I I I IL. fASEMEIii I i^ HIL:MAN':s!AY£ 14A�HIh(•Ttw t'.HL•fN �F EIE:'1.:,W I e f60.p12 I ys- t9•RRE RIR1r I i.a L 1 !1` bid 1 ss i. --- - --ry— e's ^n B a e \ ,a28. 29�kil of 3Mlill as-' I L II-I/V A11 i-;'1 �' • 2 \ ` 4'. \ J ..0...1 111111111 L,J w5 • E. .a,�.rrc wo I,...., 4 ri .. r: :,L n a I I n •,7 I rt ; �� \ ` '� a te. 7 / 1 " » °-., I I I < z '„ Y L J ,sue'NISI IpPirMs0 1 i � 45 HT ?'� \ , 0. \\ \.,\ ` r. in\.. tg,..L, Il I 16�•s I y xr L-aw 6 - I l - , 1_ - ., \ \ , lass :I I TRACT �. `B.eN Iksr^ \ \ • 11 L ,� 1 J�ab� l - —.trwr i .' — / .� a y iee.o ,J,l'/r'';4 - k- -A 1p \ 11 \Y4 • `-. _..2 A.19 ,' r114iT_—JCA�'• 4 » 2 1 -f's� // , 46 • co \\ \� .� ''221Ir21 z!'��• • ,'\\ \ 5Ae-.° ',I 1 1 r -y1 ♦; M49..,1. \,%r I�Ci p \ \ F I `/, y,,9' i/ \ \ 40. 1•0 `` Lf .. \\ '1 \',' 6 042.•.•. %� EL.Dl-1 J Ack `,\ ---• -K--1- - - SB9vJ1�6 r ool DEVELOPER/OWNERSIs \ \ Lit /\_a„r44 1.6 \.•_ 7 \ \ - LABRAow 1£HNRE£LID. C( 2 \ \\ 5 / \ / / ` "e:: err. .a PHONE ai es oOn I \ \ / \\ <l �� �• LAND SURVEYOR ? 3 \ ` / • _�;'':*>\ WHIR N.Imam PL5 <O �/ L y-41'- END2NEERStri \ -y �"!. % ♦\\ - \"\I °e''A%orA.5aii•er.Saar r.oi J. 2 \\� ��N., \ / r1 ;- RA•Y 1-us2s1-°eas \' ��1 \ \ \ ifi_l�IMFARI FF_lelIrnnLr _- \ e>st ,u l!l-ilt? 'LiP =t`iLtfr / T/`f� —!- \� \�' y \ �eara•�!ltz�ea�nleacm�Ll �i \ �/1j\ \ l5easrsi:��u� �vFu .c .Aa�s TANGENT :•I�iFL•'•]faeltFAl,I�lF8,41.2FFY•ZY Ti.dl 1.+t pp sT.Nzr \ (el �aeMIllIf �Neairs// ,IIprY031 :3 i1 �j I�i'� /I PLAT DATA SAOr9 d >• �i�fLlir,fa�)I,��l[,�1.: f ei' oa iF OF \ �O\ ; , 1 ;j;'- _ R TOTAL AREA ii ACRES 2 } e>�i)•�FI•}IfallIDlF)Fltf>�FY!ll �2 TI / I OO Too �r \ \ �•¢• SFFts�l:s,�e,�nl�e,�nrFy g 2 rNEERE =t:anMEuata�L.ir�!•>L,lul .3 L�Bs �° D {p`g "3iVe��y" \ 7i \ yf SF 'fa No OF LOTS---u LOTS e LT Vail :5 \ • �(S\ =.p)_!tf•.lf1=!4-6: •1•Ilflfa l:464/31l •• ;I�g ' i ee))Cy� : 4 4 AREA ES .1.58 AC 1T' �,2. \Y MM- �.!.sz,faEfFtltaes.-s3RIM 518:n)n ' 6- 'ao' !rW SO / >HAZARD SLOPES -2.23AAC ° 7 \ r TARD AREA o3.75 we 1 pp els+6 Etl•Jf!•e!!FL•••J�e!<LD.fa!_.t>MSL DENS',RT 1S sYa ii:� \ .--leElFn_l!lF6. .M1Fr�sFSFr•_n /3A-6.A ONITS/CRr 04 ersitltal/46:6 Elu•Fl 0011MA:lfa l7LZIF,1 XI MI f 2,le, \ e:•fr .Fl•'•]MEMMJRI.111M1 �IDeJ•ltYFral R-!IONS AREA 442 ACRES•. E;A.4 \ eJ T4L!lFIJleJQtFI!lF81•111 ♦218210111 / AR U tl4 ts7}ib: '3$g \ �fFM•Mtr ��i 'nt�ty o OF LOTS--.• Lo s ryry R/w AREA---.0.T3 AC \ e♦t eJ•FFI•:l�e>ttFLlfs'I._l�eJt:}!I[.y > OR SLOPES .0.25 AC t.1; IFS. le�II}ll�m F,66106 AC roZARO AREA 04., AC \ eJt•.!:•I•:]��UJ•!ff•:]!t.S%FY•5l1 I DENSITY m 1.73 0.SO uNi TS%CRE OAR AM MR TRACT'A'.1.05 ACRES ♦ I TRACT'R'.1.37 ACRES of.a HIPr.ei TRACT'C'.a,,ACRES TRACT b-.0.09 ACRES TRACT'E'-0.0.9 ACRES 3.r 8R.; . .. ..•, "."1...:...:::)...,• r,�.. �:� .i ^-',••1`�'r=,y.r•;••v _ s•.:'...' x' .7�.s.r� • ! :•`�2,'f.i:, •.r.t' .s.:.' r ! 'v .asY' .a.� ;�xC�{ r ..aS. : 1 . , . t I . a •.•' _; • . . . CIT 'OF :RENTON ..LL ,.. •. - Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • • CITY CLERK(2) • �' :,':. ,'.may:.• w ",:•'.2, 4 •• • • . ` • girvOFRENTON MAY 0 2 2�Q0 May 1, 2000 . • . RECEIVED QIFY•C1EAK`S OFFICE SUBJECT: PLATS RECENTLY ADDRESSED: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please note the following new addresses assigned to recently approved preliminary plats, final plats and short plats in the City of Renton. You should add these addresses to your databases. Attached new preliminary plats and short plats: Briere Creek Preliminary Plat PP-° t- 131 Briere Preliminary Plat PP-a9 -003 Candlewood Short Plat 541P-oo-o31 Chow Short Plat 5NP— 99-o-11 City View Short Plat SiIP-q$- 1"1.3 Clover Elizabeth rPlaceaPreldor�iminaPreliminary Plat P�QPlat jSD �g 1�1 Conrad Short Plat Ernst Preliminary Plat PP-' 1-t`+? Harrington Square Short Plat SHP-91- 132- SliQ_gg,145Honey Creek Heights II Short Plat Keith Short Plat SHP- q1-1 L-t2- Kirkland Court Final Plat FP-Ici- 152 Manson Short Plat 5tHP-613-itS PP-clq-0 \Maplewood Estates Prelim Plat Miller Short Plat 5 H P- ' - QV? SW 4th Place Short Plat 5+lP-gq-Di I Talbor Ridge Final Plat FP- 9q -►65 Teri Short Plat 5 He_cil- Ig3 Wells Preliminary Plat fp_gg_ ogif Sincerely, Jan Conklin Development Services Representative Development Services Division Telephone: 425-430-7276 • • • . I1:utilltr.- • • • • 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 , - ,' This paper contains SO%reeydsd mstsdsi 20%post Cauumef /4-1::)/1---- 165--r:-.1 •• • . (... . , ... • NAME PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. i=c , . - I 1" -. .I_- -I ----1--1 -- I- I- -I -1---1--7--7--I--r--r-T---1--1--r-•r-7--1--r--r--r-, 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I erai.r: I I I I I I I • I I • I I I I 1 -I 1——1 I A.• 1 .. I---1• . 1i-1 -.a 1 ar 1 a: 1 1��. •1 .r1—•e 1 �r 11_� •a 1 35 1'a1 •r 1'� I " I-l0 I %y I a. 17a 1:0-1— _ I I 10 1 I I •'. I I I I I I I I I ,.� I.flLtMAr1-.L4'I xA:RlrlCr<•NY:ARL.OJ aY E[Efl WIT I I I I I I I I • - X1.1 I t ._ ,i.-- -.I-.. _ I.._.L _.I _ _I__ "_1_ _-L-1-._I- -L__L I-- --__ j GRAPHIC SCALE I Is• --- N 28TH PL sr. :..._.. Z. ,.s ` IQ- , t. !. .. J 7... . !.. - I. .- !----1.- __1.---r--"-I•-- -1 -- 1_---I- -- I- -- -1- -1-1 ! " I 1--7----I-' --I--- r -' 1 -- -11 R.O..R • r ! 10I II 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II 11 - 1 '; `�s4' '1' I I . I a Ia,7": I : I a 1 1 m 1 11 I r, 1 la 11. I " I I" I " 1 ''1 I I•' I". I -•I I ': 1 �r I ,r I e1 Na:EIAI♦••-IA// .INJ N..!•.I..A{.I.??,.r'u'111•.0.• I I 2, I. J. CORO 7"`r I I I I I .�o�yti• I I I ':'s. '' I I I I I I -1 ra' • � Pa'1 I I I . 1 - J Id rAsrrE • iZ '• t°d . ;•aIr« :`i tig.li. 1 NP?»•"r;_J I :ebSA: 1 1 I-1 !ras.otlL • . 'N 2$TI-1 ST _ r m t, t r.C .• .. .. _:.- - - _ .•.-_- tr_ol_ - s-1RApr:•E �..-W. — Imo— l- . i Ql I' r-- -zn. i;-.. -. ',• J[. ` •. y'.., ;,1 '1 s 4� ! .1 , ".. is t-1!•:�1 J /,4'I t�L ' i r. 2�+ �3 • ` �\'\ /♦ !) 1, .... . ..„.„ 3 ���,�/a�-.a�7di-...,�•' /.+.• , , . i1� �r �..� ...____-_•lba;iw........................... p ! I ! ! •n I r \\ r., '1 � �J�:[___I - �i - , 11 Al •T.."Er. y_r Ik I i • ! I r t0 �� 1 �,3 a • ' ° 1• .111, I,•,. , i+ •-1.n-It�-1 /-, ytit- \`0`\. • 1� v `� +r"w* N..r I +ryZnl , .. 1�4, �g 'j42 !ii ; ii 1 �� / 1 . C, • ,r•wy •' .0.. IWJ q \ `,, \%\'1' • ' 1 .E '<j• �r �; !i�,i` ,�) , ;_TRACT_ /A_ _ 1= �� ;J•/;•; �„_ ate -• 1 • ta, • ' \ \ \ ?+� ( S\_.\\ �i � >` '�� t/"�'� �-ILti• ��?•:1'*,r� .. c` 1. 1 a..... ,� Iy9`r, As is. y ,�Q' �1 f7r �jf �� ,'. ` N09W�6•W J7472. _.�,A 0. \ 'Z_ ..t r'•11 • \ \ \• ,.,a � ''♦ q% \\ \\ •1 nN.�131 1 P�f/./V /I'C rI a /�\J \ •\ \\1 ;/ LAI,.O,' \ j) r A--1 � �yyc E~iaa�0 DEVELOPER/OWNERS /w • I!' '\N;;" / \ ' \ W qOy"7YI� %•IQ JADOR•t I4Ri ue Z \ \ ,1,/ �.��- ' �.•....... .••.• i \ \/ ' •� m7.5 k AITYZAAO.I-us-.oar-O.00 Q�i! Z \ \• \ 12 / /% ♦ ���� `"T`` • LAND SURVEYOR. Z� 3 x / \ '>-1 J. ralrr R IallrR.as • \\ . •/• \ \ ........ �.'.�7^ `fXu"As-CI�•"'si�r•w.cc aulr nm Q Z , '9L \ / \ - 4 • • \ G •• \ \� _`� ru Itirl-Jll-aaI CO J I y` • \ \ �J-- \ ~ 26' I \` i. . . !1 Q \ 1;• \\ \ ===urn{)•i l�mettilIM.NLAfrjoIyy�yIR ��ll�- \• \ \ MS1=14 Diu•{]�� J•M•.a/a.u�.a�ar L. _ war=wu•::w.tstaw_r rwaw.f:•nr ! \\ '�\\\ �;'.1flw�i AM •1, ~;t r. �41C�`:s�1•;n� . i /: PLAT DATA • ? • w..'r�=_fa.,3C/�•.IL'V� �t1� 11. �I.I.REs llw�af )yea. wlrlfs lu'•lw•atlllJw�ll.:]�__.•./. TOTAL AREA ISIf ACM • g wtl!••.v rl•11.1=1 rr \ �` - wtra�IRR...I�w•Inlw�u r=w. .11. sd.�:)8C•x�.nc• , 1 w) .�.�(ryyyypryryry.:y ' _._r.:HY.1._i:si \ 0ti\ , RAM! a , { , �pw. 1. 46om / R mRE AIEA 11.71 AIMS .�aasu roa.��n rl.aw nr �.f >—�/ .��r .•• '--y1Ly >:.:1111Y•(�)f[']! to r/xr OEM rRl..L1RM�U R�ITI.w w1.1•:YW S •S.I .1E�.li AO.Or CA -_.Al LOTS• �>�.-1/111tY.l wlt�ll. \ \ �` )•�T:"• 1�IlLal ��tlY l�tr '/I ARCA_--. S/AC ort�C111 ll li,1 l+ QQ - w,r.Arrr:J�{ { \ w.La�iPilR�r� ^r�ria llr�l:.IfY �d'R11•LP:1�rr11 la•M,011 =r1SO. / ION WIPES .in AC • b �r .Y7�r,t� �L=-rgt:==11il�wlNi=i0:3 su. ...c.n. .Zir.,w•�:•c.rLr 14rA00 AREA. O C Pw R?r:IrrYJ�fllxr \ �� �4L��x:•1r�Fi��lr1.�l:,U:Y / rout J//AC �Uw SOf11.�tr•:rr \ RwlulRrwll•:• =f1=w..l=.r�!S II•;x OERAARf4 J..I.a wTI/CIE a �r r:•rr 1.�urxr 3 I . �11, Ml.mY:111rr.7� �f1I su•:J1�Ro��Ufl�w•> x • R49 ZONE AREA au ACM drl.F�-A. v l=�Y)r3>Rr.21 \ -wl,�sl6i U• E :. fx�wanr r#NPr1:1 is{E \ ""Ja_.M{`,.. .QI{..2.1_p.. .1 : I Ro or aors--.• tors Map rS•r1YJ.mR.}., rr. fit(•.��' .D.•�FFl r RAR AREA___.O./I AC pr.Av l SUS I•: \ �1!�t•E:I�wisil mMELI llw�f W 1Y� 1 0l YOIES .., AC \ sOmem,T.x��lT1li r .)owr r.HIPPY AR°AREA•oiJ AC •• i. R.wa>R�R�I P:r�sl.vl�1=M1.ws:fur ! .. 1{=�."1:;: =11==fill=== L 0mo OA • \ �w'I.ri}��1t ;��ra�seii��ur�Y.�i I orRvrr u/Jo.Io wTr,/AaE . • \ wrar .:. rnrlr�zTrz ' A.r.� nAer-A•.r.»Aare • ` TRACT•I•-1"OS ACRES r!•M.T•I I• TRACT V..01 ACRES TRACT-arD.a0 ACRES • • TRACT Y.COI ACRES ' J. BRmr • 4 . __, j' JA 111141)OR VENTURES, L.L.C. June 20, 1999 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Jennifer Henning CITY OF RENTON City of Renton , 1999 Planning and Development Services JUN 1055 S. Grady Way RgCELVED Renton, WA 98055 E�� 425-i30-7286 Dear Jennifer, As per our conversation,I am writing to formally notify the City that we have given a name to our plat on Lake Washington Blvd. &Burnett Avenue. The approved preliminary plat #PP 98-141 should henceforth be referred to and tracked by your staff as: CLOVER CREEK. . • We look forward to a continued good working relationship with the City during the construction of the plat. Thanks to you and your staff for the insightful guidance in helping us get to this stage. Best Regards, ,z tz/72 Bradley K.Hughes, General Manager zLg-s-sSs zas-yy9q 7 ata/vvifow/c1.----) /26(Mr--- /----/ 7 ( 49 Gaeil- 0 pr,f,, t, '-e-br• &-z-i/te'71,41(1C. 1R-VjAllii-- , o-i- 7‘,--7-1-7.4e a-e= ,„;,w,e.,,_,7 . / , ( -------t--- 1---4) ---e--- -- /4------ -10,"1 icivvi, a 0/6 ib4 / 0 HdOli to OP it I ( -62-6,9-' ) al,a,vvi-t.a, 1 1 Erit /1/17t,/kciire", ANN\ ) I e -l4( , PP 4 ,, JA1iL'IDOR 1711771.111 S; L.L.C. June 20, 1999 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING Jennifer Henning CITY OF RENTON City of Renton JUN 2 3 1999 Planning and Development Services 1055 S. Grady Way RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 425 30-7286 Dear Jennifer, As per our conversation,I am writing to formally notify the City that we have given a name to our plat on Lake Washington Blvd. &Burnett Avenue. The approved preli inary plat #PP 98-141 should henceforth be referred to and tracked by your staff as: 1 LOVER CREEK. We look forward to a continued good working relationship with the City during the construction of the plat. Thanks to you and your staff for the insightful guidance in helping us get to this stage. Best Regards, .-- � ed 7 Bra die y K.Hughes,Genera Manager • • azg-s-svB are-,m9y P.O.BOX 3344,KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 TEL:(425).803-0400 FAX:(425) Bonneville \Tj ert "JtZESPOND To: 820"A"STREET,SUITE600 PO Box 1533 MortonQT. TACOMA,WASHINGTON 98401 (�G-oldrick (v�(v TACOMA:(253)627-8131 V TOLL FREE FROM WESTERN WA:(888)272-4083 FACSIMILE:(253)272-4338 FIRM WEBSITE:www.bvmm.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHRISTOPHER E.ALLEN MARK E.HOLCOMB SHERRY CLARK PETERSON FRANK C.NEAL(1878-1969) JAMES A.CATHCART DAVID McGOLDRICK KATHLEEN E.PIERCE L.R.BONNEVILLE,SR.(1894-1979) MARC H.COCHRAN* CAROL COLEMAN MITCHELL CHARLES F.SCHMIT,JR. L.R.BONNEVILLE,JR.(1920-1978) KENNETH FIELDING JOHN C.MOORE WILLIAM G.VIERT (RETIRED) JAMES V.HANDMACHER JAMES H.MORTON "LL.M(Taxation) SENDER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: jvhandmacher@bvmm.com June 7, 1999 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail (total of one page) DEVELOPMENT PLANNING (425) 430-7300 1999 JUN 0 9 CITY OF RENTON Jennifer Toth-Henning Project Manager RECEIVED City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Re: -Labrado r Prelimina ,Plat -.. File'No:L(tA-98141 . Dear Ms. Henning: The developer of this plat, Labrador Ventures, LLC, agrees with the three conditions recommended by city staff in your memo of June 3, 1999. We ask that the Council approve the preliminary plat with these additional conditions on their Consent Agenda at tonight's meeting. Very truly yours, es V. Handmacher JVH:ddc cc: Brad Hughes G:\LAW TYPE\LGUH\LETTE RS\LVI-HEN N I N G.DO C16937.06 CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: June 3, 1999 TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Planning and Development Committee Chair,Members of the Renton City Council VIA j Jesse Tanner, Mayor FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Jennifer Toth Henning SUBJECT: Labrador Preliminary Plat—Comment Letters ISSUE: On May 17, 1999,Renton City Council approved a motion establishing a two-week period for any interested party to submit comments concerning two letters received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and any mitigation conditions suggested by those letters. Four comment letters were received from interested citizens. These letters emphasize protection of the large fir tree on proposed Lot 19,especially during construction activity. The Council has the ability to condition the preliminary plat with measures that address concerns raised by Fish and Wildlife and the citizens. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the Labrador Preliminary Plat subject to conditions as noted in the May 10, 1999 letter from Steve Negri,Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and an additional condition to protect specified trees during site construction activities. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: The Hearing Examiner's Decision and Recommendation for the Labrador Preliminary Plat(File Nos. LUA-98-141,PP,V,R and LUA-99-009,AAD) included a mitigation measure requesting that the State's Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) survey the subject site and an eagle perching tree to ascertain if nesting occurs and if protection of the tree or the perimeter is required. Steve Negri WDFW's Bald Eagle Biologist visited the site on March 26, 1999 and subsequently wrote two letters (April 26, 1999 and May 10, 1999). Mr.Negri's first letter discussed retention of the eagle perching tree, and a stand of fir trees on the southeast portion of the site,and a group of cottonwoods on the west boundary of the site. Mr.Negri's May 10, 1999 letter clarified the first letter and stated that no more than 50%of the fir trees located on proposed Lot 30 should be removed, and that the following language should be placed on the face of any final plat: `Lotsi 18, 19 &20 are buildable lots, however, no building footprints will lie within the drip line of the eagle perch tree. This large fir tree located in the southeast corner ofLot 19 may not be remo led or altered in any way without an hazard tree assessment conducted by a certified ! ti arborist and a report submitted to and reviewed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)prior to removal. Further, if this tree does become an active nest tree for bald eagles at some point in the future, WSFW will be notified and possible timing conditions on additional clearing and external construction may be needed to avoid disturbance during the ' critical nesting season." Staff believes that it is appropriate to condition the preliminary plat with the preceding language to be recorded on the face of the final plat. Furthermore, staff agrees with the suggestion from the citizen letters that language should be recorded on the face of the final plat whereby up to 50%of the existing trees on proposed Lot 30 would be retained. The specific wording of that condition should be developed by staff and the City Attorney. Finally, staff agrees with the citizen comment that suggests a requirement for fencing of the eagle perch tree and the trees to be retained on Lot 30,prior to and during site construction activity. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the Labrador Preliminary Plat(File No. LUA-98-141, PP) subject to the addition of conditions as follows: 1) The recording of language suggested by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife on the face of the final plat for the protection of the eagle perching tree(as discussed in Steve Negri's letter of May 10, 1999); 2) Recording of language on the face of the final plat to protect a minimum of 50%of the stand of fir trees on what has been shown as proposed Lot 30 (the specific language should be drafted by staff and the City Attorney);and, 3) A requirement to mark and protect around the drip lines of the eagle perch tree on Lot 19 and the trees that would be retained on Lot 30,with bright colored construction fencing,prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity. Cc: Jay Covington City Clerk vt CITY F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor • Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • May 18,1999 • • SUBJECT: LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT(FILE NO.LUA-98-141,PP,R,V, ECF) Dear Party of Record: On May 17, 1999,Renton City,Council approved a motion establishing a two-week period for • any interested party to submit comments concerning two letters received from the Department of Fish and Wildlife,and any mitigation conditions suggested by those letters. Only comments' pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife letters will be considered. The two-week comment period commenced Tuesday,May 18,•19.99 and will end on.June 1, 1999 at 5:00 o'clock p.m. Copies of the Council Motion, Committee Report ffom•the Planning and Development Committee,and Department of Fish and Wildlife letters are enclosed. : ' ' Comments should be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager'at the following address:. : . ... Jennifer Toth Henning ' • City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 If your have any questions regarding this,correspondence,please direct them to Ms. Henning at (425)430-7286. • • Sincerely, _ - ' . .. " . Jennifer•Toth Henning Project Manager • cc:,. Jana Hanson Project File \\TS_SERVER\SYS2\COMMON\DIVISION.S\DEVEI:OP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUTH\lbvncmt.doc 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer MOTION Item 4 of the Planning and Development Committee report dealt with added SEPA conditions. Subsequent to the April 28, 1999 letter from the Department of Fish and; Wildlife there was another letter dated May 10, 1999. Since the Council must still act on the preliminary plat, and Council, by law, retains the power to establish mitigation measures before approving a preliminary plat, and because of the late nature of these letters from the Department of Fish and Wildlife in light of the. Council's scheduled action on the plat in the near future, I move that the Council establish a two week period to receive comments from any interested party concerning the two letters from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and any mitigation conditions suggested by those letters, before acting on the plat. City16:06. • = r ;rAr f c • .',ixi brae STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206)775-1311 FAX(206)338-1066 April 26, 1998 DEVELOPMENT PLANNIf1(G CITY OF RENTON Jennifer Toth Henning City of Renton-Planning Dept. APR 2 1999 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W 98055 �' �U�0 RE: Project# LUA98-141 Labrador Preliminary Plat Located in the 2700 Block of Lake Washington Blvd. N and Burnett Avenue N and Potential Impacts to Bald Eagles or their Habitat. Dear Jennifer, I am writing to reiterate discussions at the site on March 26, 1999 regarding the probability of eagles nesting in the large fir tree located near the south boundary of Lot 19 and other potential impacts to bald eagles habitat on the site. The nearest known nesting pair is on the southeast side of Mercer Island, however, eagles use this stretch of shoreline throughout the year. Based on the time of year, ' eagles would be incubating eggs at the time of the site visit and although some sticks were found at the base of the tree, little structure was found in the upper 1/3 of the tree itself. It is not uncommon during pair bonding for eagles to throw sticks into several different trees and based on the lack of structure irr the aforementioned tree, it is highly unlikely that a pair would build and nest this year. However, it is likely that as long as this tree is preserved, a pair may try to establish a nest in the future as these large fir trees near a shoreline are exactly what eagles need to perch, forage, and nest. I say this for various reasons which I will expand on later. • The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is classified as a threatened species at both the state and federal,level. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has the responsibility of protecting bald eagles and heir habitat through the Washington Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292) and enabling legislation (RCW 77.12.655) and the bald eagle is also protected federally under the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Act. My job as a bald eagl biologist is to balance the goals of the landowner against the long and short term needs oP the eagles. I must assess the "risk" (blowdown, nest disturbance, loss of habitat, etc.) of a proposed activity. Although, I understand that this tree will be retained, it has been my experience that as the lots near this tree are developed, the tree will need to be removed or topped to the point of no longer providing a suitable perching or nesting opportunity for eagles because of the potential danger of it failing and causing damage to a structure. The biggest threat to eagles is the continued loss of quality shoreline trees. A typical nest or perch tree is often well over 100 years old. Cleared, landscaped lots eliminate forest regeneration and the few remaining large trees will eventually die or blow over . When trees do approach a size that is suitable to eagles, landowners often decide they are danger trees and have them removed. The net result has been a virtual"mining of suitable eagle habitat. I would like to recommend the.following regarding this development and the long-term protection of eagle habitat. I believe efforts should be made to retain as many.of fir trees as possible throughout the site, especially, the group of second growth firs located on Lot 30 on the southeast end of the plat. The removal of the cottonwoods near where the access road off of Lake Washington Blvd is planned should at lell st be reviewed again to determine whether any can be retained as cottonwoods this size are also used by eagles. Finally, to insure that the documented perch/potential nest tree located on Lot 19 is preserved long-term, I would suggest that Lots 18, 19, 20 and possibly 21 be reconfigured to assure that any future structure will not lie within the fall line of this tree. If eagle populations are to remain viable 20-200 years from now, suitable and potential habitat must be protected. I am not opposed to this development, however, I believe that efforts should be made to protect bothl current and future eagle habitat in the area. Thanks for allowing me to comment on the above proposal and if you or others have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at (425)- 379-2301. Sincerely, • Steve Negri Bald Eagle Biologist WDFW-Region 4 •FROM :--WDFW MT.VERNON PHONE NO. : 360 428 1571 ' May. 10 1999 02:34PM P2 1J R- •'•.tjy. < it- i J' i. �f It r4 11a STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206)775.1311 FAX(206)338-1066 • May 10, 1999 1 • DEVFL '.:PMENT SERVICES CITY OF RENTON Jennifer Toth Henning City of Renton-Planning Dept. MAY 1 0 1999 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 . RECEIVED RE: Project # LUA98-141 Labrador Preliminary Plat Located in the 2700 Block of Lake • Washington Blvd. N and Burnett Avenue N and Potential Impacts to Bald Eagles or their Habitat. Dear Mr. Hughes, . I am writing in response to a letter I received from Brad Hughes on May 6, 1999 as well as confirming a conversation with Mr. Hughes today regarding my recommendations to protect both current and long-term eagle habitat on the above plat, stated in a letter to the City of Renton dated March 26, 1999. I have also spoken with Tom Strong, Terra Associates and Mr. Hughes attorney, Jim Handmacher. It is my understanding that the currently proposed access (off Burnett Ave. N) into the plat is the third iteration and my comments to review this access point to determine if any of the existing cottonwoods can be retained will further delay what has been an exhaustive attempt to situate the access road that will meet various other • concerns and regulations. After speaking with Mr. Hughes, I concur that revisiting this access issue is not needed. Based on the location of the cottonwood trees to the intersection of the Lake Washington Blvd. and Burnett Ave. N, I would not consider the removal of these trees as a significant adverse impact to bald eagles. However, the two other recommendations stated in my letter to the City of Renton dated April 26, 1999 potentially have more of an impact to bald eagles and their habitat long-term. I believe that the following accurately reflects my conversations with Mr. Hughes and Mr: Handmacher today. We agreed that no more than 50% of the fir trees located on Lot 30 of the aforementioned plat would be removed. Regarding efforts to protect the tree located on lot 19, we agreed to place on the face of any final plat the following wording: "Lots 18, 19 & 20 are buildable lots, however, no building footprints will lie within the drip line of the eagle perch tree. This large fir tree located in the southeast corner of • Lot 19 may not be removed or altered in any way without an hazard tree assessment conducted by a certified arborist and a report submitted to and reviewed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)prior to removal. Further, if this tree does become an active nest tree for bald eagles'at some point in the future, WDFW will e notified and possible timing conditions on additional clearing and external con truction may be needed to avoid disturbance during the critical nesting season. " • FROM 14DFU MT.VERNON PHONE NO. : 360 428 1571 May. 10 1999 02:34PM P3 Based on my discussions with you at the site on March 26, 1999, speaking with Mr. Hughes, Tom Strong, and Mr. Handmacher, and given the fact that some long-term habitat will be protected within the ravine, I feel that adequate protection will be provided. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at (425)-379-2301. Since ely, Steve Negri Bald Eagle Biologist WDFW Region 4 • • PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMI FI EE REPORT May 17, 1999 Labrador Ventures Appeal; File LUA-98-141, PP, V, R (Referred April 5, 1999) This appeal was heard by the Planning and Development Committee on May 6, 1999. Four issues were considered by the Planning and Development Committee. 1. Rezone of R-1 property to R-5. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial'of the rezone. The Committee can find no error in fact or law and therefore recommends denial of the appeal. 2. Topographical resurvey. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the property unidergo a topographical resurvey. The Committee finds no factual basis in the record for such a requirement, The Committee therefore recommends that the Ceuncil grant the appeal on this issue and reverse the Hearing Examiner, striking the requirement for a topographical resurvey. 3. Open truss bridge. The Examiner required the developer to install an open truss bridge rather than the proposed open bottom arched earth-covered bridge. The Committee could find no factual support in the record to justify such a modification. For example, an open truss bridge would create more noise. The testimony was that wildlife would find the arch bridge just as easy to bypass as would be an open truss bridge. The Committee therefore recommends that the Council grant the appeal on this issue, reverse the Hearing Examiner, and permit the applicant to use its proposed bridge subject to normal engineering review to determine that the bridge meets City bridge standards, is properly designed, and that the construction provides for appropriate erosion and sedimentation control. 4. Added SEPA conditions. The Hearing Examiner's decision requested that the Department of Fish and Wildlife survey the.site and an eagle perching tree to ascertain if nesting occurs and if protection of it or the perimeter is required. Subsequently, a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife was received by the City on April 28, 1999, which may or may not have imposed an additional SEPA condition. However, because there was no SEPA appeal before the City rPlanning&Development Commit May 17, 1999 Page-2 Council, the Committee recommends that no action be taken by the Council under the Council's appellate authority. • Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Dan Clawson, Member • Bob Edwards, Member City16:05:as. 4110 June 7, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 205 design of the Oakesdale Ave. SW Phase 2 project(SW 27th to 31st Streets). Council concur. (See page 208 for resolution.) Transportation: Six-Year TIP Transportation Systems Division submitted the annual update of the Six-Year Update&Budget Adjustments Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)and associated mid-year budget adjustments. Refer the TIP to the Transportation Committee and the budget adjustments to the Finance Committee; set a public hearing on June 21, 1999,to consider the TIP and budget adjustments. Public Works: Wastewater Wastewater Utility Division requested authorization to reprioritize certain Capital Improvement Projects wastewater capital improvement projects,and to reallocate funds accordingly. Reprioritizing Refer to Utilities Committee. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 7.c.FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration City Clerk submitted staff recommendation to approve,with conditions,the Item 7.c. Labrador Ventures Preliminary Plat; 51 single family lots on 15.55 acres Plat: Labrador Ventures, located at 2700 Lake Washington Blvd.N. (PP-98-141). Preliminary,2700 Lk Wash Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler noted the receipt of a letter from the Blvd N(PP-98-141) developer agreeing to three added conditions which relate to the protection of ' . certain trees on the property. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL APPROVE THE LABRADOR VENTURES PRELIMINARY PLAT,WITH CONDITIONS. CARRIED. For the record,City Attorney Lawrence J.Warren made clear that the additional SEPA conditions are attached to the approval of the plat. CORRESPONDENCE A petition was read with 65 names of residents in North Renton expressing Citizen Comment: Petition— concern about crime occurring at low-income apartments in the vicinity of Concerns re Crime in North North 2nd, 3rd and 4th Streets between Garden and.Meadow Avenues. Renton MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THIS PETITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Planning&Development regarding the potential annexation area joint boundary between Renton and Committee Kent. The Committee recommended that Council direct theAdministrationto Planning:Kent Potential amend the proposed agreement between Renton and Kent relating to the Annexation Areas Agreement potential annexation area designation by deleting item 5.E.pertaining to Kent agreeing to de-annex the 31.63 acre area bounded by SR-167 on the west, SE 192nd St.on the north, 92nd Ave. S. on the east, and S. 200th St. on the south,per the suggestion of Kent. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the revised agreement. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending approval Finance: Vouchers of Payroll Vouchers 166809 - 167074 and 527 direct deposits in the total amount of$1,332,469.71. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Gambling Taxes Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report regarding the proposal to change gambling tax rates. The Mayor has submitted to the City Council a proposal to increase card room gambling taxes from 10 percent to 20 percent, and decrease the pull tab gambling tax rates from five percent of gross proceeds to seven percent of net proceeds. The Finance Committee has reviewed this • CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL AI #: SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 6/07/99 Dept/Div/Board. Executive/City Clerk Staff Contact.. Marilyn J. Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing.. Correspondence.. Labrador Ventures Preliminary Plat, PP-98-141 Ordinance Resolution Old Business.... EXHIBITS: New Business.... Staff memo recommending approval Study Session... Four additional letters rec'd from Parties of Record Other RECOMMENDED ACTIO : 1 APPROVALS: I Legal Dept Council concur. I Finance Dept.... 1 Other FISCAL IMPACT: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment.. Amount Budgeted, Revenue Generated... I SUMMARY or ACTION: On May 17, 4999, the City Council established a two-week period to receive comments from any interested party concerning the two letters from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and any mitigation conditions suggested by those letters, prior to taking final action on the Labrador Ventures preliminary plat. The additional comment period expired on 6/01/99. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, along with added conditions relating to tree preservation and protection. STAFF RECOiMMENDATION: Council approve the preliminary plat with the added conditions. agendabl.doc/c 06/87/1999 13:50 2532724338 BONNEVILLE VIERT PAGE 01 • Bonnevllle,Viert, RE9Porm TO: 820 A"SrAEEL sun 600 PO Box 1533 T\'Iorton SL TAc AN ° 8 131 TAGOMA:(253)QZ7a131 TOLL FREE FROM Wl8 TERN WA (888)423-4053 McGoldrick aIMILE:(253) 8 WE Faits eBrt w E: ww.bvmmmm.aoco m TTO SAT LAW CHRISTOPHER E.ALLEN MARK ff.HOLCOMB SHERRY CLARK PETERSON FRANKC.NEAL(1Q78.1 JAIAES A.CATHCART DAVID MoQOLDRJCK KATHLEEN E.PIERCE L R.BONNEVILLE.SR(l�ht MARCR )) ARC H.COCHRAN' CAROL COLEMAN MITCHELL CILEa F.BCHMR.JR. L' .5ONHM(L VIERT(1 O.0) KdNIE H FIELDING JOHN C.MOORE JAGS V.HAI MACHER WAS H.MORTON 'LLM Ran) SENDER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: Mhandmachert®byr+m.00m June 7, 1999 Via Facsimile and First Class Mail (total of one page) (425) 430-7300 Jennifer Toth-Henning project Manager City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 Re: Labrador Preliminary Plat File No.LUA-98-141 Dear Ms.Henning: The developer of this plat, Labrador Ventures, LLC, agrees with the three conditions recommended by city staff in your memo of June 3, 1999. We ask that the Council approve the preliminary plat with these additional conditions on their Consent Agenda at tonight's meeting. Very truly yours, • es V. Handmacher JVH:ddc - cc: Head Hughes • OlANRYPoLO.JH ETrERa1LVNIENIAN0•Doc s9,.0e • I , I 061, COp�� -Op NT p i A l'r, - 1999 ® May 25, 1999 City of Renton Planning Commission CITY OF RENTON Jennifer[Toth.Henning J U N 0 1 1999 Subject:Labrador Preliminary Plat_ '74File#L-UA-98-1441-DP,R,V- - RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Ms.Henning, We are in complete agreement with all of Mr. Steve Negri's statements and recommendations in his letter of April 26 to you. However,we believe that the second letter reflects the intense pressure of Mr.Hughes,his attorney and Tom Strong.The firs and the cottonwoods and as much of the supporting foliage need to be retained as possible.We speak as property owners,members of the Kennydale Association and our neighborhood. This small acreage supports habitat with far reaching effects for all of Renton.This is a major migration zone for nany birds and these trees give protection from erosion. You,the members of the council and the planning committee can make the decision in terms of the future generations of Renton,your grandchildren.Will there be a hospitable environment or will they be pleading for twe nty milliaAdollars to try and restore the area? Or will the present possibility of a few extra tax dollars now destroy your vision? ia......., g of)iiiii4i,„..6 James B. and Sally A. Scott 1405 N. 28th Renton,WA 98056 (425)255-1005 4: r r - � h /' '" DE CIO OF RENTO 9/1 SAY 2 6 19 /a �J�� ti 1 c R CEIVED ,077„,v2 U /� CITY RENTON a jee.2/ ._/'ii. /mod- �� 6/�/ MAY 2 7 1999 teo-I -/w Z4S44-z2K 34,5; 6:) ,€) etr,eA s /zygRpFgeics.gt_., ,z e /v zhcmire oi e r r ri z9c7-/t 7-7; 5 im ce M a -7-e/ve- ///2 e cpy coc L M/// d-Z -e • // 5717 ce 7-6e4 , e S y,e e Cs SdI - "le6drer /9";ra 7.fitfrz 7-/--11(7 e ['eE /1,PS ‘_/ Yd 6/ L e /P& /32-4 Ay (44e 4 6,. -&2 /-/e 577.rp--7-ep 1,y,e act �� r r ee 2/,<, ti167 1172 a0V d • yed e} -/ 4"79--db1/14,/,5- P/44 7 f 6d yI3 a fiy / // 'c X),/ -y7 "b"--g Cf_Z dtyZi -_ `d7 (7' 47/ z /5 5-9d -V eS e/ 77/4 7-biciodiJ 71/11 / a(11?/ ff //-77 ,A,2 ,)-72,/wif I)5- V Tice /�'nql) c �J - 1 May 25, 1999 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON Jennifer Toth-Henning City of Renton-Planning Dept MAY 2 8 1999 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED RE: Project#LUA98-141 Public Comment-Bald Eagles Dear Ms Henning CITY OF RENTON I haves ken withyou in the 1999 spoken past concerning the eagles,and appreciate this opportunity to provide written comment. I have observed between 1-4 eagles, RECEIVED either perched or flying near the large fir tree,on the following dates this year CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1/8/99 @ 9:30am 1/31/99 @ 4:30pm 3/9/99 @ 7:40ain 3/10/99 @ 6:30im 3/20/99 @ 4:30pm I have no doubt that if the surrounding trees and habitat are removed to make way for development,I may no longer have the opportunity to view these " magnificent,threatened species in such a natural environment. I oppose any development in this area because of the loss of homes to the local wildlife. Please keep me informed of any hearings or committee meeting which may address these issues. Sincerely Shirley D Milliren 1020 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056-2173 425 271-2096 e-mail OSNMILLIRE@AOL.COM • L._-.-OPMENT MUNIG CITY OF RENTON May 28, 1999 JUN 0 1999 RECEIVED Ms. Jennifer Toth Henning CITY OF RENTON City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way JUN 0 1 1999 Renton, WA 98055 RECEIVED Subject: Labrador Preliminary Plat (File No. LUA-98-141,PP, R, V, ECF), Commen{SCLERK'S OFFICE Concerning the Two Department of Fish and Wildlife Letters. Dear Ms. Toth Henning: I would like to thank the City Council for giving the public an opportunity to comment on the Fish and Wildlife letters concerning measures to protect eagle habitat on the property owned by Labrador Ventures. I would like to stress that the presence of American Bald Eagles in our neighborhood is highly valued by myself and others that I have spoken to. It is an awesome experience to stand in my backyard and see the huge birds circle and land in the tall fir tree. Their presence contributes to the quality of our neighborhood. Therefore, I expect that the Council would do what is necessary to ensure that the proposed subdivision would not deter the eagles from using this property for foraging, perching and possibly nesting. I have read the Fish and Wildlife letters and agree with Mr. Negri that measures should be taken to protect the large fir tree in Lot 19 and the fir trees in Lot 30. He recommends that 50% of the fir trees in Lot 30 be protected and that the final plat should include wording regarding the protection of the fir tree in Lot 19. In addition to these recommendations, I ask that you include the following additional measures into the final plat. 1. Lots 19 and 20 should be reconfigured to allow for the inclusion of the fir tree (now located within proposed Lot 19) into Tract A which is a Native Growth Protection Area. I have concerns about the tree's presence in someone's useable backyard and maintenance of the tree's health. These backyards are small and the tree's drip line is extensive. How reasonable is it to expect that typical use of this backyard area would not compromise the fir tree's health? When I hike on trails, I have come across signs that warn about walking on and around a large tree's root area, that it could kill the tree. If the objective is truly to protect the fir tree for the use of the eagles, then it should not be included in a buildable lot. 2. It should also be recorded with the plat that "No more than 50% of the fir trees located on Lot 30 (or whatever the new area will be with a revised site plan reflecting the current zoning) would be removed in perpetuity." And that "The remaining trees may not be removed or altered in any way without an hazard tree assessment conducted by a certified arborist and a report submitted to and reviewed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) prior to removal." • go The following are measures that should be taken to ensure that the protected trees are not accidentally harmed. As you are well aware. human error can and does happen during construction activities, especially when numerous contractors work on site. The recent accidental cutting of 6 fir trees on Union Avenue is an example of what harm can be done. These measures should result in better communication between contractors and should protect the trees. 3. Prior to any construction activity on site, all protected fir trees (in Lot 19 and 30) should be marked and orange fencing should be put around the drip areas of each tree to ensure that no disturbance of these areas occurs. City officials should confirm that this precaution has been undertaken prior to granting clearing and grading permits. 4. All construction activity (clearing, grading, building) should be bonded and a special stipulation should be included that results in a significant financial penalty if the eagle perch fir tree in Lot 19 is harmed in any way during construction activities. 5. City personnel should be on site during clearing and grading near protected fir trees to provide additional supervision. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. I hope it will make a difference. Sincerely, Kim Browne 1003 N. 28th Place ,.-.., • CI OF RENTON ` , City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen June 9, 1999 Mr. James V. Handmacher Bonneville, Viert, Morton & McGoldrick P.O. Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401 Re: Labrador Preliminary Plat; File No. PP-98-141 Dear Mr. Handmacher: At the regular Council meeting of June 7, 1999, the Renton City Council approved the referenced preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined in the hearing examiner's recommendation, the Planning and Development Committee report regarding the appeal, and the three conditions recommended by city staff, dated June 3, 1999. Copies of the Planning and Development Committee report and the letter from staff are enclosed for your files. 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, 'Marilyn II. 11 ersen City Clerk/ -able Manager cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Council President King Parker Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 / FAX(425)430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer I 4 May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes 176 reviewed that the property, 23 acres located on Lake Washington, is contaminated, to the extent that the cleanup costs exceed the value of the property. Ms. Carlson said according to the purchase and sale agreement, the property owners would give the property to the City and the City would negotiate a cleanup action plan with the Department of Ecology and other natural resource trustees. The funding for the cleanup will come from State and Federal grants and from the sale of the upland portion of the property. Ms. Carlson explained that before the City can take ownership of the property, certain contingencies must be met. These include negotiating the prospective purchasers agreement, procuring insurance and funding, obtaining the necessary permits, and Council approval. Continuing, Ms. Carlson emphasized that the public benefits of cleaning up the property include retaining the shoreline for permanent public access and restoration and improvement of the fish and wildlife habitat. Ms. Carlson then introduced Environmental Attorney Bill Joyce, a consultant to the City on this project. Mr. Joyce described the various contaminants affecting the property, explaining that since it is not feasible to remove all of the site's contaminants, the City plans to remove much of it and perform containment on that which will remain. The essence of the cleanup plan is to remove the innershore soils that are heavily contaminated with creosote materials by trying to remove as much sediment as possible according to action levels set by various State and Federal agencies. Mr. Joyce reported that the best estimate for the cleanup costs is $20 million which includes the cost of insurance and project management. Pointing out that substantial progress has been made on this project, Mr. Joyce explained that the issues remaining for resolution are: Department of Ecology review of the cleanup plan,permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to allow for cleanup work in the water, purchase and sale agreement with a prospective buyer and obtaining insurance. Mr. Joyce pointed out that standards have been raised due to recent developments in the Endangered Species Act thus making the cleanup process that much more complex. In conclusion, Ms. Carlson explained that in order for all the contingencies to be met, staff recommends that Council extend the date of the purchase and sale agreement between the property owners and the City until 12/31/99. Responding to Councilman Parker, Ms. Carlson said that significant progress has been made so far and due to the fact that the City has received a lot of cooperation from the Department of Ecology and other agencies, she foresaw little reason why the City won't be able to move ahead with this project. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXTEND THE DATE OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE PORT QUENDALL TERMINALS PROPERTY TO 12/31/99 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT ALL OTHER CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCIES . REMAIN THE SAME. CARRIED. APPEAL Planning & Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a report Planning&Development regarding the Labrador Ventures preliminary plat(PP-98-141); the site is Committee located on the 2700 block of Lake Washington Blvd. The appeal was heard by Appeal: Labrador Ventures the Committee on May 6, 1999. Four issues were considered. Preliminary Plat,2700 Lk 1. Rezone of R-1 property to R-5. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial Wash Blvd N, PP-98-141 of the rezone. The Committee can find no error in fact or law and therefore recommended denial of the appeal. May 17, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes • 177 2. Topographical resurvey. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the property undergo a topographical resurvey. The Committee finds no factual basis in the record for such a requirement. The Committee therefore recommended that the Council grant the appeal on this issue and reverse the Hearing Examiner, striking the requirement for a topographical survey. 3. Open truss bridge. The Examiner required the developer to install an open truss bridge rather than the proposed open bottom arched earth-covered bridge. The Committee could find no factual support in the record to justify such a modification. For example, an open truss bridge would create more noise. The testimony was that wildlife would find the arch bridge just as easy to bypass as would be an open truss bridge. The Committee therefore recommended that the Council grant the appeal on this issue,reverse the Hearing Examiner, and permit the applicant to use its proposed bridge subject to normal engineering review to determine that the bridge meets City bridge standards, is properly designed, and that the construction provides for appropriate erosion and sedimentation control. 4. Added SEPA conditions. The Hearing Examiner's decision requested that the Department of Fish and Wildlife survey the site and an eagle perching tree to ascertain if nesting occurs and if protection of it or the perimeter is required. Subsequently, a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife was received by the City on April 28, 1999,which may or may not have imposed an additional SEPA condition. However,because there was no SEPA appeal before the City Council, the Committee recommended that no action be taken by the Council under the Council's appellate authority. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler said because the Hearing Examiner asked for input from the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the added SEPA conditions, at the time of the appeal hearing,no one knew what these conditions were to be. Ms. Keolker-Wheeler pointed out that both the public and the developer have a right to know what these conditions are and have time to address any concerns to Council. Continuing, Ms. Keolker-Wheeler reported that after the appeal was filed, the City received two letters from the Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding this matter. She explained that since the Council must still act on the preliminary plat,by law it retains the power to establish mitigation measures before approving the plat. Therefore it was MOVED BY KEOLKER- • WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ESTABLISH A TWO WEEK PERIOD TO RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM ANY INTERESTED PARTY CONCERNING THE TWO LETTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AND ANY MITIGATION CONDITIONS SUGGESTED BY THOSE LETTERS, BEFORE ACTING ON THE LABRADOR VENTURES PRELIMINARY PLAT. CARRIED. Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler announced that Senior Planner Jennifer Toth Henning is the staff contact for the project and should be contacted with any questions or comments regarding the appeal. ADMINISTRATIVE Finance Analyst Derek Todd reviewed a written administrative report REPORT summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 1999 and beyond. Items noted included: * Kris Stimpson, Community Center and Program Coordinator,was named AP?r70vcD BY CiTY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE date - COMMITTEE REPORT May 17, 1999 Labrador Ventures Appeal; File LUA-98-141, PP, V, R (Referred April 5, 1999) This appeal was heard by the Planning and Development Committee on May 6, 1999. Four issues were considered by the Planning and Development Committee. 1. Rezone of R-1 property to R-5. The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the rezone. The Committee can find no error in fact or law and therefore recommends denial of the appeal. 2. Topographical resurvey. The Hearing Examiner recommended that the property undergo a topographical resurvey. The Committee finds no factual basis in the record for such a requirement. The Committee therefore recommends that the Council grant the appeal on this issue and reverse the Hearing Examiner, striking the requirement for a topographical resurvey. 3. Open truss bridge. The Examiner required the developer to install an open truss bridge rather than the proposed open bottom arched earth-covered bridge. The Committee could find no factual support in the record to justify such a modification. For example, an open truss bridge would create more noise. The testimony was that wildlife would find the arch bridge just as easy to bypass as would be an open truss bridge. The Committee therefore recommends that the Council grant the appeal on this issue, reverse the Hearing Examiner, and permit the applicant to use its proposed bridge subject to normal engineering review to determine that the bridge meets City bridge standards, is properly designed, and that the construction provides for appropriate erosion and sedimentation control. 4. Added SEPA conditions. The Hearing Examiner's decision requested that the Department of Fish and Wildlife survey the site and an eagle perching tree to ascertain if nesting occurs and if protection of it or the perimeter is required. Subsequently, a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife was received by the City on April 28, 1999, which may or may not have imposed an additional SEPA condition. However, because there was no SEPA appeal before the City Planning&Development Committee ' N May 17, 1999 Page-2 Council, the Committee recommends that no action be taken by the Council under the Council's appellate authority. - //0 Kathy Keblker-Wheeler, Chair Dan Clawson, Member . ob Edwards, Member City16:05:as. • JOLAAPt, fdevt^& - • PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 2-3N., R 5 E, W.M. 4 x. - ., I 1- - V- I 1 I 1 T I I--T--I--I--I--T-T--1--I--1- I---1- - I--T-T--1 I I I I I I ! 1 I I ! I I 8L,S Ii I I I ! I I I I I I I I ! I' 1 ! I .Y I .8 I .7 ! A I d,, I A. I .., I 4i I a, I .O I 39 I 38 I 37 I 36 I 33 I 3A I 33 132 I 3, 130 I 29 128 I 27 1 26 1 ------ 1 1 I I •'' I • I I I I . I I I I IH, II I I LL Z I I -C LL,AAN'S LAI4I WASHINGTON GARDE OF E0 N NO I, I I I I I I I I - -J GRAPHIC SCALE 1 o) .„L. 1__.I---.I-- - L- -I-- -I--L--1---1--I--L--1-- L-J--I--�--1---1--I--I--- L--- 1 ---J UI--- •- t ��_",, N 28TH PL _ __ I ��. QI .. ww�, rn Q °� ril I I I T 1'— I 1 7 l— - 1--T_ 1....._I"—I—' T—� I I 7 _ ,, Ill , . �(er� � , i� 1 •!! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, i - °! ! . . !�, c i 7 I s I i 10 1 !r 1 I r3 I ,. I ,3 I 06 I 17 I IS I ,9 l I , 1 . 2a 25 1 1' II" ;1 I ,l ���1�Q��p�= CONC.WALL I I�I 1 I N009a71- I I £'yQ�'vy!I I I I I I I•' ,III I $GRIP ill• I ,I i C. • H�L_MAII i/A/£ NA",NV,..TON GAIRDEN OF E['EN •.•.•.••• .•,•,••.,• Z I ATN �it7 11 I N#9 :livi I ...-51'L I I L I._ �2 o1 L •.eT' IE SEYENT I�:�r.-..- .L_ __ -- .. • .. _ - __ rnrrey� TH ST t�1 r---� EN �` �� I I , 1 W ix \` \\ w8 t Iinn 44 I 1 l-LCII_fJ aI .�c_, z € \ q ,. ' )L.T aI. ..L,E _-' I r•• -.i I n .7 I n se 2a \1l \'..2�, I`�I I�� IESIEFOrillir- �o!� 6 r.1r laar °i3jzi w Inti��n qF xz '; \ 1 I I I ` \ u — —• 9 SAW., '7i Y - 3 d \SS \� , I mo. ^ � I \/.. ;III yL ' O• o \\ `:!� ;6, l; TRACT jA" 1Z—•=— . ,,��• I 06 l—�� ) e�. ' \\ `\ V,e.eo2.. /'- "y ——- 4 3 (} •2 — ' /+sv /L� 3 \\ \ \� �)m \ ) Jug /�;'t.: ���: —�L^,. _..'( �� ': I II ,/��$" .o,0`C \ \ ♦' g./ /, • :l \NeYVJLN9P J70.72' atm. easy —•I-Rr-•-.-•L `,—. . .—.• d,' ` \ \ �< i so . .. \ \ Rf `F-r—i —1 ,,/1 1�v 2 \\ \ -.z2 Ir x ;,i . ei ,'\\ \ a„w ,;I 1 1 r 1 M.49 �,'1,/ Q-..i CO \\ / f a:��:`xi ELD1=lI LZ F\y\`� ".m: _ -1 . - .789W'4st - DEVELOPER/OWNERS >—% \\ \�\♦ �`''. +/ N•/'W -- \• \ / mn • 425-803-0400 FAO.box WA•A .A' /\ /� �1 PHONE,_.IS-aOJ-6a)) CO \ V ' "CC • \ / V �13;• Q \ / \ �� LAND SURVEYOR Z 3 \\ �; . 61N.eN�N o 0 \ \ / \ , \ ti a S CL WIC L,01 �� !?.CaI�II•T4��T44,MEMOSHCl�lalLa .26 ry \•� �1 \ \ a�+ lFtlaaFwilaalF.aalEi.ilnl __ \ .�ailQaalfRFla!lll. a.erarai STD _r-- Y \• 1,....1\ EltillFl?laEInnid •FrlFlA1 lFm1alT]iEI T-IOliOPOYIY \ \ +a 1 .'.L-II�LD�S:'Y£m !,',,.rat.L•.�;�trG 7�L^r:cLa�.irL� , arrW^aEZIZi/I•�E4iLII:,• \ 0 \ a {alFENIMI aillaaFS➢alr106/0. iifa•E,ZOIMMt?SLll�larlFlFa1 PLAT DATA 1�{ lf/m er alF.R.IaaPP:rrL SQM/1-rOixSFl�l.LIM lOxfL t' la�E':•,00.IY lslnIM \ \ - aFs2ll�a➢!S]Q ..13—1ff 1�m/14:.l��I =111,LI�tI.1,-.1,L MTH AREA Is33 ACRES aPaE•�....i3313 -a!x&:•1 !(®1�0.-/I �LFFFFl1 alra:]�cL'9�iZFN �F,./ L / • a�a�IL1Oilrsa \ Q \ I.alF...1 11 FYJlafldNl�1 t¢C�1.INIO l3➢��F:•I�111 1.1 'JI -- - J 0-0 ZpK AREA Ivt,ACRES Z aNS MATT FIr•:-CaiTrfa 1IlET11Lil/JP arlli•213Y➢1 iif�iF:l•:•JitldFJ��>r- 10/ .0.,/ -- - NO OF 10TS--.47 LOTS I` aTErTac3FFrEICI!Llla \ INA \ i,L'aM.r..211Q•:FFlm1•tf•SLM99i.313:1 •110t•.mt4.011U MIII.Il♦MPIITO MILLOG NlnMINNI xa+ a AREA___.1.36 we aww.[ W,FOFJeFr•l:IS•]wt• \ , \ =1M4.1!FX•:•l.ElFS•:alaFli!l:FZYA1 i.II—vA•:•ll�IFll=IfIlli-RFFFLl1 I > 0K SLOPES •1.32 AC �' lw'F yM��l It= \ / .:....a••••ra I!!:-FLI •Ivra,11 {:.a♦M.III•'•awi!•ll •Fir Mit-TF 40141 NAZARO AREA A. 0 C la fJ0-10/4.1M.10= aw41 sd::lalFS•-9ai9Dlai:I,.IN TOTAL 37e AC U .10?aE!dr•. Ala1131= \ �i[alFx•Slll2SFJla!!II/ i1.0�••ll I DENS.,a/)J..a..UNITS/ACRE aESF�.FRY}IC�0/411.Tiw1• a�iTlFS•ilalA•Flaaldl!!F 1•111 .JHr.YFY.lL/Aw.1 \ aw::•alFS•_•lalllllaIISOaifJfflml R-3 IOW AREA A.0 ACRES . -,„ 11fL>a1•1!.{'i01711iMINII !alFl OMMII SFial!.'4• �lIEUM/ / O Lon or LO ---• LOTS aS:/ IM-0•FTl¢1cIMINFO•OIM \ ralFl•:lalllS.aii-L•%i!3...131 aS1�E=LTI_aLlawf•_•J= \ �tFal:I:allFfl' ...6L:lalIFFF1l1 R/W AREA__-.O)1 AC 1 \ fiZ :;aaaTF)Jl?Ll IFFYtl1: / a aaFd al > Or SLOPES .026 AC MAW OAP I afiFEiFa:•a,i:•SlaI PI,1 i,00-0 10 HAZARD AREA OAJ AC \ ss,alFl+%l!!lS)]l�LII�YIIR•l1 I TOTAL I.J AC a.t1 .LFllala33.1= 3lllallFZYFY \ MM[:a.pI.Y.O1 1�a1aFlZlaaE4F1l:) I DEN9Tr IS/J.O.S.0 UNITS%CRE PM AK ram 3ial:•S.:al�dlall:•a•Ali:3 Y•.d1 TRACT•• 1.73 ACRES ♦ I TRACT b'.1.03 ACRES 9A1,n NI„IPWi -TRACT•C• 0.37 ACRES TRACT•O•A 011 ACRES TRACT T..009 ACRES J. 8sua • � 1 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 10, 1999 Council Chambers Monday, 7:30 p.m. MINUTES Municipal Building CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. ROLL CALL OF KING PARKER, Council President; DAN CLAWSON; KATHY KEOLKER- COUNCILMEMBERS WHEELER; BOB EDWARDS; TONI NELSON; TIMOTHY SCHLITZER. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN JESSE TANNER,Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE ZANETTA FONTES,Assistant City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; JIM SHEPHERD, Community Services Administrator; MICHAEL KATTERMANN, Director of Neighborhoods& Strategic Planning; LESLIE BETLACH,Parks Director; BETTY NOKES,Director of Economic Development; ABDOUL GAFOUR,Water Utility Supervisor; JENNIFER TOTH HENNING, Senior Planner; DEREK TODD,Finance Analyst; SONJA MEJLAENDER, Special Events&Volunteer Program Coordinator; COMMANDER FLOYD ELDRIDGE,Police Department. APPROVAL OF MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 3, 1999 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Sonja Mejlaender, Special Events&Volunteer Program Coordinator,reported Sister City Visit to Nishiwaki on the recent trip which City of Renton delegates took to visit Renton's Sister City,Nishiwaki, Japan. Other Renton community members on the trip included Ray Sled,Water Maintenance Manager, and representatives from the Renton School District and the Renton Lions Club. Noting that Renton and Nishiwaki have been sister cities since 1969,Ms. Mejlaender said the goals of the relationship are to encourage citizen delegation exchanges,promote awareness of cultural diversity, increase opportunities for social and educational enrichment, and encourage trade and tourism. Ms. Mejlaender described various activities undertaken during the visit, as well • as sites seen. She presented two gifts from the city of Nishiwaki to Mayor Tanner(a ceramic vase and a clock). She concluded that all eleven Renton delegates returned home with a greater understanding of life in Japan, and look forward to welcoming the Japanese delegation in 2001. Planning&Development Planning&Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler announced that Committee because a letter from the Washington State Department of Fisheries pertinent to Appeal: Labrador Ventures this matter was received this afternoon, the Planning&Development Preliminary Plat,2700 Lk Committee report will not be available until May 17th. She emphasized that, in Wash Blvd N, SA-98-141 the meantime,the Council cannot accept any testimony whatsoever on this subject. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 1999 and beyond. Items noted included: * Shirley Anderson, Recreation Program Coordinator, was awarded a Certificate of Excellence from the Washington Recreation Parks FROM : I,JDFU MT.VERNON PHONE NO. : 360 428 1571 May. 10 1999 02:34PM P2 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE • 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206)775.1311 FAX(206)338-1066 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . May 10, 1999 CITY OF RENTON Jennifer Toth Henning MAY 1 (-) 1999 City of Renton-Planning Dept. , 1055 South Grady Way ,,.`EC E I v ED Renton, WA 98055 RE: Project # LUA98-141 Labrador Preliminary Plat Located in the 2700 Block of Lake Washington Blvd. N and Burnett Avenue N and Potential Impacts to Bald Eagles or their Habitat. Dear Mr. Hughes, I am writing in response to a letter I received from Brad Hughes on May 6, 1999 as well as confirming a conversation with Mr. Hughes today regarding my recommendations to protect both current and long-term eagle habitat on the above plat, stated in a letter to the City of Renton dated March 26, 1999. I have also spoken with Tom Strong, Terra Associates and Mr. Hughes attorney, Jim Handmacher. It is my understanding that the currently proposed access (off Burnett Ave. N) into the plat is the third iteration and my comments to review this access point to determine if any of the existing cottonwoods can be retained will further delay what has been an exhaustive attempt to situate the access road that will meet various other ' concerns and regulations. After speaking with Mr. Hughes, I concur that revisiting this access issue is not needed. Based on the location of the cottonwood trees to the intersection of the Lake Washington Blvd. and Burnett Ave. N, I would not consider the removal of these trees as a significant adverse impact to bald eagles. However, the two other recommendations stated in my letter to the City of Renton dated April 26, 1999 potentially have more of an impact to bald eagles and their habitat long-term. I believe that the following accurately reflects my conversations with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Handmacher today. We agreed that no more than 50% of the fir trees located on Lot 30 of the aforementioned plat would be removed. Regarding efforts to protect the tree located on lot 19, we agreed to place on the face of any final plat the following wording: "Lots 18, 19 do 20 are buildable lots, however, no building footprints will lie within the drip line of the eagle perch tree. This large fir tree located in the southeast corner of Lot 19 may not be removed or altered in any way without an hazard tree assessment conducted by a certified arborist and a report submitted to and reviewed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)prior to removal. Further, if this tree does become an active nest tree for bald eagles'at some point in the future, WDFW will be notified and possible timing conditions on additional clearing and external construction may be needed to avoid disturbance during the critical nesting season. " FROM : WDFW MT.UERNON PHONE NO. : 360 428 1571 May. 10 1999 02:34PM P3 Based on my discussions with you at the site on March 26, 1999, speaking with Mr. Hughes, Tom Strong, and Mr. Handmacher, and given the fact that some long-term habitat will be protected within the ravine, I feel that adequate protection will be provided. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at (425)-379-2301. Since ely,, Steve Negri Bald Eagle Biologist WDFW-Region 4 Q;TATE. • /4 INB9 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard•Mill Creek, Washington 98012•(206)775-1311 FAX(206)338-1066 April 26, 199, S�� LOP • —ENT PLANN1N, / CITY OF RE Jennifer Toth Henning City of Renton-Planning Dept. APR 2 ' 1999 1055 South Grady Way RED Renton, WA 98055 ����� RE: Project;;'_LUA98=14J-Labrador-Preliminary Plat-Located in the 2700 Block of Lake Washington Blvd.IN and Burnett Avenue N and Potential Impacts to Bald Eagles or their Habitat. Dear Jennifer, I am writing to reiterate discussions at the site on arch 26, 1999 re arding the probability of eagles nesting in the large fir tree located near the south bou 9 and other potential impacts to bald eagles habitat on the site. The nearest known nesting pair is on the southeast side of Mercer Island, however, eagles use this stretch of shoreline throughout the year. Based on the time of year, eagles would be incubating eggs at the time of the site visit and although some sticks were found at the base of the tree, little structure was found in the upper 1/3 of the tree itself. It is not uncommon during pair bonding for eagles to throw sticks into several different trees and based on the lack of structure in the aforementioned tree, it is highly unlikely that a pair would build and nest this year. However, it is likely that as long as this tree is preserved, a pair may try to establish a nest in the future as these large fir trees near a shoreline are exactly what eagles need to perch, forage, and nest. I say this for various reasons which I will expand on later. The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is classified as a threatened species at both the state and federal level. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has the responsibility of protecting bald eagles and tlieir habitat through the Washington Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292) and enabling legislation (RCW 77.12.655) and the bald eagle is also protected federally under the Endangered Species Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Act. My job as a bald eagle,biologist is to balance the goals of the landowner against the long and short term needs of the eagles. ',I must assess the "risk" (blowdown, nest disturbance, loss of habitat, etc.) of a proposed activity. Although, I understand that this tree will be retained, it has been my experience that as the lots near this tree are developed, the tree will need to be removed or topped to the point of no longer providing a suitable perching or nesting opportunity for eagles because of the potential danger of it failing and causing damage to a structure. The biggest threat to eagles is the continued loss of quality shoreline trees. A typical nest or perch tree is often well over 100 years old. Cleared, landscaped lots eliminate forest regeneration and the few 1 J � remaining large trees will eventually die or blow over . When trees do approach a size that is suitable to eagles, landowners often decide they are danger trees and have them removed. The net result has been a virtual "mining" of suitable eagle habitat. I would like to recommend the.following regarding this development and the long-term protection of eagle habitat. I believe efforts should be made to retain as many of fir trees as possible throughout the site, especially, the group of second growth firs located on Lot 30 on the southeast end of the plat. The removal of the cottonwoods near where the access road off of Lake Washington Blvd is planned should at least be reviewed again to determine whether any can be retained as cottonwoods this size are also used by eagles. Finally, to insure that the documented perch/potential nest tree located on Lot 19 is preserved long-term, I would suggest that Lots 18, 19, 20 and possibly 21 be reconfigured to assure that any future structure will not lie within the fall line of this tree. If eagle populations are to remain viable 20 - 200 years from now, suitable and potential habitat must be protected. li am not opposed to this development, however, I believe that efforts should be made to protect both current and future eagle habitat in the area. Thanks for allowing me to comment on the above proposal and if you or others have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at (425)- 379-2301. Sincerely, Steve Negri Bald Eagle Biologist WDFW-Region 4 April 5, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 113 Executive: Renton Community Executive Department reported activities relating to the creation of a Foundation Proposal community foundation to provide resources and assistance to Renton organizations and groups. Refer to Committee of the Whole. CAG: 99-018,Airport Control City Clerk reported bid opening on 3/02/99 for CAG-99-018,Airport Control Tower HVAC Improvement, Tower HVAC Improvement; two bids; engineer's estimate $83,604; and Design Air, Ltd. submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder,Design Air,Ltd., in the amount of$95,253.06 (project budget is $102,000). Council concur. Appeal: Renton Technical City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision approving the City- College Rezone from P-1 to initiated rezone of Renton Technical College from Public Use (P-1)to Light IL, R-95-099 Industrial (IL); appeal filed by Dr.Robert C. Roberts on 3/11/99 (File No. R- 95-099). Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Appeal: Labrador Ventures City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Residential Development at request from Labrador Ventures for a preliminary plat,variance and rezone at 2700 Lk Wash Blvd,PP-98-. 2700 Lake Washington Blvd.N.; appeal filed by James V.Handmacher on 141 3/16/99 (File No.PP-98-141). Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Parks: Hydroplane Race Fee Community Services Department recommended reducing,by half, fees Reduction associated with the 1999 limited hydroplane race to be held at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park on April 24th and 25th. Refer to Community Services Committee. • Parks: Municipal Court Community Services Department reported interest from three cities in the Modular Building, Sale& modular building formerly used for the Municipal Court at 200 Mill Ave. S., Removal and recommended that they be invited to bid on the purchase of this structure (including its removal and site restoration). Refer to Finance Committee. CRT: 99-005, AT&T Wireless Court Case filed in King County Superior Court by AT&T Wireless Services Services v. Aberdeen et al. regarding possible improper charges of utility taxes levied by Renton and 80 other Washington jurisdictions for cellular phone users. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended approval of the request from Restrictive Covenants Sarang Batist Church to remove restrictive covenants imposed on the subject Removal, Sarang Baptist site (at NE 12th St. and Edmonds Ave. NE) in 1978 as they are no longer Church relevant to present conditions on or surrounding the site. Refer to Planning& Development Committee. Development Services: Development Services Division recommended approval of a request from Restrictive Covenants Markham C. Hurd, 7018 - 127th Pl. SE,Newcastle, 98056, that a restrictive Removal,Root Short Plat(500 covenant imposed on properties located at 500 and 504 S. Tobin St.in 1988 be Block of S.Tobin) removed as it is no longer necessary. Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Fire: Ladder Truck Purchase, Fire Department requested authorization to purchase a 95-foot aerial platform Emergency One ladder truck from Emergency One at a cost of$716,000, and recommended that $66,000 in Fire Mitigation Funds be applied to this purchase. Council concur. Lease: Sky Harbor Aviation, Transportation Division recommended approval of Addendum#8 to LAG-84- LAG-84-006(Addendum re 006, Sky Harbor Aviation's lease agreement, to include wording relating to Hazardous Materials) responsibilities for remedial action in the event of a release or disposition of a hazardous substance not caused by Sky Harbor. Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee. Streets: Oakesdale Ave SW Transportation Systems Division submitted proposed contract with Kato& (19th to 31st),Kato&Warren, Warren,Inc. for the Oakesdale Ave. SW project(SW 19th to 31st Streets) for • e , cm,- OF RENTON COUNCIL AGE1vDA BILL Al#: I.J . SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 4/5/99 Dept/Div/Board....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: • Public Hearing Appeal of He ing Examiner's decision regarding Labrador Correspondence... Ventures,LLC Preliminary Plat for property located on the Ordinance 2700 block of sake Washington Blvd. and Burnett Ave.N. Resolution File No. PP-98-141 Old Business' EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(3/�6/99) Other C. Hearing E aminer's Report and Decision(3/4/99) RECOMMEND D ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planing and Development Committee on May I Legal Dept 6, 1999. I Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: The appeal was filed by James V.Handmacher,representing Labrador Ventures,LLC,accompanied by required fee received on 3 16/99. {R f�j CITS JF RENTON Lt.ILL City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen March 22, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: James V. Handmacher Representing Labrador Ventures, LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/4/99 regarding Labrador Ventures' request for Preliminary Plat, Variance and Rezone on Property Located at the 2700 block of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and Burnett Ave. N. File No. LUA-98-141, PP, V, R. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Labrador Ventures' request for preliminary plat, variance, and rezone has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-1 l OF., within five days of receipt of thei notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 4:00 p.m. on May 6, 1999 in the 7th floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call. - Sincerely, Marilyn . P rsen City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 n `: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal( ; Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110-Appeals 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a'notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110 Appeals to City Council - Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a rem+d to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Cou icil Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application . submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration,or enter its own decision upon the application. • 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The • burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord.4660, 3-17-1997) • • • APPEAL CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TOrMANY COUNCI LE NO. LUA_98-141, PP, V. R RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION (NAME: LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land List_ Hearing Examiner, dated MARCH 4 19 99 _. