Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibitsRESIDENTIAL ~ (RC) Resource Conservation ~ {R-1) Residentlal 1 du/ac [B {R-4) Residentlal 4 du/ac ~ {R-8) Residentlal 8 du/ac ~ {RMH) Resldentlal Manufactured Homes ~ (R-10) Residential 10 du/ac ~ (R-14) Residential 14 du/ac I RM·rl (RM-F) Residential Multl-Famlly IRM-T I {RM-n Residentlat Multl·FamllvTradltlonal jRM-u j (RM·U) Residentlat Multl-Family Urban Center MIXED USE CENTERS E:J (CV) Center Village luc-ml (UC·Nl) Urban Center-North 1 ~ (UC-N2) Urban Center-North 2 ~ (CD) Center Downtown COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL W (IL) Industrial -Light ~ (IM) Industrial -Medium [JQ (IH} Industrial-Heavy --Renton City Llmih ~ {COR) commercial/Offlce/Resldentlal ----Adj11.cent City Limits ~ (CA) Commercial Arterial ~ (CO) Commerclal Office KROL! PAGE [fil (CN) Commercial Neighborhood PAGE# INDEX S!CT/TOW'N/UNGE CA • CA. 1 J i I I I I -_ _J ~1'181·-, w R-8 1 RM-F ! ,- ZONING MAP BOOK PW TECHNICAi. SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 --·-•••II'••'"''"""'""'''"'""' '""''""°""''"'-"''"'"···""·""'"'" .,,...,,,nro,o,.,,,,,....,~ ...... ,,,,...,,,.._. fm'NP""'""'°O<lf1nc,iv-,,'"'"''''"'"'• i • l j C6-34 T24N R5E E 1/2 -----j ' R-1 · ·····-·· I 1 R-4 I• I I R,B E6 -10 T23N R5E E 1/2 EXHIBIT 1 _j ·-+ .. Ji T ··1,' -+ ----· 'J . ---_; ------,!, .I ' I --·- 11:11:w.11 . I • Ii I D6 03 T23N R5E E 1/2 5303 ... .:, ~ 937 .7 0 City of Renton, Washingto n Horne Rezone -Classified Streams 468.83 937.7F EXHIBIT 2 om an Internet mappino site and r on thi s map may or may not be l e, amen!, or otherwise reliable . .) BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Lakes and Rivers Streams (Classified) Undassl1ied 1 2 3 4 Parcels Street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdictions Belevue DesMoo'>d .. luaquah Kent C l<lngCoiny Men:er Island Newcastle RENTON SeaTac Se- Tukwla Aerial (March 2010) • Red: Band_1 • Green: Band_2 • Blue: Band_3 1: 5,626 @8.5" X 11 " Notes Enter Map Description 0 I . Rocale Timmons From: Messina, Madonna [madonna@consultcascade.com] Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:02 AM Sent: To: Rocale Timmons Subject: No Horne Resone Dear Ms. Timmons, Our family owns lot 45 in the Stonegate development and would be greatly affected by the development plan named the Horne Rezone. Please consider the expressions of concern on behalf of our neighborhood that you have received as well as ours which echo the others in our community. Namely, We are opposed to higher density housing in this area, which we believe is inconsistent with the "Rural" nature of .this area. • We are opposed to increased traffic on Lyons Avenue that would result from this development. • We are opposed to smaller lot development that abuts our frontage which is inconsistent with the overall design standards of our neighborhood. • We are opposed to any additional access points to the neighborhood which could propose a threat to overall security. • We are opposed to any negative environmental impacts relating to development occurring adjacent to sensitive areas. • We are opposed to the City of Renton's "strong encouragement" of site design that uses alleys for access in R-4 zones. Thank you for considering our request, M.M. Madonna Messina Cascade Business Group, LLC Phone: 425-785-1354 Fax: 425-228-2260 Email: Madonna@consultcascade.com Web: www.consultcascade.com Your Partner for Business Improvement Strategies and Implementation **************************************************************1rl<********"************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed in the message body. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete it from your files immediately. EXHIBIT 3-A 1 Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ms. Timmons, sbslaton@comcast.net Friday, July 15, 2011 5:36 PM Rocale Timmons MacKay annexation My family and I live in Stonegate which is adjacent to the Mackay annexation. The building of new developments is always hard on those currently living in the area. I'm sure it was difficult for those living around Stonegate when our neighborhood was built. Now it's our neighborhood's turn to be concerned. That said, I am trying to balance the reality of inevitable development versus our personal desire to keep things as they are. When I balance the two, our main concern is regarding the density of the proposed development. Currently, the houses in the area of Stonegate and along 148'" are on larger lots. The proposed development is· inconsistent with the look and feel of Stonegate and the houses along 148'" which are rural in nature. Additionally, the proposed development would create higher density abutting and within the entrance to our neighborhood creating an overall inconsistent design and standard for our neighborhood. We are a neighborhood that has prided itself on a community feel and have appreciated the recent grants from the City of Renton to build a community park with our own labor. Finally, we are concerned about additional access points into our neighborhood which could result in increased crime.· Currently, our neighborhood has one point of entry and exit. Additional entry points will increase traffic and potential crime. I hope the City of Renton will consider the concerns of existing families when considering the desires of developers to maximize their profit. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan and Dan Slaton EXHIBIT 3-B l Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: urban separator [urbanseparator@hotmail.com] Thursday, July 21, 2011 11 :45 AM Rocale Timmons rezone May Creek Basin Action Plan (adopted April 2001) of which Qty of Renton was a co-participant and subsequently ratified by city council states: "Require Full Mitigation for Future Increases in Zoning Density in Areas Draining to May Valley" in East Renton Plateau and Highlands subareas. (Summary of Recommendations number 1.7 page 3-2, May Creek Action Plan 2001) Figure 3-1 shows the subject property in the East Renton Plateau subarea. "In areas draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream ... , existing zoning densities (including adoptec pre- zoning for unicorporatec areas to be annexec) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrological analysis demonstrates that stonnwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre-developed conditions." • (pages 3-27 & 3-28, May Creek Action Plan 2001) EXHIBIT 3-C CITY OF RENTON !J'.DS"f• 10415-1471h Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 August 1, 2011 AUG O I 2011 c.Jft1 RECEIVED Ms. Rocale Timmons Planning Dept. City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Horner Rezone -LUA 11-023 Dear Ms. Timmons: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Please accept this letter and documents as my comments regarding the Horner Rezone. Two comments that I have previously mentioned to you -about notifying residents of this proposed rezone and posting signs notifying the public of this possible rezone are included in this letter. Maybe the Hearing Examiner cares about following state law. As I told you, a family living across from this proposed rezone was not notified by Renton officials of this rezone proposal. The address of this property is 10032-148" Avenue SE. I looked at your list of people who received notice -this family is not listed. I provided notice to them on July 22. Does this make a difference? DOE was notified that Renton didn't follow state law. The second item involves posting notices in appropriate places. You stated that Renton follows SEPA rules when it comes to posting notices. This is what I found under WAC 197-11-510 regarding posting notices (the SEPA Help Desk said this): (2) Each agency shall specify its method of public notice in its SEPA procedures, WAC 197-11-904 and 197-11-906. If an agency does not specify its method of public notice or does not adopt SEPA procedures, the agency shall use methods (a) and (b) in subsection (I). Public notice. (I) When these rules require notice to be given under this section, the lea,d agency must use reasonable methods to inform the public and other agencies that an environmental document is being prepared or is available and that public hearing(s), if any, will be held. The agency may use its existing notice procedures. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property.for site-specific proposals; EXHIBIT 3-D (pg 1 of 40) Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Rocale, Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us) Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:15 PM Rocale Timmons Horne rezone, LUA11-023, ECF, R, Determination of Non-Significance The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination and environmental checklist for the above referenced project. We have some questions about the project as noted below: 1. Will it be possible to rezone the property with the proposed R-4 zoning and 12 parcels without affecting the existing wetlands (noted in DNS) and streams (noted in checklist) and their buffers? If not, then the project should be modified so that the affected wetlands and stream and their buffers are fully protected per Renton's critical areas regulations. 2. The checklist references a stream 12' to 25'west of the site; however, there is no reference to the wetlands in the checklist referenced in the DNS. Please clarify. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses. We may have additional comlT)ents subsequently. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muck/eshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172"" Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 EXHIBIT 3-E 1 Rocale Timmons Associate Planner City of Renton RE: Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons, I am opposed to the proposed change in zoning from R-1 to R-4 in the Home Rezone for the following reasons. From the 2001 May Creek Basin Action Plan . http:/ /vour. kingcou nty. gov/dnrg/library/200 l /kcr7? 6/FINA L-Ma v-Creek-Basin-Plan-4- 16-0 l gdf; • "Much of the. erosion and sediment transport in May Creek is a result of development in the basin. The May Creek basin continues to provide high quality tributary habitat to the Lake Washington watershed; however, use of May Creek by salmon and other wildlife is declining due to habitat loss, erosion, sedimentation, and deteriorating water quality. As more development occurs · throughout the basin, many of these problems are anticipated to worsen". Page I- I. • The density of upland deveiopment is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be. increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed". Page 1-6, . emphasis added. • "Collectively, impacts associated with human activities have reduced the habitat value oflocal stream.s, which has reduced the capacity of the May Creek system to support migratory and resident salmonids. These impacts also increase the risks to the quality of underground drinking water supplies,· critical to residents of the basin and the City of Renton." Page 2-7. Puget Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). • "Runoff from future development is expected to cause an increase in flood volumes in the valley, resulting in longer durations of floodwater inundation and greater frequency of flooding". Page 2-8. • "Although the Basin Action Plan accepts existing zoning (including adopted pre- zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) in the areas draining to May Creek upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge as a legitimate response to the variety of concerns affecting land use decisions, it recommends that densities in these areas be increased only if a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that hydrologic impacts can be fully mitigated. This would include mitigating aii flow- related impacts from development with regard to the entire range of peak flows, flow durations, storm water volumes and impacts on groundwater recharge." Page'3-30. To my knowledge this has not been done. EXHIBIT 3-F (pg 1 of 6) HCMP Hillis Clark Mortin& Peterson P.S. August 5, 2011 Via E-mail (rtimmons@rentonwa.gov) and U.S. Mail Current Plllnning Division Department of Community & Economic Devdopment City of Renton I 055 S. Grndy Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 . Re: P,vpoied Hom, R,zy11e, C.i!Y Pf'o/"1 No. LUA 11-02J, ECF, R Ladies and Gentlemen: Our finn repcesents the Stonegnte Homeowners Association ("the Associat:ionn)1 wbose members reside in the immediate vicinii:y ofd1e 12 pru:cels (totaling 420 acres) seeking zoning reclassification from R-1 to R-4 under the above-referenced. project number. The Home rezone proposal is scheduled for consideration before the City Hearing Examiner on August 16th. The Association opposes the proposed Horne rezone and urges the City stiff to recommend derjal of the application. The proposed application utterly fails to satisfy the rezone criteria set forth in RMC. § 4-9-180(F)(2). 1. Applicable Rezone Standards. TI1c properties included in the Horne rezone request are all designated Rl,D (Residential Low Density) on the City's adopted Comprehensive Phm Map. Both the R-1 and R-4 zones are intended to implement the RLD designation. RMC §§ 4-2..020(C) and (D). The Horne rezone proposal therefore does not require a comprehensiye plan amendment. Accordingly, the yardstick for evaluating the Home rezone proposal is set forth in RMC § 4-9-!80(F)(2), as follows (emphasis supplied): 2. Criteria for Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Ameodmeot: The Reviewing Official shall tnake the following findings: a. The rrzym ii br tbt p11blk ifltcrr.1/, and b. The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any subsrantial property rights of the petitioner, and c. Tb, r,z.011, ;, 1101 wat,riolly delrimmlal lo !he p,,b/it we/far, ofthe propertier of other persrm, /oiot,d i11 //,e vir:i11i!J tbmof. and 1221· Second Avenue, Suite 500 I Seattle, WA 98101 [ 206.623.1745 I t. 206.623.nss I hemp.com I TiT f!{!.~.~}.I~.~ EXHIBIT 3-G (pg 1 of 6) Rocale Timmons From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms. Timmons, Debra Rogers [herogers@comcast.net] Friday, August 05, 20113:16 PM Rocale Timmons Re PROPOSED LAND USE ACTION ADJACENT TO STONEGATE mackay annexation.pd!; ORD 4667.pdf Please see my thoughts below regarding the Home Rezone request. I hope to get a paper copy of the below and the documents mentioned () to you as well today before or by 5pm. Sincerely, Debra Rogers 425-271-8668 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 5, 2011 To Whom it nay Concern, I am writing regarding the land use application that has been tiled at the City of Renton, File Number LUAll- 023, ECF, R where the applicant has requested the City of Renton to increase denisity zoning from the current RI designation to R4 for this area I am Debra Rogers and I live at 5326 NE 22nd Court, Renton WA 98059 in the neighborhood of Stonegate which borders the western side of the above mentioned area. I would like to support the position of the Stonegate Homeowners Association Board which has stated opposition to the rezone based on the following: They are opposed ..... -to higher density housing in this area, which we believe is inconsistent with the "rural" nature ofthis area. -to increased traffic on Lyons Avenue that would result from this development. -to any additional access points to the neighborhoo_d which could propose a threat to overall security. -to any negative environmental impacts relating to development occurring adjacent to sensitive areas. -to the City ofRenton's "strong encouragement" of site design that uses alleys for access in R-4 zones. In addition to the above, I would like to mention that these properties are in the "May Creek Basin Area" which has specific protections and that the recommendations from the city of Renton state regarding that plan that the area east of Coal Creek not be rezoned to a higher density due to the negative environmental impacts that would cause. As well, the City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works memorandum dated October 4th, 1996 for the May Valley R Prezone -Phase 1 (copy enclosed) specifically points ciut Greens Creek which runs along the western side of this proposed rezone area as a creek very sensitive to additional impacts that would result from higher than Rl density and therefore advised against future up zones for this area In June 1997 the City of Renton Ordinance 4667 (copy enclosed) established the zoning classification of these same properites that were being annexed to the City of Renton to Residential 1 DU/AC (R-1). (May Valley Prezone-Phase I; File No. A-96-004). EXHIBIT 3-H (pg 1 of 19) r . " ,,1,. ' !.I 'I·• Final Adopted MAY CREEK BASIN ACTION PLAN April 2001 ® KING COUNTY EXHIBIT 4 Final Adopted MAY CREEK BASIN ACTION PLAN April 2001 ~ KING COUNTY EXHIBIT 4 Acknowledgments John Aftholter, a May Creek Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) member and long-time May Valley resident and citizen activist, passed away during preparation of this plan. The participants in the development of this plan would like to acknowledge Mr. Affholter's commitment to the Valley and local residents, as embodied by the spirit and cooperation of all the CAC members. The development of the May Creek Basin Action Plan benefited greatly from the contributions of the CAC members. These dedicated volunteers participated throughout the planning process and provided guidance and direction on many of the plan's recommendations. The authors of the May Creek Basin Action Plan also would like to acknowledge the contributions of Rick Rutz, who managed this project through the completion of the Current and Future Conditions Reporl and the early stages of the solutions analysis. Rick's hard work was instrumental in developing a comprehensive set of priorities for actions intended to improve surface-water conditions in the May Creek basin. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................................... iii I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1-l 1.1 Overall Plan Goals ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Basin Overview .................................................................................................... 1-l 1.3 Compliance with Federal Resource Protection Laws .......................................... 1-1 1.4 The Plan ............................................................................................................... 1-2 2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 About This Plan ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Funding Sources Available For Implementation ................................................. 2-2 2.3 The May Creek Basin ........................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Conditions Within The Basin .............................................................................. 2-7 2.5 Potential Solutions ............................................................................................. 2-10 2.6 Agencies With Roles In May Creek Basin Resource Management.. ................. 2-11 3. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Summary Of Primary Recommendations ............................................................ 3-1 3.2 Detailed Primary Recommendations ................................................................... 3-5 3.2.l Basinwide Recommendations .................................................................. 3-5 3.2.2 May Valley Subarea ............................................................................... 3-15 3.2.3 Lower Basin Subarea ............................................................................. 3-21 3.2.4 East Renton Plateau and Highlands Subareas ........................................ 3-27 3.2.5 May Valley and Highlands Subareas ..................................................... 3-28 3.3 Secondary Recommendations ............................................................................ 3-31 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS ..................................................... 4-1 4.1 Near-Term Improvements .................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Long-Term Improvements ................................................................................... 4-3 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... R-1 May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Page Figure 1-1: Figure 2-1: Figure 3-1: Figure 3-2: Figure 3-3: Figure 3-4: Figure 3-5:· Figure E-1: Figure E-2: Figure E-3: Figure E-4: Table 3-1: Table 3-2: Table 3-3: Table D-1: TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures Basin Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 1-3 Water Features/Subareas Map ............................................................................. 2-5 Primary Recommendation Projects Location Map .............................................. 3-3 Subcatchment Boundaries Map ........................................................................... 3-9 Retention/Detention Standards Map .................................................................. 3-11 Zoning Map ........................................................................................................ 3-29 Secondary Recommendation Projects Location Map ........................................ 3-37 Lower Basin Conditions May Valley Conditions East Renton Plateau Conditions Highlands Conditions List of Tables Recommended RID Standards for New Development ........................................ 3-8 Projected Monitoring Program Activities .......................................................... 3-15 Secondary Recommendation Projects ................................................................ 3-32 Ranking the Secondary Recommendations APPENDICES Appendix A: Alternative Solutions Considered for May Valley Flooding Appendix B: Sensitive Areas Regulations Appendix C: Public Participation Appendix D: Ranking the Secondary Recommendations Appendix E: Basin Conditions -Significant Resource Areas Appendix F: Lake Boren Monitoring Data -1996 & 1997 Reports Appendix G: Recommended Actions Undertaken During Plan Development Appendix H: Dredging May Creek: Technical Summary of Alternatives Analysis May Creek Basin Action Plan ii 4/23/0 I List of Participants King County Executive Ron Sims Metropolitan King County Council Maggi Fimia, District I Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Louise Miller, District 3 Larry Phillips, District 4 Dwight Pelz, District 5 Rob McKenna, District 6 Pete von Reichbauer, District 7 Greg Nickels, District 8 Kent Pullen, District 9 Larry Gossett, District I 0 Jane Hague, District 11 David Irons, District 12 Christopher Vance, District 13 Department of Natural Resources Pam Bissonnette, Director Water and Land Resources Division Nancy Hansen, Division Manager Debbie Arima, Assistant Division Manager Contributing Staff (King County) Clint Loper, Project Manager John Lombard, Lake Washington/Cedar River Watershed Coordinator David St. John, Program Analyst Brent Lackey, Lake Washington/Sammamish River Basin Steward Glenn Evans. Manager, Surface Water Engineering & Ecological Services Unit Jeff Burkey, Hydrologist Wendy Gable, Communications Specialist Mary Harenda, Senior Ecologist Susan Kaufman, Senior Water Quality Engineer Laurel Preston, Communications Specialist Katy Vanderpool, Program Analyst Don Wood, Senior Engineer Gino Lucchetti, Senior Ecologist May Creek Basin Action Plan iii City of Renton Mayor Jesse Tanner City of Renton Council Randy Corman Don Persson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Toni Nelson Terri Briere Dan Clawson King Parker City of Renton Building/Planning/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Ron Straka, Utility Engineering Supervisor Owen Dennison, Associate Planner, Long Range Planning City of Newcastle Council City of Newcastle Council Sonny Putter, Mayor Gary Adams John Dulcich Jean Garber Claudia Hirschey Pam Lee Stuart Liddle City of Newcastle Staff Andy Dempsey, City Engineer Dick Thiel, Consulting Engineer Jim Walker, Public Works Director Kevin Gross, Senior Development Engineer Contributing Staff (Consultant) Shapiro and Associates, Inc. Mike Wert, Principal in Charge Jeff Buckland, Project Manager Ed McCarthy, Senior Hydrologist Scott Luchessa, Aquatic Scientist Communication Resources Margaret Winch, President Steve Taylor, Senior Associate 4123101 May Creek Citizens Advisory Committee Robert Cugini, Chair John Aftholter (deceased) Julie Bonwell Ginger Dickson Thomas Drummond (former member) Andrew Duffus William (Ed) Home Susan Larson-Kinzer John Richardson Richard Spence, President, May Valley Environmental Council Mick Zevart May Creek Basin Action Plan iv 4/23/0 I 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.I OVERALL PLAN GOALS The May Creek Basin Action Plan provides a set of actions to: I) address the threat of flooding of homes; 2) facilitate stormflow conveyance, stabilize steam banks and reduce erosion; 3)protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and 4) prevent existing problems from becoming worse in the future. 