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT:! REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC Name: JAMES V. HANDMACHER Address: P 0 BOX 3344. Address: P 0 BOX 1533 KIRKLAND WA 98083 TACOMA WA 98401 Telephone No. (425) 803-0400 _ Telephone No. (253) 627-8131 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: SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) XX Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Rezone from R-1 to R-5 XX Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition 2 of the Plat and Condi ti Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: 1 of the Varianc€ Other p. lant/Repr e tative Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. heappeal.doc 1.t 1 CITY COUNCIL 2 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 3 LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT File No. LUA-098-141, PP, V-H, R 4 5 LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC, APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM 6 Applicant 7 . I. Summary of Appeal. 8 The applicant, Labrador Ventures, LLC, appeals the following portions of the Report, 9 Recommendations and Decisions of the Hearing Examiner dated March 4, 1999: 10 A. Denial of the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. 11 B. . Condition 7 of the preliminary plat recommendation requiring an 12 independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded , 13 by the applicant to verify slope information. 14 C. Condition 1 of the variance decision requiring the bridge to be an open 15 girder or truss bridge and not an earth filled structure. 16 The remainder of this document shall discuss each issue in detail. 17 II. Rezone from R-1 to R-5. 18 The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the request to rezone the eastern 4.43 acres 19 of the proposed plat from R-1 to R-5. This recommendation is clearly erroneous and contrary to the 20 evidence, and the rezone request should be granted. 21 RMC § 4-9-180.F (formerly § 4-8-14.C) states that the Hearing Examiner may recommend a 22 . rezone to the City Council if"at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" 23 a) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject 24 reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or 25 • . b) That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being B.onneville,Viert 820'A'Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -1 McGoldrick ON Tacoma.Washington 98401 (253)627-g 131 11LAW3WOL11LAWTYPEIRE MPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272 4336 1 requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate: or 2 c) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the 3 subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development Pr other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant 4 and material change. 5 Only one of the three is necessary. Two of these three circumstances exist in this case. 6 The first circumstance exists because the proposed R-5 zone did not exist at the time of the 7 last are land use analysis and area zoning. As pointed out in the staff report, the "new" R-1 zone 1 8 restricting.density to one unit per acre was imposed on the eastern portion of the Labrador property 9 during the last area zoning in June, 1993. The ordinance creating the R-5 zone was adopted two 10 years later in June, 1995. Thus the zone classification requested by Labrador Ventures could not 11 have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. 12 The second criteria for recommending a rezone is also clearly established for this y 13 application. The proposed rezone is within the Residential Rural land use category in the Renton 14 Comprehensive Plan.' Plan Policy LU-26 states: 15 Maximum development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes Per acre in Residential Rural except in areas with significant environmental 16 constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood-plains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. 17 Thus, R-5 zoning is specifically authorized in the Residential Rural land use category except in 18 areas with significant environmental constraints. 19 A small portion of Wetland A and its buffer encroaches upon the northern edge of the:R-1 20 zone on the Labrador property. The northern edge of the R-1 zone contains slopes in excess of 21 22 ' It is apparent that the property was included in the Residential Rural land use classification by mistake. Objective'LU-I in the Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this land use category is to preserve 23 open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential density in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within 24 the City. As discussed herein, the portion of the Labrador property in the Residential Rural land use category is not environmentally sensitive or in a critical area (defined in the Plan as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, 25 fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas), is not identified as part of an open space network, and is not used for agriculture. However, the proposed rezone will allow reasonable use without the need for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Bonneville,Viert 820'A'street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -2 McGoldrick Tama,Washington 98401 FZ?(2t3j7i8Z-4338 11LAW3W0L1LLAWTYPE\R UH\PLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 25%. However, all lots within the proposed rezone area would be outside the wetland, buffer, and 2 steep slope area. Therefore, none of the lots within the proposed R-5 zone will contain any 3 significant environmental constraints. The second criteria for recommending a rezone is thus 4 satisfied. 5 Two of the three criteria are thus satisfied. Only one is necessary to recommend the 6 proposed rezone. The staff report erroneously concludes that without satisfying the third criteria 7 regarding a significant and material change of circumstances, the rezone cannot be recommended. 8 Because this conclusion is directly contrary to the plain language of the City Code, this conclusion 9 must be disregarded. 10 If one of the three criteria is met, then RMC § 4-9-180.F.2 directs the Hearing Examiner to 11 determine if the change of the zone classification: 12 a) is desirable, 13 b) is in the public interest, 14 c) tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, 15 d) is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other 16 persons located in the vicinity, and 17 e) is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. 18 All of these findings are well supported by the evidence regarding this rezone application. 19 The loop road made possible by a bridge crossing the ravine is not economically feasible if 20 development east of the ravine is limited to one unit per acre. As discussed in the variance analysis 21 section of the staff report, the loop road is critical for providing safe access for the residents of this 22 new subdivision, as well as the other properties to the east and south which are currently served by 23 a single road access. As cited in the staff report, a number of policies in the Comprehensive Plan 24 discourage cul-de-sacs and encourage a flexible grid system to provide alternative traffic routes. To 25 obtain this infrastructure, the City must provide sufficient urban densities to support it. Bonneville,Viert 820•A street,suite 600 Morton P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washln-g8ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -3 Pax:(253)272-4338 11LAW3WOL1ILAWTYPEIREUHIPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOM6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 In the absence of significant environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone violates the 2 state Growth Management Act (GMA). In a recent decision from the Central Puget Sound Growth 3 Management Hearings Board, Lawrence Michael Investments, L.L.0 v. Town of Woodway, Case 4 No. 98-3-0012 (1/8/99), a copy of which is attached to Exhibit 26, the Board held that "the GMA 5 requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." (Page 6 23, line 24-25) The Board went on to find that, "absent justifiable environmental reasons,'permitting 7 only 30 homes on 60.8 acres would not achieve urban densities and would constitute impermissible 8 low-density development within the UGA [Urban Growth Area], thus failing to comply with Goals 1 9 and 2 [of the GMA]." (Page 24, 26) Those Goals "encourage development in urban areas where 10 adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner, and reduce 11 the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development." RCW 12 36.70A.020. The Board noted that a land use designation of 4 du/ac or above is an appropriate 13 urban density, and that 1 du/2ac is not an appropriate urban density. (Page 24) 14 - There are no environmental constraints on the portion of the Labrador property zoned R-1. 15 Except for a small strip along the north edge where no development is proposed, the property 16 currently zoned R-1 is predominately flat and dry. The only environmental constraints on the 17 Labrado1 property, consisting of steep slopes and wetlands, occur in the area to the west zoned R-8. 18 In the absence of significant, justifiable environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone on the 19 Labrador property violates the mandate of the GMA. Bringing this property into compliance with the 20 GMA is clearly in the public interest. 21 This proposed rezone also preserves the property rights of the petitioner. Property to the 22 west, north and east of the proposed' rezone area is zoned R-8, including that portion of.the 23 Labrador property between the existing R-1 zone and the creek ravine.to the west. The property to 24 the south which is zoned R-1 is currently developed with a youth detention facility. Virtually all other 25 property in the area is zoned for single-family homes at R-8 density. Virtually all lots in the area are Bonneville,Viert 820•A•street,suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Taeoma,Washln ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -4 . ,� �,,,,n„ (253�sz7�,31 1UAWd\VOLIILAWTYPE\REUHIPLEADINGLLV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(2 )272 4338 1 equal to or smaller than the lots which would be created in the proposed R-5 zone. In the absence 2 of any significant environmental constraints, there is no justification for denying a reasonable 3 development potential to Labrador Ventures. 4 The rezone will create no material detriment to the public welfare or other properties in the 5 area: Almost all properties in the area are already developed at equivalent density. The arguments 6 voiced by a few of the neighbors in opposition to the rezone have focused on the alleged 7 environmental damage caused by building new houses in the neighborhood, but apparently not their 8 own houses. This is a classic NIMBY response, which seeks to prevent others from developing their 9 property so the few who got there first can enjoy open space at another's expense. By adopting the 10 GMA, Washington has made a conscious policy choice to provide for development at urban density 11 in cities where the infrastructure and services exist, in order to prevent sprawl into rural areas. The 12 public welfare cannot be harmed by carrying out that policy. 13 Finally, the rezone is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In 14 addition to the policies discussed above specifically authorizing density at R-5, discouraging cul-de- 15 sacs, and encouraging development of a flexible grid system of streets, the Comprehensive Plan 16 also states: 17 • Policy LU-11: Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a) Development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant 18 land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown . . . 19 Objective LU-M: Provide more linkages within and between neighborhoods by developing a system of residential streets which serves both vehicles and pedestrians 20 and creates a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the city without unduly increases pass-through traffic. 21 Policy H-1: Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate estimates of market 22 demand for new housing provided through growth forecasts. 23 Policy H-4: Encourage in-fill development as a means to increase capacity. 24 The Labrador subdivision would provide quality new housing at densities compatible with the 25 neighborhood and contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, . without encroaching on Bonneville,Viert 820'A'Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Wangton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -5 APRONSSONLS teoa�rouTnN Fax:(25shi3)2 2-4338 \11.AIN3WOL1H.AWTYPEVtEUH1PLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.D0016937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 environmentally sensitive areas. 2 The reasons given by the Hearing Examiner for recommending denial are not persuasive. 3 He states that the City made a "deliberate reasoned determination" to zone this property R-1. There 4 is no evidence in the record to support this conclusion. The only evidence is contained in the staff 5 report, page 20, and repeated at the hearing, that there is no legislative record to explain why this 6 zone was imposed on this portion of the property. The Hearing Examiner speculates that the R-1 7 zone may have been "an effort to preserve the larger lots and slopes near the headwaters of the 8 creek." This conclusion is also not supported by the evidence. As stated in the Wetland Evaluation 9 by Terra Associates, Inc., contained in Exhibit 1, at page 4, the stream originates from a culvert 10 which runs under 1-405. As shown on Figure 3 of that report, both of the wetlands are entirely 11 , outside the R-1 zone. 12 The Hearing Examiner indicates that the lower-density R-1 zone is appropriate on this 13 portion of the property to protect the environmentally-sensitive ravine and creek, and to avoid 14' "carving up the land near the unique ravine, slopes and forests into small parcels where less 15 amenities would remain." However,the portion of the property zoned R-1 does not touch the ravine 16 with its slopes and trees. The ravine is entirely within the portion of the property zoned R-8. The R- 17 1 zone also does:not protect the "forest" areas of the property. The trees, consisting primarily of 18 alder and big leaf maple, are primarily on.the R-8 portion of the property. As shown on Figure 2 of 19 the Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation by Terra Associates, Inc., contained in Exhibit 1, the eastern 20 portion of the property zoned R-1 is entirely ungrazed pasture and moderately-vegetated suburban 21 land. This is where the two existing single family homes are located. 22 Thus the rezone proposed by Labrador Ventures meets all of the criteria for rezoning 23 property in the City of Renton.. It will provide housing at reasonable and compatible density, allow 24 the construction of needed infrastructure, and comply with the mandates of the GMA. The rezone 25 proposal should be approved by the City. _ Bonnev ill e,Viert 820•A•Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacom(z58 szilt3198401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -6 UAW3WOLI1LAWTYPE1REMPLEADINGUN-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(2 3)2-782-4338 1 III. Third party consultant to verify slope analysis. 2 The applicant has repeatedly redesigned the plat to address the concerns raised by City staff 3 and the Environmental Review Committee. Though the applicant did not always agree with those 4 concerns, the applicant recognized that those concerns were based on the opinions of qualified 5 experts within the City. That is why the applicant objects to and appeals from two conditions . 6 imposed by the Hearing Examiner which have no basis in any competent evidence in the record. 7 The Hearing Examiner imposed a condition on approval of the plat which .requires an 8 independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant to 9 verify the slope information provided by Touma Engineers, the applicant's surveyor and engineer. 10 This insult to the professionalism and competence of Mr. Touma is not justified by any evidence in 11 the record. 12 Touma Engineers performed a topographic survey of the property locating the elevation of 13 over two.thousand individual points on the property, with special emphasis on the areas of steeper 14 slopes (Exhibit 24). These points are downloaded into a computer which uses a special program to 15 triangulate those points and calculate the slopes throughout the property (Exhibit 25). This is the 16 accepted method for any engineer or surveyor, and was reviewed and approved by City staff. 17 The Hearing Examiner justified his unusual condition as "due to the nature of the slopes and 18 the local variation in those slopes as well as the difference in the early geotechnical report regarding 19 some of the areas that might be subject to 40 percent slopes." The first reason provides no 20 justification for redoing the slope analysis, since the nature of the slopes and variations in those 21 • slopes were properly illustrated in the existing.slope analysis. The second reason appears to be 22 related to his Finding 21, where he states that one geotech report indicates that lots 6-11 may 23 encroach on 40 percent slopes, that the other report is less definitive, and the applicant's submission 24 indicates the slopes in this area are approximately 39 percent. . This finding is based on a 25 misreading and misstatement of the evidence in the record. Bonneville,Viert 820'A'Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washin ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -7 a„ ,McGoldME rick (2s3)s27�13, NAV 31VOL11 AWTYPE1REUHIPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOCt6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272 4338 • ' J 1 The preliminary geotechnical report dated September 8, 1998, at page 4, in Exhibit 1, stated 2 . that existing slope grades in this area"range between about 25 and'50 percent." When asked about 3 this statement during the hearing, the geotechnical engineer stated that he did not have any 4 independent evidence of slopes, but was relying solely on the evidence presented by Touma 5 Engineers. It was not the function of the geotechnical report to provide detailed information 6 regarding the percent of slopes, but to discuss the stability of:the,slopes. Thus the geotechnical 7 report does not contradict or question the slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers. 8 The Addendum to the Geotechnical Report.dated December 1, 1998, at page2, in Exhibit 1, 9 states that "slope grades in the vicinity of.Lots 7 through 12 and the cul-de-sac range from about 26 10 to 39 percent.a2. This is based on Mr. Touma's slope analysis•(Exhibit 7) which shows the slopes in 11 this area are greater that 25 percent, but less that 40 percent. Again, the geotechnical engineer was 12 . relying on the slope..analysis performed by Touma Engineers, and does not contradict or question 13 that analysis. Further, Mr. Touma testified that slopes in this area range "up to 38 or 39 percent," 14 not that slopes in the area "are approximately 39 percent" as stated in Finding 21. 15 The only testimony questioning the slope analysis .by Touma Engineers came not from 16 another engineer, or from City staff. Rather, it came from Kim Browne, a neighbor and the primary 17 opponent of this project, who said that it looked to her like the slopes in this areas were greater than 18 40 percent. Because of this offhand remark by a project opponent, and misreading the geotechnical 19 reports, the Hearing Examiner wants to the applicant to pay over $10,000 to resurvey. the entire 20 property and recalculate the slopes. In the absence of any competent evidence casting doubt on the 21 slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers, there is no justification for this condition. 22 IV. Variance condition requiring and open girder or truss bridge. . 23 The Hearing Examiner approved the requested variance to allow the road to,cross the ravine 24 and creek, on the condition that the bridge shall be an open girder or truss bridge and not an earth 25 2 This is the geotech report which the Hearing Examiner says is"less definitive." Bonneville,oV_ iert 820'A'Street,StRe 600 Morton OL P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma'Washln-g8ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -8 a��ss� ra+ Faz:(253)272-a338 1LLAW31VOL11LAWTYPBREUMPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOc18937.08 . . ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 1 filled structure. In Conclusion 23, the Hearing Examiner stated that the proposed bridge is not the 2 minimum necessary to cross the ravine, merely the most expedient. He opined that an open 3 trusswork or girder bridge would only need to disturb areas where the support columns were 4 constructed, and would be less of an obstacle to wildlife. Again, there was no evidence to support 5 these assertions. 6 The applicant proposed an open bottom, arched bridge over the stream: The bridge is 7 depicted by Exhibit 23. The opening in the bridge would be twenty feet wide and 16 feet tall in the 8 center. This would not disturb the streambed, which is only a few feet wide at this location. The 9 area above the opening would be filled, and the utilities would be buried under the street and above 10 the opening. The width of the bridge at the base would be the same as the width of the street at the 11 top, 46 feet. 12 The Hearing Examiner's concern about disturbing the ground is misplaced. Excavation of 13 the foundation for support posts would disturb the ground just as much as construction of the 14 proposed bridge. The effect on vegetation would be virtually the same, since the shadow of.a girder 15 bridge would also prevent vegetation under the bridge. It should be remembered that this is not 16 high-quality wildlife habitat which is being disturbed. The evidence presented by Tom Strong, the 17 • wildlife specialist, was that the site is already heavily disturbed, and the understory is predominately 18 blackberries and english ivy. Neither of these are native species, and neither are conductive to 19 wildlife habitat. 20 The Hearing Examiner also expressed a concern with the effect of the proposed bridge on 21 the passage of wildlife up the ravine. However, when he posed that question to Tom Strong, a 22 specialist with a Ph.D. in biology with a specialty in avian ecology, Mr. Strong testified that the 23 proposed bridge presents very little barrier to wildlife movement across the site. He testified that 24 most species would simply go under the bridge, which is 16 feet high, including larger species like 25 deer or coyote. _He testified that some parts of the country construct tunnels under freeways to allow Bonneville,Viert 820'A'Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -9 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washtn--gg88ton 98401 \LL ,� Fax:.a ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 animals to pass under them. He also noted that larger animals like deer or coyote would be just as 2 likely to cross over the road. 3 The concern over the movement of animals up the ravine is greatly overstated. There is 4 simply nowhere for them to go. The northeastern portion of the site at the top of the ravine is 5 completely surrounded by developed single-family neighborhoods. Just beyond those single-family 6 homes is 1-405, which forms an impenetrable barrier for wildlife (which the stream crosses in a small 7 culvert). To get to the Labrador property from Gene Coulon Park,wildlife would either.lhave to pass 8 through the culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard or walk across that far wider and 'busier 9 street. As noted in the Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation proposed for this site by Terra Associates, 10. contained in Exhibit 1, though this type of habitat could be used by many species, since this parcel is 11 relatively small and isolated, it actually contains only a few species of songbirds and small mammals 12 like molls, squirrels, opossum, and raccoons. Such animals can easily go under or around the 13 proposed bridge. 14 Finally, the Hearing Examiner's condition fails to take into account the problems posed by a 15 girder or truss bridge. Because such a bridge may be metal, it may require higher maintenance. 16 Since the area under the road is not paved, the utilities would have to hang under the bridge, where 17 they are more vulnerable to the elements. Since this bridge will ultimately be owned by the City, 18 these issues may pose financial problems for the City. The.City staff did not suggest or.encourage 19 such a b idge, but supported the applicant's proposal. The bridge as proposed by the applicant was 20 approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is simply no justification for the 21 imposition of this'condition for approval of the variance. 22 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this/&7day of March, 1999. 23 24 V. HAND ACHER, WSBA#8637 Bonneville,Viert, Morton & McGoldrick, P.S. 25 Attorneys for Labrador Ventures, LLC Bonneville,pV� iert 820•A•Street,suite 600 Morton OG P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washln tan 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -10 , ,,,„,� ,n (zs3)s27$13, W.A1N3WOL11LAWTYPEIREUMPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fex:(253)272 4338 „+ CIT` -OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 22, 1999 To: Parties of Record From: Fred J. Kaufman Re: Labrador Preliminary Plat Hearing Due to the fact that some of the witnesses' testimony was taken out of order in the hearing on February 2, 1999, in collating the minutes to their proper position this office inadvertently omitted the testimony of David Sager. The following is an excerpt of Mr. Sager's testimony: David T. Sager, 1025 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, concurred with the appellant herein. He has observed heron flying over the site in the evening. He has also viewed the eagles on the site every year since 1986. After he observed the survey and geotech work being done on the site,he contacted Bob Arthur and gave him a drawing and description of the tree in which the eagles have been perching. Mr. Sager was concerned about the test pits drilled,particularly in the area north of the ravii4 and the dry time of year when they were drilled.Regarding the alley to the north of the site, it is an easement for the lots off 28th Street and not a street. The City abandoned it in the early 90's. Mr. Sager furfher described the drainage problems in the area. The type of bridge construction and history of the rezone were also discussed by Mr. Sager. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 0.: This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer • March"4, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT,RECOMMENDATION AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Kim Browne • Appeal of ERC's Determination for Labrador Preliminary Plat File No.: LUA99-009,AAD APPLICANT: Tom Touma Labrador Preliminary Nat File No.: LUA-98-141,PP,V,R LOCATION: 2700 block of Lake Washington Blvd.N and Burnett Avenue N • SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To subdivide 15.55 acres into 62 single family residential lots SUMMARY OF APPEAL: " Request that the applicant be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Exam iner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: • MINUTES: APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the February 2, 1999 appeal hearing. • The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No! 1: Yellow land use file,LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file,LUA99- 141,PP,V,R containing the original application,proof 009,AAD,containing the appeal,proof of posting and of posting,proof of publication and other publication,and other documentation pertinent to the documentation pertinent to this request. appeal. Exhibit No!3: Aerial photography Exhibit No.4:Videotape Exhibit No!5: Topographic map Exhibit No.6: Plat map . Exhibit Noi.7: Plat map indicating ravine Exhibit No.8: Photographs of existing back yards (3) Exhibit Not.9: • Calculations re slope Exhibit No. 10: Street profile for Street B Exhibit No'. 11: Tree location map Exhibit No. 12: Vicinity map Exhibit No'. 13:-Topography map Exhibit No. 14: Native growth map Exhibit No's. 15: Slope analysis map • Labrador Preliminary Plat - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 - Page 2 Parties present: Representing Appellant Representing City of Renton Kim Browne Larry Warren • 1003 N 28th Place 1055.S Grady Way Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98055 Representing Applicant Jim Handmacher P.O. Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. Mr. Warren expressed several concerns regarding the wording of the appeal,the limitation of issues and people testifying,particularly if the matter should proceed further in an appellate process. The Examiner explained that because this was a combined appeal and land use hearing,that the public was entitled to testify, particularly at the land use hearing. Further,during the SEPA appeal the testimony should be limitedto legal issues as to whether the City's determination was adequate,were proper decisions made, and would an EIS supplement the information that was already in the file. Kim Browne,appellant herein, stated the City had determined upon review of reports provided by the applicant and after developing mitigation measures,that this proposed plat would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. However, it appeared from looking at the mitigation measures that the only issue considered in detail was the proposal's impact on soil erosion. The inclusion of impacts to wildlife in its habitat, wetlands,water quality,and fisheries makes it apparent that the proposed plat will result in probable significant impacts to the environment, and thus an EIS evaluating alternatives should be done and the proposal should be substantially modified to minimize impacts to the environment. A video was shown highlighting the property and a recent eagle sighting on the property. Ms.Browne elaborated on the habitat and protective status of the eagle according to various governmental rulings, and the necessity to further evaluate modifying the plat to protect wildlife. The appellant described the physical aspects of the site,including the topography,the vegetation and the stream which flows year around through the property. She questioned the impact of the plat on the ravine,particularly Lots 6 through 11,which seem to be partially in the ravine,and the concern over erosion hazards. Appellant further questioned the lack of mitigation measures regarding impact to fisheries,and presented documentation regarding state-wide salmon recovery strategy. • Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place,Renton,Washington 98056,testified on behalf of the appellant,and stated that he has fished where Kennydale Creek enters Lake Washington and has observed salmon spawning at this point. . ' Labrador Preliminary Plat' Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 3 Ms. Browne continued that a Native Growth Protection Easement should be established in as great a width as possible around the stream to limit human activity. The measurement of the topography was questioned,as • well as the omission of the soil condition where the ravine is to be crossed. Appellant further requested that the discrepancy in the seasonal construction.time be resolved. In closing,Ms.Browne stated that the current proposal does little to protect valuable wildlife habitat and that any development that is allowed on this property should be designed to minimize impacts to the environment. With the exception of the western reaches of the ravine,current City rules and regulations serve to protect most of the sensitive areas of the site and help safeguard the property from intense development. In an effort to • bypass these safeguards,the applicant has asked for exceptions to existing regulations including a rezone and a variance from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance. Granting these exceptions would result in a level of development that is not compatible with the site's,environmental constraints. As proposed the subject plat would result in significant impacts to the environment,generally wildlife,eagles, salmon, potential water quality. As proposed a threshold determination of significance is appropriate. Tom Touma,6632 S 191st Place,#E-102,Kent, Washington 98032,engineer for applicant herein, explained the method used by his firm to produce the topography maps, including physical field work on site with the location of all trees,the placement of points and the use of computer software to generate the final data. He further explained that based on the calculations and the way the topography was generated,the southeasterly boundary, of lots was matched to the 40% limits. Some of the lots may have contours up to 38%or i9%. Larry Warren , City Attorney, stated that the appeal has two elements: whether the environmental determination was appropriate and whether an EIS should be required. The environmental rules require the. City to view the material that is available to it,and if the material is available the City may not require additional studies and may not require an EIS. The information that was available to the City in this instance was adequate to make the necessary decisions. As noted,the issue of soil erosion was considered in great detail by the City, and almost all of the mitigation conditions outside of the normal fire,traffic and parks mitigation concerned steep slopes. The City has certain constraints it operates under when it is considering environmental impacts, and one of the things the City may not do is speculate about impacts. There was no substantive testimony that there was an eagle's nest on this site, and even if there was,the tree in question is to be retained. The wildlife in the area will be in the ravine and a substantial portion of that ravine will be preserved. The City must consider a broad number of policies, including all of those that have been imposed by the Growth Management Act, and those are very difficult for the City and the general public to live with at times,but equire intensified development within urban growth areas. Jim Handmacher,attorney for applicant herein,stated that staff had conducted an intensive review of this project, proposing page after page of mitigating conditions. It is apparent from the extensive record all environmental factors were considered--a traffic study was done,three geotech reports were provided,a wildlife study Was done as well as a wetlands study. It is apparent from that history that the City did undertake a rigorous analysis as required. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hering closed at-12:10 p.m. Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.:LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 4 SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION • 1. The appellant,Kim Browne,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS- M) issued by the ERC. Ms.Browne, hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on January 21, 1999 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. The appellant noted in the appeal letter that the appeal was filed "on behalf of the residents of Kennydale" but there is no organization represented by the appeal. The appellant, as a neighbor who _. would be affected by the development, has standing to bring this appeal. The appellant was supported by other neighbors and residents of the area during the appeal. 3. The applicant,Tom Touma,Touma Engineers, represented Labrador Venture, L.L.C.,the property owner. The applicant proposes developing a 62-lot Preliminary Plat on approximately 15.55 acres. 4. For a description of the subject site,zoning and surrounding area, as well as a description of the proposal,see the Site Plan portion of this appeal included below. 5. The appellant alleged in the appeal that the mitigation measures would not adequately mitigate the impacts caused by the proposed measures and requested that an environmental impact statement(EIS) be prepared. The areas specifically mentioned and to which the appeal was confined were impacts to: earth,trees and vegetation, aesthetics,wildlife habitat, and surface and ground water. 6. The appellant noted that the ERC conditions were in the main directed at erosion and very few dealt with the natural conditions or environment. • 7. The applicant supplemented the Environmental Checklist with a series of additional reports. Included as part of the file were a geotech report, a tree inventory and removal plan,wetland report and wildlife report. There was also a traffic analysis. 8. The applicant has applied for two variances to remove vegetation from the bank along Burnett Avenue North and in the ravine to support the "bridge." 9. A routine vegetation management permit is not required when removal occurs incident to other construction permits. In addition, it is clear that a large portion of the site will be disturbed for development and will be relandscaped. 10. The checklist contains information on the general animal population and may have omitted some types of animals. No threatened or endangered species nor dens or nests of such species were found showing residence on the site. 11, .A pair of eagles has been seen flying over the site and perching in a tree located near the north center of the site. The activity has occurred more than once. There does not appear to be any evidence of a nest • at this time. No definitive survey has been done. Eagles are classified as threatened or endangered specifies by the Federal government. • • 12. The site is a heavily wooded parcel with a steep ravine and creek. The ravine starts near the northeast corner of the site and generally runs across the north portion of the parcel and then turns southwest near the center of the site and runs to the southwest corner of the site. ' Labrador Preliminary Plat - Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 5 13. The tree inventory only counts trees of certain dimensions which gives the effect of underestimating the tree coverage on the site. The site is very wooded. There are at least seven tree species and 47 other plant species on the site. 14. . A mitigation measure aimed at controlling light was one. of the few measures.taken to protect the wildlife habitat. Approximately 116 animal species were observed or expected from the characteristics of the subject site. 15. The subject site is approximately 300 feet from Lake Washington and therefore not governed by the Shoreline Master Program. 16. The geotechnical information identifies the site as having medium slide potential but high erosion potential. These considerations resulted in the ERC scrutinizing those aspects more carefully and when drafting its conditions. 17. Approximately one-third of the site has 25% or greater slopes. 18. T le appellant.is also concerned about the use of pesticides,herbicides and fertilizers on the subject site an the potential impacts on the creek and wetlands. This creek runs directly into Lake Washington at Coulon Park. The creek outlet at Coulon is an enhanced wetland focal point at the park. It is the area with a bridge pier over part of the wetland and creek. 19. Tlie appellant suggests moving the lots further up the slope or away from the purported steeper slopes. 20. Wet vaults are located in the vicinity of Proposed Lots 9 and 12 and 31 and 32. The appellant was concerned that open wetponds had more cleansing ability than closed vaults. i 21. All Findings from the Site Plan decision are incorporated into this decision. 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 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 S70, 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 deifinite 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 of the ERC is affirmed with one additional mitigation measure. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is 1 ss demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 6 environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination 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 determined 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. (1) 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. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "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) 6. The appellant is correct in a number of regards. Most importantly,the site will be significantly altered by the proposed development. Any time.wild,woodsy open space with a ravine is developed there will be significant changes to the ecosystem. Generally such significant changes would warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. But, as we have here most if not all of the concerns raised by the appellant except possibly alternative development scenarios are addressed in supporting documents. Even significant changes to an environmentally sensitive area do not necessarily bar development. If more than a moderate impact is anticipated then that triggers further environmental analysis, but such further analysis does not mean a site will be protected from development: If significant impacts are expected, then an EIS would ferret out that information with data on soils, topography,vegetation, wildlife and water quality as well as traffic. While traffic was not challenged, even in that area a substantial traffic report was prepared. In the areas that were challenged,there were two geotechnical reports prepared, a tree inventory, a habitat survey and a storm water analysis. . 7. In other words,a number of detailed reports were prepared that cover the same ground as one would expect from an EIS. While those reports may be wanting in some particulars,overall they provide the decision-maker a pretty complete view of the subject site and its unique ecosystem, its soils,slopes and ravine. More information probably would not be attained by the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. - 8. The major area where there might be concern was over the absence of alternatives of less and in fact, more dense development scenarios. But this is well-covered in the staff analysis of the proposed rezone. A rezone which in fact is not recommended by staff. • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD IlUA98-141,PP,V,R _ • March 4, 1999 Page 7 9. Again,there can be no arguing with the fact that development of the site will create profound changes to the site's environment and the environment of the surrounding community. Wooded open space which is privately owned will be changed to developed homesites that are privately owned. At the same time,the steepest slopes,the creek and the Category 2 wetlands will be preserved. 10. The appellants are looking for a full EIS to uncover missing facts. They believe that the current information compiled for the project is either incomplete or erroneous. That does not appear to be the case. The application,checklist, supplemental reports and other submissions provide a wide range of information which allowed the ERC to reach the conclusions they did. 11. It is clear that the appellants have a sincere belief that the City's SEPA determination is erroneous. Unfortunately sincere beliefs have to be bolstered by factual evidence that the determination is erroneous. The appellant failed to introduce much in the way of factual evidence to show that the City's determination was erroneous. In the absence of such fact,compelling or otherwise, it is extremely difficult to agree with the appellant that a mistake was made. 12. The one area in which valid questions were raised and for which no definitive answer was available concerns the "eagle tree." It is an area in which further mitigation may be required. The State's Wildlife and Fisheries Department will have to be invited to survey the site and the perching tree to ascertain definitively if nesting occurs or if protection of it and a perimeter is required. Any mitigation recommended by that agency shall be incorporated into the mitigation already required by the ERC. 13. Even using the relaxed standard that leans toward upholding a challenge to a DNS,the appellant has failed to persuade this office that the determination was based on other than a thorough analysis. 14. 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. No such conviction results from hearing this case. Therefore,the determination below must be affirmed except as noted above. 15. In conclusion,the appellant's arguments and case are not convincing. Nothing in the record reveals that ,the preparation of an EIS that was specifically scoped to the critical geotechnical and habitat issues would reveal substantially more information than currently can be found in the existing record. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. . DECISION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is generally affirmed and the appeal is denied subject to the inclusion of one additional mitigation measure as follows: 1. The State's Wildlife and Fisheries Department will have to be invited to survey the site and the perching tree to ascertain'definitively if nesting occurs or if protection of it and a perimeter is required. Any mitigation recommended by that agency shall be incorporated into the mitigation already required byithe ERC. • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 8 MINUTES: PRELIMINARY PLAT.VARIANCE AND REZONE The following minutes are a summary of the February 2, and February 9, 1999 preliminary plat, variance and rezone hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 2, 1999,at 1:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Because of time constraints, Mr. Sager,Ms. Cullers,Ms. Job, Ms.Nimmo and Mr. Scott testified regarding the preliminary plat during the appeal portion of the hearing. Their comments appear later in the minutes. . The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA98- Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, LUA99- 141,PP,V,R, containing the original application,proof 009,AAD,containing the appeal,proof of posting and of posting, proof of publication and other publication,and other documentation pertinent to the documentation pertinent to this request. appeal. Exhibit No..3: Vicinity map Exhibit No.4: Vicinity map(assessor's map) Exhibit No. 5: Zoning map Exhibit No.6: Preliminary plat map(2/1/99) Exhibit No. 7: Slope analysis map Exhibit No.8: Assessor's map of preliminary plat Exhibit No.9: Map of rezone area Exhibit No. 10: Tree clearing plan Exhibit No. 11: Cross-section drawing of bridge Exhibit No. 12: Videotape by Mike Moore Exhibit No. 13: Petition Exhibit No. 14: Area traffic study map Exhibit No. 15: City of Renton Ord. 2708 Exhibit No. 16: Traffic generation study Exhibit No. 17: Photos of area residences Exhibit No. 18: Redesigned plat map by K.Browne Exhibit No: 19: Video from M. Moore dated 2/8/99 Exhibit No.20: Architectural drawing of proposed Juanita style house Exhibit No. 21: Architectural drawing of proposed Exhibit No.22: Architectural drawing of proposed Madrona style house Leschi style house Exhibit No.23: Drawing of proposed bridge Exhibit No.24: Point map by Touma Exhibit No.25: Triangulation map by Touma Exhibit No.26: Memorandum from Handmacher Exhibit No.27: Seattle Times article dated 1/24/99 Exhibit No.28: Scott Easement Exhibit No.29: 'Appeal statement of K. Browne Exhibit No.30: Salmon study Exhibit No.31: Eagle study Exhibit No.32: Composite photo Exhibit No.33: Previous tree cutting plan Exhibit No.34: Current tree cutting plan Exhibit No.35: Topography map with highlights Exhibit No.36: Prel.. Plat statement by K. Browne • The preliminary plat hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager,Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055. The applicant has applied to subdivide a 15.55 acre site into 62 parcels and five tracts for the eventual development of single family homes. There are two existing homes on the site and one will be removed. This site is located in the northwest portion of the City just east of Lake Washington Boulevard. Adjacent neighborhoods include the Griffin Home and single family residential developments. There is split zoning on the parcel,with 11.2 acres zoned Residential- 8 Dwelling Units per Acre with a Comprehensive Plan(CP)designation of Residential Single Family. The eastern 4.43 acres is zoned Residential- 1 Dwelling Unit per Acre with a CP . Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LOA98=141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 + Page 9 designation of Residential Rural. The applicant is proposing to rezone the eastern 4.43 acres of the site to Residential- 5 Dwelling Units per Acre. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the tree cutting and ' land clearin ordinance in order to build a creek crossing and street improvements along Burnett Avenue. The property has a ravine with steep slopes which bisects the site from the southwest corner to the northeast corner with a creek running through it. There are two Category 2 wetlands on the property. Wetland A is 7,093 square feet lcated in the northeast portion, and Wetland B is 20,643 square feet in the southwest portion of the site. The proposal primarily does not interfere with the wetlands or buffers. To cross the ravine the applicant is proposing a box culvert bridge to contain the creek in its natural flow and pattern. The location of the bridge is at the narro�k est point of the ravine. There is an existing concrete dam to the east of the proposed bridge location. There is considerable diverse vegetation on the site. There are over 500 trees primarily located in the steep portion of the ravine. The tallest fir tree on the site where the eagles have been seen will not be disturbed. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC) issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated and an appeal was"led requesting a Declaration of Significance requiring an EIS.The ERC required erosion and sedimentation controls to be implemented before,during and after construction. Also required of the applicant were payment of fire,parks and traffic mitigation fees. The revised preliminary plat indicates all lots in the R=8 portion of the site meet the minimum size,width, depth and setback requirements. Within the R-1 portion they do not meet code, but the R-5 criteria are met if rezone occurs. The streets being proposed are reduced width streets which are permitted, and the bridge crossing is+ithin the footprint of the City standard streets. The walls of the bridge are concrete which are keyed into the slope with earth fill above. The platting proposed for both zones of the property is consistent with policy language that applies to areas designated Rural Residential and Residential Single Family in the Comprehensive Plan, including density, compliance with zoning designation;development standards for lot size and setbacks, and compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Within the R-8 area the applicant is proposing 47 parcels and the minimum lot size is 4,500 square feet. A density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre is proposed in the R-8 zone. All lots within the proposed R-8 zone meet the zoning requirements of lot size and dimension. In the R-1 portion of 4.43 acres, the maximum density permitted is one dwelling unit to the acre,or a maximum of four for this parcel. The applicant is proposing a total of 15 homes in this area and as proposed does not meet the development standards of the R-1 zone. If the R-5 rezone is granted,then up to 13 additional homes with the existing two homes is possible. This proposal is expected to generate approximately 592 vehicle trips per week day. The primary access would be from Burnett Avenue N and the street would be 42 feet wide with curb,gutter and sidewalk. The current location of(this street with Burnett Avenue N meets the sight distance requirements of AASHTO. The secondary point of entrance to the plat is N 26th Street. Applicant is required to construct a 28 foot wide roadway at N 26th,which is currently a narrow roadway. Renton School District has indicated they have the capacity for the students expected from-this plat. The police and fire departments have indicated they have adequate resources to provide service to this proposed plat. The storm water runoff from the site currently drains as sheet flow into the existing creek which passes through a Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and-Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 10 series of culverts into Lake Washington. There are two storm water detention vaults proposed on the site. There is an existing 8 inch sewer main located in Burnett Avenue as well as N.26th Street. Because of the steepness of the slopes,the applicant requests variances from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance in order to provide the City-required sidewalk improvements along Burnett Avenue, as well as construction of the bridge in the ravine. Ms.Henning described the policies and criteria to be met to receive a variance. • The applicant requested a rezone and Ms. Henning cited the criteria to be met, including property which had • not previously been considered for rezoning classification,that it is consistent with the CP elements and policies, and that it is timely. The entire City was rezoned in 1993 and at that time this parcel was divided into R-8 and R-1. The R-5 zone was not created until 1995,and therefore that designation could not be considered. According to the CP,the rezone area is permitted in the CP designation and is consistent with its elements and policies. Both the R-1 and R-5 zone satisfy the larger lot single family development described in the policies and would preserve the steep slope and wetland areas. There have been no significant changes to this area since the last area-wide rezone,and therefore this rezone could not be considered timely. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat,subject to conditions. The conditions included compliance with the ERC's mitigation measures and revisions to meet the applicable zoning, as well as the wetland buffer requirements including adequate building area for proposed Lots 8 through 11, a minimum 15 foot setback from the top of the slope, and a minimum 50 foot wide buffer for the wetland. Also included is a restrictive covenant recorded on the face of the plat that precludes the construction of any buildings with foundations within that 15 foot setback line,and any non-exempt structures within the required wetland buffer. Staff is further recommending establishment of a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement to maintain any common plat property or improvements,and establishment of a native growth protection easement. Staff recommended approval of the variances,but was not able to recommend approval for the rezone because there has been no significant and material change affecting.the subject property. Christina Cullers,2506 Meadow Avenue N, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, stated her concerns about the drainage patterns on this site, having experienced many flooding problems in the prior years from other development projects in the area. She was further concerned about the increase of traffic flow as a consequence of this project, and the reduction of her property values as a result. Joanie Job, 1127 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, expressed her concerns about the impact to wildlife,the increase of water runoff,the loss of trees which potentially could cause erosion, and traffic congestion. She was further concerned about the use of the existing alleyway behind her house being used by construction vehicles. - Natasha Nimmo, 911 N 38th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, expressed strong support for the appellant, and further stated that she had witnessed the eagle nesting behavior on January 31, 1999. • Jim Scott, 1405 N.28th, Renton, Washington 98056,whose property is located at the southeast corner of the proposed site, was concerned about the traffic impact on NE 26th and Meadow Avenue,which is a very narrow • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: 1,UA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R • March 4, 1999 Page 11 street at this time. Ms. Henning pointed out that the ERC required NE 26th be widened to 20 feet from Park Avenue to Meadow Avenue. On 26th abutting the plat half-street improvements are required. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056,presented a video he had taken of the site in late October 1998,pointing out various features. He further stated his objections to the rezone and variances, citing increased drainage and traffic problems, and questioned the findings made regarding impacts to the ravine and adjacent properties. • • Pam Jackson,2707 Meadow Place N, Renton, Washington 98056, stated that she was not opposed to this proposal,and felt it had been very well conceived and presented. She pointed out that this property had been zoned single family housing for some time and it was inevitable that it be developed as such. Marleen M�andt, 1408 N 26th Street,Renton, Washington 98056,stated that she had been part of a group which petitioned the neighborhood regarding this project. She was concerned about the lack of traffic study done on the eastern boundary areas,and the inherent impact of the additional traffic in that area. Ms. Mandt presented several photographs of the adjacent homes and streets to stress her point. Joan Jensen,2620 Meadow Avenue N,Renton, Washington 98056, stated that because her house was on,a slope up from the proposed site, she was concerned about sliding into the development at some future time. She was further concerned about the easement that runs along the eastern boundary of the property. Mr. Handmacher responded that once that property is developed,this road will not be needed by anyone. Gail Shure, 1201 N.28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056, stated she was concerned about the increased traffic,particularly onto Burnett Avenue. She questioned the slope indicated on Lots 47 and 48 and the building of homes on this slope which has a very steep drop-off. She stated that the creek is not an intermittent creek;there is not a time when it is not flowing. She also indicated that there are deer on this property and that it should be maintained as a greenbelt for wildlife. Richard Hopkins,2511 Park Place N, Renton, Washington 98056,stated his concerns pertaining to the potential traffic increase on 26th and the resulting safety hazards. He also requested that the R-1 zoning be retained as many of the adjacent lots are large and this designation is more compatible with the existing neighborhoods. Corey Thomas, Renton Fire Department, 1055 S Grady Way, Washington 98055,stated that this plat meets the existing requirements of the Fire Department--basically dead-end streets are allowed in the City of Renton up to 500 feet. Beyond that they are allowed to 700 feet maximum as long as anything beyond that is equipped with an approved fire sprinkler system. Through streets are required beyond 700 feet. The western portion of - this plat could have some dead-end streets up to the 700 foot limit;the eastern portion would not be approved at . all to be subdivided without some type of secondary access roadway. - JKim Browne, 1003 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056,presented a revised plat map which she had prepared tol,give an alternative which she felt was more sensitive to the environment and the area. At 5:00 p.m.the hearing was adjourned,to be continued on Tuesday,February 9, 1999. ************************************************** • • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 12 The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 9, 1999,at 9:55 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Michael Moore, 1220 N 28th Place, Renton, Washington 98056,presented a video of the subject site which had been taken on February 8, 1999. Jim Handmacher, P.O. Box 1533,Tacoma, Washington 98401,attorney for applicant herein,stated that they have responded to the staff and neighborhood concerns regarding this project. They have relocated the entrance road twice, have counted all trees on site, have reduced the footprint of the bridge,and conducted extensive • geotech research. Rick Anderson, 935 Daley, Edmonds, Washington 98020,architect for applicant herein, explained the craftsman style design theme for this project, and presented three preliminary model designs. He also presented a preliminary bridge design and explained its components. The model is designed at 46 feet wide to include the road,the sidewalk and thickness of the bridge structure. The culvert at the base would be 46 feet and the stream bed would remain the same. Tom Touma, 6632 S 191st Place, E-102, Kent, Washington 98032,applicant's project engineer,explained in detail how today's technology is used to generate the topography measurements. Regarding the bridge crossing, it has not yet been decided whether to use a concrete culvert or a CMP or metal culvert to span the creek. Tom Strong,Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Kirkland, Washington 98034,wetland biologist for applicant herein,described the nesting and courtship habits of bald eagles in the Puget Sound region. He further stated there is no indication of any eagle nesting on the subject site at this time. Brad Hughes, P.O. Box 3344, Kirkland, Washington 98083,applicant herein,gave a brief history of this project, including preliminary investigation regarding zoning and environmental constraints. He stated that this project will protect the sensitive nature of the property and the proposed CC&R's would further maintain that protection. John Sadler,Terra Associates, 12525 Willows Road, Kirkland, Washington 98034, engineering geologist for the applicant herein, responded regarding the lots on the steep slope just north of the greenbelt in the southwest corner of the site. He stated that the soils were very dense,glacial till which is an inherently stable material that will stand at near vertical inclinations for long periods of time if protected from erosion. The proposed development is not going to involve the placement of any fill on that slope, nor any water runoff directed to the slope. Mr. Handmacher,P.O. Box 1533,Tacoma, Washington 98401,addressed the variance and rezone issues. He stated that the land and tree clearing variance is necessary,regardless of the type and length of bridge span selected. Despite the claims that this bridge would have a tremendous impact to the environment,there is no evidence that has been presented of any impact of this bridge to the environment or to wildlife that use the site. . • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 13 Mr.Handmacher reviewed the criteria which much be met for a rezone,and the ways in which the applicant had met them. He concluded that even though staff had not supported the rezone,the public interest was served, applicant's property rights were preserved,and the rezone was in harmony with the purposes of the CP. Jim Scott, 1405 N. 28th, Renton, Washington 98056, an adjacent neighbor,pointed out the permanent road easement on his property,and the necessity for maintaining access to his property. Dan Brewis, 528 19th Place, Kirkland, Washington 98033,stated that he is one of the builders for this project, and confirmed the applicant's intentions to construct a quality project. • Pam Jackson, 2707 Meadow Place N,Renton, Washington 98056,questioned the traffic flow predictions, and what recourse was available if Meadow Avenue and 28th become heavily traveled in the future. Kim Browne, 1003 N. 28th Place, Renton,Washington 98056,questioned the appropriateness of the last- minute changes made by applicant in its proposal. She was particularly concerned about the discrepancy in the tree-cutting"plans for the project. She also questioned the topography markings on the various exhibits. The compatibility of the proposed project to the general neighborhood was discussed, including the location of Griffin Home to this site. Ms. Browne offered many suggestions to be considered to protect this sensitive area in the build-out of this project. She also addressed the rezone of the property,particularly growth tttanagement and the CityI 's compliance. Timothy G. Miller, 1607 E Main, Auburn, Washington 98002, applicant's traffic engineer, addressed the issue of traffic going through the existing neighborhood to the east as a result of this project. The estimate is 15% of the traffic volume, or 10 trips through this neighborhood during peak traffic hours. Regarding the sight distance at the new location on Burnett Avenue,the requirements of AASHTO will be fully met. Neil Watts Plan Review Supervisor, Development Services Division,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055, responded to several earlier questions. He stated that the alley along the north side of the subject site is not a public alley and that portions of it lie on private property to the north. The developer would be limited in its ability to use this alley or do improvements to it. Regarding drainage, he stated there are several discharge points to the north that wind up directed at this property on the north property line. This project will have to tight-line those drainage points into the project drainage system. Detention requirements for this site will exceed the City's normal requirements because of the hydraulic permit conditions from Fisheries. Pertaining to the roadway to the east,the connection is needed for any platting on the east side. They could get permits for building houses on existing platted lots,but there could be no further platting on the east side without this connection. Mr. Watts detailed the pros and cons for opening up this neighborhood by development of this parcel. Regarding the easement on Mr. Scott's property, it remains in place. The Exa finer 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 12:15 p.m. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings • File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 • Page 14 FINDINGS: 1. The applicant,Tom Touma, for Labrador Venture L.L.C., filed a request for approval of reclassification of property from R-1 (Single family/one unit per acre)to R-5 (Single Family/five units per acre),a•62- . lot single family subdivision,together with variances to permit tree cutting and land clearing to allow two roadways to be constructed. 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 official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at the 2700 Block of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Burnett Avenue North. The site is located on the east side of the boulevard just southeast of the Burnett intersection. The site is located immediately adjacent to the Griffin/Friends of Youth home and wraps around it on the north and east. • 6. The subject site is a very irregular parcel of approximately 15.55 acres. The parcel is almost numb-bell shaped,being wider at the ends and bridged by a narrower middle section. The parcel is approximately 1440 feet long(east to west) by approximately 600 feet wide. The parcel is comprised of 16 separate legal lots that would be consolidated and redivided by the new plat. 7. The parcel has very complex topography. A ravine with a stream runs from the northeast corner of the parcel generally in a west-southwest direction to the southwest corner of the parcel. The ravine is characterized by slopes that range up to and over 40 percent. The Burnett frontage along the west side of the site also has 40 percent slopes(both of these 40 percent slopes will be discussed as reasons for the variance request later in the report). The rest of the site also has slopes ranging from gentle to 25 percent or more. The more gentle slopes are located in the western and eastern portions of the site. The elevations on the site range from approximately 200 feet near the eastern edge of the site to approximately 60 feet where the site abuts Lake Washington Boulevard. 8. In addition to slope constraints,two wetlands are located on the subject site. There is one in the north central portion of the site near a dam across the ravine. The dam is approximately 12 feet tall. The wetland is approximately 7,093 square feet in size. The second wetland, approximately 20,643 square feet, is located at the southwestern corner of the site. Both wetlands are Category 2 and will not be disturbed. They are to be preserved and wetland buffers will be established around them. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1821 enacted in March 1960. 10. The City-wide zoning that was approved in June 1993 reclassified the western portion of the site, approximately 11.12 acres,to R-8,and the eastern portion of the site, approximately 4.43 acres,to R-1. • It is the eastern portion that the applicant proposes the City rezone to R-5. 11. The Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City was adopted in February 1995. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single family use but does not mandate such development without consideration of Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 15 other policies of the Plan. The plan suggests that the eastern acreage is suitable for Residential Rural and the western section for eight unit per acre single family residential uses. The "rural"designation • may, support either the current R-1 or R-5 zoning according to staff. Terrain, access and adjacent uses would be considered when reviewing any proposed changes. 12. Two existing single family homes are located on the subject site. One is located near the northeast corner of the site. The second is located in the south-central portion of the eastern section of the site. Originally both homes were going to remain. Those plans may have been altered. Offsets against fees based'on the number of dwelling units would use any net changes to the site. 13. An access roadway runs along the north boundary of the site,providing access to a tier of homes located immediately north of the site. This narrow"alley" runs from Burnett to Park near its intersection with N.28th. 14.. Another•access corridor runs along the eastern edge of the subject site. Both private access routes would be retained. 15. In addition to the frontages along Lake Washington Boulevard and Burnett,the site has access to an unopened segment of N. 26th Street along its southeast boundary. The intersection of Park Avenue N and N.28th Street hits the north boundary of the subject site north of the ravine. 16. The applicant proposes reclassifying the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5 to allow increased density in the eastern section of the site. Fifteen total dwellings could be constructed on this portion of the site if it were rezoned to R-5. 17. The applicant proposes developing.a total of 62 single family lots. As noted, 15 dwellings could be developed if the eastern acreage is rezoned and another 47 dwellings would be developed on the we tern portion of the site. • Burnett and generallyrunning east and then jogging to the south would cross 18. A roadway entering from b J g� b the site and connect to N. 26th Street. In the middle of the site,this roadway would swing to the south and use a proposed earthen filled bridge to cross the ravine. The road would swing or jog back to the east and then south to N. 26th. N. 26th would be extended from the subject site to its open leg east of the subject site. The ERC required widening of this roadway between Park and Meadow. A looped • road system would be created from 26th east to Meadow,north to 28th Street,west to Park and north to 28th Place back to Burnett. Currently,the developed area east and south of the subject site,generally east of Park and south of 28th, only has one method of access. Opening the roadway through the subject site would create a second access and is favored by the Fire Department(see below). • 19. Two cul-de-sac roadways would be created off this main east-west roadway. One cul-de-sac would provide access to the southern area of the western lobe of the site. A second cul-de-sac would provide access to the easternmost portion of the eastern lobe of the subject site. The new, open section of N. 26th would provide access to the extreme southern portion of the eastern site. 20. The lot arrangement has been altered since the staff report and main plans were reviewed,altering lot numbers and relative locations. In general there would be two tiers of lots aligned on the north and soul of the main u roadway through the site. The two cul-de-sac roads and some pipestem roadways would provide access to the lots located off the main roadway. Four lots would be accessed from N. 26th at the south end of the site. . Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 16 21. Lots 6-11 are a tier of lots located on the north side of the ravine(lot numbers vary depending on the set of plans)which are close to very steep slopes. One geotech report indicated that they may encroach on 40 percent slopes. The other report is less definitive. The applicant's submission indicates the slopes in this area are approximately 39 percent. 22. The bridge structure is controversial amongst some neighbors for two main reasons. The bridge would create a large,tall barrier and basically divide the ravine in half physically; and it would possibly „. increase traffic and open the quiet community east and south of the subject site to more through traffic. 23. The bridge would be constructed on fill between two retaining walls. It would not be a typical open girder support bridge. Basically the entire ravine would be filled in from bottom to top and the stream would flow through an open bottomed culvert approximately 20 feet wide burrowed through the fill. The roadway,and therefore the bridge,would create a tunnel approximately 42 feet long for.the creek to flow through. The existing dam was cited as precedent but it does not come to the top of the ravine and natural ravine sidewalls and open space allow wildlife passage around the dam. This type of bridge structure would basically cut the ravine into two halves. The new bridge would require wildlife to pass under the tunnel or cross the top which would be a developed roadway. Suspending the bridge on a girder or truss structure would retain most of the natural side hills on both sides of the ravine. The second alternative has been termed much more costly but figures were not available. I-405 does provide a similar barricade for this creek east of the site. 24. Because any work to bridge the ravine will necessitate work in slopes exceeding 40 percent,a variance is required to disturb vegetation. Either the proposed fill bridge or a girder bridge would require a variance. 25. As noted in the appeal, much of the ERC's emphasis,based on soil types and slope information,was directed at erosion. The slide hazard was not judged extreme as long the as the steeper slopes were not impinged upon by buildings. The applicant will be required to maintain 15 foot setbacks from the steep slopes. Some of the slope information was not clear and some of the slopes near buildings were very close to 40 percent. 26. The City was concerned about the originally proposed western access to Burnett due to sight distance issues complicated by the topography and angle of the intersection. This intersection has been reconfigured and now meets engineering standards.. In order to create this intersection and appropriate street improvements including curbs, gutters and sidewalks,the applicant will be working in an area where slopes exceed 40 percent. Another variance to remove vegetation in this area is also required. 27. City Code requires that any new lots be located within 700 feet of a dual access situation,meaning that there are two roadways that provide access to within 700 feet of the proposed development. This distance requirement is why the bridge,.which would create a looped,therefore two access situation, was proposed. Both areas of the site closest to the ravine from both the east and the west are more than 700 feet from two points of access. A bridge connecting the two sides of the ravine would overcome this limitation on access. This provision would not hamper development of pre-existing parcels that may otherwise violate this requirement. 28. The development of the subject site will necessitate grading portions of the site including the intersection with Burnett and the creation of appropriate gradient roads. There will be both excavation • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 19 9 Page 17 of approximately 8,000 cubic yards and filling of approximately 5,000 cubic yards. The numbers could var i depending on actual field work. 29. The site is heavily wooded with larger trees, mid-sized trees and heavy understory including on the . steeper slopes.. A variety of wildlife either inhabits the site or visits the site including bald eagles, woodpeckers and a variety of larger and smaller mammals. Many of these species would probably be displaced by the development of the subject site. 30. In addition to the 62 single family lots,the applicant proposes creating tracts encompassing the open spaces on either side of the proposed bridge as well as including the access right-of-way along the north boundary of the subject site. A native growth protection easement was suggested for the open space and steep slope areas. 31. The' net density for the R-8 portion of the site is approximately 6.3 units per acre which falls within the range of 5 to 8 units per acre. As proposed,the R-5 density would be 4.4 which meets that zone's maximum of 5 units per acre. There is no minimum range in either the R-1 or R-5 zones. If the R-1 zoning were retained,only 4 dwellings would be permitted after the roadway and steeper undevelopable portions of the site are subtracted as provided by code. 32. The lots appear to meet the code standards for the R-8 and the R-5. The portion of the plat proposed for the eastern part of the site would not meet the R-1 zoning if the reclassification were denied. The R-8 zone permits lot areas of 4,500 square feet and greater. The R-5 zone requires lot sizes of 7,200 square feet. 33. There were some ambiguities for some of the pipestem lots which would have to be resolved with designations on the plat map. 34. Development of the proposal will generate approximately 9.55 trips per home or a total of approximately 592 trips per day for the 62 lot plat. Approximately 60 trips would occur in each of the peak hours. The traffic analysis indicated that the intersections most likely to be affected by the development have capacity and will not be adversely affected and staff concurs. • 35. Neighbors to the,east are concerned that providing the bridge will encourage through vehicular travel in a currently isolated neighborhood. The bridge would also provide residents of the eastern neighborhood a shorter access to Lake Washington Boulevard. 36. The development of the subject site will generate approximately 47 students using historic school district calculations. The school district has indicated it has capacity for these students who will be assigned to schools on a space available basis. • 37. The subject site will be served by the City for water and sewer service. 38. Storm water will be contained by vaults located in the eastern and western portions of the site and released to prevent erosion of the ravine. • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD • LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 18 CONCLUSIONS: • REZONE 1. • The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition,complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or, b. The subject site is potentially designated for the.new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. The requested classification is not justified and should not be approved by the City Council. 2. The site was rezoned during a City-wide effort in 1993. The eastern portion of the subject site was specifically designated for the large lot,R-1 zoning,while the western portion of the site was designated for the more urban sized lots of R-8. Due to the irregular boundaries that separate the R-1 and R-8 portions of the site, it would appear that it was a deliberate reasoned determination. It clearly also respected property lines. The subject site and its companion Griffin home site were both designated R-1 and this might have been an effort to preserve the larger lots and slopes near the headwaters of the creek. 3. While it is true that the R-5 zoning category did not exist when the site was classified R-land so was not considered,that does not mean that it is appropriate. The current zoning is not only compatible with the Comprehensive Plan but it is compatible with the zoning on the adjacent R-1 Griffin Home parcel. The larger lots will permit the preservation of more of the open space and provide an opportunity for home ownership of larger parcels that enjoy the environmental amenities that this unique site holds. Rezoning the site to R-5 would create approximately 3 or 4 times as many lots and essentially carve up the land near the unique ravine, slopes and forests into small parcels where less of the amenities would remain. • 4. It would appear that the Comprehensive Plan would permit an R-5 designation for the land designed rural residential but that does not mandate such development. Again,while there are more rugged portions of the site that might have been as suitable for R-1 as that portion that is currently zoned R-1, that does not mean that this site is unworthy of maintaining its R-1 zoning. 5. There have not been any material changes in the area since the last rezoning effort. There certainly are no changes planned for the area that were not forecasted when the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning were applied to the subject site. The City specifically designated stretches along Lake Washington Boulevard for multiple family uses,urban density single family uses and rural single family uses.,There does not appear to be any compelling reason to alter this arrangement. • 6. The applicant's arguments regarding the density required under the Growth Management Act is not at all persuasive. The City's current land use policies and zoning has already passed muster. The City Council was very deliberate in adopting its housing elements to make sure that the City, in total, • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD 4UA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 19 accommodated its forecasted housing units and populations. It balanced its various Zoning Districts and their respective densities and arrived at a mix of housing types to meet the required goals. The • Co%mcil clearly divided the City for a mix of housing types and densities. This resulted in a variety of neighborhoods and uses separated from one another or adjacent to one another in trying to achieve a . balance of larger apartments, duplex and triplex buildings and small lot and larger lot single family housing types. Courts have been very clear that during area-wide zoning initiatives a zoning line must finally be drawn somewhere, and as long as it seems fair it is acceptable to draw a line through a neighborhood and divide it into more and less dense districts. This area along Lake Washington Boulevard seems to provide a residential mix of RM-I accommodating apartments,R-8 accommodating smaller lot single family uses and R-1 accommodating larger lot single family uses. 7. There does not seem to be anything inherently wrong with the juxtaposition of the R-1 and the R-8 districts. It appears as if the natural open space and ravine as well as the then existing property lines and owerships provided the basis for the R-1 versus R-8 demarcation. There certainly is no compelling reason to alter the zoning on the subject site. 8. Therefore,the City Council should deny the application to reclassify the subject site from R-1 to R-5. PRELIMINARY PLAT • 9. The proposed subdivision appears to serve the public use and interests with the exception of the eastern part of the site where existing R-1 zoning would not support the density proposed. The underlying, existing lots are entitled to be developed notwithstanding the R-1 and any access issues. In the main, developing the subject site is envisioned by both the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. The site, while representing a fairly unique island of environmental values in a growing urban setting, is private prolperty and is entitled to be developed. 10. Developing the site with its combined R-8 and R-1 zoning would provide a varied range of single family housing opportunities from smaller lots with less yard maintenance to larger expansive lots for those who seek additional privacy. 11. Developing a site with available urban utilities will also prevent sprawl and is in keeping with the City's own Comprehensive Plan as well as the Growth Management goals of the state and county. 12. It would appear that the subdivision on the west side of the site provides lots that meet both the dimensional requirements of the code as well as the goals to try creating rectangular lots with more or less reasonable building envelopes. That does not mean that given the impact of terrain and lot shape all lots can meet those general standards. The proposed cul-de-sac appears to provide access to areas that could not otherwise be reached by a through road. Similarly, if a bridge is not constructed,a cul- • de-sac to reach interior lots near the ravine is a suitable solution to providing access to this large, irregular parcel with terrain constraints. 13. The development of the site, as limited by the geotechnical conditions regarding setback,should also prevent damage to the natural areas of the site as well as to any homes built near the ravine or steeper areas of the site. Due to the nature of the slopes and the local variation in those slopes as well as the difference in the earlygeotechical report regarding some of the areas that might be subject to 40 percent slopes, a third party consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant should be used Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings :. File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 20 to verify slope information. This new information shall govern the setbacks and constraints normally applied to any slopes determined to be constraining. 14. There is no doubt that developing this currently mainly vacant site will alter the terrain and the habitat . value of the site and community. It will change the nature of the area vis-a-vis its neighbors who have grown used to this natural island in their midst. Again,such impacts were envisioned when both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning were applied to this site. Urban noise,traffic and the introduction of lighting were anticipated but will clearly have impacts that change the character of the site and general vicinity. 15. Since there were some ambiguities for some of the pipestem lots,the applicant will have to resolve those. 16. This office will not deal with the eastside portion of the site since it is already platted and may be developed according to the underlying lot delineations. 17. There is still the issue of the need to create a looped or somewhat gridded pattern of streets. While that is an objective, it is not mandated when it is unsuitable to either the terrain or community. Clearly, emergency access is a major concern but it appears that a number of areas of the City are not easily accessible. When it can be reasonably achieved,creating a grid or loop road system is very desirable. It appears that the existing neighborhood to the east and south of the subject site have been well-served even if somewhat isolated. That does not mean that eventually a second access would not have proved crucial in fighting a fire or delivering emergency health services. This office believes that if a bridge is necessary then it should be an open girder bridge that impinges on the ravine as little as possible instead of walling the ravine and creating two somewhat isolated halves. It would minimize the extent of the variance needed but not eliminate it entirely(see below). 18. What is not clear is that the access easement running along the north edge of the site cannot be used for emergency access in an extreme emergency. If the bridge is not appropriate,the applicant should be • required to improve that "alley" for emergency access. In addition, if necessary for public health and safety,the City could acquire a public right-of-way over that roadway with the applicant funding the acquisition. 19. In conclusion,the plat for the west side of the site should be approved subject to the ability to create another cul-de-sac instead of a bridge if such crossing does not become feasible. VARIANCES 20. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size,shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; - Labrador'Preliminary Plat • Appeal and preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 21 c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity; and • d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The lapplicant's property appears ripe for some level of variance relief due to the topographic constraints found on the subject site. The need for a variance to allow the construction of a safe intersection with Burnett and the main access roadway is clear,but the variance relief sought which would fill in the entire ravine leaving a culvert and large tunnel for the creek is more than the minimum necessary. 20. The site has very steep slopes in a number of areas which would impede reasonable use of the subject site. There are steep slopes exceeding 40 percent along the western edge of the site along its Burnett frontage. The ravine is also flanked by very steep slopes. Any work in either of those areas will require disturbing vegetation whether it is to provide for a safe intersection between the new access road to the plat and Burnett,or to bridge the ravine to allow a through street and looped roadway. In order to provide safe access into the plat and provide appropriate sight distances, a variance is needed to allow the applicant to cut into the slopes along the western edge of the site. There is no other location in which safe access can be reasonably provided. While this office is not absolutely convinced a bridge is needed to link the'two halves of the site, it appears that emergency concerns may require a through street. If there is no choice and alternate emergency access is not available from the northern easement,then a bridge will be necessary and what necessarily follows would be disturbance of the natural vegetation along at least some portions of the ravine's steep slopes. 21. It does not appear that granting either variance would materially harm other property in the area. While both variances will lead to the development of the subject site,normal urban development cannot be considered materially harmful to adjacent properties. If the work is done in a safe and reasonable fashion, any disturbed areas should be structurally sound after completion of the slope work. 22. It does not appear that granting either variance will be a grant of special privilege. Similar variances to work in vegetated areas of steep slopes have been approved where it would allow reasonable development of a subject property. This would not be the first ravine to support a bridge nor the first hillside to be altered to allow for roadway construction. • 23. The criterion which does divide the two variances is one requiring that the variance approved be no more than the minimum,meaning that variances are only granted to the extent necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. Economic hardship alone does not generally allow a variance. The variance to allow the appropriate improvements along Burnett appears to be the minimum necessary to allow reasonable and safe access to the site for both vehicles and pedestrians. On the other hand,a variance that allows the bridging of the ravine by essentially filling the ravine and dividing it into two halves connected by a twenty foot wide,46 foot long tunnel is unreasonable.-That is not the minimum variance necessary to allow a bridge to be built; it is merely the most expedient manner to accomplish that goal. An open trusswork or girder bridge would only need to disturb areas where the support columns were constructed and where the bridge connected to the ground on either side of the ravine. While a dam also is located to block the ravine in some fashion, it is clear from the record that it does not present a formidable obstacle to wildlife passage that filling in the entire ravine world create. Wildlife that did not want to enter a 46 foot tunnel would have to cross a roadway at the very top edges of the ravine. And while I-405 also presents an impediment to passage,further carving Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 1999 Page 22 and dividing this ecosystem does not seem appropriate. Hopefully,we have learned since the construction of I-405; one does not necessarily have to compound errors. 24. In summary,the subject site is private property and can be developed,but it contains constraints that . limit its development potential. Rezoning the east side of the creek from R-1 to R-5 due to the proximity of the ravine and surrounding zoning is not justified by the record. As a matter of fact, if the criteria cited by the applicant were to hold,the City probably should just as well consider down-zoning the west side of the creek to R-5 or R-1 as consider up-zoning the east side of the property to R-5. The zoning demarcations seem appropriate in light of the area,the goal of providing a variety of zoning districts and preserving to some extent the open feeling of a portion of this unique site. The plat of the west side of the site appears generally appropriate. How the building of a bridge and the potential denial of the rezone affects that plat is hard to judge, but overall the idea of dividing the west side to accommodate dwellings in conformity with both the Comprehensive Plan and underlying zoning seems appropriate. As noted above,the variances in general would allow reasonable development of the site but the variance to allow disturbing vegetation on the slopes where a bridge may be built should be limited to only that necessary to allow an open, non-earthen filled bridge. RECOMMENDATIONS: The City Council should deny the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. The City Council should approve the Preliminary Plat for the western 11.21 acres subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures which were required by the ERC; 2. The applicant shall be required to redesign the plat to meet the lot size and density requirements of the zoning applicable to the plat. If the rezone is denied,the applicant would need to revise the plat to meet the R-1 zone. If the rezone is approved,the applicant would need to modify the plat to meet the development standards of the R-5 zone. 3. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is adequate building area for proposed Lots 6 through 9(see attached maps) in consideration of the required 15 foot setback form the top of slope, and minimum required 560-foot wide wetland buffer requirement. Alternatively,that applicant could revise the plat to meet the requirements. • 4. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the face of the plat precluding the construction of buildings with foundations within the 15 foot setback line as measured from the top or the slope,and which also precludes the construction of any non-exempt structures within required wetland buffers. A draft of the restrictive covenant language must be approved by the Development Services Division Director and the City Attorney. 5. The applicant shall establish a homeowner's association or maintenance agreement for the maintenance and repair of any common plat property or improvements. This includes the stormwater detention facilities and any tracts of land created for purposes other than for sale as single family residential lots. 6. The applicant shall establish a native growth protection easement for Tract A and Tract B as shown per the January 26, 1999 preliminary plat map submitted to the City. The easement shall be shown on the 'plat map and recorded on the face of the plat. • , 4 • • Labrador Preliminary Plat Appeal and preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.:LLULA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4, 19199 • Page 23 7. An independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant • shad be used to verify slope information. This new information shall govern the setbacks and constraints found in the previous conditions. 8. The applicant shall clarify access issues related to any pipestem driveways or other easement roadways or driveways. 9. . The applicant shall pay for the acquisition and necessary improvements to the "alley" running along the north side of the subject property if determined that it is the only feasible method to provide access for extreme emergency conditions in the event a bridge is not constructed. 10. The eastern lots of the western half of the subject site and access to those lots may be appropriately altered if a bridge is not constructed. Such alteration may include an additional cul-de-sac turnaround as well as a connection to the alley noted in Condition 9 above. DECISION: The Variances are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Th bridge shall be an open girder or truss bridge and shall not be an earth filled structure. r 2. All slopes disturbed and not used for infrastructure improvements shall be restored as soon as practical using native,plant materials. The applicant shall remain responsible for maintaining all disturbed and restlored areas for five years after the plat is completed to assure that the site has stabilized after disturbance. ORDERED THIS 4th day of March, 1999. FRED J. KAU AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED.THIS 4th March, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Administrator Members,Ienton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,-Fire Marshal : Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev. Administrator South County Journal • Labrador Preliminary Plat - • Appeal and Preliminary Plat Hearings File Nos.: LUA99-009,AAD LUA98-141,PP,V,R March 4,.1999 Page 24 Because the Parties of Record list includes approximately 150 names, it was not included in this report but is available for review in the Examiner's office. Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 18, 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies-of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • • F\".1 } I • 1 41H iii I I ' • ' 1 ' 'i' •fJD . \c").. 1 . :. , . . . 1 • 4. ' /I .\ ! -- a�2'l 1_-_ I � 1` x -o FI _ •�- . Gardn, -1:: ' - 3• iC7. zv ' T 3 cc.l N r•— I. �.. 1--1 H -i--I•:00 0co '. . �_ .1 r jrJ x _./ b- {ew `-do ' Ave..N' CO r-- - J , • • . • ii . - - • • ' ' Jones Ave..NE• h)onesI Ave.•.NE r 1 _ 7: r 7 11 —• ..".---"12.-18:." :-.—• . ' ' : I i • '---- -II I--j - :.-,11---' ; •I :J--;-::--..1_I__1.- ....Cy izi ' Kennewick ,Ave:Ng. X zl 1 ''- • :'� -•• . 1;1r s. ! / ^ I •--:= r_ -_=rR-B (_ _.a_ n tv� -,--- --•_., • ' ._._ r._11.... ..'.II.... (�, .Y 1 7 't+U JTI • 1F.,,,,-1.41.7,41 I I T.AlAS1.: dig,„„.,, .,' e ]I 7] ]t L itTh• ! 7a tt.ri, . •-k .4 . .i • \'l: I N. 29TH St a N. 29TH sr. w: R {I y ,40 -I 41 4� F: INN11i r�-=-��I I • ... !:-! °ter=+-.J-— i.Z�ic 1tlljJ ]ai' a' q 1, •t, hit'•Io " ] cfTat^a7u..•• .s la�al. 13 ISEIu »14]al R Il3 , •fa:a::z,Tt{ �!31„.1 4-1 �1zL'_ .�Q' I 1 e . l' L! I 41:R 4i:IP i I ' 'n1 r 1 © .a•�Y Pk H1. I_I m�61 n wl n.�.Ts;• I n . r -n¢• �.....; ''® it— — tv rnc4r : I a N. 28TH PL. a '' •' '11--_-_— y.. N , t n 1 . i�E�III �7�91.�ti. I © I,�y1I I I'1 ©I•I• I !RI t I:�:LJ.I_J. i1-1 i M; : \ Inc . 1 • I 'Ji j.�l L_.LL.. —JJ.1..11 st. II'd 1�rlf;ll•:. 13 E.i A..IIi zs .` I' —• Id 1 1 !' II t' !A.i \ 1 \ :e a AT •'287R•I .$11:'—a '_ —.N. . -- -8TH--.�_ st._. ' — , . `` r (� L"_I l l n 0 I k LEGEND 1 ♦ \ •!N — // n•r au •/au- Nu—u ". -I n 1 ♦ em . E1 JANES l.d MRS 11 �-- p0 \ II tELAnD F. MARENAItO3 n•a _alua S: 1.,, p- • .• •is \rE...• • PETERSON• NN'. fri . ,�. ir` w "~ ;''T 7 R. an • \ III? 1` I• . , ,a - :..x E.D.S'RIDE. .,.��, _ \ '\ `•1, AOINA Rlv011 '�•�!^. '•• Cr,. Zta .n C %r', r�%',lffr �• -- I: 1 \` FOnTANA \` \ llAxO F.PETERSON i�i° Gqr.Ed! 2 ul w. U74• ,° • �• ,, • t�i`' �{ - 31 - _-30__�'• ?IA, a.� 'Pi 21'l�l le f •1V6 1,\\.\\ \ • T 'Lo r t;/f! Ica! . L. • 471 �A=zl 'iSl c; , mph • , �•j ��';: f.. .. w ! N7 F `7-.. ,�\. 29 ba N. �,26,TH ST. : .„46 F j ▪ 4'''- n _ .y• p • •',• - s • at •1 }• �\ ii_ I .,O1.•a I \ ` • q _,,..t - aie a�•- - tq „: w III_,. 0 !1 " Wiv PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R 5 E, W.M. - 1. I__- .1-----1 -•1-- -1--r-T.--1--1---r--T -r 1 �11� r T -1 1 r 1---1--I--I--T---r..-1 I ' l I I I I I I I I I I I I 16/ock u I I I I I I I I I I I I . ---'-` 1 . —i I I I 11. I 16 11, I 11. I Is I 11 1 4.1 I /: I a I IO I J9 I Ja I .17 I .36 I .0 I.1/ I )J I J7 1 Jr 1 J, I :' 17a 1 77 I.1 I Z In:Si MIN . I 1 1 II I s`' I I I I I I I I I CO.INM1lVA11/•s LAwJ-WASHINGTON IGAnor4 or[AN NO Ir I I I I I I I I �y�p yg� . i :,`-- L ._-.1___I. ..I_-_1..-1-..-I— _-i.-_•L-1-1—.J--L—L-1'1--I--L-1._1—.-.I._ _L.—L__I.._.1 I--•-_ .. ._. — d;;� 'si • --- N 28TH PL __,__w >< .1=+..1 j I ; e',C. 1 i1 . ... Q 42 Ir+(NMI, ••1Q• •1., 1- 1 -,. .47 I I--r--T--1--1--1--T-7-`-I--I--1---r--1's=r I»„-j-------r--I---1--1---I ---11 �rl '!,.,. I I.11 II I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I 1 Ir 1I I Ni�'•�1 II I I •, I 1 I", 1 ( I 7 16 I I IJ 1 11 I li I IJ 1 11 1 IS 1 /R 1 t7 1 16 1 19 1 70 1 ]I 1 i7 1 i, 1 1 1 1..1' I.g1VAII'.IArI IIAVIIN..Ii11 I•Ar iIN•. /MN tt• I iW 1' ,I tag cone rAu ,dcFe INCI to s. 1 I I °'tabp'•c I L'- I I I I -IrlAsi",U...",1 I 1 �` --• .I. - - . A iZ ). 1 >sa•1 ... 01.L'�-ll. •' I JrN •7'+�M'1-J 1.:.I .I_. (2u6o]� 2aTH ST -1- ' .,,J>• "' -.- _.- ---_-----.- r-- - �7RA r Es.— w T — r —n , W q 1 a L I s p '- - -.?1R E D ', �J C r I e r m 1 r-- 1— Tt I (.i.. Jta ISI - fir` i— r .i-• —1 r-—1 r- —1 r- r-' i r I .I d ,1 t;,_-• I • l _ A6 y5 37 66 33 31 a 62 6I 3o Io 4a 17 1. I ia ` ]-\ \�\ 61 r 1� >oo�lt.>oeo.l�a,w.,ksee .,oe .Jil>w. � r:4 .. Q �It .E•i a,,,..• acl>v,o-,r I I !• 1• .r.l rl u 1 n -., 11 I 2J . _1{ \\ ,, .\ JI J• `...1 JLJ`,,. ..JL-JL�l:"JLJL.J YJ�JILv,.J, ,•\� / �! I 1 11 { Wln t: \ - - 1 �' � 1 I I 1 111 <O , -\- SIN 1 TRACT ,�,� I I 1 .� �! p} M `�-'--i - r ,--1 -�,--1 r -- Q1, , yr,1-r craw. 47 ?,• 111..: 1 4 75,�`'J6 IQ 17 1 ./-8 / 19I'1 20r1 22 i� 1 ``•1 A 1�eyJ Iy'a � ��� s,,.r /. -. 11111I1�II dt 1 I ii il>t.=I. . �N _ �JJ��/ I • /^`\ J,) oi., L •.19_`_7-_I�-It.r 1 .1• tr / • Y ;( - Iwo "1 �o t \ \� I>3 11 >.. c 1 '• �' TRACT jA' 1`—, ,.. 1Y• _ , • q _ ..._ \\ \� �1 1 J..`��'1 `\`�,Pa�✓ • /'123 '':.a.q 4 2511-2.6../It 27 I'—Zgj . .. I • `/' ;v .(�k- , \♦ , �'4Iw.\ �,�- rr. -•�---/L-- -J't�i' -I' .. I - rI-..ti7 - / v 11 JRV \\ �e\....5 •. /. Nealuv6-W . •J7472. A:� ':-.,..- _ N/-• .%/ ( QL \ \ _ e—.;.- `\� • • H� ——— 1 •fY� J�J"'T I ^ . / as /' e " 1�Ci \\ \\� , r • >J.� , -� /\ \ \ - JO I j' I I 1 2d. 1 13 ,3 I ` I _• 4,�- J.M. /I/ Jriv • \\ \ 0 // \\ \ rl ssf' I` JI-� I -I,,„ .P1u ��';`• J-+ o\ fI.e^lA �6 / \\\\ r�_ II _ I I I ^I..�• 11_.:_._•//i ' - aoI4 \ \J C / // ELog �\ 'f 7t� �•t•k 'J` 1 Pi' ` • DEVELOPER/OWNERSLI °I \ \ _ \ - `� , 7 - w.,.Roo Side ur �. \ \ \t •L.:aY. /P \/ / \ • \ `�. .I ;;2.1 33 !r nrnwwn.:,.ROM, Q • rid 1 Ci \ 'f'\ \ / \ / / \ — `�.. ``r , LAND SURVEYOR ? Z , . '\ 'S t'4 / ' / \\ --••,.....- --ra..... .....0 s Ct Cil 4 . • • \•� Q\ \ • ..4= ll 1, ..a a- . .s u�- ram- - 1�,�,1 ��� ;,.�.. ,�.1 _ / /I PLAT DATA \ �.�i.� 22�a,���1.w�a,Rn.1�..,r1•.... rot •_ _ �c�,s:a..+..a�.a,t✓< \ �`\ m' ' fFJ,as t�� R.•,[yay'�r Tom AREA u.31 Ac+n vL F j�� \ r� S1a�/f•+���i. 101 r=t G.dY ....J i•:ly„ „ ../ R!ZOPC Iwo.or tors--_.r Mrs ILa.war! €,:^..+.HIIa`... ,.. \ o\ '� 1..., r:..., r..ar•• L. _ j 3; 4� .._ > cot.. .• r/ r aim' .,.. I_ 1 l,r, -- 1,R�[}J1�Y �f.,�,� `,.., �� NM •r '7p r / >.o:waa,Ys 4.•7.7!AC .i['ir•Ii�a� \\ \♦ �t� '•RR.�. a_ IR�a�. 1y r l• NwrwRp wRCw_ o AC . tJ \ :a�_`r� •��_�_ �_tlr� l�i 75 r'rr—_jJ�� / rorwa JA we �,��, I.� lII i■ ^j awslrr.r/r.,.�a w+(s/•cwr �� 9 �� I'''. \ In= =1.. ., = 1_! 1, —• _ 3��i /�•r,� / R_!Jowr AMA ,aJ wall =• .r PO mwt>^s . 1.a. \ star/ss �,..r� .rim te• i? ' .7( J.� ': wow or tors---13 tors t�tr^ „7= WM r. a (f % w�AREA S-- .o»lAc O 1, I \ Am •y� ! ...rrt:. }} 1 > ,M 3101•(! -,'r AC si '\s \ .,,11�� r.. '\a '� 1��.• .. i• 0 J%{fA3 J :�'- MA'AM,AREA-e�3 AC .rrrt wta: IK. \ !• :\=! a. I!t 1--i] roua J AC r.trv+n... MEW r.a1 , JJM1rrRN.ra1 111 • r ,nvan a/J.o-SO wwrs/waE \ .sr tart. ss Ali,. .•••..�. ,-row MAC!•A•-r✓.ACRES ,_ • Ittt( )♦rt• a. a.� j_1� I pwcr-,--1.0!ACM[S w.ww ww row[ \` ram..==1:S= �i==. = -oar.wcRn wnw wD lowE 1 IMACr•C•-OJT ACRES tRACr b•-OWACRES A I Amor Y-tl,o wc1.(l v .w I R ' F ' ' April 5, 1999 Renton City Council Minutes Page 114 CAG-99- $75,890 in additional work obtaining necessary bas maps and permits. Refer to Transportation Committee. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE • THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM 7.f.FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration Community Services Department recommended the following hours of • Item 7.f. operation for Renton's beaches: until 8:00 p.m. from 6/19 to 8/13, and until Parks: Beach Hours of 7:00 p.m. from 8/14 until the end of the swimming season on 9/06. Operation Mike Webby,Human Resources &Risk Management Administrator, explained that the City's new claims administrator,the Washington Cities Insurance Authority,has advised Renton to close its parks at dusk and not keep its beaches open past sunset during twilight hours. Mrs. Webby explained that • shadows fall onto the water in the evening, making it more difficult for lifeguards to properly patrol the areas. Councilman Edwards pointed out that the table shoving times of sunset and twilight uses Standard Time,yet as of last weekend, our area is now on Daylight Saving Time. Thus the times for sunset and twilight will actually be one hour later than shown. Mr. Edwards added that the visibility distance in the lake water is not comparable to that of a pool at:any time, dusk or not. Councilman Corman said in the past, it has been understood by parks patrons that if they choose to swim when no lifeguard is on�iduty, they do so at their own risk. Mr. Webby replied that Council will be asked to consider keeping the beach gates locked when no lifeguard is on duty, and further controlling the sites with additional police surveillance to deter off-hours swimmers. • MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Tom Brown, Land bevelopment Manager for Citizen Comment: Brown— Centex Homes, 2320 - 130th Ave.NE, Suite#200,;Bellevue, 98005,requesting Oversizing Reimbursement on reimbursement in the amount of$82,603.14 (plus tax) for oversizing required East Renton Interceptor by the City on the East Renton Interceptor. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Sager— Correspondence was read from David Sager, 1025 N. 28th Pl., Renton, 98056, ador Ventures stating that the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the proposed Developmen . ash Blvd) development by Labrador Ventures (see previous page)was correct, and encouraging Council's concurrence with that decision. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THESE LETTERS TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Browne— Correspondence was read from Kim Browne, 1003 N. 28th Pl.,Renton, 98056, Labrador Ventures agreeing fully with the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendations on Development(Lk Wash Blvd) the Labrador Ventures development, and asking that his findings be given considerable weight when Council considers this appeal. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Edwards presented a report recommending approval Finance Committee of Claim Vouchers 169006 - 169497, and two wire transfers totaling /dde4 torre G C�' P�r�r V�d I I • r r 7 J �� 6-e. -6:/z w °2--e zp-miq CITY OF RENTON 9Z = 20 -5/0 APR 01 1999 i✓_� RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE T5 049'M /1/Ap In 7 4-7 i Q/f/ & ' ' z ,Cecw -a, — V- • I- 11'9 XLe F o' W74-3 'tb e w 4-.0 7-4 c_ Be5 Desz 1-17-e 6?/ ,-,4w_ a. k 6e067.41 g is9e Lee ll.-e Q,/,f wOF k--e,14 e es/1-e �� Y 7`-- (1. 5 gle_ A-KP ;5evew4Q- / t' - // e G611 Gem hl C/'l 4vm1 - ms agti-- '/0. , From:Kimberly Ann Browne Enviro Economics Fax:(425)226.7791 Voice:(425)226.7791 To:Marilyn Petersen at:Ciitty of Renton g9 Page 2 of2 Thursday,April 01,1999 5:06:42 rM /4 PP�Q z rrl A,e6-.-9°v/10.0 ✓/ April 1, 1999 Ms.Marilyn J.Petersen City Clerk City of Renton • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton,WA 98055 RE: Response to Appeal Filed by James V. Handmacher,File No. LUA-98-141,PP,V,R. Dear Ms. Petersen: This letter is in response to Labrador Ventures' (LV)appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendations and should be forwarded to Council's Planning and Development Committee. I would like to emphasize that the arguments included in the appeal by Labrador Ventures are no different than the arguments presented by LV at the hearing. The Hearing Examiner after considering these same arguments found that the referenced decisions and recommendations were necessary and appropriate. LV's arguments were not found to be persuasive then, and should not be found so now. I agree fully with the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendations and would ask that Hearing Examiner Kaufman's findings be weighted heavily by the Planning and Development Committee when considering the LV appeal. Thank you, Kim Browne /00§ `7�, a12'7l�, II From: Kimberly Ann Browne IJrgent Company: Enviro Economics Fax: (425) 226-7791 Voice: (425) 226-7791 fax for: To: Marilyn Petersen Company: City of Renton CITY OF RENTON Fax: 425-430-6516 APR 51999 Voice: 425-430-6510 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE Subject: New Letter Regarding Labrador Venture Appeal Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 Page(s): 2 Please replace the former letter with this one. Thank you, Kim Browne (�J 1994 Sandhill Arts.All rights reserved. April 1, 1999 Ms.Marilyn J.Petersen City Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Response to Appeal Filed by James V.Handmacher,File No.LUA-98-141,PP, V,R. Dear Ms.Petersen: This letter is in response to Labrador Ventures' (LV)appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendations and should be forwarded to Council's Planning and Development Committee. I would like to emphasize that the arguments included in the appeal by Labrador Ventures are no different than the arguments presented by LV at the hearing. The Hearing Examiner after considering these same arguments found that the referenced decisions and recommendations were necessary and appropriate. LV's arguments were not found to be persuasive then,and should not be found so now. I agree fully with the Hearing Examiner's decisions and recommendations and would ask that Hearing Examiner Kaufman's findings be weighted heavily by the Planning and Development Committee when considering the LV appeal. Thank you, Kim Browne - Kim Browne 1 "-�►L o= t� • 1003 N. 28th Pl. �" . i Renton, WA 98056 - ( FR ) J '. /9 9 B o^- ----. -- Ms , \AACLijLr e_e_71:._A.A_a_LA.."_, , Nek,„...ityy„, c.....L.A..k.... los --=,-- .. A , si , , w�4 ua-�� • 1 '''S ;VISTLi%Z..7:42. IIillilillltl Bill!lillililIlitllii1111l11iltiilliiilikillil !v;-_ March 23, 1999 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 23rd day of March, 1999, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly • mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision filed by James V. Handmacher, representative for Labrador Ventures, LLC (File No. LUA-98-141, PP, V, R). Marilyn . ersen, City Clerk/Cable Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 23rd day of March, 1999. .--kiii\MAM/441VG4n(Qt , Brenda Fritsvold Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in 4614 , Charles and Gayle Shure Mr. & Mrs. James Brundage Michelle Wright 1201 North 28th Place 1440 North 28th Street 1321 North 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Susan and Rich Hopkins David and Sandi Sagar Odell and Shirley Milliren 2511 Park Place North 1025 North 28th Place 1020'North 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Brian and Anja Shives Tina and Jerry Cullers Mr. and Mrs. James Scott 2803 Burnett Avenue North 2506 Meadow Avenuke North 1405 North 28th Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kim and Theo Browne Marlene Mandt Song Qiao 1003 North 28th Place 1408 North 26th St. 1412 North 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Dean and Kim Schellert Don and Patricia Rosburg M.L. and Zoe Gibson 1013 North 28th Place - 1402 North 26th Street 1215 North 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Smith Robert and Esther Miller LaVerne and Mary Jo Graves 1308 North 26th Street 1121 North 28th Place 905 North 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Steve and Julie Wasson Manfred and Anne Hansen Rich Wagner 2515 Park Place North 1221 North 26th Street Baylis Brand Wagner Architects Renton, WA 980561 Renton, WA 98056 10801 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Dean and Cynthia Schumacher Cindy and Eric Korn Nancy Stark 1116 North 28th Place 1211 North 28th Place Mark Mykel Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 1409 North 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Bill and Madeline Arrigoni G.R. Gardener Gary and Deborah Parker 907 North 34th Street 2100 Lake Washington Blvd N,#84 1301 North 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 m *-31gq Labrador porlbs LUA98-141,PP,R,V,ECF 1 L i ' 1 • J.H. McTigue Resident Michael Moore 2701 Meadow Place North 1314 North 26th St 1220 North 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Loretta Moore Bruce and Marina Koch Renee Perrault 1204 North 28th Place 2900 Park Avenue North 2520 Park Place North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Gary Arnold Steven and Joan Geffre 2520 Park Place North 2625 Meadow Place North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Nancy Holma .Paul Undino Clark and Mary Boyce Betty Holma Judy Johnston 1108 North 29th Street 1409 North 24th Street 1325 North 24th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Thelma Sutherland Win Clow Thomas Dunham 1205 North 29th Street 2616 Meadow Avenue North 1014 North 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, Wal 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Lew Jones Gary and Marcie Palmer Scott and Savitha Finch 1401 North 24th Street 2507 Park Place North 929 North 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 • Natasha Nimmo Dora Dones Lorri Murashige 911 North 28th Place PO Box 625 2002 Aberdeen Place NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056 Helen Ivanich Christine Reid Ray Neria 2907 Park Avenue North 1409 North 28th Street 1024 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Carol Johnson Resident Frank and Madlyne Delgado 1309 North 28th Street 1307 North 28th Street 1303 North 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Labrador porlbs LUA98-141,PP,R,V,ECF 2 William Lengyec Warren and Paula Madat William Jensen 1436 North 28th Street 1428 North 28th Street 1432 North 28th Street Renton,WA 98056 j Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Tanya and Larry Posey Nicolle Willner P. Scott 1416 North 28th Street 1412 North 28th Street 1402 North 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jeanne K. Hughes Wayne Gills Petrude W. Olds, Jr. 1421 North 28th Street 1444 North 28th Street 1314 North 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Helen Woods Mr. and Mrs. Tino Contreur Deborah Colombi 1109 North 28th Place 1105 North 28th Place 1209 North 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 , Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Resident Chantelle WagnerAlbert Casper g pr 1214 North 29th Street 1201 North 29th Street 1202 North 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Robert Doerschel Laura Clawsen Debra Malachi 1113 North 29th Street 1112 North 29th Street 1021 North 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Thomas Dunham Mary Paulus Patricia Burnett 1014 North 29th Street 1010 North 29th Street 1004 North 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Marty and Maura Capadina Carlie Alari Jack and Peggy Solwoniuk 912 North 29th Street 2608 Camas Avenue NE 906 North 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 James Templeman Joan Jensen Lois Motthe 903 North 29th Street 2621 Meadow Place North 1000 North 29th'Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 II Labrador porlbs LUA98-141,PP,R,V,ECF 3 • Michael Korfandy Douglas Stark Wm Lynn Weller 1003 North 29th Street 1009 North 28th Place 922 North 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Trudy Neumann Steve and Jennifer Elllis Pat Elliso 922 North 28th Place 910 North 28th Place 1001 North 36th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 James Montgomery Resident Pamela Mancinelli 2807 Burnett Avenue North 2815 Burnett Avenue North 2910 Burnett Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mary Running Helen Pfeifle Myrtle Larson 819 North 30th Street 812 North 30th Street 718 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Penny Hanson Ann Spreud Alison Allen 1206 North 30th Street 1213 North 30th Street 1217 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Mike Seaman Resident Betsy Jansen 1203 North 30th Street 1115 North 30th Street 1109 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Doy King Donna Evans Robert Tritsvold 1103 North 30th Street 1017.North 30th Street 1007 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Chauncey and Gwenyth Betts Martin Hadfield Robyn Goodwin 1014 North 30th Street 1116 North 30th Street 1102 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Aldene Warman Jim Lilly Eric Folks 1104 North 30th Street 1212 North 30th Street 1118 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Labrador porlbs LUA98-141,PP,R,V,ECF • 4 • e Leigh and Marcie Johanson Donald and Neva Dallas J. Stachowiak 1006 North 30th Street 916 North 30th Street 902 North 30th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Ernie Guntle Denise Jorgensen Charmaine Spomer 814 North 30th Street 1224 North 28th Place 2814 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kevin M. Seripser Violet Hanahan Loretta Lyonais 2815 Park Avenue North 2808 Park Avenue North 2820 Park Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Patricia Banasky Kay McCord Gary and Paula DuBois 1401 North 26th Street 2802 Park Avenue North 2415 Park Place North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Alice Shay Kathleen Gianini Jean Olds. 1411 North 26th Street 1311 North 26th Street 1314 North 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 y Chuck Logan Patrick McDonald Sharon Mullinaux 2611 Meadow Avenue North 1405 North 24th Street 1415 North 24th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 980565 Andie Jorgenson Walter and Maxine Grieser Richard and Catherine Galviln 2411 Garden Court North 2423 Garden Court North 2407 Garden Court North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Gary Palmer Roger and Carla Fleming Roger and Shelly O'Brien 2507 Park Place North 1404 North 24th Street 2407 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Richard and Sandy Basquette . Michael Stork S 1512 North 24th Street 2219 Meadow Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Labrador porlbs LUA98-141,PP,R,V,ECF 5 • Pam Jackson Joni Job Wynnlee Crisp 2707 Meadow Place North 1127 North 28th Place 2100 NE 31st Street Renton, IWA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Peter Hartley Charles Jensen Robert and Marjory Kaufmann 2815 Burnett Avenue North 2621 Meadow Place North 2820 Burnett Avenue North Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 James V. Handmacher Beth Olsen Bonneville,Viert,Morton &McGoldrick 872 SE 25th Court 820 "A"Street, Suite 600 Hillsboro, OR 97123 P.O. Box 1533 Tacoma, WA 98401-1533 • John Sadler Dan Brewis Terra Assoc. Ste. 101 528 19th P1 Timothy Miller 12525 Willows Rd Kirkland, WA 98033 1607 E Main Kirkland, WA 98034 Auburn, WA 98002 John Peterson Brad Hughes Tom Touma 21033 120th Ave SE Labrador Ventures 6632 S 191st P1 E-102 Kent, WA 98031 PO Box 3344 Kent, WA 98032 Kirkland, WA 98083 • Rick Anderson Tom Strong 935 Daley Terra Asoc. S1-e 101 Edmonds, WA 98020 12525 Willows Rd Kirkland, WA 98034 Labrador poribs LUA98-141,PP,R,V,ECF 6 - Planning Commission via Judy Wright (9) Gregg Zimmerman Public Works Jana Huerter Development Services Mike Kattermann Larry Meckling EDNSP Development Services Sue Carlson Sandra Meyer EDNSP Transportation Lawrence J. Warren Lys Hornsby City Attorney Utilities Chuck Duffy Fire Preventio Fred Kaufman Hearing Examin r r )s) CITY F RENTON • kiki;,„ City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen March 22, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: James V. Handmacher Representing Labrador Ventures, LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/4/99 regarding Labrador Ventures' request for Preliminary Plat, Variance and Rezone on Property Located at the 2700`block of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and Burnett Ave. N. File No. LUA-98-141, PP, V, R. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Labrador Ventures' request for preliminary plat, variance, and rezone has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 4:00 p.m. on May 6, 1999 in the 7th floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For dditional information or assistance,please feel free to call. Sincerely, Marilyn . P rsen City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 Thie nanar rnntains 60%rarvclart matarial_20%post consumer City of Renton Municipal Cow_,•Title IV. Chapter 8. Section 110- 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s)in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord.4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appea1. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No newor additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the part offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record befor e the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Cou cil Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties.. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter.its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event, the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Coi}ncil Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord.4660, 3-17-1997) r APPEAL CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TOWLMSOMY COUNCi FILE NO. LUA 98-141, PP, V. R RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT The undersigned Interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land list Hearing Examiner, dated MARCH 4 19 99 . 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY • APPELLANT REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC Name: JAMES V.. HANDMACHER Address: P 0 BOX 3344 Address: P 0 BOX 1533 ° KIRKLAND WA 98083 TACOMA WA 98401 Telephone Not (425) 803-0400 Telephone No. (253) 627-8131 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: SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: ' No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) XX Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Rezone from R-1 to R-5 XX M dify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition 2 of the Plat and Condi ti Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: 1 of the Varianc€ Other )ant/Repr a tative Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. heappeai.doc • CITY COUNCIL 2 CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON 3 LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT File No. LUA-098-141, PP, V-H, R 4 5 LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC, APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM 6 Applicant 7 I. Summary of Appeal. 8 The applicant, Labrador Ventures, LLC, appeals the following portions of the Report, 9 Recommendations and Decisions of the Hearing Examiner dated March 4, 1999: 10 A. Denial of the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. 11 B. Condition 7 of the preliminary plat recommendation requiring an 12 independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded 13 by the applicant to verify slope information. 14 C. Condition 1 of the variance decision requiring the bridge to be an open 15 girder or truss bridge and not an earth filled structure. 16 The remainder of this document shall discuss each issue in detail. 17 II. Rezone from R-1 to R-5. 18 The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the request to rezone the eastern 4.43 acres 19 of the proposed plat from R-1 to R-5. This recommendation is clearly erroneous and contrary to the 20 evidence, and the rezone request should be granted. 21 RMC § 4-9-180.F (formerly § 4-8-14.C) states that the Hearing Examiner may recommend a 22 . rezone to the City Council if"at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" _ 23 a) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject 24 reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or 25 b) That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being Bonneville,Viert 820•A•Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -1 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washh ton 98401 (253)3)272 4 VLAW3WOMLAWTYPE�REUMPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOOt6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272 4338 • 1 requested pursuant to the policies set forth.in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate: or 2 c) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the 3 subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant 4 and material change. 5 Only one of the three is necessary. Two of these three circumstances exist in this case. 6 The first circumstance exists because the proposed R-5 zone did not exist at the time of the 7 last area land use analysis and area zoning. As pointed out in the staff report, the "new".R-1 zone 8 restricting density to one unit per acre was imposed on the eastern portion of the Labrador property 9 during the last area zoning in June, 1993. The ordinance creating the R=5 zone was adopted two 10 years later in June, 1995. Thus the zone classification requested by Labrador Ventures could not 11 have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. 12 The second criteria for recommending a rezone is also clearly established for this 13 application. The proposed rezone is within the Residential Rural land use category in the Renton 14 Comprehensive Plan.' Plan Policy LU-26 states: 15 Maximum development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in .Residential Rural except in areas with significant environmental 16 constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood-plains, and Wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. 17 Thus, R-5 zoning is specifically authorized in the Residential Rural land use category except in 18 areas with significant environmental constraints. 19 A small portion of Wetland A and its buffer encroaches upon the northern edge of the R-1 20 zone on the Labrador property. The northern edge of the R-1 zone contains slopes,in excess of 21 22 1 It is apparent that the property was included in the Residential Rural land use classification by mistake. Objective LU-I in the Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this land use category is to preserve 23 open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas.by limiting residential density in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within 24 the City. As discussed herein, the portion of the Labrador property in the Residential Rural land use category is not environmentally sensitive or in a critical area (defined in the Plan as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, 25 fish and wildlife habitat,frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas), is not identified as part of an open space network, and is not used for agriculture. However, the proposed rezone will allow reasonable use without the need for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Bonneville,Viert 820'A'street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washtn ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -2 n,. Fax:(213)2 -4338 11LAW31VOL1WW/TYPE1REUMPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOM6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 25%. However, all lots within the proposed rezone area would be outside the wetland, buffer, and 2 steep slope area. Therefore, none of the lots within the proposed R-5 zone will contain any 3 significant environmental constraints. The second criteria for recommending a rezone is thus 4 satisfied. 5 Two of the three criteria are thus satisfied. Only one is necessary to recommend the 6 proposed rezone. The staff report erroneously concludes that without satisfying the third criteria 7 regarding a significant and material change of circumstances, the rezone cannot be recommended. 8 Because this conclusion is directly contrary to the plain language of the City.Code, this conclusion 9 must be disregarded. 10 If one of the three criteria is met, then RMC § 4-9-180.F.2 directs the Hearing Examiner to 11 determine if the change of the zone classification: 12 a) is desirable, 13 b) is in the public interest, 14 c) tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, 15 d) is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other 16 persons located in the vicinity, and 17 e) is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. 18 All of these findings are well supported by the evidence regarding this rezone application. 19 The loop road made possible by a bridge crossing the ravine is not economically feasible if 20 development east of the ravine is limited to one unit per acre. As discussed in the variance analysis 21 section of the staff report, the loop road is critical for providing safe access for the residents of this 22 new subdivision, as well as the other properties to the east and south which are currently served by 23 a single road access. As cited in the staff report, a number of policies in the Comprehensive Plan 24 discourage cul-de-sacs and encourage a flexible grid system to provide alternative traffic routes. To 25 obtain this infrastructure, the City must provide sufficient urban densities to support it. Bonneville,Viert 820•A•Street,since 600 MortonP.O.Box 1533 McGo drick Tacoma,Washington 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -3 a,, ,,,, (253 N-78`13, A AW3WOL1UAWTYPEIREUNIPLEADING LV-APPEALMEM.DOM6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272 4338 1 1 1 In the absence of significant environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone violates the 2 state Growth Management Act (GMA). In a recent decision from the Central Puget Sound Growth 3 Management Hearings Board, Lawrence Michael Investments, L.L.0 v. Town of Woodway, Case 4 No. 98-3-0012 (1/8/99), a copy of which is attached to Exhibit 26, the Board held that "the GMA 5 requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." (Page 6 23, line 24-25) The Board went on to find that, "absent justifiable environmental reasons, permitting 7 only. 30 homes on 60.8 acres would not achieve urban densities and would constitute impermissible 8 low-density development within the UGA [Urban Growth Area], thus failing to comply with Goals 1 9 and 2 [o the GMA]." (Page 24, 26) Those Goals "encourage development in urban areas where 10 adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner, and reduce 11 the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low density development." RCW 12 36.70A.020. The Board noted that a land use designation of 4 du/ac or above is an appropriate 13 urban density, and that 1 du/lac is not an appropriate urban density. (Page 24) 14 There are no environmental constraints on the portion of the Labrador property zoned R-1. 15 Except for a small strip along the north edge where no development is proposed, the property 16 currently zoned R-1 is predominately flat and dry. The only environmental constraints on the 17 Labrador property, consisting of steep slopes and wetlands, occur in the area to the west zoned R-8. 18 In the absence of significant, justifiable environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone on the 19 Labrador property violates the mandate of the GMA. Bringing this property into compliance with the 20 GMA is clearly in the public interest. 21 This proposed rezone also preserves the property rights of the petitioner. Property to the 22 west, north and east of the proposed rezone area is zoned R-8, including that portion of the 23 LabradorL property between the existing R-1 zone and the creek ravine to the west. The property to 24 the south which is zoned R-1 is currently developed with a youth detention facility. Virtually all other 25 property in the area is zoned for single-family homes at R-8 density. Virtually all lots in the area are Bonneville,Viert 820'A'Street,Suite 600 Morton & P,O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washin ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -4 „ , ,,o (253)s27-$131 \\LAW3WOL11L WTYPE\REUMPLEADINGLLV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272 4338 1 , equal to or smaller than the lots which would be created in the proposed R-5 zone. In the absence 2 of any significant environmental constraints, there is no justification for denying a reasonable 3 development potential to Labrador Ventures. 4 ,The rezone will create no material detriment to the public welfare or other properties in the 5 area. Almost all properties in the area are already developed at equivalent density. The arguments 6 voiced by a few of the neighbors in opposition to the rezone have focused on the alleged 7 environmental damage caused by building new houses in the neighborhood, but apparently not their 8 own houses. This is a classic NIMBY response, which seeks to prevent others from developing their 9 property so the few who got there first can enjoy open space at another's expense. By adopting the 10 GMA, Washington has made a conscious policy choice to provide for development at urban density 11 in cities where the infrastructure and services exist, in order to prevent sprawl into rural areas. The 12 public welfare cannot be harmed by carrying out that policy. 13 Finally, the rezone is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In 14 addition to the policies discussed above specifically authorizing density at R-5, discouraging cul-de- 15 sacs, and encouraging development of a flexible grid system of streets, the Comprehensive Plan 16 also states: 17 Policy LU-11: Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a) Development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant 18 land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown . . . 19 Objective LU-M: Provide more linkages within and between neighborhoods by developing a system of residential streets which serves both vehicles and pedestrians 20 and creates a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the city without unduly increases pass-through traffic. 21 Policy H-1: Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate estimates of market 22 demand for new housing provided through growth forecasts. 23 Policy H-4: Encourage in-fill development as a means to increase capacity. 24 The Labrador subdivision would provide quality new housing at densities compatible with the 25 neighborhood and contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, without encroaching on Bonneville,Viert 820•A•street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tame,W)ashington 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -5 Fax:(1)2 2-4338 %5LAW3WOL1tLAWTYPE REUHIPLEADINGtLV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 environmentally sensitive areas. 2 The reasons given by the Hearing Examiner for recommending denial are not persuasive. 3 He states that the City made a "deliberate reasoned determination" to zone this property R-1. There 4 is no evidence in the record to support this conclusion. The only evidence is contained in the staff 5 report, page 20, and repeated at the hearing, that there is no legislative record to explain why this 6 zone was imposed on this portion of the property. The Hearing Examiner speculates that the R-1 7 zone may have been "an effort to preserve the larger lots and slopes near the headwaters of the 8 creek." This conclusion is also not supported by the evidence. As stated in the.Wetland Evaluation 9 by Terra Associates, Inc., contained in Exhibit 1, at page 4, the stream originates from a culvert 10 which runs under 1-405. As shown on Figure 3 of that report, both of the wetlands are entirely 11 outside the R-1 zone. 12 The Hearing Examiner indicates that the lower-density R-1 zone, is appropriate on this 13 portion of the property to protect the environmentally-sensitive ravine and creek, and to avoid 14 "carving up the land near the unique ravine, slopes and forests into small parcels where less 15 amenities would remain." However, the portion of the property zoned R-1 does not touch the ravine 16 with its slopes and trees.. The ravine is entirely within the portion of the property zoned R-8. The R- 17 1 zone Iso does not protect the "forest" areas of the property. The trees, consisting primarily of 18 alder and big leaf maple, are primarily on the R-8 portion of the property. As shown on Figure 2 of 19 the Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation by Terra Associates, Inc., contained in Exhibit 1, the eastern 20 portion of the property.zoned R-1 is entirely ungrazed pasture and moderately-vegetated suburban 21 land. This is where the two existing single family homes are located. 22 Thus the rezone proposed by Labrador Ventures meets all of the criteria for rezoning 23 property in the City of Renton. It will provide housing at reasonable and compatible density, allow 24 the construction of needed infrastructure, and comply with the mandates of the GMA. The rezone 25 proposal should be approved by the City. _- Bonneville,Viert 82D•A•Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -6 McGolIONAL drick Tacoma Washin-g8ton 98401 VLAW31VOL1LLAWTYPBREUMPLEADING\LV-APPEALMEM.DOM6937.96 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272-4338 1 III. Third party consultant to verify slope analysis. 2 The applicant has repeatedly redesigned the plat to address the concerns raised by City staff 3 and the Environmental Review Committee. Though the applicant did not always agree with those 4 concerns, the applicant,recognized that those concerns were based on the opinions of.qualified 5 experts within the City. That is why the applicant objects to and appeals from two conditions 6 imposed by the Hearing Examiner which have no basis in any competent evidence in the record. 7 The Hearing Examiner imposed a condition on approval of the plat which requires an 8 independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant to 9 verify the slope information provided by Touma Engineers, the applicant's surveyor and engineer. 10 This insult to the professionalism and competence of Mr. Touma is not justified by any evidence in 11 the record. 12 Touma Engineers performed a topographic survey of the property locating the elevation of 13 over two thousand individual points on the property, with special emphasis on the areas of steeper 14 slopes (Exhibit 24). These points are downloaded into a computer which uses a special program to 15 triangulate.those points and calculate the slopes throughout the property (Exhibit 25). This is the 16 accepted method for any engineer or surveyor, and was reviewed and approved by City staff. 17 The Hearing Examiner justified his unusual condition as "due to the nature of the slopes and 18 .the local variation in those slopes as well as the difference in the early geotechnical report regarding 19 some of the areas that might be subject to 40 percent slopes." The first reason provides no 20 justification for redoing the slope analysis, since the nature of the slopes and variations in.those 21 slopes were properly illustrated in the existing slope analysis. The second reason appears to be 22 related to his Finding 21, where he states that one geotech report indicates that lots. 6-11 may 23 encroach on 40 percent slopes, that the other report is less definitive, and the applicant's submission 24 indicates the slopes in this area are approximately 39 percent. This finding is based on a 25 misreading and misstatement of the evidence in the record. Bonneville,Viert 820'A'street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -7 McGoldrick Tacoma shing8ton,Wa 98401 VLAWd\VOL1U.AWTYPE\REUH\PLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax.(253)2724338 1 The preliminary geotechnical report dated September 8, 1998, at page 4, in Exhibit 1, stated 2 that existing slope grades in this area "range between about 25.and 50 percent." When asked about 3 this statement during the hearing, the geotechnical engineer stated that he did not have any 4 independent evidence of slopes, but was relying solely on the evidence presented by Touma 5 Engineeris. It was not the function of the geotechnical report to provide detailed information 6 regarding the percent of slopes, but to discuss the stability of the slopes. Thus the geotechnical 7 report does not contradict or question the slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers. 8 The Addendum to the Geotechnical Report dated December 1, 1998, at page2, in Exhibit 1, 9 states that "slope grades in the vicinity of.Lots 7 through 12 and the cul-de-sac range from about 26 10 to 39 percent."2 This is based on Mr. Touma's slope analysis (Exhibit 7) which show the slopes in 11 this area are greater that 25 percent, but less that 40 percent. Again, the geotechnical engineer was 12 relying,on the slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers, and does not contradict or question f. - 13 that analysis. Further, Mr. Touma testified that slopes in this area range "up to 38 or 39 percent," 14 not that slopes in the area "are approximately 39 percent" as stated in Finding 21. - ' 15 The only testimony questioning the slope analysis by Touma Engineers came not from 16 another engineer, or from City staff. Rather, it came from Kim Browne, a neighbor and the primary 17 opponent of this project,who said that it looked to,her like the slopes in this areas were greater than 18 40 percent. Because of this offhand remark by a project opponent, and misreading the geotechnical 19 reports, the Hearing Examiner wants to the applicant to pay'over $10,000 to resurvey.the entire 20 property and recalculate the slopes. In the absence of any competent evidence casting doubt on the 21 slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers, there is no justification for this condition. 22 IV. Variance condition requiring and open girder or truss bridge. • 23 The Hearing Examiner approved the requested variance to.allow the road to cross the ravine 24 and creek, on the condition that the bridge shall be an open girder or truss bridge and not an earth . 25 ' 2 This is the geotech report which the Hearing'Examiner says is"less definitive." Bonneville,Viert 820•A•street,suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washhi ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -8 ATTORNEYS Fez?(253)272-4338 11LAIN3WOL11LAWTYPEIRE ARPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 1 filled structure. In Conclusion 23, the Hearing Examiner stated that the proposed bridge is not the 2 minimum necessary to cross the ravine, merely the most expedient. He opined that an open 3 trusswork or girder bridge would only need to disturb areas where the support columns were 4 constructed, and would be less of an obstacle to wildlife. Again, there was no evidence to support 5 these assertions. 6 The°applicant proposed an open bottom, arched bridge over the stream. The bridge is 7 depicted by Exhibit 23. The opening in the bridge would be twenty feet wide and 16 feet tall in the 8 center. This would not disturb the streambed, which is only a few feet wide at this location. The 9 area above the opening would be filled, and the utilities would be buried under the street and above 10 the opening. The width of the bridge at the base would be the same as the width of the street at the 11 top, 46 feet. 12. The Hearing Examiner's concern about disturbing the ground is misplaced. Excavation of 1Y 13 the foundation for support posts would disturb the ground just as much as construction of the 14 proposed bridge. The effect on vegetation would be virtually the same, since the shadow of a girder 15 bridge would also prevent vegetation under the bridge. It should be remembered that this is not 16 high-quality wildlife habitat which is being disturbed. The evidence presented by Tom Strong, the 17 wildlife specialist, was that the site is already heavily disturbed, and the understory is predominately 18 blackberries and english ivy. Neither of these are native species, and neither are conductive to 19 wildlife habitat. 20 The Hearing Examiner also expressed a concern with the effect of the proposed bridge on 21 the passage of wildlife up the ravine. However, when he posed that question to Tom Strong, a 22 specialist with a Ph.D.. in biology with a specialty in avian ecology, Mr. Strong testified that the 23 proposed bridge presents very little barrier to wildlife movement across the site. He testified that 24 most_species would simply go under the bridge, which is 16 feet high, including larger species like 25 deer or coyote. He testified that some parts of the country construct tunnels under freeways to allow Bonneville,Viert 820'X Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washhi on 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -9 ,P„ „a,K ,,,�, x:(2 )272-4 \LLAW3WOL1t AWTYPE1REUHIPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC�6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(253)272 4338 1 animals to pass under them. He also noted that larger animals like deer or coyote would be just as 2 likely to cross over the road. 3 The concern over the movement of animals up the ravine is greatly overstated. There is 4 simply nowhere for them to go. The northeastern portion of the site at the top of the ravine is 5 completely surrounded by developed single-family neighborhoods. Just beyond those single-family 6 homes is 1-405, which forms an impenetrable barrier for wildlife (which the stream crosses in a small 7 culvert). To get to the Labrador property from Gene Coulon Park, wildlife would either have to pass 8 through the culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard or walk across that far wider and busier 9 street. As noted in the Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation proposed for this site by Terra.Associates, 10 contained in Exhibit 1, though this type of habitat could be used by many species, since this parcel is 11 relatively small and isolated, it actually contains only a few species of songbirds and small mammals 12 like moles, squirrels, opossum, and raccoons. Such animals can easily go under or around the 13 proposed bridge. 14 Finally, the Hearing Examiner's condition fails to take into account the problems posed by a 15 girder or truss bridge. Because such a bridge may be metal, it may require higher maintenance. 16 Since the area under the road is not paved, the utilities would have to hang under the bridge, where 17 they are more vulnerable to the elements. Since this bridge will ultimately be owned by the City, 18 these issues may pose financial problems for the City. The City staff did not suggest or encourage 19 such a bridge, but supported the applicant's proposal. The bridge as proposed by the applicant was 20 approved by the State Department of Fish and-Wildlife. There is simply-no justification for the 21 imposition of this condition for approval of the variance. 