1.2 BASIN OVERVIEW May Creek is a 7-mile-long stream in the Lake Washington watershed. The creek originates in the steep forested slopes of Cougar and Squak Mountains and in the highlands of the Renton Plateau (Figure 1-1 ). As many of its tributaries converge on the flat floodplain and wetlands of May Valley, the creek broadens and slowly flows through rural pastures, small commercial areas, and suburban development until finally slicing through a deep canyon and flowing into Lake Washington. May Valley is a natural floodplain and historically has experienced periodic and sometimes extensive flooding. Through the years, this problem worsened as channelizing of streams and development in upland areas increased stormflows to the valley, and as natural deposition of sediment in May Valley continued to reduce the conveyance capacity of the May Creek channel. May Creek canyon, through which lower May Creek flows, is an undeveloped park in the Cities of Renton and Newcastle where soft trails may be built in the future. Expansion of access to this park and the purchase of additional lands are priorities for the cities. Many residents view May Creek Park as an important community amenity. Erosion and sedimentation occur as a result of natural processes in all stream systems. Much of the erosion and-sediment transport in May Creek is a result of development in the basin. The May Creek basin continues to provide high quality tributary habitat to the Lake Washington watershed; however, use of May Creek by salmon and other wildlife is declining due to habitat loss, erosion, sedimentation, and deteriorating water quality. As more development occurs throughout the basin, many of these problems are anticipated to worsen unless steps are taken to address these issues. For this reason, measures are needed to restore the natural functions of the basin and maintain the quality of life for those who live and work in the basin. 1.3 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION LAWS It is important to note that in carrying out their jurisdictional responsibilities, the basin's Cities and King County have certain obligations for action that are founded in federal laws. Implementation of the measures recommended in this plan should help basin jurisdictions comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, a federal law implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology. More immediately, implementation of the plan will be affected by the listing of wild native salmonids under the federal Endangered Species Act CESA). At the time of this writing, two salmonid stocks----<:hinook salmon and bull trout-present in the Lake Washington May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-1 4/23/01 watershed have beenlisted as threatened under the ESA. Additional listings for other Puget Sound salmonids may be forthcoming. Although May Creek and its tributaries do not provide physical habitat elements that would support a large presence of chinook salmon or bull trout, there has been an historic run of chinook in May Creek, and the system does provide habitat elements which still support coho salmon and sockeye salmon in addition to sea-run cutthroat trout and rainbow trout. ESA listings bring with them the potential for additional regulation of many activities of private and public landowners alike, including, for instance, land development and infrastructure maintenance. Affected activities will extend beyond those that result in direct alteration of riparian and instream areas to those whose effects (e.g., alteration of stormflows or an increase in the delivery of pollutants) would indirectly affect listed salmon or their habitat. The local response to ESA listings will probably also require the continuation or creation of monitoring programs that provide information necessary for determining the effectiveness of programs, projects, and/or regulations designed to promote species conservation and show compliance with the provisions of the ESA. 1.4 THEPLAN The following pages outline an action plan for correcting adverse conditions in the May Creek basin. In its brevity and simplicity, the plan makes a departure from traditional basin planning efforts, focusing on projects that can be completed in the next three to five years within the limits of available funding. The plan recommends solving problems at their source when feasible and suggests some land use prescriptions and development restrictions toward this end. However, in doing so, the plan attempts to make use of existing County and City policies and stormwater management controls, such as those contained in the revised King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM). The May Creek Basin Action Plan was developed through funding by King County and the City of Renton, with the cooperation of the City of Newcastle and input from the Citizens Advisory Committee comprised of area residents. In developing this plan, the cooperating agencies have listened carefully to the needs and ideas expressed by local basin residents at several public meetings and have considered them in their analyses. The recommended solutions in this plan are intended to address existing critical problems over the next five years without causing more serious problems in other areas of the basin. The plan is not intended to be the single answer to all the basin's problems, but to work in conjunction with other existing and proposed City and County plans. The plan also contains recommendations for projects that should be undertaken beyond the initial five-year period after the adoption of the plan. Funding sources for these projects have been identified only in general terms, although the activities these projects entail will produce results that build upon those realized from projects undertaken within the primary recommendations of the plan. The May Creek Basin Action Plan presents recommendations for solutions to problems identified in previous studies of the basin. Chapter 2 of the plan presents background on the basin, identifies existing problems, sets goals for improving conditions in the basin, and evaluates potential solutions upon which the recommendations of this plan are based. Recommendations are presented in Chapter 3. The proposed recommendations are classified as primary and secondary measures based on the anticipated availability of funding and the likelihood of implementation within the next five years. The major primary recommendations intended to deal with these goals are described below. May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-2 4/23/01 To undertake actions to reduce flooding problems in May Valley while improving its ecological health, the plan proposes property-specific measures in cooperation with local landowners. The plan also calls for a number of improvements intended to limit future increases in peak flood flows as well as removal of potential channel hazards which worsen flood conditions, including beaver dams, sediment plugs, and reed canary grass occlusions. May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-3 4/23/01 Figure 1-1: Basin Vicinity Map May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-4 4/23/01 Figure 1-1: Basin Vicinity Map (blank backside) May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-5 4/23/0 I The density of upland development is a key contributing factor to the flooding that occurs in May Valley. The plan recommends that zoning densities not be increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley, including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed, unless the stormwater impacts of the increased density can be fully mitigated. As land use in the May Creek drainage area has changed, heavily vegetated areas have been replaced with pavement and structures. This conversion of land cover has disrupted the natural hydrologic cycle; ultimately, this significantly increases runoff originating in these areas. In proposing limitations on the density of new development and the retention of strict clearing standards, the Basin Action Plan limits the increase in future runoff to May Valley while supporting a growth management goal of maintaining the character of rural areas in King County. Along with restrictions on zoning and clearing, the primary recommendations involve strict Retention/Detention standards for future development. When implemented, these measures will contribute to the protection of downstream areas from increases in both peak flows and flow duration. In addition to these regulatory standards, flooding issues in May Valley are addressed by capital project recommendations aimed at both reducing the flood flows into the valley, and improving the low-flow, "ditched" section of May Creek channel to provide better aquatic habitat and to reduce flooding durations following storm events. These projects will be the top priority capital construction components for King County's implementation of this plan. Several stream restoration projects also are proposed to improve degraded conditions or provide additional habitat throughout the basin. The plan would set the stage for potential improvements in the May Creek delta; improve fish habitat and stream stability by introducing additional large woody debris in May Creek Canyon; provide slope-stabilization measures to limit erosion and sediment delivery to the creek; and provide small conifer plantings throughout the basin to improve streambank stability, moderate stream temperatures, and become a source for vital organic inputs (e.g. large woody debris) to the stream over the long term. In key locations, projects proposed in the plan would eliminate fish-passage barriers in order to improve upstream access for species using May Creek and its tributaries. The plan recommends the use of existing water quality programs in the County and Cities to resolve the May Creek basin's most pressing water quality problems. Implementation of key objectives of water quality programs of the King Conservation District, the Seattle-King County Health Department, and others will also help promote efforts to protect surface and groundwater resources. Finally, the plan contains a proposal for the establishment of a Basin Steward who would work with local property owners, businesses, and the development community to improve surface- water conditions in the basin through education, coordination, and implementation of many of these projects. In addition to identifying the most important recommendations for action in the basin, the plan identifies potential funding sources and implementing agencies for each action. The primary recommendations would be funded and implemented by a range of entities, including the Cities of Renton and Newcastle and King County. May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-6 4/23/01 Secondary recommendations are proposed to provide longer-term solutions to issues similar to those addressed by the primary recommendations. Funding sources for secondary recommendations can be identified only to a very general level of detail. For this reason, the implementation schedule for these measures is uncertain. The secondary recommendations are shown in a prioritized order derived from a ranking process described in Appendix D. In addition to those projects that might be funded directly through agency involvement in the basin, secondary recommendations also include several projects that might be accomplished as mitigation measures for future development activities. Chapter 4 presents the expected results of the recommendations made in Chapter 3. During the first three to five years of implementation of this plan, King County would pursue resolution of the worst flooding problems encountered by basin residents in recent years. The plan is also expected to help restore May Creek fish habitat and riparian areas in general. Through cooperative measures and the use of appropriate development standards, the plan would help perpetuate the improvements put in place now through stewardship and public education efforts. As the recommended plantings mature, they will discourage non-native invasive species from becoming established. Habitat diversity would increase, at least in localized areas, which in tum would provide the foundation for an increase in the diversity of wildlife that would reside in or pass through the basin To ensure successful implementation, this plan recommends formulation of a monitoring program to enable basin agencies to determine the effectiveness of the proposed measures. The monitoring program will provide evaluation criteria for measuring the performance of specific actions and projects to ensure that desired goals are being met, and will be designed at a scale appropriate to the level of capital projects being implemented in the basin. The monitoring and evaluation process allows for corrective actions and adjustments to be made when actions and projects are not producing the desired results. Monitoring also will help agencies and citizens ensure that the improvements achieved through implementation of the plan will continue to be effective and meaningful in the future. Monitoring undertaken to help determine plan effectiveness will likely be coupled with monitoring undertaken as part of ESA response to help identify the effectiveness of broader local efforts to conserve species and comply with regulatory requirements. May Creek Basin Action Plan 1-7 4/23/01 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 About This Plan This plan has been funded by King County and the City of Renton Surface Water Utility. The City of Newcastle incorporated after a substantial portion of the plan was completed. It has not provided funds for the plan, but has participated in its development in a review capacity. The City of Newcastle has completed and adopted its own Stormwater Management Comprehensive Plan (SMCP). While Newcastle's SMCP and this plan contains similar recommendations for surface-water management projects derived from the hydrologic conditions in the basin, the Newcastle SMCP addresses surface-water concerns for areas outside of the May Creek basin within the City .. The City of Newcastle will coordinate with King County and the City of Renton in commencing implementation of recommended actions before completion of the SMCP if circumstances warrant more immediate action for certain projects. Newcastle formally adopted this plan in late 2000, and the City of Renton plans do so in April or May 2001. Basin planning has been undertaken recognizing that urban activities contribute to changes in the natural characteristics of watersheds that frequently threaten healthy watershed systems. The focus of basin plans has been on reducing flood damages, protecting stream and wetland habitats, and improving the quality of surface and groundwater. The primary goals of the May Creek Basin Action Plan are the following: • Reduce the threat of flooding to citizens in the May Creek Basin; • Make infrastructure improvements that will facilitate stormflow conveyance, stabilize stream banks, and reduce erosion; • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality in the basin; and • Take reasonable steps to prevent existing problems from worsening in the future. This plan contains strategic recommendations to correct or reduce problems identified through the planning process. The plan also provides guidelines for future actions with the objective to improve overall conditions within the basin. As with all natural systems, watersheds are comprised of relationships between land use, water quantity, water quality, and aquatic habitat. As a result of these relationships, activities in one part of the basin influence, and in tum are influenced by, activities elsewhere. These relationships are particularly relevant to the consideration of proposed remedies to problems in the basin. For example, erosion control cannot take place effectively without consideration of the high water flows that cause erosion, and aquatic habitat cannot be maintained or restored and effectively managed without considering the land uses and hydrologic conditions that surround important habitat areas. Because this is one of many ongoing planning and implementation efforts undertaken by the basin's three jurisdictions, there are limitations on funding and resources available to provide the many improvements that are desirable in this basin and other basins for which the jurisdictions are responsible. Therefore, a portion of the recommendations made within this plan will be implemented within three to five years, while others may not be accomplished for many years. Actions recommended by the plan are separated into primary and secondary recommendations based on ranking criteria applied to each of the problems identified for the basin, along with the feasibility and availability of funding for each solution. Ranking criteria included flooding May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-1 4/23/01 frequency, severity, and the potential for damage to human health, property, and important fish and wildlife habitat. In categorizing recommendations, those that directly address the most significant problems and are expected to be within the funding capability of these local sources are considered primary, with the understanding that the provision of funding from King County and the Cities of Renton and Newcastle for implementation of the recommendations will require approval by their respective Councils. Other, more long-term solutions without definite funding were defined as secondary recommendations. This methodology for distinguishing between recommended actions differs somewhat from that used in other Basin Action Plans and has resulted in more attention being focused on implementable solutions while still providing a . comprehensive approach to addressing problems in the basin. In addition to providing near-term improvements to May Creek surface-water conditions, this plan should provide a foundation upon which to build efforts for long-term improvements. 2.2 FUNDING SOURCES AVAILABLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION Most of the projects identified in the May Creek Basin Action Plan are expected to be implemented by one of three jurisdictions in the May Creek basin: the Cities of Renton and Newcastle, and King County. Each jurisdiction has a public works or surface-water utility that is responsible for planning efforts and implementation of capital projects related to flood reduction, habitat restoration, and water quality improvement. Each jurisdiction has responsibility for geographic areas broader than the May Creek basin, however, and therefore must prioritize its use of financial resources across its entire jurisdiction. The King County Water and Land Resources (WLR) Division, formerly known as the Surface Water Management Division, has established a process to prioritize capital expenditures across its service area. WLR's large project capital program is funded by bond revenues. The most recent bond issues in I 992, I 995, and 2000 have been used for construction of high priority projects throughout the County, most of which have been completed. New priorities for capital projects are determined each year based on capital needs throughout the unincorporated portions of King County. As of March, 2001, funds allocated for May Creek Basin Action Plan implementation totaled $840,000 from I 995 and 2000 capital bonds and King Conservation District funds. Of this amount, approximately $290,000 has been expended for one property purchase and structure demolition; data gathering and assessment, survey, and mapping; and preliminary design work on valley and ravine projects. Although funding from WLR for major projects recommended in this plan is presently limited to the amounts in the current project budgets, additional funding may be available in the future from new bond issues or "pay as you go" (annually budgeted) capital funding. Future capital funds will be allocated across multiple watersheds according to WLR's countywide capital priorities, so funding available for projects in May Creek basin will vary from year to year. In addition to CIP bond-funded projects, WLR has contributed in the past, and will continue in the future to contribute funds to recommended projects through the Small Habitat Restoration Program, the Drainage and Habitat Improvement Program, and the Neighborhood Drainage May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-2 4/23/01 Assistance Program, if circumstances allow. These funds, awarded to projects costing up to $70,000, are distributed on a competitive, priority basis and are largely limited to use on projects within the King County surface-water management service area. The King County Department of Transportation represents another important participant in, and source of funding for, implementation of Basin Action Plans in King County. The Department of Transportation maintains several databases of priority projects based on a variety of factors. Currently, the two projects focused on the major bridge crossings of May Creek in May Valley do not rank high enough for funding in the near future and therefore are secondary recommendations. Several smaller projects focused on culverts, for example the culvert at S.E. May Valley Road at the East Fork of May Creek, are prioritized differently and are likely to be funded. The WLR Office of Open Space has recently contributed to improvements in the basin through the purchase of parcels at the Pacific Topsoils quarry site, with the intent of maintaining that land as open space with a public access element. The Office of Open Space will be pursuing additional purchases of open space at this old quarry site. The City of Renton Surface Water Utility's proposed six-year CIP currently identifies a need of $550,000 for implementation of recommended capital projects in future years in the Renton portion of the May Creek basin. The availability of this funding is subject to approval by the Renton City Council. Newcastle staff have indicated that a high importance is placed upon May Creek basin surface- water issues, especially in the Lake Boren/Boren Creek sub-basin. The City of Newcastle has developed a Storrnwater Management Comprehensive Plan (SMCP) identifying its needs and anticipated costs in addressing storrnwater issues in its jurisdiction. Newcastle's SMCP is intended to work in concert with this Basin Action Plan for that portion of the City located in the May Creek Basin. Because major capital funds may be limited, Newcastle expects to concentrate on projects that are already budgeted, such as several road improvement projects, and incorporate surface-water needs as appropriate and feasible. In addition to these major funding sources, project funding from additional sources also may be available. State, federal, and private grant funds, or mitigation dollars resulting from major developments or infrastructure projects in the basin, such as the expected widening of SR 900 or of 1-405, may be available for some measures. Funds from the Cities of Renton and Newcastle are expected to raise the total May Creek basin capital budget to almost $2 million. This money will represent a significant contribution to protecting and enhancing environmental quality within the basin. The need for surface-water improvements in the basin, however, is much greater than what the $2 million figure implies. The secondary recommendations, which may be implemented as ad~itional funding becomes available, represent more than $20 million of long-term improvements. The establishment of a Basin Steward -a primary recommendation in this plan - will provide a person within the basin to serve as an advocate for continuing efforts to improve local conditions, including those specified for actions in the secondary recommendations list. As King County and the Cities of Renton and Newcastle monitor the results of implementing this May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-3 4/23/01 Basin Action Plan, it is expected that additional funding for important projects will be identified as part of their respective surface-water management programs. 