22 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this/67 day of March, 1999. - 23 24 .- V. HAND ACHER, WSBA#8637 Bonneville, Viert, Morton & McGoldrick, P.S. 25 Attorneys for Labrador Ventures, LLC Bonneville,Viert 820•A•street,suns 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washinggton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -10 a, ,a,,,. ,,�, (253)627-8131 11LAW3WOL1UAWTYPEREUHIPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC18937.08 ATTORNEYS AT I.AW Fax:(253)272 4338 • 4. „i CITY' IF RENTON x1 � Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 22, 1999 To: Parties of Record From: Fred J. Kaufman Re: Labrador Preliminary Plat Hearing Due to the fact that some of the witnesses' testimony was taken out of order in the hearing on February 2, 1999, in cl llating the minutes to their proper position this office inadvertently omitted the testimony of David Sager. The following is an excerpt of Mr. Sager's testimony: David T. Sager, 1025 N 28th Place,Renton,Washington 98056,interested party herein, concurred with the appellant herein. He has observed heron flying over the site in the evening. He has also viewed the eagles on the site every year since 1986. After he observed the survey and geotech work being done on the site,he contacted Bob Arthur and gave him a drawing and description of the tree in which the eagles have been perching. Mr. Sager was concerned about the test pits drilled,particularly in the area north of the ravine,and the dry time of year when they were drilled.Regarding the alley to the north of the site, it is an easement for the lots off 28th Street and not a street. The City abandoned it in the early 90's. Mr. Sager further described the drainage problems in the area. The type of bridge construction and history of the rezone were also discussed by Mr. Sager. Sincerely, Fred J. HIaufman Hearing Examiner • 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer c: CIT: OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman March 22, 1999 To: Parties of Record From: Fred J. Kaufman Re: Labrador Preliminary Plat Hearing Due to the fact that some of the witnesses' testimony was taken out of order in the hearing on February 2, 1999, in collating the minutes to their proper,position this office inadvertently omitted the testimony of David Sager. The following is an excerpt of Mr. Sager's testimony: David T. Sager, 1025 N 28th Place,Renton, Washington 98056, interested party herein, concurred with the appellant herein. He has observed heron flying over the site in the evening. He has also viewed the eagles on the site every year since 1986. After he observed the survey and geotech work being done on the site, he contacted Bob Arthur and gave him a drawing and description of the tree in which the eagles have been perching. Mr. Sager.was concerned about the test pits drilled,particularly in the area north of the ravine, and the dry time of year when they were drilled. Regarding the alley to the north of the site, it is an easement for the lots off 28th Street and not a street. The City abandoned it in the early 90's. Mr. Sager further described the drainage problems in the area. The type of bridge construction and history of the rezone were also discussed by Mr. Sager. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 -_(425)430-6515 :5 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CIT`. OF RENTON City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen March 22, 1999 APPEAL FILED BY: James V. Handmacher Representing Labrador Ventures, LLC RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 3/4/99 regarding Labrador Ventures' request for Preliminary Plat, Variance and Rezone on Property Located at the 2700 block of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and Burnett Ave. N. File No. LUA-98-141, PP, V, R. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title.IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding Labrador Ventures' request for preliminary plat, variance, and rezone has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal;the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeals and other pertinent documents will he reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 4:00 p.m. on May 6, 1999 in the 7th floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, 98055. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional infoilnation or assistance, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Marilyn . P rsen City Clerk/Cable Manager Attachment 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX(425)430-6516 • 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer , City of Renton Municipal C _._ Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -ApY.ma's ' I 4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner'.s written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) • 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council - Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five(5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision,or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City.Council unless a showing is made by the party'offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The • burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) APPEAL CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION TO MN1.tt'VY COUNCI FILE NO. LUA_98-141, PP, V. R RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE APPLICATION NAME: LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner,' dated MARCH 4 19 99 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(IF ANY): Name: LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC Name: JAMES V. HANDMACHER Address: P 0 BOX 3344 Address: P 0 BOX 1533 ° KIRKL,IAND WA 98083 TACOMA WA 98401 Telephone No. I (425) 803-0400 Telephone No. (253) 627-8131 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below Dare the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) No. Error: Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: No. Error: Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) XX Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Rezone from R-1 to R-5 XX Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Delete Condition 2 of the P1 at and Condi ti on Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: 1 of the Variance Other p 'ant/Repr e tative Signature Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. heappeal.doc City of Renton Municipal uoae; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -App6,,ls '4-8-110C3 Any appeal shall be filed in writing. The written notice of appeal shall fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief. (Ord. 4353, 6-1-92) 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170, the fee schedule of the City: (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless an ordinance providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Clerk upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council- Procedures: 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten (10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents, including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord. 4389, 1-25- 93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If, upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council.Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified, the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving, modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive, unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord. 4660, 3-17-1997) 1 CITY COUNCIL 2 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 3 LABRADOR PRELIMINARY PLAT File No. LUA-098-141, PP, V-H, R 4 5 LABRADOR VENTURES, LLC, APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM 6 Applicant 7 I° Summary of Appeal. 8 The applicant, Labrador Ventures, LLC, appeals the following portions of the Report, 9 Recommendations and Decisions of the Hearing Examiner dated March 4, 1999: 10 A. Denial of the request to reclassify the eastern 4.43 acres from R-1 to R-5. 11 B Condition 7 of the preliminary plat recommendation requiring an 12 independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded 13 by the applicant to verify slope information. 14 C. Condition 1 of the variance decision requiring the bridge to be an open 15 girder or truss bridge and not an earth filled structure. 16 The remainder of this document shall discuss each issue in detail. 17 II. Rezone from R-1 to R-5. 18 The Hearing Examiner recommended denial of the request to rezone the eastern 4.43 acres 19 of the proposed plat from R-1 to R-5. This recommendation is clearly erroneous and contrary to the 20 evidence and the rezone request should be granted. 21 RVIC § 4-9-180.F (formerly § 4-8-14.C) states that the Hearing Examiner may recommend a 22 rezone to the City Council if"at least one of the following circumstances shall be found to apply:" 23 a) That substantial evidence was presented demonstrating the subject 24 reclassification appears not to have been specifically considered at the time of th,e last area land use analysis and area zoning; or 25 b) That the property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being Bonneville,Viert 820"A°Street,Suite 600 Morton n P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -1 McGoldrick Tacorl5Wasshhg81o3n198401 • APROFE�ON� oOR O"T0N Fax:(253)272-4338 \\LAVV3WOL1\LAWTYPEIREWFMLEADING\LV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • • 1 requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and conditions have been met which would indicate the change is appropriate: or 2 c) That since the last previous land use analysis of the area zoning of the 3 subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant 4 and material change. 5 . Only one of the three is.necessary. Two of these three circumstances exist in this case. 6 The first circumstance exists because the proposed R-5 zon&did..not exist at the time of the 7 last area land use analysis and area zoning. As pointed out in the'staff report, the-"new".R-1 zone 8 restricting density to one unit per acre was imposed on the eastern portion of the Labrador property 9 during the last area zoning in June, 1993. The ordinance creating the R-5 zone was adopted two 10 years later in June, 1995. Thus the zone classification requested by Labrador Ventures could not • . 1.1 have been specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning. 12 T e second criteria for recommending a rezone is also. clearly established for this 13 application. The proposed.rezone is within the Residential Rural land use category in the Renton 14 Comprehensive Plan.' Plan Policy LU-26 states: 15 Maximum development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to 5 homes per acre in Residential Rural except in areas with significant environmental 16 constraints including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, flood-plains, and wetlands where density shall not exceed 1 home per acre. 17 Thus, R-5 zoning is specifically authorized in the Residential Rural land use category except in 18 areas wit significant environmental constraints. 19 A small portion of Wetland.A and its buffer encroaches upon the northern edge of the R-1 20 zone on the Labrador property. The northern edge of the R-1 zone contains slopes in excess of 21 22 1 It is apparent that the property was included in the Residential Rural land use classification by mistake. Objective ..U-I in the Comprehensive Plan states that the objective of this land use category is to preserve 23 open space and natural resources and protect environmentally sensitive areas by limiting residential density' in critical areas, areas identified as part of a city-wide or regional open space network, or agricultural lands within 24 the City. il►s discussed herein, the portion of the Labrador property in the Residential Rural land use category is not environmentally sensitive or in a critical area (defined in the Plan as wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, 25 fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded and geologically hazardous areas), is not identified as part of an open space network, and is not used for agriculture. However, the proposed rezone will allow reasonable use without the need for amending the Comprehensive Plan. Bonneville,Viert 820'A'Street,Suite 600 Morton C P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,W)ashington 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -2 � s ,�, Fax?(253>z72-4338 SLAW3W0L1UAWTYPEIREWH\PLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.D0C16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 25%. However, all lots within the proposed rezone area would be outside the wetland, buffer, and 2 steep slope area. Therefore, none of the lots within the proposed R-5 zone will contain any 3 significant environmental constraints. , The .second criteria for recommending a rezone is thus 4 satisfied. • 5 Two .of the three criteria are thus satisfied. Only one is necessary .to recommend the 6 proposed rezone. The staff report erroneously concludes°.that without:satisfying the third :'criteria 7 regarding a significant and material.change of circumstances; the rezone,cannot-be recommended. 8 Because this conclusion is directly contrary to the plain language of the City Code, this conclusion 9 must be disregarded. 10 . If one of the three criteria is met, then RMC § 4-9-180.F.2 directs .the:Hearing Examiner to 11 determi7 if the change of the zone classification: 12 a) is desirable, 13 b) is in the public interest, 14 c) tends to. further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner, 15 d) is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or the properties of other 16 pg rsons located in the vicinity, and 17 e) is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. 18 All of these findings are well supported by the evidence regarding this rezone application. 19 The loop road made possible by a bridge crossing the ravine is not economically feasible if 20 development east of the ravine is limited to one unit per acre. As discussed in the variance analysis 21 section of the staff report, the loop road is critical for providing safe access for the residents of this 22 new subdivision, as well as the other properties to the east and south which are currently served by 23 a single road access. As cited in the staff report, a number of policies in the Comprehensive Plan 24 discourage cul-de-sacs and encourage a flexible grid system to provide alternative traffic routes. To 25 obtain this infrastructure, the City must provide sufficient urban densities to support it. Bonneville,Viert 820"A°Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,:Washington.98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -3 �, s d,,� (2531sz7-8131 \1LAW3\VOL1u.1WTYPEIREWHIPLEADINGtLV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fax:(2$3)272 4338 1 In the absence of significant environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone violates the 2 state Growth Management Act (GMA). In a recent decision from the Central Puget Sound Growth 3 . -Management Hearings Board, Lawrence Michael Investments, L.L.0 v. Town of Woodway, Case 4 No. 98-3-0012 (1/8/99), a copy of which is attached to Exhibit 26, the Board held that "the GMA 5 requires every city to designate all lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." (Page 6 23, line /4-25) The Board went on to find that, "absent justifiable environmental:reasons, permitting 7 only 30 homes on.60.8 acres would not achieve urban densities:and;.would:,constitute-impermissible 8 low-density development within the UGA [Urban Growth Area], thus failing to comply with Goals 1 9 and 2 [of the GMA]." (Page 24, 26) Those Goals "encourage development in urban areas where 10 adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an:;efficient:manner,.and reduce 11 the inappropriate_conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,.low.density development." RCW . • 12 36.70A.020: The. Board noted that a land use designation. of 4 du/ac or above is an .appropriate 13 urban density, and that 1 du/2ac is not an appropriate urban density. (Page 24) 14 T ere are no environmental constraints on the portion of the Labrador property zoned R-1. 15 Except for a small strip along the north edge where no development is proposed, the property 16 currently zoned R-1 is predominately flat and dry. The only environmental constraints on the 17 Labrador property, consisting of steep slopes and wetlands, occur in the area to the west zoned R-8. 18 In the absence of significant, justifiable environmental constraints, the low density R-1 zone on the 19 Labrador property violates the mandate of the GMA. Bringing this property into compliance with the 20 GMA is clearly in the public interest. 21 This proposed rezone also preserves the property rights of the petitioner. Property to the 22 west, north and east of the proposed rezone area is zoned R-8, including that portion of the 23 Labrador property between the existing R-1 zone and the creek ravine to the west. The property to 24 the south which is zoned R-1 is currently developed with a youth detention facility. Virtually all other 25 property in the area is zoned for single-family homes at R-8 density. Virtually all lots in the area are Bonneville,Viert 820"A"Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -4 McGoldrick Tacom(aZ 3a8s27gt13198401 APROFESSICM.SERJGECORPORATIM Fax:(2t3)272-4338 \UAW3\VOL1\LAWTYPE\REWH\PLEADING\LV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 equal to or smaller than the lots which would be created in the proposed R-5 zone. In the absence 2 of any significant environmental constraints, there is no justification for denying a reasonable 3 development potential to Labrador Ventures. 4 T e rezone will create no material detriment to the public welfare or other properties in the 5 area. Almostall properties-in the area are already developed at equivalent'density. The arguments 6 voiced by a few of the neighbors in opposition to the .rezone'have focused• on the alleged 7 environmental damage caused by building new houses in the;,neighborhood,.•but apparently not their 8 own hou es. This is a classic NIMBY response, which seeks to prevent others from developing their 9 property so the few who got there first can enjoy open space at another's expense. By adopting the 10 GMA, Washington has made a conscious policy choice to provide for:development at Durban density' , 11 in cities here the infrastructure and services exist, in order.to prevent sprawl into'rural areas. The 12 public welfare cannot be harmed by carrying out that policy. 13 Finally,the rezone is in harmony with the purposes and effect of the Comprehensive Plan. In 14 addition to the policies discussed above specifically authorizing density at R-5, discouraging cul-de- 15 sacs, and encouraging development of a flexible grid system of streets, the Comprehensive Plan 16 also states: 17 Policy LU=11: Future residential growth should be accommodated through: a) Development of new neighborhoods in environmentally suitable vacant 18 land on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown . . . 19 Objective LU-M: Provide more linkages within and between neighborhoods by developing a system of residential streets which serves both vehicles and pedestrians 20 and creates a continuous, efficient, interconnected network of roads and pathways throughout the city without unduly increases pass-through traffic. 21 Policy H-1: Provide sufficient capacity to accommodate estimates of market 22 demand for new housing provided through growth forecasts. 23 Policy H-4: Encourage in-fill development as a means to increase capacity. 24 The Labrador subdivision would provide quality new housing at densities compatible with the 25 neighborhood and contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, without encroaching on Bonneville,Viert ego"Ao sveat,Suite so.. Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -5 . McGoldrick Tacoma,�Washb ton 98401 � u . , Fax:(253)272-4338 \\LAWS\VOL1\LAWIYPE\REUH\PLEADING\LV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 1 environmentally sensitive areas. 2 The reasons given by the Hearing Examiner for recommending denial are not persuasive. •3 He states that the City made a "deliberate reasoned determination" to zone this property R-1. There • 4 is no'evidence in the record to support this conclusion. .,The only'evidence is contained in the staff 5 - report, page:20,. and repeated.at•-the hearing, that there is no legislative record to explain why this • . . 6 . zone was:'imposed on this portion of the.property.. The'Hearing Examiner-speculates'that.the R-1 7 zone'may..have:been "an:effort to preserve the..larger. lots:and::slopes:z near,:the.:headwaters of the : • 8 creek." I This conclusion is also not supported by the evidence. As stated in the Wetland'Evaluation • - • 9 by Terra Associates, Inc., contained in Exhibit 1, at page 4, the stream originates from a culvert . - 10 which .runs under 1-405. As shown on Figure 3 of that report,• both of-the°wetlands .are entirely 11 outside the R-1 zone. 12 ' The Hearing Examiner indicates-that the lower=density R-1' zone is appropriate on this 13 portion of the property to protect the environmentally-sensitive ravine and creek,- and. to avoid 14 "carving up the land near the unique ravine, slopes and forests -into small parcels where less 15 amenities would remain." However, the portion of the property zoned R-1 does not touch the ravine 16 with its slopes and trees. The ravine is entirely within the portion of the property zoned R-8. The R- 17 1 zone also does not protect the "forest" areas of the property. The trees, consisting primarily of 18 alder and big leaf maple, are primarily on the R-8 portion of the property. As shown on,Figure 2 of 19 the Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation by Terra Associates, Inc., contained in Exhibit 1, the eastern 20 portion of the property zoned R-1 is entirely ungrazed pasture and moderately-vegetated suburban 21 land. This is where the two existing single family homes are located. 22 Thus the rezone proposed by Labrador Ventures meets all of the criteria for rezoning 23 property in the City of Renton. It will provide housing at reasonable and compatible density, allow 24 the construction of needed infrastructure, and comply with the mandates of the GMA. The rezone 25 proposal should be approved by the City. Bonneville,Viert ego°A°Street,Suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washington 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -6 A nH6sFRldrip k Fax (253)272 4338 WAW31VOUI AWTYPBRE MPLEADINGIV-APPEALMEM.DOM6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW • 1 III. Third party consultant to verify slope analysis. 2 The applicant has repeatedly redesigned the plat to address the concerns raised by City staff 3 and the Environmental Review Committee. Though the applicant did not always agree with those 4 concerns, the applicant recognized that those concerns were based on the opinions of qualified 5 experts within the City. That is why the applicant objects to and appeals from two conditions 6 . .imposed by the Hearing Examiner which have no basis in any competent evidence in the record. 7 The Hearing Examiner imposed a condition .on approval:.of. the plat which .requires an 8 independent third party geotechnical consultant selected by the City but funded by the applicant to 9 verify the slope information provided by Touma Engineers, the applicant's surveyor and engineer. 10 This insult to the professionalism and competence of Mr. Touma is notjustified by any evidence in 11 the record. 12 . TJ:)uma Engineers performed a topographic survey of:the property locating the elevation of 13 over two thousand individual points on the property, with special emphasis on the areas 'of steeper 14 slopes (Exhibit 24). These points are downloaded into a computer whigh uses a special program to 15 triangulate those points and calculate the slopes throughout the property (Exhibit 25). This is the 16 accepted method for any engineer or surveyor, and was reviewed and approved by City staff. 17 T e Hearing Examiner justified his unusual condition as "due to the nature of the slopes and 18 the local variation in those slopes as well as the difference in the early geotechnical report regarding 19 some of the areas that might be subject to 40 percent slopes." The first reason provides no 20 justification for redoing the slope analysis, since the nature of the slopes and variations in those 21 slopes were properly illustrated in the existing slope analysis. The second reason appears to be 22 related to his Finding 21, where he states that one geotech report indicates that lots 6-11 may 23 encroach on 40 percent slopes, that the other report is less definitive, and the applicant's submission 24 indicates the slopes in this area are approximately 39 percent. This finding is based on a 25 misreading and misstatement of the evidence in the record. Bonnev1lle,Viert ego"A"Street,Suite 600 Morten 8L P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,W)ashing8ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -7 A Fax:(213)272-4338� \\LAW3WOL1ILAWTYPEIREWHTLEADINGLLV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 The preliminary geotechnical report dated September 8, 1998, at page 4, in Exhibit 1, stated 2 that existing slope grades in this area "range between about 25 and 50 percent." When asked about 3 this statement during the hearing, the geotechnical engineer stated ‘that 'he did not have any 4 independent evidence of slopes, but was relying solely on the evidence .presented by Touma 5 Engineers. It was :not the function of the .geotechnical report ,to•provide 'detailed ,information 6 -regarding the percent of slopes, but to discuss the stability of,the.':slopes.,-Thus'the geotechnical 7 report does not contradict or question the slope analysis performed.,by:Touma.:Engineers:;,;.,.. 8 The Addendum to the Geotechnical Report dated December 1, 1998, at page2, in Exhibit 1, 9 states that "slope grades in the vicinity of.Lots 7 through 12 and the cul-de-sac range from about 26 -- 10 to 39 percent."2 This is based on Mr. Touma's slope analysis(Exhibit.7)_which:shows,the:slopes in . ' ' 11 this area are greater that 25 percent, but less that 40 percent: :-Again, the geotechnical engineer was . 12 relying on the slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers, and does not contradict or question 13 that analysis. Further, Mr. Touma testified that slopes in this area range "up to 38 or 39 'percent," 14 not that slopes in the area "are approximately 39 percent" as stated in Finding 21. ' 15 The only testimony questioning the slope analysis by Touma Engineers came not from 1 16 another engineer, or from City staff. Rather, it came from Kim Browne, a neighbor and the primary 17 opponen of this project, who said that it looked to her like the slopes in this areas were greater than 18 40 percent. Because of this offhand remark by a project opponent, and misreading the geotechnical 19 reports, the Hearing Examiner wants to the applicant to pay over $10,000 to resurvey the entire 20 property and recalculate the slopes. In the absence of any competent evidence casting doubt on the 21 slope analysis performed by Touma Engineers, there is no justification for this condition. 22 IV. Variance condition requiring and open girder or truss bridge. 23 The Hearing Examiner approved the requested variance to allow the road to cross the ravine 24 and creec, on the condition that the bridge shall be an open girder or truss bridge and not an earth 25 2 This is the geotech report which the Hearing Examiner says is"less definitive." Bonneville,Viert 820"A°Street,sulfa 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -8 McGoldrick Tacoma,3a:shh$1o3n198401 \LAMV3VOL1\LAWTYPEREWHPLEADINGLV-APPEALMEM.DOCI6937.08 AAvTRNYSATLm Fax:(253)272-4338 • 1 filled strut ture. In Conclusion 23, the Hearing Examiner stated that the proposed bridge is not the 2 minimum necessary to cross the ravine, merely the most expedient. He opined that an open 3 trusswork or girder. bridge would only..need .to. disturb areas where the-support .columns were 4 constructed, and would be less of an obstacle to wildlife. Again, there was no evidence to support 5 these assertions. 6 •. Thee applicant proposed an open bottom, arched bridge..over..the- stream. The..bridge is 7 :depicted by Exhibit•23.. The opening-in the bridge would be:twenty:feet':wide:and,;.16:feet:tall in the 8 center. This would not disturb the.streambed, which is only a few feet wide at this location. The - 9 • area above the opening would be filled, and the utilities would be buried under the street and above . . . 10 .....the..opening.'The width of the_bridge at the base would be the:same-as the.width of the itreet at the- 11 top, 46 feet. 12 The Hearing.Examiner's:concern about disturbing the_ground is misplaced. ,!.Excavation Of 13 the foundation for support posts would disturb the ground just-as much as construction •of the 14 proposed bridge. The effect on vegetation would be virtually the same, since the shadow of a girder 15 bridge would also prevent vegetation under the bridge. It should be remembered that this is hot 16 high-quality wildlife habitat which is being disturbed. The evidence presented by Tom Strong, the 17 wildlife s ecialist, was that the site is already heavily disturbed, and the understory is predominately 18 blackberries and english ivy. Neither of these are native species, and neither are conductive to • 19 wildlife habitat. • 20 The Hearing Examiner also expressed a concern with the effect of the proposed bridge on 21 the passage of wildlife up the ravine. However, when he posed that question to Tom Strong, a • 22 specialist with a Ph.D. in biology with a specialty in avian ecology, Mr. Strong testified that the 23 proposed bridge presents very little barrier to wildlife movement across the site. He testified that 24 most species would simply go under the bridge, which is 16 feet high, including larger species like • 25 deer or coyote. He testified that some parts of the country construct tunnels under freeways to allow - Bonneville,Viert 820"K.,Street,Suite 500 Morton & P.O.Boil 1533 . McGoldrick Tacoma,.Washln-g8ton 98401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -9 � � � Fax:(253)272�4336 W AW31VOL11LAWTYPEIREUMPLEADINGILV-APPEALMEM.DOC16937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1 animals to pass under them. He also noted that larger animals like deer or coyote would be just as 2 likely to cross over the road. 3 • The'concern over the movement'of animals up the :ravine- is greatly overstated&:There is 4 simply nowhere for them to go. The northeastern portion of the site at the top of the ravine'Is 5 completely surrounded by developed single-family neighborhoods:-..Just beyond those,single-family 6 homes is 1-405, which forms an impenetrable barrier for wildlife (which the stream:crosses in a small 7 culvert). To get to the Labrador.property.from Gene.Coulon.Park;::wildlife-would,:either°.have to pass 8 through the culverts under Lake Washington Boulevard or walk across that far wider and busier 9 street. As noted in the Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation proposed for this site by Terra Associates; 10 contained in Exhibit 1, though this type of habitat could be used:by:many species;:since::this;parcel is 11' relatively small and isolated, it actually contains only a'few species of songbirds and small'mammals 12 . like mole ,,.squirrels, opossum, and, raccoons. Such,animals can easily go under or"around the 13 proposed bridge. 14 • ' •Fi ally, the Hearing Examiner's condition fails to take into account:the problems posed by a: . • 15 girder or truss bridge. Because such a bridge may be metal, it may require higher maintenance. 16 Since the area under the road is not paved, the utilities would have to hang under the bridge, where 17 they are more vulnerable to the elements. Since this bridge will ultimately be owned by the City, 18 these issues may pose financial problems for the City. The City staff did not suggest or encourage 19 such a bridge, but supported the applicant's proposal. The bridge as proposed by the applicant was 20 approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. There is simply no justification for the 21 imposition of this condition for approval of the variance. 22 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED thi s s/‘75eday of March, 1999. 23 24 V. HAND ACHER, WSBA#8637 Bonneville, Viert, Morton & McGoldrick, P.S. 25 Attorneys for Labrador Ventures, LLC Bonneville,Viert 820"A"Street,suite 600 Morton & P.O.Box 1533 McGoldrick Tacoma,Washington 96401 APPLICANT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM -10 A �s ,� Fax:(253)272�338 1\LAWS\VOL1tLAWTYPEtREWH1PLEADING\LV-APPEALMEM.DOC\6937.06 ATTORNEYS AT LAW -- , , • ' 1 NOTES RECE I PT DATE Ike,/161 HD. 2350 RECEIVED FROM James V fiaoci itYla,clier •_, ADDRESS Bovine.vidt I Vie r-f ! YYloYfuri 'ii Mc,CI Diattcle-- $ -76 ,DD FOR Air d A tAA A - 11- 114 1 Labra Apr ve A-1--u re$ ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK -1 0 0 . BALANCE MONEY BY "A :1\kwylk.,A4L41L. . DUE ORDER 21998 LEPIFORMO 8L802 - J . L__ CITY.CLERK DIVISION: Send Copies To: !�/j,'of k �. ��Date•. . 4 ✓I t CITY;ATTORN'EY '-'CITY COUNCIL' ' COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS„ Id ' EDNSP/ECONOMIC'•DEVELOP. =.Su ..� FINANCE/INFO SERVICES ' 11` ' :FIRE DEPT/EIRE PREVENTTON iYi `` �' ^ `'. . ;H'EARING'EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCESIRISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES :LIBRARIES MAYOR/EXECUTIVE fr ,MUNICIPAL COURT 9 " PLAN-NING'iCOMMISSION""' - P'OLICE: CODIFIER . - ,. NEWSPAPER . 441 ',PARTIES Of RECORD . Planning/Building/Public.Works: . ADMINISTRATION 409.5 AIRPORT'.' "DEVELOPMENT'SERVICES , .` l,Gv���;.�rva �� �`��•� ' F" TRANSPORTAT 0g,SERVI C 5' :, �i4 R ICE 4 " ,4.1,.✓;•.i ✓., Appeal • TSI � �. , Lt( Transportation Solutions,Inc. 16310 NE 80th Street,Suite 100 Redmond,WA 98052-3861 (425)8834134(800)2854134 • FAX (425)867-0898 September 14, 1998 x �"`��vEd, , � Mr. Joseph Strobele Lincoln Property Company 1756 114`1 Avenue SE, Suite 135 Bellevue, WA 98004-6931 Subject: The Bluffs at Lake Washington Multi a ily Development in Renton Dear Mr. Strobele: 1 Thank you for asking Transportation Solutions) in (TSI) to analyze the traffic issues asso;;iatcdd with the proposed•The Bluffs at Lake Washing on ulti-family development located in the City of Renton,'Washington. This letter report pro is e on and the City of Renton with a summary of the project location and description; a brief 1 e e opment history that defines the scuue of this analysis; a definition of the approved and prop o s- evelopments traffic characteristics, and a summary of findings and analysis. Project Description The project site is located between Lake Wash: Boulevard and Interstate 405 (1405), approximately one-quarter mile north of Park e. The project site is located across Lake- ' • Washington Boulevard from the Gene Coulon lKiemorial Beach Park. A map showing the iocatiuii,of the proposed project is shown on A cWslent 1. The Bluffs is a proposed multi-family resident el d=,elopment consisting of l-74 dwelling units and 311 arking spaces on three segments. 0 '11se 4 dwelling units, 24 units will be town- house style and 150 units will be luxury low-rigg a _ ents. Segments A and C will consist of 114 low-rise apartment units and 24 town-hou•a.. S gment B would consist of 36 low-rise apartment units. The vehicular access to Segment A and C will t - r vided by a new driveway on Lake Washington Boulevard, approximately 1,0001=et o -th of the north access to Gene Conlon • Memoriail Beach Park. This access is a dual-a-f•ss with an emergency vehicle driveway ruiuiiiig parallel to an access driveway. Two accesses are proposed to serve segment Bo Can- ould he located off of.North 20th Street approximately 400 feet east of the intersection ( Lake Washington Boulevard/North 20th Street. The second access will be located off Lake W.d` g on Boulevard North approximately 40Q feet north of the intersection of Lake Washington :kJ 1. and North/North 20th Street. The second Mr. Joseph Strobele Page 2 September 14, 1998 access would serve as an emergency vehicle a' ss. A representative site plan is shown on Attachment 2. - Development History The project site was approved for development C f 5 multi-family units on January 12, 1993. The approved project included an internal turner o ,d for emergency vehicles and a secondary emergency access road at the north end of the . Because of the topography and the desire to rea c pacts-to adjoining areas,the secondary access to the north end of the site was latter elim n t d and a revised site plan was submitted to the City for approval. The revised site plan ina de a dual-access that would provide a public driveway)as well as an emergency vehicle acc:f 'ng parallel to each other. This site plan was approved by the City of Renton Fire Depasi . on July 29, 1997. The dual7access is also being proposed for this C§i rrent proposed development. In addition,nine more apartment units are being proposed to be the ed in the development totaling 174 multi- _ family units. Internal site traffic circulation h.§1. - improved and was approved by the Renton Fire Department. Scope of1Analysis TSI has s'coped the traffic analysis with the Ci c• enton Traffic and Planning staffs. Based on their review, they are requiring an update to thg Z 98• traffic report for the previously approved development completed by The Transpo Grou l s update traffic report includes a trip generation comparison between the approved . 4 61E1 ent proposed development, traffic assignment based on the trip distribution from h- 89 traffic report, and level of service analysis for the intersections of Park Avenue b ake Washington Boulevard North and Burnett Avenue North/Lake Washington Boul, orth. Trip Generation As mentioned above, the project site was appr r development of 165 apartment units (Land Use- 220). Based on the 1989 traffic moo r the approved development, the approved project Would generate approximately 123 PM gl ak hour trips ( 84 entering and 39 exiting). Based on the latest ITE Trip Generation Repo C. ']dition, the current proposed development with 150 low-rise apartment(Land Use-221) . 26 own-house units (Land Use-230)would generate approximately 1,350 daily trips and 114 'v peak hour trips. Table 1 presents a trip generation comparison between the approved .0ti ent proposed development for the project site. I The peal hour traffic volume is reduced despitg @ increase in the number of dwelling units because the current project represents a more ran mix of residential uses that generate a lower number of trips per dwelling unit. TSI Transportation Solutions Inc. Mr. Joseph Strobele Page 3 September 14, 1998 I Table 1. Trip G=a r 'on Comparison p. ber PM Peak Hour o nits Entering Exiting Approved Development Apartment I 5 84 39 Current Proposed Development Low-Rise Apartm _talent 0 � 63 32 Town-house 13 6 Sub-total 76 .38 1 Net Change 9 -8 -.1 The current proposed development will gener.)B a roximately 9 fewer vehicles per hour(vph) in the PM peak than the approved development The time at which project generated traffic would have the greatest impact on the road sys,e i during the PM peak hour. During this hour, the combination of commute and commercial N c are concentrated and highest. The current - proposed development will have-less traffic i ;lp c uring the PM peak hour than the previously _ .. approve development. Trip Distribution and Assignment Based oil the City of Renton historical traffic o u data from 1990 to 1997, there was an 8% decrease •n traffic volume from 1991 to 1995. 1) i as due to the relocation of the Boeing Assembl Plants. However, since 1996, traffi. Irta een growing at approximately 3% annually. Thus, existing traffic was increased at a rate o " 'o mpounded annually for two year to forecast the year 2000 background traffic volume. This(_ h reflects additional traffic volumes due to anticipated new pipeline developments in the ,m• c vicinity. In addition, the proposed Tamaron Pointe Apartments and Labrador Venture Plat 55 gle-family developments traffic were added to the background traffic to estimate year 2000 tr a i c volume without the proposed project. This provides a"worse case" scenario for forecasti Q i "ire traffic"without"the project. Attachment 3 and 4 shows_the traffic volumes for existing ems.. (',ture condition`..`without'.'the proposed project. As requested by City of Renton Staff, the proj iral distribution percentage from the 1989 traffic impact report for the project site was us1 for this analysis. The trip distribution percentage is presented in Attachment 5. Project trips were assigned to the street system 4 r ltiplying the percentage trip distribution on the streetSs by the gross trip generation of the c Fgent proposed development. The project trip assignment is presented in Attachment 6. ISI ITransportation Solutions Inc. Mr. Joseph Strobele Page 4 September 14, 1998 To forecast traffic volume"with"the project, tk proposed project generated traffic was added onto the 2000 background traffic volume. Att.E1 ffint 7 shows the traffic assignment for future year 2000 condition"with"project. Level of Services Level of service:analysis for the intersections seii r Avenue North/Lake Washington Boulevard - and Burnett Avenue North/Lake Washington 63 1 and North were computed for existing, year 2000 "without"the proposed project, and year a 00 "with"the proposed project conditions. - These two intersections were considered refle d e o conditions in the area and were selected- -- - becausethey would experience the largest projKt, erated traffic volume. The Highway ---- — - • - Capacity Manual methodology was used to ca Cu la e level of service. The level of service result is presented in Table 2 and level of service wo . is are included in Attachment 8, Table 2.Level i i.' ice Summary Intersection Existin F ture without i Future with i 1998 project Project -- Park-Avenue N/Lake-Washington -- B(14.8) --C(15.5) - -C(15:-8) - Blvd Lake Washington Blvd/South Project N/A ' N/A A(n 4) Driveway Lake Washington Blvd/North 20th A(0.4) A(0.4) A(0.6) Street 1' Lake Washington Blvd/Burnett A(3.5) A_(4.7) A(.5,4) Avenue N Based on 1994 Highway Capacity Manual Methoi o to y N/A--,intersection does not exist _ The level of service at Lake Washington Boulige urnett Avenue North is calculated to operate at LOS•-A for all three conditions. Thi3 excellent level of service. The project traffic contributes a negligible. impact to this if t e,s tion. . - The level of service at Park Avenue North/LakD ashington Boulevard is calculated to operate at LOS-C with the-project's traffic. LOS-C is a .o level-of service. Traffic volume at this intersection will increase by less than three pe .o ' ith the project. Thus, the proposed project will have negligible traffic impact to the surro Iasi. . roadway network. In addition, TSI _. examined the level of service at the two outlet i 00 to Lake Washington Boulevard North. Both of these intersections are forecasted to operate at RI e ellent level of service (LOS-A). Conclusion This project will have negligible traffic impact tlo t surrounding roadway network. Affected intersections are expected to operate at a good kg. f service, LOS-C or above. Proposed TSI I Transportation Solutions Inc. Mr. Joseph Strobele Page 4 September 14, 1998 emergency accesses have been reviewed and afroved by the Renton Fire Department and will provide safe alternative accesses into the proje si: All project driveways are forecasted to operate at a very good level of service, LOS-A Mitigation .. The increLse in traffic volumesdue to the prop ce evelopment would not significantly worsen the level lof service at Park Avenue North/Laki 'ngton Boulevard North or Lake Washington Boulevard/Burnett Avenue North. hus,no specific improvement at this intersection is needed to mitigate traffic impacg frcm the project. Analysis of site access shows that no other specific traffic mitigation is warr,E1 e f I hope this traffic report provides you with the a c ary information to submit to the City for approval. If you have any questions or need c ; c tion,please call me at your convenience. It was a pleasure working with you on this 413 Sincerely, Transportation Solutions, Inc. Thang Tat Nguyen Transportation Engineer Attachments Transportation Solutions Inc . m it rn z z my Q > Q 3 N. co m N.30th St. N.28th St NE 27th St. z a 0 v m m I) N.24th St tio vii • N2� 5` 6.0 #1 v .., a t"CirA 1 IV NE Park Dr .D N. d`0 G 74 �'A Z w ai Y a- do Q - O. a Attachment 1 The Bluffs TS! Vicinity Map Multi-Family Transportation Solutions,Inc. Page 6 ■OMI it it NMi rwnr ,umr+r ra=Fu •I ) 1 ' \ ? \\\.___,Iii'.'Ll.1 i I I \ \ , , --:\\1,1i I II I ,1 I ti\,,,,1_,,---;---- ..,_ —L3.*-‘-':- :,\-\\:,\'\i i 1 Ili ``M '```\+ 9!NAV" 1 i t 11 11 11 a ` ` ` `4� l iI u ',4 , �, \\ \ ,,,,, \ \ ; \iii; � j tiw �iJl\1I � ' ! .6 __,..,,,,,,..... , ,,,,,,„,,,,,i . \\14\ _3_, ...„_....-_-....., ,. „--_,,),4.v... . '1I//�V ;TIAtI I�1 (r — i'L.. • „---„„.. .-„,- --, I•' 1 1 1 `\ i11„ Iii Al l. E 11 , \\ i/l 71.;3',,,',,',,g1 1 1, 1, \ \,, y A/ r 1 10 4i ;,, , 1, • )\ '. %-Th*11‘,1,-' i,,,,9 1;/;•.zie,',,..4. , \ \\ \ 4•14,1; ..--.,,I,;(, /f'Le:I...v.1T __ -,,, , _ . , , \ Vre.....r.0"jk..141110 l'i?..\\\ I i)j-‘-----7,_P\4.: 1.--, .' ► u ' j 4G -I1 t \ 111 k I I •\ \' r / 1 c—j9/Ilr#- ,' I ) ,,\ ,,�F, _it. p.irt .,11 ‘. \ —. 1 1 k1 \,,,,\D 1 `\\\,y.c ti,y_ r 1 ;���1 1 j 1 \ • \ -:-/),AiLl _.----,--/fl'il ) ,/ii:' I IN \ � 4 to I 1. i� �1)� 0 ` t / I 1 i; l NOT FOR CONSTRICTION-SUBJECT TO REGULATORY REVIEW Figure 2 The Bluffs U Site Plan Multi-Family Transportation Solutions,Inc. . Page 7 z ,a m a Z z ctl as Amy di ^"I ` `�° m • a Existing �D� v N.30th St. 0 0 54 Tr/. ... N.28th St. � NE 27th St. .....''•.. 3 0 -o m 13 5 \ N.24th St. LQ0 -10 �19 i r ........,..... r4 is. / ............... ''''V c) ,.��. ..�� N rw . ' $1 \ lc . N IO_ ON :_ewer T y,„0 -,---0 ------------,,.. tcii- *.r.4 0 0 / ti / I� s ` NE Park 0r 900 4' 'D CO"' 0c. 7or 258 114 860 7i D 4-482 0---ir r 0 .. Ei 7m-- A s C. ., ai 2 yL 2 l0 a Attachment 3 The Bluffs ' Existing 1998 PM Peak Traffic Multi-Family Transportation Solutions,Inc. Volumes Page 8 1 , �a m i Amy >> Mil co0 N Y m E II \ m m a Future N.30th St Background 1 04--o i tr/*---76 •-...----,....„ N.28th St NE 27th St ai 0 0 v m m M L \0 N.24th St. —11 �20 • :„:„.7.": in rn ....,••. rnel ... m Z0w gt. • • IN O \\,.... co 54-, iO / i 3. m \ ANEPa0r4\ • 900 <• N•Pa o 912-0* 0 4-511 0 d Cili 7 O 4.1 /.............--...—..-..... '-........-''''''''.. I. `gym N > ? 1 I -E y n] a Attachment 4 The Bluffs TSII ' • Future 2000 PM Peak Traffic Volumes Multi-Family Transportation Solutions.Inc. without Project _ Page 9 24% z z 10% 3my z ti Trip N.30th St. Distribution N.28th St. _ NE 27th St G7 N.24th St. 34% N2�� tp 4% 66% 4% ;TadcDr. .�� 0 30% C.) N^� 2 8% Attachment 5 The Bluffs TS! Project Traffic Distribution Multi-Family Transportation Solutions,Inc. Page 10 2a _ m o� a •c°j . ai I ¢' �b �4 m a TripN.3oth st. Assignment dm 0 0 IF-8 t r7.....-%.'",..,......... N.28th St `.., NE 27t17 St U 3 0 a m m '2cip \L N.24th St La N. 9 NW 6 ir7.-----,,... 4,,,,,,,- ...,...„.. 7...* ,.., ,. ., ., ............. ,..1 ~...,.�...,,� N.2.0 -$:-. , I •T m 0 ��`4 bA p ��,II, ;e.,: clo L10 �i94o M t, „,,,,,„. r(7 / • 1 Im I� ` paQt„.......,.....,7., • 740.„, r Park or. 43:a' b N \ 4 z D 2i--, 4) 4-0 ..____" .. --- w. . r o is a 2 t . l 1 Attachment 6 The Bluffs Project Traffic Assignment Multi-Family Tsi Transportation Solutions,Inc. ` Page 11 a 1 . m el z :_ c0j ai � > N 3my x m w i� \ J E m I m Future b N.30th St. with Project oh 0 gir d—93 I 3 , ...`-. N.28th St E 27th St. •,... Q 3 0 -0 0 N N \"LA N.24th St. W I r/ ,, � !F '''''....... 0. 49 ........,. .... .........: ............ , ........ ................. ... .,.....„............, N?.°0 ...... , ...„_, .. \\,............... a.=` < I'i°/ .-------, .t.. .iil,--,.•;., / Im Im \ ANEPa0rA to-s\L'• ,\r 900 17- ® �-173 D 12- 4-511 ...-^-^.-. 0---; s. o. r 0 y T e. ti f a Figure 7 The Bluffs TS! 1 Future 2000 PM Peak Traffic Multi-Family Transportation Solutions.me Volumes with Project 1 Page 12 I Figure 8 The Bluffs • I Level of Service Worksheets Multi-Family Transportation Solutions,Inc. Park Ave. N. & Lake Washington Blvd. N. . 6/15/1998 19918 Existing 9/14/1998 Lanes,Volumes,Timings o © 0000aoo © oo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations vi 411, atet r err r if r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -5% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 First Detector(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds No No No No Frt Protected 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(prot) 1787 5644 0 0 3710 1577 0 0 4797 1805 0 1615 Frt Perm. 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Perm. 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.952 Satd. Flow (perm) 1787 5644 0 0 3710 1577 0 0 4797 1809 0 1615 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume (vph) 258 860 0 0 482 114 0 0 522 65 0 156 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.97" 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 Growth Factor` 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block.Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% 0% - Adj. Flow(vph) 266 887 0 0 536 95 0 0 652 80 0 173 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Flow(vph) 266 976 0 0 563 95 0 0 822 80 0 173 Perm or Prot? Prot Perm Free Perm Perm Perm Pm+Ov Phase Number 7 4 8 1 6 Phase Lagging? Lead Lag Can Lead or I.ag? Maximum Split(s) 31 59 28 46 46 Maximum Split(%) 30% 56% 27% 44% 44% Minimum Splits(s) 8 20 20 20 20 Yellow Time (s) 4 4 4 4 4 Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 g/c Ratio 0.27 0.53 0.24 1.00 0.41 0.41 0.68 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 477 3010 883 1577 1964 741 1092 V/C Ratio 0.56 0.32 0.64 0.06 0.42 0.11 0.16 V/S Ratio Pro 0.15 0.04 V/S Ratio Perm 0.17 0.15 0.06 0.17 0.04 0.07 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 25.2 10.5 27.3 0.0 16.8 14.5 3.9 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.69 0.45 Incr. Delay, d2 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Webster's St Delay 26.3 10.5 28.4 0.0 42 11.7 10.1 42 1.8 LOS D B D A 4 BB 4 A Maximum Green (s) 27 55 24 3.0 3.0 PM Peak Synchro Report JMB Page 1 TRANSP-R300 I . Park Ave. N. & Lake Washington Blvd. N. 6/15/1998 1998 Existing 9/14/1998 Lanes,Volumes,Timings . i Da Ll LI oao © oo Lane Group i EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL, NBT NBR SBL SBT . SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4 4 4 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 Minimum Gap (s) I 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 None Coord Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 5 5 Recall Mode None None None 11 11 Walk Time (s) j 5 5 0 0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11 11 42 42 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 Coord Coord 90th %Ile Green (s) 27 55 24 46 46 90th %Ile Term Code Max Hold Max Coord Coord 70th %ile Green (s) 23 51 24 52 52 70th %Ile Term node Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 50th %ile Green (s) 20 45 21 57 57 50th %Ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 30th %Ile Green 6) 18 40 18 64 64 30th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 10th %Ile Green)(s) 13 33 16 10th %Ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 145 178 0 105 27 29 9� Queue Length 5th (ft) 239 143 227 0 139 56 50 Link Length (ft)i 3034 3041 50th Up Block Time % 95th Up Block Time % Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 50 50th Bay Block!Time% 58% 39% 59% 95th Bay Block!,Time % 59% 32% 61% Queuing Penalty (veh) ,190 95 57 Area Type: I Other Cycle Length:1105 Natural Cycler 60 Offset: 32 (30%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused and 6-SBT, Start of Green Control Type:!Actuated-Coordinated Lost Time: 9 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.47 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.52 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 14.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: Park Ave. N. &Lake Washington Blvd. N. J1 i4 46 i 59 46 1 31 28 Id 6 i a (7 IC- 8 PM Peak 1 Synchro Report JMB I Page 2 TRANSP-R300 I Park Ave. N. & Lake Washington Blvd. N. 6/15/1998 2000 Future without Project 9/14/1998 Lanes,Volumes,Timings oaaa0000a © oo Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configuriations vi 14 14+ r ref' 1 r Ideal Flow(vp pl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -5% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 First Detector�(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds No No No No Frt Protected 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(pr t) 1787 5644 0 0 3710 1577 0 0 4797 1805 0 1615 Frt Perm. 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fit Perm. 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.952 Satd. Flow(perm) 1787 5644 0 0 3710 1577 0 0 4797 1809 0 1615 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume (vph) 296 912 0 0 511 143 0 0 554 80 0 178 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 Growth Factor 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% Heavy Vehici+ (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr)) Mid-Block Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow(vph) 305 940 0 0 568 119 0 0 692 99 0 198 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Flow(vph) 305 1034 0 0 596 119 0 0 872 99 0 198 Perm or Prot? Prot Perm Free Perm Perm Perm Pm+Ov Phase Number 7 4 8 1 6 Phase Lagging? Lead Lag Can Lead or Lag? Maximum Split(s) 31 59 28 46 46 Maximum Split(%) 30% 56% 27% 44% 44% Minimum Split(s) 8 20 20 20 20 Yellow Time (s) 4 4 4 4 4 Lost Time(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 g/c Ratio 0.27 0.53 0.24 1.00 0.41 0.41 0.68 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 477 3010 883 1577 1964 741 1092 V/C Ratio 0.64 0.34 0.67 0.08 0.44 0.13 0.18 V/S Ratio Prot 0.17 0.05 V/S Ratio Perm 0.18 0.16 0.08 0.18 0.05 0.07 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 25.9 10.6 27.6 0.0 17.0 14.7 4.0 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.58 Incr. Delay, d2 2.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Webster's St Delay 27.9 10.7 29.0 0.0 42 13.3 11.4 42 2.3 LOS I D B D A 4 B B 4 A Maximum Grelen (s) 27 55 24 3.0 3.0 PM Peak Synchro Report TTN Page 1 TRANSP-R300 Park Ave. N. & Lake Washington Blvd. N. 6/15/1998 2000 Future without Project 9/14/1998 Lanes,Volumes,Timings Liao 0 D 0 0 D 0 © 0 0 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Minimum Initial (s) 4 4 4 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 Time Before Reduce(s) 0 0 0 None Coord Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 5 5 Recall Mode None None None 11 11 Walk Time (s) 5 5 0 0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11 11 42 42 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 Coord Coord 90th %ile Greenl (s) 27 55 24 44 44 90th %ile Term Code Max Hold Max Coord Coord 70th %ile Grelen (s) 25 53 24 49 49 70th %Ile Term Code Gap Hold Max Coord Coord 50th %Ile Green (s) 22 48 21 54 54 50th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 30th %ile Green (s) 19 43 19 62 62 30th %Ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 10th %ile Green (s) 15 36 16 10th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Queue Length' 50th (ft) 193 147 189 0 120 35 35 Queue Length) 95th (ft) 276 153 241 0 148 67 57 Link Length (ft) 3034 3041 50th Up Block Time % 95th Up Bloch Time % Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 50 50th Bay Bloak Time % 59% 37% 60% 95th Bay Block Time% 61% 33% 62% Queuing Penalty (veh) 206 107 72 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Natural Cycle: 65 Offset: 32 (30%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused and 6-SBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Lost Time: 9 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.51 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.56 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 15.5 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Park Ave. N. &Lake Washington Blvd. N. iJ1 4 46 59 46 31 L.] J6 LA7 8 PM Peak Synchro Report TTN Page 2 TRANSP-R30 Park Ave. N & Lake Washington Blvd. N. 6/15/1998 2000 Future with Project 9/15/1998 Lanes,Volumes,Timings o © o o ooaoo © oa Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL, NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Ili ++t +1, r rrr ) r Ideal Flow(vprpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% -5% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 First Detector(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds No No No No Frt Protected 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(pr t) 1787 5644 0 0 3710 1577 0 0 4797 1805 0 1615 Frt Perm. 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 Fit Perm. 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.952 Satd. Flow(perm) 1787 5644 0 0 3710 1577 0 0 4797 1809 0 1615 Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Volume (vph) I 317 912 0 0 511 173 0 0 554 97 0 186 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Fa gtor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 Growth Factor 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Adj. Flow(vph) 327 940 0 0 568 144 0 0 692 120 0 207 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Flow(vph) 327 1034 0 0 596 144 0 0 872 120 0 207 Perm or Prot? Prot Perm Free Perm Perm Perm Pm+Ov Phase Number 7 4 8 1 6 Phase Lagging? Lead Lag Can Lead or Lag? Maximum Split(s) 31 59 28 46 46 Maximum Split(%) 30% 56% 27% 44% 44% Minimum Split(s) 8 20 20 20 20 Yellow Time (s 4 4 4 4 4 Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 g/c Ratio 1 0.27 0.53 0.24 1.00 0.41 0.41 0.68 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 477 3010 883 1577 1964 741 1092 V/C Ratio 0.69 0.34 0.67 . 0.09 0.44 0.16 0.19 V/S Ratio Prot 0.18 0.05 V/S Ratio Perm 0.18 0.16 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.08 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 26.3 10.6 27.6 0.0 17.0 14.9 4.0 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.65 Incr. Delay, d2 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Webster's St Delay 29.1 10.7 29.0 0.0 42 14.0 12.2 42 2.6 LOS D B D A 4 B B 4 A Maximum Green (s) 27 55 24 3.0 3.0 PM Peak(PM2000w.sy5)w/Tamaron and Labrador Synchro Report TTN Page 1 TRANSP-R300 Park Ave. N. & Lake Washington Blvd. N. 6/15/1998 2000 Future with Project 9/15/1998 Lanes,Volumes,Timings . oa0000000aao Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBI., WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBI, , SBT SBR, Minimum Initial (s) 4 4 4 3.0 3.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 0 Time Before Reduce(s) 0 0 0 None Coord Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 5 5 Recall Mode None None None 11 11 Walk Time (s) 5 5 0 0 Flash Dont Walk(s) 11 11 42 42 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 Coord Coord 90th %Ile Green (s) 27 55 24 42 42 90th %ile Term Code Max Hold Max Coord Coord 70th %ile Green (s) 27 55 24 48 48 70th %Ile Teri Code Max Hold Max Coord Coord 50th %Ile Green (s) 24 49 21 53 53 50th %Ile Teri Code Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 30th %Ile Green (s) 20 44 19 60 60 30th %Ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Coord Coord 10th %ile Green (s) 16 36 16 10th %ile Term Code Gap Hold Gap Queue Length 50th (ft) 206 143 189 0 123 45 37 Queue Lengtf 95th (ft) 297 153 241 0 148 79 59 - Link Length (f-) 3034 3041 50th Up Block Time % 95th Up Block Time % Turn Bay Length (ft) 50 50 50th Bay Block Time% 59% 36% 60% 95th Bay Block Time% 62% 33% 62% Queuing Penalty(veh) 208 113 87 Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 105 Natural Cycle:65 Offset: 32 (30%), Referenced to phase 2-Unused and 6-SBT, Start of Green Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Lost Time: 9 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.53 Intersection VAC Ratio: 0.57 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 15.8 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: Park Ave. N. &Lake Washington Blvd. N. III 4 46 59 46 31 28 PM Peak(PM21000w.sy5)w/Tamaron and Labrador Synchro Report TTN Page 2 TRANSP-R300 LHCS : Unsignali ed Intersections Release 2 . 1g 04PM98X.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Ave N (E-W) Lake Washington Blvd Analyst ttn Date of Analysis 9/14/98 Other Information existing 1998 conditions All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L TRLTRL TRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. .Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Volumes 3 171 128 72 54 0 PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB . WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 3 0 57 RT Flow Rate 0 76 0 Approach Flow Rate 183 211 57 Proportion LT 0 . 02 0 . 00 1. 00 Proportion RT 0 . 00 0 .36 0 . 00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 211 183 0 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 57 57 394 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .41 0 .47 0 .13 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .47 0 .41 0 . 00 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 0 LT, Opposing Approach 0 3 0 RT, Opposing Approach 76 0 0 LT, Conflicting Approaches 57 57 3 RT, Conflictin Approaches 0 0 76 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 00 0 . 02 0 . 00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 .36 0 . 00 0 . 00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 1 . 00 1. 00 0 . 01 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 19 Approach Capacity 605 547 382 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 183 605 0 .30 3 .2 A WB 211 547 0 .39 4 .3 A SB 57 382 0 . 15 1 . 8 A Intersection Delay = 3 . 5 Level of Service (Intersection) = A HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 04PMOOWO.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 'University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 39210378 Streets : (N-Si Burnett Ave N (E-W) Lake Washington Blvd Analyst ttn Date of Analysis 9/14/98 Other Information 2000 background w/o project All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound TRLTRL TRLTR I No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Volumes 3 196 164 79 76 0 PHF 195 . 95 . 95 . 95 .95 . 95 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 3 0 80 RT Flow Rate 0 83 0 Approach Flow Rate 209 256 80 Proportion LT 0 . 01 0 . 00 1. 00 Proportion RT 0 . 00 0 .32 0 . 00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 256 209 0 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 80 80 465 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 . 38 0 .47 0 .15 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .47 0 .38 0 . 00 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 0 LT, Opposing Spproach 0 3 0 RT, Opposing Approach 83 0 0 LT, Conflictirg Approaches 80 80 3 RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 0 83 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 00 0 . 01 0 . 00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 .32 0 . 00 0 . 00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 01 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 18 Approach Capacity 577 534 398 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 209 577 0 .36 4 . 0 A WB 256 534 0 .48 6 .2 B SB 80 398 0 .20 2 . 1 A Intersection Delay = 4 . 7 Level of Service (Intersection) = A HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 04PMOOW.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Ave N (E-W) Lake Washington Blvd Analyst ttn Date of Analysis 9/14/98 Other Information 2000 w/ project All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L TRLTRL TRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Volumes 3 213 172 84 93 0 PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 3 0 98 RT Flow Rate 0 88 0 Approach Flow Rate 227 269 98 Proportion LT 0 . 01 0 . 00 1 . 00 Proportion RT 0 . 00 0 . 33 0 . 00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 269 227 0 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 98 98 496 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .38 0 .45 0 . 16 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .45 0 .38 0 . 00 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 0 LT, Opposing Approach 0 3 0 RT, Opposing Approach 88 0 0 LT, Conflicting Approaches 98 98 3 RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 0 88 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 . 00 0 . 01 0 . 00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 . 33 0 . 00 0 . 00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 1 . 00 1 . 00 0 . 01 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 18 Approach Capacity 565 516 416 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 227 565 0 .40 4 . 6 A WB 269 516 0 . 52 7 .3 B SB 98 416 0 .24 2 .4 A Intersection Delay = 5 .4 Level of Service (Intersection) = B HCS : Uns1gnalized Intersections Release 2 . 1e 02PM98EX.HCO Page 1 TSI - Transportation Solutions, Inc. 16310 NE 80th St . Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052- Ph: (425) 883-4134 Streets : (N-S) Lake Wa. Blvd. N. (E-W) N. 20th St . Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Analyst JMB Date of Analysis 6/15/98 Other Information 1998 Existing, PM Peak Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TRLTR L TRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 1 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 372 37 19 221 19 10 PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) SU/RV' s (%) CV' s (%) PCE ' s 1. 10 1 .10 1 . 10 • Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Tur4 Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through 'traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1e 02PM98EX.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 412 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 856 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 856 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 431 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1068 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1068 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 664 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 437 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 428 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WE L 22 428 8 . 9 0 . 0 B 7 .3 WB R 12 856 4 .3 0 . 0 A SB L 22 1068 3 .4 0 . 0 A 0 .3 Intersection Delay = 0 .4 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 02PM98WO.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) J.Jake Wa. Blvd. N. (E-W) N. 20th St. Major Street Direction NS Length of Time' Analyzed 15 (min) Analyst ttn Date of Analysis 6/15/98 Other Information 2000 WITHOUT PROJECT, PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TRLTR L T RLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 439 39 20 255 20 11 PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) SU/RV' s (%) CV' s (%) PCE' s 1 . 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 02PM98WO.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection I Step 1 : RT fro Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 482 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 789 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 789 Prob. of QueuelEFree State: 0 . 98 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 503 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 987 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 987 Prob. of QueueLFree State : 0 . 98 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 772 Potential Capaity: (pcph) 378 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Capacity Adjustment Factor .due to Impeding Movements 0 . 98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 369 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WE L 23 369 10 .4 0 . 1 C 8 .4 WB R 13 789 4 . 6 0 . 0 A SB L 23 987 3 . 7 0 . 0 A 0 . 3 Intersection Delay = 0 .4 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 02PM98W.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-L378 Streets : (N-S) FLake Wa. Blvd. N. (E-W) N. 20th St . Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Analyst ttn Date of Analysis 6/15/98 Other Information 2000 WITH PROJECT, PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TRLTRL T RLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 449 51 26 274 26 14 PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 Grade 0 0 0 MC' s (%) SU/RV' s (%) CV' s (%) PCE ' s 1 . 10 1 . 10 1. 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignaliized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 02PM98W.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1 : RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Fllows : (vph) 500 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 773 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 773 Prob. of Queuej-Free State : 0 . 98 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 527 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 962 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 962 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 97 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 815 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 357 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 97 Capacity Adjustment Factor _ due to Impeding Movements 0 . 97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 346 1 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rat Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 3? 346 11 .4 0 .2 C 9 . 1 WE R 17 773 4 . 8 0 . 0 A SB L 30 962 3 . 9 0 . 0 A 0 .3 Intersection Delay = 0 . 6 sec/veh • HCS : Unsignali,zed Intersections Release 2 . 1g 03PM98W.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University ofFlorida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 'Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets : (N-S) Lake Wa. Blvd. N. (E-W) SOUTH DRIVEWAY Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 15 (min) Analyst ttn Date of Analysis 6/15/98 Other Information 2000 WITH PROJECT, PM PEAK Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L TRLTRL TRLTR ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 490 39 19 282 19 10 PHF . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 . 95 Grade 0 0 0 MC ' s (%) SU/RV' s (%) CV' s (%) PCE ' s 1. 10 1 . 10 1 . 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 . 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 . 50 3 .40 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1g 03PM98W.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection `Step 1 : RT fron Minor Street WE EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 536 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 741 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 741 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 557 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 930 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 930 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 854 Potential Capaccity: (pcph) 339 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 98 Movement Capac%ty: (pcph) 331 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcpi) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 22 331 > 411 9 . 5 0 .2 B 9 .5 WB R 12 741. > SB L 22 930 4 . 0 0 . 0 A 0 .3 Intersection Delay = 0 .4 sec/veh TERRA 'ASSOCIATES Inc . "A ' ' 'Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering,:Geology: and Environmental,Earth Sciences: CITY',OF REi l IG1'J` :' December 29, 1998 DEC• al ct No.T-4106-3 FIECENED Mr.Brad Hughes = = Labrador Ventures, LLC „ r - P.O.Box3344 Kirkland,Washington 98083 • ;:.' Subject ' Addendum.to Geotechnical Report—Erosion Control, ""' Labrador Lake.Washington.Property North 2$th Street and Park Avenue North • Renton; Washington • References: 1. Geotechnical Report,Labrador LLake.Washington Property prepared by Tena Associates, inc.;:dated.September 8, 1998 ` : ' . ; 2: Addendum to.Geotechnical Report, Labrador Lake Washington Property,prepared by Terra ' Associates,Inc., dated December 1, 1998' Dear Mr.Hughes: As requested,we are providing preliminary recommendations for temporary and permanent erosion control at the site,' specifically, in the vicinity.of planned Lots.5 through 12, the roadway and cul-de-sac adjacent Lots.5" through 12;.arid,the proposed crossing of the stream channel in the eastern portion'of the,Site. , The recommendations presented in this'report are in adaition'to ;the referenced geotechnical`reports. Unless, • amended herein all previous recommendations still apply. SITE CONDITIONS Surface and subsurface conditions in the vicinity of Lots 5 through 12 are:described in detail in the referenced reports. The proposed roadway will cross a relatively narrow;steep sided stream channel in the central,portion of t1ie site. We did not observe_obvious indications of significant instability or recent ongoing:erosion along the stream channel,in this area. '1 2525 Willows Road,:Suite•101,,Kirkland, Washington 9804` Phone (425) 821-7777 ' t , Mr.Brad Hughes = ,- - • , December 29, 1998 ' : ' • At this time,we do not have site specific subsurface information at the location of the roadway stream crossing:. However, based-on our observations of near-surface soils•,on the sidewalls of the ravine;we expect.soil conditions will consist.ofinedium dense sands to dense silty sands. These soils are.similar to `soils observed,in . Test Pits TP-i arid TP-8, located at the top of the slope approximately'200',feet west,-and _1.00. feet :east, • respectively." Soil.conditions at the planned crossing will be verified as project design proceeds. . , '. ANTICIPATED GRADING REQUIREMENTS - Anticipated grading for the"roadway and cul-de-sac,in the vicinity of Lots 5".through' 12 is discussed in the • - . referenced:report addendum. We -expect that,the soils exposed throughout•the roadway and cul-de-sac . excavation,•and foundation'excavations for the buildings will consist primarily of very dense till. ' • - ' -We expect coijistruction of bridge..foundations and associated retaining walls at the roadway crossing.will involve localized excavations:extending at,least five feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the soil conditions observed in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-8, these excavations will'likely expose medium dense sand arid dense to very dense silty sand. , DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Unless mitigated, the planned,development will increase the potential of erosion at the site: The potential of - , • erosion at the site will be.most severe during construction.,: , • ' . ' Best management practices 1.(BMPs) should be used:to determine':appropriate_preventative measures. It is unlikely'that preventative measures alone will eliminate the erosion hazard at the site;, therefore,.containment must also be.-considered: :. If the-recommended erosion control' measures• are properly implemented and maintained, it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impact:"the.erosion potential of the ; " , site or iricrea a the potential-of instability resulting from erosion•.. - The following'measures'should.be incorporated into the site grading and temporary erosion and sedimentation: - control:.plans,.and.must be in place prior. to, during, and immediately following clearing and grading activities at " • the site: • Prevention • Identify the project clearing limits on the.project.drawings and in the field prior to-initiating-site work: , '•. Limit site clearing and grading activities to the relatively-dry months,(May through September) ' • ' -Liinit`disturbance to.areas where construction is imminent. If possible, site clearing and grading should ,.. - be performed,in`stages, with successive stages not being cleared until'erosion control measures for the previous stage are in place. _ Project No.'T=4106-3 Page No:2 Mr.Brad Hughes December 29, 1998 ; . . , • Determine staging areas for temporary,stockpiles of excavated'soil. Excavated soils should riot be placed on or adjacent to site'slopes. • Provide cover for temporary cut slopes-and soil stockpiles during periods of inactivity. 'Temporary ,cover-may consist of durable plastic sheeting that is securely anchored to the ground surface or straw mulch. Plastic sheeting should be placed and anchored as specified in Section.D.4.2.3 of the SWDM , ' Appendix D. Mulch application. should "conform to.:guidelines outlined in Section D.4.2:1 of the ' SW1 M Appendix D. • Establish permanent cover over exposed areas that will riot be worked for a period of 30.days or more by seeding..in conjunction with a mulch cover or. appropriate hydroseeding., Site seeding should , ' conform to the specifications presented in Section D.4:2.4 of the SWDM Appendix D. : Provide 'stabilized construction entrances to the site.as specified in Section D:4.4.1 of the SWDM , Appendix D. Containment ' • Install a' silt fence along the'dowrislope perimeter of the area that isi to be disturbed. , The silt fence - ' should be'.in place;before clearing and,grading is-initiated, and should'be constructed,in conforinar_ce- ' ' with the specifications presented in Section D.4.3.1 of the.King County;Surface'Water Design Manual (SWDM).Appendix D. . • Coristructshallow drainage.swales'to intercept surface water flow and route,the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge,point. ;Vegetati'on;growth should be established in the ditch by seeding or placing sod: Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to line the ditch with rock to , - protect the ditch from erosion and to reduce flow rates. The design and construction of drainage swales should conform to the specification presented in,Section 4.4.1 of the SWDM. Temporary pipe systems can also be used,to convey stormwater across the site: ".:e Provide "or.:site sediment retention for collected,runoff. Depending,on the contributory area of the . runoff, adequate:on-site sediment retention can be provided by Perimeter protection controls (i.e. silt ' fencing). However,.:for larger areas, it may be necessary,'to construct ;an on-site sediment trap or • settling pond to reduce the amount of suspended solids in the runoff prior to discharge.. Specifications for design and construction of a sediment trap and settling pond are presented in,Section D.4.5 of.the , SWDM Appendix D.., Terra Associates, Inc. should be engaged to observe installation of all erosion,and sedimentation measures at the , site, and to.niake periodic visits.to observe site conditions,and to verify.the performance of the installations: The contractor should perform"daily'review and:Maintenance of all erosion and.sedimentation control measures at the' , site Project No.T-4106-3 Page No. 3 Mr.Brad Hughes ' December 29, 1�9.9 8. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have'any questions or require additional information,please calla Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES,INC. • Jo C. Sadler,,R.P.G. • Project Engineering Ge e, , :`•. . : }AA eo-dore J. Sch i 1*' E; Principal Engin a w 26� 742� , • • JCS/TJS:ts cc: • Mr:Tom ouma, T or° a d Land Surveyors ' Ms Jnrnfer Toth Henning, City of Renton . . Mr.Neil Watts, City of Renton .Mr:James Hanson, City of Renton • Project No. T-4106-3 Page No.4 98-141 (i) ' TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc. t� � tom' <'%-;::�'' :�'.,'. ,\y��;: �. -�:.w:..�:.• ...'�:.' �,:;sir LAC vAL� ..: ,,,,,``.- -." Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology .m.. ... and ;,::.. Environmental Earth Sciences r , *�• 0 O \ � -�'� G ' December'1 1998 Project No.T-4106-3 CfC'' Mr.Brad Hughes • Labrador Ventures, LLC P.O.Box3344 ' Kirkland,Washington 98083 • . Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Report Labrador Lake Washington Property , North 28th Street and Park Avenue North ' Renton,Washington Reference: Geotechnical Report, Labrador Lake Washington Property,prepared by Terra Associates,Inc.; dated September 8, 1998 ' Dear Mr.Hughes: , As reques-ed and in accordance with our recommendations, we performed additional subsurface exploration at the subject site. The purpose of this work was to further 'address- slope stability considerations in the vicinity of proposed Lots 7 through 12 and a roadway cul-de-sac situated on'the,. slope north of the ravine. In addition, we are addressing'City of Renton comments regarding building setback distances and identification of geologically hazardous areas. No site grading information is available at this time; however,based on our conversations with you and' Mr. Tom Touma of Touma-Engineers and Land Surveyors, we understand that grading requirements for the culide-sac, building pads, and yard.areas on the, slope will be limited entirely to cuts. Using the topographic information on the Preliminary Plat Map, and assuming a'maximum road grade,of ten percent, it appears that the maximum cuts required for construction of the cul-de-sac and associated_. , roadway ill be about 17 feet below the existing ground surface. . The recorr"mendations presented in this report are in addition to the referenced geotechnical report. Unless amended herein,all previous recommendations still apply., _ ' - • 1 ,12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777. Mr.''Brad Hughes December 1, 1998 • SITE CO i ITIONS , Surface Topographic information on a Plat.Map.by Touma Engineers and Land Surveyors, dated November , 1998, indicates that slope grades in the vicinity of Lots 7 through..12;and the-cul-de-sac range from, about 26 to 39 percent. This is generally:consistent with our,field observations. ' The slope at this location is vegetated primarily with mature deciduous,trees, some;mature coniferous trees, and thick-brush undergrowth. "We,did not observe indications of significant seepage,:erosion, or instability on the slope face. ' - , Subsurface ' - On November 13,, 1998; we observed the:excavation of-four backhoe test pits.on,the,slope in the vicinity of ILots 7 through 12. The test pit locations are shown on the attached Exploration.Location . Plan, Figure 2. The soils encountered in the test pits consist of six to eight inches of duff and topsoil overlying;-native, medium dense to very dense silty sand with gravel.';The:very.dense silty sand with gravel is'a glacial till",'and.Was encountered at depths of about 2.0 to,2:5 feet below the ground surface: We did not observe any groundwater seepage in the test.pits. Detailed descriptions of the soils encountered in the test pits'are provided on the attached Test Pit.Logs. The Generalized;Geologic Map of Seattle and Suburban Areas, by R:W:, Galster;and WI. Laprade, 1991, classifies the soils in the,vicinity of the site as recessional outwash sand and gravel.overlying till. ,, The till we observed in the test pits is consistent with this classification: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General During Our site visit, we did not observe on-site indications of-any:recent significant instability, groundwater seepage, or significant erosion on the slope face. The slope generally supported",growth of , mature trees, including relatively straight coniferous trees: Our test pits indicate that soils on the slope consist of i few feet of weathered till soil"s.overlying dense to very dense till: The"very dense till soils are inherently stable and will generally'stand at steep inclinations for long periods of time if adequately protected from erosion. In addition,the till soils will provide suitablefoundation support. Based on the soils we observed in the test:pits and our understanding'of. the site grading,•it`is our opinion that development of the:site as planned will not increase the potential for slope instability on site or on adjacent properties,;and the risk for,such an occurrence,would be minimal. Project No.T-4-106-3 Page No: 2 • Mr:Brad Hughes December 1,1998 .. , Building SItback Based on the soil conditions;encountered on the slope, we recommend maintaining a minimum distance of 15; feet between 'building foundations and the slope face:. This setback distance can .be: accommodated by deepening the footing adjacent to the slope as required. ,Planned building envelopes shown on the Preliminary,Plat Plan are set back 20 feet from areas identified as .steep. slopes`(40 . . . percent or.greater). Excavation and`Grading All permanent cut slopes associated with;the development of Lots 7;through:12 rand the=cul-de-sac " ' , - should be graded with a finished inclination of no greater than 2:1 .(Horizontal:Vertical), unless otherwise noted. Upon completion of grading,the slope,face should,be firmly trackwalked; ' and vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. ` Based On current Occupational Safety. and:Health Administration (OSHA).regulations, ,the upper . -:medium dense to dense weathered till-encountered on-the slope..would,be classified as'Group C soils, • The underlying very dense till soils fali,into.a Group.A category. Accordingly,.for excavations more .than 4 feet land less-than 20 feet deep, the side slopes in-the upper weathered,till;soils of the excavation should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1. .-Below`_this level,side slopes can be• completed with.a,gradient of :75;1. If there is insufficient room to complete the- excavations:in this manner or'if excavations greater than 20 feet deep are planned, you may need to iu'se temporay.shoring.-- to support the excavations. Properly designed and installed trench boxes can be used to support utility trench excavations The above information is-provided'solely for the benefit ofthe owner and'other desigri,consultants and • should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates,Inc., assumes responsibility for job site safety.. ' ' Job-site sae is the sole responsibility resPOrisibility of the project contractor. . Erosion Hazard 'The Soil Conservation Service (S(S):classifies the till soils:on the side slopes and bottom of the:ravine that crosser the site'as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30'percent"slopes (AgD). .The erosion hazard for&gD soils is classified by'the SCS as,severe. -The portions of the site that would fall into this category would be considered an erosion hazard area. The approximate location,of the erosion hazard area at the site is shown on Figure:2:: , While we did not observe,indications of significant ongoing erosion on the.slope faces at the site,:the • AgD `soils will have a high potential ,for 'erosion when,exposed.: Therefore, .erosion protection measures, as required by`the City of.Renton will need to be in.place prior to:and 'during, grading activities'at the site: • Project'No. T-4106-3 Page No..3 Mr.Brad Hughes December 1, 1998 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. • John C.Sadler,R.P.G. , Project Engineering Geolog Th odo e J. Schepper,, „i :rr • Principal Engineer ti26742 2141, r`a JCS/TJS as .. .a� 4 Encl: " Figure 1 - Vicmi ap Figure 2 .- Exploration Location Plan Figure 3 - Unified Soils Classification System Figures 4 and 5 - Test.Pit Logs cc: Mr.Tom Touma,Tourria.Engineers and Land.Surveyors Project No:T-41.06-3 Page No.4 • tw^ ••1 M ` ,J:.f�. •i`li` 1 s• ..< Q tl'' `" t,r `i dF,`i. •—� - Sr w .r.' u•1�,C'•1 HILLS • ' t T N I,-7'r i s. .. T ,3,s,-',•• . . . _ I;. '4r '-)r, 8TN Ili t o ii •1 • . . i+ a _ _ a $E N T y 1 EIE' Ip .ir ..• - 4 R' <. 11��, nl _ I� 61:, N rJN`�: <_ •A•. . `71 A 6'TN „ • 1'1 N ;. •. tt mro r I ' _ ss I. * �,, r L•j l f C•�," yl 4y, " .. i`p i -. ,a s[IZNo.= , 't l.,, '!�. 't o.., ,f,�:1 l �' 1 3 t• f '.t t IGIfL►NO _ N` _ . • ♦ • Y'f7fM1.W• Y, v'< • tst; - • - - • ; '. II,' • , -0 _ .PK f!T J/- .c, • 9 am r B E,. =t •.= - • • y N10fg, ,7.7 =' =' " �- � r 2 ' Ai-,-' � , . , & sT- 0: kl "fi t°<r; •. ft ;tap' S - /,' J to ' d r. ! CL . , •/ to .; � e =' �,µ . •• rf'. IN4 E ' i . � F. - - � J 4r _ I E M h IIr� g SESO s -• EtIRK' . . -IliS , L ° ( X t9drts,pa'sr,y1!en.. t . N g0.0: :SE- 'BOTH r,.. sj t. , �.V. • '22.. . }� _✓.�! � [t ll ui t T9 PIJ . 1200. I1290a.K-.��'•, [7 • ' '- PiAr ,b - . . '1, N•InTN sr;' tr- 'h�o�, '^k .. .. I �' lYA a: , t'l 3 Y .'x 2sii Pt ,. ' •A.. AYALON • • • '' : 1 •I _ f r P" unNy� R11.. i • EE• ' '•yW.3 _ N 38TN 'ST i r.:f •;<i sJsic ul�\I:..,�I\, • .ii-r . 6 stern,ss, . 't4��N ,Mny, ` • ''a ME .., ..�, u"n -lial •3.•• ,1 Ff' a ,X m ' - - - "'YID"( 1 `L 'E�'R s i . , u• to • • .. 9EtCl OAPK." f J6TH "3. i. t NE '\'}t ,SE 98TN"' s S� S N ]STN 'ST "Si a W"gY .vl �h a �' �I r `` �� • 71TH <' sTII 1 > a�3 Cyx sr. Da, . ,SLTIrN A27MT 1 - - 1 ..t <.f� A .1-L s�90TH ST Xr. • . 11I' • SE 915T' 'sT SE 91ST ,slr... .N a I1000" I t•'•:� iE -1 R I2200 � . ® ...333 t .1 92rU ST ,..: t 1 .. � I00` a •' •i�." � , R�' T R71NT _ : N 7isr St �' tom^'. : -'NE',ilsi sr. 'F .�,'ti ^.;`a ( n. ' - ., - • B 31TN, '' II y ...rvi•..,, ( _N '•,tl...,•.y._. ; ' _ $T df 'INV,;=(REEK?;:aA srS,{�l'; ,• S[_va,,r::�,�';,�;..�4 Yet- Ioo x ivn1- 'sT a q v' .., '• s+.�. _-,:, ..m y"' a"s"41., rlJs• ,,,,, ' N 28TN ' PL r F,•a F P,,,_,........................ »....e?t kc :.c{(A Eli' is z n: ' • .+A,' "r. .) ❑Y 'NE �28TN' ' ST ' 'f;:';'i ' 't, m . // .. s��+ T,t iI[ ---11E 77TH -S •v ...... .1 yin.s.- Lr ti� ),- !Js!\E .. ,V. t..',.ix r iNC . El:: •‘,, 1-c•6 F ye`i a�``\\ 4F. a W. �y7e�+gI- •" irExxr £_ si !'. 1�. 3 ''N `O0TN l` �' a •SNINGTGN "I't -N ' rr4 �iBO'f ^'� ty/r' IJaY! e I :�+:,r�: - EN�, �'' .� .5'Nf,2IST eL1 € "�• S.\• - i1i.: Z .•s- I' "'NE - •20TN ..P -i o.rE :V_ 4. '_ , Ilk!"Irar. fip _ -. - /ir:• - ilr' s �' .m' 'K Nt((✓IµyVS �� - . ` _ _ i SS " • s• y �«°" ,;i -_ M .?S 61 _� Fmk} - " J�O•. •.` 'I 80AT'UU aar, • z�i V Pllb �, .4._ t • _ - ;4 • = • _ r'�;. f r rfY�S .z, tr '< _ ', Kit." _ .. •0. � Il.. Z ' �'I/IN.f ,Sf • m NE lrl/' ".D I'�a .W.�1)N ii', K•r ;refiae2 ,� $- wit tm �n� 4..8 1., , 112TH T 9G.-. '�lUW/ARK• I I+ NE., 12TH '- r'ST NE' ���, 12TN'.. • ,,�T, .y in rJ. S • . 1 P N a p ,,g ,s$ m •,-.';�� ..'tn N :r! •sLl sNA'AM' . ' , . ,•\ !,II. 1 '�0:.' PARK' l� '' uTMT• - -l/1" 1RPo - ; 'f . "�. .. EV .\ r T i It'ICIN R. f, ', 1 115 �,'r; , a 'A6r-64- YJ/'„''�''-' ;, '• .. il.V�.•' .i- nF la7H.r �` .< ._ I ° BOflNG 1 :_\ : .� �'' nr �, ``\ _ of IOTI,.'St" O A �i '< E 11 S • {N�®�17. �i •1'• - REMJON., ';f.\.•� E f IN. - N IIBTHIE7 ®-DL �..�OUHT,••' ' e / Z s �n \1 '/ NE 9TN'PL. - • 'EfTll .® BI , % :,a `' ••• • '1 , ••v ® s '' SS .. ^ • ` - � 720TN '•:ST��f�1 ' �l�, o� w •• -: St •n1. ;.'.,K:,• .Q m,..'8 •1 e\ .H:ME u�,�-j .,ti•, .',� Et. '. • _ - ,, 3_� 'CEf14Ri...' .I ,N TN ST.s \\I. �A. �'',pi .. .Sso' :NE BTN . S 121ST�� y •., 'RIVER�'r r ]C _I•,7.:� 21 � ',pi..., .�• � Op �y111NV w+ ,' gam. TT•N. ST S4'122ND ® , ".7,' . ' i �.'TRIR?tE'T• Q 1'�" "rd� :f.'_ r�lloO • ." '. a I IE]IIO, �7TNir �].1•1.a.• 'n ill s �\;, - ®�, i' I �'R5 . lea- _ mi ' ti• ,._.:. ._ I`;, .4 � ::� ®* t ' ' •_ REFERENCE: THE THOMAS; GUIDE; KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; PAGE .626,:.19.98 EDITION. _ 'VICINITY MAP''. . •- .r`.'•••••',TERRA • ": , , '. .LABRADOR \LAK'E ;WASHINGTON: PROPERTY, • ������Q�\\ -ASSOCIATES RENTON,- WASHI,NGTON', a' otechnical":Consultants ` Proj.No: 4106=3,. . Date'NOV:_ 1998 Figure' 1'• . INLI III I I_ I I ' I, ' ! I: - -I `I r-. H — HI1 t �I ' I ""II, •13 , 14" 15 - I16 •I 17 18 19 :I20 I .21.. 22-- 23 24 2$, 2 � 3 4 I $ I 6 I 7 8° 9; 10' ll. 12" , ` ,. . j I I_ n, ° i[ F 1 , , , : BLOCK 11 : , 1 - 1 I , 1 I I I' I g� I C:D.\HILLMAN S LAKE..WASHINGTON GA DEN OF EDEN- Na I _ llZ' --. cc .I, tielsolloam. -1 _ f�����_ __ 1 „_ ,fir I0 I' ® _ N 8_TN_S7.... . m-�'- R ,ti `\ 62 ' `.' , , ��,� ; .1 ,I I_ .I ', ,. - �'' , '/ :-7" - i _ . _ - —i ''_\'-J",: _ 1 tit , , - 1 - , 1 " 1\1 \\ 61 O ' ' 59 �8 5 56 ' 5`� 1 J`4 ' 5\,� 1 5 ' / i '- /,'1 1 1 ' , I -`:.. -'N \ ' _ - 13. I- 1 ' \ I ' : \ \ "I. T' I I I_ ' I i CC+� s' 4�., rti•• - ...ty..:'. ELD,ON AI REs TL 59 1 _ \ `, 1 \ \_ ,` 1. „1 ``\ 'JI - I j i I i I ,; , _, JI, I 1: .:�Y •'-��-.-�� .•..�'. ��\\ 4 $619° , I \.... \ \\ \ 1 ( �, , �' i— �,` ..g. . iLtT�..� ;_I`:;,. y_ 1 I TL 60 TL 40• 1• TL 57 TL 58 ef , •``• �. ... ` -�'. '.fir..l• _v.%� - , 1 aoa —_-- — — - ,... am;-reo, I . s, lik \\\\\\- _ -...._--.• , : :- ' ' -- fTh' ' ' - -....... s...,... . ,„ ,. �/.` \ \ �\ _ .J - \ ' ` .I i .-j' \1 �_`� '� •/,' go v • , '4r - r9o,I.I /•7/ .- \\`\ 1,S\I...:16 � 1�7 18 19 20 'I '21 22 j- � � �// . - -- .x Ili . I i TL 73 �`\,, _.�___ \I`�. 11 `� \ 1 I �-•t .1 ', ,.y�-a ���'1 .•rf •7• (' \\/'4 44. .:�_ • \ �` ` 4= \: � `::; • — \I ► -- \ .. �•• 1/.r 'Sri�:> •!�1:a• •-`• ., , �'. `1 .. IP / 1=-- f=1----_ • v, ...‘..k. , \. . . ' • -'. - •- ..•...` 77 • • 1 ..\ \ :C: \ �.✓./ � 1. I C/, ..- � - • \. .4:.�.. - -\_ - Ate'."." • .:�:.•.' T •,•i'"���:/•'./.• .,r. •��.z...: — .�. 1' /,'( '�•6'. '-, ' _ ...2,,.,_, ' '1 �� --\ _f • / , 1. � . °:•::::.::. . ...`.•. ::• ^�, � �. \ ,t3 _ \, : i-- \ ' . \� • : : ?` • ;>T • . - . -t:" f-•• -- _ C 1l, j• : - - ''''\\:s ' (:, .• \ \ s\ .:::::::::: :44:; .... ..::........;":::Xk::::'.::::: ' ' \- \\.;\ ' " .1- .II.' ,'' '. - ' I coo: I , . 1,:t 1 i ,::.:... .� �' kzte -� ELD0,N ,q S'` � , '-. : -., , r, : : , `.I' 33\ -----li ,Il ',r-:),-- 1 �� - a -. ::::\l'3 6:\'II . ' _i --4,Lk , -I I : ,, -\-\ -,...,7...., -7- •\ ), ) i,‘, 3, i ,,l',3...5 i , . : 1 l,.., ', ...../••••••,/• / / • '. •' - , \ k•-•• , : '. r_i) ...._.. CO APPROXIMATE SCALE \.' ` s , 120 0 ' 120 . . 240 feet " �\ _ .. = ,h �/' % 1 ., - Q CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 feet) ` •LEGEND - - - EH' •-, APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF" PREVIOUS TEST.PIT •. ' BY'TERRA ASSOCIATES Eij APPROXIMATE LOCATION. OF CURRENT TEST..,PIT _ : " BY TERRA;ASSOCIATES' (1,1/13/98) REFERENCE: ' EXPLORATION ,LOCATION PLAN • PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN PREPARED AND: PROVI[)ED BY. . LABRADOR LAKE WASHINGTON PROPERTYPROPERTY`SHADED`.AREA REPRESENTS' APPROXIMATE EROSION : TOUMA :ENGINEERS,' JOB No..741001-981,, SFIEET 3 >•• � .:: TERRA " RENTON, WASHINGTON HAZARD AREA - OF 6;. DATED NOVEMBER, 1998: 'ASSOCIATES. •• otechnical Consultants ." Proj.No: 4106-3 Date NOV. 1998 Figure, 2 LETTER :MAJOR DIVISIONS. T YPI .CAL DESCRIPTION. - Clean' GW Well graded gravels; gravel=sand mixtures, little or:no GRAVELS : Gravels:' fines. .. ,_ (less #han. = rn G P ,Poorly-graded-gravels; gravel-sand'..mixtures, little or, N More'than 5%° fines): no fines:: ' , '50% of:coarse -Silty gravels, 'gravel=sand=silt m•ixtures,- non-plastic _ a) fraction.is, GM; fines:, a� > ' lar er than No. Gravels;- z •vi • g 4 sieve L. with:fines . GC 'Clayey,gravels,' gravel sand=clay,mixtures;;plastic fines., cv, Clean . C0; o SWI Well-graded sands;•.gravelly".sands;:little or no fines. o . . SANn.S . Sands Z. (less..than ' r little g • � � � :Poorly-graded, sands or,gravelly'sands, little or no. -. -. • .�>° • More than , 5% fines) S P fines: . . -� 50%°.of coarse _ • Q. o �'' -fraction is. : SM:':',. Silty'.sands, sand-silt`mixtures,,non-plastic.fines. • U smaller than • •Sands - , No. 4.sieve with fines SC. Clayey sands, sand;clay':mixtures,,plastic'"fines. ; Inorganic silts;'rock-flour,•clayey silts with slight • . • JTs-•o . SILTS AND CLAYS:, ML plasticity. , . co,N' C,L ' Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). E o ° , Liquid limit.is':less-than.50%; - • ' 'W �Z N OL Organic .silts::and organic,clays of.low plasticity:' <' 'a MH Inorganic silts, elastic.: • a) , SILTS AND CLAYS, m' °'_ :CH Inorganic clays of high.plasticity,,fat:clays. - Z. '° w - Liquid limit is. greater than 50% W ' . OH :;Organic clays .of high.plasticity.'; • HIGHLY ORGAN IC 'SOILS DEFINITION OF-TERMS AND'.SYMBOLS w 'Standard'Penetration:.:- _ 2"" OUTSIDE.DIAMETER SPLIT ' Density' Resistance.in''Blows/Foot I. SPOON ,... . . SAMPLER'ET . 0 • Very loose 0-4 : 2:4,''IN • SIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER . Loose_ •:` , 4=10. OR SHELBY TUBE`SAMPLER • Medium.dense 10=30 z Dense' - ,30=50 - WATER LEVEL (DATE) ' •.Ve,ry.dense • >50 ; � Tr 'TORVANE READINGS, .tsf. - Standard:Penetration ::Pp. PENETROMETER..READING, tsf- , 'Consistency•, =. Resistance in Blovvs/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per-cubic foot- , L `Very:soft 0-2 LL LIQUID':-LIMIT,.percent o.. ,. Soft 2-.4 - ,. , - Medium-stiff 4-8 PI.• PLASTIC INDEX , �. : Very stiff 16-32 N. STANDARD PENETRATION;'blows per foot Hard, >32 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TERRA LABRADOR . , 'WASHINGTON:ASSOCIATES LAKE" WASHINGTON PROPERTY.. RENTONHINGTON:'- � - - Geoteciinical Consultants _ Proj: 'No:. T=4106-1 . Date NOV. 1998_ Figure 3 • Test Pit',No: TP-101 Logged by:'.JCS . - • : Approximate Elev. 80 ' Date: :11./13/98 Depth Moisture (ft.). Soil Description Content 8 inches duff and topsoil,' .Rusty-brown.silty SAND with gravel,fine sand;fine gravel;medium dense,- ".. - dry to moist. (SM) With roots. - .Gray silty SAND with gravel,fine sand;fine to coarse gravel,-dense to very dense, moist: (SM) (Till) - Test pit terminated at:6 feet due to very hard digging. _ 'No groundwater seepage. 10 'Test Pit No. : TP-102 '; Logged:by: JCS Approximate:Elev. 84; " Date: 11/13/98 Depth Moisture (ft.). Description Content. Soil (%) ,6 inches:duff and topsoil. Rusty-brown silty SAND with gravel,fine sand,fine to coarse gravel,. medium dense;moist. (SM) - Gray silty:SAND with gravel,fine sand,fine to coarse gravel;very,dense, moist. (SM) (Till) - Test pit terminated at 7 feet due to very hard digging. „ . ' No groundwater seepage. 10- TEST-'PIT 'LOGS. . TERRA LABRADOR LAKE, WASHINGTON. PROPERTY \ems`;• .. RENTON, WASHINGTON . .•,. ' ASSOCIATES • Ge.otechnical Consultants` Proj No. T-4106-1 Date NOV 1998 Figure;4 • Test Pit No. _•_TP-103 :Logged"by JCS Approximate'Elev: 82° Date: 11/1.3/98 Depth Moisture; Soil Description Content 6'inches duff and topsoil. - • Rusty-brown silty SAND with gravel;fine-Sand,fine to coarse gravel, medium.dense;.moist. (SM) • - - Gray.silty SAND with gravel,fine sand,fine to.coarse'•gravel,very dense, •. : moist. (SM) :(Till)- • " - Test pit terminated at 7 feet due to very hard digging. No groundwater seepage. • 10 Test:-Piti No. TP-104 • Logged by:. JCS.: - Approximate Elev.. '772 Date: 11/13/98 . Depth Moisture , - (ft:) Soil`Description Content 0 (%) • "6 inches duff topsoil. . : - , - ' _ ` - 'Rusty=brown silty SAND with gravel,fine-sand;.fine.tocoarse gravel; • medium,dense, moist: (SM), • Gray silty`SAND.with gravel,fine sand,fine to coarse gravel,very dense, . , moist. (SM) '(Till) • 5 Test pit terminated at 7 feet to'very hard digging. - _ 'No,groundwater seepage: i0 . TEST SPIT LOGS, . �s� - TERRA LABRADOR LAKE WASHINGTON PROPERTY;,; ��� . ASSOCIATES` RENTON,-WASHINGTON Geotechriical Consultants Proj., •No T-4106-1 Date NOV 1998,, Figure'5 16-J41" Nye • PRELIMINARY'GEOTECHNICAL REPORT j Labrador Lake Washin ton 'Pro erty 9 p -- mil - North 28th Street and Park Avenue.North Renton 'Wash i9 n ton . • 41 Projec t -No-. T- 06:' ttt.: , ,.�a. .:............. .:: ::::::::.:::::.::.. t :. ,�: . . .. i;,• :,3• ,'.•.'. :' n.°� 3. � - Terra :'Associates, Inc.� � q o: s , 4 •,i s �a i, 'sZ a w; ia:.ay' •S / nii . DEVELOPMENT PLANNING r:.:,, - •, . .CITY OF RENTON . •. ' ' • : SEP 0 1998 l . • ECEIiE® • ' y;:: - ' re are -for. x rveo rs Touma Engrneers .& Land 'Su ,y ;, • Kent, Washington ;: ^r; =k-; Septembe,r. 8, 1998 • = :� • •, •_ , • • .»:»::...::......:.:.n:,::.....�,:,:::.,.:.:::::....::::�:::.:..»::::.�.t:.a.:t,::,:.v<.a:twa:.:ta:cvyyma::.-� ..::n........f...'...........::..: ::roa•::3;t.>v.ttp:;.a>a:;a>at^.,;'^Y'ca ...........f:...: ....................................................... ........,..... .. ..�:a:::.n:aa:.r:.v:./ tti;3.'"'.Ja::;i:y;.;:i :.'T.:.n R � . ta- TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering; Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences-` fi - - 1I September 8, 1998 " , Project No. T-4106 Mr. Tom Touma , . V , , Touma Engineers &Land Surveyors 6632 South 19 .st Place, Suite E102 Kent,Washington 98032 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report , Labrador Lake Washington Property.' • - - , • , North 28th Street and Park Avenue.North : Renton,Washington Dear Mr. Touma: V II As requested, we have,conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The , attached report presents our findings'and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects.of project design and construction: Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by Medium dense sands with varying amounts of silt and gravel and dense to very dense silty',sand and sandy silt with variable amounts of gravel. " We did not encounter groundwater seepage in any of our•test pits. In our opinion, the' site; conditions encountered are suitable for the planned devel'opment. . In general, the - undisturbed native soils are suitable for supporting.residential structures and pavement s. 'Some of the on-site soils. are fine-grained and moisture-sensitive and will not be suitable for use `as structural-fill during the wet winter months. Relatively clean sand with some gravel was observed in the eastern areas of the plat that should be suitable for use as a structural fill during most weather conditions.V' ' ' ', In the southwestern portion of the plat, several of the proposed building.lots and a roadway cul-de-sac,are located on slopes havi��g.inclinations.of 40 percent or greater. While it appears grading and construction of these lots ' ' and roadway infeasible, additional subsurface exploration and analysis will be necessary to fully assess stability issues and develop geotechnical engineering recommendations. This supplemental work should include - advancing several deep soil; test borings in areas where significant grading is expected to establish desired construction grades. , i 1 525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-777T, , Mr: Tom Touma, = ''September.8, 1998' We appreciate the opportunity:to,be of service during this phase'of.the project:and look forward to working with you during the final design and construction phases. We trust the information''presented in this report is/ sufficient for your current needs.=If you have any questions or require additional information,please call ' Sincerely yours;.. TERRA ASSOCIATE• ,INC. { John'C:Sadler,R.P.G. 1'1. -•• 'I, - Project Engineering Gay•iie"'- - Yt 1 .. Theodore J. Schepp4 . 48' . Principal Engineer '�:;.'. 28742. �'' - � ' JCS/TJS:dvp l ' ' Alb 1 WINES 6Jl wl q q. Project No.:T-4106 : Page No. ii ' TABLE OF CONTENTS' ' . Pale 1.0 Project Description 1. ' 2.0, Scope of Work . . , 1 3.0 Site Conditions - .- ' 2. 3.1 - Surface 2 3.2 • Soils 3 '3.'3 . Groundwater 3 4.0 . Geologic.Hazards 3 ` 4.1 Erosion 3, . _ 4.2 ' Landslide.- . . ' . ' 4 4.3 Seismic 4. 5:0 , Discussion and Preliminary Recommendations 4 '.-'• ' 5.1 General 4 5.2, Site`Preparation and Grading 5' ` i 5.3. .. Excavations " 6 . 5.4 Foundations 6., 5.5 Basement and Retaining Walls _. ' - 7 • 5.6 Slab=on-Grade Floors 7 5.7 ''Stormwater Release - 8 5.8 Drainage 8 5.9 Utilities' 9• 5.10' Pavements ' . __ . . . ` 6 0 Additional Services • �- 7.0 Limitations :10 Figures- u . Vicmi y.Map Fi 1 gre • Exploration Location Plan Figure,2 , , Appendix Field Exploration.and Laboratory Testing Appendix A - . (i) e; Preliminary Geotechnical Report ' Labrador Lake'Washington'Property - - , _ , North '28th Street and.Park-Avenue North ' . . • „ .. - , Renton, Washington '' 1.0 S PROJECT DESCRIPTION , . • .: , The proposed roject,is a.66-lot;residential subdivision. At,.this'time;'we have not been.provided with detailed'' building or development plans; however, we understand that several of the lots will be'on or near the tops„of ..' '' native. slopes: We expect the; buildings will be wood-framed and, will use conventional .spread 'footing•'_ foundations. A Utilities Plan;dated'August 1998,, by Touma Engineers&Larid Surveyors,;indicates.th;atsite stormwater.w•ill be collected in roadway'catch basins and.routed to.one.of two buried,detention;pipes: `One of-the'detention pipes is:shown'between Lots:•11 and` . 13 in the western,portion:of the-site.. ,The-other;detention:pipe is'located,in the- ; ;right-of-way for;North26th Street;.adjacent to the southern edge;of the;site, Based on.our conversation with Mr '. . ' Torn Touma of Touma Engineers &Land:Surveyors; we understand that•stormwater discharged from the western detention pipe"will`be conveyed-down;a steep.'slope:to at existing stream channel.:::Stormwater from the , • . , southeastern-detention pipe will,be conveyed to an infiltration gallery:located on property immediately west of , Lots 28 and-3" The recommendations contained- in ,the following sections of this-,report are preliminary.-and are based on a- preliminarygrading' ' " plat: layout with conceptual,storm drainage d m esign and lrrted information. We should ' review•.design drawings as they become available in order to_supplement or amend,our.;recommendations.as, , required:. - 2.0 SCOP OF`WORK On August 10 .1998; we excavated,,10'-test pits to..depths ranging from 10'.to 12 'feet below existing surface: grade's. -Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration,:we performed analyses to,develop • - Y, ' ' preliminary geotechnical recommendations :for: projebt design and; construction. „-Specifically, this report • addresses the-following: ' ' - • ,. • - • ' • Soil and groundwater'conditions , - • Site reparation and,grading; , - ' •• Building'setbacks.from steep slopes ' - • • Foundation design September 8, 1998 ' Project No..T-4106 • . Basement and retaining walls. • _Slab-on-grade floors -„ , • Drainage ". • - Utilities' , • Pavements - 3.0' SITE CONDITIONS , - , , • 3.1 Surface . , , :The"project site is approximately 10.3 acres located south and adjacent. to North 28th Street, between,Lake , Washington Boulevard and Meadow Avenue North, in Renton,'Washington. 'The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity-Map,Figure 1. , The site is bordered by North 28th Street to the north, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, 'single=family -, residences to,the east,.and sin gle-fami residences and a group home to the south. An.existing.sanitary.,sewer' is g Y , located near.the southern edge of,the site.. The sewer runs-onto.the property'and crosses,a ravine near the south- , central;portion of the"site.'iThesewer.then runs'along the northern side of the ravine to where it.exits the site at '_ Lake Washington•Boulevard. , , In general,:site topography slopes gently to moderately down to the west-southwest. Site elevations range from a '" high of approximately Elev.:200 near the eastern.edge,:of the site, to,.about Elev. 60 along.Lake.Washington . Boulevard on the western edge of"the'site. , - ,-:A large southwest-trending drainage ravine bisects the site. The;sidewalis of the ravine are about"20 to;60 feet ' high with inclinations of approximately "20:to 40 percent.at the western and eastern ends and•about 65 to 70 " 'ercent in the central ortion'of the site. , P P. , . We observed a small stream flowing in the bottom of the ravine. The stream channel is fairly broad at the eastern - and western ends of the" ravine: The bottom of the. ravine becomes a narrow,, incised channel'in the.central portion of the 4te.; The ravine sidewalls alongthe northern side of the ravine in the central portion of the site arelocall overste ened. We" did not observe obvious indications of significant instability or recent ongoing erosion , Y P in the-oversteepened areas. The "channel"bottom is generally well protected with gravel and "c'obbles,.,thick vegetation, and fallen trees.. . ; We,observed indications of seepage from the ravine sidewall located immediately`;southwest:'of where the : ' existing"sanitary sewer crosses the.stream. The seepage appeared about 10 to,15 feet below the top of the slope and had saturated the surficial soils:in.that`vicinity: It appeared that a small area of surficial'soils had slipped downslope at that location, exposing dense to very-;dense.till-like soils on the slope,face. Based'on the site plan provided to us, it appears,that the areas where'we'observed seepage and;surficial movements are off the subject ' : .property:. 'Ve did not observe indications of significant seepage,on the slope face north of the stream channel or' ' upstream of the sewer crossing.- _. Page.No. 2 , - September 8, 1998. -. Project No:T-4106 The portion of the site located north of the ravine is currently;undeveloped and is vegetated primarily with mature • deciduous trees, some mature.coniferous trees, and thick brush",undergrowth. Areas south of the ravine are occupied by.single-family residences,,or,are undeveloped: ,Vegetation;in the:vicinity'of the..residences'consist of grass lawn; landscaping shrubs-and .trees,'and grasses.. Undeveloped areas along!the top of the ravine. are ' ' typically vegetated with mature coniferous trees and thick brush;:; :. - ` : - 3.2 Soils - . In general, the soils encountered in the test pits consist of,native sand to sand with silt and dense to very dense :' silty sand with varying amounts of gravel We encountered dense to very dense silty sand to sandy silt; and some till-like!soils Underlying the sand in five of the ten test pits. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface,conditions :encountered in the test pits are presented on the Test Pit Logs in,Appendix A. The;approximate.test.pit locations= are shown on Figure 2. , : : , The Generalized Geologic Map of Seattle:-and Suburban Areas, by R.W: Galster and W.T.',Laprade, 1991, classifies-the soils in the vicinity of the site as-recessional'outwash sand:and gravel overlying till.;The soils we observed in the test pits.are generally consistent with'this;classification.. , 3.3 Groundwater We:did,not observe groundwater,seepage in:any of the test pits. ..-However..,,based on the-soil conditions we Observed; we.expect.a seasonal perched water'table will develop on top of the dense to very dense till-like soils " during the wet winter arid spring months. This will'occur as surface water infiltrates through the upper relatively permeable sands and'becomes perched on the underlying, relatively impermeable till-like soils. When combined - with a positive gradient.;the groundwater will tend to flow:laterall along the till,contact,.,emerging atlower - P ln' g Y elevations as seeps and.springs. "' - - 41.0 GEOLOGI,C HAZARDS • , " ! .4:1 Erosion loamyfine sand; 1S percent Slo pes es InC and . . The soils er►co�ntered at the site are classified as Indianola ( ), P , Alderwood gravelly sandy loam,' 15 to`30 percent slopes "(AgD); .by,the Soil Conservation Service. The AgD ` ' ,-soils are shown"on the side slopes and bottom of the ravine that crosses the site. The rest of the site is mapped as" InC soils: The erosion hazard for AgD soils is classified as severe. While we did not observe:indications of significant ongoing erosion on the slope faces_at the site;the AgD soils;will have a high potential for erosion when exposed. Therefore, erosion protection measures as required by the City-of Renton wilt need to be in place prior"to and ' during grading activities at the site: . - ,c : Page No:,3_ September 8, 199,8 Project No. T-4106 • 4.2 Landslide ; :' ..- Steep slopes hi excess of.40.percent are located along the ravine that crosses,._the, site. We did.not observe, indications of deep-seated'instability; however, we observed areas of seepage and surfrcial soil movement'at the • southwestern end'of the ravine.:This area appears to be off.the`subject property. ' The steep slopes On the site generally appeared stable and supported'growth of mature trees, 'including straight coniferous`'-trees. In .our opinion, ',provided the,•recommendations contained in this report are followed,' • development of the site as proposed:will,not increase the potential for slope instability on-site or on adjacent properties, and'the risk for•such',an occurrence would be minimal. 4.3 Seismic The Puget Sound'area falls within Seismic-Zone 3, as-classified by the 1997'Uniform,Building Code (UBC). , Based on the'soil_conditions encountered and thelocal geology, a soil pr'ofile:type of SD,"from Table'16-J of the 1997 UB(,`should be used for design purposes. Liquefaction is-a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to anincrease in water pressure induced by vibrations., Liquefaction mainly;affects geologically-recent deposits of fine-grained •:sands that are,below the groundwater.table: 'Soils of this nature.derive-their strength from intergranular friction. The •generated water 'pressure ;or pore-,pressure essentially separates•,.the soil: grains and :eliminates;.this • intergranular friction, thus eliminating the soil.`s strength. ' _Based•on the soil and groundwater conditions we encountered, it is our opinion:that the risk:for liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake is minimal. 5:0 DISC JSSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS • 5:1 General . • Based on our study;, it is, our opinion that the site..is suitable for the,proposed;development. Buildings can be supported on conventional-spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the•topsoil. : If required,; spread footings can,also:be supported on structural fill placed,and'compacted on the competent native soils.. • Floor slabs'and pavements.can be.similarly supported. The relimina . drawings to us,show:six of the proposed buildin lots.(Lots 7 :through,12) and a ' - preliminary g provided � P P g g roadway.cul:de-sac'situated on the slope north of-the ravine. .Existing slope grades in this area range,between ' about 25 and50'percent::' To develop:theselots and theroadway, we believe;suppleinental soils information will • be required to'adequately assess the potential stability impacts This supplemental exploration should be laid out based on anticipated or planned grading activity:in this area. It-should be noted that the city of Renton limits .. ` removal of trees on slopes of 40 percent and greater - • •Page No. 4 • September 8, 1998. , • Project No. T-4106- ' The following recommendations;,should be incorporated into the project design'drawings and construction • • specifications. These recommendations are preliminary and may be altered or augmented upon review of the final;plans: 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the'site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials.should : be stripped from the proposed building and pavement areas. Soils containing organic material will'.not'be•;' suitable for use as structural fill but,may be used in non-structural areas or for landscaping purposes:, The on-site soils generally:appear suitable for use as structural fill: However, some of,thesoils are silty..and will be difficult to'compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use the silty soils from site excavations as structural fill (will depend' on their: moisture content and the prevailing weather.'conditions.'at the time of construction. If the Moisture content of the on-site soils cannot be maintained near,their optimum percentage;. dr,-,if:grading must take place: during:_the wet winter or s rin months, the-owner should be prepared to import ort wet . , activities g P g1. P P P . weather structural fill. For this.purpose, we recommend importing. a granular soil thatMeets the following grading requir ments: . • ti.S:Sieve=Size Percent Passing . 3 inches 100 . Na.4 75 maximum No'. 200 5 maximum* , ' *Based on the 3/4-inch fraction. Prior to use,Terra Associates,Inc., should examine and test all materials imported'to site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be'placed on a'horizontal subgrade of undisturbed native soil in uniform loose layers not , exceeding 12 finches then compacted to a minimum of;95 percent-of''the.soil's maximum--dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation-D-689 (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 same standard. In non-structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet,the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90 . • percent.. Embankment fill will be,required:where-a proposed roadway crosses the ravine. Embankment fills placed on slopes - exceeding a grade of 20 percent must;be keyed and benched into competent-native soils.' Subsurface drains may also - be:required. The need for subsurface drains should 'be evaluated in the field at the time of construction: The proposed fill areas should be stripped of topsoil, duff, and soils containing organic material.prior to creating horizontal benches for placement of the fill.: , Page No:.S September 8, 1998 - Project No. T-4106-- . All 'permanert cut and "fill slopes should be graded with a 'finished inclination of no greater than"2:1 • • (Horizontal:Vertical).; Upon completion'of'grading,:the slope face should be;appropriately vegetated or provided. with other physical means'to guard against erosion. Final grades,at the top of the slope:must promote surface, ' • drainage away from the slope crest. - _. 5.3 Excavations" . All excavations at the site associated with confined',spaces,, such as utility trenches,.mustbe completed in accordance with local, state, or federal"requirements: Based :on current "Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)regulations, the on-site soils would generally be classified as Group:C soils. While .our to{t pits did'not encounter groundwater, we would expect groundwater seepage in" excavations • ,extending to the till-like soils (encountered'approximately 5 to 11 feet below the ground surface) during the wet 'winter and spring months. Accordingly, for,adequately dewatered excavations more than 4 feet and less-than.20 feet,deep, the side slopes of the excavation should belaid back`at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1. If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in.this manner Or if excavations greater.than 20:feet deep are ' planned,temporary shoring May necessary to support the excavations: Properly'designed and installed trench boxes can be used to'support utility trench excavations. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design..consultants,.and'should not be construd 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 • Spread Footings.. The buildings may be supported on:conventional spread foundations bearing..on competent native::soils or on structural fills'placed above competent'native soils, as.recommended'in the Site Preparation'.and Grading section of this report. Perimeter.foundations should be placed at least 1.5_feet below final exterior grades for, .frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth: Where building foundations will be constructed adjacent to slopes, they should be set back a minimum distance'of 15 feet from the slope face. This setback distance can be accommodated by deepening the footing adjacent to the slope as required. We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot(psf)., For.short-term 1loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in.this allowable capacity can be'used.,For. the above,loads,building settlements should be less than one-half inch. For designing foundations to 'resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0:4-can be used.'„Passive earth. pressures acting on the side of the footing and buried portion of the foundation stem wall can also be considered.: We recommend'calculating this lateral:resistance using an equivalent fluid weight,of 300.pounds per Cubic cubic foot Page No. 6 " September 8, 1998 Project T.-4106 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;native soil or backfilled with'structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. The values recommended include a safety factor:of-1.5: . 5.5 Basement and Retaining'Walls ' The magnitude of earth pressures developing on basement or retaining,walls will 'depend on the quality and compaction of the wall backfill. We recommend'placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill: Below improved areas; such as pavements or floor slabs; the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry tunit:.weight, as determined by •ASTM Test.Designation4,D-698•(Standard,Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent:' . ' . • To prevent hydrostatic.pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed Drainage behind basement ' walls can be provided by attaching prefabricated wall drainage panels, such as Miradrain 6000,to the outer side of the wall, or by backfilling the wall:with,a clean granular material, such as pea gravel.- A foundation drain consisting of a:four-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe should be installed at the.base:of the wall for,collection and removal of the intercepted groundwater. 'The foundation drain should be:surrounded by at least six'inches of pea gravel.::All drains must drain to a controlled point of approved discharge: -Cleanouts should be installed at each year. Y along � These -. � vie at appropriate and'easily accessible locations the drain alignments.ments. These cleanouts should,be ser°•c ed least once h y . With'wall backfill placedP and P com��acted as recommended and: drainage properly installed,',we m recomend designing unrestrained walls 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 'added. ,These'values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no-other surcharge loading, :such as.traffic, sloping embankments,' or adjacent buildings; will act on the wall., If such conditions will exist, then the imposed loading must be included in the: • wall design. Friction at the base of.foundations and passive earth pressure Will:provide resistance to these lateral-.loads Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations section of this report: , 5.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floorsmay .be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and. Grading section of this•report. Immediately below'the floor slab;we recommend placing'a"4-inch thick,capillary`: break layer of clean, free-draining sand or gravel having less than, 3 percent 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'slab. Where moisture'by vapor transmission is'undesirable,:a durable plastic membrane should be placed;over the capillary break material. The membrane should be covered with.two inches of clean, moist sand-to`guard`against damage during construction and to aid;in curing of the concrete:,: , • • • • Page No.7 • September 8, 1998, Project No.T-4106 . 5.7 Stormwater Release • • , • -As previously discussed, stormwater- discharged from the western detention pipe will be conveyed down a steep- ." .slope to an existing strearim channel:; We recommend conveying the storniwater.down the slope,using a continuous :, high-density polyethylene pipe(HDPP). The HDPP is typically,anchored to the slope face with driven pipes or rods 'attached to a•leollar around the:pipe. :This anchoring:method generally•eliminates the,need.for any significant excavation; and minimizes disturbance•of existing surface conditions. .Flow energy dissipation will be required,at ' the bottom of the pipe. This is typically accomplished'by constructing a rock-filled gabion structure at the end of the pipe. :Construction of.the energy-dissipation gabion should be.in accordance with King County Standards, as ., outlined in their Surface Water Design Manual. Based.on our observations of existing-,conditions on the"slope and 'considering the relatively'low impact that the ,; , HDPP will have on the face 'of the'slope, it is;our opinion that the proposed outfall pipe, with adequate energy • dissipation, • will-not adversely impact the current stability of the slope,and would minimize the potential of erosion• .. on,the slope face. , ' 5.8 Drainage • Surface • Final;exterior grades should.promote'free and positive drainage away from the building,area. We recommend providing-a,gradient of,At three percent for a minimum distance'of ten feet from the building perimeter, - • except in paved locations: In paved-locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be,provided unless '.. - provisions are included for collection and disposal of`surface.water adjacent to the structure Surface;•.water Must be allowed to flow uncontrolled over,the crest'of the site slopes and-embankments Surface water should be directed away from the slope crests to a point of collection and controlled;discharge: If site grades do'inot.allow for directing surface water.away from the slopes, then water should be collected and , -- • tightlined to the bottom of the.slope in,a controlled manner. • • Subsurface' We recommend•installing:a continuous drain along the outside'lower edge of the perimeter building foundations: • The:foundation. drains and roof,downspouts should be tightlined separately,to an approved discharge-facility. • • Subsurface drains must be laid with,a gradient sufficient;to promote: positive flow to a controlled point of • approved'discharge. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once each year: • . • Page No. 8 • • F. , , ' September 8, 1998 - ,Project. , ect No:,T-4106 , ;5.9 Utilities,.• - . , : • - . - ' Utility,pipes s ould be bedded.and backfilledd-in accordance with American,.Public;Works Association (APWA) or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill`should-be placed and compacted as structural fill: as'described in the,Site Preparation and Grading section of:this report: If the,soils excavated.on-site are-free.of . , 'excessive dei'e erious material or debris and are not excessively moist,;they should besuitable:for use as backfill material. If co nstruction.takes place durin winter or spring;g it May be'necessary to import' structural fill''for - m g . .. Y backfilling purposes. • --; Pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in:the Site Preparation and.Grading.section r: ' •of' this report.- Regardless of the relative .compaction achieved, the"subgrade must" be firm and relatively .,unyielding_before paving Proofrolling the subgrade.with heavy„construction equipment-should be'completed to, : verify._this condition. The.,"thicknesses'-.of the various -components of the Pavement-depend on the :subgrade soils-and"the traffic r. . ' - 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,a properly;:prepared and ' ., stable subgrade, werecommend the following pavement'sections: ` - `, • s. Two nches of"asphalt concrete(AC)over four of crushed rock base(CRB) ; • "Two nc_hes,of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base(AT•B) . . - ; Of Trans (WSDOT);paving; .materials' should• conform• to',the Washington .State Departmentportation ( ). specifications forClasS B,asphalt concrete,ATB`and CRB. _ - Long-term pay meet 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-,recOnirnend 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.- , 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES >. ',Terra Associates, Inc.,.should review the final design and specifications,in.order to verify;that earthwork and - ' foundation recommendations have'',been. .properly` .interpreted and: incorporated„into .project design,•and. - construction. ' e should'_also provide'geotechnical services during.construction'in order to;:observe compliance 1 , , with the design concepts, specifications, arid recommendations.- This will .also allow for design,changes if < . subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction." • 1 Page No. 9 September 8, 1998. Project No.T-4106- 7.0'" LIMITATIONS , We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This report is, the property of Terra Associates, Inc:,'and is intended for specific application to the Labrador Lake.Washington Property project.-This report is for the exclusive use of Tolima Engineers &Land'Surveyors and their authorized re resentatives. No other warranty, ex ressed or implied, is made.' The analyses and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are,based upon 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 • 1 7r ST 3.3 ST rn y�3atf•>:K t �,� . NLI OE�.__ II: W. =s.``.Nv ..i a s .•- <Z;- ., ■■}} • 1 l" SE`=^68TH / SE. ""f as, "E s� ■"` .I Wt i a :. 'II �� "ST,aI 7800 ., - 'Sf ucr - I '�.'yF• �Y"�. m� sip • �. •'I,`, k\ 'C7� .-:E., 1 ,1NSE 71191,E�.j "Y<'SE v,aMNT _ • n n`,� { E 11 l I ID C ,P 04 .. \\ !o .+'�6E� tN ra ■Ili • �,L/ "§ ° _ +,,. 1 I. HAIELfX900 7t5r.S L,n 7 ST +Lr. .EE- P$ Y'< sr ����� r PK. :7i F 1 RO L• T / jIII la \�, SE NIO 1 IW< '�, � 4 / r 29 �`�� I,� q M �/Ay///� -'I ram, 'i- ` 2g r'/SF I" 7 M- -ST r J>� 'ry L �. I ''If I Jf—O�Q s �g,r a'SE 7. .� .4 .;,,SisrN vt �� P', sE '''3, 4�SC- vino _,ay*{LQ i • • Q In, S7 i pEw.•u<I„M'I•V_ `Iqq' s sE J c' I, • ' � A 1. a� .k' '• •-� .. • , I S T.9;-T;-1 1 n N i _ fl E l 44 7riM .. ,,SE .F�f1.__. S .` GL:EFx£' ID If T' 'i N `sf' 3 cr' ~V - 'F .100 InW l/JJ1100T2 01SL,,, 'T,4 /E1e'N. P • / ,-.1 /(/�NE 43RD' 'SE= BOTH^79TN sT r ST°.. .:1� 1 ;{4 se B- - IEEST u 1Ziralfs,Qq•,qM s- ! - 'If PL J - 1200 $11600 N _ S ' .. - Se id sr u. SC'4 - \\\ IrI p L.7 3 i-s' N7 .S !INN 1`4 Py > ,04 _ -.I - , .e.— E �., , ._' • �'� it, !J Q�' /�(/�f • ,' _ pE� :, ,SE lCo - �1 SE D SL Z7 `- 0 / N'40TH ST 'U_? 4° !r0 E•-d!7N sr - a ° •1,1 AVALON N ., x z !! .�• . C SE 85iv lv - ,. E e6 •I',1 3 , , N 38TH ' ST 2 i <8 �.,r�'= 'SE esn0 ST - Pl�- I 8. 4.... ' ` N i lln` . �' N.� ,Eo N� SE B61X'sf B7rN.: N ., N' 36TH ,.o �t.c a. N a BEACH PARK 3z I� I " NE 36TH' E SE ::TH"• a •ST SE; Cp.' ti 1600 .rf e7rN .a •�35TH. 5T. _ it 1 ST. p W�a p dsM a� ° . . �T n,'-• _ -sr.' $ N .ti^• S� 89TH ST '9� -� ',um '< -ST I II r:y.G a�� Jl,n ,�f" lF.,;. .. • F P .`i L_S-90TH ST - .+ •N.. 3'�f.�c7� -SCUTN PoINT 1, , - • �� 33R0 PC _ I _ _. . fir�•y4. �p , !', SE 915i ST E 91ST a ''S-'CyER 33RO'8ST••+ 0 1I000 ,^ E 12200' -'C f:,. ,•.5 c TpEEK' "_ .. _ COAIINT.• �I 700' NI'31ST ST {b' F`•`, s : NE '31ST :3 w•:N, N. .;,1'-,. "y - ' .N 3dTH sr T8"',..�i A , £'flEa,.:- �'_ •,I. y ri✓, , f; ,. »it yr. 5 `• .�.?' 1 700 N 29TH Silk 1300 l .F�'.;.&1 ",;ti,,- .. y:r t,-4.r,•'' % 95TN ` •®28TH PL P4 a ./ :K`O s__ ;A'''''''''"'''. ,v+0, .,_.`,.: J`; ,s` utt' r .BE•e. 28TH ST'u ':�?•a 5::b_` �0f r'-°f�- - I ,* !� - m17 ,.NE. A- 7IE' ITN ST .'�t'n..�nl� N sE vsr.�'4=' ; ' LAKE . 277H 2 UO E=�.zT ,. �' ��1�'F E ¢ i,. ,rX a, A , X. q� 100rN. ' sr c PI _ �q� ;t+VENNYD LE z sr N ',`,,. F - - • ;a�ilk ' "II - .�X�1,a .. "110N51 - F?:a'i sr A �:; 9 l,�ASNINGTOAi g21TN��. nc .� 44; I' 1700 �'I < NE PL v < NVmi NE •r'S7' cy� • t . _ y 3• �;1 . EN �J 22N0 2 yY SfT'E ,� Icy E$.� R � �Ilii� 5NE 215T j.O22ND ST .per .1400 I`1;,, .y"M• I,I R RE 'LOTH H��Tg r 0 E•:,, sr�4`_,,:, TElN ^CREEA„14 i �1. _ i 2300. Icc��'' • (IS: E J r• 4 I 1700 tr... `I' NE 19,3 SS',I lNp ''§ 4.'ni ti:. •_.,1�_ ,+(�(fl�Fl• i ST NIRGin'OS - 1 i +r w- na.., F•—®:f19.fi 4 • L-L - ,J O. _ - - BOAT LAU.ICN yi:' .'i yN.� :�PLC �, =3800 � • 'L II W s' g W x ql� < p 1} Nf IaTX' • • i..?.I: -.14r11 r 5 ST -1 '3 NE l7N PL l IO tX UrN Si • . Nf _ •?� " - - ,,GENEf`.CpR0W ' 1 g. Z� w • NE uM 4 /'-.t ;a . - , .. RIAL..'•N !I NE '18 12TH ST 9 NE. vf8 2 . ."k• .i• - 12TH:. - 112TH ^6STI 1Gf PARK i' ,�', - / .m '6000'-. 1 113 S -..\ .4,-,w, ..a 1 ei, Nf .;It z100 82� mar /� cX 1�- 1, ki p ' f� - pp7. W ttn °'°" h RENrox ':` ;�%, , • ���P ARK k�R _ y Xd nn n.. {• . sr. ST57,, .AIRPORT .:' �' _ ^\ 11 4� - !. i' .I 1mN `R - '\ ��IIII FL !1 .rLAUCH•.z`'p'""d:"":".,%' ,., • „. ' 1(�'/• x NE�_,•• - �^ s NE 107N of \ i 11 ST '1 `YBOEING}..'v�':'4 i � uor Ci i NE IOTN- ST 4 „too '< S1- { B wsr .®� vRENJON,j%z4}�;i� E / g ♦\ vn, �`..'f _ I- < 118TH S 17TH PL A } <.RENT ANT;,ry/' / _• ` `»� A AVEllirt- „, ..; ._ ,S h _ ^ E®'9TH • IEN Q: u. IS 119TH .7-`'7 ' .r:rw fit: ', ;',' 8 �, I '_puirli 9 o • lam STg_ .eta 1•14'..- ..:. •:A ,:,thy..,p. H • ' ST ti-\\ 1 ' `7: 'u..NE- , ' - �.�:S 1215T® < ST 'F, '��'e fDAR'`x i . Y . C 2100 `� NPARK S �400� iIS122NO ST ' TRAIL' ,°E5 N 6< a srN�- 1.m Hi r a f,,�.�(.?+ '`'_ • _ 7THP� ,IE' I ''.• .a ' ___ ' �I 7, Z. ).: 7:47.,•.4-.if' �• _ , \ n,a _ �•�� .E 4 q ' i� �Z• • • ' REFERENCE:: THE :THOMAS GUIDE,' KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;.PAGE 626,'1998 EDITION. , VICINITY'°MAP , -- -, !../ - '.: TERRA , ' :. LABRADOR .LAKE -'WASHINGTON• PROPERTY RENTON,, WASHINGTON • - _ \X.. . 'ASSOCIATES' •',' ot'echnical Consultants Proj.' No:4106 Date SEPT: `1998 Figure 1 ` 'I /`L nli i '' I i. 2 1 3\i', 4I 5I 6 1 L9 - I 10 I 12 I 13'I ,, 741 15'I 'i' - `.7 r8' I19' ' 20' . 21 22 23 ' 24 '. I \; q i'o. ' \r \ V \ • i i i i BLO K 1 1 ' . ' "' ' r 1 I I I C.D. IILLMAN'S LAKE,WASHINGTON GARDEN OF EDEN. NO. 1 . , + log��____.� '- - - - _ 1 . , /'(i , .1' j I'.,. • I' ` 1 IA \ \ : - .\. -- . N •28 TH _\\ / \ . , ., is.■ alas _—. ' I^ — ,-= ,— — ,- —TT . _, .. W r `I 166' �_ 65\ \ �`g3 �6�,` 61 60 _ HI r 1 / , I •` \ ------ \,, \ \ " '-- Z, W- \ I i, \ \ -;; I I. �' \. s7 56' i 1. ; ; I Sa ; 1�2 / I - -�-\_ \\ \` ;I ELDON I ACRE ' _ - CO - \`\\\\ �� \\ \, 'I I I I ' 1 I 1 ,:I �� _ /�% EX C C. �\ \, ' I•' I I I 'J \ I' \. \ 15-`\1.6 7 \18 19:,,,\ ' ,- - i/�_-_ ♦; -- 0 / ., ' i -- I •% , ; I \�\o . 1,,, ;� �fQ`� 2�t 2 2'3; �"�v ti l ;� �Os =ems= `l / _ `\`\ `�\\ \ \ \' \s.```\• \ "\ `r •`\\ •�`\ , \ `� 1. ' . . -0- :�� .- mo: 4,:•:: `/. `%r/ ,III ft ' `� _ I / , _ ---- __ ,,..„._ , _.,.....„_-_:___-_.-:-_....,.„--„-,;,/,c, ...,,*,0,.--,„•=:•,=- ,,, 7/.o's*A4 -..... ---------------.....- -.);•.-4-5--;--I 44: ' ,:\s,„\\ \ ,.\s, \ Ns, , N , N „,. , ,..N „......... _ _L ...,_______,s-s---,.........;-_::-.....:„--,.:...,...,-....sj„-,„.,r4 4,-;.,,,,-_,?:01,:,-„, loile 1 ,, \‘ k. i , , ',\ \ \. _ ..,-may i- --— :ter„ /,;r, , / ,i;, / ` \.. • `I —. _ :: i =�--///,- • // r/i"0,4'ri///r r r%i , 1 1� I' I \ 'I , \ \ \ `\,\ ``� • 1 ,p , \ \ •f.\.2..., • - • .., .\ \-\ _, vv.S ji —-- %i=S' % ;O -- ' ), /„%•,4/.,,, \1'\1 ",f ' I ' I I 1 \ \` .`\. -\' \ `�`;� �I \. \., t I �` 1, 4 1%'� . , . . . ' \\ ' ., .\ w...\-.......:.<......_,_ 4,,,,,i.... ..i.,-....--:._—_-,... ......„..---...5.-.::::-...2:7, ..„....5.....!,-/4:40;,,,,,....:(>,,i, ,,,, .. \‘, ,..\\\\\\\.\\.\\_.\\\,, ,,.. ; ,,, k \ \\\\ 1,„•-,'. \‘,..s,a‘ ,‘ ,_ , \i/ c, \ ,,... 1 1. . ‘ \, , 47 (--„., _ ... . • S -.) \_ / - \� �:��� /di� r� /�/�%• �:7, ' 11��i"'.-/,. ` \`\ \ \,\`�` \\\\\. \' \ \ \ `\\• \l\ \\'';\\\,•,\ i ill I '1 \.3�q1 ! I• '• rI I/ / • - \ \ iii p/., - i � • I l/llll/ r� , - \ \ A\ ill \S\ \ \\ . \ ,,I ®�_, I I• I ,' ' / _ \` J1, \��- 1/. /lI /,' �/' I :rarl 1 r r 11 I (, \ , , �,\ , `.\ '\ \ \t` \ \ 1 ' I. I ,, \`___ 0•//� / •i ./ 1 III ' /. \ \ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ , ��sl: / ' J.f:. / / ,� _ / / ,Ilr r� "I ` `♦ \~`♦ / 1.�\,�- \ `\ \ ` ` ' {// 'f 1. •� l ` • • _ , '� '�_7__Y'/ '..'/�' / /.J�i /� /-//` I�I ,1,1 .�•� ```\ \� `\ '`\ :\\, \`' ',\'` l\ �' \1`i • \� i I //. ri '1. I' �i/'.. 0., -7 \I. - ,. ,.,i•' `I'' I'�,� y I... / �` \ .�, .�-; s.; \.'3� ;I C I ;-.i;i / E! 'SON 'AORES - J. i � if; i I I(L1ir//� I - `•� �.�` \ 1 \ `\ �\ I 1 it 1 ,_ I/ /, • 'I / ' / 'ill I I '�1i l'r./ \I I - - O� -�\\ \ 1 .1 \} 11 i... I I, •lr r ! 0 - - - - 1 '• I. !10// 1 7. / `\ .. ` � , \ `h •rn 'I ' r-I 'I, Il�/1" /`\\ aq/, / ;ij\'� jI�/1/ \ ��\ 1 n I, II/ 6I rn .;I, h /1/ 1 I OI _ r_ �'-1 I / /� I 1 �l ., /'' 4' \ �� '1I, ,1i1i ' Il�l \ { • - �'ll,/�• /I y "I (I L[�tC�?�V;ACRES. i. ` II • 1 1 \ I.,Q • _i - ./t .I/ - cdi - / I III o. ``\. • '/' _ \ \ ,\\ 'I 1i�=Z�Zl.`yift _I �a���`111.•ill. '1 _i/i Ii/i I/ /' I - 1` I ..r • • . c•.; • s • '\ / - , \ \ - ,\',,\, ' sii , ,,, -, /Aiii f//cc...._-__F__ A-- iwzra.,-441- irsiwi ../,,-,.,- -7,..,, , /,'",,c1k, 1,`\. _ • ' : : _ " • • • • APPROXIMATE SCALE `2� �,:/ - -- = < :- ;' : : I 1240ft / , \� / / --- CONTOUR INTERVAL: 2 feet =: - X(S' La / / j` - LEGEND: ' L pp , • �_ APPROXIMATE: TEST PIT LOCATION REFERENCE:• EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN . ' UTILITIES PLAN DATED AUGUST 1998,. PREPARE D BY TOUMA ENGINEERS AND LANp SURVEYORS. �:;. ` • TERRA LABRADOR LAKE- WASHINGTON PROPERTY _ ASSOCIATES . RENTON, WASHINGTON • otechnical •Consultants. Proj. No:4106, ' Date'SEPT: 1998 Figure -2 APPENDIX A' •FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING • ' • • Labrador Lake-Washington Property- ;f. Renton,Washington. On August 10, 1998, we perforined'.our field exploration-using a rubber-tired backhoe.'_We explored subsurface soil conditions at,the site by excavating. 10 test pits to;a maximum depth of 12 feet below, existing grades. The test pit locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2'.;-The test. pit 'locations were approximately, determined by measurements ,from existing' structures; and r topographic features.:The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-0. • An engineering`geologist from our office maintained a' ' to of each test,pit as it was excavated,. g g g classified the soil conditions,encountered, and obtained representative soil`samples, All 'soil,samples were visuatly.classified,in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification:System. .A copy of this • ; • classification is presented.as Figure A-1. " • ' Representative:soil:samples'obtained from the test.pits were placed in sealed'plastic.bags and taken to ' our.laboratory for-fuither:examination and testing: The moisture content of each sample was.measured ,, • and'is repoi�ted on:the Test Pit Logs: ,Grain size"analyses were performed on five of the samples, the .. • results of which;are;shown on Figures A-7 through A-9 • • Project No. T-4106 - 'LETTER ' MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL.DESCRIPTION SYMBOL. • - Clean GW, Well-graded gravels;•'gravel-sand mixtures, little or.-no • U) : .GRAVELS Gravels fines: . :a) . less.:than: • •-" Poorly-graded .gravels,`,gravel-Sand;mixtures; little.;or. c`u More than 5% fines) G P', no fines: (7) -50%0 of.coarse Silt ravels;'''gravel:sand-silt mixtures',non-plastic;' _. ,fraction;is; y9 • L,a .larger 'thane No.' G ravels G M fines ; 4 sieve with fines ' .� _ E GC =:Clayey'gravels gravel=sand=clay;mixtures;,plastic fines: Q . o _o cv Clean; Well-graded sands' gravelly,sands little or:no fines: _ Sands S1N.; g g v . ,. d �, �; SANDS ;���,:. .., . ,.y W z. . (less than . • . ' "' � o Poorly=graded :sands or gravelly.sands; little-or no `• : - • cc s c More than' '. -5/0 fines) S P. fines. , . 50% of coarse Q fraction,is SM Silty,sands;_sand=silt. mixtures;`,non=plastic fines: U 2 smaller than Sands No: `4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands;,sand=clay'mixtures,,plastic fines. , • • M L: Inorganic silts, rock:flour;clayey,silts with slight (n. c>s :SILTS :AND'.'CLAYS plasticity . CL Inorganic clays of low to';medium plasticity,`(lean clay): "E 3a ia-lets than ,50% — 'a :�z,.� _ Or anic. silts'and or, anic--cla s'of low plasticity, - o . OL ' 9 " Y p Y, Q , •c a). • M,HI :Inorganic silts,,elastic: - • ai SILTS-AND CLAYS . CH r Inorganic-clays:of high'plasticity„fat'clays:' Z. o.N • Liquid limit is greater.than.50% - . -- y LL Organic clays of high plasticity. • :. HIGHLY "ORGANIC SOILS PT: 'Peat: DEFINI.T'10 . . . . " N OF:�:TERMS,�:AND. SYMBOLS � . . , w Standard.Penetration u�• -'2"'OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT Density Resistance. in"Blows/Foot I+ - d= ".SPOON%:SAMFL'ER -.''- ' �; •� `0 =Very.loose 0=4.. 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING:,SAMPLER ` Loose 4-10 ' OR SHELBY TUBE-SAMPLER o- Medi,um dense 10-30 Z De se. 30-50 Y WATER LEVEL(DATE) • Q • • Very dense ' >50 `•Tr- TORVANE READINGS,tsf Standard Penetration 'Pp_ ,PENETROMETER RE:ADING,1st- - ' Q Consistency Resistance' in -Blows/Foot pp; DRY:DENSI• TY•pounds per cubic foot U, Very:soft e - 0=2 • LL", 'LIQUID, LIMIT percent - • , Soft' 2-4 Medium stiff 4-8', P.I PLASTIC:'INDEX •Stiff _ � .. .8-16 ., . � . ,. -...- .,y....- .:::� '„� ; . ; - .' ,,' , "' Very s"tiff 16-32 N STANDARD':PENETRATION; blows per foot Hard. >32 . - UNIFIED SOIL•.CLASSIFICATION:;SYSTEM,;. ;TERRA:..'' ' LABRADOR:LAKE WASHINGTON PROPERTY:. . ASSOCIATES, RENTON,.'WASHINGTON Geotechnical.Consultants Proj No. ,T-41.06' Date_ SEPT:. 1998, Figure:A=1 = Test Pit No: .TP-1 Logged by: JCS ,Approximat 'e Elev. 126 • Date: 8/10/98 Depth Moisture ,. Content' - eft:-) Soil Description (0/ , • 0 6 inches duff and Topsoil: ,Light.brown'SAND with;,silt,fine-grained;:medium dense,dry,with fine - roots to.?feet. (SP=SM), _ Gray-brown silty SAND to.clayey SAND;fine grained;.dense to, „ : very dense,''nloist,,with some fine root"fibrils and occaisional•coarse::', ' . - sand/fine,gravel. (SM/SC) • Test,pit terminated at.11,feet. ' - ..No groundwater seepage. ' ' 15 • ,Test. Pit a TP_2• _ • N d.b Logge y Approximate Elev:., 112 Depth ` ` Moisture ,(ft.) . y Content ` Soil Description ,(%); � _ 12 inches:duff and.Topsoil.' - - -Light SAND with silt;,fine-grained;,medium dense, dry: '(SP-SM) Gray-brown silty SAND,fine-grained,dense, moist,with occasional, 5— coarse sand/fine gravel. (SM)'• . 131 Brown SAND with silt„fine-,to coarse-grained,dense,-moist to;wet. .0 — ... 12.' Test:pit terminated at:12.feet: - . . ' _ No groundwater seepage, TEST";PI.T'LOGS ' LABRADOR'LAKE' WASHINGTON'PROPERTY o� ;TERRA.'', • RENTON, ,.WASHINGTON _ 'tni6 . ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Proj.=No:: T-4106': Date SEPT. 1998 'Figure .A-2 Test Pit, N o. TP-3 Logged b JCS Y� _ . . _ - Approximate,Elev.. 102 Date:`8/10/98 Depth . Moisture 'Content 'Soil Description • (°/ • • 6 inches-duff and Topsoil. " - Light�brown SAND with Silt,fine-grained,medium:dense,..dry. (SP-SM) , 5_ _ :(Becomes moist at 8 feet) Gray silty SAND with gravel,fine sand,finecto coarse gravel;very dense,moist:(SM), „ • • _ Test pit terminated at 10 feet: - • No groundwater seepage. , Test, Pit No ..T.P=4 Logged;by:`-JCS. • Approximate,Elev:, 118 Date: 8/10/98 ; Depth,' Moisture (ft:), Content-'- ' Soil.Description -.0 8 inches duff and Topsoil. • , Light brown.SAND to SAND with silt,fine-grained, medium dense,dy Gray'brown'SAND, medium-grained, medium dense;Moist,' • 10- with occaisional.fine to coarse gravel.' (Sp), Grayrsilty SAND with gravel„fine sand,fine to coarse gravel,very,dense,•moist.(Till)(SM) , Test-pit terminated at`,12'feet: _ No;groundwater seepage., , , .. • TEST PIT:LOGS TERRA' LABRADOR LAKE WASHINGTON,PROPERTY , • ' , - - .., RENTON,: WASHINGTON_. ASSOCIATES Get-,)technical Consultants Proj. No, T4:106 Date.SEPT: '1,998: .:Fiigure`:A-3 • Test Pit No.- TP-5 Logged by: JCS . .:. _ ';Approximate'Elev. 112 _ Date: 8/10/98 Depth Moisture ` (ft ) Content, • :Soil Description (o/) _ ?I,. 0, _ 1.2 inches duff and Topsoil. • -- Light brown SAND to SAND with silt,fine-grained; medium dense,'-dry.' • , ,Gray=brown'SAND, medium-grained, medium dense;moist: (SP) _ Gray silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel',fine sand,' - ' 10"—., fine gravel, medium dense,moist. '(SM/ML)` - 20 -"Gray silty SAND with gravel,fine sand,fine to coarse'gravel, „ dense to very dense,moist. (Till)(SM) , - ' 'Test pit terminated.et 12 feet: - Nogroundwate r seepage. • :_ Test Pit, No.r T:P_-6 Logged by: JCS .." -Approximate Eh ev. 142 Date: 8/10/98 : ; Depth" :, Moisture ; Content.: Soil Description o 0 10 inches sod am Topsoil.,'- Mottled gray,silty SAND to,sandy SILT,fine-grained,-dense';dry: (-SM/ML) Light brown SAND with silt,--,fine-grained;medium,dense, dry to.moist. - : . (SP-SM) • Gray-brown SAND with gravel;fine to coarse sand,fine to coarse gravel, , medium dense to dense, moist•:(SP) . 10_ 6` 'Test pit•terminated at,10 feet:- , . - No groundwater seepage., > .. , - ' ' ri „ r -TEST PIT:.LOGS LABRADOR,LAKE_WASHINGTON PROPERTY \\� TERRA: REN'TON,�•WASHINGTON - ` ASSOCIATES :. Geotechnical Consultants Proj: ,No:' T-4106 Date SEPT• 1998 Figure A-4 • Test ;Pit --No. TP-7 Logged by: ;JCS Approximate Elev: 188 Date:. 8/10/98; Depth Moisture Content nt Soil Description ( _ 14 inches'sod and Topsoil. ed medium dense' to,moist: (SP Gray.brown SAND,fine-graain dry ( ) 10 ; - Test pit terminated:at'11 feet. ` = No'groundwater seepage. 15' . Test Pit No. TP8 Logged,by: .JCS Approximate Elev. 172 Date' 8/;10/98 Depth Moistureft Content' ( ) • Soil Description" 0 - 8 inches duff and.Topsoil. -5.— '' Gray-brown:SAND,fine-grained, medium dense,dry to.moist. r(SP) - - Test pit terminated at 11 feet. 1 : _ No groundwater seepage, , TEST PIT LOGS • LABRADOR-LAKE.WASHINGTON PROPERTY .' 'TERRA RENTON; WASHINGTON ASSOCIATES , . I -Geotechnical Consu tonts Proj. No. T-4'1'06 ' Date SEPT' . ,1998 Figure A-5 Test yPit Na.: TP-9 ,-,loggedb • JCS y Approximate Elev: 128 Date: 8/10/98 : • • Depth. Moisture •, (ft..) . Soil Description` Content'°� ( °). 4 inches duff and Topsoil. - Light brown SAND,;fine-grained,medium dense,dry to'moist.; (SP) , - • fi • ,Gray-brown silty SAND with,gravel;fine:toimedium sand,fine to.coarse: - 1'0_ gravel,dense to very dense,.moist.'.(Till like) (SM) , 13 . Test pit terminated at 11 feet. , ' . _- No groundwater seepage. • ` ' 1 5 Test 'Pit - Logged"by:' JCS Approximate-.Elev. 168 -I „Date:_ 8/10/98 ' Depth' • . Moisture' (ft.) Soil'Description Content _ 6 inches sod and Topsoil., (%) • Light brown silty.SAND;fine-grained,medium dense,,dry;with a few fine , _ •..Light brown SAND,fine-drained,"medium dense to dense, dry,with' occaisional gravel and smal l cobbles be low 7 feet. SP - Test pit terminated at 10 feet. No groundwater seepage. . • • • E' ,TEST PIT LOGS LABRADOR LAKE WASHINGTON ,PROPERTY- oo��\\\�`: . : T,ERRA, RENTON, WASHINGTON • - ndi ASSOCIATES. Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4106 Date:SEPT:1998 Figure A-6 • 1 , _- SIEVE ANALYSIS - • - - • `: ' HYDROMETER, ANALYSIS _ NUMBER .OF MESH. .PER INCH` U.S. STANDARD .. .- GRAIN SIZE=IN MM �� - - :- ; SIZE OF OPENING. IN INCHES' � • \\ \\\\ \- N •-P 0) 0 - O O O. O O . - O O.O CD O CD O N O)- '- - 41 N N..—. 4.CO.N CO -fa,. -Ps - O O O - O, O OO -P W N .CD,O ,? W N • ' , • 90, • _ : - - .10 D"."1, SO 20 c)s'0 70 - ,n 70 30 rii.. o c. • 7-1 .60 40 n =' _ � _ O N Z rn , 50 50 1. • _ ,40 ,. \., - . 60 -C:- : : - , rTl ` • °:. - c5.=30 - _ 70 m Z D 10 90 - o pmz II NZ' - 0 1 I.( I J f 1 I mill 1 I - 11 I I 1 $ l'I 1-. 1 hl 1.00. _0 DNm : - ' - GRAIN'• SIZE: ;IN- MILLIMETERS_ ' f ' =`Z Z COARSE I ' FINE COARSE ( MEDIUM I. FINE - co -ci>. - - COBBLES - FINES co " Z _ GRAVEL• - __ SAND _. Key Test Pit Depth USCS Description Moisture LL PL • Number (ft.) . Conten t (%). . • n ." •. TP-1,-- 3.0; SP-SM SAND with'silt , 0 . TP-2 : : 10.0 SP-SM SAND- with silt ' • SIEVE.; ANALYSIS .' ,: HYDROMETER: ANALYSIS - SIZE OF OPENING IN,INCHES _ ' I ."NUMBER .OF.'MESH PER:INCH, .U.S. _STANDARD. - GRAIN;SIZE IN MM . .0 0 O '0.. 0 0 \,, \\\-- \. - _ N - - 0) O OO O O O - -"OO O- O`.O O -O i - ODIV CO -P. '. - ._ _ CD --_ 94 i -100- -- : : : 111111111111111111 ®its ®®®111®I®1111II■�® ►; - - -0 0���M1MI0M MS ���:! ®_.®_�®e■■��IMI�� 4".- : : _. ss�semmu a aomimmim �®�'-'' - ®®assmm�®smmimmo aao® . .. ssa�s®miaamiamaimimusll�®®��®s�aaassssssass®aamissi®s■■stalsa•sss■s® - - - cb �J®��niss___-- �®nnnnn�iiiIIinnMM® m; ® ®saoalasaa aM® - " - - .'�='�. 8u ®s®®®oltll��� �M® U. ®®®MIItOw®I■■uI•sMII�� 20 _. V):IYI saaatlasrs ���®� ®� a. �It®aa���®Isigimmsa®® ..- 70 ®®� a�a�ata �'aIMIa�I■MI ' . -. 7D n®®�nnn®®n I I 111111■■®3D m n ' :m ®®®i®111111®® - I 1�0��®11nnn 111111■®: > ": 60 11111111111111.1 ► .';:, - nnn®®1I1tflL408® 50 ®nn INn�n n 50 m illuiliiii - , o • C) . IMMIIIIINIMINIIMINIIIIMIII�i®®®1� 1®II ®®MINIMI= ®®i®®®111®®®IIIIII®® 30- 70: m _ -. _ aaea��aavans Ienoamsm� Ia®aa■aaa■a�®®aa®simosI�®a�aass c) z -1 ' sa®���ss■as■�ea�Ia•vi® 1sssMsssa,�ases■aea•®Iuo■.MIIMsssasss■ - ,_ o • : 20 .nnnnn11nnon•®�®- . ME.. ; 11nnn®11111nn®®80 s smimos a�Lv® - o �nnnn11nnan ® • , NMI n11ennn®1ii1innnn - " ®nnnnlnnlfnn ■ ` ®��! ■II®®®®11115®®®� z D ° • • fin nn ®ni 7Innn®11111nnnn 90... o :c;m l ; . ' i, 00�•O �O`.0.,.. • � D.N o o' oo rn ,W _ DN Fri -m GRAIN ,.SIZE IN MILLIMETERS:; r:.. c - :P CA N: • cn_D Z 2 COARSE FINE COARSE I ,. :MEDIUM 1'" FINE to z COBBLES: FINES , -. .D GRA EL= SAND- 2 (0- Test;Pit` Depth v - Moisture -o Key F,) USCS Description ).. LL'„ PL. x f " - • Number ft. Content" • TP-3 9.0 SM•-_ silty SAND. ' . - • - = - - 0 TP-6 6.0:. ' SP-SM, `SAND%with silt : - SIEVE ANALYSIS. - HYDROMETER ANALYSIS _. _ SIZE`OF OPENING IN. INCHES . I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM • . i' _ - _ WCJ7 W - • _' - _ .N. _ - O O -O O O O \\ \\\ .. 