2.3 THE MAY CREEK BASIN The May Creek basin encompasses an area of 14 square miles that drains to the southeast portion of Lake Washington (Figure 2-1). May Creek is approximately 7 miles long. It is the primary stream within the basin, but the basin also contains numerous tributaries, including Honey Creek, Boren Creek, and the North, East, and South Forks of May Creek. Two lakes also are located within the basin: Lake Kathleen in the southeast portion of the basin and Lake Boren in the northwest portion of the basin. The basin has been divided into four regional subareas (Figure 2-1 ), or subbasins, for analysis and discussion: • Lower Basin Subarea -extending from the mouth of May Creek at Lake Washington upstream to River Mile 3.9, above the Coal Creek Parkway S.E. crossing; • May Valley Subarea -the floodplain of upper May Creek and the adjacent lower valley areas from River Mile 3.9 to the hydrologic divide to the east; • Highlands Subarea -the area lying north of May Valley and east of the Lower Basin, including the steep southern slopes of Cougar Mountain and the southwest portion of Squak Mountain; and • East Renton Plateau Subarea -the area lying south of May Valley and east of the Lower Basin Subarea. The basin was the site of hunting and fishing by early settlers who later conducted mining, logging, and farming operations within the region. Since that time, land use within the basin has changed to more intensive residential use in its western portion, while retaining a mix of rural residential, small farms, and some forest land in the east. The western one-third of the basin has been incorporated by the Cities of Renton and Newcastle, and the remaining area is in unincorporated King County. Although City boundaries are expected to expand somewhat in the future, the Urban Growth Area Boundary bisects the basin at 148th Avenue S.E., ensuring that the eastern half of the basin will remain rural for the foreseeable future. May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-4 4/23/01 Figure 2-1: Water Features/Subareas Map May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-5 4/23/01 Figure 2-1: Water Features/Subareas Map (blank backside) May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-6 4/23/01 May Valley is largely composed of a natural floodplain that periodically filled with floodwaters even before this region was settled. Development in the basin has reduced forest cover, increased impervious surface area, and filled in wetlands. All of these changes have aggravated the valley's natural, periodic flooding regime. The amount of effective impervious area has increased to a basinwide average of 7% under current conditions. Most of this impervious surface is in the Lower Basin Subarea. Without any changes in zoning or development protections, the amount of impervious surface is expected to increase to 12% in the future. The change from a predominantly forested basin to one with an increasing percentage of impervious surface has had significant hydrologic implications. This change has caused the amount of stormwater runoff to increase throughout the basin, dramatically in some locations. Flood flows have increased as well, resulting in additional erosion of hillsides, flooding and sediment deposition in the valley, erosion in the canyon downstream of the valley, and flooding and deposition near the mouth of May Creek. Human activity in the basin also has affected local water quality. Pollution from businesses and agricultural processes, road and highway runoff, and residential septic tank failures have contributed to the degradation of May Creek and its tributaries. In addition, reductions in base flow to streams and removal of riparian vegetation have increased water temperature. Collectively, impacts associated with human activities have reduced the habitat value of local streams, which has reduced the capacity of the May Creek system to support migratory and resident salmon ids. These impacts also increase the risks to the quality of underground drinking water supplies, critical to residents of the basin and the City of Renton. Because human use of the basin is expected to increase in the future, these concerns must be addressed to improve existing conditions and prevent further deterioration of watershed resources important to humans and native wildlife and plants. 2.4 CONDITIONS WITHIN THE BASIN Recent basin management planning began with preparation of the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report issued by King County and the City of Renton in August 1995. This report assesses current conditions and predicts future trends in the May Creek basin. The report also identifies significant conditions and issues to be addressed in the May Creek Basin Action Plan. Key findings of the Current and Future Conditions Report include the following: • The dominant hydro logic function of the May Valley is storage of floodwaters. Substantial storage occurs in the valley floodplain. In performing this function, May Valley is sometimes subject to long-duration flooding, which in tum directly contributes to reduced peak flood flows downstream. Removal of the substantial storage in May Valley could increase these downstream flood flows by as much as 30%. Currently, retention/detention ponds are not required for most low-density residential development in areas draining to May Valley. Furthermore, reductions in flooding that would result from construction of such ponds would be limited because flooding in the valley is primarily caused by the volume of water, which would be delayed, but not reduced, by such retention and detention structures. May Creek Bao;in Action Plan 2-7 4/23/01 • The most extensive flooding problems in the May Creek basin occur in May Valley. Through the years, development, dredging, and filling within the May Creek floodplain have altered natural drainage patterns, reduced natural storage areas, and placed structures in the path of floodwaters. Runoff from future development is expected to cause an increase in flood volumes in the valley, resulting in longer durations of floodwater inundation and greater frequency of flooding, but only slightly greater flood depths. Residential development in May Valley, with the establishment of homes and properties in the valley's wetland and floodplain complex, has resulted in occasional damage to private structures and frequent flooding of pastureland. It is estimated that at least seven homes and one business are located within the I 00-year floodplain. Peak flows have increased moderately in the valley, on the order of 15 to 20% greater than the predevelopment conditions for the 2-, 25-, and I 00-year events. Flooding, however, is not solely determined by the size of peak flows; it is also a function of floodwater volumes and flow durations. High groundwater levels in winter are likely a factor as well. Several local properties experience pasture flooding and ponding of long duration (sometimes over several months). The valley floor becomes saturated, and the low gradients of the floodplain overbanks do not permit drainage to occur efficiently. Similarly, when major storm-related flooding occurs, the floodwaters recede very slowly. It is this frequency and duration of even low-depth flooding, rather than the size of flood peaks, that has increased substantially over the years as development of upland areas has occurred. While May Valley is the site of the most extensive flooding in the basin, less severe drainage problems occur in other parts of the basin. Localized drainage problems in the basin are mainly related to past alteration of natural stream channels, filling natural detention areas, undersized conveyance systems, development with inadequate mitigation, or improper installation of drainage measures, which results in increased runoff to downslope properties. Of the current localized drainage problems, the majority are concentrated in urbanized portions of the basin. • Sediment deposition has occurred from natural erosion but has been accelerated by increased storm flows from development and changes in local land cover. Sediment deposition has been a problem in two important locations within the basin. First, sediment eroded from streams in the Highlands and East Renton Plateau is gradually reducing the capacity of the May Creek channel in May Valley. This sediment accumulation has contributed to worsening flood problems and degradation of fish habitat. Secondly, increased flows have resulted in erosion of the May Creek Canyon and lower basin tributaries, and this sediment is interfering with commercial business operations on Lake Washington where the sediments are deposited. An average of approximately 2,000 cubic yards per year are dredged from the mouth of May Creek on Lake Washington. Stream flows are expected to increase as development expands throughout the basin, especially in the Highlands and East Renton Plateau Subareas. This will increase erosion and downcutting of stream channels, leading to increased sedimentation. In addition, loss of stream-side vegetation, poor construction practices, and quarry runoff also contribute to erosion and sedimentation within the basin. May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-8 4/23/01 • Nonpoint pollution is another concern within the basin. Major sources of nonpoint pollution include runoff from roads, quarries, developing sites, and commercial operations; animal- keeping practices and grazing in riparian areas; and failing septic systems. Urbanization of the basin is expected to increase nonpoint pollution concentrations, thereby affecting water quality and aquatic habitat values. High concentrations of fecal coli forms and total phosphorus are of particular concern to water quality. Improper livestock management practices and failing septic systems are the primary causes of fecal coliform problems. Consistently high fecal coliform levels were found in the May Valley and upper basin areas, as well as at the mouths of Honey and China Creeks. As well as impacting instream habitat, high levels of fecal coliforms can threaten recreational uses such as swimming and wading. Fecal coliforms also could contaminate groundwater, a cause for concern as this area is within the City of Renton's aquifer protection zone. Stormwater phosphorus loading has resulted in concentrations within May Creek well above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for streams that discharge to lakes. The concentrations are sufficiently high to potentially threaten aquatic life. Phosphorus levels are expected to increase as further development in the basin occurs. • Development activities within the basin have historically degraded stream and wetland habitats. Filling of wetlands, increased storm water runoff and peak stream flows, addition of sediment and pollutants to the water, and removal of coniferous forest cover have contributed to the degradation oflocal habitat in the basin. The lack of adequate quantities of large woody debris (LWD) within basin streams limits habitat complexity and results in a relative scarcity of pools, an important component of stream habitat. For woody debris to be effective, it must be of sufficient size to alter instream hydraulics and durable enough to remain in place for many years. The lack of high quality LWD accelerates downcutting in stream channels and the build up of sediment at the mouth of May Creek. Wetlands within the basin also have been threatened by development. Almost every one of the basin's nearly 80 identified wetlands has been disturbed by deforestation, filling, draining, agricultural practices, or buffer removal, with much of this disturbance occurring after the wetlands were first inventoried in 1983. Without proper land use controls, stream, wetland, and lake habitats will continue to be damaged by existing uses and future development. Subsequent to identification of existing conditions and areas of concern in the Current and Future Conditions Report, project consultant Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation issued two reports for review by King County and the City of Renton analyzing possible solutions. The May Creek Basin Phase 1 Solutions Analysis was issued in November 1995, followed by the May Creek Basin Phase 2 Solutions Analysis in May 1996. Both of these reports include assessments of the main problems within the bru;in. The Phase 1 Solutions Analysis combined problems into five categories: May Valley flooding, Lower May Creek sediment erosion and deposition, major site erosion, May Valley habitat problems, and May Creek basin habitat restoration and enhancement. Preliminary recommendations were included within the Phase I May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-9 4/23/01 Analysis, which led to the considerations made within the Phase 2 Analysis for a set of comprehensive approaches to address basin problems. 2.5 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS The solutions recommended in this plan were developed to help basin jurisdictions meet the primary goals noted on page 2-1. These solutions use the results of the solutions analysis and the key findings in the Conditions Report and recognize that measures taken to resolve the identified problems must occur in the context of existing land uses in the May Creek basin. In the case of peak flood flows, it is acknowledged that much of the basin has already been either developed or platted and is therefore vested as far as future locally mandated drainage requirements are concerned. In some instances, future development is expected to occur at densities below the threshold at which local stormwater management standards would be triggered and mitigation measures would be implemented. Thus, new approaches to resolving future flow-related problems that are reliant on stricter development standards would have limited utility. This plan can effectively influence stormwater impacts from the small areas of higher density development through the specification of appropriate retention/detention standards as contained in the SWDM. Given the financial limitations associated with implementation of this Basin Action Plan or plans like it, all of the flooding problems in May Valley cannot be solved at once. Goals for reducing flooding under this plan are, in order of priority, as follows: (I) to eliminate significant public safety hazards; (2) to alleviate frequent flooding of homes and sole access roads; (3) to reduce flooding of septic systems and wells; and ( 4) to reduce the financial and social burden of pasture flooding. Key limitations in addressing flooding concerns are that these goals must be met without causing downstream impacts or impacts that substantially affect species protected by the ESA, as well as meeting all other relevant pennitting requirements. Increases in erosion resulting from increasing stream flows are difficult to resolve; however, an array of instream measures can be effective at reducing the rate of downstream sediment transport while also increasing habitat area. Resolving erosion problems near their source is the most cost-effective way of addressing such problems, but the discussion above regarding limitations in mitigation for future development has implications for sediment as well. Beyond this recommendation, it will be important for regulating agencies to recognize that sediment deposition is a problem in portions of May Creek as they consider permits for future basin activities. Nonpoint pollution sources in the May Creek basin include the following: • failing septic systems; • roadways; • livestock; and • commercial/industrial areas. All of these sources are present and problematic in other areas of the County as well. As the sources are reflective of the impacts of many widespread land use actions, capital facilities are generally not an effective tool to address these problems. Instead, Countywide programs have been developed to address them. These programs emphasize education, technical assistance, and May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-IO 4/23/01 other measures that help address the nonpoint pollution problem. In addition, the City of Renton has developed programs to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies. Rather than address such issues individually through this plan, these Countywide and Citywide programs represent a comprehensive approach to dealing with these problems. Several of this plan's recommendations encourage local agencies to target specific portions of May Creek when implementing development guidelines or land use practices under existing programs. Many of the projects included in the Basin Action Plan's recommendations would improve water quality by addressing pollution from businesses and agricultural activities, runoff from local roads, and residential septic tank failures. Recommendations that correct these problems also will protect underground drinking water supplies. A number of the recommended actions would result in the retention of open space and natural areas that are important in providing adequate land for groundwater recharge. Although habitat degradation is widespread throughout the basin, this plan recommends public funding of only the most cost-effective solutions to the most significant problems. While local restoration of certain habitat areas has merit, perhaps more important is the need to restore stream and watershed processes and functions so that existing and restored habitat structure can be more self-sustaining in the future. Thus, actions such as reforestation of important reaches of the stream corridor are high priorities, along with measures that will provide more immediate benefits, such as installation of site-specific habitat-protection structures. Overall, this plan reflects an action-oriented agenda for eliminating or reducing the impacts of a variety of problems reviewed in previous studies of the basin. In addition to the potential solutions identified here, Chapter 3 also contains a brief discussion of other solutions considered but determined infeasible. These alternative approaches are summarized in Appendix A. 2.6 AGENCIES WITH ROLES IN MAY CREEK BASIN MANAGEMENT Planning within the May Creek basin has been undertaken to determine cost-effective approaches for protecting environmental quality and reducing flood damages. The May Creek Basin Action Plan is the result of efforts by several agencies and many concerned citizens, including a Citizens Advisory Committee, and input from the May Valley Environmental Council, to implement measures focused on correcting existing problems and maintaining the integrity of natural resources. The primary agencies involved in development of this plan have been WLR and the Surface Water Utility of the City of Renton, which have shared costs in plan development. Along with the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services and the City of Newcastle, these agencies are responsible for administering development regulations for a variety of activities within the basin. The three jurisdictions have coordinated closely on plan recommendations. Newcastle, since incorporation, is responsible for approximately 20% of the land area in the basin. Renton is responsible for approximately 12% of the basin, and King County is responsible for the remaining 68% of the area. The land area of the two cities will increase as they annex lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. As part of its watershed management responsibilities, King County has been preparing Basin Action Plans for urbanizing areas of the County over the past decade. This plan identifies surface-water problems within the basin and proposes near-and long-term strategies to address these issues. May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-11 4/23/01 Several additional agencies at the regional, state, or federal level are responsible for various activities affecting resource management in the May Creek basin. The regional agencies include the King County Wastewater Treatment Division (formerly Metro), King Conservation District, Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service, and the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. King County Sewer and Water District I 07 provides sewer and water service, and King County Water District 90 provides water service within the area. The state agencies involved include the Department of Ecology, Department of Health, D~partment of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Transportation, as well as the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Federal agencies include the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In addition, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe co-manages fishery resources in the basin, as the entire May Creek basin lies within the tribe's Usual and Accustomed fishing grounds. May Creek Basin Action Plan 2-12 4/23/01 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 SUMMARY OF PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS Potential solutions to problems in the May Creek basin have been categorized as primary recommendations or secondary recommendations. Primary recommendations are either policy decisions that do not require additional public funding, or programs and projects that are anticipated to be implemented within the next three to five years, based on the availability of funding and their relative importance. Secondary recommendations, while considered important, involve projects for which funding is not ensured, and for which the time frame for implementation may extend beyond the three-to five-year interval after adoption of the plan. Concurrent with the development of this plan, basin jurisdictions have undertaken a range of activities that support the broad long-term goal of improving basin conditions. While many of these actions did not directly overlap with discrete, project-oriented recommendations proposed during plan development, several of these actions did do so. These recommendations, as they have largely been acted upon, have been removed from the list of primary recommendations and presented in Appendix G with a description of their current status. Primary recommendations are summarized below. More specific details about the recommendations follow the summary. A map showing the locations of the projects identified in the primary recommendations is provided in Figure 3-1. Secondary recommendations are presented in prioritized order in Table 3.3 at the end of this chapter. Basinwide Recommendations 1. Establish and Enforce Requirements for Runoff Retention/Detention, Forest Retention, and Water Quality Facilities for Site Development 2. Develop Basin Stewardship and Community Coordination and Participation through the Creation of a May Creek Basin Steward 3. Establish a Monitoring Program to Determine the Effectiveness oflmplemented Plan Actions May Valley Subarea 4. Provide Cost-Sharing and Technical Assistance for Flood Protection in May Valley 5. Remove Flow Obstructions from the Channel of May Creek in May Valley 6. Restore Flows Diverted from Tributary 0294 back into Tibbetts Creek 7. Enlarge the Culvert under S.E. May Valley Road at the East Fork of May Creek 8. Protect Habitat at the Confluence of May Creek and Its Tributary Streams Lower Basin Subarea 9. Work Cooperatively to Protect the City of Renton Drinking Water Supply I 0. Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging 11. Stabilize the Slopes at the Most Significant Erosion Sites in May Creek Canyon Related to Surface Runoff Discharges 12. Place Large Woody Debris in May Creek in May Creek Canyon 13. Plant Conifers Throughout the Riparian Area in May Creek Canyon May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-1 4/23/01 14. Improve Lake Boren Water Quality 15. Improve Boren Creek Fish Passage at S.E. 89th Place 16. Improve the Newcastle Railroad Embankment Outlet May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-2 4/23/01 East Renton Plateau and Highlands Subareas 17. Require Full Mitigation for Future Increases in Zoning Density in Areas Draining to May Valley May Valley and Highlands Subareas 18. Reduce the Potential for Negative Water Quality Impacts Originating at the Basin's Quarry Sites May Creek Basin Action Plan 3.3 4/23/01 Figure 3-1: Primary Recommendations Map May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-4 4/23/01 Figure 3-1: Primary Recommendations Map (blank backside) May Creek Ba-.in Action Plan 3-5 4/23/0 I 3.2 DETAILED PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following section provides a detailed discussion of the recommendations listed above. Basinwide recommendations are presented in Section 3.2.1 followed by recommendations for projects presented by subarea. Recommendations were developed to deal with a variety of conditions in the basin as discussed in Section 2.4. These primary recommendations are not necessarily identified in priority order. They were developed as a package to provide the overall greatest benefits to the basin within the anticipated funding limit. 3.2.1 Basinwide Recommendations I. Establish and Enforce Requirements for Runoff Retention/Detention, Forest Retention, and Water Quality Facilities for Site Development. Implementing Agencies: King County Water and·Land Resources Division and Department of Development and Environmental Services, City of Renton, City of Newcastle. Cost: No direct public cost. Recommendations: Retention/Detention: Maintain appropriate standards for retention and detention (RID) for all new development within the May Creek basin (Figure 3-2). Most of the basin should is governed by a Level 2 (Stream Protection) standard, which is intended to limit future increase in runoff into May Creek. Areas draining to Lake Boren should continue to be governed by a Level 3 (Lake Protection) standard, which is intended to limit future increases in Lakeshore flooding for all events through the I 00-year flood. Active or inactive quarry operations should continue to be governed by a Level 4 standard, which requires the completion of Master Drainage Plans for large, complex sites, including mineral areas. The Renton drainages to May Creek downstream of Honey Creek are governed by a Level I (Conveyance) standard, which is intended to ensure adequate culvert capacity and prevent the overtopping of roads. These sub-basin specific standards have been incorporated into the Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM) by King County and Renton's and Newcastle's drainage codes which are the substantial equivalent. Forest Retention: Restore the 65% forest retention requirement (35% clearing limit) of the former May Creek Critical Drainage Area in addition to the RID standards described in the above requirement in all rurally zoned lands which drain to the May Valley sub-basin. Water Quality: Maintain standards at least equivalent to the minimum requirement of the SWDM throughout the basin. Discussion: The SWDM contains standards for retention/detention (RID) and water quality for King County. It establishes four levels of RID for site development as described in the above recommendation. The standards for any given area are based on downstream areas that are affected by development; areas with higher resource values or greater flooding problems warrant more upstream protection through higher standards. The manual also allows for a combination of retention of forest cover on a parcel and construction of retention/detention facilities for large, rural Jot development to ensure that downstream areas are May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-6 4/23/01 adequately protected. Clearing limits are set in the King County Clearing and Grading Code 16.82. Presently, development is held to either a 65% forest retention standard without RID, or a 40% forest retention standard with stormwater facilities consistent with the SWDM Level 2 RID required for rurally-zoned areas in the basin. Many standards in the SWDM were originally set for specific areas of the County through the adoption of Basin Action Plans. In May Creek, a Critical Drainage Area (CDA) public rule was enacted in 1993 that required all development in unincorporated portions of the basin to adhere to essentially a Level 2 RID standard. In addition, the CDA required rural Jot developments to maintain 65% of the developed land in pre-development vegetation, which is similar to requirements adopted for the Issaquah and Bear Creek basins. Within Renton and Newcastle, the current standards are equivalent to a Level 1 RID requirement. Upon adoption of the Revised Surface Water Design Manual in September 1998, the CDA standards were replaced by the SWDM. Newcastle RID standards have also been replaced in the basin through that city's adoption of the 1998 King County Manual. This recommendation sets appropriate standards for each sub-basin (Figure 3-2) within the May Creek basin because it is expected that the Cities of Renton and Newcastle have adopted standards consistent with those in the SWDM. These recommended standards are included in Table 3.1 below. In most of the basin, new development would be required to control both peak flows and flow durations. In the sub-basins draining to Lake Boren, new development also would be required to ensure that lake flooding is not worsened. Portions of the lower basin within the City of Renton, where much development already has occurred, are recommended for a peak flow standard (Level 1) only (Figure 3-3). A Level 3 RID standard was considered for the area draining to Lake Kathleen; this area has been given a Level 2 RID standard based on the limited opportunity for additional development to occur in that drainage area. Primarily this is because application of such a standard in that area would not produce greater benefits than those gained from applying a Level 2 RID standard. King County Code 16.82 presently allows the choice of either 65% forest retention or construction ofR/D for rurally-zoned developments combined with 40% forest retention. The standards associated with the former CDA designation were stricter, however, and required that both 65% of existing forest be maintained and Level 2 RID be constructed. The Level 2 RID requirement in the SWDM is quite effective at limiting future increases in both tributary flooding and erosion which maiqly result from the extreme quantities of peak stormflows, but it does not address the overall stormwater runoff volumes. While constructed infiltration facilities are ineffective due to poorly percolating soil types in most areas of the basin. Analysis has shown that maintaining portions of a developed site In existing vegetation is also an effective means of controlling stormwater volumes-the forest lands that are retained store rainfall within the forest canopy and the forest dufflayer, allowing significant evaporation and natural infiltration into the groundwater system. On rurally zoned lands, lot sizes are large enough that a forest retention standard is both practical and beneficial in reducing stormwater volumes. The combined approach of both forest retention and Level 2 RID upstream is very important for reducing future flood-flow increases in May Valley. Hydrologic analysis suggests that even 40% forest cover combined with Level 2 RID can be effective in limiting future increases in flooding and erosion. This was the basis for using that May Creek Basin Aclion Plan 3-7 4/23/01 standard in the current Surface Water Design Manual. While a 40% forest retention standard may be virtually equivalent to the former standard of 65%, the flooding volumes and associated impacts to the community are sufficient that the stricter 65% standard should be applied to all development of rural lands draining to May Valley. As of January 2001, King County along with other jurisdictions are presently negotiating a new set of countywide surface water design standards as an element of the forthcoming Endangered Species Act 4(d) Rule regarding threatened chinook salmon. Currently these new design standards are proposed to mandate both King County-wide 65% forest retention/I 0% maximum impervious cover limit in all rural areas, in addition to a new two-pronged approach to retention/detention. This approach will give property developers a choice between the construction of the current SWDM facilities (Level 2 RID), and a new best-management-practice called "full dispersion". Full dispersion will require that all surface water runoff be dispersed over a flat, I 00-foot long flow-path through native vegetation. This option is being offered because hydrologic models show it to be as effective as Level-2 RID for limiting downstream flow-rates. These changes to the drainage code are anticipated in the near term (200 I), because stricter standards are expected to be adopted through the 4(d) rule process. If the expected code changes are not implemented by King County through the 4(d) process, then the stricter requirements described above should be codified separately for the May Creek basin. For water quality protection, the SWDM presents several levels of treatment standards dependent on the project location and its effect on downstream resources. For each standard, specific measures could be selected from a variety of options to ensure that new development projects adequately meet the performance objectives for treatment of storm water runoff. These measures tend to benefit groundwater resources as well. In particular, phosphorus-sensitive lakes often merit higher treatment standards for development in upstream areas. The necessary analysis to determine whether a lake (e.g., Lake Boren) is phosphorus-sensitive (and whether stricter standards would be an effective method of improving lake conditions) is beyond the scope of this Basin Action Plan and the basinwide conditions analysis that preceded it. For now, the water quality protection standards in the SWDM should be maintained for all areas of the basin. The Cities of Renton and Newcastle have adopted the SWDM or equivalent standards for water quality treatment. In the future, a Lake Management Plan should be considered for Lake Boren, as discussed in Basin Action Plan Recommendation 14. Such a plan would assess whether a higher level of required water quality treatment would significantly improve the health of the lake. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-8 4/23/0 I Table 3-1: Recommended RID Standards for New Development Subbasin and Subcatchments• Highlands: NFK, EFK, CAC, COU, LMC East Renton Plateau: LKA, LKC, PSC, RHC Jurisdiction Recommendation King County, Stream Protection Standard Newcastle (Level 2): Match post- development flow durations to existing flow durations for all flows between SO% of the 2-year and the SO-year flood peaks King County, Stream Protection Standard Renton (Level 2): Match post- development flow durations to existing flow durations for all flows between SO% of the 2-year and the SO-year flood peaks May Valley: King County Stream Protection Standard (Level 2): Match post- development flow CFD, MVM, MVL Highlands, May Valley: NFK, EFK,CFD Lower Basin: WT4,LBU Lower Basin: CN3, CN4, CNS, GYP, NH3, LBL, CCP Lower Basin: BNB, CN!, CN2, HCL, HCM, HCU durations to existing flow durations for all flows between SO% of the 2-year and the SO-year flood peaks King County Special RID Requirements (Level 4): Master Drainage Plan required for any subdivision of previously surface-mined land Newcastle, King County Lake Protection Standard (Level 3): Match post- development flow durations to existing flow durations for all flows between SO% of the 2-year and the SO-year flood peaks; and match the post- developed 100-year peak discharge rate to the existing I 00-year rate Newcastle, Stream Protection Standard Renton, King (Level 2): Match post- County development flow durations to existing flow durations for 50% of the 2- and SO-year flood peaks Renton, King Conveyance Standard County (Level I): Match the post- developed peak discharge rates to the existing 2-and I 0-year peaks Justification Streams have potential for extreme erosion problems because of steep gradients; need for over-detention to reduce flow and sediment inputs to May Valley Need for over- detention to reduce flow and sediment inputs to May Valley Need for over- detention to reduce local flow and sediment inputs to May Valley Water quality and quantity severely impacted by mined areas; future subdivision provides opportunity for restoration Lake Boren exhibits flooding at outlet; sediment accumulation problems at inlet Streams have potential for extreme erosion problems because of steep gradients Area is mostly built out, with previous development occurring with little or no mitigation • see Figure 3-2 for location of specific sub basins and subcatchments. Figure 3-2: Subcatchment Boundaries Map May Creek Basin Action Plan 3.9 Comments This standard is currently required by the adopted Stom, Water Design Manual in King County. The City of Newcastle has also adopted the King County Manual This standard is currently required by the adopted Stom, Water Design Manual in King County. The standard would continue to apply regardless of future annexations This standard is currently required by the adopted Stom, Water Design Manual in King County Requirement applies only to land within boundaries of current and fomier quarry operations This standard is currently required by the adopted Stom, Water Design Manual in King County, and as also adopted by Newcastle 4/23/0 I Figure 3-2: Subcatchment Boundaries Map (blank backside) May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-10 4/23/01 Figure 3-3: RID Standards Map May Creek Basin Aclion Plan 3-11 4/23/01 Figure 3-3: RID Standards Map (blank backside) May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-12 4/23/01 2. Develop Basin Stewardship and Community Coordination and Participation through the Creation of a May Creek Basin Steward Implementing Agencies: King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Renton, City of Newcastle Cost: Approximately $60,000 per year, basinwide Recommendation: Establish a May Creek Basin Steward to work cooperatively with residents and businesses in May Valley and with King County permitting and technical staff in the implementation of Basin Action Plan recommendations, to coordinate volunteer and educational activities in the basin for all three jurisdictions, and to be an ongoing, single point of contact for the county to work with residents, businesses, the three jurisdictions, and other key stakeholders active in the basin. Discussion: King County values working with a community to take care of a place, and has established a very successful Basin Steward program in basins across the County. The program often works through cost-sharing arrangements with cities in the basins, who pay for services provided in their areas. This provides the advantage of having a dedicated staffperson familiar· with the entire drainage basin and how its water resource issues interrelate. The Basin Steward develops specialized skills and knowledge by working with residents, businesses, and the different government agencies active in the basin. The successful implementation of many of this plan's recommended actions depends on King County having a Basin Steward to work closely with individual property owners in May Valley. Work program activities to be performed by the basin steward primarily will include: • • • • • • • working with permit agencies, King County Parks, and property owners currently pursuing reclamation of the former Sunset Quarry site as described in Recommendation #6 (Restore Flows Diverted from Tributary 0294 back into Tibbetts Creek); acting as a liaison between King County technical staff pursuing implementation of basin plan capital projects and the communities in which they are to be implemented; working with basin residents to expedite information requests, permitting efforts, and technical assistance to guide volunteer-based efforts; working with landowners to inform them when an observed activity on private property could potentially constitute a violation of land use regulations. The basin steward does not have enforcement authority for King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance or other regulations, but will act as a source of information, coordination, or assistance as requested by landowners who wish to remedy potential or cited code violations on their property; responding to citizen concerns about basin activities or conditions that may be affecting private property or aquatic resources in the basin; providing information and application assistance to basin residents and organizations regarding potential sources of grant funding for community-led projects; working with property owners to encourage the development of Farm Management Plans and participation in incentive-based programs such as the Public Benefit Rating System. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-13 4/23/01 Renton and Newcastle also have expressed some interest in the part-time services of a Basin Steward, particularly to coordinate volunteer activities, undertake public education regarding surface and groundwater protection and the connection between surface and groundwater, and oversee smaller capital projects in the basin. Educational activities would focus on citizen actions that can improve the water resources of the basin. Basin steward-led activities in the basin's cities would be provided as requested and city jurisdictions would fund the cost only for services provided. 3. Establish a Monitoring Program to Determine the Effectiveness of Implemented Plan Actions Implementing Agencies: King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Renton, City of Newcastle Cost: Generally covered within existing budgets. Recommendation: Develop and implement a monitoring program designed to help determine the effectiveness of recommendations in this plan. Discussion: The overall goal of a monitoring program for the May Creek Basin Action Plan should be to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan in achieving its key goals: reducing the threat of flooding in the basin; protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and water quality; reducing erosion; and preventing existing problems from worsening in the future. Monitoring activities would generally cover both long-term conditions in the basin and the effectiveness of specific projects, as shown in Table 3-2. They would be coordinated with monitoring performed in the basin by others, including community organizations, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Monitoring in the basin may support additional goals, such as a regional response to potential listings under the ESA. The data collected should satisfy all monitoring requirements included in project permits. Overall, monitoring data should be analyzed and reported every two years, and may provide the basis for modifying Basin Action Plan recommendations. The exact schedule for monitoring activity may be affected by a jurisdiction's responsibilities to respond to ESA listings. This may entail a shorter time frame before initiation of information gathering, analysis, and reporting. The three jurisdictions should develop and oversee the monitoring program together, though each may be responsible for different parts of it. Where appropriate, volunteers will be encouraged to participate in monitoring activities, and King County's activities will be coordinated with the activities of community organizations. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-14 4123/01 Table 3-2: Projected Monitoring Program Activities Monitoring Activity Questions, Data Addressed 200 I 2002 2003 2004 2005 I. Land Use Proportions of various land uses in X X basin, percent impervious surface, etc. 2. Hydrology Baseflows; relation of flows to rainfall X X X X X 3. Water Quality Storm and ambient data X X X X X 4. Channel Measurements/ Channel scour and sediment X X X Habitat Surveys deposition; pool/riffle ratios, canopy cover, substrate quality, etc. 5. Macroinvertebrate Species presence, abundance, and X X Sampling diversity-key measures of biotic health 6. Fish Surveys Spawners, juveniles X X X 7. Small Lakes Monitoring Water quality of Lake Kathleen, Boren X X X X X 8. Project Monitoring Effectiveness of capital projects X X X X X 9. Anal~sis and Reeorting Summa!):'. bi-annual reeorts X X 3.2.2 May Valley Subarea 4. Provide Cost-sharing and Technical Assistance for Flood Protection in May Valley Implementing Agency: King County Department of Natural Resources Cost: $600,000+ Recommendation: Provide funding and technical assistance to address flooding problems in May Valley, prioritizing homes that are most frequently flooded and, where possible, incorporating improvements to May Creek and the valley wetland. Explore opportunities to obtain federal and state funding to help implement flood protection projects. Discussion: A great portion of May Valley lies in a natural floodplain, where flooding would occur with or without human development. Flooding has been worsened by increased runoff from development and associated clearing of surrounding forested upland areas; sedimentation of the stream channel; the growth of vegetation in the channel, reducing the creek's volume capacity and impeding its flow; and trampling of banks by livestock, which has aggravated sedimentation as well as water quality problems. Regulations have been developed to protect some of the important natural characteristics of wetlands and floodplains, placing controls on some land uses. These sensitive area regulations provide some flexibility to landowners, particularly for existing uses. A discussion of these regulations is provided in Appendix B of this document. Goals for reducing flooding under this plan are, in order of priority: (I) to eliminate significant public safety hazards (e.g., culvert failure at the Newcastle railroad trestle embankment); (2) to May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-15 4/23/01 alleviate flooding of homes, businesses, sole access roads and foundations; (3) to reduce flooding of septic systems and wells; and (4) to reduce the financial and social burden of pasture and crop land flooding. These goals must be met without causing negative downstream impacts. Modeling of flooding in May Valley conducted as part of the Conditions Report indicates that approximately seven homes and at least one business are within the I 00-year floodplain. Additionally, extensive flooding of pastures occurs in May Valley during much of the year. Flood velocities and depths are generally low, so they do not threaten public safety in most places, but the flooding of wells and septic systems do pose a health concern for many residents. Flooding in May Valley has disproportionately affected several landowners. This plan recommends a comprehensive approach that includes elements which: address surface water problems for May Valley residents; preserve the floodplain, wetland, and in-stream habitat of the valley; and protect downstream residents from flooding and ravine erosion. This recommendation calls for working with landowners to address flooding problems in May Valley, prioritizing homes that are most frequently flooded, and incorporating conveyance and habitat improvements to May Creek and the valley wetland where possible. Components of this recommendation include: on-site drainage improvements, flood-proofing of homes, voluntary home buyouts, construction of off-channel flood storage ponds, removal of old . fill in the floodplain, wetland and stream buffer restoration, and other actions developed in cooperation with landowners and regulators. Previous analyses indicated that six remaining sites in May Valley are most affected by flooding. King County should work with these landowners first to determine specific needs and provide the appropriate assistance to solve flooding problems. An earlier version of this recommendation emphasized flood-proofing homes in the floodplain through home elevation. Recent investigations of the eight specific sites identified as most affected by flooding, as wen as discussions with the landowners, have revealed that home elevation is not typically a workable solution. In some cases, the finished floor elevation is already above the I 00-year flood elevation, though the land is not. Flooding remains a problem for these citizens; septic tanks are inundated each winter, access to dwellings is cut off, and outbuildings are flooded. In other cases, the flooded living space is below grade and the problem is the result of groundwater intrusion. In situations where high-priority flooding problems cannot feasibly be resolved by site-specific measures, home buyout is an option. Property would be purchased only from willing sellers, and all acquisitions would be voluntary. On a project specific basis, relocation assistance may be available based on applicable state and federal laws and guidelines. Land acquired under this recommendation would be managed to minimize valley flooding and maximize conveyance and habitat. The acquired land would be maintained as open space in perpetuity. Project selection would incorporate the input of landowners and would be based upon a number of criteria, including the severity of the problem, the likelihood of its being solved by the proposed action, the expected cost, and the value of related habitat and flood storage improvements. Project design, permitting, and construction would follow agreements with landowners. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-16 4/23/01 The plan recommends that the County provide technical assistance for design, permitting and construction of projects to reduce flooding and/or enhance habitat elsewhere in the valley. Examples of such projects include removal of invasive plants and noxious weeds, maintenance of drainage ditches, and other actions developed in cooperation with property owners. This recommendation would be closely coordinated with: • Recommendation 5 (Remove Flow Obstructions from the Channel of May Creek in May Valley) • King County's Small Habitat Restoration Program • King County's Neighborhood Drainage Assistance Program. The $600,000 of current funding for this recommendation should result in an implementation program that reaches as many residents as possible to reduce flooding problems on their sites. Additional funding for some of these measures could be available through additional King County appropriations, and state and federal grant programs, including programs administered by FEMA. 5. Remove Flow Obstructions from the Channel of May Creek in May Valley Implementing Entities: King County Water and Land Resources Division, valley residents, permitting agencies Cost: Up to $350,000 for pilot projects. This cost does not include subsequent public or private costs to maintain the pilot project sites and to complete similar projects in the rest of May Valley. Recommendation: Reduce flood durations in May Valley by removing flow obstructions from May Creek channel. Types of obstructions most frequently encountered are beaver dams, stream reaches choked with vegetation, and sediment deposits. Discussion: May Valley was cleared and drained around the beginning of the last century, and has supported agricultural and residential uses ever since. Based on this history, valley residents have urged King County to acknowledge that the current alignment-indeed, the existence-of this "ditched" portion of the creek is artificial, created for the purpose of conveying both low flows and the waters of periodic flooding out of the valley. Until the 1990s, portions of the channel were maintained by landowners who removed sediment deposits and stands of choking vegetation. The May Valley subarea supports pasture and low-intensity agricultural uses, small farms, and scattered single-family residences. Currently, 31 percent of the area is in single-family low- density uses. The subarea has several floodplain areas and annual and semi-annual wetlands, forming 39 percent of the subarea (Table 3-2, May Creek Basin Current and Future Conditions Report, KCSWM, 1995). Increased stormwater flows, periodic flooding and extended ponding of water, poor water quality, and impacts to fish are all well documented problems in the subarea. Analysis of past, existing, and forecast storm runoff and flooding conditions of the May Creek Basin indicate that flooding has increased significantly and will probably continue to increase as the basin is developed (KCSWM, 1995). May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-17 4/23/01 Local, state, and federal regulations have increasingly limited the ability of landowners to work in the stream, the adjacent wetland, and their buffers. The goal of this recommendation is to develop methods for channel clearing that would be allowable under these regulatory requirements, emphasizing those that could be implemented by valley residents in the future on a maintenance basis. This recommendation seeks to design and implement pilot channel-clearing projects, and to resolve and clarify permitting issues as they arise. Except for emergencies and certain routine maintenance activities. King County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) generally prohibits alterations to sensitive areas like the valley channel reach of May Creek. Certain activities such as roadside and agricultural ditch maintenance and stream enhancement or restoration projects are allowed alterations within sensitive areas and can be permitted if they meet certain development standards. If an activity is.not exempt from the SAO or an allowed alteration. it can be permitted only as an exception to the SAO. Public Agency and Utility Exceptions (PAUEs) and Reasonable Use Exceptions are two of the exception processes available. King County Code 21 A.24.0508 describes the agricultural activities allowed in sensitive areas. To qualify under code, these activities must have been·in existence before November 27, 1990, and repeated at least once every five years since. Salmon-bearing agricultural drainage ditches can be maintained by private property owners if sensitive area requirements (detailed in KCC 2IA.24.370M and the associated public rules) regarding fish protection, construction timing and methods, and habitat enhancement are met. Stream enhancement and restoration projects are regulated by County Code 2 IA.24.370 and 21 A.24.380. The code requires that these projects be designed primarily to provide significant aquatic habitat elements such as channel meanders, buffer plantings and preservation, and in- channel structure in the form of woody debris. Although projects that meet these requirements may also include flood reduction features such as channel clearing if impacts are properly mitigated, flood reduction can not be the primary purpose of the project. It should still be possible under this recommendation to design small projects that meet stream enhancement or restoration standards, that also provide localized flood relief in May Valley, and that could be carried out by private property owners. The exception processes of code allow some projects to occur within sensitive areas that might otherwise be prohibited, but such projects must meet certain guidelines before they can be permitted as exceptions. A PAVE, for example, can only be granted to a public agency or utility. As described in KCC 21A.24.070A and the associated public rules, a PAVE proposal must not only demonstrate minimal impact to sensitive areas, but also show that there is no practical alternative action that would have less impact. Alternatives must be compared on the basis of a number of factors including cost, effectiveness, and safety in addition to environmental impact. A proposal to reduce flood damage by working in the channel in May Valley would have to be compared to other methods of reducing damage such as elevating, relocating, or removing threatened structures. Mitigation for channel, wetland, or buffer impacts would vary with each design to reflect the type, duration, and significance of the impacts at each project location. Costs for similar types of projects could therefore also vary significantly from location to location. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-18 4/23/01 Because a PAVE can be granted only to a public agency, pilot projects developed under such an exception would not meet this recommendation's goal of developing methods that could be duplicated by private property owners. Projects requiring a PA UE may not be acceptable on all parcels because some May Valley residents have expressed a strong wish to retain private responsibility for ongoing maintenance of their land. In addition to all other local and state regulatory requirements, the U.S. Endangered Species Act mandates that any project undertaken in May Valley must be designed and constructed to prevent the loss of listed species and to protect or enhance their habitat. Using a combination of the above approaches, Water and Land Resources Division engineers and ecologists will work with the May Creek Basin Steward, private landowners, and regional agencies to (I) identify problem sites, (2) design projects that improve the flow conveyance of the main thread of May Creek under normal conditions, (3) obtain all required permits and access easements, and (4) construct the pilot projects. The success of this recommendation will depend upon permit issuance, and will require cooperation and close coordination between landowners, county staff, and regulatory agencies. The long-term intent of the project is to establish the design criteria, the regulatory requirements, and the costs of projects that address channel obstructions. Where applicable, this information and experience would then be made available to all landowners in May Valley to enable them to build and maintain similar projects on their land as needed. Cooperation between all streamside landowners in the valley will be required if a single thread of May Creek that flows freely through the entire valley is to be established and maintained. These projects would differ from a comprehensive dredge of the May Creek channel in that: (I) obstructions would be addressed on a site by site basis, and (2) the overall stream channel dimensions would not be significantly enlarged. It is not expected that removing channel obstructions would significantly change the extent of the wetland or the floodplain in May Valley, nor the regulatory protection of those areas. See Appendix H for a discussion of the project elements and implications oflarge-scale dredging of the May Creek channel. Specific actions to be pursued under this recommendation include: I) selecting highest priority sites for pilot projects. Criteria would include severity of existing conditions, degree of improvement expected, landowner willingness, cost, and probability of project success; 2) creating agreements with landowners outlining mutual expectations. Documents that describe long-term county or landowner commitments may be legally recorded on property titles; 3) developing design plans and specifications; 4) notifying the downstream jurisdictions of Newcastle and Renton about designs and plans, and soliciting comment from them regarding potential downstream impacts; 5) obtaining easements where necessary; 6) obtaining all permits and preparing environmental studies as required by regulatory agencies; 7) implementing the pilot projects; 8) compiling results, including design criteria, best management practices, and any mitigation required to address channel obstructions; May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-19 4/23/01 9) providing infonnation to individual landowners to enable them to undertake similar projects on their own land; 10) disseminating the information to the public and, through the basin steward, providing ongoing advice and support. Removing these blockages is not expected to affect the extent of flooding during those times when stonns cause May Creek to rise over its banks. As discussed above, minimizing and mitigating for adverse impacts to protected stream and wetland habitat would· be required by pennitting agencies to compensate for any adverse downstream impacts that result from this recommendation. One element of the pilot project work would be to analyze the extent of potential downstream erosion damage resulting from flood storage loss due to the removal of localized obstructions, and to implement the appropriate mitigation. Because the ultimate goal is to enable landowners to maintain their own properties, strong preference should be given to on- site compensation, rather than regional retention/detention. This recommendation would include provisions for long-tenn maintenance and protection of riparian habitat and open space in May Valley through coordination with such tools as-Fann Management Plans and participation in tax incentive programs, such as the King County Public Benefit Rating System. 6. Restore Flows Diverted from Tributary 0294 back into Tibbetts Creek Implementing Agencies: King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Issaquah, King County Parks Department Cost: Undetennined Recommendation: Redirect flows from upper Tributary 0294, east· of SR-900, back into the Tibbetts Creek basin. Discussion: According to anecdotal infonnation from long-time May Valley residents and numerous U.S. Geological Services maps between late J 800's and 1965, at least a portion of Tributary 0294 which lies east of SR900 previously flowed into Tibbetts Creek basin to the north of the May Creek basin before approximately 1970. This tributary reach, which currently flows through the site of the fonner Sunset Quarry, drains a catchment area referred to as "sub-catchment zero" in the 1979 May Creek Basin Plan Technical Appendix. That document stated that, "one corrective measure to reduce flooding in the middle reach of May Creek would be to return the flow of sub-catchment zero into its natural drainage basin, Tibbetts Creek." The topography of the contributing land makes an exact estimate difficult, but it appears that this area measures approximately 200 acres. All but about 45 acres of this total is currently forested, and would remain so should it be included in the Squak Mountain Park/Natural Area. The King County Parks Department presently owns a purchase option for this property pending its state-approved mine-site reclamation. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-20 4/23/0 I Based on the Unit Area Discharge analysis presented in the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report, it is possible to estimate a 25-year discharge from this reach of about 40 CFS, or about J/6 of the current total discharge from the North Fork subarea. As even this relatively modest discharge contributes to the total flow and resulting flooding in May Valley, rediverting all or a portion of this discharge back into Tibbetts Creek should help reduce flood depths and durations in May Valley. As of early 2001, many legal and technical issues remain to be clarified before this recommendation can be successfully implemented. The current and/or past owners or operators of the Sunset Quarry are obligated to comply with permits issued by the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for the operation and reclamation of the site. Work under these permits has not been completed. Any restoration work performed at this site would have to be coordinated with the approved site reclamation plans. Since the site is privately owned, any restoration work would also have to be coordinated with the property owner. Before design work can begin on this recommendation, more information must be gathered on the historical alignment of the channels under consideration, the hydrologic character of the contributing subbasin, and the quantity of flow that can safely be directed back into Tibbetts creek. Permitting will include King County grading and other "sensitive area" approvals, Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and potentially other federally required permits related to the jurisdictions of the Army Corps of Engineers and/or the listing agencies for the Endangered Species Act. 7. Enlarge the Culvert under S.E. May Valley Road at the East Fork of May Creek Implementing Agency: King County Department of Transportation Cost: $50,000 Recommendation: Enlarge an existing culvert under S.E. May Valley Road at the East Fork of May Creek. Discussion: The stream channel up and downstream of the site where S.E. May Valley Road crosses the East Fork of May Creek is at a very high gradient. During flood events, high gradient headwater streams in the basin transport a considerable amount of sediment. These conditions pose a risk of blockage to the existing culvert under S.E. May Valley Road. Blockage of the culvert would cause the channel to overflow, potentially causing road damage. The topography and steep slope of the stream entering this culvert are such that the potential blockage of flows through it will not reduce flows downstream. However, if the culvert were to become blocked and fail, stormflows would flow through an adjacent roadside conveyance ditch, probably causing severe erosion and downstream sediment deposition in May Valley. Under this recommendation, the existing culvert would be replaced with a larger one, less likely to become blocked-improving fish passage and reducing the chance of overflow, soil erosion, and sediment deposition in May Valley. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-21 4/23/01 8. Protect Habitat at the Confluence of May Creek and Its Tributary Streams Implementing Agency: King County Water and Land Resources Division Cost: $25,000+ Recommendation: Protect high quality spawning areas from siltation through the placement of large woody debris or rock stabilization structures upstream of these areas. Discussion: Many tributaries to May Creek form deltas at their confluence with the creek. These areas represent the best remaining spawning grounds in the basin for returning coho salmon and cutthroat trout. This recommendation would protect these areas from increasing problems resulting from the delivery of fine sediments, which can reduce the quality of spawning habitats by silting instream gravels. Clean gravels are critical to successful salmon spawning. Tributary 0291A may represent a logical starting place for application of this approach. The channel of this tributary is downcutting and eroding and, without restoration, will continue to do so, thereby increasing sediment delivery downstream and into May Creek. The Conditions Report identified the mouth of Tributary 0291A as a Locally Significant Resource Area (LSRA). LSRAs have aquatic habitat value and provide important areas for plants and wildlife. The mouth of Tributary 0291 A is known to be the site of cutthroat trout and coho salmon spawning. Data collection undertaken during development of the Conditions Report show that this confluence is one of the valley's most productive areas. This pilot project or another similar one will be selected for implementation through coordination with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the WDFW for possible funding through King County's Small Habitat Restoration Program (SHRP). For the chosen stream, this recommendation would provide large woody debris, rock, and other onsite erosion-control measures above the delta to improve stream stability and habitat conditions. This approach will have the added benefit of reducing sediment delivery to the flood-prone May Valley. Measures such as this are needed elsewhere in the valley, and this approach could serve as a pilot project for similar efforts on other important tributaries in the future. 3.2.3 Lower Basin Subarea 9. Work Cooperatively to Protect the City of Renton Drinking Water Supply Implementing Agencies: City of Renton, King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Newcastle Cost: No direct public cost Recommendation: Work cooperatively to implement the City of Renton's Wellhead Protection Program in the May Creek basin. Discussion: The City of Renton, as a purveyor of a public water supply, is required by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) to develop a Wellhead Protection Program (WPP). In the process of developing a WPP, the City is required to identify pollutant sources within a Wellhead Protection Area (WPA) surrounding the production wells and implement, with May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-22 4/23/01 the cooperation of agencies and the private sector, a program to protect groundwater within the WP A. The WP A consists of the area described by the IO year time-of-groundwater-travel zone surrounding production wells. It may also include a buffer zone extending to the groundwater divide and/or containing the source area of streams that contribute recharge to the groundwater system. The City operates wells for which the WPA includes a portion of the May Creek basin. The City of Renton has been implementing aquifer protection measures for many years and plans to complete a WPP that meets DOH requirements in the near future. The cooperation of adjacent land use jurisdictions will be necessary to implement the WPP since aquifers and WP As overlap jurisdictional boundaries. 10. Facilitate Permitting for May Creek Delta Dredging Implementing Agencies: King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Renton (in cooperation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington Department of Ecology, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe) Cost: Negligible Recommendation: Assist the property owner at the May Creek Delta in obtaining permits needed for future dredging of sediments from May Creek. Discussion: The Barbee Mill Company is located on the May Creek Delta, where sediment deposition occurs naturally. Increases in erosive stormflows, associated with basin clearing and land development, have increased the need for dredging to allow the mill to continue its commercial operations. While the mill owner currently has an active permit for dredging, each permit cycle lasts only five years. Dredging will have to be undertaken more frequently in the future to maintain adequate access for the mill operation, particularly as a result of increased sediment transport as further development occurs in the basin. In the future, the mill may sell its property on the delta for a mixed-use waterfront development. In the event that the mill property on the May Creek Delta redevelops in the future, opportunities to enhance May Creek habitat and reduce the need for maintenance dredging should be explored. Although a feasibility study of this option has not been undertaken, it is possible that modifying the May Creek channel could reduce the need for maintenance dredging and provide a unique opportunity to establish an improved habitat area within the lakeshore commercial area, allowing the realization of environmental and economic benefits. Any major redevelopment project also should consider opportunities for acquisition and restoration/preservation of riparian lands adjacent to the May Creek Park system. Until funding for such a project becomes available, continued dredging is the only viable alternative for maintaining commercial operations at the mill. Such dredging has no downstream impacts, and the impacts on channel habitat are localized and minimal. This recommendation recognizes the need for dredging to continue until a long-term solution can be identified and funded. Even a long-term solution likely will include some need for ongoing maintenance dredging. Therefore, this recommendation proposes that the City of Renton continue to expedite city permits for dredging activities, and that Renton and May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-23 4/23/01 King County provide technical assistance to the property owner for acquisition of other necessary permits as needed and as resources allow. 