'Ot O O-O C) CJ O: - 0 0 O O O- O O - - - N- O) ` W N Nam' .?OD N' OD" .t .. - -.O - _ O• 'O '-O O O O) W N 00 Ot •A' W, N - . •%+- - 1DD __ - , r _ 't 90 _ • 20 , :70 4. - rn -_ -I -60. ` 40 n D: - _ - m m 50 50 VJ fTl. 40 : 60 m, . I ;�' OD: _ - '_c--) o- �7 = D ' 80 Z N o 1 I‘f -i I I .1 1 - !-I i 1 1 ,1 1 I I i l I I I--.I -I., 100.I ,�— . .}, . Ooi OIL =,�? Cii ,,`=: vi y N, - = o - o 0 Co-o_- o .o o . o. oo'rn- :A w n,• o o . o:o, N m -_ - GRAIN-:SIZE . IN". MILLIMETERS - .. . _, .co -a' C w COARSE I' -FINE ' COARSE 1 MEDIUM: _ I', ' FINE. �,. c� - • : _ FINES - z D- , _ •• COBBLES - . ..-'GRAVEL: - '- SAND O• z.-o, Test Pit Depth " , , - Moisture Key USCS: . Description LL�- -PL Number (ft.) .. ;Content (%) - I ,. m - 0 TP-6 10.0.. . .SP SAND with gravel = . , 1 t -cr _ lit 6) : TERRA ASSOCIATE �� � :rt`;tz, .R S, Inc , Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and - Environmental Earth Sciences . ` September'8, 1998 Project-No. T-4106=1 Mr. Brad Hughes ; c/o Touma Engineers f, . ' 6632 South 191.5t Place#E•102 Kent, Washington, 98032 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING • Subject: 1 " Wetland Evaluation COT(OF REN N • Labrador-Lake Washington Property f - -Renton,Washington SEP 0 8. 199 RECEIVED Dear Mr.Hughes: As requested, we have conducted a wetland evaluation of the Labrador - Lake Washington Property located • south.of North 28th Street in Renton, Washington. The purpose of our work was to evaluate existing site , —i conditions and to delineate the boundaries of the wetland areas known to be present:on the property.. Our site evaluation and determination of wetland conditions was conducted using the routine methodology outlined in the Federal Manual for Ident?b/ing and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989), as required by the City of Renton. 'These procedures involve analysis of vegetation patterns, soil conditions, and surface hydrology to ' • distinguish between wetland and upland areas. Our scope.of work included site visits on August 13 and 18, ' 1998, at.which time we completed our site evaluation. ' PROCEDUS , For the purpose of this study, we used. the wetland definition adopted by the Environmental Protection , Agency (EPA) and the Arniy Corps of Engineers (COE) for administering Section 404 of,the Clean Water Act. According to this definition,wetlands are: Those areas that are' inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal condition do support,: 'a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life,in saturated soil conditions. Wetland's generally-include. swamps, marshes,bogs, and similar areas. - In accordance with this definition, a given area is designated as jurisdictional wetland if thefhydrology results in inundated or saturated soils during the growing season,hydric soils are present, and the dominant vegetation is hydrophytic. . 12525.Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425i821;7777 " 5 • Mr.Arad Hughes ' -_: - . _ . , ' . "September 8; 1998 - , , . Delineation procedures are based-on diagnostic environmental.indicators of wetland vegetation;wetland soils, " ' and wetland 1hydrology. 'These,procedures,;outlined in the..Federal,Manual.for•:Identifying and Delineating . Jurisdictional Wetlands(1989), art cominonly known as the Triple Parameter Meth-od.: By_definition,'an area: ' , - - is designated as wetland when there are positive indicators for all;three parameters . A-listing of plant-species has been developed for use in the methodology for delineating wetland areas. This- ', • :listing assigns plant species to'one of five indicator status categories,(ranging from Obligate wetland species,, ' , - „ . which almost always,occur in wetlands to Upland-species, which rarely occur-in',wetlands. -Under normal • conditions, 1ydrophytic vegetation is determined .to'be-present if more,.than 50 percent "of the dominant species:are in"the:Obligate (OBL),Facultative Wetland(FACW),or,Facultative (FAC)indicator categories:-. ; ' " - Diagnostic,indicators of_hydric "soils are related"'to soil saturation, which leads:to anaerobic conditions in the '!. - ;'soil: Under these.conditions,'decomposition of organic material;is'inhibited and soil minerals'are reduced,. • - giving characteristic. soil:colors that can- be 'quantified.by comparison with•Munsell"Soil Color-Charts•. . A chroma of;one.or less in unmottled soils o ch r a. roma of two or less:in mottled soils generally indicates a' • , . •hydric':soil.• In addition, soils that are saturated,:during the growing season satisfy:a:criterion for:hydric.soils:' We Used hand auger to collect soil samples for determination of hydric soil criteria,' : Wetland hydrology is,defined as`inundated or saturated soil conditions for;at`least 5 percent (14 consecutive" '' - - - .days) of the growing season.. .:If no water:is-present at;the time of evaluation, other,indicators may include:- r topographic low points or'channels", flood debris, complete absence of"vegetation,'or.presence.of hydric soils:. - - °. Standardizedi data forms are available to record observations,On each of these parameters. We completed data ' ' forms for the Routine"On-site Determination Method at six locations on.the,;property. Copies of:these data forms are attached: SITE CONDIIIONS The subject property is.an irregular-shaped parcel of approximately 15.87 acres located between North 28th - " ' , Street and North_26th Street and,east of Lake;Washington Boulevard, as shown on,the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. ; . • . Adjacent property-to the north, south, and east is occupied by an older single-family residential development. . -, ' At present,."most.of the'subject property is undeveloped; and"although several 'single_family residences.'are . located near the east end of the,site:. These residences are accessed from a"private road'entering:from North : 28th Street at the northeast end Of the property:" The remainder of:the.property includes.a=small" area of - ungrazed pasture and a larger area,of:second-growth broadleaf deciduous.forest. The forest is dominated by big-leaf maple (Ater ma'c`roph.yllum):and'red alder (Alnus.rubra); with ,a few widely spaced Douglas_fir (Pseudotsuga 'menziesii). . The understory includes beaked hazelnut'(Cory. ' cornuta),.:IndIian plum .(Oemler.is cerasifoimis), salal (Gaultheria:-,shallon), red. elderberry (Sambucus ' , - 'racemosa), aid'sword fern(Polystichum°munituin). The pasture area is dominated by a variety of grasses and weedy herbaceous species. o: T=41-06-1,Project N , Page No. 2 Mr.Brad Hughes1 .September 8, 1998 : ' The open areas around the houses includes grassy lawns and landscaping. Thickets of Himalayan blackberry _ ; 1 ' ;(Rubus discolor).and,Scot's.broom (Cytisus scoparius) are present in'.disturbed areas. Other plant,species • - ' - observed on the property.are listed on Table 1. • - Soils on the entire property are mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Soil Survey of King_Coun'ty Area, .. Washington,1 U.S. Soil .Conservation Service, 1973): The Alderwood:soil type is characterized as a . •, moderately vell-drained soil and is not included on the National-,Technical,Committee on Hydric Soils (NTCHS)-'listing of hydric,soils. Our,observations of Upland soils on'the property are consistent with this ' designation: Topographically,the site slopes gradually down from a high area at an elevation'approximately 210 feet'at the ,., east end of the:property:to lower areas.toward the:-west. A ravine,crosses'the,property from•the northeast , corner to the'southwest corner. The depth of this.ravine;ranges from approximately 20 feet at'-,the northeast - -corner to•approximately 50 feet at-the southwest end.'"The stream_ channel,in this enters a culvert under Lake Washington Boulevard at an elevation of approximately 60,feet. . ' , , ' ' , ' ' WETLAND AREAS:. . Two areas with wetland conditions are located on the subject property, as shown,on'the Wetland'Location: • , • Map,.Figure 2.- These wetlands are-each associated with a small stream'channel in'the bottom. of the ravine.. , :- The boundaries of these 'wetlands were delineated'across:the_property by Terra Associates; Inc.; and the •delineation fags were surveyed by.Touma Engineers;:Inc. This delineation was conducted using procedures. " outlined in the,Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating.Jurisdictional'Wetlands"(1989) ' However,, using procedures,in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987), would result in no significant change in this'delineation. Wetland A : - . , . Wetland A`is located near'the northeast corner of the property,where the stream channel is blocked by ari old -- concrete dar : The.area of wetland A'is approximately 7,093 square feet.' .The 'area- above this .dam.is , ' completely filled:with;silt, and wetland conditions are present throughout this"basin:• Upstream from this ' wetland, the stream,channel is:Confined'to a narrow,ravine near the south edge of existing residential lots.: - The stream inthis area has been impacted by landscaping and rockeries. _ . , , About 500:feiet"downstream_from the:dam,,the stream'channel flows,through'a culvert under a sanitary sewer line. The bottom of the ravine between the.dam and,the:sewer line is'deeply eroded, and the stream channel is : - ', limited to a very narrow zone. -After crossing to the north side of the stream channel, the sewer line corridor `. ' runs parallel-to,the stream west to:Lake'Washington Boulevard:`- .- Project No..T-4106-1` - Page No. 3 Mr:Brad Hughes ; September;8;1998 Wetland A is dominated by forested and scrub-shrub.vegetation."The most-abundant tree species include red - .alder• and western red-cedar"(Thuja.plicata). S•almonberry' (Rubus .spectabilis) and 'vine.maple: (Ater circinatum) are:common shrubs.(see,Data:Form#5). The dominant herbaceous plants include skunk cabbage • (Lysichiton americanum), lady fern (Athyrium f lix femina), and.creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Other plant species observed in the wetland areas are listed on Table 1: Soil colors observed in this'wetland area are,generally very dark gray(2.5)(3/1) with olive brown(2.5Y4/3) mottles: These soils were saturated to the surface throughout the wetland.area during August site visit, • and there was, some,flow in, the stream'channel.- Soils in;the.adjacent'undisturbed upland area are dark. yellowish brown (10YR4/4):.without mottles. ,.Hydrologically, this "wetland is supported by surface,flow . . through the stream channel. This'stream may be intermittent;although-there was:some-flow at the time,of our . • site visits in,.August. '.The drainage,basin for this stream appears to be'relatively small, originating on the _ • slopes east.of I-405, about one-half mile from the site. Additional water in this wetland-is:`provided by', groundwater1seepage near the'edge of the streaman Channel. { , Upstream from the .Labrador2property, the- stream is confined to a narrow channel near:the. south edge of - adjacent residential'lots., This:channel 'passes through a°culvert under the access'.driveway:at the northeast • corner of the Labrador property. There is no stream channel,east of the driveway, and the inlet point'for,this . culvert-is,probably east of I-405 • .This wetland has generally low to moderate.functional values, primarily 'because-of its very_small size,and relatively isolated condition in a residential.area. •Base:flow/groundwater support,natural biological support, ,. overall habitat,fianctions,:.specific habitat functions, and cultural/socioeconomic values are.-given,a low rating: Flood/stormvater control erosion/shoreline protection; and water quality improvement have moderate values. Details of the functional analysis are provided on Table•2, Wetland.Functional Value Summary. Using:the U1S. Fish:and Wildlife Service wetland classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), ` - .Wetland A includes areas.of palustrine forested wetland with broad-leaved deciduous'vegetation (PFO1)'and palustrine-scrub-shrub,wetland with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PSS1).. .The stream charnel,is an •upper perennial riverine system with unconsolidated bottom (R3UB)-.or an intermittent riverine streambed (R4SB). This;area is not mapped 'on the.,National Wetland Inventory,:Map (Mercer- Island quadrangle, . -- USFWS, 1988) or in the King:County Sensitive Areas Map Atlas. It is our interpretation'of the City of Renton Wetlands Management Ordinance that this wetland should be rated as' a.Category;2 wetland. _The wetland does not have the high quality features needed for designation as a'Category,1 wetland,:and;it.does not,•meet. • the severely disturbed or newly:emerging conditions for a Category 3 wetland. The City.of.Renton requires' that=Class.:2 'wetlands be provided,with a,50=foot wide,buffer. . - • . Wetland B ; Wetland B is located adjacent to the stream channel at the west end of the property. ''This wetland is between' 'the sewer line crossing and Lake:Washington Boulevard.:: The area_of,Wetland B is_approximately.20,643 ' square feet. ; Project No:T-4106-1. Page No.4' - . Mr.Brad Hughes September 8,,1998.. • This wetland is:dominated-by forested and"scrub-shrub vegetation. . The most abundant tree species is red" alder; and salmonberry and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) are'common,shrubs (see Data Form #1). The dominant herbaceous plants include lady fern.and giant horsetail_:(Equisetum telmatiea).' Other plant, species observed in the wetland areas are listed on Table.l. , Soil colors observed in this wetland area are generally very dark gray (2.5Y3/1) with olive.brown (2.5)(4/3) :mottles. These soils were saturated.to the surface.throughout the-wetland area-during our August site visit, • • • and '.there„was some flow in the stream channel. ' Soils in the adjacent undisturbed upland area 'are dark . yellowish brown(10YR3/4)without mottles. - ; Hydrologically,.this.wetland is:supported'primarily by groundwater seepage,fromthe slope'on the south side of the stream:-This stream provides little support for this wetland. The outlet froin.this:wetland is through-the stream channel into a culvert under Lake Washington Boulevard. West of this road, the stream passes under a railroad track. The,stream flows down a steep gradient directly into. Lake Washington, approximately 250 • feet west of the Labrador property. • " - This wetland/stream system,has generally,.low, to moderate functional values,:primarily because' of its ' , relatively,small size, isolated condition in a residential area, and disturbed condition: Base flow/groundwater , support, natural biological support, . overall habitat functions; specific .habitat functions, and - cultural/socieconomic,values are given,a'low rating. Flood/stormwater, control,,erosion/shoreline protection, and water quality improvementhave•moderate values.Details of the.functional analysis are provided on Table •-. '" 2,Wetland,Fui.etional Value.Summary: - Using the.0 S: Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland,classification. system (Cowardin et al., 1979), Wetland A includes areas Of palustrine'forested wetland,with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1) and palustrine scrub-shrub wetland with broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PSS 1). The stream channel is an upper perennial riverine system with unconsolidated bottom",(R3UB)=.or-an intermittent riverine streambed I (R4SB). This area is 'not'`mapped on the National Wetland Inventory Map-(Mercer Island'quadrangle, USFWS,.1988)or in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Atlas. It is:our interpretation of the City.of Renton Wetlands Management Ordinance that this wetland_should-be . rated as a Category 2 wetland:;.The wetland does not have:the high quality,features needed for designation as- • a Category 1, wettland, and it does not:inept the severely disturbed or newly emerging conditions .for.-a Category 3 wetland. The City Of Renton requires that Class 2,wetlands be provided with,a 50-foot wide -' buffer. PROPOSED.DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACTS The proposed development for this property is subdivision to create 66'lots for,construction,of.single-family residences. Thirty-eight of these lots will be located:on the north side of the ravine, and the,remaining 28 lots will be southeast of the ravine, as-shown in the Site Development Plan,Figure 3. Project No:T-41.06-1 • Page No. 5 j , Mr.Brad,Hughes September 81998 Access into the;development will be from Burnett Avenue at the west end and from:North 26th Street in the ' southeast corner. . Construction of the main access street will,require crossing the,stream channel near the: -, center of the property. Streams are not'regulated by:the City of Redmond,, and no mitigation_will be required for this crossing: This project will have no direct impacts on either of the wetlands on,this property, Wetlands A and B will be retained in their existing conditions, as will the stream corridor connecting_them,except for the required road . crossing. Buffer averaging is proposed for,Wetland'A, with a narrower buffer on the:south.edge and'a wider • - buffer on thei north side..'_ - . BUFFER AVERAGING Buffer averaging may be, permitted under the.,following conditions as specified in Section 4-32-3-I of the . _ Renton City Code:' : 1. Avera in is necessaryto avoid denial of reasonable use of the roe • ' ,' Averaging - p Prh; ' _2. • The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics; ; , ' - 3. Low intensity land uses will-be located adjacent to areas where the buffer width is reduced; ' 4. Buffer averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functions and values; and ; 5."' The.tota area'Within the buffer after averaging is no less than that within the required standard buffer " , ' prior to averaging, and tinder no circumstances can a buffer width be reduced.to less than 25 feet. , Theproposed action:for the Labrador property satisfies all of these conditions.. Buffer averaging is=necessary ' to prevent six lots south of the wetland from being lost because'they would be below the minimum lot size ' requirement:' ' ' - Wetland A and its'buffers have variations in sensitivity due to their existing'conditions. Wetland;A is located above an old concrete;dam in the stream channel, but it'is .currently in a relatively natural condition: The stream channel upstream•from Wetland A has been heavily impacted on adjacent property by channelization, .: - - rockeries, and landscaping. _The buffer south of Wetland A has been impacted by past clearing and use as a pasture. The proposed area of additional buffer north of the wetland is'still forested. ,. - The:single-family residences south of Wetland A are a relatively low intensity land use when compared with , other uses such,as'apartment complexes, commercial development, or parking lots. ,Because Wetland A has relatively low functional value ratings, the proposed buffer averaging will not adversely impact its functions ' " and values. Pro , N J o. T=4106-1 Page No. 6 • Mr.Brad.�Iughes : September 8,199'8 The proposed buffer reduction adjacent.top Lots 46 through.5;1 has a total,,area'.of'2,836.square.feet. The proposed area ifor, additional'buffer,north.of;Wetland A is:-6,946 square feet. Thus the final buffer area is greater than the required buffer area for a:standard buffer prior to averaging. . •We trust this:information is sufficient-for your current needs:..If you have.;any questions,or need additional' r information,please call. Sincerely.yours; - TERRA ASSOCIATES, Thomas R. S ong,Ph.D Project Scientist ;_ ; Encl: Figure 1 -Vicinity.Map Figure 2 Wetland:Location Map • - Figure.3- Site Development Plan ` • Table 1 -,Plant Species Observed On-Site Table:2-,Wetland:Functional Value:Summary Data Forms (6) • Pro j..ect No. T-4106-1 Pa'g'e`No.7. ,. .a. '.r�r 1' - �`: 4, - -=ram 1A,'WBa`■.7 �t R , - H Hi LS (� ��F .2•� .w'a L (OE' -1.I L 1 :a�68TH � c�" i I.�n w Lkr.,. SE` - , / SE r •St H �:WT �L �:� .. '1' .9300 __� ' :L � !O, �a � Ir11 W � .. > > N ,I,If,�1 ST �I , �`yi SE tn1ofN�. . •;a 1 L F5' t 5'I ,! a s 3 ••iHI�` -•- • JI��'\� m• ' A n sf roiH i u+�s 1 - . E P 4 Q 1^-il,� P 8 .. \ , a SE.72ND I sE - .. 9. l 1 \ w • ' T Lt1 - $ 2A C i II ' .'rf .1 ;sr 1 '.i;'.NAIEL4tlOD. �^ - r O+n t. u< +', I s>}?— I I „ PKS•+. ..:•: RD , r .lf', E'.�2ND �'�'.. ,�'�15T Q/ ME SO;NI Q r � .,, ST -',„ i ,�+ d • 1� �'�I/l_ • si _ "E ''X_Y,�F"F . V I •, • •HID . T , a 1ti$ .. t. r �tFl . "� 'ST "' `¢l 5 ?�,, r � �cd. 1 /. siBTHI vc"^`a •_ 'u�aa''so. - ' N :f E7 W ' 5'<6 rTHu^f r NiN :,'<tlnM n s pL - _� i �E)e' 7I1H P _y a f�� 'Si , . n 44 x M, _ -• +.rH °` 8a; 'an•y• - i'E�I rg-1i "i. I,0.- pa ..••, - 1N • _ • SE .; SEl pfAClli % I -/NE.'43R0'11 SE'N'80TH ?9M ST ST 4. 4�11 , ,' . - 00 SE 19TH�IPLis,, sr.,4. R Brw PARK'. /`r 1' PL 1200 r 11E00 4 . . .6 , lEYES EN..S.WS B9.0" I \ / p w ? C - st BO 'ST. IN 5 51 +( .'WY U I. S e4N0 Lk• ,� i 7 0. I 5E AY . d: R 8,.0 STI�j 1-' l d�`'eo ,. ✓ �, N 40TH ST a' ion J/, - sE=_ TM sr . ,4',' .trod x vrrc l i C •�I f?I AVALON •x f m.,r ,, • sf en '..: E K, _. ',' /N.38TH -'ST i I 8 a s 1= si ecn,sT ,1 • ,m ,r 31 • . R � �,u `- N,3'S ' , .`-`,.‘"1.. % SE 0FM S.E 81?H' r,� Pl i 9t,N /✓/.1,.?a"�r,i"" ,. rNi T5 36TH 'a L Z 'SE 88TH" :«a Ss KENW2DALE p 1 ' NE--36TH....Sf BEACH'PARK,i 3 - 5T:N.� - �.$6 f 1600 ll9pB�M c� a , - • I N 35TH ST : '' 4 `' . 'ti^'y, .ISH 89TH ST, n _ N 34TH. '<" 'ST'I,; "..G a fF,b.‘ L ... •,a .. 61i(rlCl ST N 33R0 .PL : i'` '° i `g SE - 91ST ST - 'SCV,TH PofNT" I s c SE ..915T ST ../ E �, I c�122 . - N 33R0 $T ♦ • \ "•13000 92N0.ST . r __ - - C LEJ 700 N 131ST ST. I b, y'` .,pE 31ST 8i �'- < < -,tiCl . • N 3ITH ST • y •ls1Y..^''e+a:>3'4 j. f` %7\ 9 .. ;'el , . . .. - • �� N 29TH I ST iwoa •M, ;'.AC+,�p\ ; ,;/ .'�.'''',t*'f••','::T,\:s,MYhi.•±'.`-_.iiPP.,".i: - -- 1 - - . . , y m X- 28TH PL. ua, Ll.( 'NE•.!..... Rini -sT `3' ),, - , ) • ,m :;'c :::::>::_ ,-, nE �-'-7GE 27TH ST• v.'` '1ip a ' _- , .. _ .f1`:$}:>}:}i:iyi :;w1::"_ Z7TH� 2100 _�"-.2)T' ,,• .5 , LAKE = I CT _!Vi �1��f,'1;� SITE ' �� Si . h1= rXENNrOALE�r��lsx 5T, 'G, v-Y' ";.sA LIONSi1. ' • n - ,.1r 'nE�".• pAPo, 2t?fF 1, ST •E'�1. {Y'ASHINGTON ;; 0 a I< NE _ RO' pLµ . ,?' ,:1• i;° �KtT ` . S112 i 'c' • 1 I .. +-FS y' M 0TH. 1 ST 2300 ..¢ ,x 4 , +F it, .. -• 1•o L700 on. p • `d'_ .. _ °( z, .E.<i ` 4 si'" i� ,+a,�" f1lUNlK'.51 a., .. ' 'LL • f , \f�ieZr 'G 8' ,P" ,YC. •, 1il+ , ¢ E��®PARK ,p Kly,` , y- J. W v�esiia��+ i BOAT LAD CH i"� 'I1 ^ 2a0o z PLDD _ .9 - _ +1.i�L, 2 1 o to -5 HE 17Y3TN!L g Nip L xEY in,n • • F a.�- _ ' ' - - GENE:.p717[ .I k w �.ne,u7H (9' fV;8, • , 8 _ (iMfhORlAL."',•,:,I"' . g 3 8'. I NE .� ", • I NE ^12TH " S ' °112TH G�1 . - - ,- \ ! r t EI NF 9qY; 2100-•,`3�. . .8?,•wo cow ,/iv. ``r . „P. ',Min\;'L _ .•. •• a� ." a,• P ARK 31`DR r•'' -P° ! %^ ,IS7 HESTST ,AfRPoRT - - i - . .\ ''," WI', q PL ':i QI\ oEI , ,+ ` ' ,B00 : � r:. 9D ':`':.f., \".;.I F �'- \ : a,"Tv .. QQ . , . S 'TH 1 S7 a'I • ;•RIWION _:.'_c\Y%..�5/� ' .Fa' .\ t1E 9TH PL 8 .,, 'la 2z.,1187H' S 17TH PL' , -.•, B ;%PUNT,' ,4 •,I. . ` . L \w' .® I� -a.i ,SS o ,< i .. ekrN a.IsT ,BP001_ •_;. -,S�.i^2��,..:�..,...4:., � ;i, Q. , O "�, =h, - � L,�� � .. y 124 >• S 1 ST '}T::1 S'd+ F M:;n ; x.r p • • . ••5� :9 g'• . ' - .. , ..T 20TH STa B$0.a'!m..yr. - ',, ` dom...'. `..'�, N,. :TH ''ST i \.,, `�'z1 � NPARK_ - '�s� °°0 W . alr Qf� OS o 1' S 121ST ` S • .I�o .� ;RIVER _ '� ggy' ".,.YW I,' YE EM ti - NE rj( �� S _ ,4 S 122N0 . ST , ''"'.-1.. .•�° '• ?TRAIL-`' 'a N 3< 1 �:' - • II 127RD i STD NM 7TH ST a r ]TH S -\• C£- T, a' n _ • ' . ' 4• Ref: The Thomas Guide;. King .County, 1998 Edition, Page 626. . • , , • ', VICINITY'-MAP -' Labrador .-Lake 'Washington Pro ert TERR g P Y e�\��f• :ASSOG I AT.ES Reston, Washington ' , . Environmental Consultants ;' Proj: No.' 4106-2' Date ,8/1'7/98, • , Figure �1 '. ' . ' - • • N. . "28.TH• S T. , , . . ilL,. § -. • r _,,__,,,„_.y-t--. . , ..,,. .. . ..711:6-....t k hil • , . . , , . . i' '... . . - ' : .. ,, ,• '-.. ',, ...-. , .., .„„- . . 4 ::;:,,,:,/ .. . . , • • . .,..,.. . _ . . . 1 � . . , . , .. . C . . .iip . • . � ,. is APPROXIMATE SCALE' : . _ . . . .. • . . ' � //ice „ . . l / \\ .. • 150 0. . 150 • 300`::feet.- GL 0- ' L' .• '.- 57L ' LL - /(14tatlit etland B..,, .. . . : ... ..,, \ " `� la • ''' . ... . • L- - ':-- ''. ' A • . . . , . . .. . �1 , 1� •r� . A/ r � �, . . . • • Wetland •Area • _,_ Category 2 • - • 50-Foot Buffer • , • • — Stream Location . • . • Ref.:• Topogrdphy and 'Wetland Survey by' Touma" Engineers, .Inc. ' • • Data Point _Location WETLAND LOCATION` MAP • _ . r;,-!f� TERRA Labrador - Lake Washington Property • "��r ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington = Environmental Consultants Rroja•No:4106-1 " Date .9/5/98 figure- 2 - • • • AIMM.I � �. _tit = ����•aM wf , M W, C) , ' Wili\ S . IIIII \bs 1'61 60 " .: 57 56 ,55, • • Ilk :.! , __ .. .� \\* - i., ,`® �� .:14%1116.61LitmittiokTrWr--17°_, '� � b O rb is - 3. 1 16. 17 18. 19 20;r 21 22. �� ����iii/����� .‘ - Iiii:;:v. --" ' ' ''- s , ,7z644)411/1111.1k, 1111,1011114°0111Y: '' , . <,` ' '' , ' , „ , .- 1% ' , . • \ , I\\,\N __....•I i' a.iii -,00111.111 :°171114 Ilk , , **W-- -00° "wok.% ' --1 --- , , , : \ , . • W *, strfr; ' ',: - - ' ---: 7'5- -s -:-t1 kl4iIt't i I . II ►, 36•. TE SCALE \ N\W—A,,iitilti,T-.,"V;5,0",- -'7' '; ® APPROXIMA • / �' 0 ' . 0 r 150 300 feet. b ; 1 3 35 •73. 27 O• T r y , -9s i y/2 0 .A s , Reduced Buffer 2,836 s ft. r , ' q Site Development Plan . Touma Engineers, Inc. . , Ref.. p by 9 Additional Buffer SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6,946 sq. ft. - i`:.;; ,:: TERRA Labrador Lake Washington Property ASSOCIATES ` Renton; Washington . • • vironmental Consultants Proj: No.4106-1 Date' 9/5/98 Figure .3 TABLE•1 ' PLANT'SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITE; : . 4 " ' Labrador-Lake'Washington,Property _ , - ' , • ; •• - ' , ` -":Renton,Washington " : • • • , , Scientific Name ; ;Common Name. Status: • : Upland" , ' -Wetland ' ' ' . ,TREES. . _ Acer macrophyllum - Big-leaf maple FACU , , IX ; , . : Alnus'rubra Red alder. : FAC- X. ; ' X ' ' Arbutus-menziesii Madrone UPL ' ' X : ' ; , - , ' Pseudotsuga nienziesii - ' Dougl• as,,fir - - -.. ,FACU, X' , 'Thu ja plicate' - Western red-cedar , _'FAC X - - ' . X. ' Acer circinatum I ` 'Vine`maple • 4 • FAC '"' . X ,• : X ,- , ' Berberis nervosa - Cascade;Oregon grape ' • :UPI; X. ' 4 Coryluscornuta • \ , 'Beaked hazelnut .- " FACU , •X . X - ' " - ' - Cytisus scoparius Scot's:broom , : : - UPL X Gaultheria"shallon; Sall- • > . - ' FACU - .• X , - - - ''. ,` "Ilex aquifolium ! 'English holly.':: . . ' FACU -. X ., X Oemleria.cerasiformis`,, ,, Indian•plum'; FACU X •X ' . , ' Oplopanax horridus. Devil's;club `" FAC" X ` , X -- . - Rubus discolor I • Himalayan blackberry • : FACU X :' . . ', ,,,,X , , . Rubus laciniatus; • _ Evergreen blackberry. .' .FACU - X X .: .' ' :' - . . `Rubus leucodermik.', ' `Blackcap . . UPL :. X: Rubus pary jlorus Thimbleberr - •• FAC. " _ X: X. ` • Rubus'spectahilis . .:Salmonberry`-•- FAC. X X Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry " ' . FACU: , 4,X • 4 X. " • Salix sp: Willow X i -' ' Sambucusracemosa :' Red elderberry ' FACU -.1 X ". - FORBS "', :Agrostis:tenuis . ' ', • Colonial,bentgrass • " UPL X" , ; ,. • • Athyriulix f m fzemina ' Lady.fern FAC X X Bromus vulgarisj ; . Columbia brome . • UPL' " X ' , - ' Dactylisglorizerata : Orchard'grass FACU X_ • - Equisetum telmatiea - Giant horsetail ' _ FACW. X ' X , ' Geum macrophy'llum,' .Large-leaved avens •FACW ,' ,X - 'X ; .", ,• Glyceria elata ' I ' :Tall mannagrass.;, . . =FACW • .`"X • Hedera.helix " • :English ivy •• UPL X ' - . Hypochaeris glabra Smooth-cat's ear UPL '"X - . • " • Hypochaerisrac{icata .: Spotted cat's'ear, FACU , :. X "' • " Lapsana communis Nipplewort UPL " , ': • , X ' • _ - ' . Luzula.multiflora ' -. ' Many-flowered woodush " FACU " X . ' , , ', , Lysichiton americanum Skunk _ _ OBL ' " X ' . " Plantago lanceolate Rib plantain' , , FAC ' -- .X , " " - Plantago major) • - ' ..`,Broadleaf plantain' • ' •FACU '' .'X ' , Poa pratensis •„Kentucky bluegrass :,FAC•- X _ . • :. Project No:T-4106-1 • ;TABLE 1 (Continued)' • 1:` PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITE • Labrador-Lake Washington Property. ' Renton,Washington' Scientific Name "Common Name . Status Upland Wetland HERBS(continued) Polygonuni sachalinense' Giant knotweed FACU; .X X- Polystichum:munituin Sword fern ' FACU X X' •Pteridium aquilinum • Bracken fern, FACU- X. - , ' • Ranunculus t•epens = Creeping buttercup' r • FACW X ' x Solanum dulcamara`- Bittersweet nightshade ' FAC X ' ' -X; Taraxacum;ofcinale ,Common dandelion FACU X ; • Tolmiea-menziesi: Piggy-back'plant • FAC X ' - X tlrtica dioica - • Stinging nettle FAC" _ 'X Wetland Indicator"Status:. 2 •OBL . - Obligate wetland.species,'occur almost always(estimated>99%)under natural conditions in_wetlands:, ' • FACW- Facultative wetland spec es,usually occur in wetland-(estimated 67%'to'99%);but-occasionally found in non-wetland: , FAC ,-' Facultative species, equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands(estimated:34%'to,66%). „ • - 4' i _, a . , • FACU.; Facultative upland species;usually occur in non-wetlands'(estimated 67%`to,99%)but occasionally,found • - in wetlands(estimated 1 %':to 33%) UPL. Upland species,occur almost always'(estimated>99%)under natural conditions-in non-wetlands. ' , NI- . - - . 10 indicator:status'assigned: • ct o 106-1 Pro'Je N . -4�T _ • , TABLE 2 WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUE SUMMARY T j ' - Labrador',-Lake Washington Property:• .:- . - Renton,Washington •., . Wetland A Functional ; Wetland Function(') • Rating Comments - - Flood/Stormwatl r Control,.• Moderate Relatively,small size,mid-slope wetland:associated with high • . gradient stream.channel,good forest cover,outlet over old dam to ' • •- • r. stream channel,lower third of drainage:• - ' ,Base:Flow/Groundwater Low Relatively,small size,mid-slope wetland associated with high , Support - " „ gradient stream channel,..lower third,of drainage,.seasonally - • flooded or saturated,no fish populations in wetland or,downstream: Erosion/Shoreline Protection'::: 2. Moderate. Relatively narrow wetland with sparse trees and shrubs.above OHWM,moderately developed shoreline above_wetland. Water:Quality'Improvement • , '' Moderate Rapid,flow through site,low vegetative cover,upstream basin is _ highly moderate runoff retention: , Natural Biological.Support , ,Low Relatively small size,moderate vegetation"structure;two.habitat " ' types,some invasive species;moderate species:diversity,:low ; '.:, ,' primary productivity and organic accumulation,low organic ' export,few special habitat;featu•re•s;buffers moderately disturbed; - poorly connected to upland habitats. - , •Overall Habitat Functions ' : • Low : Relatively small size,moderate habitat diversity,and low sanctuary or refuge potential.' ' Specific HabitatliFunctions, Low Poor invertebrate,fish,and bird habitat,moderate quality habitat j for'amphibians=and.mammals: =. Cultural/Socioeconomic Low ' Low educational opportunities„moderate aesthetic value,no.fish- '' resources,no historical or archeological resources,no'recreational . .;• opportunities,private ownership, 'not near open space. ' - Wetland Area -7,093 square feet.(-0.16acres) . ' . _ , Wetland Community Palustrine forested,,broad-leaved deciduous(PFO1)Palustrine Type(s)(Z) : , - , , 'scrub-shrub, broad-leaved.deciduous(PSS1) Wetland Category Renton Category 2:Wetland , Based on Cooke;S.-S.(1996) Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Method , . . Cowardin.et al(1979) Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats Project No. T-4106-1 ' ' ' . WETLAND FUNCTIONAL VALUE SUMMARY ': , Labrador•-Lake Washington Property. ; . ' r Renton,Washington' , , Wetland.B ' ; _ Functional, Wetland'Function(1) : Rating , Comments ' Flood/Stormwaterr:Control Moderate ',. 'Relatively small,size,.mid-slope wetland associated With high-. J gradient stream channel,',good forest cover;culvert outlet,.lower . -. third of'drainage. , • Base Flow/Groundwater Low Relatively small size,mid-slope wetland associated with high- - ' ' Support 2 ' ,, ' gradient stream'channel,lower third of drainage;:'seasonally' flooded of saturated,no fish populations in wetland of downstream. • Erosion/Shoreline Protection,' - Moderate • Relatively narrow wetland with dense trees and shrubs above ' OHWM,moderately,developed-drainage basin. •- ' Water Quality Improvement . • Moderate Rapid flow through site,moderate vegetative cover,upstream.basin ' • is highly developed,low'runoff retention.; : Natural Biological Support, Low • Relatively small size,moderate vegetation structure,two'habitat . ` • r , , _ , ` ' types,some invasive species,moderate:species diversity,low - 1 'primary productiVityand Organic accumulation low or anic, ` ` , export,.few special habitat.features,buffers very disturbed;.poorly ; - - I' . ,'connected to upland habitats. _ ' e moderate habitat diversity,and low sanct uary/ Low Relativelysmall size,:Overall,:Habitat Funchons , , - ty, ' - ' ' ' , , or refuge potential.- ' - Specific Habitat-Functions - Low Poor invertebrate,fish,mammal;and bird habitat,,moderate quality,• '_ - j habitat for amphibians. - ; 'Cultural/Socioeconomic. ' Low- Low educational opportunities;low aesthetic value,'no fish', , ' resources,no,historical'or.archeological resources;no recreational ' ' opportunities,private ownership,not near open space. ; ` -Wetland Area --20,643.square feet(-0.47 acres). Wetland Community Palustrineforested, broad-leaved deciduous(PFO1)Palustrine : Type(s) i scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous(PSS1) • ' Wetland Category- - ' . Renton Category 2 Wetland, , (1) Based on Cooke, S. S.(1996) Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment'Method' ' Cowardin et al(1979)Classification of Wetlands and-Deepwater Habitats ' • Project N .T-4106-1 ,o DATA FORM • ROUTINE,ONSITE-WETLAND DETERMINATION . • ` • . _: 1987 1989, . •Describe General Site • Forested wetland edge,of stream'ctiannel Data Point No.:: '. 5 1 Conditions: ., Site:Disturbance? Close to sewer line and Lake=Washington.Blvd :. Location: -8'SEofTA-32=B` a. VEGETATION ' Doininant.Plant'Species ca3 ' •P • Dominant•Plant-Species 1 Alnus rubra FAC: T' •.8, ,2 Corylus cornuta FACU ',S 9 , ' 3 Rubus spectabilis: FAC S . .10: .. .4 `Rubus discolor FACU'"' S, 11, : , 5 Eguisetunaelniafiea. FACW :H 12 - • 6 Athyrium f7iz:femina _ .. , FAC• H' 13, _ . 7 Polystichum,munitum. ' , . FACE" 'H 14 - . Percent of dominant species that•are'OBL; FACW,-and/or FAC: 57`% : Is.the hydrophytic vegetation criterion:met?. :Yes Rationale >'50%FAC FACW or OBL • Soil Type: .Alderwood gravelly sandy loam HydricNo List:S-oils Histic'Epipedon? ;No'. • Mottles? . Yes,- Gleyed?. .• No. " Matrix Color: 2.5 Y•-3%1 - • , ,Mottle Colors: 2:5'Y 4/3 _ Depth; 10" Very sandy,,stream;grav`el' ' Otherhydricsoiliridicators: ;.. "- . • . . '- • Is the hydric soil criterion met? . Yes Rationale` : Low chroma with mottles stream sands HYDROLOGY, - Is'the ground surface;inund'ated?'` . No '' , ' Surface water"depth:' - , • Is=the soil:•saturated? Yes ., ,'Depth to,free.standing water in probe hole: To"surface:'' ,. Other field evidence hydrology:. ' About'two feet from flowing stream channel, bare soil,'occasionally inundated. : Is the wetland hydrology criterion met?' ' ''Yes ' Rationale Saturated' evidence ofsea_sonal_inundation.' WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criterianmet? Yes Rationale for wetland decision -Positive indicators for all parameters. - • , • , Project•Nam'e Labrador Lake Washington Property Terra,Associates, Inc. . Field Investigator(s)'. "T. R. Strong- . " ' "' 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101 ,: Project:No. _i -''T 4016-1. -` Date: 8/18/98 Kirkland;Washington 98034 DATA"FORM ROUTINE ONSITE,WETLAND DETERMINATION:; 1987 1989 Describe General.Site ; ,',- Second growth-:broadleaf forest,; • Data.Point No:: °. 2 Conditions: ' Site Disturbance? , Clo"se.to.-sewerline and Lake,.Washington,Blvd.•'. ' Location:, ; TA-32-B • VEGETATION: Dominant Plant'Species Dominant-Plant'Species g, ' „1 Acer macrophyllu►ii FACU T.: 8 Polystichum,munituin : FACU H 2 Corylus corn FACCT S 9 3 ` `Umbellularia:californica _ FAC S '10 4 Rubus discolor' FACU, S . 11 - 5 • 6 Berberis nervosa . . UPL S'' 13 7,' :,Hedera helix . ' ,UPL v; 14 Percent-of,dominant species that are OBL, FACW,and/or.FAC: 13:% ` ;- , Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met?,: No " s.Rationale: <50:%FAC_FACW or"OBL " , SOIL Soil,Type: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soils"List No . Histic E i edon? No Mottles?. No; rGleyed?. No pp Matrix Color 10 YR 3/4 - Mottle Colors: r Depth.: , 10" Other hydric`soil%indicators: "None',. • ' Is the hydric soil.criterion'met? No Rationale: :High chronic, no:mottles . '• DR L Y.HY O OG Is the:ground"'surface inundated?_ No', Surface water depth: :. Is the.soil saturated? No _ ; ` `Depth to free;standing water in probe hole:" - - • " Other field'evidence.hydrology: None Upslope from edge of stream,c'hannel: ' Is the;wetland hydrology criterion met? - . No Rationale:. No evidence-,of inundation or saturation - : • - WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met7. 'No. Rationale for wetland decision: No positive indicators for any parameter. . .. Project Name Labrador=`Lake,Washington,Property , , . " ".Terra Associates,Inc. , 'Fieldr-Investigator(s); T,R.'Strong ;12525 Willows Road, Suite 101' ' Project No.: 1 Date: 8/1.8/98 'Kirkland,Washington 98034 , DATA FORM" , ROUTINE:ONSITE-WETLAND DETERMINATION : 1987 T989: : . Describe General Site , Forested wetland,edge of stream channel..' •- •Data,Point No:: 3 :_ Site Disturbance?: East of sewer line'crossing,: ; ' Location: '-5'N of TA-25-A VEGETATION_ Dominant Plant Specie§ " ?. a , Dominant Plant Species ' ° .C1 1 1' Alms-rubra,. l, FAC,. T 8 2 Corylus cornuta FACU S' 9. i f 3`. Rubus spectabilis ' - • FAC, S-: .1.0 ' . 4 Rub'us.'discolor, FACU: S 11.• ' 5 Athyriuni flix Lfemina = FAC; H _12' _6 • Lysich'itoii,americanuin' `OBL. H 13. . ' 7: Glyceria e,'lata FACW H' 14 Percent of dominant specie's that are OBL,FACW, and/or FAC: 71 % ; j Is the hydrophytic vegetation,`criterion met?, Yes _. ‘Rationale:- •.>50%FAC,,FAC-W, or OBL' ' {- SOIL Soil`Type: -Alderwood gravelly loam' :Hydric Soils List:- No Histic Epipedon? No.. ; . ' , . Mottles? . Yes : - ' :.Gleyed.?';, No • Satrix-Color 2.5Y_3/2. Mottle,Colors: 2:5Y4/3 Depth: 10" Other hydric soil indicators Sandy, stream gravel ; , Is the hydric soil;criterion met? Yes Rationale` . Low chroma with mottles, stream sands . ." HYDROLOGY, Is the ground•isurface-inundated?: No Surface water depth - Is the soil:`saturated?. ;Yes _ Depth to free�standing water in probe hole:' To surface: Other'field evidence;hydrology: About one foot.froMfloWing Streani channel; bare soil,.occasionally inundated. _ al.inund Iron: - ••i Is the wetland hydrology criterion Met?. Yes Rationale: . Saturated, evidence of season r a { 'WETLAND'DETERMIN'ATION Are wetland Criteria met?: Yes_ - - l i ion•" _ Strewn'channel' ositive indicators for all,parameters.i nal for wetland dec s Rato eo Project Name Labrador.Lake Washington'Property, Terra Associates,Inc. - Field Investigator(s): T R:Strong 12525 Willows Road, Suite'101 Project No. I ;T-4016-1 ,Date: " ,8/18/98. Kirkland,Washington 98034 _ -. :DATA.FORM ROUTINE ONSITE WETLAND:DETERMINATION `. 198.7:1989 Describe General Site Second growth broadleaf forest.- Data.Point No.: ;4 Conditions:_ :, Site Disturbance?' East of sewe rline crossing: Location:, -15'S of.TA=2S A VEGETATION , . ,D'ominant,Plant Species( Dominant'Plant Species 8. 2' 1 Acer.macr'ophyllum'' . FACU: T .8 2 Corylus cornuta FACU S. .'9 : 3 Rubus spectabilis PAC' S : 10 ' 4- Oenderia cerasiformis : FACU:,. S 11 5, Rubus discolor FACU S . 12 6 . Hedera'helix UPL; . V . :1°3" 7 ,Polystichum_munitum FACU .H 14 Percent of-dominant species that are'OBL,.FACW;,and/or FAC:. :`,14% ' . '` : :' Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? No Rationale: <50%FAC,'FACW, or`OBL . Soil Type:' Alderwood gravelly sandy Than; Hydric Soils'List: No " Histic'Epipedon? No Mottles? No Gleyed? .No. ' ' Matrix-Color:; ,10 YR 3/4 Mottle Colors: . . - , Depth: `,. 10" • Other hydric soil.'indicators: None ?'' No High chroma,no'mottles' : Is the.hydnc soil Criterion met. '_ Rationale;,�' � HYDROLOGY , Is the ground surfaceinundated? No Surface"water depth: - Is the soil saturated? ,No Depth to.free-standingwater in probe`hole: - Other field evidence hydrology; None.:' Upslope from`edge of stream channel. : ' Is the wetland',hydrology criterion met?' _` No. ' Rationale: -No evidence of inundation or`saturation': ' WETLAND DETERMINATION = , Are wetland criteria met? ,NO ' - , Rationale for wetland decision: • No,positive indicators for ariy parameter. ',Project Name:. Labrador-Lake-Washington Property. " ' Terra Associates,;Inc: ' . Field Investigator(s): T R. Strong 12525 Willows.Road,`Suite 101 Project No.: T 4106-1' ., Date: 8/18/98 Kirkland,Washington 98034 • • ' DATA'FORM - ROUTINE ONSITE WETLANDY DETERMINATION :. 1987 1989 Describe General Site ; Forested wetland,-edge,of stream channel_ = ' Data Point No: ` 5 Conditions:. Site Disturbance? Upstream from:small dam:. : . Location: -8'N of TA-8-A VEGETATION', :Dominant Plant.Species - - Dominant Plant:Species, c co a 1.. Acer..circinatum FAC': S 8` ' . . 2 'Oemleridcerasiformis FACU . S' . '9 ' 3 Rubus discolor FACU' .S , 10 4 Hedera helix UPL IV ,11 t 'u ilix-'emina:5� A h r i m 'FAC H' 6' Lysichtton`aniericanum:'- OBL ' H 1.3. 7 Ranunculus"repens•' FACW. 'H .'Percent:of dominant species,that arc`OBL, FACW, and/or FAC; 57% ; is the hydrophyticvegetation criterion met? 'Yes , - Rationale: >S0%FAC; FACW, or:-OBL. ; SOIL ` , Soil'Type: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam Hydric Soils List No, , Hstie'Epipedon?". ;No- . - Mottles?': Yes= Gleyed?• No Matrix:Color: 24 Y 3/1. Mottle Colors: 2.S Y 4/3,' Depth:. ,,10"' Other hydric soil indicators Very sandy; stream gravel Is the hydric soil criterion met?, Yes' Rationale: Lo'w.chroma with mottles,stream sands'., • HYDROLOGY` Is,the ground,surface'inundated?'; Yes: Surface water depth:; Is the soil saturated? Ye`s ; Depth to free standing water."in probe hole:. - '. - • Other field evidence:hydrology:' •Near,ed$e,offo'wing stream.channel. : Is the wetland'hydrology;criterion met?- Yes' Rationale: Saturated'and inundated: • WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland<'criteria met? Yes: Rationale-for wetland,decision Positive_indicatorsfor"all parameters.' Project Name: Labrador Lake Washington Properly Terra Associates,Inc.. - ' Field Investi 'ator s ' _T.:R..Stron ' 12525.Willows'RoadSuite'101 g � ) g Project''Noa,.`' `T-4016-1 • Date 8/18/98` • Kirkland,::Washington :08034 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE WETLAND,DETERMINATION : . . 1987 1989 ' - Describe General Site Second.growth broadleafforest.• Data Point No.: 6 Conditions: Site Disturbance? Close`to;sewerline and Lake Washington Blvd Location: , -15'S of TA-8 A' VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species - Dominant Plant Species- • 1 .Acermacrophyllum: FACU, T; .-.8 ' 2 Oemleria'cerasifor-mis - FACU S 9 3 Acer circinatum FAC. -S ' 10 4 Berberis nervosa UPL S. •11 " 5:.. Hederahelix. UPL v. 6 Polystichum`munttum- FACU. ,H;, 13. 14` • • Percent of dominant:species that are OBL,FACW,,and/or'PAC: 17% ; , Is the hydrophytic vegetation..criterion met?' No • Rationale: ' <50%FAC,,FACW,,or OBL 'y SOIL Soil Type: • •Alderwood gravellysandy loan . : • Hydric'Soils List:' No , . Histic'Epipedon? = No, Mottles?; No, Gleyed? - N.o I Matrix Color:: 10 YR 4/4 ` ` ,Mottle Colors: Depth:.' 10" Other hydnc soil indicators None - , Is the hydric soil criterion.met? No '. :Rationale ::High;chroma, no mottles •-• : HYDROLOGY . Is the ground surface inundated?`: No Surface water depth:- , . Is;the soil,saturated?:• -No :, • - • - - Depth,to free-standing water in probe hole - - None:. Upslope"from edge-of Wetland. - Other'field evidence hydrology:�. : . ', , Is the wetland,hydrologycriterion met? No.: Rationale: No evidence of inunda tion or saturation: ' " . WETLAND DETERMINATION Are wetland criteria met? No: No positive indicators -� 'Rationale for wetland'decision: .. � � Project Naive: ' Labrador-Lake Washington Property Terra Associates,Inc. • Field;Investigator(s): `' T R.:Strong 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101. :Project No.: =i T 4106-1 :.Dater '_8/18/98;-: Kirkland,Washington•,.980342 - ' .f 1€Pt40 cN) n¢ Labrador Subdivision -I'IA g'� 3 September 15, 1998 • !1 Yf: Introduction :,, This report analyzes the traffic impact of the proposed Labrador Subdivision project located in North Renton generally bounded by Burnett Avenue N, Meadow Avenue N, N 28th Street and N 26th Street. According to the site plan, the proposed development includes 63 single family lots. Access will be provided via an internal street that links Burnett Avenue N to N 26th Street. Study Area The City requested a level of service (LOS) analysis of two intersections and TCN elected to add • another for a total of three intersections. HCS 2.4d computer software was used to perform the LOS analyses. This software was developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • for this purpose and is accepted by the City. The intersections to be analyzed for LOS are: • Burnett Avenue N &N 30th Street • Burnett Avenue N &N 27th Street (New Subdivision Road) • Burnett Avenue N & Lake Washington Boulevard N Existing Conditions Without Project An inventory of the street and intersections characteristics in the project vicinity was performed. A PM peak hour turning movement count at the intersections was conducted. In addition, TCN gathered existing traffic volume data from the City. Future Conditions Without Project . it The existing 1998 traffic volumes were adjusted by an annual traffic growth factor to account for general background growth. The horizon year for this analysis will be 1999 (1 year). • '• - The projected 1999 volumes were then increased by the traffic volumes from previously 1{: approved "pipeline"projects in the area that have not yet been constructed. This will ensure the ` traffic impacts of these other developments will be included in the existing condition. , The two pipeline projects identified by the City for this analysis are: 's: i •• The Bluffs • 1. • Tameron Pointe Apartments ii PM peak hour Level of Service(LOS) analysis at the study area intersection was completed for • the future conditions without project condition. p Future Conditions With Project • f;. • The following items were evaluated: 1 • Trip generation, distribution and assignment were developed. ITE Land Use Code 210, Single Family Residential, was selected as the best representation of the proposed project. •N • LOS analysis at the study area intersections were calculated. f! TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 2 c Labrador Subdivision TI A September 15, 1995 Site access requirements and improvement needs were analyzed. Entering sight distance measurements were gathered for the site intersection with Burnett Avenue N. Measures to mitigate the development's impact on the transportation facilities in the study area were developed, as required. • I. Project Identification, Street Inventory Project Identification • The proposed Labrador Subdivision includes 63 single family lots. The development is located in north Renton as shown in Figure 1, Site Vicinity. Recent and historical average traffic volume data for streets in the generate area are also shown in Figure 1. The project is generally bounded by Burnett Avenue N, Meadow Avenue N,N 28th Street and N 26''' Street. Site access will be provided via an internal street (N 27th Street) that links Burnett Avenue N to N 2611' Street. As shown on the site plan (Figure 2), the development will have an internal road system that accesses Burnett Avenue N and N 26'h Street. This internal road will also have two cul-de-sacs to provide access for the interior lots. In addition,up to four of the subdivision lots will access directly off of N 26''' Street. Additionally, the existing"alley"marked as N 28'h Street which runs along the north boundary of the site will be retained in it's existing alignment with the exception of the western terminus with Burnett Avenue N. The alley will be curved to intersect the new subdivision street just east of Burnett Avenue N.Alley access to Burnett Avenue N will therefore be via the new subdivision street. • Street Inventory • Lake Washington Boulevard N is a two lane Secondary Arterial with bike lanes striped on the shoulders. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It provides access through the site vicinity and provides access from downtown Renton. Burnett Avenue N is a two lane N-S Collector Arterial that links the neighborhood in the project vicinity to Lake Washington Boulevard N and to I-405 via N 30'h Street. The posted speed limit Ci is 25 mph. N 30th Street is a two lane E-W Secondary Arterial that links the neighborhood in the project vicinity to I-405. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. • II. Trip Generation Trip generation for the site is estimated using data from the sixth edition of Trip Generation. This report is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) compiling measured trip generation data from different land use types from locations in the US. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 3 Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Residential) using DU as the independent variable was selected as the appropriate method of determining trip generation. A copy of the relevant page from Trip Generation is included in the Appendix. As shown in Table 1, the project will generate 64 PM peak hour trips, 41 entering and 23 exiting trips. a bl PIVf Peak;HourTii.G.erietat o i _: .� , PM Pk Hr Entering Exiting DU 63 Directional Distribution 100% 64% 36% Rate: 1.01 (LU 210) 'trips 64 41 23 Notes: I Italic Items Calculated from Inputs • i III. Traffic Assignment i. Traffic Volume Data 1998 weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement data was gathered by TCN. The existing 1998 traffic volumes were adjusted by an annual traffic growth factor.to account for general background growth. The horizon year for this analysis will be 1999 (1 year)using a 4% l,: l',., g•annual background growth rate. Figure 3 shows the resulting adjusted 1999 PM Peak Hour turning movements at the two existing study intersections. it volumes were then increased by the traffic volumes from previously � The projected 1999 tiapproved "pipeline" projects in the area that have not yet been constructed. This will ensure the traffic impacts of these other developments will be included in the existing condition. Traffic • t' volumes projected to be generated by the Tameron Pointe Apartments and The Bluffs projects lx• were extracted from the traffic impact analyses prepared for these projects. Traffic volumes from '1‘ The Bluffs project were increased 5% since the project is being reconfigured to have 5% more - dwelling units that originally proposed. Figure 4 shows the 1999 PM Peak Hour w/o Project i. turning movements, including trips projected from these"pipeline"projects. Tl New trips generated by the site were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns, trip generation of the adjacent Tameron Pointe project and the street system configuration. The site generated trip % assignments are shown in Figure 5 along with PM peak hour site generated trip 4. assignnents.Note that about one third of the site generated trips (only 15% of total trips) that y` were destined for the I-405 interchange are projected to use the eastern site access via the 26th/Meadow/Park route to access N 30th Street. This distribution was determined using an equal travel distance method. Note that the analysis does not take into account the trips that will likely be diverted from the 26th /Meadow area east of the project. Residents in this area will likely find it convenient to travel . t Page 4 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 through the new development to gain a more direct access to Burnett Avenue N. In effect, such diversions will tend lower traffic volumes on Meadow and on 28 'Place. Finally the site generated trips were added to the 1999 w/o Project data to establish the 1999 PM Peak Hour w/Project data shown in Figure 6. • • IV. Level of Service Capacity computations of the intersection were performed using the Highway Capacity Software • package (HCS) Release 2.4d. This set of computer programs was developed by the Federal Highway Administration as an accurate representation of the Special Report 209 "Highway Capacity Manual" methodologies. Outputs from the program are included in the Appendix. Level Of Service (LOS) was calculated for each of the study area intersections noted above. For the case of unsignalized intersections, the LOS of the stop controlled movements and left turn movements are calculated. The delay value established for each LOS criteria is listed in Table 2. x.' e): gab] 2`;:,: r t ns>< rialized�;Infersectiol -='=��:�` 4; te i4:,1. y: ^ '`s '' I• `:Ie*el`ofSevice,C >< >r 1 Delay per Vehicle Level of Expected Delay to r ., (sec.) Service Minor Street Traffic if 5.0 A - Little or no delay l v. 5.1 to 10.0 B Short traffic delays +t 10.1 to 20.0 C Average traffic delays t, 20.1 to 30.0 D Long traffic delays 30.1 to 45.0 E Very long traffic delays > 45.0 F Extreme delays and queuing f 3 The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses are summarized in Table 3. •i • i TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 5 Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 • Table 3 Peak Hour U signalized:::Interse �::... .: ... ..:: . ;; ...: . ., cctiori L:evel;ofS'eru�i'ceSuii?nialy WB LR SB L Burnett Avenue N & New Subdivision Street LOS Delay LOS Delay WB STOP Control (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) w/o Project n/a n/a n/a n/a w/Project A 4.1 A 0.4 • • • EB WB NB SB • • Burnett Avenue N & Lk Washington Boulevard N LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay All Way STOP Control (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) w/o Project A 4.3 B 5.7 n/a n/a A 2.6 w/Project A 4.3 B 6.5 n/a n/a A 2.9 • EB WB NB SB 1-Burnett Avenue N & N 30th Street LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS •Delay All Way STOP Control (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) w/o Project A 1.2 A 2.2 A 2.7 A 1.5 w/Project A 1.2 A 2.3 A 3.2 A 1.6 • ld, rI I zb It should be noted that the additional trips added to the study area intersection are very small when computed as a total of the 1999 intersection entering volume. The percentage impact is listed in Table 5. .11 V. Site Access Access will be provided via an internal road system that accesses Burnett Avenue N and N 26"' Street. This internal road will also have two cul-de-sacs to provide access for the interior lots. Entering sight distance measurements were gathered for the intersection of the site roadway (N 27`h Street)with•Burnett Avenue N. The results of these field measurements are summarized in Table 4 below. • • • T.RANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 6 • Labrador Subdivision TI A September 15, 1998 'Table-4 _ Intersection Entering.Sight Distance:Measui'ements Direction Sight Distance Comments To the North 250' Limited by Vertical Curve To the South 370' Limited by Cut Slope on east side of Burnett Ave N The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Fig IX-27 (copy in Appendix) at 25 MPH calls for an entering sight distance for entering turns of 330 feet. The intersection with the existing Burnett Avenue N does not fully meet this standard,having a sight distance to the north of 250', which is a compliance of approximately 76'. An advance intersection warning sign could be installed to alert SB traffic of the situation. It should be noted that the existing N 28`'' Street intersection which is located only about 15 feet from the proposed intersection currently has the same entering sight distance without apparent safety problems. In addition, it should be noted that if Burnett Avenue N is realigned to curve following the west boundary of the subdivision (as requested by the City), the intersection �sig ht ht distance will be reduced significantly. Major grading and establishment of a sight g c4 I distance easement on Lot 1 could correct this. Finally it should be noted that the stopping sight distance for traffic on Burnett is only about 150'. That is, for 25 mph traffic it is possible to see and stop for an object even as small as 6" 3a high in the road in a distance of 150'. Since automobiles are 4.5' high it will be equally possible to stop for entering traffic conflicts that they may encounter. I VI. Mitigation The construction of the Labrador Subdivision results in small increases in traffic volume which result in minor increases in intersection overall delay. The study area intersections are impacted with roughly a 7% increase in volume as shown in Table 5. Since these intersections operate at very well both before and after the addition of the project generated traffic, no mitigation for impacts are required. • .:T kJ Wv' 4. }t i pp v 6 rro k�stag {t a t .s, y t t rs'y t� n43`' r :;'h k nrF 4c t,.,X}"�.- yrf i. r s + ti �{,, LFH S" r3a+ i '�'{, tt f� rt'}f t '• • :S 1 i1 t?:?,.l y };im itSeit tet :. h'�`ax x }ti.'i,, a 'I +{4 `:. i V}A 5k tr 7x *+ + ti. i.:.•rt S'ti,hl �'r,,.jryy.4 t. ,,,Y'a? 7°ra 'f°{'Sr:- ' ,. . . TRANSP( Page 7 • • • Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 e of The developer should offer to pay the traffic mitigation fees established byth City data of 9.57 Renton. This fee is established at$75.00 per average weekday trip. Using ITE trip ` trips per,dwelling unit, this 63 lot development will generate 603 trips on an average weekday. A copy of the relevant page from ITE Trip Generation is included in the Appendix. Accordingly, • the traffic mitigation fee will be$45,225.00. • Since the entering sight distance does not meet AASHTO Standards at the site intersections onto Burnett Avenue N, the City may wish to require the development to install advance W2-2 intersection warning signs to alert approaching traffic to the situation. This would involve installing a total of two warning signs, one for NB traffic and the other facing SB traffic. The City may wish to condition the development to grade Lot 1 and establish a sight distance easement on Lot 1 to create and maintain adequate intersection sight distance. However, if Burnett Avenue N is not required to be realigned to curve along the property boundary, then the sight distance issue will not be as severe and will likely not require mitigation. tF • • i n } ry Pagc 8 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology. Environmental Earth Sciences • .a"` w, rz =3;=» September 8 1998 Project No. T-4106-2- - Mr.Brad Hughes c/o Touma Engineers 6632 South 191St Place#102 Kent,Washington 98032 0ii FA1 S'�c� Fh'F�9rTC���rj� Subject:. Wildlife and Habitat Evaluation ,y C Labrador-Lake Washington Property ®`Renton, Washington S t J 9N6 Dear.Mr.Hughes: As requested, we have conducted a wildlife and habitat evaluation of the Labrador-Lake Washington Property located south of North 28th Street in Renton, Washington. The purpose of our,work was to examine the site conditions in order to identify habitats and potential wildlife use of the property, The City of Renton has no specific requirements for wildlife studies,but this evaluation was conducted in accordance with general Wildlife• and habitat -study requirements as specified by King County: These results'are 'suitable for use in an Environmental Impact Statement or in preparation of a SEPA checklist. Our scope of work included site visits on August 13 and 18, 1998, at which time we completed our site evaluation. We have contacted the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to request database searches'to,identify documented occurrences of sensitive, endangered, or threatened species in the project vicinity, This letter summarizes the results of our site evaluation., " f - , GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The sucjsect property is an irregular-shaped;parcel located_ south of North 28th Street and east of Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 r, Most of the surrounding property is occupied by existing residential development. - At present, most of the subject property is undeveloped, although several single-family residences are located near the east end of the site. These residences are accessed from.a private road entering from North 28th Street, at the northeast end'of the property. The remainder of the property includes a small area of ungrazed pasture and a larger area of second-growth broadleaf deciduous forest. L 12'525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland,Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 Mr:Brad,Hughes. = '. September 8 199g The forest is dominated;by big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum),and red alder.(Alnus rubra), with a few widely ' .spaced Douglas' fir (Pseudotsuga'menziesii);., The understory includes beaked hazelnut :(Corylus cornuta), • , ' Indian plum (Oemleria:cerasiformis), sal'al (Gaultheria'•shallon)„ red elderberry ,(Sambucus racemosa), and , ' _ sword ,fern (Polystichum munitum).". .The pasture,area is dominated by a variety of grasses'and weedy. i ._ herbaceous species:. The open areas around the houses;includes grassy lawns and landscaping. Thickets.of ;- " ' '-Himalayan blackberry (Rubus:disc'olor).and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) are_present in disturbed areas. Other plant species observed on the property are listed on Table 1. ' " ' ' ' Soils on the entire property are mapped.as'Alderwood gravellysandy.loam(Soil Survey'of King'County Area,' ,. Washington,.U'.S: Soil Conservation Service;'1973). The Alderwood soil-type is`characterized'as a moderately • well-drained soil and is notincluded on the.National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils (NTCHS) listing of ,-, hydric soils:: Our observations of upland`soils ori the property are consistent.with this-designation ` ; ' ' - Topographically, the Site slopes gradually down from a high area at an elevation approximately 210•feetat the east end of the property to lower areas toward the west: A ravine crosses the property from the northeast.comer, ' to the southwest corner.. The;depth of this ravine ranges.from approximately 20' feet at the northeast corner'to ' , approximately'50 feet at the southwest end. ,The stream channel enters a''culvert under Lake Washington_. ' Boulevard at an elevation of approximately 60 feet: '. : _ ' WILDLIFE HABITATS VEGETATION COVER TYPES , . • _ " 1 " The subject property has four vegetation cover types as shown on Figure 2. These include-.second-growth - _ broadleaf forest, forested wetland and stream corridor,•unmowed pasture, arid moderately'vegetated suburban ' " ; ' These cover'types are based on the:hab'itat,categories'used by King County,(1987) • ' -.. Second-growth Lowland Broadleaf Deciduous Forest :. - Most of the Labrador property (approximately 10.94 acres) is occupied by a second-growth broadleaf forest:; • This habitat type covers northern,and western parts of the property except for:the wetlands and stream-corridor. ., , Dominant tree species in this habitat are big-leaf maple and"red,alder, with relatively few conifers, including - • Douglas:fir arid western red-cedar (Thuja plicata), Conifers generally constitute less than 10 percent of the ' .. canopy cover,_ but,they may be as much:as`25 percent in some areas:- This-habitat has a relatively dense.-. - understory of beaked hazelnut, Indian plum,vine maple,salal, and red elderberry. Dense,thicket of Himalayan . blackberry are present in some areas. Sword fern is the most abundant herbaceous groundcover plant. The , ' , ' forest in the northwest part of the site is more open, and appears to,have been,partially cleared at some time in Y ' , the past. The shrub understory is,generally denserin this area. ' • '. - , ' __ Because of the';vegetative,diversity of this habitat and the proximity to the,wetlands,and stream channel, this habitat is expected to.have a relatively high diversity of wildlife species. Several,species-of amphibians could • be .present in this habitat, including northwestern :salamander (Ambystoma gracile), long-toed salamander . - (Ambystoma macrodactylum), and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris.regilla). The most likely reptiles to be found. ' ., • in.this habitat include,Northern alligator lizard(Elgaria coer`ulea) and garter'snakes,(Thainnophis,spp:)` ' ' ' Project No. T-4106-2 ' ' . . • ; Page No: 2 • ' Mr.Brad Hughes _ i :. ;September 8, 1998 ' ' . . - ' Bird species that are expected to be:common in this habitat include Sharp-shinned'hawk-(Accipiter.striatus); i • northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), St'eller's.jay (Cyanocitta.stelleri), American robin (Turdus migratorius), - ' :rufous-sided.towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and song sparrow.(Melospiza melodia): Mammals expected in ':' this habitat include common opossum (Didelphis virginiana), dusky'shrew:(Sorex obscurus);,eastern gray ;. • 'squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),. raccoon;:(Procyon: lotor),,•coyote .(Canis latrans), :and:_,black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). • - . - - Forested Wetland and Stream Channel , ' • - . ' - Forested wetland habitat is',present in'two wetland areas joined by:a narrow stream channel"on the Labrador, : , ' property.. The,total.area of this habitat is,'estimated to be about 21,326 acres., This habitat is dominated by red . , - - alder-and,western red-cedar with a shrub layer of.salmonberry and >vine maple. . Thickets of Himalayan blackberry are:common vin many areas near,the edges of the wetlands.' .Common herbaceous,plants include - skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanuin), lady-fern. (Athyrium f liz femina), and creeping buttercup ` ' (Ranunculus repens): : . The forested wetlands associated with the stream channel are likely to have a relatively high diversity of animal' . • , species. This habitat has moderate'vegetative diversity and seasonal surface water in the stream channel, and;it , is continuous..with the forested area. . Several species of salamanders and frogs'could be present close to the . stream channels Common bird species in this habitat include downy woodpecker(Picoides pubescens),black-capped,chickadee,. ' (Parus'atricapillus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica 'boron'ata);',and song sparrow. Mammals expected in , this habitat include-common opossum, deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Oregon vole (Microtus oregoni), , and raccoon. - . Lowland grass/Forti pasture - . An open; ungrazed pasture covers a part of the property southeast of the stream corridor. The area of this , pasture is approximately 1.84: acres. The pasture is dominated by'a variety of grasses,-including colonial ' bentgrass. (Agr-ostis :tennis), orchard grass (Dactylis.glomerata), and Kentucky bluegrass ,(Poa pratensis)., - • ;" Weedy herbaceous`species are,'also'common, including clovers :(Tr folium spp.), thistles '-(Cirsium spp.),• ,plantains (Plantago spp:), and common dandelion (Taraxacumofficinale).' There.are a few shrubs,particularly - Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom(Cytisus scoparius) arourid,the edge of the area: " . ; Because of the limited:vegetation structure in the,pasture,habitat, it„will support:relatively few species of • , wildlife, Common bird Species in this area would be American crow(Corvus'brachyrhynchos), American-robin ' ,, (Tiurdus-migratorius), and savannah sparrow(Passerculussandwichensis). 'Mammals that could be expected to . ' ' ' be resident in this pasture include voles,moles,'shrews, and deer mice: Other birds and,mammals could use the pasture-as a regular,foraging site. : Project ll.o.:T-4106-2 Page No. 3 Mr.Brad Hughes September 8,'1998 Moderately Vegetated Suburban Habitat - : Areas around the two house's near the eastern end of the property have been'landscaped and are planted with"a variety-of_native and•ornamental.trees and shrubs., The lawn areas are dominated 1y Kentucky bluegrass, with. - some weedy herbaceous species:: .This residential..habitat occupies approximately'•2.57 acres: This habitat has., a relatively low value for wildlife,, other than species that have`adapted to human presence and disturbances. , common in residential areas Typical species in'this habitat would include American robin, European starling i ! `(Sturnus:vulgaris), house. finch_ (Carpodacus :mexicanus), house sparrow:(Passer. domesticus), eastern gray ' squirrel.(Scii�rus carolinensis), and house mouse:(Mus musculus).- - J..' • WILDLIFE Wildlife species that could potentially be present in the habitats on the Labrador --Lake,Washington'site are . listed on,Table;2: These.lists are-based on personal observations.:on the site and;on data available in the,'",, Wildlife Habitat-Profile prepared by.,the King•County Open Space-Program (1987). ".These;lists include all ; species that could be-found iri large undisturbed'areas,of habitat. Sites With small patches of,habitat surrounded • by roads,residential areas,'or,.other development will have relatively few of the potential,species: Amphibians'and.Reptiles ; _No amphibians or'reptiles;were observed during our site visits; although:favorable;habitats are available, ;These • species are generally secretive and often nocturnal. Species of salamanders,"frogs,, snakes, and lizards that. " could be expected in the habitats on-this property are listed on Table 2.'. The seasonal'availability-of surface water'in the wetlands and.intermittent stream:channels provides,a habitat : feature,required by most amphibians. Thesecond-growth forest and the wetlands are the habitats most likely to ,. •be used: Most amphibians,are Unlikely"to use.the open.pasture or the suburban.residential-area around the . .houses.' Pacific chorus'frogs.are one of the:inost common species of amphibians in this'vicinity.and are tolerant of a wide range of habitats Other common amphibians in this vicinity include northwestern salamander and; long-toed-salamander. . , Relatively few species.of reptiles,are present in western Washington, The northern,alligator lizard and'garter ' " 'snakes are the only reptiles likely to.be present on,'the'Labrador,property.-This sitelias no suitable habitat for . either of the turtle species found in:the Puget-Sound region. _ Birds Because:of.their high level of daytime'activity and vocalizations, birds"are the most likely group of animals to • be observed. Several species of songbirds were observed on,the property; including house.finch (Carpodacus mexicanus),''Ame"rican robin, Steller's jay'(Cyanocitta stelleri),rBewiek7s wren (Thryomanes bewicki), and ,rufous-sided towhee.'A list'of bird.species observed and/Or,expectedto be present in habitats,found on this site is given on Table 2. . • ' Project No: T-4106=2 Page No.4.. Mr.Brad Hughes.. _ September 8, 1'998 northern flicker � However, cha racteristic eristic foraging n the site was- the e Ier observed o-wood ck The only, � g g excavations made by�pileated.woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) were observed:in one alder snag south of the stream channel. No pileated woodpecker_nests were located, and th'e site'has very few snags large.enough to ' contain a nest cavity for these woodpeckers or to provide suitable foraging habitat.: .. Several species,of raptors could make use of habitats on this site: Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jainaicensis)' are - common'in this vicinity, and would be expected on.this site, but none .were..observed during our site visits:- Other' possible raptors in this vicinity' include Cooper's hawk,'(Accipiter .cooperi), sharp-shinned hawk; ' '(Accipiter striatus), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). No raptor nests were.located ,during our site , ; . visit. , , - Mammals _ • Most mammals-tend to'be secretive and nocturnal, and our observations reflect a.relatively small,proportion of species that may,actually'exist on the subject property.-.;Human activity related to-development on,surrounding ' property-and trails on the site may also limit the number of mammal':species..that might be able to use this site. , We found'evidence of several mammals during our site visit,and;additional mammals that could be expected . ; on the site are listed on Table 2. Mole (Scapanus.sp:)'hills were found.along the sewer line and in the pasture area. :Bits of fur and bones.from a' ' common opossum were found in the pasture,area. An eastern gray`squirrel'was seen in an adjacent.residential , area. 'Raccoon'tracks were seen in,mud in the stream channel: Black-tailed deer tracks were also;seen on the sewer line, maintenance road: Other mammals likely:to be present on the site,;include: eastern:cottontail (Sylvilagus jloridan"us),,voles,:deer mouse, coyote, and a variety of bats, ' ' , . • Wildlife Corridors The 1994 King County`,Comprehensive Plan includes a Wildlife.Habitat Network Map showing a system of ' wildlife corridors. These corridors are intended to improve wildlife protection.by;providing connections among ' • wildlife habitat areas and refuges.: No wildlife corridors are mapped on the Labrador - Lake Washington site, and the nearest Mapped corridoris about three miles northeast of the property: ' THREATENED;ENDANGERED,OR SENSITIVE (TES) SPECIES, ' , Database Search Results' , The.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-Priority Habitat and Species Program(WDFW-PHS) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources-Natural .Heritage Program,(WDNR-NHP) maintain databases . with record of threatened,"endangered, and sensitive species'of plants and animals or areas of outstanding habitat value. Le'tter-s`were sent to these,agencies requesting information"on any threatened, endangered, or • sensitive species known to occur in the vicinity of the Labrador-Lake Washington site. . . . . ' Project No.T-4106-2 , _ Page No:5 • 1VIr'.B:ad Hughes : : Se tember 8 1998 The response.from WDNR-NHP'.stated that their 'database',has no information;on'threatened, endangered,;or '• - sensitive;species of plants in the vicinity of the.Labrador:property.;:They also have no information,on high quality.'ecosystems in this vicinity., The response from WDW-PHS included a'Priority.Habitat,Map with'' accompanying computer data for_the Mercer,Island quadrangle; These data show no records of any threatened,', I • endangered, or sensitive species of wildlife within:one mile of-the'Labrador property,,and no priority habitats . , are located;ori the property: Wetlands in the May Creek'corridorare mapped about one-half mile northeast of the site:: Based on personal_observations, several sensitive wildlife,species are likely,to be present in habitats'available on" the Labrador, These p include the ileated,"wood ecker, sband-tailed' pigeon Columba -property. speciesp P p.g fasciata), and Columbian black-tailed deer(Odocoileus,hemionus columbianus).- -. PileatedWoodpecker • Excavations:made by-pileated woodpeckers were seen at a;only one location on-the property.; This woodpecker .•is a candidate_for. listing as"a threatened or endangered species by WDFW These woodpeckers',generally inhabit mature;and old-growth forests'or esecond-growth forests'with,sufficient.large,snags',and.fallen".trees '. (Rodrickr and Milner, 1991): They are also reported to use open woodlands, parka,'"and wooded 'suburbs (Ehrlich et al:,' 1988).and are regularly,seen in those habitats:in King County. ' • Pileatedwoodpeckers".usua'lly forage in forests at least 40 years old, feeding primarily on carpenter ants,beetle larvae, arid other insects in:largesnags and stumps. In foraging, they dig large, distinctive excavations in snags" or live trees,,leaving.piles of.chips on the=ground During the fall;they will also feed on fruits,..nuts;,and acorns . (Ehrlich •The average home range•size on the-west side of the Cascades is 1;200 acres, but some,studied have found that • the density of',these woodpeckers•`increased With the abundance of,large conifers :and snags (Rodrick and • • Milner; 1988). Pileated.woodpeckers excavate nest cavities"in snags or large dead branches and usually make a • . ; new nest cavity', every year. Nest snags are usually greater than 27 inches and taller than 87'feet. Because of the relativelyyoung,age;of the deciduoug forest on this site and the scarcity of'large snags, the '; • , Labrador property does not provide"optimal"breeding habitat,for pileated,woodpeckers,'"although their foraging _ excavations are present in at least one snag. After the proposed"development,the site will retain trees and some snags along the streain.`corridor, and.,wetlands .that will continue to provide,;foraging .habitat;for. pileated woodpeckers. Band-tailed Pigeon . ' = The band-tailed,pigeon:`is corisidered.a priority species by.WDFW because"of"its.status.as'a:game'bird. The band-tailed pigeon'has_recovered after' nearly being exterminated- in the-'Pacific,Coast states by excessive• hunting:,(Terres;1980). The band-tailed".pigeon is-generally.'found in mixed deciduous-and coniferous-forested, _ ', ,r areas of Western Washington,'usually,below;1,000 feet in elevation . , -^: - - ` Project No:T-4106-2 Page"No.. 6 _ ,I- Mr.BradHugh'es ' • - •September 8 ''-1998 Theyfeed on,a'wide varietyof berries' nuts buds:'and foliage; and in the summer the will also eat a variety of Y. g insects:(Terres;',1980):. They._may,test in dispersed pairs or._in loose colonies: .Nests are usually constructed between 15 and 40.feet.above the ground.in either conifers or broadleaf trees. •., . A'key habitat requirement for band-tailed pigeons is a source'of Mineral salts; usually a mineral spring. -These salts,are essential for the"production of"crop milk,'.'which,is fed to the young•(Rodrick and,Milner, 1991) `To maintain the r,PoPulations of-band-tailed'pigeons, WDFW ,recommends:protecting :and, =enhancing:`mineral springs and mineral.sources. Beriy;.;fruit,.and mast-producing trees and shrubs shouldbe.maintained by limiting herbicide use.throughoutthe foraging range of;these pigeons. - • , No mineral springs:are..present on the Labrador property,' and the site;appears-to,pr'ovide no special habitat requirements for;band_`tailed pigeons. The variety of' .trees and berry-producing shrubs-willprovide seasonal foraging,habitat'for these.pigeons.-'After-,the.proposed"development,..the site will "still retain a variety:of trees -and,shrubs:along the`stream corridor and wetlands; which:will continue to,provide•some food resources;for., band-tailed pigeons: l -tailed Deer __ Columbi an B ack' The black-tailed;deer-is:considered:a priority-•species,by',~WDFW because of its status as,a game animal:,::The subspecies present in western Washington..is the Columbian black-tailed deer,'andthe-Rocky Mountain mule ; deer'(O. h: hemionus) is.found:east of the;Cascades.:The four basic'habitat requirements of black-tailed'deer are'space, food;,water; and cover.,'d The average'seasonal use area: for these:deer`is-about one 'square,mile,- depending on the quality;of the,hab'itat.",Typical winter_range in;western Washington is'oti slopes,:less than 60 degrees;and at-'lelevations below;2,200.to'2,700 feet; depending'on the severity of the winter weather ('Rodrick and Milner, '1991). ' -,Typical foraging areas have less,than 60,percent combined cover of trees,and tall,shrubs; and:.there,is a:good _ • understory of shrubs and herbaceous.vegetation. These conditions are often found in early regeneration stages following a:disturbance such as.logging or•'fire. :Deer`,will:feed on a',wide_5variety;'.of woody arid herbaceous ' ` _ plants,•includingam;asses legumes,•annual floweringplants; and (Brown,"„1985 )•, In rural'or suburban areas, deer can.become pests when they feed'On garden or ornamerital`plants...Water•is .generally.available for deer almost anywhere'lin western,Washington.,. WDFW makes:several recommendations for-management=,of.black-,tailed deer habitat;in western Washington,,'' ' ; (Rodiick and Milner,;1991`): A`mixture of forage and cover•patches-should b.e distributed'at,the scale of typical deer seasonal range, arid the mixture of cover'arid forage should be-maintained:over;time::-.The growth of • browse species''Should be encouraged:- The"open road:system should.he,managed:at the minimum"feasible ; levels:and densities., These recommendations .are primarily intended for forest harvesting and d in`anagement' areas'and are n'ot.necessarily applicable to residential_de velopmerits,.in•suburbanareas: • - " Proj ect No:T-4106,-2 . Page No:7, • Mr:Brad Hughes - .September 8`, 1998 '. , , , ' _ Black-tailed deer are known to be present on the.Labrador property, where:they.could find-Suitable foraging ' ; areas in the pasture and shrubby'areas. The'.forested area also:provides adequate.hiding;cover:- `After the proposed site development, hiding; cover and a movement corridor for.deer"would still be available'along the. , intermittent stream-channel and=in the wetland areas, although this area will be relatively isolated from other . habitats. Natural-foraging'areas would be reduced,,but black-tailed deer might make use of"landscaped,areas or - - gardens. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACTS - The proposed'development,for this property is subdivision to:create:66 lots"for construction"of single-family residences. 'Thirty-eight of these lots Will be_located on;the north'side'of,the ravine, and the remaining 28 lots will-be southeast.of the ravine;'as shown in the Site Development Plan,Figure 3. , . , Access into the development:will be.from Burnett;Avenue at the west'end and from North 26th,Street in the '" , southeast corner: ,Construction of the main access street will�require,crossing. the stream" channel near the center;of,the property:. Streams'are not regulated by the City of Redmond,-arid:no mitigation will be required, for this crossing.. - ' , .. This project_will have no'dir•ect impacts on either of the wetlands.on this property. Wetlands A and-B.will"be - retained in their existing conditions, as will the stream'corridor connecting them, except for the required,road- . crossing. Buffer averaging is proposed for Wetland A,;with-a narrower:bufferon the south edge arid'a wider buffer on the"north side. - . , Clearing ,and grading of this`site.will;result in the impacts to approximately 8.55 `acres' of second-growth- • , -deciduous_.forest,,.1,81 acres..of pasture, and 2.57 acres of moderately r" vegetated 'suburban habitat. After construction, these.areas will be_replaced by landscaped yards,and impervious surfaces, -including streets, - ▪ sidewalks,.driveways, and houses. •The residential landscaping,will create patches,of ornamental shrubs and ▪ trees intermixed with short-grass lawns, leading to an increase of10:36'acres of moderately, `vegetated suburban . habitat. -The loss of`forest habitat will reduce the vegetative structural diversity of the site, leading to a' : „ - decrease in animal species diversity. - • . : - ' During initial site clearing and construction, undetermined numbers of;small:mammals will likely be killed;or , injured, while larger or,more Mobile,animals like deer and birds Will be displaced to adjacent.areas.' The. survival of displaced animals will depend on whether they are seasonal or permanent.residents and-on the . capacity of adjacent habitats to absorb the,additional population. Because,of the high level.of development in . the surrounding vicinity, it is. likely that most displaced animals will be,unable to find"suitable unoccupied habitat. The-overall carrying, capacity'of the site for'wildlife,will be reduced by habitat conversion and i removal. Habitat changes resulting from residential,construction will result in the replacement of many native plants and i , animals' with-species,'adapted'-to disturbance and urban 'settings. Birds 'such-;as",European starlings; house . Sparrows;'house finches; and American robins would become more abundant in the residential landscapes: Project No:-T-4106-2; _ , , Page No. 8 ',Mr:.Brad Hughes • ,..; . ; " l 8 S e tember 8 99 Some species,such,as Steller's jay and northern flicker might continue to use the site,`',but in,smaller numbers'. Woodland species, such ass willow flycatcher(Einp'idonax traillii) and.Swainson's.thrush (Catharus ustulatus) would_be eliminated from most of the site;but a few"individuals might remain in the buffet areas';around;the - ' • . forested wetlands. , ,, " , , ,Small mammals,other. than moles and house mice, are unfikely to use,residential lawns, appreciably: ;If; . surrounding ,properties;remain-undeveloped, coyotes and black-tailed deer could remain in ;the vicinity. ;" ; Raccoons,;striped skunks (Mephitis mphitis), and common opossums could forage in gardens and ornamental . plants and could become pests with regard to household waste disposed in garbage cans. ;. The proposed density,of residential construction and the network of streets will form barriers preventing the - ' . free movement of animals.across the property.• These barriers will fragment-the remaining forested'habitats,-on:. the property and:could isolate remaining habitats adjacent to the site. The roads and subsequent_traffic in the • ' development will increase the likelihood of"animal mortality due to vehicular collisions. •However,.because of the slow:vehicle speeds on residential.streets, most.wildlife will be.able to avoid ,collision• s. Species most • . susceptible to road mortality are;those that are otherwise;able to survive`in residential neighborhoods;including raccoon, opossum, and eastern gray squirrel., , ,'" • Other aspects of the proposed residential development could have adverse impacts;on wildlife and;habitats. ' • ' Fencing of individual,lots could further restrict the free movement:of many"species, although birds and some mammals could easily bypass fences: '1The,"use of fertilizers, 'pesticides, and herbicides'on'.lawns,•'ornamental- ' plants, and gardens.will reduce populations of insects and weeds.and will lower:the quality of foraging habitat • , for small birds and mammals"that feed,on insects arid weed seeds. Improper use'of pesticides::could result in., direct.poisoning of small birds and mammals. . Street lighting systems:throughout the. development will increase the'nighttime levels of..ambient light. ' " , Nocturnal species could be affected,by.changes in lighting, although many-species can adapt IQ higher light' -levels.- Possible`predation by domestic pets could affect;small mammals and birds and.Could limit the habitat ' • ' suitability'of the residential area. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • . The Labrador:- Lake Washington property includes;approximately 1$.87 acres:located south,of North 2,8th, . " Street and east of Lake Washington Boulevard in:Renton, Washington.` Wetland conditions are present in two locations .on _the property, connected by a narrow stream;channel. .:Both of these wetlands are Category-2 because of their forested vegetation. The proposed development plan for the Labrador property is subdivision;to create 66_lots-for construction of single-family:residences. The proposed site development plan is designed to avoid impacts to:wetlands, ' - Construction of the access streets will require'one crossing:of the narrow'stream:, _ : ' Project No. T-4106-2 ..,. Page No: 9- Mr.Brad Hughes. . • September 8,'T9`98 • Buffer averaging will be'.usedto compensate for minor encroachments into the wetland buffer on the south side of Wetland A to,provide.required.minimum lot.sizes. ,Sufficient-space is available:on,the property to provide; additional buffer that is larger"in area and has.a higher quality vegetation than the impacted buffer: After completion of the, project,; approximately 12.93 acres .of the site will be 'occupied by residential - development, and approximately.2.94 acres will be preserved in wetlands,.buffers, and stream corridor. .These tracts will retain significant areas of second-growth deciduous forest, forested wetland', and,stream habitats. We,trust the information;presented-is sufficient for your current needs.,?If you,have any questions or-`need additional"information,please call.: , . . Sincerely yours; TERRA ASSOCIATES,'INC.. Thomas R. Strong,:Ph.D` , Project Scientist TRS:kh End References ` • Table,_,' Plant Species'Observed On-site - • Table 2 Animal,Species Observed,Or Expected.On-site ' •Figure 1 -"Vicinity • Figure Vegetation Cover Types " Figure 3.-Proposed Development' , _ Project.No: T-4106-2 Page No.- 10 • REFERENCES - .1. ;.Ehrlich, P.R:,.''D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. Simon and - Schuster,Inc. New York. 785 pp: _ 2.; King County. 1987„ Wildlife Habitat,Profile. King County':Open'Space Program.' Parks; ::" , Planning, and Resources Depai tiuent. ' 3., .Rodrick, E. and'R.=Milner: •1991: Management Recommendations for-Washington,'s Priority Habitats.and Species. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia,Washington.• ' 4. Terres J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds ;Alfred A.- • Knopf New York,;New York. 1109 pp. 5. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Response to.information request from Priority.Habitats.and Species Program database. ..6. - .Washington Department of Natural'Resources,. 1998. Response to information request.from " -'Natural Heritage Program database. Project No.T-4106-2 •: . TABLE I: ` PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITE ' Labrador.-Lake:Washington Property• - - • Renton;Washington Scientific Name" • •Common Name • Status 'Upland • Wetland.'. TREE •S. • , Acer macrophyllum- ,Big-leaf,maple. FACU •X _ Alnus rubra Red alder • FAC .X ' X.', • Arbutusmenziesii : ' Madrone,' • UPL X = ' ' ' • ' Robinia-pseudo-acacia. Black•locust .FACU X.,. '• ,Populus nigra ;Lombardy poplar . : i .• X' Pseudotsuga menz'iesii Douglas fr •.FACU` X ;. Thuja pl,icata Western red-cedar - •.FAC : X• X" • SHRUBS : Acer circinatum ' • Vine maple , FAC • X X - ' `Berberis nervosa • Cascade'Oregon'grape,. Tin X Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU . :. X X" , Cytisus scoparius' Scot's:broom UPL ' X ., Gaiiltheria shallop • Salal' . -. - FACU X . . Ilex,'aqu jolium English holly FACU" , X • X. • • Oemleria'cerasiformis o Indian plum FACU: X X Oplopanax horridus ' ' - Devil's'.club•. FAC• ; X : .X 'Rubus.discolor 'Himalayan blackberry FACU, X X„.; .' , • een blackberry '' ' FACU: X X • u '>Ever Rubus laciniat s -"� G: Rubus leucodermis` •• ; Blackcap UPL . ' X - ' Rubus parvorus • Thimbleberry' FAC - , X - ,.X Rubus,spectaliilis : Salmonberry: , 'FAC • X X - • Rubus ursinus- Trailing blackberry, , FACU X . X • ; • Salix sp. ; " Willow' X - . Sambucus racemosa• _ ;Red elderberry FACU, • X FORKS UPL= X A ostis to n'uis' Co lonial'bent = ass- ' � ' , Athyrium filiz:femina •Lady.fern' FAC • X. X • Br'omus`vulgaris- • Columbia biome UPL X ' - • Dactylis glomerate • Orchard grass .FACU X • -• - ' 4 Equisetuin telmatiea• ' • Giarit,horsetail, FACW • X• X . ,Geum:macrophyllum- , • Large-leaved=avens : FACW X X FACW X , aass . �GI eerie elate. Tall�mann , gT Hedera helix .English ,ry " - UPL X - , - Ilypochaeris glabra• • Smooth cat's ear' U.PL ;X _ • Hypochaeris radicata Spotted cat''s ear FACU X. . ' Lapsana cotnmunis . Nipplewort.; UPI X,, •Luzula multi ore • Man'"-flowered woodrush„ FACU ' Y Lysichiton americanum 'Skunk-cabbage,' • OBL X ,Project Noc:T-4106-21 TABLE 1 (Continued) - ' PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON-SITE , - Labrador-Lake Washington Property ,. Renton',_Washington; ; , `Scientifi'c Name • ` Common Name Status, Upland - ; Wetland , .,HERBS(continued) '.Plantago lanceolata - Rib plantain'. ' -FAC , X .,, - , , - Plantago major. ' Broadleaf plantain ' FACU - X . , 1 Poa pratensis -Kentucky bluegrass ',FAC X- - - ..•. Polygonum sachalinense 'Giant knotweed ; ' FACU : - _X , ' ,,X • ' Polystichum`munitum Sword fern FACU' X X, Pteridium aquilinum : Bracken fern I. ,-• FACU, X , Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup' , FACW; ' , X X•- , Solanum dulcamara • Bittersweet nightshade . FAC- X z, .X Tar.axacumoff :cinale . i Common dandelion `.'FACU. X ' - Tolmiea menziesii -Piggy-back plant. FAC i X. : ,' ..:::X. : . ' ' Urtica dioica - ' Stinging nettle ' ' . FAC X Wetland Indicator Status: '. - - , f_ ', OBI:- '. Obligate wetland species,occur almost always(estimated>99%)under natural conditions in wetlands. FACW'--.:-Facultative wetland,species,usually occur-in wetland(estimated 67%,to 99.;%),'but occasionally found in non-wetland. - .. • FAC --- `Facultative species;equally likely to occur in wetlands,or non-wetlands(estimated 34%to 66%). FACU - -'Facultatweupland species,.usually occur in non-wetlands(estimated 67%to.99%),but occasionally found ' ' . in wetlands(estimated 1 %to 33 %) • ' - UPI, - , .Upland species;occur'almost always(estimated>99. %)under natural conditions;in non-wetlands. = , NI '_No indicator status assigned. - Project No. T-4106-2 TABLE 2 :. • ANIMAL'.SPECIES OBSERVED OR;EXPECTED-ON-SITE • Labrador--Lake Washington,Property Renton,Washington , _ ; Common Name Scientific Na-me Wetland/ • Unmowed. Broadleaf:. " Suburban • • • Stream _Pasture Forest Moderately Vegetated AMPHIBIANS ' • 'Northwestern Salamander' . ,Ambystoma gracile Long toed Salamander ' Ambystoma macrodactylum;.. X' •' X • Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa X X "Ensatina' Ensatina eschscholtzii X : X' W.-Red=backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum. •, X. X • Western-Toad Bufo boreas X • Pacific Chorus Frog' Pseudacris regilla X X - Red-legged Frog Rana:aurora X X REPTILES Northern Alligator.Lizard Elgaria coerulea ' X • Common Garter Snake. - Thamnophis sirtalis _ X ;'„ X - X X W.Terrestrial Garter.Snake", -Thamnophis elegans X• ,' X,' . ; X Northwestern.Garter Snake Thamnophis ordinoides , X, X ,' X , BIRDS - Canada Goose Br-anta'canadensis. X ' ;Mallard' Ands.'platyrhynchos X X X ' ' Sharp-shinned'Hawk Accipiter striatus X. X '_ ' Cooper's Hawk • Accipiter cooperi, X • Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamnaicensis X. , , X • X . American Kestrel • ' Falco sparverius ' X ' Merlin Falco columbarius; - X " ' X ' • Peregrine Falcon. • Falco per•egrinus X Ring-necked Pheasant ;Phasianus colchicus = - -'X , ' Ruffed Grouse Bonasa-umbellus X 1 - California Quail Callipepla californica X •X Killdeer ' Charadrius vociferus X . . . , , X Ring-billed Gull ' Larus delawarensis' X , Glaucous-winged Gull * : Larus glaucescens X X Rock Dove Columba livia - Band-tailed Pigeon: • Columba fasciata X X ' - ,'C ommon Barn-owl Tyto;alba .. X Western Screech-owl Otus kennicottii ' - 'X _ •- X , Great Horned Owl Bubo.virginianus X - X - : , Barred:Owl :' Stria varia X Northern Saw-whet Owl . Aegolius acadicus - X Rufous Hummingbird- Selasphorusrufiss'' ` X ; • X Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber X -Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X Northern Flicker .* •: • Colaptes'auratus` X :° X X' X , , Pileated Woodpecker * , :. Dryocopus pileatus. _ X X' • Project No.T;/4106-2 • : . , ` " . TABLE 2 (Continued), , - ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED..OR EXPECTED ON-SITE •• . . ' . . . Labrador-Lake Washington Property' ' ---. ' - ` ' Renton,Washington'. - . . .. Common Name ' Scientific'Name', . . ' Wetland/ , Unmowed _ Broadleaf . Suburban- - . • Stream Pasture• Forest:: 'Moderately- • Vegetated BIRDS'(continued),. "" ' `' ' "- Willow"Flycatcher'" ". Empidonax traillii:, ' X, . • X- " : - Hammond's Flycatcher Einpidonax hammondii- '• • - • X- :., '" Pacific Slope'Flycatcher . .- Einpidonax d�cilis . ' X • - . Violet-green Swallow ** .Tachycineta thalassina , ' - ' ` = .. ' • . , ` . N:'Rough-winged Swallow ** Stelgidopteryx•serripennis' • . • ` •, . Barn Swallow"-** Hirundo rustics , ' ' " S,teller's Jay-.*: - ''•,Cyanocitta stelleri- , _ ' 'X . ' . X.. - • _-American'Crow; * - Corvus.brachyrhynchos X' ' "= X. -, • ' •X _ X Black-capped Chickadee'* ' 'Parus atricappilus: • - X • " , . " - X . '" :X . ' Bushtit'* • - - Psaltriparus,rniniinus. X• • X • ' Brown Creeper • Certhia americans, - - X ' - , .'Bewick's Wren.*' - Thryoma nes bewickii X :X: , ' X ' . ' - " 'Golden-crowned.Kinglet` Regulus satraps " •• X ; . ... '. Ruby-crowned Kinglet. Reguhis calendula X ' X - X Swainson's:Thrush': • Catharus ustulatith . . :X"" ' X , _ , . American Robin * Tu'rdusmigratorius "X X X' :.: _X ' . • , • Varied Thri:sh" Ixoreus naevius " X-. • X . 'X - , : Cedar'Waxwing * : Bombycilla,cedrorum • X .. ' ' - X " X -European Starling , Stuirnus vulgaris " „ X _ " •X • : ' X .-•' ,'. -X'• . Solitary Vireo • .. ,Vireo'•solitarius. " " - : ' " - • X " • Hutton's Vireo ., Vireo Izuttoni - - . X , Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus , . • . ..X';- ' . Red-eyed Vireo - - Vireo olivaceus X X _ • _ Orange-crowned Warbler ' . Vermivora celata • X • , ". : • :. . X , Yellow Warbler = " . Dendroicapetechia ' ' X -X ' • Yellow-rumped Warbler, 'Dendroica coronata .. X X X. ' Black-throated•Gray Warbler, "Dendroica nigrescens X• - .X , Wilson's Warbler . Wilsonia,pusilla - ' ' X X . X - Western Tanager" - ' Piranga ludoviciana , X - ' ,Black-headed Grosbeak. Pheucticus'melanocephalus. '- X" . X.. : X . ' Rufous-sided Towhee * " '"Pipilo erythrophthalmus ` " , X - - :X '. X• .. - • - Savannah,Sparrow .. ' ' Passerculus sandwichensis ; _ : X." ' • " Fox'Sparrow'_ " , •-Passerella iliaca • " X , X' X . • • Song Sparrow * ,' " Melospiza melodia X , X _ - "X . •" Golden=crowned Sparrow ' '. Zonotrichiazatricapilla, ' . . _ - " ; X ' White-crowned Sparrow" , Zonotrichia-leucophrys • • - _X ,. Dark-eyed Junco -_ - ` 'Junco hyemalis . •' X; , =. X " = X. ' Brewer's•Blackbird,. -- ' '.'.Euphagus.cyanocephalus- " '. ' . X '. X' • owbi Brown-headed Crd : ` Molothrus ater - X" " ' •.X , . . X ' ' X - ' • Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus X , " •. • X . '„ 'House'Finch , Carpodacus mexicanus X" X _ Pine Siskin , ' Carduelis pinus '�, . X X X , Project No.•T-4106-2., : , : . - TABLE•2 (Continued) , :. - ANIMAL SPECIES"OBSERVED'OR_EXP.ECTED ON-SITE ' . . •Labrador `Lake Washington Property , Renton,Washington Common Name',..• Scientific Name' 'Wetland/ Unmoved• Broadleaf ' Suburban 2 - - :'Stream' 'Pasture; Forest•. Moderately- Vegetated BIRDS(continued).: , - American,Goldfinch : ' Carduelis'tristis ' .:.X X X :' X . • .Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus . ' - : , •;X X . " • House Sparrow :.:Passer;domesticus ' . ' - X ' . . .- ', X , MAMMALS Common Opossum<* ; Didelphis virginiana : ' X , , '' _ • ' ', ,X '' = ,• - • ' Vagrant Shrew ` '.Sore. vagrans - .. ' X Dusky Shrew `. Sorer obscurus,•-: : ` ,:X _ , ' Shrew-mole , : Neurotrichus-gibbsi" ' • X - • , X. ' :' ', - Townsend's mole-*;, ';Scapanus"townsendi •-„ _ X :. :X X X_ . Pacific Mole Scapanus orarius, _ •• X',. : .• X X - • • ,Little BrownMyotis *•* Myotislucifugus • - - - Yuma Myotis• ** .Myotis yumaensis ' - - - . . :. .•. Long-eared!'Myotis•** -klyotis evotis, , . :- " , •• . ' _ Long=legged-Myotis• ** .Myotis volans . , . • - : • ' s California Myotis ** Myotis californicus ; :. ' 'Silver-haired Bat.•** . Lasionycteris noctivagans ' . Big Brown Bat ** , - Eptesicus fi:scus. - - , - • - - • ru inereus , Lasiu s c Hoary Bat; �. , - ' Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagusfloridanus.. ' " ' ' Y `: .X " d r'rtia rufa" . _ X" - . • _ o tarn Beaver AV to 0 Mountain Townsend's Chipmunk '', , ,Eutamias townsendi : , . . : - -. 'X . , , '; Eastern Gray Squirrel-*, ' Sciur .. _us'carolinensis • - . ' .-• •X' . " Deer Mouse ' -Peromyscus"maniculatus X X X • X -Bushy-tailed Woodrat . Neotoma cinerea , , , .• 'X • • } Townsend's Vole•* : •Microtustownsendi' ' X ' . , , • . Oregon Vole' , itilicrotus oregoni <X X Norwa Rat Raftus'no►ve icus X- g Y � • Black Rat - Rattus rattus • . X House Mouse, ' - *In smusculus, -X *' t Y.Pro on too X. Raccoon X S hort-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea _ Long=tailed.Weas_el-. • . Mustela frenata .•• - _X ' -, Spotted Skunk Spilogale putorius , - : - - X' - : , Stri 'ed Skunk: Mephitis mephitis : " X X . - X p Coyote Canis latrans X; ;'.X X , Red Fox . Vulpes vulpes X. ; Black-tailed Deer *• ' Odo'coileus heinionus, X' :- ' • X ' : . - ' • • Notes: .., :.' , • , ' * Species observed on-Site,including visual.observations,vocalizations;and indirect,evidence(tracks,scat, ' • burrows and nests ' ** These species,forage aerially for,insects over a•variety'of,habitats • : - Project No.;T-410,6-2 , . , ' ^N -, Y . x Lw N sr•W p ! tts,TI" H1LL51o( • , - It it 1�i �n.' .$E_. 68TH '- ,e `',H $E'E ?f . , ST co, ' t' 1 +. j 93t00' __N Lit � , a v"'i ST'VI i IB00wi, ro L. rN ga quaa• ,ma Lis STN y. ,I',,Li\\ ', A SE 10M r M3 IT Y flag �� P S �; rvt.�. r I 4. 5E 2240€ I• '' •=s6 ' ? r _to ,a r S---ET Tiif'31N r b+ E W_. a .--'N \ \;, y HAZELM2OD - . ST I, �. •LEA E+f `�n'< 'sr _ • m f I/�` •'•��` FE ser ` Q I' AAA.-•d RD I ) a < `A / 4. SE oM ST C •`' SE 71 ... N� fit• av - 1/ /._ _4 ICE 76n,vl tPz; - ' '" ,reN 9,.1. - , SE ti • PL (, NE �0. E'Bnr '',--• . ^7B $ p' /91M ST T l SE • SE READ N ,43R0�, :SE- 80TH �< ' ' 79rN,PL154;,yrp a 'k PARK - /� 1,1..., 1200 , 146,00A g: , •• ., pp SD115 L'1 NEUirts 09 19 W' X? ❑ sr eon/ sr..�' Sf•S� _ _ rJ/z uz .I ' 3 r ,LN �L�,P'\, /:/ 0 , . ,r7'.E13S -'7, I. sE � I _ 8 O 5T1 A ',6 N 40TH ST BmN Zro I sE"�tni st. rs14' ' '� 13E6i' : Q v ykly_ SCBs1�iLit I-�' 1 rncrl i .;, !. - *`1,, • ' SE B57N LL4 j ' . m m AVA�Ox 31 - ,N �TM: sT '1 ":"L N<g t..`g,°c -sE e6rx sr - _ . A S N�$ `\NG�E�$ F B61N sE BIrN mlg C'I - ' Q , . , N I71� �a Vsl:^I �L: sY B�. L A A. KENNYMLE p rNI EY 36f}I y l NE 36TH sE 'SE BOTH Es�i 5T '' . _%- • '^ BEACH PARK S 3L i ST 3 ✓ P '�..I 1600 f`41.a�x� 35TH ST 'ti TH ST V 'fib a° N �' s�e9 L ST `T. , •- - - M1 34TH ' ST '7 p P,L-SE 990TH ST." . _ SOUTH POINT .. • -. 'N,3390 PL 7� o SE '91ST ST 'SE 91STa 5T • N .33R0 5T 23 e\ .. 11000 .I 92N0 5T' 26122 N N n , - COL.f2WN N 31ST ST• - I'Ot I^I"P NE -319T sr - 'L 1 3✓n Y' ,� „s tyEEY : ... POINT. ..i III y;: � .. t::y'1r.:-.`: , -t `'.:_�:. ,,�r'ct-• 3 i 3CTH ST 1 r GR ; • ' N '29TH ST um 'r,T. ✓ .,�� SrS,c• �. .�,1,��r,'I%• .'/`' ' - N 28TH PL 2 lux - ❑,e- NE 28TH ST_ V•: :,,.'•_ 0 , ?• :?; ,>:.:; }_•_• I NE- ---lYE- 27TH ST. E y.'�. •.N v LAKE t�=:::;*iSS:; ::>:f• ,207TN 1 2100 =, _----.. 1 .d SITE ' \}lik .� sr- _- Prk i>,�KENra CHE E114 srx.sr • i n- �;�,� LIONSs,r` w� sr _24TH ST• w �� {,rASHI NGTON ' 1 ;. 17BB ,'• NE ' RD PL {S i'ti- J6 i a _. N x 8 I• .22ND' Z'., ,•S,ST - �- - - - - •`i: r � ' EN,E.ElsE STz. N:22ND ST'-a;' ga<,�e Li_ - • - '<3,`* y RNE 20TH, 1 ST2300 NE ro• .g '4\ 'i :,ik t\, �4. L1,M � .' R rvd+sr �. V. �, • �� �5 Sod• 7 'i '.6 ST WPARK14105 - 1V.t. ,a a sn" e = mo' %Y BOAT LAUkCH: i3>' I' �[�3�7 2WO s •P_LGD,w t . , sO. . . ;ft NE'N�rl g W < ON_, Tb =fr-, 0. of N[IBiN _ . �'Yam$ l"s•�'r:- .92 Yn"q ST m ;fro • 6 it NE' UN ST _ 0. ® ,BENS.":..LnUIaN ,,, ilk, .� NE,• SIM _I8 k.�&. r l T $6' '';NEACR(AL�•r: -IIJ-HE. 12TH`. _ 5T NE � � : •G - ',BEACH PARK. 1�, "2100x meEr �e E S' 11 1 ST . Nf —' ' Ni (Ia pc!' S Wo',m„ra /�; 113 ? — k - ro - N s _ �' DR - .s •y T`� 5T AIRPORT' / - a ,. .�:�m. Nt 115; ur� � ,=;. -.i/. i PQ`� '� s' rO /'8041:LOCH �� .:. '. : . , '= '� �` � / .. • . vS ,7 y.. . /- -a, \\ NE 9TH PLn. 12<' 1BS LS 17TH PL : S Y:�ptANr: _. :r,l = �, ® � aS3'" a'. 8700,,, ., 'y` z `:`:N' '. _ aIEyp �l .. '1. ,N,'re rxpp IfST ;, < "'.�..s, . .. `C5''I j;' ,. .'•' (� , '- , Wit 6 119TH: w.vr. ::,,,,;;•r _ a : o I. 'C" ,PARK. ~ S 1_ST f w ••,y CEDAR.^...;,,3 �- N. oT \\!, ' S 2' • 'PARK 1E• ' 120TH STg' B'0 a • � a TH ]z r NP;4 05 - " S. � 10p NE 1L0 I I ...S. 121ST" - . .'p - �' '41 :RIVER`,'. gi .. 1 } 5<' ,.� $I .. St 122N0 ST --- .- 1 p �'r-.1,, -``.,`..j al 3i 1 '¢ BrN4f' ■' ' .411 , 5 +I 123P0 5T� m G• ,97i• 2�'. 1/•; t`` �� j \ vn •"_lii� a a • ' Ref: ' .The Thomas Guide; King County,'1998 Edition,, Page, 626. ,; • VICINITY MAP -TERRA " ; Labrador Lake Washington Property , ' Renton, Washin ton 9 \�• � ASSOCIATES Environmental.•C,onsultants' . Prof: `No. 4106-2 Date 8/1.7./98 , Figure - 1 ' . . _ �•J•�:.�•.�-�- •�' ■Q ; 0- N 28TH 'STZ ♦ . • • p . � vvvvvvvv'vvv .w ♦ vvv0vvvvvv ♦ i vi• • • v • v • vvy • vvv; • • vvvv , -.- • vv pvv . • • • • ♦ vp � • `; - • v v v v v v v v v • v v v ♦ vv ♦ >' • v v v v • v 77 v v v •` • • r p p ♦'• ,�•� -� ' 1 . , • `v`• p • p;p• , • p'.♦ p. • • •. O. .v • 0 V'V .• - v' v ♦. v •'v v VVV '. •. •,, ♦f i%�`; : �. v• • - ( `p • vv-ppvvvV • v 7 v v V V' V V v-- 'V v V • V 0 • • Q • ♦ •l �aNJ11 .rNr►.g� � � s•/t� . .\! •��• •. • • v vv v vvv - p`v ! • • 0 • vvv7 • vvv • . sum 49. . �Z \• . v'v 70,.• v v. v v v v v v.v vv 7 ��•�• /- .. � /'� • ice / � - _ 1110\ - • ♦ vv • p . v • vv • v • vp0 • • vp • v 0 • - ��.�. .__ / r , . • �.'+wir/y \�.` - _' . _ - v v 0 • ♦ p ♦,,v v ♦ p • • p p ♦ .�.� / i sA �/ ,7 ' . • , r! • .p p' ♦ • eelrieZVP.:t4tS.77" .1.11MMETIMETIMMIIMEMEMIIIIIir♦�.�.`',�, p '111.�����®• v •- • v • ♦ p ♦ p , v • • v v v 0' - /�_����� / z , , • . s. i • • • v 0 • r p p�� //fir �� i I '�yrots,9�yo��►gy�� ��, ��mw®� mr '• v • ♦ p ♦ ♦ p p • v'v . • ♦ ♦ • � 7%-.i-.��� v o , v v r • r • ♦ v • p v •` p• pvo p v.., • r- ♦/ ,IIIIIIIik / //• . •. • • • • • • • • v b•�o�'• 405922 .40 •'��®��®v ,v v'- - �/ / ,//; /�, .. . 'o . Qp�'•ri�gia►�''oq��,y�Y ���oays. ��-/�!//i r c?i i 1/i/r /�b.�� or"yro�►dp��'�1��'■.�rsn• p v .�•�:� -_. .�._ ir/ ���.�, a , , , . •�p ,. . p .�, . .At./ . . . •pv• . -.fib"!iQiD���� d0�►�► 0��■1��V ;.pos 0o„41,0$,,vivsvyo„.,i( -r � � • • • • • g r ur two` ar i . . . �•-.ems �A.,,,.;,; 1•\m10\\.. ®®S■►.�.1A � 1 / �' ,/� . �,, �� .►A„Ni�p/du/ri, / to 7 o - o •Ar i, �. ./,404041 00, eo���e�►�®���n=1ai�Q►a��y� �° �l�l APPROXIMATE:SCALE � �.�. •. .. ♦ /sN1ARr��Nal/divJaV 0111����\►e •dog, ��,(,0k/ . - =:1 . . . . ��yy r rIMILIMM 1 r , '150 0 150 300 feet /r�,A,me,h/►l/1N ��mmil 1\ immom �I�/r/.rIIMIIIIIIMMIWAIMal� 6�s- . . �;:/'44"4A/VMN ►\ coons\ `mm■�Liwar /" i 4E... �.0,/ o I. "• I. \ p♦ per. 7,7;004 V,41i01iM1aii� IMMLTTe �EM�IIRWMI r.l �`s�11.1��1 11�■1� , 111 iyr• , , , • r • 4 414,411 .) . S r - (4F , , . , , . , , _ „ , , , , sti , _ , , .. . .. , , , _ , , , , , , , , , , . , . , _ _ , ., , , • _ , ti \ , . - - - _ , L�_ . • . , , , , ., . , , _ , . . . . , . _ , , . , , , , . ., .. , , , _ „ , , . , , . _ ,„ , , , , . , , , , _ ___ __ __ . .. _, __ _ _ . _ , _ . , ._ , ., i, . , , _ . , . �� . . v v vv - Second-growth Broadleaf Forest men . Suburban, Moderately—Vegetated' , ,, • ' v'v v v ■.1.m■ v v v v. 47.6,735 'S Ft. ' 10::94 Acres ���� 112,070 S Ft: 2.57 Acres) tee_ ' _ Ref.: . Topography and' Wetland Survey by Touma `Engineers,; Inc'. �';, IIiM N1►. Ungrazed Pasture ' 4 _ Wetland Stream Channel' _ �ww� VEGETATION`'COVER TYPES. , , /• - 80,2'55 .Sq._ Ft. .(1.84 Acres) ` ~� 21,326 Sq. Ft. (0.49 Acres): :-%�'u TERRA,. Labrador — Lake Washington Property' .:.*\��� ASSOC IAT'ES , Renton, Washington Environmental.Consultants 'Prof.:No.4106-2 Date 49/5/98 Figure 2 • , 11 �� 141 63 62 61 60 57 56 55 53 5 • � r r \\ l7i4akkiiiiiiiLminimatietimmempakalerritiletauritg":vivril . 'Ilk % 1 11ri -"49111wire s.IIVb _ \sue ''i"���,,,l: �_ , k \e 4 ® , _ ` I ® ®® 40 , XV N..... - Ap/'1 A01` . 31' ,31 , ili A\1011+1.\ . . 1, 11. 111glig000.,:111.1011111111.111.11.0109- ,mr p--14 MILW - s'°° / ,/A 2.1 , 1 - T \\10:40Pi. i_0-7,4,°°"-,giory,; , : 16 479 o _ APPROXIMATE SCALE Wil 1. . .W :�: ' ,, � � iii, :1;�0 U • 150 _ 300. feet - -0 '� 35- 5. 29 L"Ili__ L •'O• - '' \ < a � 1 ', e s., , ,Ito *0 ' , ' q. ,r` , - - ' , , ', -9stii j �111 Reduced Buffer '2,836 sq. ft. .. Site Development Plan byTouma Engineers, :Inc. . - - -. Refg . P \ Additional Buffer SITE .DEVELOPMENT PLAN 6,946. sq. ft. /4-:-.ry:: Labrador Lake Washington Properly �� . TERRA g p y ��\�� Renton, 'Washington '''' ASSOCIATES ' 'vironmental Consultants Proj. No'.41'06-2. Date 9/5/98, Figure 3 .. .pioilE1 IS-PH ( ) dff tale Traffic Impact Analysis for Labrador Subdivision TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Renton, Washington a dilLi011 of TCN.Inc. 1607 E. Main St Auburn, WA 98002 Prepared For: Labrador Ventures At the Request of: City of Renton DEVELOPMENT PLANNING , C;TY OF RENTON SEP 1 6 1996 RECEIVED Prepared by: • Timothy Miller, P.E., Washington#27048 Member, ITE#11026 September, 1998 Ph (253)931-0506 Fax (253) 939-6938 tmilleratcninc.com \\i \ witimcom \ . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 2 I. Project Identification, Street Inventory, Safety 3 II. ; Trip Generation 3 III., Traffic Assignment 4 IV. Level of Service 5 V. Site Access 6 VI. Mitigation 7 Figures 9 Appendix 16 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: PM Peak Hour Trip Generation 4 Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria 5 Table 3: Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Summary 6 Table 4: Intersection Entering Sight Distance Measurements 7 Table 5: Site Generated Trip Percentage of Total Trips 7 Figure 1: Project Vicinity 10 Figure 2: Site Plan 11 Figure 3: 1999 PM Peak Hour w/o Project, w/o Pipeline Projects 12 Figure 4: 1999 PM Peak Hour w/o Project, w/Pipeline Projects 13 Figure 5: Site Generated PM Peak Hour Trips 14 Figure 6: 1999 PM Peak Hour w/Project 15 Page 1 EkA,NSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 Introduction This report analyzes the traffic impact of the proposed Labrador Subdivision project located in North Renton generally bounded by Burnett Avenue N, Meadow Avenue N,N 28th Street and N 26th Street. According to the site plan, the proposed development includes 63 single family lots. Access will be provided via an internal street that links Burnett Avenue N to N 26th Street. Study Area The City requested a level of service (LOS) analysis of two intersections and TCN elected to add another for a total of three intersections. HCS 2.4d computer software was used to perform the LOS analyses. This software was developed by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) for this purpose and is accepted by the City. The intersections to be analyzed for LOS are: • Burnett Avenue N &N 30th Street • Burnett Avenue N&N 27th Street (New Subdivision Road) • Burnett Avenue N & Lake Washington Boulevard N Existing Conditions Without Project An inventory of the street and intersections characteristics in the project vicinity was performed. A PM peak hour turning movement count at the intersections was conducted. In addition, TCN gathered existing traffic volume data from the City. Future Conditions Without Project The existing 1998 traffic volumes were adjusted by an annual traffic growth factor to account for general background growth. The horizon year for this analysis will be 1999 (1 year). The projected 1999 volumes were then increased by the traffic volumes from previously approved "pipeline"projects in the area that have not yet been constructed. This will ensure the traffic impacts of these other developments will be included in the existing condition. The two pipeline projects identified by the City for this analysis are: • The Bluffs • Tameron Pointe Apartments PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) analysis at the study area intersection was completed for the future conditions without project condition. Future Conditions With Project The following items were evaluated: • Trip generation, distribution and assignment were developed. ITE Land Use Code 210, Single Family Residential, was selected as the best representation of the proposed project. • LOS analysis at the study area intersections were calculated. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 2 Labrador Subdivision TIA . September 15, 1998 Site access requirements and improvement needs were analyzed. Entering sight distance measurements were gathered for the site intersection with Burnett Avenue N. Measures to mitigate the development's impact on the transportation facilities in the study area were developed, as required. I. Project Identification, Street Inventory Project Identification The proposed Labrador Subdivision includes 63 single family lots. The development is located in north Renton as shown in Figure 1, Site Vicinity.Recent and historical'average traffic volume data for streets in the generate area are also shown in Figure 1. The project is generally bounded by Burnett Avenue N, Meadow Avenue N,N 28th Street and N 26th Street. Site access will be provided via an internal street(N 27"' Street) that links Burnett Avenue N to N 26th Street. As shown on the site plan(Figure 2), the development will have an internal road system that accesses Burnett Avenue N and N 26th Street. This internal road will also have two cul-de-sacs to provide access for the interior lots. In addition, up to four of the subdivision lots will access directly off of N 26"' Street. Additionally, the existing"alley"marked as N 28th Street which runs along the north boundary of the site will be retained in it's existing alignment with the exception of the western terminus with Burnett Avenue N. The alley will be curved to intersect the new subdivision street just east of Burnett Avenue N. Alley access to Burnett Avenue N will therefore be via the new subdivision street. Street Inventory Lake Washington Boulevard N is a two lane Secondary Arterial with bike lanes striped on the shoulders. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It provides access through the site vicinity and provides access from downtown Renton. Burnett Avenue N is a two lane N-S Collector Arterial that links the neighborhood in the project vicinity to Lake Washington Boulevard N and to I-405 via N 30"' Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. N•30"' Street is a two lane E-W Secondary Arterial that links the neighborhood in the project vicinity to I-405. It has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. II. Trip Generation Trip generation for the site is estimated using data from the sixth edition of Trip Generation. This report is published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) compiling measured trip generation data from different land use types from locations in the US. • Page 3 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Residential) using DU as the independent variable was selected as'the appropriate method of determining trip generation. A copy of the relevant page from Trip Generation is included in the Appendix. As shown in Table 1, the project will generate 64 PM peak hour trips, 41 entering and 23 exiting trips. e"1 abl - PM Peak Hour'Tri'�.,Generatio i:;`' PM Pk Hr Entering Exiting DU 63 Directional Distribution 100% 64% 36% Rate: 1.01 (LU 210) Trips 64 41 23 Notes: Italic Items Calculated from Inputs III. Traffic Assignment Traffic Volume Data 1998 weekday PM peak hour intersection turning movement data was gathered by TCN. The. existing 1998 traffic volumes were adjusted by an annual traffic growth factor.to account for general background growth. The horizon year for this analysis will be 1999 (1 year) using a 4% annual background growth rate. Figure 3 shows the resulting adjusted 1999 PM Peak Hour turning movements at the two existing study intersections. The projected 1999 volumes were then increased by the traffic volumes from previously approved "pipeline"projects in the area that have not yet been constructed. This will ensure the traffic impacts of these other developments will be included in the existing condition. Traffic volumes projected to be generated by the Tameron Pointe Apartments and The Bluffs projects were extracted from the traffic impact analyses prepared for these projects. Traffic volumes from The Bluffs project were increased 5% since the project is being.reconfigured to have 5%more dwelling units that originally proposed. Figure 4 shows the 1999 PM Peak Hour w/o Project turning movements, including trips projected from these"pipeline"projects. New trips generated by the site were distributed in accordance with existing traffic patterns, trip generation of the adjacent Tameron Pointe project and the street system configuration. The site generated trip % assignments are shown in Figure 5 along with PM peak hour site generated trip assigmnent .Note that about one third of the site generated trips (only 15% of total trips) that were destined for the I-405 interchange are projected to use the eastern site access via the • 26°'/Meadow/Park route to access N 30th Street. This distribution was determined using an equal travel distance method. Note that the analysis does not take into account the trips that will likely be diverted from the 26th /Meadow area east of the project. Residents in this area will likely find it convenient to travel TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 4 Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 through the new development to gain a more direct access to Burnett Avenue N. In effect, such diversions will tend lower traffic volumes on Meadow and on 28th Place. Finally the site generated trips were added to the 1999 w/o Project data to establish the 1999 PM Peak Hour w/Project data shown in Figure 6. IV. Level of Service Capacity computations of the intersection were performed using the Highway Capacity Software package (HCS) Release 2.4d. This set of computer programs was developed by the Federal Highway Administration as an accurate representation of the Special Report 209 "Highway Capacity Manual" methodologies. Outputs from the program are included in the Appendix. Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for each of the study area intersections noted above. For the case of unsignalized intersections, the LOS of the stop controlled movements and left turn movements are calculated. The delay value established for each LOS criteria is listed in • Table 2. _ nsignalized��Intersectil<ou'; ����� :�_= Level of`Service'Crite-ia Delay per Vehicle Level of Expected Delay to (sec.) • Service Minor Street Traffic • 5.0 A Little or no delay • 5.1 to 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 20.0 C Average traffic delays 20.1 to 30.0 D Long traffic delays 30.1 to 45.0 E Very long traffic delays >45.0 F Extreme delays and queuing The results of the unsignalized intersection analyses are summarized in Table 3. • TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 5 Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 • b 1999,PM -Peak:tidtiv insi nalizedIntei'sectiori:Lev.eD,o:f.:Service Sun inar_y W B LR SB L Burnett Avenue N & New Subdivision Street LOS Delay LOS Delay WB STOP Control (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) w/o Project n/a n/a n/a n/a w/Project A 4.1 A 0.4 EB WB NB SB Burnett Avenue N & Lk Washington Boulevard N LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay All Way STOP Control (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) w/o Project A 4.3 B 5.7 n/a n/a A 2.6 w/Project A 4.3 B 6.5 n/a n/a A 2.9 EB WB NB SB Burnett Avenue N & N 30th Street LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay All Way STOP Control (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) (A-F) (Sec.) w/o Project A 1.2 A 2.2 A 2.7 A 1.5 w/Project A 1.2 A • 2.3 A 3.2 A 1.6 It should be noted that the additional trips added to the study area intersection are very small - when computed as a total of the 1999 intersection entering volume. The percentage impact is listed in Table 5. V. Site Access Access will be provided via an internal road system that accesses Burnett Avenue N and N 26th Street. This internal road will also have two cul-de-sacs to provide access for the interior lots. Entering sight distance measurements were gathered for the intersection of the site roadway(N 27th Street)with Burnett Avenue N. The results of these field measurements are summarized in Table 4 below. • TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 6 Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 ..T Silit:DistanceMeasur-emerits" Direction Sight Distance Comments To the North 250' Limited by Vertical Curve To the South 370' Limited by Cut Slope on east side of Burnett Ave N The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Fig IX-27 (copy in Appendix) at 25 MPH calls for an entering sight distance for entering turns of 330 feet. The intersection with the existing Burnett Avenue N does not fully meet this standard,having a sight distance to the north of 250', which is a compliance of approximately 76'. An advance intersection warning sign could be installed to alert SB traffic of the situation. It should be noted that the existing N 28`h Street intersection which is located only about 15 feet from the proposed intersection currently has the same entering sight distance without apparent safety problems. In addition, it should be noted that if Burnett Avenue N is realigned to curve following the west boundary of the subdivision(as requested by the City), the intersection entering sight distance will be reduced significantly. Major grading and establishment of a sight distance easement on Lot 1 could correct this. Finally it should be noted that the stopping sight distance for traffic on Burnett is only about 150'. That is, for 25 mph traffic it is possible to see and stop for an object even as small as 6" high in the road in a distance of 150'. Since automobiles are 4.5' high it will be equally possible to stop for entering traffic conflicts that they may encounter. VI. Mitigation The construction of the Labrador Subdivision results in small increases in traffic volume which result in minor increases in intersection overall delay. The study area intersections are impacted with roughly a 7% increase in volume as shown in Table 5. Since these intersections operate at very well both before and after the addition of the project generated traffic,no mitigation for impacts are required. er"centa" e::of Tota1-`I' t • , TRANSP( Page 7 Labrador Subdivision TIA September 15, 1998 The developer should offer to pay the traffic mitigation fees established by the City of Renton. This fee is established at$75.00 per average weekday trip. Using ITE trip generation data of 9.57 trips per dwelling unit, this 63 lot development will generate 603 trips on an average weekday. A copy of the relevant page from ITE Trip Generation is included in the Appendix. Accordingly, the traffic mitigation fee will be$45,225.00. Since the entering sight distance does not meet AASHTO Standards at the site intersections onto Burnett Avenue N, the City may wish to require the development to install advance W2-2 intersection warning signs to alert approaching traffic to the situation. This would involve installing a total of two warning signs, one for NB traffic and the other facing SB traffic. The City may wish to condition the development to grade Lot 1 and establish a sight distance easement on Lot 1 to create and maintain adequate intersection sight distance. However, if Burnett Avenue N is not required to be realigned to curve along the property boundary, then the sight distance issue will not be as severe and will likely not require mitigation. • TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 8 FIGURES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 9 A § N N • .J f,f :. .. . ye, `•9 1S`=� 5 S E f `a: R , g ; t ` p,"� • ;:<` r, C � " +�7� k. �t, • �`V { U }}1 t�1Q 'Q -4k. : ...F. :".LL({� �.ggY=r":',a: 0 ::'J`C. W i ,if.. :l' .. .14 ° 9.is.... i>.:..,,✓:v:. ., r.,.< .paq �: :�� „' �:a. ,¢Q✓s=:,' ^. S i ,. ,32.00o Bros s,000 7lE7 •<�. � � � r�F J ,s r }�w {/_ ,tS,i, n f'_ c� r -S .. Y a ' Y?GrX-. t is '' 1 6.Ss . '..:.. . .,.I .t'' ,..rOt�ami l� if ', • , P, :z.9� L. 4 $ r4r fi � SE 4a� = r p ' Oh;:, Y,. Ns +: _j <7N_ `- 281ele2 82e# J{ T 8< 4,� ' � n tF�i J'-' 3 S , i 4 4 , ` < , �yyt z, P iy ( py :. SIT L� NV` � Y'.Y.z ' AEMVYL3�E �':' NF, .S ,wP+"Z, a t ; ; .. .RGf • IQIr5 � • ` p. .. r.., Q:. .:�.._, > _. ..._5�.�_. ,;' , , � r : . �t}- :§T ..� • .01 iii, -- ,•'. .... .. .. :. . ;.: , .^ . .. %T - i ?`� VJ. pGtY r: } • rf;`s �► a ae . i :.y.Cm5 zP-' s H � 1,. . r : ,. .. tisyA .,, <..,... :_•: ..',, , . . . .y 7 . 't � NE• f' f: 1kg'41/1 V - •t. s., M• r_ v. re i • : ..,i:y, <N R , ' % Q`c Fr', :•�"/�r tninlr LL 4Li gy >,te•AsFI t. : ,v. - ry. _ ki rhy v ' l y - j , ' S � j, u.':T� ; v�rrc . fi ry 7 �', , i, . i 4: ;�- ": � _ BTH-57.` NIh !• ! ..l.f � STt.: gip;: T -N .. t°:A , ' e ,ry t• zs ' - g P r S� W LEGEND X.XXX woo x,xxx Average Weekday Traffic Volume woo Date of Data TRANSPORTATION Labrador ivision Figure 1 CONSULTING LabradorSubd L.L.C. NORTHWEST Site Vicinity • ..... t.J. . PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SEC 5, TWN 23 N., R- 5 E, W.M. ..._ /-• 0 - : l ._ - . 1 ••••!...__ 1-1J, 1 N 28TH PL SCALE 1"----80' .r--0:1 Lu ,,.• . _... H GRAPHIC SCALE›.)-3 .„.., 4 '- ; —-LI•Z.'•.4..4':'-'1'. '1".•' -.... ; I - • - .. .- trl .". )"3 , -I• It 1, I . ,704„. I,• ' i•-•-•‘',...__II ; I LF,MT) - •I ; . . ,--3 '''Ir`..c. •,..1 .% Z . i.1.Ii , p 8899-Y46-W 129560' I I .1-0_— -) - 1 N—7-8TH ST . . -. , k 1 . •‘__.-.---..:__ ——. __ ___ ___ __. _... _\ _ ___, • , 03 b t \, '',' ' c\-0-1. 62-1,,,-c-,-11-5-oir.,9-1I-5-,-,ii-,;-Lf-5;1,4---5;ii-571,finPilit5n1;0-1 -,7.,--7 " --- -7 sal,..sr 5.•..• . . ? ' ‘.[: ---- .• •2 . 1'\ \.P..7 n'S\ .C.\S•31. ii ili • .....r1.-.h...-15 I i r E3 1 P •r. i •S,,,S••rt. .a.r...-• S. • ,, ,..1.,•\•. \.\._ii L"*:h_—__'1)ii-ii I___.,t__it__J C"'_:J•t_.—Lf L-=',t_—_-_IL**2J i_71,if.1•'"''; ,,,,--Jr" --- := , •• \ ‘ k- N - .: ' •,./ X "'' 'I/ . _ • me,. /.. \ '.. \''.'"'• ' .7;etr., - - • . . . r---/ — ._. 27.23Z •i:4 r. X ' ' I.-n n n 7...:..............„*.• ••••••••- •'• -''-•7:1'-'' 1-1 ,...10.24-E ,1,44..0' /• , '''V V 3 I • \ , t- ' . ._,....---"-:---- 0 47 46 I I 45 ) _ sano!3, tC•ox_ -.32..12 44. / I . \\ ‘t LSLE•ar,!Lei I 16.,16 A 4i. 18 4 -271 i 2;1 2,..3;....--7:. !•t±...:::,,..01,j„.,,,,,,, ; ;..”...11),.,.,_.jI ....„„.„;,..------../"."'\ ck cl ..2,,Fki,,„,„"4„,,,,, i:..u•...;I ,4 4 i-•-‘,......., 42 . \ ' / ---,..,„..-:.•'/ •. • 24/17.......:.._ „.• -5,7••-Th \ -i(-- K;/' ''Ll.,„.../1>,,, ' / N ." '. '- h . -1 . 1„7,-'28.-Qi• 13 ) - 12 / • re, ).11 • \ \s, C . I 5 I " ... , '•'-''.•4 ' R • ,••.,... .,„ • / • • . .--, "•• '- _ -",,,"',"), til i„..-2.,,,..."-- •____...'","' ' _s_'..,..• 4,/.,..g, \e r " 'L-''''.'..'..-L3 •-•..._-_,,....-- -r.,......\.„ 4,r,...., ,.. .,,c-c-; z",-=z;r:=-_-__ ' . -1.:.;-----; -; -;j ./ .' ..... ),...,. \ \ ,.. .• ._, \ -,..-1.'„:.'" \ .. r . / ?si"0:7;:.' . • 26 27 :"..-I 29 i .30 ' -4-; 1 . "'., 3-".Z . ..s.,'".'s•-....;;;..?"' ,,4,./ // i ,—•• ' \ . ( •• 1. 6 s ', • it \""..r; /7 \ \ ''><' * /z:___:,tf...D"e: I °_,1 _ _t 91 h_fr; --....,-/.--..--_—_;-,,-)11. 1 3.9 ///' . 4-1- Crg CEI '•, \s _ ,.xs.55.3.•4) \ Ve 1 •.•....e ) N ,-1:$ ,-t , •\ \ ' .•c\',.-.— ---, 'N.„.::,\,‘„ ip.4.:„.___ __, 7..--.--T-\'\----E.,,,,,,,>-\',.6\,-.3-4'L,:w 7—-3-7017/2..:.. •I.-—.-., ..-.--, \ x 7 \-....•___. 1.- ../ -7 v." . I "‘"---„,,,— / ' '''''''. , • /: 1 g 0 : . ,s, . , .."— ...., f . / io / • \ . t",.,,I .. t •20.4E52 si, '.. '08•t - 1 , r I , :.) \ \\',N, • \,.. a ----:r_. ,7.90.,sr./ / . •, \ \\ ,k. ••• \., - .1'3 \ \ \• 1; A.T I 1.36 t zi.,-4C As //' \ \ \. \\V""1- 9 .-''' 7 '5'11. \ • '\ I --)\_ • !?; i j ."..7'at-"'" - .;•-.1 ' I _,,,....t___i L.,..,___L_;1/ 1 • \ ... .,\ '\ , \ A , \\\\\ .• ,„ 1 a i,t, 3„3 • 1-- -1 r ,.., 589DY48-I -78000, •",.. • , \ ''"'"-'---'-'• 7 35 I. •%9 iiFF . \ • \ .-- 's '/ •Q:' '... \ ....--------. ;--,... 34 . I am... \ \ '' '''\''' ',,, ,I., \ • \./ , 4 .-......„: 41..-."Z. „0,,,•;1' ' \ \\C\ \ \ • \ \ -----:::----',.' ';----- ....--I L I 1 I .,- I ,• \ N4 44,--.----.., ----.. -----........,_____________24. .-.1-• , . \ .1, \‘\. .4.(57 • ___ ---__F---•-- ----------_,-, ---__. mr- mr.-f.,-•••=fLej • ••-'" . \K \'/-- L*E".) .. ,..at.A' -.-..-:.L.-: :i-t.' \ , \ \•-....,, '''P \ • \ \ 26• 6r ,-,- ------,----_,,:zi • •1 • .7:h'-77---?,.- - - — /—1 \ \-7 . \ • \\ • --S- , •\ \ • %./..... \ • . /, • — &Ir-- U.‘—'—'',-,-.1 • • . • • • \ \ \. \\GI.,\ • \ 0, . PL A T DATA AD ' ' -•••• ••- '•-- ea =aim= ,: \ ' . 1 N 7.5.07 ACRES I\ MEAL AREA V . LAskaael•K'NlI.IRES,;IC =:..', .....' .Z.••• ''''N \ .6. 0-8 AREA • 'ae.';Off ,.. P.O.pax../.,• y \ DEVELOPER/OWNERS-i' • R-5 ARCA 4--1 ''t • .1.3ER Cr 4.01 R-13 ZONE .+V WES,' I . I4, \ L- pi.4;.•;E 1-.25-Sos-0•0.0 Mr 1.47S/4 I -VIEr4a . . . • . <-.> r......• 3.-4.2.5-ess-6677 6a 1,5 cr • \ • \ 0.1.2 ACPES I $-.. ..-4 0 = W'M q.M.-7 ..' ...-,......e•=.4ais _xi \ • \ \ \ LAND SUR VEYOR :T Crr F!:n a 1:11 1170•:1.-40:l r ',17.71 fe,C,-X."'›ACe 1.5.1 ALAI'S I 1.9;ACRES . P ••• V=Imrls,..e •••eita -71 Erc."7'. 4,2,- \ \ \.\\ fr-s•/.•AsEA R-.3 NET NU, w 0.0.1 ACRES I i . • Cl.. • mcaoeir IL 7c..A PLS 6.7e ACRES 6c32 s wisr PL•CL.sstre MS rt-3',ems., 7.10 ZWACPC I -.1••ACRES l 1.-.1 I••• M rA. 44-F — \ \ \ .....WA.... POW-11.e r....7.5-211-...5 1?-5',FT ARCA Ve”..ary . 4.95 ili/ACRE I . i'-' CI. ........ . . cn _ ... 0 • 0 N A n +r`,;,ai j, �,�. s t:,,,..4)..,.,-„,,"...-,,,...,,,,,--..?..,,,,,,,,,,...:-.-:-.,-,.:,,,..,,,';,,,,,,o.z--......,;,c-.,,:::,..--.,,,,,,,„.-,e3-....-. TN, q�{�dryry j� „ r,J"j.' ^ 5T Y3 �j�77� :S iz,:' •sa:' , t.- :. i 3ey, &s• ma:.,•.,:::= ;(i,'I,, 3ss�,; 3 �- I i b a .... - _ ri 8 17 .� 'Y fx' «N •cJa::,: 32 • w <`�•-7 1 OO.: b ti<�r LE R � 4 H�'`�32 ' "N ,`3 rr, is�. • ..� n.< a,. • dt<> (� A _x+ 4 �� r.'Y ' ,+s Y+.• a..a tY y d _ t3 a: 9. �:1�:. 3QTll���y ., . l�•f`: � . ,;,< �i s.i4�<,.t.,,,..m;�: �::> ':p- ,Or .j'-r5v �p, r (a{'` ,n ?:y :fir,. ;l':';''�' >,w.Mr'.',, ��,_' tA, fir+ • �N�-..,� Via^ ```�), r�(� yr::: x N, ;i �y�r�� h� ,,tR( ,a� +F i r� (.uTi.. r� ,r.r,gyp S< ��I'i � r � ay .✓ y k 5 .i 4 l4 ..,11'.'x.r Z , .J' h s, i:4? S �i ,SfiEi L • .d-w = , :ICI yI tl >t mee 4 .d � (� ^,t f t p'1c4 S� <:. ,. .,NCB .., 7%7,�J it. � L: rcz,-- z i, Y i. S SITE _ '=f t' (��y �r a i ` P '�„k r a. .F _.v 7bi}I: !f` Z I • y, r��•ii� hCip�lfX1LG:::, <Ni .LI�(S 4: 9TI1,'p�++� ""u.. ,. S3ESa- r r ..: ,<.n.,,-x.. . fr,, r.,,::: ,:.;g:',; ,> ,,_ . .,.. r -.u.,.,., r...:, a o..... ... .. ....:... .: �:.,<_.....<-:.,.. s ....? .: "i<,'1 '1 ': i„ 4 Y':1Y� r�. ���� i�g r:: _ < :a� r��� YI:, s r:. LJivt ' :fix�i;'::�;- r. ny „a '5< vt r s� �jp y'i ST.. y0 d L a a ;i' 1 68 N 4 t' <i i ak ':V"«^s 1 i' ��:yy ICI 3 a :i: `'H lA! ,yt ARK,,,,‘. r 7t' x <w :.Q a' \\ 14 i•' - ;y • A `O...alit. • TRANSPORTATION Figure 3 Labrador Subdivision ', 'C;.O N S II'L``t'I.N c : 1999 PM Peak Hour w/o Project NORTHWEST Labrador L.L.C. &w/o Pipeline Projects A • v M��:•... Aid: >�T`V ;;�•: ST - 3RDs,•RL:--;3 .5. E .:fir �Y:: s f. • FS�=`, P N , - - :'P ff{��� Y IiUV 1. N 3R ��S t :>11 ,a> �ND' f� ..x n ::'t'Q.Sy �,y R i L>,'.r 25 ::.5* ,n a JC"> :`r;'�r �y nv3 U 17 _ ,w S - 4c; A 5: /y� f .4Ca: -.A �7W:- IL Y. jf��f C% iQ } R LP fS 1 4 Fi ;h:S w'' rm 1 `1 s �• F� �. •9 }n 7p {a,:Y d rc 5 11 } yy� nFt t j':•'5 C` ��y rt T :,5^: ,�... •>{:.��.1��.'-�,:~,<:. <. ,%�•'�:'.:.�, .v 1.. I'r_ �'$(LL�N j ^'�'k•.5�°,'`.Fq di.A�.r.,p:it 'S�• ''•l ', a. �'�M��f�G 1Y �`}:fw•y.�ii}<1:. -.:�Fr. t �F_--- i.�t Lka, .Ad .J.�.Y:� i�S� T ,ae ,`- -JS�� -<St 'fin+. j.� z c I. r, £ liti Y]/(�� F' F g y1�� a T "AI - L`'� <-d'"'�;"; -1': yak+... e s-,:,�c q5u x .V`�i:k Cr.;iY yid "t ,.^,: Asa �Nc+;:,.7,:,'`. ii•Je • rr�� <E -'a. � x :STY"`€:,;'`: , r' w - r a ' y , , j. '. r5'L, ---.. ., , .. ....: ,....-,::,...�,...���, ....,.:::;... 'SHE`'� ���,' •�, `.{`` c t..., f .zx �,t ' '<i i'%. - .J•'".�<•'.5��.^ ��r:+aFr zips-3 2)'1'H OD% " — j f' :�'' fr �.a SITE �` . -J Yu., `Y[ :3 ' jy 77 •,,, .S" �'r t.t to b K: 33 Y /f - , r w • ,' P'rt3:, 4� f.9 wT t , . . ., _ ,_. , .. . ,... ... ,..,,.,... . . «.,. � ._... 17CiU �:NE,' PL 9Rt ,r. ��j 2 ,r '.22Np ST= �.A a fir_ ':r. St^' 'i" Y -21 o d, m CT- r.-� � 20ffN`- ti �4' - _ Ia rJ t 1 M 1 91 •s �. 37 u... a G 9TV1 5(;.: 0 Sr [ 2 4 � •9� F ������cz ;y: •E ( ,d :P7E NdR]'fl' E: �-Y�� N 'NI LAJ � .1 I : a'.a' , eN. tit .. ...,.<:/..,.Y...%,:.,: ...1.,.,...,✓..,:<.,...y:,a._...+.m+.F,•,..,,eM_,xa,vx<,nt..,_/nJ,...a.n ,.-v._.sr,l., ..•y,. - �... .. TRANSPORTATION FigurePeakHour 4 Labrador Subdivision • • C"O 'S tl L`T t NI, ". 1999 PM w/o Project N 0 R T H W E S T Labrador L.L.C. &w/Pipeline Projects N • . la'y^641:/ y� 86v'3 Q: T �„ j� x e .::ti a;: ,Yi`- =i • Y; : , r A Sc/ •907H �f� 3 PL f ,.. 3 RD-. 00 0 11 .:� 5 r3�N:: 3RD":" ;fie 2ND - R fv:+ ,,33a�g 0 r� i C5 ;<�r .: 0 0 r"; tn: <r,. f 12 700.< <> `o � xg �. b p a il b i't% ,..�/ ti' '��:.'' '(ar>;,�::' �':Y d,tUp S :':.S:.U'':;:." <ts:. :t t,• M 1. ,1" ,ti��Sktt�� • �`'�\:1. ;Y �7:T.i�t< ,�i1y^ ..a2E;��,S.: :••F:�sr�.•....:__� �.;fi<'a�. ;7 :.X,: 3,1 0 0 3'`l _ ,Ylt{<'�3" I1ei^. S:1 ``•:f'e ,t'k �y /o ri: a,. cz y: S M:u° 1 L 5 �2 I �.i :5 j =,xu tpi;7. .n,.v V kt 5, r,f s t.t ^3 1 S/0 t �f, t :'7+. ww sY`: :�'< 30 0 (•,.. 3 4.y: aa. 'j n i ; _k`j.,t 1 O/0 MT tl✓ ^� 'f J•ary»:: f ;+ s r, e. r i :.;: '::.::.t ' :::.;.,, zed:<;".. .,,.+r.ev:,<.•. ,':., .. I ,a .., :r•:%9., \' Ral' , ; 4, rt"" `3 )G n, 3::. . ,.,s;,..:,;4:::::::foxt,,4,,,,7.5),F.,f,,A,:.,-,,,_ . ,� ;- E,a ,. k ?t%^ Sr... Oe— .Pi :lr i� , .T 1;� c* Il �-2 i`f - p. T ,1. '•( ^ 'Az,' 7 `t rr. KEIVHY H 25M' � <:s ,i _ L-- °.rii �h;;�a ?;:'t SI�i to O N N z's" - 17 .�q :.y 1 y C� _ C ,S mac:,; fit". ':.t,'N' i%" ,5. 22ND:'�.,r`„ 3R[j?, i-. J(n S�> b , ;. • • , Qp�. .}";!B. 47E,i5 0 t -�} r :'S +z u 5T %:Q x ''1 a m.NE ^(� ?0 "1fi' �. s 4f•�, 1J� `'k t. w 2JJV' .v: 3 .• i 7 5• z ,�'y L.. I •'AC . . . b o ,..,._ ,�� .�,- •.:'..: '' �ice' :si ;.�: q," �`, I vE' • HQRrfI. ..i ., :wy , 'tea ,,;,i 4a .�<`.. 4 i> r - 4 a „'s' ST= ' S F*' • f"� i ff �N T;.`;.tom; �. TRANSPORTATION Labrador Subdivision C o s �r�: �` N.c: Figure 5 N o R T H w E s T Peak Hour Site Generated Trips Labrador L.L.C. } A ;. t;, `'� �I� Y. %ri4 y: st; S - - S, T}I: cF;, 4�. r. - 5T`; - ',its,M1 i�.,>li< bi �gc is YES:::, :, 1 ti. O M F >it x' -.'.ram:` 3. fi. �:is �r �h is V :"Sr.t, b a 5 1 2 ;�t, >;x d•%i: ;r I f:L 1,> :. . . 0 1,S1�,m a,r y " t r7OOr �` .:.4 ; 'c •D ty4 :R 4Lr? 58 l i , ` § 4ti.. z ,.,- Lr'i*:•,*.:.,:'. .,,,,.:: §t.. � EN -++fiuri .Y e , T' n *!1 ~ =301•H arq SyyS yttt" X �6R '[ n1i_ rftice,.� 3 I '% . •A: k Y . �/ y xf .i:' _ aIJ � J 3 � S ra �s. , t T ' ��" J • z`i F' • : t.+. , .i'•{ 't i , xf i 7, _ • A1C ,•(� ( � 5 rlp I0 `4.t _ ^ QQ 4'y ▪ y: � o r*` j " C• ikt F , .Z } F�r•+"0[ YI{'P '' � CFVVYUANe ▪ e r. Vb 7 'r. I : ii a J. - ,_ d - { ••..:-a. Qp 6. 13 � r{ `.�4 n `:rr :z'!T}l",t I :< •xr' VDO yy'zF's I NN R4 . : : �h?i W N rl � ,J v.�r 17 C � t`'Sif:: a <• , : ,. • 1. si ` �„ sM: n. o .'S ziNu>�: '.2 W , ,2 . .t• a 7. 22 SST-� tr �i.F i. 4 WM .NE. Np "vt E:,�15 e} kE Zi 1 0 i n'fi= r0 n T NE': �20. S T•d4``in _ �b'i{ J �,- 2 ;a 234D.;"; ,.t 5 Ia R 109 � •^ t Y . E ; . �r :� b ,9, SY,:. 1 35 l Tµ '+i; 204 J _ r .Ffyf���•ft 6 J xF �,�r . 'itC' �:s a. I r ttl!.��.. E S" ,e°fir' - s t,''k' -ST:: P ARID'"'.x: 2.A;: a * .S ,ds _r••x.. • TRANSPORTATION Figure 6 Labrador Subdivision CONSULTING, 1999 PM Peak Hour w/Project N O R T H W E S T Labrador L.L.C. &w/Pipeline Projects TECHNICAL APPENDIX TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING NORTHWEST Page 16 Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 348 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 198 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.57 4.31 - 21.85 3.69 Data Plot and Equation 30,000 X c 20,000 W Q l— a> X U_ X o) X cV U) II 10,000 t- X x X x ''O X °'X 0 I 0 1000 2000 3000 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.920 Ln(X)+2.707 R2=0.96 Trip Generation,6th Edition 263 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (21 0) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 294 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 216 Directional Distribution: 64% entering, 36% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.01 0.42 - 2.98 1.05 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 X X -cs c 2,000— Lil a_ X :cT.) a) cs X X X , II 1,000 X X • X X , X • X 44 96 • 5 0 1000 2000 3000 X=Number of Dwelling Units • X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.901 Ln(X)+0.527 R2=0.91 Trip Generation,6th Edition 265 Institute of Transportation Engineers Labrador Subdivision Trip Generation Trip Generation by Percentage -- 64 Trips % Enter Exit Total % Enter Exit Total 64% 36% 100% 64% 36% 100% r r, ,rtJ / { 3 1 0 0 1 51 21 12 32 2 1 0 1 52 21 12 33 3 1 1 2 53 22 12 34 4 2 1 3 54 22 12 34 5 2 1 3 55 22 13 35 6 2 1 4 0 56 23 13 36 7 3 2 4 57 23 13 36 8 3 2 5 58 24 13 37 9 ,4 2_ 6 59 24 14 38 10 4 2 6 60 24 14 38 11 4 3 7 61 25 14 39 12 5 3 8 62 25 14 39 13 5 3 8 63 26 14 40 14 6 3 9 64 26 15 41 15 6 3 10 65 26 15 41 16 7 4 10 66 27 15 42 17 . 7 4 11 67 27 15 43 18 7 4 11 68 28 16 43 19 8 4 12 69 28 16 44 20 8 5 13 70 29 16 45 21 9 5 13 71 29 16 45 22 9 5 14 72 29 16 46 23 9 5 15 73 30 17 46 24 10 5 15 74 30 17 47 25 10 6 16 75 31 17 48 26 11 6 17 76 31 17 48 27 11 6 17 77 31 18 49 28 11 6 18 78 32 18 50 29 12 7 18 79 32 18 50 30 12 7 19 80 33 18 51 31 13 7 20 81 33 19 52 32 13 7 20 82 33 19 52 33 13 8 21 83 34 19 53 34 14 8 22 84 34 19 53 35 14 8 22 85 35 19 54 36 15 8_ 23 86 35 20 55 37 15 8 24 87 35 20 55 38 15 9 24 88 36 20 56 39 16 9 25 89 36 20 57 40 16 9 25 90 37 21 57 41 17 9 26 91 37 21 58 42 17 10 27 92 37 21 59 43 18 10 27 93 38 21 59 44 18 10 28 94 38 22 60 45 18 10 29 95 39 22 60 46 19 11 29 96 39 22 61 47 19 11 30 97 40 22 62 48 20 11 31 98 40 22 62 49 20 11 31 99 40 23 63 50 20 11 32 100 41 23 •64 From : TRAFFICOUNT PHONE No. : 206 491 1079 Sep. 14 199E 1:19PM P05 TRAFFICOUNT PAGE: 1 Site Code : RBNTON, A. FILE: TN2528WP OORNRTT AVENUE N. N. 30TN STREET Movement8 by: Primacy DATE; 9/09/90 PSAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HE VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM ' PEAK HOAR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left North 4:15 PM 0.77 2 0 17 45 62 - 0 2'I 73 DO 4:45 PM 035 0 24 16 31 71 - 34 23 44 South 4:45 PM 0.83 0 40 I5 1 76 . - 53 02 a West 5:00 PM 0.69 0 1 9 1 11 - 9 Entire lntereee• tion North ' 4:45 PM 0.79 2 0 26 31 57 - 0 46 54 Eaet 0.85 0 24 16 31 71 34 23 44 South 0.8.1 0 40 35 1 16 53 46 1 West 0.63 0 1 8 1 10 10 00 10 BURNETT AVENUE N. %M r W 31 ailiTi tiPff? k;�Mi}:y.*--:JN i;:,, J3 • �n�,� ,5.fY`dYT.t Yi.ti1J. �>'r'�r%�s 7i: t'Sri'?-�r�5:: ' [TRUCK) 2 0 .21; ,211. 1°>;`;:r -fo-.% r _ Ys - 0 [TRUCK] ../ ./,,`..;.7u,.Si>w-'{: -:.:,c�Ji!t •,icei2 .:0 .'::; } .'nil, ui"-:i< _:•:`.%: >.' I 5 q= ;0 zizdix;f1v �;3#i::hy vs�,;;.;y.;: 57 ' Z J" 1-- jth.>J�,L��IW A Y�SiYJY.�;','V' �.7 '.J . 7�C�'IAtiK 1Y vE.-Yr`�i� „z�,„_,.a.z.:t�ii•S3. :av) Y iz:+:<ri inv g.,qm Cv mm te/<,:. > : • 71 7 �: :.: N. 30TH STREET {;N: L 1xr- 3Z .. WM • 8• ' 10 N. 3 0TH. STREET iM • i;c�x`� G�Y'%�/%�:�iv`.�•-iJ ti;)ir2i''•%z..Y.=fl'v/.1•>" }'tg_ .4 / ;s5: v,�MfYY%'L\N%v?!'''(7fw.; r V>jC�l�.:in(Y >G>)C��p)J�Y:fi c gxyl j�� 1 9,<i3y uw{\�'t i.�Ji:o3: e,,?: ii�<,OS O :.N.K.. .v;J.>;5.1—x:.',..,,,.; 1i Y� qA' 0 [TRUCK] [TRUCK] --.z;�0). �;;:4,7,x..nf:-X: �" JS'; .. 42 W.N4J. . Y. !:yr,-., BURNETT AVENUE N. c4 I 572E • W Xx = 4% a1Tt = (97 ,I-rrom : TRAFFICOUNT PHONE No. : 205 491 1079 Sep. 14 1998 1:18PM P03 1 TilalIOORIT PAGE: Site Code : RENTON, NA. PILE: TN2528QP : BURNBTT AVENUE N- : IAA's NASIIINGTON BOULEVARD DATE: 9�09I98 Movements by: PrimTry • , PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK IIR VOLUMES PERCENTS FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR TRUCK Right Thru Left Total TRUCK Right Thru Left North 4:15 PM 0.84 0 1 0 46 47 - 2 0 98 ds4 4:4S PM U.90 0 83 111 0 194 _ 40 51 0 South 4:45 PM 0.00 0 0 0 0 •Q Neut. 4:00 PM 0.91 0 0 114 ] 175 0 99 1 • Entire Intersection North 4:15 PM 0.84 0 1 0 46 47 - 2 I 98 Rrtt 0.89 0 00 113 0 193 - 41 0 South 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 99 1 Neat 0,85 0 0 162 1 163 3790 :-w-i! Al BURNRTT AVENUE GI - N v5 . f-IENJ IS W i E 'l.51•� T r iti. [TRUCK] 0 _ .6- > •3r£:.) :i 7rzs; e ?� .'-'-:. r - 0 [1RUCK] it?. *4:;.0 t'U ::�`vtiZ�G+,I'.�}`�Cfc..,: iY)\': 4 / ,..0,0--- 0 3 . }cr-c$$ 19 II 0 <•, >-: LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD R'il:-..;•::-. . L L 1 . .. PAPS! :(! • 16 g 2" 16 3 LAKE .WASHI NGTON BOULEVARD 4, " MO % 41 r--'' V A�IN<\4\i1).. ;YI.V. -Yr\Va }it;�Si��.) yid':??,\2��8Y:Cny:«wC�C•:C.��L;+�^1 0 C• vRfM , f,( ....,,•,• •,';i;: <«.�;; 0 0 0 0 [TRUCK) [TRUCK] 0 --�;'r:..:<,:B s'T _d 0' Q yy ss.• „, xcc•,rfx�• �C7Cty)%•s.Y.�•v.�,•',t-,sss+'xK<<. cf= ,,,. 'tiZ�4'2b) c}S.v:.l.Y/Y 9riv)'r'_'F: ,..,..„...,: y< ' ' BURNETT AVENUE N. 'S t!ff REP )(x - 15 62 . C = l q? 9 HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d BUR1N.HCO Page 1 Transportation Consulting Northwest 1607 E. Main Street Auburn, WA 98002-2083 Ph: (206) 931-0506 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Avenue N (E-W) Lk Washington Blvd N Analyst T.Miller Date of Analysis 9/15/98 Other Information 1999 PM Pk w/o Project All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 1 204 0 0 135 91 0 0 0 60 0 1 PHF .85 . 85 . 85 . 89 .89 .89 .95 . 95 . 95 . 84 . 84 . 84 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 1 0 71 RT Flow Rate 0 102 1 Approach Flow Rate 241 254 72 Proportion LT 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 99 Proportion RT 0 . 00 0 .40 0 . 01 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 254 241 0 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 72 72 495 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .43 0 .45 0 .13 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .45 0 .43 0 .00 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 1 0 RT, Opposing Approach 102 0 0 LT, Conflicting Approaches 71 71 1 RT, Conflicting Approaches 1 1 102 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .00 0 . 00 0 . 00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 .40 0 . 00 0 .00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .99 0 .99 0 . 00 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .01 0 .01 0 .21 Approach Capacity 627 553 288 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 241 627 0 .38 4 .3 A WB 254 553 0 .46 5 .7 B SB 72 288 0 .25 2 . 6 A Intersection Delay = 4 .7 Level of Service (Intersection) = A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d BURIP.HCO Page 1 . Transportation Consulting Northwest ~ 1607 E. Main Street Auburn, WA 98002-2083 Ph: (206) 931-0506 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Avenue N (E-W) Lk Washington Blvd N Analyst T.Miller Date of Analysis 9/15/98 Other Information 1999 PM Pk w/ Project All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound . L T .R . L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes , 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 5 204 0 0 135 109 0 0 0 70 0 3 PHF . 85 .85 .85 .89 .89 . 89 . 95 .95 .95 .84 . 84 . 84 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet Ep WB ' NB SB LT Flow Rate 6 0 83 RT Flow Rate 0 122 4 Approach Flow Rate 246 274 87 Proportion LT 0 . 02 0 .00 0 .95 Proportion RT -0 .00 0 .45 0 . 05 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 274 246 0 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate ' 87 87 520 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .41 0 .45 0 . 14 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate -0 .45 0 .41 0 . 0-0 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 0 6 0 RT, Opposing Approach 122 0 0 LT, Conflicting Approaches 83 83 6 RT, Conflicting Approaches 4 4 122 Proportion ,LT, Opposing Approach 0 .00 0 . 02 0 . 00 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach -0 .45 0 . 00 0 .-00 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .95 0 . 95 0 . 01 Proportion RT., -Conflicting Approaches 0 .05 0 . 05 0 .23 Approach Capacity 638 555 310 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 246 638 0 .39 4 .3 A WB 274 555 0.49 6 .5 B SB 87 310 0 .28 2 .9 A Intersection Delay = 5 .1 Level of Service (Intersection) = B HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d BUR2P.HCO Page 1 Transportation Consulting Northwest • 1607 E. Main Street • Auburn, WA 98002-2083 Ph: (206) 931-0506 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Avenue N (E-W) New Street Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst T.Miller Date of Analysis 9/15/98 Other Information 1999 w/ Project Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- - No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 0 0 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 91 22 12 61 13 0 7 PHF .88 . 88 . 84 . 84 .95 . 95 .95 Grade 3 -3 0 MC' s (o) SU/RV' s (o) CV' s (o) PCE' s 0 .95 1 .10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5 .00 2 .10 Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .00 3 .30 Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d BUR2P.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 116 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1209 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1209 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 128 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1490 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1490 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99 Step 3 : TH from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows : (vph) 202 Potential , Capacity: (pcph) 855 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 .99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 847 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1 . 00 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 202 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 809 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 .99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 802 , - HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1d BUR2P.HCO Page 3 e • Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) WB L 15 802 > WB T 0 847 > 908 4.1 0 . 0 A 4 .1 WB R 8 1209 > SB L 13 1490 2 .4 0 . 0 A 0 .4 Intersection Delay = 0 .5 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d BUR3N.HCO Page 1 Transportation Consulting Northwest 1607 E. Main Street Auburn, WA 98002-2083 Ph: (206) 931-0506 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Avenue N (E-W) N 30th Street Analyst T.Miller Date of Analysis 9/15/98 Other Information 1999 w/o Project All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 1 8 1 44 17 25 1 36 50 32 27 0 PHF . 63 .63 .63 .85 .85 . 85 .83 . 83 .83 .79 .79 .79 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 2 52 1 41 RT Flow Rate 2 29 60 0 Approach Flow Rate 17 101 104 75 Proportion LT 0 . 12 0 .51 0 . 01 0 .55 Proportion RT 0 .12 0 .29 0 .58 0 .00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 101 17 75 104 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 179 179 118 118 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 . 06 0 .34 0 .35 0 .25 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate 0 .34 0 . 06 0 .25 0 .35 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 52 2 41 1 RT, Opposing Approach 29 2 0 60 LT, Conflicting Approaches 42 42 54 54 RT, Conflicting Approaches 60 60 31 31 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .51 0 .12 0 .55 0 .01 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0 .29 0 .12 0 . 00 0 . 58 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .23 0 .23 0 .46 0 .46 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .34 0 .34 0 . 26 0 .26 Approach Capacity 328 499 404 652 Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 17 328 0 .05 1 .2 A WB 101 499 0 .20 2 .2 A NB 104 404 0 .26 2 .7 A SB 75 652 0 .12 1 .5 A Intersection Delay = 2 .1 Level of Service (Intersection) = A HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1d BUR3P.HCO Page 1 Transportation Consulting Northwest 1607 E. Main Street Auburn, -WA -98-0-02-2083 Ph: (206) 931-0506 Streets : (N-S) Burnett Avenue N (E-W) N 30th Street Analyst T.Miller Date of Analysis 9/15/98 Other Information 1999 w/ Project • All-way Stop-controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T -R L T R L T R L T R ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 1 8 1 56 17 25 1 36 57 32 27 0 PHF .63 .63 .63 .85 .85 .85 .83 .83 . 83 .79 .79 .79 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet EB WB NB SB LT Flow Rate 2 66 1 41 RT Flow Rate 2 29 69 0 Approach Flow Rate 17 115 113 75 Proportion LT 0 .12 0 .57 0 .01 0 .55 Proportion RT 0 .12 0 .25 -0 .61 0 .-00 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 115 17 75 113 Cpnfli-cting Approaches Flow Rate 1-8-8 188 132 132 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0 .05 0 .36 0 .35 0 .23 Proportion, -Opposing Approach •Flow Rate 0 .36 0 .05 0 .23 0 .35 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 66 2 41 1 RT, Opposing Approach 29 2 0 69 LT, Conflicting Approaches 42 42 68 68 RT, Conflicting Approaches 69 69 31 31 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0 .57 0 . 