11. Stabilize the Slopes at the Most Significant Erosion Sites in May Creek Canyon Related to Surface Runoff Discharges Implementing Agencies: City of Renton, King County Water and Land Resources Division Cost: $550,000 Recommendation: Implement a program of erosion-control measures at the most important surface runoff-induced erosion sites in the lower basin. Given the high cost of stabilizing these sites and the significant changes in the canyon's ravine walls due to storms during the winter of 1996-97, prioritization among several identified candidate sites will be necessary before design of these measures is begun. The highest priority sites identified at this time include Honey Creek at River Mile 0.5, and May Creek at River Mile 1.2 and River Mile 1.9. Discussion: Poorly functioning surface-water conveyance systems have caused large landslides and major localized erosion along May and Honey Creeks in several locations. This erosion has increased the amount of sediment entering these systems and reaching the May Creek Delta at Lake Washington. Because erosion at these sites is ongoing, conditions are expected to worsen unless stabilization is provided. Honey Creek is designated a LSRA from River Mile 0.0 to 0.35, and May Creek has a LSRA designation from River Mile 0.2 to 3.9. As defined by King County, LSRAs have significant aquatic habitat value and provide important areas for plants and wildlife. Both LSRAs could be affected by further erosion resulting from continuing destabilization of these sites. This recommendation would allocate funding to stabilize the two or three most important erosion problems in May and Honey Creek Canyons. After plan adoption, an interjurisdictional technical team representing King County and the City of Renton would identify the most appropriate sites for stabilization. Identification of these sites would be based upon their size, amount of contribution to the May and Honey Creek sediment problem, expected costs, feasibility of stabilization, and the cause of the erosion problem. Funds would be targeted for sites where the effects of stormwater are clearly the major contributor to ravine wall slope failure. Sites where large slides are occurring naturally would not be targeted. Project design would begin once selected sites are identified. Designed solutions are most likely to involve measures to limit the impact of surface-water runoff on these slopes to prevent aggravation of existing problems. Examples of slope problems and possible solutions include the following: • Active erosion of canyon walls at River Mile 1.2 of May Creek, where drainage and stormflow from an apartment complex have been concentrated. Chronic erosion and deposition of fine sediments into May Creek is occurring with resultant delivery of sediment to the May Creek LSRA and the mouth of May Creek. In addition, approximately 6 to 8 feet of fill is encroaching upon the edge of the canyon wall, and revegetation of the fill is inhibited by the steepness and looseness of the material. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-24 4/23/01 A solution at this site could involve diverting the runoff, which currently flows over the valley wall, into storrn drains. If diversion is not possible, directing flows into a new flexible plastic pipe down the valley wall could be attempted. A small energy dissipater and detention pond on the floodplain at the foot of the hill might be necessary as well. The slope itself could require installation of backfilled slope breakers across the face of the eroding slide, with subsequent revegetation. • At River Mile 1.9 of May Creek, an 18-inch corrugated metal pipe has separated at the joint, resulting in two slope failures that deposit sediment into the May Creek LSRA and the delta. Repair work at this site could include measures such as installing plastic pipe down the slope; slope breaks to hold soil on the steep, eroded face; and revegetation. Measures such as these would prevent future erosion and avoid delivery of coarse sediment to the creek from additional slumps, thereby improving water quality and aquatic habitat. Upon adoption of the plan, implementation will involve final selection of the most appropriate sites for stabilization, as well as design and construction of appropriate, cost-effective measures. 12. Place Large Woody Debris in May Creek in May Creek Canyon Implementing Agencies: City of Renton, City of Newcastle, King County Department of Natural Resources Cost: $200,000 -$300,000 Recommendation: Place large woody debris in key locations in May Creek Canyon to provide stream channel protection and aquatic habitat, and to reduce sediment delivery to the May Creek delta. Discussion: Most creeks in the May Creek basin lack large woody debris, an important component of healthy stream systems. This is because vegetative cover in riparian areas has been depleted through the years, reducing recruitment sources of large woody debris for these waters. Large woody debris provides part of the structure that helps hold stream channels and banks together, and it creates pools and channel complexity, which are important components of aquatic habitat. In addition, large woody debris regulates sediment transport in streams, thus reducing the magnitude of sediment deposition downstream. Although large woody debris is needed throughout the basin, this recommendation recognizes placement within the May Creek Canyon as the main priority at this time, with similar placements recommended elsewhere as funding and implementation commitments are identified. Additional large woody debris would improve aquatic habitat, reduce sediment loading downstream, and protect LSRA habitat values. Because this portion of May Creek is located within a public park, increased habitat values also could present educational and interpretive opportunities. 13. Plant Conifers throughout the Riparian Area in May Creek Canyon Implementing Agencies: City of Renton, City of Newcastle, King County Water and Land Resources Division May Creek Basin Aclion Plan 3-25 4/23/01 Cost: $25,000 Recommendation: Plant conifers along lower portions (below RM 3.9) of the creek and thin the existing deciduous understory vegetation in places to promote growth of new plantings. Discussion: Additional conifers are needed to establish the desired mix of understory vegetation along the May Creek Canyon and, over the longer term, to establish a forest canopy that will provide ongoing recruitment of large woody debris for the stream. Currently, an abundance of deciduous trees, mostly alder, cottonwood, and vine maple, grow along the creek. Much of this canopy is nearing maturity, and the existing understory will not provide adequate habitat structure and organic inputs to the creek. Given the existing species composition in the understory, this inadequacy will extend into the future if unaddressed. In some places, existing understory vegetation is being overrun by weedy shrubs, such as holly and blackberry, and other areas have become entirely unvegetated. These conditions have increased erosion where trees are not present to hold banks together, especially during floods. Such conditions have degraded stream habitat by increasing downstream sediment accumulations. Restoration of conifers adjacent to the creek would improve habitat conditions, stabilize streambanks, and improve the complexity and diversity of fish habitat within the creek. After they mature, the conifers would provide a source of large woody debris to the creek when washed into the water during storms or when downed by winds. Under this recommendation, conifers would be planted along the lower portion of May Creek within the Lower Basin Subarea, and protective measures would be taken to protect newly planted trees during their initial growing stages. This effort will include opportunities for volunteer involvement in the planting projects. 14. Improve Lake Boren Water Quality Implementing Agencies: City of Newcastle, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Coal Creek Utility District Cost: Up to $30,000 Recommendation: Expand the citizen-based water quality monitoring and stewardship program to continue collecting water quality data for the lake, improve public education regarding water quality, and begin small-scale improvement actions. Discussion: Although Lake Boren and its associated wetlands are designated LSRAs, their water quality has decreased recently as a result of runoff from urbanization and construction activity in the China Creek catchment and in areas draining directly to the lake. Sediment carried to Lake Boren by China Creek has increased seasonal cloudiness in the lake during winter, and water quality data collected between I 988 and 1992 indicated consistently high levels of fecal coliform and nutrients being discharged into the lake by China Creek. As a result, the lake has had occasional high readings of fecal coliform, and high levels of phosphorus have led to regular algae blooms. Water quality monitoring data show that Lake Boren is more sensitive to lake- level fluctuations resulting from rainfall than most King County lakes. Statistics on nutrients in the lake characterize it as a "meso-eutrophic" lake, meaning that it borders on being eutrophic or "overly productive" of algae or other undesirable vegetative conditions that impair a lake's May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-26 4/23/01 health. (See Appendix F for previously collected Lake Boren volunteer monitoring data.) As residential development continues to increase around the lake and in the China Creek basin, water quality conditions are expected to worsen, threatening such increasingly popular activities as fishing, swimming, and recreation in nearby Lake Boren Park. Protective actions under this recommendation would continue the volunteer programs that have provided specific infonnation on the lake's water quality through a citizen-based monitoring and stewardship program. The program would provide additional infonnation on existing water quality standards as well as detailed infonnation about stream flows and runoff entering the lake under base-flow and stonn-flow conditions. This infonnation will help fonn the basis for a possible lake management plan, which would require grant funding from state and local sources. The development of such a plan should receive consideration as a result of preliminary data, which suggest that a combination of in-lake and watershed actions could improve long-tenn prospects for the lake. A lake management plan would recommend appropriate standards for water quality treatment associated with new development. Any long-tenn plan for the lake also should promote sewer service to those lakeside residences still on septic systems, which have contributed to water quality problems in the lake, particularly when lake levels are elevated by stonnflows. Lake Boren is within the Urban Growth Area; therefore, the provision of sewer service to this area would be consistent with regional planning policies. If necessary, grant funding should be sought to fund these improvements. Along with citizen involvement in monitoring lake conditions, an education program would be implemented to infonn citizens about the need for septic system maintenance and best management practices (BMPs) around the lake. The estimated cost for the lake monitoring and education program project is $30,000, based upon similar programs undertaken at other lakes in King County. The City of Newcastle is also considering construction of a sediment pond upstream of the lake, along China Creek, to reduce sediment delivery to the lake. Such a project could represent an early action of a lake management plan. Subsequent long-tenn implementation of a lake management plan would probably best be undertaken through fonnation of a Lake Management District (LMD). An LMD is a special taxing district enacted by a vote of the residents living near the lake (typically its watershed). It would involve an annual fee for a set number of years to implement or partially fund implementation of a lake management plan. 15. Improve Boren Creek Fish Passage at S.E. 89th Place Implementing Agency: City of Newcastle Cost: $ I 00,000-$ I 50,000 Recommendation: Provide additional fish passage improvements at S.E. 89th Place to improve access to upstream areas of Boren Creek. Discussion: Several culverts in Boren Creek prevent fish access to approximately 1.7 miles of upstream habitat. Lake Boren and its associated wetlands are designated LSRAs and are adjacent to the creek. The culvert under S.E. 89th Place is a potential fish barrier during high flows or May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-27 4/23/0 I when debris collects at the intake. While such passage improvements are needed in at least two other upstream locations, funding has been identified only for improvements at the stream crossing at S.E. 89th Place in Newcastle. It is the farthest downstream of the blockages and therefore represents a logical starting point for implementation of this recommendation. Similar improvements at other locations on Boren Creek are included among this plan's secondary recommendations. Passage improvements are recommended for funding as part of the current City of Newcastle budget to upgrade the intersection of S.E. 89th Place with Coal Creek Parkway and, thus, could be accomplished relatively soon. The proposal would include an upgraded crossing of Boren Creek, probably with a bridge or open-bottom culvert. The total cost for the upgraded intersection is estimated to be $360,000. The cost of the crossing portion of the project would be approximately$ I 00,000 to $150,000. 16. Improve the Newcastle Railroad Embankment Outlet Implementing Agencies: City of Newcastle Cost: $70,000 Recommendation: Improve the outlet structure at the railroad embankment where water now collects and poses a hazard should the current embankment fail. Monitor the pond level and establish an emergency action plan. Discussion: The Newcastle embankment is an old railroad crossing constructed on a landfill trestle. Water collects and is impounded behind this embankment. This structure is located across Newport Hills Creek approximately 0.13 mile above the confluence with May Creek. Leaks have occurred in the outlet pipe, and seepage also takes place through the embankment fill. Although analysis of the structure has indicated that it is not in immediate danger of failure, the embankment/outlet structure poses a potential hazard under severe flood conditions that could result from outlet clogging and substantial water being backed up behind the embankment. Failure of this structure could damage a home approximately 400 feet east of the embankment as well as several homes downstream. This approach would improve the outlet structure to prevent blockage of the outlet standpipe and reduce the potential of embankment failure. It would replace the existing standpipe with a new outlet structure, install pond-level monitoring devices at the outlet, and prepare an emergency action plan for evacuation in case of a breach in the embankment. The City of Newcastle has included this project as a high priority in its SWCP and would be responsible for installing the facilities, and monitoring and implementing an action plan in case of emergencies. These measures would provide the minimum action required to prevent the embankment from failing and endangering downstream homes and property and delivering substantial quantities of sediment to LSRA habitat areas of May Creek. 3.2.4 East Renton Plateau and Highlands Subareas 17. Require Full Mitigation for Future Increases in Zoning Density in Areas Draining to May Valley May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-28 4/23/01 Implementing Agencies: Metropolitan King County Council, Newcastle City Council, Renton City Council, County and City planning departments Cost: No direct public cost Recommendation: In areas of the basin draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge, existing zoning densities (including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre- developed conditions. Density bonuses provided under development incentive programs should not be approved for these areas. The proposed Basin Steward (Recommendation 2) shall work cooperatively with each jurisdiction and, if requested by the jurisdiction, may coordinate the technical review of mitigation designs to address future flow-related impacts. Each jurisdiction will determine the consistency with local surface water management and development regulations and may consult the Basin Steward to assess overall impacts. Further, a proposed amendment to the 2000 update of the King County Comprehensive Plan proposes designating an area in the unincorporated King County portion of the May Creek basin as the May Valley Urban Separator. This area is in the Urban Growth Area and zoned R-1. The amendment changes the land use designation to Greenbelt/Urban Separator to recognize the sensitive features of the area. In accordance with Countywide Planning Policy LU-27, the Greenbelt/Urban Separator land use designation on this parcel, if adopted, cannot be changed to other urban uses or higher densities until the next 20-year planning cycle, which would begin in 2012. This provision applies even if the property is annexed to a city. Discussion: Zoning in the May Creek basin is a complex issue. The basin contains three jurisdictions that have control over land use decisions in distinct areas of the basin, and within these jurisdictions, a range of zoning designations exist (Figure 3-4). In addition, the basin is bisected by the line demarking the Urban Growth Boundary, which approximately separates the upper part of the basin, draining to May Valley, from the lower basin. The Urban Growth Boundary was moved to its existing location during deliberations of the Growth Management Planning Council, in significant part to protect the rural character of May Valley and to reduce its flooding problems. There are, however, areas that drain to the valley within the Urban Growth Boundary, which either are part of Renton or Newcastle or are anticipated to be annexed by one of the Cities (Figure 3-5). Some of these areas are already built out, but portions of them remain undeveloped and subject to future building activity. These circumstances contribute to a challenging environment for addressing the relationship between zoning and surface-water problems in the valley. The basin's jurisdictions make zoning decisions in response to a variety of circumstances, including the goals of their respective comprehensive planning processes, growth management requirements, equitable treatment of property owners, and surface-water conditions. Circumstances may become even more complex as the basin jurisdictions incorporate ESA response requirements into their zoning and land use regulations. The primary surface-water problem in May Valley is extended periods of flooding. In addition, there is especially significant erosion at the upstream end of May Canyon, just above the Coal May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-29 4/23/01 Creek Parkway bridge. Future development in upland areas will increase flows to these areas and will aggravate these conditions to some degree, even assuming implementation of this plan's recommendations to protect individual property owners and aquatic resources in the valley. Enhanced requirements for drainage facilities in upland areas (see Recommendation I) will be of some benefit but will not be of major significance in reducing flooding for a number of reasons, including the relatively impervious till soils in much of the upland area (which limits the possibility of groundwater infiltration), the fact that smaller developments will not trigger special drainage requirements, and that RID standards focus primarily upon future development. Upland drainage requirements will reduce erosion and delay stormwater runoff from reaching the valley, but during significant floods upland runoff will still generally arrive in time to add to the valley's slow-draining floodwaters. The total volume of upland stormwater runoff, which primarily relates to the density of upland development, will largely determine how future development in the basin affects valley flooding. Although the Basin Action Plan accepts ex,stmg zoning (including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) in the areas draining to May Creek upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge as a legitimate response to the variety of concerns affecting land use decisions, it recommends that densities in these areas be increased only if a qualified hydro logic analysis demonstrates that hydrologic impacts can be fully mitigated. This would include mitigating all flow-related impacts from development with regard to the entire range of peak flows, flow durations, storm water volumes and impacts on groundwater recharge. Properties draining to this area, whether in incorporated or unincorporated King County, should not be considered potential "receiving areas" for density bonuses, such as those that may be available through a Transfer of Density Rights program for rural forest or farmlands in King County or other possible incentive programs that may be developed in the region. 3.2.5 May Valley and Highlands Subareas 18. Reduce the Potential for Negative Water Quality Impacts Originating at the Basin's Quarry Sites Implementing Agencies: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources Cost: Included within Recommendation 2 and current agency budgets Recommendation: Ensure that the basin's closed quarry sites are reclaimed in a technically sound manner that protects resource quality and that any future quarrying activity is undertaken in compliance with existing water quality standards. If quarries remain open, develop a strategy to provide improved enforcement, technical assistance, and/or incentives to quarry operators to improve operating practices and reclamation techniques to minimize impacts on surface-water quantity and quality. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3.30 4/23/01 Figure 3-4: Recommended Zoning Map May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-31 4/23/01 Figure 3-4: Recommended Zoning Map (blank backside) May Creek Basin Action Plan 3.32 4/23/01 Discussion: Quarry operations in the May Creek basin, as elsewhere in the County, have historically had major effects on downstream stormwater flows and water quality. The many activities associated with quarrying operations, including earthmoving, gravel extraction, materials stockpiling, and truck traffic to and from quarry sites, can contribute to discharge of turbid, sediment-laden water. Operations at the various quarries in the basin have been less intense over the last few years, primarily because most of the material worth extracting already has been removed. Several of the quarries have changed ownership during this period. One quarry is now the site of an active composting operation, and a similar proposal has been considered at another of the closed quarry sites. As quarry operations have largely ended at these sites, the primary concern regarding the effects of quarry operations on surface-water conditions has changed, with the focus becoming adequate closure of sites rather than ongoing attention to stormwater management measures intended for active sites. Certain areas of concern remain on sites that have not been reclaimed. These areas should be the focus of efforts to provide technical assistance to reclamation efforts or, where necessary, the focus of enforcement of reclamation and water quality standards. Where practicable, purchase of quarry sites may also be considered as a way of ensuring long-term restoration of those sites, thereby minimizing impacts from them in downstream areas. This recommendation is intended to achieve the following goals: • Ensure that closed quarry operations are reclaimed in a technically sound and environmentally safe manner. To assist in reaching this goal, a strategy should be developed for monitoring the conditions at closed sites and the ownership of those sites, providing improved enforcement where problems arise, offering technical assistance in preparing reclamation plans, and providing incentives to quarry operators to initiate reclamation procedures. • Ensure that any ongoing quarrying operations comply with appropriate water quality standards. The proposed Basin Steward should coordinate with quarry owners and county enforcement staff to provide improved enforcement, technical assistance, and/or incentives to quarry operators to improve management practices and minimize potential impacts on surface-water quantity and quality. Additionally, the Basin Steward should assist quarry operators in continuing current practices that help achieve this objective. 