12 0 .55 0 . 01 Proportion RT, 'Opposing Appivach -0 .25 0 .12 0 . 00 0 . 61 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .22 0 .22 0 .52 0 .52 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0 .37 00 .37 0 .23 0 .23 Approach Capacity 326 528 369 617 r Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 17 326 0 .05 1 .2 A WB 115 .528 0_22 2 .3 A NB 113 369 0_31 3..2 A SB 75 617 0 .12 1. 6 A Intersection Delay = 2 .4 Level of Service ' (Intersection) = A y ,,- I • 70 A- SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE CROSSING 2-LANE I J'� I HIGHWAY FROM STOP. (SEE DIAGRAM) i - / - Z _ _ B-I-SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT N.)65 I —' / f t~ INTO 2-LANE HIGHWAY ACROSS P VEHICLE APPROAHING J ' I FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) 60 — - - �� .._.- -- 4-==.-B-2o-SAFE-SIGHT-DISTANCE-FOR-P-VEHICLE-T-O-TURN-LEFT- - __ --_—_-- — - -- IA ' .. T INTO 2-LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN DESIGN SPEED o�� / i WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING i / I FROM THE RIGHT AND MAINTAINING DESIGN SPEED. 55 v •- •_- .- _. .. i A. / B-2b-SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT C / 00° INTO 2-LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN AVERAGE RUNNING 0 1 SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY VEHICLE � (L 50 f p 0"L -� • r 1 --—F—' APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT REDUCING SPEED FROM ►ii • 2 "h / 0G I DESIGN SPEED TO AVERAGE RUNNING SPEEO(SEE y O / L�� i I DIAGRAM) W � / 0 aW 45 r / I ' 1— .� 1 Co-SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE TOP VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT N / ` ` INTO A 2-LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN DESIGN WITHOUT fG) ZZ , 7/ BEING OVERTAKEN BY A P VEHICLE APPOACHING FROM . ft C� r m� ) THE LEFT TRAVELING AT DESIGN SPEED. O 40i --I-- Si i f0 i //// Cb-SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT n i cl / INTO 2-LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN AVERAGE RUNNING//// 035 — / ; I SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY VEHICLE/ I APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT AND REDUCING FROM DESIGN SPEED TO AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. ti • / / f 25 HI 0 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 `aA SIGHT DISTANCE (FEET) A A, • Figure IX-27. Intersection sight distance at at-grade intersection (case IIIB and case IIIC). o /it: 68- lit (3) IA 111111)OR VENTURES, L.L.C September 10, 1998 " y City of Renton,Washington `}` r._.„ Planning and Development Services Municipal Building DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 1055 South Grady Way CITY OF RENTON Renton, WA 98055 SEP 10 1998 425-430-7236 425-430-7300 fax RECEIVED To Whom It May Concern: . We have submitted an application for residential development in the City of Renton along with a petition for a zoning change on a portion of our property. Among the items requested by your staff with our application package is; a letter which designates myself as the appropriate signator on behalf of Labrador Ventures, LLC. This letter along with the attached Certificate of Formation as well as the attached Organization and Operations Agreement of Labrador Ventures, LLC should satisfy your requirements. For quick reference, see pp. 5-6 of the agreement. As General Manager of Labrador Ventures, LLC, I am fully empowered by corporate doctrine to execute the documents pertinent to our sub-division application and all subsequent articles for recording, etc. We look forward to working with the City of Renton on this project. Sincerely, 7/y� 7 Bradley K.Hughes, General Manager Labrador Ventures, LLC P.O.BOX 3344,KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98083 TEL:(425)803-0400 FAX:(425)803-6877 �' STATE WASHING [ON c c S �' % ,, ; '4Q.STATE tali •1- 7-:_c_,-7-/--- ,n•k;;'.2.°4'4:4P-C).1?:',6111.a.p.);..... '«::, il-: 5 ; ._. $0 , R _ C ' SECRETARY of STATE ' 1 C ' » ' 1 ,iy4 C iV4 Ili I,RALPHMUNRO, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal, C ;C 4 �; hereby issue this C C H C C � � C /C 1 1� CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION :C C it, l lC to � i' d C �C 1‘C 1C LABRADOR VENTURES, L.L.C. C � C ti a .- a Washington Limited Liability Company C C _,, - 1� Ip r) was/were filed for record in this office on the date n C C 4 ) 1� �� Y44 0, indicated below. �C ,C « « 1 1 >. , X �, J, U B I Number: 601 674 823 DATE: November 30, 1995 /C C g� C� 1 , (.� � � 'Ili il CIC 1 �C1 , 4' C ( AY, 'CC eY C C »�� , STATE ' 1 M ; •'' z s}= ' ; •I Given under m hand and the Seal of the State a j j . : F ,w of Washington at Olympia,the State Capital C A , � 1 I): I34 ....Ai. . v-, ''',.°' C/./.1Th re( t g ACPH uNRo c c �; Ra ph Munro,Secretary of State C 2-523341-2 dC - n IW M � , 71IlnVT a b\niAIT77t iTTD' . 7M-nnI in - Tf ,ITMln4 _ ll �1..7E1Tni�iTili7D7DAETntntntAlt(r 747 sT, nW�n n n n n n n fAlZninf7l"Fntni7kWalx • ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT OF LABRADOR VENTURES, L.L.C. (a Washington Limited Liability Company) Dated and Effective as of rUJ,Iy /-L, 1997 G:1LAWTYPE\COUMWGMT LLC-ORG.LAB TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I. -- DEFINITIONS 1 1.1 Act: 1 1.2 Capital Account: 1 1.3 Capital Contribution: 1 1.4 Certificate of Formation: 1 1.5 Code: - 1 1.6 Company:. 1 1.7 Company Minimum Gain: 2 1.8 Deficit Capital Account: 2 1.9 Distributable Cash: 2 1.10 Economic Interest: 2 1.11 Economic Interest Owner: 2 1.12 Entity: 2 1.13 Majority Interest: 3 1.14 Manager: 3 1.15 Member: 3 1.16 Membership Interest: 3 1.17 Member Minimum Gain: 3 1.18 Member Nonrecourse Deductions: 3 1.19 Net Profits and Net Losses: 3 1.20 Nonrecourse Deductions: 3" 1.21 Nonrecourse Liability: 4 1.22 Percentage Interest: 4 1.23 Person: 4 1.24 Regulations: 4 1.25 Reserves: 4 1.26 Unit Holder: 4 1.27 Units: 4 ARTICLE II. --FORMATION OF COMPANY 4 2.1 Formation: 4 2.2 Name: 5 2.4 Registered Office and Registered Agent: 5 2.5 Term: 5 ARTICLE III. --BUSINESS OF COMPANY 5 ARTICLE IV. --NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS 5 . ARTICLE V. --MANAGERS; RIGHTS AND DUTIES 6 5.1 Management: 6 5.2 Compensation: 7 5.3 Limitation on Liability; Indemnification: 7 5.4 Removal: 8 5.5 Vacancies: 8 5.6 Right to Rely on the Manager: 8 ARTICLE VI. --RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS 8 6.1 Limitation of Liability: 8 6.2 Liability for Company Obligations: 8 6.3 Approval of Sale of All Assets: 8 6.4 Inspection of Records: 8 6.5 No Priority and Return of Capital: r 9 6.6 Withdrawal of Member: 9 ARTICLE VII. --MEETINGS OF MEMBERS 9 7.1 Annual Meeting: • 9 7.2 Special Meetings: 9 7.3 Place of Meetings: 9 7.4 Notice of Meetings: 9 7.5 Record Date: 10 • 7.6 Quorum: 10 7.7 Manner of Acting: 10 7.8 Proxies: 10 7.9 Action by Members Without a Meeting: 10 7.10 Waiver of Notice: 11 ARTICLE VIII. -- CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMPANY& CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 11 8.1 Members' Capital Contributions: 11 8.2 Additional Contributions and Borrowing: 11 8.3 Capital Accounts: 12 (a) Establishment and Maintenance: 12 (b) Compliance with Regulations: 12 8.4 Withdrawal or Reduction of Members' Contributions to Capital: 13 ARTICLE IX. --ALLOCATIONS OF NET PROFITS AND LOSSES 13 9.1 Allocation of Net Profit and Loss -In General: 13 (a)Allocation of Net Profit or Loss: 13 (b) Limitation: 13 9.2 Special Allocations: 13 (a)Minimum Gain Chargeback: 13 ii (b)Member Minimum Gain Chargeback: 14 (c) Qualified Income Offset: 14 (d)Nonrecourse Deductions: 14 (e)Member Nonrecourse Deductions: 14 9.3 Corrective Allocations: 14 (a) Allocations to Achieve Economic Agreement: 14 (b) Waiver of Application of Minimum Gain Chargeback: 15 9.4 Other Allocation Rules: 15 (a) General: 15 (b) Allocation of Recapture Items: 15 (c) Allocation of Excess Nonrecourse Liabilities: 15 (d)Allocations in Connection with Varying Interests: 15 9.5 Determination of Net Profit or Loss: 16 (a) Computation of Net Profit or Loss: 16 (b)Adjustments to Net Profit or Loss: 16 (c) Items Specially Allocated: 16 9.6 Mandatory Tax Allocations Under Code Section 704(c): 17 ARTICLE X. --DISTRIBUTIONS 17 10.1 Cash Distributions: 17 (a)Nonliquidating Distributions: 17 (b) Distribution in Liquidation: 18 10.2 Distributions in Kind: 18 10.3 Withholding: Amounts Withheld Treated as Distributions: 18 10.4 Limitation Upon Distributions: 18 ARTICLE XI. --ACCOUNTING,BOOKS AND RECORDS 18 11.1 Accounting Principles: 18 11.2 Interest On and Return of Capital Contributions: 18 11.3 Loans to Company: 19 11.4 Accounting Period: 19 11.5 Records, Audits and Reports: 19 11.6 Tax Matters Partner: 19 (a) Designation: 19 (b) Expenses of Tax Matters Partner; Indemnification: 19 11.7 Returns and Other Elections: 20 ARTICLE XII. --TRANSFERABILITY 20 12.1 General: 20 12.2 First Refusal Rights: 21 12.3 Transferee Not Member in Absence of Consent: 22 iii ARTICLE XIII. --ADDITIONAL MEMBERS 23 ARTICLE XIV. --DISSOLUTION AND TERMINATION 23 14.1 Dissolution: 23 14.2 Allocation of Net Profit and Loss in Liquidation: 23 14.3 Winding Up, Liquidation and Distribution of Assets: 23 14.4 No Obligation to Restore Negative Capital Account Balance on Liquidation. 24 14.5 Termination: 24 14.6 Certificate of Cancellation: 24 14.7 Return of Contribution Nonrecourse to Other Members: 25 ARTICLE XV. --INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES OF MANAGERS AND MEMBERS 25 ARTICLE XVI. --MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 25 16.1 Notices: 25 16.2 Governing Law: 25 16.3 Amendments: 25 16.4 Construction: 25 16.5 Headings: 26 16.6 Waivers: 26 16.7 Rights and Remedies Cumulative: 26 16.8 Severability: 26 16.9 Heirs, Successors and Assigns: 26 16.10 Creditors: 26 16.11 Counterparts: 26 16.12 Investment Representations: 26 iv ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS AGREEMENT OF LABRADOR VENTURES,L.L.C. (a Washington Limited Liability Company) THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 30th day of November, 1995, by and between those persons whose signatures appear on the signature page hereof for purposes of forming a limited liability company pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington and to further set forth the manner in which this company is to be operated and managed. In that regard,it is hereby agreed as follows: ARTICLE I. -- DEFINITIONS The following terms used in this Agreement shall have the following meanings (unless otherwise expressly provided herein): 1.1 Act: The Washington Limited Liability Company Act (Chapter 25.15 of the Revised Code of Washington). 1.2 Capital Account: The capital account determined and maintained for each Unit Holder pursuant to Section 8.3. 1.3 Capital Contribution: Any contribution to the capital of the Company in cash or property by a Member whenever made. 1.4 Certificate of Formation: The certificate of formation pursuant to which the Company was formed, as originally filed with the office of the Secretary of State on November 30, 1995, and as amended from time-to-time. 1.5 Code: The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or corresponding provisions of subsequent superseding federal revenue laws. 1.6 Company: "Labrador Ventures, L.L.C." • 1.7 Company Minimum Gain: Company minimum gain has the same meaning as the term "partnership minimum gain" in Regulation Sections 1.704-2(b)(2) and 1.704-2(d). 1.8 Deficit Capital Account: Deficit Capital Account means with respect to any Unit Holder, the deficit balance, if any, in such Unit Holder's Capital Account as of the end of the taxable year, after giving effect to the following adjustments: (a) credit to such Capital Account any amount that such Unit Holder is obligated to restore to the Company under Regulation Section 1.704(b)(2)(ii)(c), as well as any addition thereto pursuant to the next to the last sentences of Regulation Sections 1.704-2(g)(1) and (i)(5); and (b) debit to such Capital Account the items described in Regulation Sections 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d)(4), (5) and(6). This definition is intended to comply with the provisions of Regulation Sections 1.704- 1(b)(2)(ii)(d) and 1.704-2, and will be interpreted consistently with those provisions. • 1.9 Distributable Cash: All cash received by the Company, less the sum of the following to the extent paid or set aside by the Company: (i) all principal and interest payments on indebtedness of the Company and other sums paid or payable to lenders; (ii) all cash expenditures incurred incident to the normal operation of the Company's business; and(iii)Reserves. 1.10 Economic Interest: - A Unit Holder's share of Net Profits, Net Losses, and other tax items of the Company and distributions of the Company's asset pursuant to this Agreement and the Act, but shall not include any right to participate in the management or affairs of the Company, including the right to vote on, consent to or otherwise participate in any decision of the Members. 1.11 Economic Interest Owner: The owner of an Economic Interest who is not a Member. 1.12 Entity: Any general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, corporation, joint venture, trust, business trust, .cooperative or association or any other organization that is not a natural person. 2 • 1.13 Majority Interest: At any time, more than fifty percent (50%) of the then outstanding Units held by Members. 1.14 Manager: Bradley K. Hughes and any other Person who may become a substitute or additional Manager as provided in Article V. 1.15 Member: Each Person who executes a counterpart of this Agreement as a Member and each Person who may hereafter become a Member. To the extent a Manager has purchased a Membership Interest in the Company, that Manager will have all the rights of a member with respect to, such Membership Interest, and the term "Member" as used herein shall include a Manager to the extent it has purchased a Membership Interest in the Company. If a Person is a Member immediately prior to the acquisition by such Person of an Economic Interest, such Person shall have all the rights to a Member with respect to such Economic Interest. 1.16 Membership Interest: _ All of a Member's share in the Net Profits, Net Losses, and other tax items of the Company and distributions of the Company's assets pursuant to this Agreement and the Act and. all of a Member's rights to participate in the management or affairs of the Company, including the right to vote on, consent to or otherwise participate in any decision of the Members. 1.17 Member Minimum Gain: The same meaning as the term "partner nonrecourse debt minimum gain" in Regulation Section 1.704-2(i). 1.18 Member Nonrecourse Deductions: The same meaning as the term "partner nonrecourse deductions" in Regulation Sections 1.704-2(i)(1) and (2). The amount of Member Nonrecourse Deductions for a Company fiscal year shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-2(i)(2). 1.19 Net Profits and Net Losses: Shall have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Section 9.5. 1.20 Nonrecourse Deductions: The meaning set forth in Regulation Section 1.704-2(b)(1). The amount of Nonrecourse Deductions for a Company fiscal year shall be determined pursuant to Regulation Section 1.704-2(c). 3 1.21 Nonrecourse Liability: The meaning set forth in Regulation Section 1.704-2(b)(3). 1.22 Percentage Interest: With respect to any Unit Holder, the percentage determined based upon the ratio that the number of Units held by such Unit Holder bears to the total number of outstanding Units. 1.23 Person: Any individual or entity, and the heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of such"Person"where the context so permits. 1.24 Regulations: Includes proposed, temporary and final Treasury regulations promulgated under the Code and the corresponding sections of any regulations subsequently issued that amend or supersede such regulations. 1.25 Reserves: With respect to any fiscal period, funds set aside or amounts allocated during such period to reserves which shall be maintained in amounts deemed sufficient by the manager for working capital and to pay taxes, insurance, debt service or other costs or expenses incident to the ownership or operation of the Company's business. 1.26 Unit Holder: A Person who is a Member or who holds an Economic Interest but is not a Member. 1.27 Units: • The Units issued to any Member under this Agreement as reflected in attached Schedule,1, as amended from time-to-time, and will also include additional units issued or to be issued for additional contributions of capital. ARTICLE II. --FORMATION OF COMPANY 2.1 Formation: - The Company was formed on November 30, 1995, when the Certificate of Formation was executed and filed with the office of the Secretary of State in accordance with and pursuant to the Act. 4 2.2 Name: The name of the Company is"Labrador Ventures, L.L.C." 2.3 Principal Place of Business: The principal place of business of the Company shall be P. O. Box 3344, Kirkland, Washington 98083. Company may locate its places of business at any other place or places as the Manager may from time-to-time deem advisable. 2.4 Registered Office and Registered Agent: The Company's initial registered agent and the address of its initial registered office in the State of Washington are as follows: Name Address 103 s P/, Bradley K. Hughes , Kirkland, Washington 98083 The registered office and registered agent may be changed by the Manager from time-to-time by filing an amendment to the Certificate of Formation. 2.5 Term: The term of the Company shall be from its inception until December 31, 1999, unless the Company is dissolved on some earlier date in accordance with either Article XIV or the Act. ARTICLE III. --BUSINESS OF COMPANY The business of the Company shall be authorized:1 to carry on any lawful business or activity which may be conducted by a limited liability company organized under the Act; and <3;2 to exercise all other powers necessary to or reasonably connected with the Company's business which may be legally exercised by limited liability companies under the Act. ARTICLE IV. --NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF MEMBERS The names and addresses of the Members are as set forth on the attached Schedule 1, as amended or restated from time-to-time. 5 = ARTICLE V. --MANAGERS; RIGHTS AND DUTIES C5 4 Management: The business and affairs of the Company shall be managed by the Manager. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the Manager shall have full and complete authority, power and discretion to manage and control the business, affairs and properties of the Company, to make all decisions regarding those matters and to perform any and all other acts or activities customary or incident to the management of the Company's business. At any time when there is more _than one Manager, any one Manager may take any action permitted to be taken by the Managers, unless the approval of more than one of the Managers is expressly required by this Agreement or the Act. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Manager shall have power and authority to: s'a)" acquire propertyfrom anyPerson as the Manager maydetermine, and the (. ) q � g fact that a Manager or a Member is an Affiliate of such Person shall not prohibit the Manager from dealing with that Person; (b) borrow money from financial institutions, the Manager, Members, or Affiliates of the Manager or members on such terms as the Manager deems appropriate, and in connection therewith, to hypothecate, encumber and grant security interests in the assets of the Company to secure repayment of the borrowed sums; (d)/ purchase liability and other insurance to protect the Company's property and business; (d)� except as provided in Section 6.3, to acquire, improve, manage, charter, operate, sell, transfer, exchange, encumber, pledge or dispose of any real or personal property of the Company; (e)' invest Company funds temporarily in time deposits, short-term governmental obligations, commercial paper or other short-term investments; 0- execute instruments and documents, including without limitation, checks, drafts, notes and other negotiable instruments, mortgages or deeds of trust, security agreements, financing statements, documents providing for the acquisition, mortgage or disposition of the ' `: Company's property, assignments, bills of sale, leases, partnershipagreements, operating � "�. agreements of other limited liability companies, and any other instruments or documents necessary, in the opinion of the Manager, to the business of the Company; (g)" employ accountants, legal counsel, managing agents or other experts to perform service's for the Company and to compensate them from Company funds; ,(h) enter into any and all other agreements with any other Person for any purpose, in such"form as the Manager may approve; 6 (i) from time-to-time, to open bank accounts in the name of the Company, and the Manager shall be the sole signatory thereon, unless the Manager determines otherwise; and (j) do and perform all other acts as may be necessary or appropriate to the conduct of the Company's business. Unless authorized to do so by this Agreement or by the Manager, no Member, employee or other agent of the Company shall have any power or authority to bind the Company in any way, to pledge its credit or to render it liable for any purpose. 5.2 Compensation: The Manager shall receive such other compensation for acting as Manager of the Company,in such amounts as deemed reasonable, necessary and appropriate. The Manager shall also be reimbursed by the Company for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the Company's business, including without limitation expenses incurred in organization of the Company in replacement of the units. The Manager shall also be reimbursed by the Company for reasonable out-of- pocket expenses incurred by the Manager in connection with the Company's business including, without limitation, expenses incurred in the organization of the Company and the placement of the Units. 5.3 Limitation on Liability; Indemnification: Neither the Manager nor any Affiliate of the Manager shall be liable, responsible or accountable in damages or otherwise to the Company or the Members for any act or omission by any such Person performed in good faith pursuant to the authority granted to such Person by this Agreement or in accordance with its provisions, and in a manner reasonably believed by such Person to be within the scope of the authority granted to such Person and in the best interest of the Company; provided, that such act or omission did not constitute fraud, misconduct, bad faith or gross negligence. The Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the Manager, and each director, officer, partner, employee or agent thereof, against any liability, loss, damage, cost or expense incurred by them on behalf of the Company or in furtherance of the Company's interests without relieving any such Person of liability for fraud, misconduct, bad faith or negligence. No Member shall have any personal liability with respect to the satisfaction of any required indemnification of the above-mentioned Persons. Any indemnification required to be made by the Company shall be made promptly following the fixing of the liability, loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or suffered by a final judgment of any court, settlement, contract or otherwise. In addition, the Company may advance funds to a Person claiming indemnification under this Section 5.3 for legal expenses and other costs incurred as a result of a legal action brought against such Person only if 7 (i) the legal action relates to the performance of duties or services by the Person on behalf of the Company, (ii) the legal action is initiated by a party other than a Member, and (iii) such Person undertakes to repay the advanced funds to the Company if it is determined that such Person is not entitled to indemnification pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 5.4 Removal: At a meeting called expressly for that purpose, the Manager may be removed at any time,with or without cause,by the affirmative vote of the holders of a Majority Interest. The removal of a Manager who,is also a Member shall not affect the Manager's rights as a Member and shall riot constitute a withdrawal of a Member. 5.5, Vacancies: Any vacancy occurring for any reason in the number of Managers may be filled by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining Managers. If there are no remaining Managers, the vacancy shall be filled by the affirmative vote of the holders of a Majority Interest. 5.6 Right to Rely on the Manager: Any Person dealing with the Company may rely (without duty of further inquiry) upon a certificate'signed by any Manager as to the identity and authority of any Manager or other Person to act on behalf of the Company or any Member. ARTICLE VI. --RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERS 6.1 Limitation of Liability: Each Member's liability shall be limited as set forth in this Agreement and the Act. 6.2 Liability for Company Obligations: , Members shall not be personally liable for any debts, obligations or liabilities of the Company beyond their respective Capital Contributions and any obligation of the Members under Section 8.1 or 8.2 to make Capital Contributions, except as otherwise provided by law. 6.3 Approval of Sale of All Assets: The Company shall not sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all, or substantially all, of its assets without the affirmative vote of the holders of a Majority Interest. 6.4 Inspection of Records: Upon reasonable request, each Member shall have the right to inspect and copy at such Member's expense, during ordinary business hours, the records required to be maintained by the Company pursuant to Section 11.5. 8 II 6.51, No Priority and Return of Capital: Except as expressly provided in Articles 9 or 10, no Unit Holder shall have priority o\ier any other Unit Holder, either as to the return of Capital Contributions or as to Net Profits, Net Losses or distributions; provided, that this Section 6.5 shall not apply to loans made by a Member to the Company. 6.6 Withdrawal of Member: Except as expressly permitted in this Agreement, no Member shall voluntarily resign or otherwise withdraw as a Member. Unless otherwise approved-by Members holding a Majority Interest, a Member who resigns or withdraws shall be entitled to receive only those distributions to which such Person would have been entitled had such Person remained a Member (and only at such times as such distribution would have been made had such Person remained d Member). Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, a resigning or withdrawing Member shall become an Economic Interest Owner. The remedy for breach of this Section 6.6 shall be monetary damages (and not specific performance), which may be offset against distributions by the Company to which such Person would otherwise be entitled. ARTICLE VII. --MEETINGS OF MEMBERS 7.1 Annual Meeting: The annual meeting of the Members shall be held on the first Tuesday of March of each year, or at such other time as shall be determined by the Members, for the purpose of the transaction lof such business as may come before the meeting. 7.2 Special Meetings: Special meetings of the Members, for any purpose or purposes, may be called by the Manager or by Members holding at least ten percent(10%) of the Units held by Members. 7.3 Place of Meetings: The Manager or the Members may designate any place, either within or outside the State of Washington, as the place of meeting for any meeting of the Members. If no designation is made, or if a special meeting is called, the place of meeting shall be the principal office of the Company. 7.4 Notice of Meetings: Written notice stating the place, day and hour of the meeting and, in the case of a special meeting, the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called shall be delivered not less than ten (10) nor more than fifty (50) days before the date of the meeting, either personally 9 or by mail', by or at the direction of the Manager or the Members calling the meeting, to each Member entitled to vote at such meeting. If mailed, such notice shall be deemed to be delivered two calendar days after being deposited in the United States Mail, addressed to the Member as specified in Section 16.1,with postage thereon prepaid. 7.5 Record Date: For the purpose of determining Members entitled to notice of or to vote at any meeting of;Members or any adjournment thereof, or Members entitled to receive payment of any distribution,the date on which notice of the meeting is mailed or the date on which the resolution declaring such distribution is adopted, as the case may be, shall be the record date for such determination of Members. When a determination of Members entitled to vote at any meting of Members lias been made as provided in this Section, such determination shall apply to any adjournment thereof. 7.6 Ouorum: A Majority Interest represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of Members. In the absence of a quorum at any such meeting, a majority of Units held by Members so represented may adjourn the meeting from time-to-time for a period not to exceed sixty(60) days without further notice. However,if the adjournment is for more than sixty (60) days, or if after the adjournment a new record date is fixed for the adjourned meeting, a notice of tile adjourned meeting shall be given to each Member of record entitled to vote at the meeting. at such adjourned meeting at which a quorum shall be present or represented, any business may be transacted which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally noticed. The Members present at a duly organized meeting may continue to transact business until adjournment, notwithstanding the withdrawal during such meeting of that number of Units whose absence would cause less than a quorum. 7.7 Manner of Acting: If a quorum ispresent, the affirmative vote of Members holdingmore than fifty percent(50%) of the Units represented at the meeting in person or by proxy shall be the act of the Members, unless the vote of a greater or lesser percentage is required by this Agreement or the Act. 7.8 Proxies: ' At all meetings of Members, a Member may vote in person or by proxy executed in writing by the Member. Such proxy shall be filed with the Manager before or at the time of the meeting. No proxy shall be valid after eleven (11) months from the date of its execution, unless otherwise provided in the proxy. 7.9 Action by Members Without a Meeting: Action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of Members may be taken without a meeting if the action is evidenced by one or more written consents describing the action taken, executed by Members entitled to vote thereon and delivered to the Manager for 10 i inclusion!in the Company's minutes. Action taken under this Section 7.9 is effective when all Members,entitled to vote thereon have signed such consents, unless such consents specify a different effective date. The record date for determining Members entitled to take action without a meeting]shall be the date the first Member signs a consent. 7.10 Waiver of Notice: When any notice is required to be given to a Member, a waiver thereof in writing signed by,the Member entitled to such notice, whether before, at, or after the time stated therein, shall be equivalent to the giving of such notice. ARTICLE VIII. -- CONTRIBUTIONS TO COMPANY& CAPITAL ACCOUNTS 8. Members' Capital Contributions: Each Member shall contribute such amount as is set forth in the attached Schedule 1 as such Member's share of the Members'Initial Capital Contribution. 8.2 Additional Contributions and Borrowing: Each Member understands that the Company will borrow funds necessary to complete the purchase of the property to be owned by the Company; provided no Member shall be obligated to personally guaranty the loan with the understanding that the property purchased by the Company shall be used as collateral to secure the debts of the Company. The Manager shall give written notice to each Member of the amount of any required additional Capital Contribution, and each Member shall pay 'to the Company such additional,Capital Contribution no later than thirty (30) days following the date such notice is given. Nothing contained in this Section 8.2 is or shall be deemed to be for the benefit of any Person other than the Members and the Company, and no such Person shall under any circumstances have any right to compel any actions or payments by the Members. Upon the failure of a member to contribute such additional capital, the remaining Members 'may: (a) Dissolve and terminate the Company as provided in Article XIV and offset against any amount to be distributed to the defaulting Member the damages caused the Company by the Defaulting Member; (b) Purchase the interest in the Company of the defaulting Member upon the following terms: (i) The remaining Members shall notify the defaulting Member of their election to purchase that defaulting Member's interest and, along with such notice, shall designate an appraiser who is a Member Appraisal Institute ("MAI") to establish the appraised fair market value of Company's assets. Such appraisal shall be completed within thirty (30) days after the appointment of the appraiser. Goodwill of the Company, if any, shall not be considered 11 in determining fair market value. Cost of the appraiser shall be charged to the defaulting Member. (ii) The remaining Members shall then purchase the defaulting Member's interest in the Company for an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of the amount that the defaulting Member would have received pursuant to Article XIV had the assets of the Company been sold for the appraised fair market value. (iii) The purchase shall close within thirty (30) days after the appraised fair market value is determined. (a) Pursue any remedy at law or in equity against the Defaulting Member; (d) In addition to the rights and remedies set forth in Paragraphs 8.2(a) through 8.2.(c), a defaulting Member shall have no right to vote upon or otherwise participate in management of the Company regardless of whether the remaining Members have commenced exercise of any available remedies. 8.31 Capital Accounts: (a) Establishment and Maintenance: [ A separate Capital Account will be maintained for each Unit Holder f throughout the term of the Company in accordance with the rules of Regulation Section 1.704- 1(b)(2)(ivX Each Unit Holder's Capital Account will be increased by (1) the amount of money contributed by such Unit Holder to the Company; (2)the fair market value of property contributed by such Unit Holder to the Company (net of liabilities secured by such contributed property that the Company is considered to assume or take the property subject to under Code Section 752); (3) allocations to such Unit Holder of Net Profits; (4) any items in the nature of income and gain that are specially allocated to the Unit Holder pursuant to Sections 9.2 and 9.3; and (5) allocations to such Unit Holder of income and gain exempt from federal income tax. Each Unit Holder's Capital Account will be decreased by (1)the amount of money distributed to such Unit Holder by the Company;`(2) the fair market value of property distributed to such Unit Holder by[the Company (net of liabilities secured by such distributed property that such Unit Holder is considered to assume or take the property subject to Code Section 752); (3) allocations to such Unit Holder of expenditures described in Code Section 705(a)(2)(B); (4) any items in the nature of deduction and loss that are specially allocated to the Unit Holder pursuant to Sections 9.2 and 9.3; and (5) allocations to such Unit Holder of Net Losses. In the event of a permitted sale or exchange of a Membership Interest or an Economic Interest in the Company, the Capital Account of the transferor shall become the Capital Account of the transferee to the extent it relates to the transferred Membership Interest or Economic Interest. (b) Compliance with Regulations: The manner in which Capital Accounts are to be maintained pursuant to this Section 8.3 is intended to comply with the requirements of Code Section 704(b) and the Regulations promulgated thereunder. If in the opinion of the Company's legal counsel or accountant the manner in which Capital Accounts are to be maintained pursuant to the 12 II preceding provisions of this Section 8.3 should be modified in order to comply with Code Section 704(b) and the Regulations thereunder, then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the preceding provisions of this Section 8.3, the method in which Capital Accounts are maintained shall be so modified; provided, however, that any change in the manner of maintaining Capital Accounts shall not materially alter the economic agreement between or among the Members. 8.4 j Withdrawal or Reduction of Members' Contributions to Capital: A Member shall not receive out of the Company's property any part of its Capital Contribution until all liabilities of the Company, except liabilities to Members on account of their Capital Contributions, have been paid or there remains property of the Company sufficient to pay them. A member, irrespective of the nature of its Capital Contribution, has only the right to demand and receive cash in return for its Capital Contribution. ARTICLE IX. --ALLOCATIONS OF NET PROFITS AND LOSSES 9.1 I Allocation of Net Profit and Loss -In General: (a) Allocation of Net Profit or Loss: After giving effect to the special allocations set forth in Sections 9.2 and 9.3, the Net Profit or Net Loss for any fiscal year of the Company shall be allocated among the V, Unit Holders in accordance with their respective Percentage Interests. (b) Limitation: The Net Loss allocated to each Member for any Company fiscal year pursuant to Section 9.1(a) shall not exceed the maximum amount of Net Loss that can be so allocated without causing such Member to have a Deficit Capital Account at the end of the fiscal year. All Net Losses in excess of the limitation set forth in this Section 9.1(b) shall be allocated to the other Unit Holders who do not have Deficit Capital Account in proportion to their respective Percentage Interests. 9.2 I Special Allocations: The following special allocations shall be made for any fiscal year of the Company in the following order: (a) Minimum Gain Chargeback: If there is a net decrease in Company Minimum Gain during any Company fiscal year, each Unit Holder shall be specially allocated items of Company income and gain for such year(and, if necessary, subsequent years) in an amount equal to such Unit Holder's share of the net decrease in Company Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704-2(f) and 1.704-2(g)(2). The items to be so allocated, and the manner in which those items lure to be allocated among the Unit Holders, shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704-2(f) and 1.704-2(j)(2). This Section 9.2(a) is intended to satisfy the 13 II minimum gain chargeback requirement in Regulation Section 1.704-2(f) and shall be interpreted and applied accordingly. (b) Member Minimum Gain Chargeback: If there is a net decrease in Member Minimum Gain during any Company fiscal year;, each Unit Holder who has a share of that Member Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-2(i)(5), shall be specially allocated items of Company income and gain for such year (and, if necessary, subsequent years) in an amount equal to such Unit Holder's share of the net decrease in Member Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704-2(i)(4) and 1.704-2(i)(5). The items to be so allocated, and the manner in which those items are to be allocated among the Unit Holders, shall be determined in accordance with Regulation Sections 1.704-2(h)(4) and shall be interpreted and applied accordingly. (c) Qualified Income Offset: In the event that any Unit Holder unexpectedly receives any adjustment, allocations, or distributions described in Regulation Sections 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d)(4), (5) or (6), items of Company income and gain shall be specially allocated to such Unit Holder in an amount and in a manner sufficient to eliminate as quickly as possible, to the extent required by Regulation Section 1.704-(1)(b)(2)(ii)(d), the Deficit Capital Account of the Unit Holder (which Deficit Capital Account shall be determined as if all other allocations provided for in this Article IX have been tentatively made as if this Section 9.2(c)were not in this Agreement). (d) Nonrecourse Deductions: Nonrecourse Deductions shall be allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with their respective Percentage Interests. (e) Member Nonrecourse Deductions: Any Member Nonrecourse Deductions shall be specially allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-2(i). 9.3 Corrective Allocations: (a) Allocations to Achieve Economic Agreement: The allocations set forth in the last sentence of Section 9.1(b) and in Section 9.2 are intended to comply with certain regulatory requirements under Code Section 704(b). The Members intend that, to the extent possible, all allocations made pursuant to such Sections will, over the term of the Company, be offset either with other allocations pursuant to. Section 9.2 or with special allocations of other items of Company income, gain, loss, or deduction pursuant to this Section 9.3(a). Accordingly, the Manager is hereby authorized and directed to 'make offsetting allocations of Company income, gain, loss or deduction under this Section 9.31,(a) in whatever manner the Manager determines is appropriate so that, after such offsetting special allocations are made, the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders are, to the 14 extent possible, equal to the Capital Account each would have if the provisions of Section 9.2 were not contained in this Agreement and all income, gain, loss and deduction of the Company were instead allocated to Section 9.1(a). (b) Waiver of Application of Minimum Gain Chargeback: The Manager shall request from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service a waiver, pursuant to Regulation Section 1.704-2(f)(4), of the minimum gain chargeback requirements of Regulation Section 1.704-2(f) if the application of such minimum gain chargeback requirement would cause a permanent distortion of the economic arrangement of the Partners, as reflected in Section 9.1. 9.4, Other Allocation Rules: (a) General: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all items of Company income, gain, loss, deduction, and any other allocations not otherwise provided for shall be divided among the Unit Holders in the same proportions as they share Net Profits or Net Loses, as the case may be, for the year. (b) Allocation of Recapture Items: In making any allocation among the Unit Holders of income or gain from the sale or, other disposition of a Company asset, the ordinary income portion, if any, of such income and gain resulting from the recapture of cost recovery or other deductions shall be allocated among those Unit Holders who were previously allocated (or whose predecessors-in- interest were previously allocated) the cost recovery deductions or other deductions resulting in the recapture items, in proportion to the amount of such cost recovery deductions or other deductions,previously allocated to them. (c) Allocation of Excess Nonrecourse Liabilities: Solely for purposes of determining a Unit Holder's proportionate share of the "excess nonrecourse liabilities" of the company within the meaning of Regulation Section 1.752-3(a)(3), the Unit Holders' interests in the Company's profits shall be allocated among the Unit Holders in accordance with their Percentage Interest. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is intended that such allocation shall comply with I.R.C. Section 752 and the regulations promulgated thereunder. (d) Allocations in Connection with Varying Interests: If, during a Company fiscal year, there is (i) a permitted transfer of a Membership Interest or Economic Interest under this Agreement during a Company fiscal year or (ii) the admission of a member or additional Members, Net Profit, Net Loss, each item thereof, and all other tax items of the Company for such period shall be divided and allocated among the Unit Holders by taking into account their varying interests during such fiscal year in accordance 15 with Code Section 706(d) and using any conventions permitted by law and selected by the Manager. 9.5 Determination of Net Profit or Loss: (a) Computation of Net Profit or Loss: The Net Profit or Net Loss of the Company, for each fiscal year or other period, shall be an amount equal to the Company's taxable income or loss for such period, determined in accordance with Code Section 703(a) (and, for this purpose, all items of income, gain, loss, or deduction required to be stated separately pursuant to Code Section 703(a)(1), including income and gain exempt from federal income tax, shall be included in taxable income or loss). (b) Adjustments to Net Profit or Loss: For purposes of computing taxable income or loss on the disposition of an item of company property or for purposes of determining the cost recovery, depreciation, or amortization deduction with respect to any property, the Company shall use such property's book value determined in accordance with Regulation Section 1.704-1(b). Consequently, each property's book value shall be equal to its adjusted basis for federal income tax purposes, except as follows: (i) The initial book value of any property contributed by a Member to the company shall be the gross fair market value of such property at the time of contribution; (ii) In the sole discretion of the Manager, the book value of all Company properties may be adjusted.to equal their respective gross fair market values, as determined by the Manager as of the following times: (1) in connection with the acquisition of an interest in the Company by a new or existing Member for more than a de minimis capital contribution, (2) in connection with the liquidation of the Company as defined in Regulation Section 1.704-(1)(b)(2)(ii)(g), or (3) in connection with a more than de minimis distribution to a retiring or a continuing Unit Holder as consideration for all or a portion of his, her or its interest in the Company. In the event of a revaluation of any company assets hereunder, the Capital Accounts 'of the Unit Holders shall be adjusted, including continuing adjustments for depreciation, to the extent provided in Regulation Section.1.704-(1)(b)(2)(iv)(f); (iii) If the book value of an item of Company property has been determined pursuant to this Section 9.5(b), such book value shall thereafter be used, and shall thereafter be adjusted by depreciation or amortization, if any, taken into account with respect to such property, for purposes of computing taxable income or loss. (c) Items Specially Allocated: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 9.5, any items that are specially allocated pursuant to Sections 9.2 or 9.3 shall not be taken into account in computing Net Profit or Net Loss. 16 9.6 Mandatory Tax Allocations Under Code Section 704(c): In accordance with Code Section 704(c) and Regulation Section 1.704-3, income, gain, loss and deduction with respect to any property contributed to the capital of the Company shall, solely for tax purposes, be allocated among the Unit Holders so as to take account of any variation between the adjusted basis of such property to the Company for federal income tax purposes and its initial book value computed in accordance with Section 9.5(b)(i). Prior to the contribution of any property to the Company that has a fair market value that differs from its adjusted tax basis in the hands of the contributing Member on the date of contribution, the contributing Member and the Manager (or, if the contributing Member is the Manager, a Majority Interest of the non-contributing Members) shall agree upon the allocation method to be applied'with respect to that property under Regulation Section 1.704-3, which allocation method. shall be set forth on attached Schedule 2, as amended from time-to-time. If the book value of anyCompany property is adjusted pursuant to Paragraph (ii) of Section 9.5(b), subsequent allocation of income, gain, loss and deduction with respect to such property, shall take account of any variation between the adjusted basis of such property for federal income tax purposes and its book value in the same manner as under Code Section 704(c). The choice of allocation methods under Regulation Section 1.704-3 with respect to such revalued property shall be made as determined by the contributing Member and a Majority Interest of noncontributing Members as to each contribution and reevaluation of the Company's properties at which time said allocation method, which shall be an accepted method pursuant to I.R.C. Regulation Section 1.704-3 or 1.704-3T, shall be described in an attachment part of the Company's records. Allocations pursuant to this Section 9.6 are solely for purposes of federal, state, and local taxes and shall not affect, or in any way be taken into account in computing, any Unit Holder's Capital Account or share of Net Profit, Net Loss, or other items as computed for book purposes,',or distributions pursuant to any provision of this Agreement. ARTICLE X. --DISTRIBUTIONS 10.1 Cash Distributions: (a) Nonliquidating Distributions: Distributions of Distributable Cash, other than distributions in liquidation pursuant to Section 10.1(b), shall be made to the Unit Holders annually in the following order of priority: (i) In payment of any obligation or indebtedness due ue and payable to a (ii) In payment to share the allocation of profits in the manner as provided herein in the aggregate amount as determined by the Majority Interest; 17 (iii) In payment of any unmatured obligation or indebtedness due to any Member; and (iv) In return of a Member's capital account. (b) Distribution in Liquidation: Notwithstanding Section 10.1(a), distributions in liquidation of the Company,shall be made to each Unit Holder in the manner set forth in Section 14.3(c). 1012 Distributions in Kind: Non-cash assets, if any, shall be distributed'in a manner that reflects how cash proceeds from the sale of such assets for fair market value would have been distributed (after any unrealized;gain or loss attributable to such non-cash assets has been allocated among the Unit Holders in1 accordance with Article IX). 10.3 Withholding: Amounts Withheld Treated as Distributions: The Manager is authorized to withhold from distributions, or with respect to allocation or payments, to Unit Holders and to pay over to the appropriate federal, state or local governmental authority any amounts required to be withheld pursuant to the Code or provisions of applicable state or local law. All amounts withheld pursuant to the preceding sentence in ( connection with any payment, distribution or allocation to any Unit Holder shall be treated as amounts distributed to such Unit Holder pursuant to this Article X for all purposes of this Agreement. 10.4 Limitation Upon Distributions: I No distribution shall be declared and paid unless, after the distribution is made, the assets of the Company are in excess of all liabilities of the Company, except liabilities to Members on account of their contributions. ARTICLE XI. --ACCOUNTING, BOOKS AND RECORDS 11.1 Accounting Principles: The Company's books and records shall be kept, .and its income tax returns prepared, under such permissible method of accounting, consistently applied, as the Manager determines Ito be in the best interest of the Company and its Members. 11.2 Interest On and Return of Capital Contributions: r No Member shall be entitled to interest on its Capital Contribution or to return of its Capital Contribution, except as otherwise specifically provided for herein. 18 11.3 Loans to Company: Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent any Member from making secured or unsecured loans to the Company. 11.4 Accounting Period: The Company's accounting period shall be the calendar year. 11.5 Records, Audits and Reports: At the expense of the Company, the Manager shall maintain records and accounts of all operations and expenditures of the Company. At a minimum, the Company shall keep at its principal place of business the following records: (a) A current list and pasts list, setting forth the full name and last known mailing address of each Member, Economic Interest Owner and Manager; (b) A copy of the Certificate of Formation and all amendments thereto; (c) Copies of this Agreement and all amendments hereto; (d) Copies of the Company's federal, state and local tax returns and reports, if any, for the three most recent years; (e) Minutes of every meeting of the members and any written consents obtained from Members for actions taken by Members without a meeting; and (f) Copies of the Company's financial statements for the three most recent years. 11.6 Tax Matters Partner: (a) Designation: The Manager, or if the Manager is ineligible to serve then the Member with the largest interest in Company profits, shall be the "tax matters partner" of the Company for purposes of Code Section 6221 et seq. and corresponding provisions of any state or local tax law. (b) Expenses of Tax Matters Partner; Indemnification: The Company shall indemnify and reimburse the tax matters partner for all reasonable expenses, including legal and accounting fees, claims, liabilities, losses and damages incurred in connection with any administrative or judicial proceeding with respect to the tax liability of the Unit Holders attributable to the Company. The payment of all such expenses shall be made before any distributions are made to Unit Holders (and such expenses shall be taken into consideration for purposes of determining Distributable Cash) or any discretionary Reserves are 19 set aside by the manager. Neither the tax matters partner nor any Member shall have any obligation to provide funds for such purpose. The provisions for exculpation and indemnification of the manager set forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement shall be fully applicable to the Member acting as tax matters person for the Company. 11.7 Returns and Other Elections: - The Manager shall cause the preparation and timely filing of all tax and information returns required to be filed by the Company pursuant to the Code and all other tax and information returns deemed necessary and required in each jurisdiction in which the Company does business. Copies of such returns, or pertinent information therefrom, shall be furnished to the Unit Holders within a reasonable time after the end of the Company's fiscal year. Except as otherwise expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, all elections permitted to be made by the Company under federal or state laws shall be made by the Manager in his or its sole discretion. ARTICLE XII. --TRANSFERABILITY 12.1 General: Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, neither a Member nor an Economic Interest Owner shall have the right to: (a) sell, assign, transfer, exchange or otherwise transfer for consideration (collectively "sell" or "sale"); provided, transfer by Member consisting of an individual or husband and wife can be made to a revocable living trust created by the Member to a limited liability company or limited partnership where the equity is owned by the Members or the Members;in conjunction with their children or a corporation which is owned by the Members or the Members in conjunction with their children ("Inner Family Transfers"). As a further condition to an Inner Family Transfer, the entity whether it's a trust, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership or corporation 'shall designate in writing the individual who shall vote the membership units in the Company. (b) gift, bequeath or otherwise transfer for no consideration whether or not by operation of law, except in the case of bankruptcy(collectively"gift"), all or any part of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest. Each Member and Economic Interest Owner hereby acknowledges the reasonableness of the restrictions on sale and gift of Membership Interests and Economic Interests imposed by this Agreement in view of the Company's purposes and the relationship of the Members and Economic Interest Owners. Accordingly, the restrictions on sale and gift contained herein shall be specifically enforceable. In the event that any Unit Holder pledges or otherwise encumbers any of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest as security for repayment of a liability, any such pledge or hypothecation shall be made pursuant to a pledge or hypothecation-agreement that requires the pledgee or secured party to be bound by all the terms and conditions of this Article XII. 20 i 12.2 First Refusal Rights: I (a) A Unit Holder desiring to sell all or any portion of its Membership Interest or Economic Interest to a third party purchaser shall obtain from such third party purchaser a bona fide written offer to purchase such interest, stating the term and conditions upon which the purchase is to be made, and the consideration offered therefor. Such Unit Holder shall give written notice to the other Unit Holders and the Manager of its intention to so transfer such interest. Such notice shall set forth the complete terms of the written offer to purchase and the name and address of the proposed third party purchaser. (b) The other Unit Holders shall, on a basis pro rata to their Units or on a basis pro rata to!the Units of those remaining Unit Holders exercising their first refusal rights, have the first right to purchase all (but no less than all) of the interests proposed to be sold by the selling Unit holder upon the same terms and conditions stated in the notice given pursuant to Section 12.2(a) by!giving written notice to the other Unit Holders and the Manager within ten (10) days after such notice from the selling Unit Holder. The failure of a Unit Holder to so notify the other Unit Holders and the Manager of its desire to exercise its first refusal rights within said ten (10) day period'as required by this Section 12.2(b) shall result in the termination of such Unit Holder's first refusal rights. Within ten (10) days after expiration of the ten (10) day period specified in the preceding paragraph, the Manager shall notify those Unit Holders electing to exercise their first refusal rights of any Units that the other Unit Holders did not elect to purchase. Those Unit Holders exercising first refusal rights in accordance with the preceding paragraph shall then notify the Manager and the other purchasing Unit Holders whether they elect to purchase such remaining Units, which shall be pro rata or allocated in such other manner as the purchasing Unit Holders shall agree. If no such notification is received by the Manager from any such Unit Holders in,accordance with this paragraph, no Unit Holder shall have any further first refusal rights with respect to such Units. If Unit Holders have elected to purchase all of the Units offered by the selling Unit Holder, the selling Unit Holder shall sell such Units upon the same terms and conditions specified in the notice required by Section 12.2(a), and the purchasing Unit Holders shall have the right to close the purchase within thirty (30) days after receipt of notification from the Manager that such Unit Holders have elected to purchase the selling Unit Holder's Units. If Unit Holders do not elect to purchase all of the Units offered by the selling Unit Holder in accordance with this Section 12.2, then the selling Unit Holder shall be entitled to sell such Units to the third party purchaser in accordance with the terms and conditions upon which the purchase is to be made as specified in the notice under Section 12.2(a). However, if such sale is not completed within thirty (30),days following expiration of the other Unit Holders' first refusal rights under this Section 12.2, then the selling Unit Holder shall not be entitled to complete the sale to such third party purchaser and the selling Unit Holder's Units shall continue to be subject to the rights of first refusal set forth in this Section 12.2 with respect to any proposed subsequent transfer. (c) Upon the purchase or the gift of a Membership Interest or an Economic Interest, and as a condition to recognizing the effectiveness and binding nature of any sale or gift 21 and (subject to Section 12.3 below) substitution of a Person as a new Unit Holder, the manager may require the transferring Unit Holder and the proposed purchaser, donee or successor-in- interest, as the case may be to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Manager such instruments of transfer, assignment and assumption and such other agreements and to perform all such other. acts that the Manager may deem necessary or desirable to: (i) constitute such Person as a Unit Holder; (ii) confirm that the Person desiring to become a Unit Holder has accepted, assumed and agreed to be subject and bound by all of the terms, obligations and conditions of this Agreement (whether such Person is to be admitted as a new Member or will merely be Economic Interest Owner); (iii) maintain the status of the Company as a partnership for federal tax purposes; and (iv) assure compliance with any applicable state and federal laws, including securities laws and regulations. (d) Any sale, gift or bequest of a Membership Interest or Economic Interest or admission of a Member in compliance with this Article XII shall be deemed effective as of the last day of the calendar month in which the remaining Members' consent thereto was given or, if no such consent was required pursuant to Section 12.3, then on such date that the transferor and the transferee both comply with Section 12.2(c). The transferring Unit Holder hereby indemnifiels the Company and the Manager against any and all loss, damage or expense (including) without limitation, tax liabilities or loss of tax benefits) arising directly or indirectly as a result of any transfer or purported transfer in violation of this Article XII. (e) Subject to Section 12.3, a Unit Holder may gift or bequest all or any portion of its Membership Interest and Economic Interest (without regard to Sections 12.2(a) and 12.2(b), provided, that the donee complies with Section 12.2(c) and further provided that the donee is either such Unit Holder's spouse, former spouse, or lineal descendant (including adopted children). In the event of the gift or bequest of all or any portion of a Unit Holder's Membership Interest or Economic Interest to one or more donees who are under twenty one (21) years of age, one or more trusts shall be established to hold the gifted or inherited interest(s) for the benefit of such donee(s) until all of the donee(s) reach the age of at least twenty one(21)years. 12.3 Transferee Not Member in Absence of Consent: (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Article XII, if the sale, gift or bequest of a Member's Membership Interest or Economic Interest to a transferee or donee which is net a Member immediately prior to the sale, gift or bequest is not approved in writing by all of the other Members, in their sole discretion, then the proposed transferee or donee shall have no right to participate in the management of the business and affairs of the Company or to become a Member. Such transferee or donee shall be merely an Economic Interest Owner. 22 (b) Promptly following any sale, gift or bequest of a Member's Economic Interest which does not at the same time transfer the balance of the rights associated with such Person's Membership Interest, the Company shall purchase from such Person, and such Person shall sell ito the Company for a purchase price of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), all such remaining;rights and interests retained by such Person which immediately prior to such sale, gift or bequest were associated with the transferred Economic Interest. The acquisition by the Company of such Person's rights shall not cause a dissolution of the Company and such Person shall no longer be a Member but shall merely be a holder of an Economic Interest. ARTICLE XIII. --ADDITIONAL MEMBERS Additional persons may become Members only upon the approval by and upon such terms, covenants and conditions as shall be acceptable to the'Holders of a Majority Interest. Such accepted persons shall then become Members only upon compliance with and satisfaction of such terms, covenants and condition precedents as shall be imposed by such consenting Members. ARTICLE XIV. --DISSOLUTION AND TERMINATION 14111 Dissolution: I - The Company shall be dissolved upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 11 (a) upon expiration of the terms specified in Section 2.5; (b) by the written agreement of all Members; or (c) a Person ceases to be a Member upon the occurrence of any of the events specified in Section 304 of the Act, unless the business of the Company is continual with the consent of all of the remaining Members within ninety (90) days following the occurrence of such event. 1412 Allocation of Net Profit and Loss in Liquidation: 1 The allocation of Net Profit, Net Loss and other items of the Company following the date of dissolution, including but not limited to gain or loss upon the sale of all or substantially all of the Company's assets, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Articles IX and X and shall be credited or charged to the Capital Accounts of the Unit Holders in the same manner as Net Profit, Net Loss and other items of the Company would have been credited or charged if there were no dissolution and liquidation. 14 3 Winding Up, Liquidation and Distribution of Assets: Upon dissolution, the Manager shall immediately proceed to wind up•the affairs of the Company, unless the business of the company is continued as provided in Section 14.1(c). 1 23 I ' The Manager shall sell or otherwise liquidate all of the Company's assets as promptly as practicable (except to the extent the Manager may determine to distribute any assets to the Unit Holders in kind) and shall apply the proceeds of such sale and the remaining Company assets in the following order of priority: (a) Payment of creditors, including Members and Managers who are creditors, to the extent otherwise permitted by law, in satisfaction of liabilities of the Company, other than liabilities for distribution to Members; (b) To establish any reserves that the Manager deems reasonably necessary for contingent or unforeseen obligations of the Company and, at the expiration of such period as the Manager shall-. deem advisable, the balance then remaining in the manner provided in Paragraph(c)below; (c) By the end of the taxable year in which the liquidation occurs (or, if later, within ninety (90) days after the date of such liquidation), to the Unit Holders in proportion to the positiye balances of their respective Capital Accounts, as determined after taking into account all Capital Account adjustments for the taxable year during which the liquidation occurs (other than those made pursuant to this Section 14.3(c)). 14.4 No Obligation to Restore Negative Capital Account Balance on Liquidation: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, upon a liquidation within the meaning of Regulation Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(g), if any Unit Holder has a negative Capital Account balance (after giving effect to all contributions, distributions, allocations and other Capital Account adjustments for all taxable years, including the year during which such liquidation occurs), such Unit Holder shall have,no obligation to make any Capital Contribution to the Company, and the negative balance of such Unit Holder's Capital Account shall not be considered a debt owed by such Unit Holder to the company or to any other Person for any purpose whatsoever. 14.5 Termination: The Manager shall comply with any applicable requirements of applicable law pertaining to the winding up of the affairs of the Company and the final distribution of its assets. Upon completion of the winding up, liquidation and distribution of the assets, the Company shall be deemed terminated. 141.6 Certificate of Cancellation: • When all debts, liabilities and obligations have been paid and discharged or adequate provisions have been made therefor and all of the remaining property and assets have been distributed to the Unit Holders, the Manager shall file a certificate of cancellation as required by Section 203 of the Act. Upon filing the certificate of cancellation, the existence of the Company shall cease, except as otherwise provided in the Act. 24 14. Return of Contribution Nonrecourse to Other Members: Except as provided by law or as expressly provided in this Agreement, upon dissolution each Unit Holder shall look solely to the assets of the Company for the return of its Capital Contribution. If the property remaining after the payment or discharge of liabilities of the Company is insufficient to return the contributions of Members, no Unit Holder shall have recourse against any other Unit Holder. ARTICLE XV. --INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES OF MANAGERS AND MEMBERS Any Manager and Member may engage in or possess an interest in other business ventures of every'nature and description, independently or with others including, but not limited to, the ownership, financing, management, employment by, lending to or otherwise participating in businesses which are similar to the business.of the Company, and neither the Company nor any of the Managers or Unit Holders shall have any right by virtue of this Agreement in and to such independent ventures or to the income or profits therefrom. ARTICLE XVI. --MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 16.1 Notices: Any notice, demand or communication required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally to the party to whom directed or; if mailed by registered or certified mail,postage and charges prepaid, addressed (a) if to a Member, to the Member's address specified in Section 1, (b) if to the Company, to the address specified in Section 2.3, and(c) if to the Manager, to the address specified in Section 2.3. Except as otherwise provided herein, any such notice shall be deemed to be given when personally'delivered or, if mailed, three (3) business days after the date of mailing. A Member, the Company or the Manager may change its address for the purposes of notices hereunder by giving notice to the others specifying such changed address in the manner specified in this Section 16 1. . 16.2 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the'State of Washington. 16.3 Amendments: This Agreement may not be amended except by the unanimous written agreement of all of the Members and the Manager. i 16.4 Construction: Whenever the singular number is used in this Agreement and when required by the context, the same shall include the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders and vice versa. 25 16.5 Headings: . The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the interpretations of this Agreement. 16.6 Waivers: The failure of any Person to seek redress for violation of or to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant or condition of this Agreement shall not prevent a subsequent act, which would have originally constituted a violation, from having the effect of an original violation. 46.7 Rights and Remedies Cumulative: The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative and the use of any one right or remedy shall not preclude or waive the right to use any or all other remedies. Said right and remedies are given in addition to any other rights the parties may have by law, statute, ordinance or otherwise. 16.8 Severability: If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any Person or circumstance shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Agreement and the application thereof shall not be affected and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 16.9 Heirs, Successors and Assigns: Each of the covenants, terms, provisions and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and, to the extent permitted by this Agreement, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 16.10 Creditors: None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be for the benefit of or enforceable by any creditors of the Company. 16!11 Counterparts: J This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 16 i12 Investment Representations: The Units have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, the • Securities Act of Washington or any other state securities laws (collectively, the "Securities Acts") because the Company is issuing the Units in reliance upon the exemptions from the 26 • registration requirements of the Securities Acts, and the Company is relying upon the fact that the Units are to be held by each Unit Holder for investment. Accordingly, each Unit Holder hereby confirms the Units have been acquired for such Unit Holder's own account, for investment and not with a view to the resale or distribution thereof and may not be offered or sold to anyone unless there is an effective registration or other qualification relating thereto under all applicable Securities Acts or unless such Unit Holder delivers to the Company an opinion of counsel, satisfactory to the Company, that such registration or other qualification is not required. The Unit Holders understand that the Company is under no obligation to register the Units or to assist any Unit Holder in complying with any exemption from registration under the Securities Acts. EXECUTED by the undersigned Members effective as of the date first above-written. K. HU ES DAVID C. HUGHES r , 27 SCHEDULE 1 Member Information Names and Initial Addresses of Capital Percentage Members Contributions Units Interest • Bradley K. Hughes $ o- 990 99% P. O. Box 3344 Kirkland, Washington 98083 Davifie, C.�X Hughes G $ �G��� 10 1 MMex -Y '3P/