3.3 SECONDARY RECOMMENDATIONS What follows is a prioritized listing of the secondary recommendations that were identified during plan development. Appendix D describes the methodology used to prioritize these recommendations. Implementation of these projects would be contingent upon willing property owner participation. Many of the smaller projects ideally would be implemented or assisted through volunteers who would be coordinated by the Basin Steward. The projects are presented in Table 3-3, which follows. The map Jetter designations in the table refer to the project locations in Figure 3-5. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-33 4/23/01 Table 3-3: SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION PROJECTS Map Letter A B C D E F H Project Name May Creek Park Forest Conversion and Stream Enhancement Purchase Reclaimed Quarry Area at Pacific Topsoils Site Preservation of May Valley Wetland #5 N.E. 31st Street Private Road Culvert Improvements May Creek Park Expansion Acquisitions Boren Creek Residential Access Improvements Gypsy Creek Drainage Improvements Project Scale/ Project Type Estimated (primary)* Cost•• HR M HP L HP L FR M HP Multiple S to M FR s FR StoM Funding Sources (includes grants) .. * Project Description PM,R Continue to restore mixed coniferous forest to improve stream reaches and riparian zones along May and Honey Creeks. Continue to introduce very large organic debris to creek channels, as is included in primary recommendation. OS,R Complete the purchase of the closed quarry operation at the Pacific Topsoils site on the ridge dividing the May and Tibbetts Creek basins. OS,R Purchase private property in the wetland for preserva~ion when interest is expressed by willing sellers. Manage acquired parcels to protect agricultural uses on adjacent properties. Includes removal of fill placed in the wetland and enhancement activities as desirable and as may be permitted. PM Private road at end ofN.E. 31st Street has been overtopped by previous flooding, cutting off access to several residences. Any future development using the access bridge should be required to upgrade to 100-year flood capacity. RNT, NCT, Continue to purchase lands along the May R Creek Canyon. PM Upgrade the bridge along the access road to reduce the effects of flooding. Condition any future construction pennits on properties affected by Lake Boren access road flooding to require bridge upgrades. NCT, PM Removal ofold road fill and culvert followed by revegetation. Excavation offill and culvert could use hand labor. Tightline road runoff downslope to creek. • Project Type: HP = Habitat Preservation; HR = Habitat Restoration; FR= Flood Reduction. •• Project Scale/Estimated Cost: VS= Very Small (less than $50,000); S = Small (between $50,000 and $200,000); M = Medium (between $200,000 and $500,000); L = Large (more than $500,000). ••• Funding Sources: WLR= King County Water and Land Resources; KCR = King County Roads Division; RNT = City of Renton; NCT = City of Newcastle; PM= Project Mitigation; OS= King County Office of Open Space; R = Regional Funding Source. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3.34 4/23/01 Table 3-3: SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION PROJECTS (continued) Map Letter Project Name 148th A venue S.E. Bridge and Approach Improvements J Coal Creek Parkway Trestle Improvements K N.E. 31st Street Bridge Improvements L N.E. 31st Street Culvert Improvements M Basinwide Conifer Reforestation N May Creek Delta Restoration 0 Lake Boren Wetland (Wetland #8) Habitat Enhancement p Forest Conversion of Wetland #28 Project Type (primary)' FR FR FR FR HR HR/HP HR HR Project Scale/ Estimated Cost** L s M M M L M M Funding Sources (includes grants)u• Project Description KCR Improve this frequently flooded road's flood protection by replacing bridge to provide increased flood conveyance and decreased backwater flooding to immediate upstream properties. Design bridge forIOO- year flood flow conveyance capacity. NCT Bridge piers supporting the Coal Creek Parkway crossing of May Creek have been designated ''scour critical." Inspect and monitor after major storms, and install channel backwatering or other protective scour counter-measures as appropriate. RNT Replace bridge to provide I 00-year capacity and reduce risk of structural failure from stream erosion. Renton has applied for federal assistance. RNT Upgrade undersized culvert along N.E. 31st Street to ensure 100-year flood capacity for future conditions. Reduce the risk of structural undermining from erosion. WLR, R Aggressive tree-retention and planting program to plant high levels of coniferous forest vegetation throughout the basin for maturity in 50-to I 00-year time frames. RNT, PM Preserve and restore main body of original May Creek Delta. Relocate channel to improve sediment transport. Lower delta by removing deposited fill, and replant delta and buffer to restore tree-and shrub- dominated habitats. NCT, PM Restore woody plant vegetation, relocate China Creek to a new natural channel, and incorporate gravel complexes and large woody debris in new channel. NCT, PM Thinning o(woody vegetation and understory planting with native conifers. Replanting buffers with native conifers. Consider purchase for preservation. • Project Type: HP = Habitat Preservation; HR= Habitat Restoration; FR= Flood Reduction. " Project Scale/Estimated Cost: VS= Very Small (less than $50,000); S = Small (between $50,000 and $200,000); M = Medium (between $200,000 and $500,000); L·= Large (more than $500,000). "' Funding Sources: WLR= King County Water and Land Resources; KCR = King County Roads Division; RNT = City of Renton; NCT = City of Newcastle; PM= Project Mitigation; OS= King County Office of Open Space; R = Regional Funding Source. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-35 4/23/01 Table 3-3: SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION PROJECTS {continued) Funding Project Scale/ Sources Map Project Type Estimated (includes Letter Project Name (primary)* Cost** grants)* .. Project Description Q 164th A venue S.E. FR L KCR Improve this frequently flooded road's Bridge and Approach flood protection by replacing bridge to Improvements provide increased flood conveyance and decreased backwater flooding to immediate upstream properties. Design bridge for! 00- year flood flow conveyance capacity. R North Fork HR L PM Relocate portions of the creek to near Realignment original locations, or realign to restore meanders and channel diversity. Large woody debris would be added to relocated stream reaches, and banks would be graded to reduce slopes. s North Fork Corridor HR L PM Reduce sedimentation within stream Habitat Conservation channel, add large woody debris, and and Enhancement restore filled wetland areas in riparian corridor. T Boren Creek Fish HR M NCT,PM Provide passable fish culverts at S.E. 84th Passage Improvements Way and upgrade or remove private driveway to improve fish passage. u Enhancement and HR M WLR,PM Cleanup of existing trash piles, replanting of Restoration of Wetland native vegetation, and restoration of filled #2 wetland areas. V North Fork Confluence HR M PM Remove shallow layers offill and replant Restoration disturbed area with native forest vegetation. Added opportunity to relocate North Fork, provide gravel substrate, and restore large woody debris to channel. w North Fork Wetland HR/FR s WLR, PM Several acres of fill at the southeast end of #75 Enhancements this wetland would be removed and restored (southeast end) with native plantings to help reduce flooding on adjacent properties. X Restoration of Outlet at HR s PM Remove fill and plant native trees and Lake Kathleen shrubs in wetland area at north end oflake. Y Wetland #50 HR S PM Remove illegal fill to enlarge wetland, plant Restoration native vegetation in buffers and disturbed wetland areas, remove trash and spoil piles, may consider fencing. • Project Type: HP = Habitat Preservation; HR = Habitat Restoration; FR = Flood Reduction. " Project Scale/Estimated Cost: VS= Very Small (Jess than $50,000); S = Small (between $50,000 and $200,000); M = Medium (between $200,000 and $500,000); L = Large (more than $500,000). "* Funding Sources: WLR= King County Water and Land Resources; KCR = King County Roads Division; RNT = City of Renton; NCT = City of Newcastle; PM= Project Mitigation; OS= King County Office of Open Space; R = Regional Funding Source. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-36 4/23/01 Table 3-3: SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION PROJECTS {continued) Funding Project Scale/ Sources Map Project Type Estimated (includes Let1er Project Name (primary)' Cost** grants)u• Project Description z Preservation of Lake HP M OS Purchase wetland and large upland buffer Kathleen Headwaters for preservation. AA Preservation of HP/1-IR M OS,PM Purchase wetland and buffers for Wetland #7 preservation. Portions of buffer may benefit from tree plantings, and opportunities for instream enhancement of Boren Creek are also present. BB Preservation of HP/HR M RNT,PM Purchase wetland and surrounding buffers Wetland #36 (may include developed land) for preservation. Enlarge wetland by demolishing existing structures, removing fill, and restoring native woody vegetation. cc Preservation of I-IP/1-IR s OS,PM Purchase wetland and sizable buffer to Wetland #47 timbered steep slopes for preservation. Alter deciduous forest and understory to encourage recruitment of conifers. DD Preservation of HP/1-IR s NCT,PM Purchase rayine for preservation and Wetland #41 Corridor recreation purposes. Reestablish conifers on walls of preserve. Active management of recreation activities is needed. EE Enhancement of HR S (Wetland WLR,PM Fence/bridge tributary, plant Wetland #3 portion VS) wetland/riparian area with native plants, and place large woody debris in channel in wetland area. FF North Fork Wetland 1-IR vs PM Disturbed areas and adjacent agricultural #75 Enhancement lands v,1ould be planted with native woody (north end) and forest vegetation with landowner permission. May be linked to potential North Fork realignment described above. Any restoration work would be designed to protect adjacent property uses from any impacts from the restoration, including flooding. GG Restoration of W ctland HR s NCT,PM Remove fill areas, plant native woody #34 vegetation in disturbed wetland and buffer areas, and remove ditches to restore wetland h drolo • Project Type: HP= Habitat Preservation; HR= Habitat Restoration; FR= Flood Reduction . .. Project Scale/Estimated Cost: VS= Very Small (less than $50,000); S = Small (between $50,000 and $200,000); M = Medium (between $200,000 and $500,000); L = Large (more than $500,000). "' Funding Sources: WLR= King County Water and Land Resources; KCR = King County Roads Division; RNT = City of Renton; NCT = City of Newcastle; PM = Project Mitigation; OS = King County Office of Open Space; R = Regional Funding Source. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-37 4/23/01 Table 3-3: SECONDARY RECOMMENDATION PROJECTS (continued) Map Letter Project Name HH Honey Creek Fish Passage Improvements II Improvements to Honey Creek, River Miles 1.35 to 1.72 Project Type (primary)• HR HR Project Scale/ Estimated Cost•• s L Funding Sources (includes grants)••• Project Description RNT Replace or remove culvert if existing culvert is a fish passage barrier and a Department offish and Wildlife permit is required as part of the Devil's Elbow lift station improvements. PM Return portions of creek to natural channel wiih abundant woody debris and gravel beds, restore wetland habitats and buffers associated with the channel and plant native vegetation. Direct parking lot stormwater awa from stream. • Project Type: HP = Habitat Preservation; HR= Habitat Restoration; FR = Flood Reduction. " Project Scale/Estimated Cost: VS= Very Small (less than $50,000); S = Small (between $50,000 and $200,000); M = Medium (between $200,000 and $500,000); L = Large (more than $500,000). *** Funding Sources: WLR= King County Water and Land Resources; KCR = King County Roads Division; RNT = City of Renton; NCT = City of Newcastle; PM= Project Mitigation; OS= King County Office of Open Space; R = Regional Funding Source. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3.3g 4/23/01 Figure 3-5: Secondary Recommendation Projects Location Map May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-39 4/23/01 Figure 3-5: Secondary Recommendation Projects Location Map (blank backside) May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-40 4/23/01 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EXPECTATIONS A number of goals are associated with each of the Recommended Actions contained in Chapter 3. This chapter describes the benefits and changes that are expected to accrue as a result of pursuing the recommendations presented in the preceding chapters. 4.1 NEAR-TERM IMPROVEMENTS This discussion focuses on improvements expected to result from the measures presented as primary recommendations in the preceding chapter. A guiding principle in the development of this plan has been to focus on a set of issues of primary importance in the basin, recommend actions to address those issues, and, most importantly, identify reliable sources of funds to support undertaking those actions. As a result of this focus, at the end of the three-to-five-year implementation time frame identified for this Basin Action Plan, all of the primary recommendations should have been implemented. It is possible that several of the secondary recommendations could be in place at that time as well, depending upon the schedule for a number of major projects in the basin and the success of basin agencies in obtaining funds for these improvements. The response of federal, state, and local agencies and private interests to the listing of salmonid species under the ESA may make additional funds available for implementing a number of the actions suggested in the recommendations. Given the long-term outlook and strategy necessary to achieve species recovery, funding is reasonably likely to become available for basin priorities identified in the secondary recommendations in addition to new priorities identified for implementation beyond the five-year term that is the focus of this plan. Identification of, and coordination with, potential funding sources would be a responsibility of the Basin Steward. In considering the expected benefits of these recommendations, the near-term improvements are those most likely to be achieved through implementation of the primary recommendations. Although these measures will not resolve all the problems basin residents associate with May Creek, all the concerns identified in the Conditions Report, or all the problems likely to come to light through enforcement of the ESA, meaningful improvements are expected to occur in several significant areas, including the following: • Reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding in several areas, especially in May Valley.Residents would have an avenue for technical support and assistance for locally based flood reduction/habitat improvement projects. In addition, properties prone to chronic flooding may be acquired for permanent flood relief to inhabitants. Quicker drawdown of flooding in May Valley will lessen health concerns and nuisances caused by private flooding. • Reduction of contributions from the May Creek basin to the factors for decline of wild native salmon stocks in the Lake Washington watershed, particularly those salmon stocks listed under the ESA. In addressing the degradation of salmon habitat resulting from activities taking place in the basin, requirements from the Clean Water Act will be addressed as well, reducing the likelihood that additional substantive regulatory action would be necessary to address water quality impacts that affect listed salmonids. Although historically the integration of water quality and ESA-related species protection concerns has not occurred, responses to species listings in Puget Sound will include such integration. Such integration May Creek Basin Action Plan 4.J 4/23/0 I should help streamline local efforts that support salmon recovery and respond to federal regulatory action. • Elimination of a potential safety hazard in the basin through improvements to the Newcastle railroad embankment outlet. Although the Conditions Report concluded that failure of the embankment is not imminent and that the potential threat to downstream homes and property is not great, the current condition of the outlet is unacceptable. This remedial action, along with implementation of the recommended monitoring plan, would prevent potential blockages of the outlet, removing the threat of failure. • Improvement in May Creek Delta conditions through a localized reduction in erosion from several discrete sites and a reduced rate of increase in sediment delivery to the mouth of May Creek. Although this reduction is an expected near-term benefit of improvement measures, the advantage over current conditions and the ability to moderate future sediment contributions will ultimately be determined by the timing of future development buildout. The acknowledgment by all permitting agencies that dredging of the delta is reasonable, through the recommended facilitation of permit acquisition, will allow dredging to continue. Prospects of proposed land use changes at May Creek Delta could create the opportunity for initiation of a major habitat restoration project at the delta. The success of such a project would largely depend on the effectiveness of proposed improvements in the upper basin. • Improved local habitat in May Creek Canyon and on at least one tributary to May Valley. Improvements to the riparian corridor will begin to ensure that habitat can remain stable over longer periods of time in the future. Critical fish passage problems would be eliminated with the result of improved upstream access to spawning and rearing habitat for a variety of fish species. • Development and implementation of Farm Management Plans for many properties in May Valley, resulting in cooperative efforts between agencies and landowners, and a reduction of nonpoint pollution. Farm Management Plans have been or are currently being prepared for some properties in the Valley. This Basin Action Plan recommends that one focus of the Basin Steward be to inform landowners about the availability of technical assistance to develop Farm Management Plans and to assist with proper implementation of measures in the Farm Management Plans. Establishment of improved stream buffers through this approach would be of significant benefit to water quality. Increased farm production would be a secondary benefit of this approach given the dual focus of Farm Management Plans: water quality protection and farm productivity. This could significantly improve water quality conditions in the basin, particularly with regard to fecal coliforms and high stream temperatures, which now present nearly lethal conditions for salmon. • Financial incentives resulting in opportunities for property owners to retain their land as open space or in small agricultural uses. The results of such efforts are expected to help achieve and maintain a low-density, rural atmosphere in many parts of the May Creek basin, particularly along the upper basin areas of May Creek and its tributaries. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4-2 4/23/01 • An increased awareness by basin residents that their actions have impacts on all water resources, including streams, wetlands, and groundwater (and the species dependent upon them), within the basin. Through this awareness, opportunities for residents to participate in habitat improvements and monitoring should increase. Contributions of volunteers interested in improving local conditions and enhancing the future quality of life within the May Creek basin are an integral part of plan goals and objectives. Educated and active residents, working with the proposed Basin Steward, are expected to play an important role in taking advantage of many opportunities for both near-term and long-term improvements and protective measures for basin resources. Educational information and programs will provide residents with an increased understanding of the connections between all water resources, aquifers, and groundwater protection. Along with citizen awareness and participation in improvement programs, enforcement of existing regulations intended to protect local resources continues to be important. The Basin Steward will work with landowners to inform them when an observed activity on private property could potentially constitute a violation of land use regulations. The basin steward does not have enforcement authority for King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance or other regulations, but will act as a source of information, coordination, or assistance as requested by landowners who wish to remedy potential or cited code violations on their property; . The Basin Steward will be in a position to organize educational opportunities for residents and, through ongoing contact with residents, will also be able to disseminate information about the basin's resources in less formal ways. The Cities of Renton and Newcastle will have primary responsibility for regulatory enforcement efforts in areas of the basin within their jurisdictions. The Basin Steward will act as a conduit of information to the Cities about issues in the basin, and will be available to provide educational and technical assistance under contract to the Cities at their request. 4.2 LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS In addition to the improvements that accrue from implementation of primary recommendations over the three-to-five year period following plan adoption, improvements will accrue over the long term as a result of implementation of both the primary and secondary recommendations. Given the uncertainty of the funding mechanisms for the secondary recommendations, realizing the improvements from those projects is less certain than with the primary recommendations. Secondary recommendations are likely to be implemented concurrently with the basin development that is expected to occur under existing zoning designations. The timeline for these secondary improvements may be as long as 15 to 30 years. Through mitigation measures associated with future development, and through direct interaction between basin residents and governmental agencies (including the May Creek Basin Steward), significant changes in the character of the basin are expected to be achieved as this plan is implemented. Hazardous flooding problems in the basin will be significantly reduced, and all public and sole residential access roads will be improved to be passable under at least 25-year flow conditions. A continuous riparian corridor along the entire mainstem of May Creek will be created. Development of this riparian corridor would rely upon the use of primarily native plant species. Riparian plantings in combination with fencing, where appropriate and necessary, May Creek Basin Action Plan 4-3 4/23/01 would control livestock access to the riparian zone. These actions are expected to increase the diversity and number of fish and wildlife associated with riparian areas. Additionally, the amount of coniferous vegetation throughout the basin will increase significantly, resulting in improved habitat for both native and non-native wildlife species. An increase in coniferous vegetation would also reduce the expected post-development increase in basinwide surface-water runoff. May Creek will have measurably lower stream temperatures and higher dissolved oxygen levels in the May Valley reach, improving habitat for salmon, trout, and other aquatic species. Finally, the May Creek Delta on Lake Washington will see improved habitat values and reduced sediment accumulation. Ultimately, through Farm Management Plans and programs that make conservation measures attractive to landowners, this plan presents a movement away from regulatory management and toward an incentive-based approach for protecting basin resources. It represents a cooperative effort between local government and property owners in determining how to alter practices that may lead to flooding of downstream or adjacent property. At the same time, it provides for collaboration between government and residents on restoration and protective measures for the natural resources of the basin. In this sense, one of the most important long-term benefits this plan may achieve is acknowledgment of the significant role of natural resources within the watershed and the need for a locally based, cooperative response to conserving, protecting, and monitoring the integrity of the May Creek basin to benefit present and future generations. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4-4 4/23/0 I REFERENCES Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, 1995. May Creek Basin Phase 1 Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, November 1995. Bellevue, Washington. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, 1996. May Creek Basin Phase 2 Solutions Analysis. Prepared for King County Department of Public Works and City of Renton Surface Water Utility, May 1996. Bellevue, Washington. King County, 1990. King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County Surface Water Management Division. Seattle, Washington. King County, 1990. Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Department of Planning and Community Development, September 1990. Seattle, Washington. King County, 1994. King County Comprehensive Plan.. Department of Planning and Community Development. Seattle, Washington. King County, 1998. King County Surface Water Design Manual Update. King Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources Division. Washington. County Seattle, King County and City of Renton, 1995. May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report. King County Surface Water Management Division and Renton Department of Public Works, August 1995. Seattle, Washington. Newcastle, City of, 1997. Newcastle Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for the City of Newcastle by the Newcastle Planning Commission, Department of Planning and Land Use Services, EARTH TECH, INC., and David Evans and Associates, June, 1997. Newcastle, Washington. Renton, City of, 1995. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Technical Services Department. Renton, Washington. Renton, City of, 1995. Chapter 31 (Zoning Code) of Title JV (Building Regulations). Planning and Technical Services Department. Renton, Washington. Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust, 1995. Conserving Land in King County: A Landowner's Guide. Seattle, Washington. May Creek Basin Aclion Plan R-1 4123101 APPENDICES May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix A Alternative Solutions Considered for May Valley Flooding May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix A: Alternative Solutions Considered for May VaUey Flooding Alternative Solutions In addition to the primary and secondary recommendations presented in this plan, a number of alternative · approaches to solving basin problems were reviewed during preparation of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 SoluUons Reports (Table A-1) in 1995 and 1996. Given the importance of May Valley flooding to residents, additional alternatives are presented in this appendix. As identifled in the table that follows, these potential solutions were considered but rejected because of the limitations identified. Table A-I: Alternative Flood proofing Dredging Retention! Detention to Protect Valley Bypass Pipeline ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES CONSIDERED FOR MAY VALLEY FLOODING Description A. Floodproof 7-9 homes Minimum Cost $400,000 B. Buyout of 7-$3 million 9 homes A. Simple $1.3 channel million (enlargement of exis1ing channel) B. Comrlex $2.5 channe (low million flow with flood overflow bench) A.RID on May Creek (460 acre-feet) $2.2 million Benefits Limitations Eliminates flooding of most Does not address pasture flooding; homes; very feasibfe; little or does not fully address flooding of no habitat impacts; least outbuildings or septic systems and expensive wells; limited reach of tiasinwide funding resources Eliminates flooding of most Does not address pasture flooding, homes; very feasibfe; little or outbuildings, or septic systems and no habitat impacts wells; expensive; limited reach of basinwide funding resources Reduces nearly all pasture Low permitting feasibility because of flooding; protects most habitat impacts; does not protect all homes flooded homes and businesses; significant downstream erosion and secliment impacts; exJJensive; would require maintenance dredging Reduces majority of pasture flooding; protects most homes Moderate permitting feasibility; requires too much space (avg. width 70-80 feet); does not protect all flooded homes and businesses; moderate downstream impacts; expensive; would require maintenance dredging Major improvement in flows Does not address May Valley in downstream canyon; flooding volumes; does not protect minor improvement in all flooded homes and businesses; flows and volumes in May low feasibility because of number of Valley sites involved and habitat concerns; ex ensive B.R/DonMay Creek and tributaries (600 acre-feet) $13 million Improvement in flows in Does not address May Valley May Valley and downstream flooding volumes; does not protect canyon; eliminates most all flooded homes and businesses; flooding of homes and low feasibility because of number of businesses sites involved and habitat concerns; extremely expensive Nine-foot-$22 million Eliminates all valley diameter flooding problems Huge impact on downstream canyon unless p~· e is extended to Lake Washin on; low ermitting pipeline to fl.Ypass flows to l:o-al Creek Parkwa feasibili due to ~abitat concerns; extreme y expensive May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 May Creek Basin Action Plan AppendixB Sensitive Areas Regulations 4/23/01 Appendix B: Sensitive Areas Regulations Among a number of regulations that govern land use in May Valley. those applying to sensitive areas and floodplains have become increasingly important as development occurs there. The King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) includes wetland classifications that apply to much of the land in May Valley. Because the valley is a natural floodplain. regulations pertaining to floodplain development also guide development there. These regulations include limitations on new land uses in the valley and are intended to protect important natural resources while also protecting residences from flooding that may occur as a result of new construction. Given the overlapping nature of these requirements, this appendix is intended to clarify these regulations and their application to May Creek. The Cities of Renton and Newcastle have adopted similar ordinances to protect sensitive areas. For the purposes of this appendix, however, the King County regulations are discussed because much of the public concern regarding buffers and provisions under these regulations has been in regard to May Valley. which lies within unincorporated King County. Wetlands The SAO defines wetlands according to the presence of appropriate hydrology. soils, and vegetation. Three types of wetlands are defined according to functional values: Class I are generally large (greater than 10 acres in size) and complex, with endangered or threatened species, or unique plant associations; Class 2 wetlands are of medium size (between I and 10 acres) and less diverse than Class I, but may include unusual wildlife habitat; and Class 3 wetlands are generally small (less than I acre) with less diversity than the other two classifications, and frequently include vegetation monocultures. The ordinance requires buffers around wetlands. Generally, Class I wetlands require a JOO-foot buffer; Class 2 wetlands require a 50-foot buffer; and Class 3 wetlands require a 25-foot buffer. Much of the May Valley area has been classified as Class I wetlands, primarily because of the size of the wetland area there. This classification places strong restrictions on land uses in these areas. Despite the limitations placed on development by the need for buffer areas. many current uses are not affected by these regulations. Under the present regulations, exemptions are given to existing agricultural uses where such use predates the SAO adoption in 1990. or where continuous agricultural use has occurred since then. These exemptions apply to both wetland and buffer areas. Thus, grazing within buffer areas is allowed under the agricultural use exemption. Only when new development is proposed, or a change in land use is considered. arc these restrictions applied. If, for example. property under agricultural use is subdivided for the purpose of constructing homes (a new use), then that use is subject to the wetland regulations. As long as the property remains in agricultural use. the current exemption continues. Streams Streams are another sensitive area with a classification system and set of restrictions similar to those described for wetlands. Three classes of streams, Classes I through III. have been defined based on size and average flows. Two subclasses of Class JI. moderate-sized streams, have been created to differentiate between those in which salmon or trout have been observed and those in which they have not. Buffer widths for streams vary from I 00 feet for streams designated Class I and Class II with salmonids to 25 feet for Class III streams. Restricted activities within these stream buffers are similar to those for wetlands. and uses existing at the time of SAO adoption are "grandfathered," that is, allowed to continue. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 In areas such as May Valley, where riparian wetlands arc located adjacent to streams, restrictions for new development are governed by whichever buffer is more expansive. In May Valley. this is typically the wetland buffer because each buffer width is 100 feet. For streams surrounded by extensive agricultural use, such as that which occurs in May Valley. there is an important exception to this current use exemption. The Livestock Management Ordinance, adopted in 1993. requires a number of measures, including limiting livestock access within a portion of the defined buffer of streams or wetlands. Since December 1998, properties with livestock have been required to limit livestock access within a 50-foot buffer of Class I streams or wetlands, and replant the area with native vegetation. This required stream buffer can be reduced to 25 feet when a Farm Management Plan has been implemented. The wetland portion of this livestock buffer requirement, however, does not apply for wetlands considered to be grazed wet meadows. Therefore, in May Valley, the 50-foot buffer applies from the edge of May Creek rather than from the delineated edge of the valley wetland. Floodplains Floodplain regulations arc applied in a similar manner. There are three different regulated floodplain areas, which are associated with rivers, streams, and other waterbodies: • the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodway, which includes the waterbody itself and adjacent areas with fast or deep water during IOO-year flows. No new structures are allowed in this area, with the possible exception of fences or corrals that do not impede flows or take up flood storage space; • the zero-rise floodway. which extends farther from the waterbody and where new development must demonstrate that it would not raise the existing IOO-year flood elevation. New residences in this area must have a building footprint of less than 2,000 square feet and cannot impede floodwaters; the footprint of existing buildings cannot be increased; any development must also meet the requirements applied to the flood fringe; and • the flood fringe, which includes the remainder of the floodplain for 100-year flows. New development in the flood fringe must provide compensatory flood storage; all new living structures must be constructed at least 1 foot above IOO-year flood levels and must meet flow-through requirements. Subdivision of land in the zero-rise floodway (including the FEMA floodway) is allowed only if 5,000 square feet of buildable area outside the floodplain would result for each lot. As with wetland regulations, existing land uses are allowed to continue. Floodplain development criteria are only applied where new development is proposed. These regulations are intended to control the types of new development allowed in order to protect existing landowners whose uses have been allowed under "grandfather" provisions in the regulations. If you have questions about how sensitive areas regulations may apply to property in unincorporated King County, please contact the Department of Development and Environmental Services at 296-6655. Summary In many areas along May Creek, these wetland, stream, and floodplain regulations overlap and properties proposed for development are required to meet all of them. In most cases, existing uses are "grandfathered" so that they are allowed to continue as long as they remain active. For example, grazing within a wetland is May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 allowable regardless of wetland class if the grazing is an existing use that was taking place before adoption of the SAO. The major exception to this existing use exemption pertains to uses within the immediate stream buffer. where the Livestock Management Ordinance requires that by the end of 1998 all farm animals' access to streams be limited. with (in the case of May Creek) a 50-foot vegetated buffer. Fencing is recommended to ensure buffer maintenance. Note that this buffer requirement can be reduced to 25 feet through a Farm Management Plan. This reduction is recommended for all properties within May Valley. These buffer improvements required under the Livestock Management Ordinance can be undertaken with financial assistance from several agencies, including the King Conservation District and the King County Department of Natural Resources. Further cost-sharing assistance is proposed under this plan. The requirements in the King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance described above are current as of March 200 I. Discussions regarding the implementation of additional or revised regulations under the SAO are presently underway in light of King County's obligations to meet the requirements of the federally issued 4 (d) rule under the Endangered Species Act. These discussions will probably result in changes to the regulations discussed in this section. For the most current information regarding the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. please contact the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services at 206- 296-6655. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 May Creek Basin Action Plan AppendixC Public Participation 4/23/01 Appendix C: Public Participation Coordination with May Creek Citizens Advisory Committee The May Creek Basin Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed to provide input from local residents and concerned citizens on problems and possible solutions in the basin. The CAC consists of nine members and two alternates and includes residents and stakeholders from areas throughout the May Creek basin, including Renton, Newcastle, and unincorporated King County. The CAC was formed specifically to participate in the May Creek basin planning process and to help develop solutions to issues of concern in cooperation with the agencies preparing this plan. The group has met throughout the planning process during the last few years, and has provided important information regarding conditions in the basin and prioritization of basin problems. The CAC discussed several of the preliminary recommendations in this plan in draft form and provided comments on the proposed approach to solving basin problems. Issues of concern identified during the development of the first draft of the plan included the following: • A major issue with local residents regarding solutions proposed for May Creek basin problems has to do with the amount of development occurring in upland areas that contribute runoff to May Valley. Residents are concerned that the density proposed for urbanizing areas is too high and that newly incorporated and annexed areas were being allowed to increase development density through zoning changes without regard to local flooding impacts. In questioning the level of development taking place. the CAC members expressed concern about the ability of the proposed May Creek Basin Action Plan to address the problems associated with growth in upland areas. • Although they support the stricter retention/detention standards proposed in this plan, members are concerned that increases in impervious surfaces created by past development and changes in zoning related to new development are causing a considerable amount of the flood problems residents are experiencing. Some mentioned that local jurisdictions were not paying for or requiring the infrastructure improvements needed to support greater levels of development. It generally was believed that many of the proposed projects in this plan would be beneficial, but would not result in overall improvement to the basin unless problems associated with upland growth rates also were resolved. • The original valley flooding recommendation, as shown at the top of Table A-1 in Part A of this Appendix, focused exclusively on floodproofing existing homes and, as a result, was questioned by some CAC members. At issue was whether the proposed flood proofing measures would benefit basin functions or provide relief to only a few individuals. The cost of this approach, given the condition and assessed value of the homes likely to be aided, was thought to be too high if the measures were applied to only seven or nine homes. It was suggested that consideration be given to whether this money might be better spent on another problem in the basin where a greater, basinwide benefit could result. Another proposal was that floodproofing be accomplished through cost-sharing with affected basin residents to allow the funds to go further. With a cost-sharing requirement, participants in this proposal would be more willing to make a commitment to maintaining their homes. • Concern was expressed about existing quarry operations and the need to better regulate associated runoff. Existing provisions for inspections and fines may not have been adequate to reduce detrimental effects of surface-water runoff from quarry operations. Penalties for violations may not be strong enough, and fines may be too low to deter quarry operators from following practices with negative impacts. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 • The amount of money devoted to the May Creek basin was considered too low when compared to other King County basins. Questions were raised about the allocation of funds from local property fees and how that money was being spent within the basin. Coordination with May Valley Environmental Council Following the plan's transmittal to the King County Council in 1998, a number of concerns were raised by members of the May Valley community, regarding the proposed recommendations in that sub-area. In 2000 the citizens of that community formed the non-profit organization, May Valley Environmental Council (MVEC) to provide a formal organized community voice to work with King County in addressing concerns about the proposed plan text and recommendations. King County staff met with MVEC and citizens in May Valley in two formal public meetings and several other informal gatherings from November 2000 through April 2001, to solicit community input for plan revisions and refinements. The community provided helpful guidance and feedback related to the text and overall tone of the plan. Numerous edits and clarifications were made to the introductol)' chapters of the plan as a result. MVEC also requested specific revisions to the plan recommendations which related to the May Valley sub-area. These included providing additional detail to the basin steward recommendation (#2), the monitoring program (#3), and the culvert replacement on the East Fork of May Creek (#7). As a result of coordination with MVEC, several major revisions were also made to the plan recommendations as follows: • Recommendation # 1 initially required forest retention and stormwater retention/detention standards in areas draining to May Valley as governed by the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The recommendation now calls for a more stringent standard, making it the strictest rural development standard in King County related to stormwater discharge. • Recommendation #4 which initially focused on elevating the worst-flooded homes in the May Valley sub- arca, was expanded to include home/property buyout as a method to resolve flooding issues for Valley residents. Additional funding for this recommendation was appropriated by the King County Council in 2000, and the increased funds for this project were also updated in the plan recommendation. • Recommendation #5 which previously focused on habitat buffer improvements in May Valley was re- written to create a pilot project for low-flow channel clearing of beaver dams, sediment deposits, and reed canal)' grass blockages. This revised recommendation emphasizes that there are probable major permitting hurdles to implementation. • Recommendations #6 which previously recommended removal of beavers and their dams in May Valley has been incorporated in the updated Recommendation #5. Recommendation #6 has been reformulated to create a project to pursue the relocation of flows from Sunset Quarl)' area back into Tibbetts Creek, where they may have drained historically. King County staff will continue to coordinate closely with MVEC and the citizens of May Valley during efforts to implement clements of this plan that are to take place within that sub-area. Public Review of Draft Plan Documents The May Creek Basin Action Plan was prepared with the cooperation of local residents and has included public review during the planning process. The Draft Plan received review and input from the CAC throughout the process, and two public meetings and an open house were held to discuss the Draft Plan. These efforts have resulted in a number of clarifications in the Proposed Plan, which includes information May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 prepared in response to questions obtained though the public meetings and written comments received on the Draft Plan. A summary of issues identified through public review is presented below. along with the location in the text where these issues are addressed in the Proposed Plan. Basin Steward's Role Issues: Need to identify the Basin Steward role more clearly; duties should be expanded; creation of Basin Steward should be a higher priority. Location ofText Discussion: The Basin Steward's role is the subject of Recommendation #2 in Chapter 3. Critical Drainage Area Designation Issues: Proposed retention/detention standards in the May Creek Basin Action Plan should at least be equal to the regulations presently identified for Critical Drainage Areas. Location of Text Discussion: The retention and detention standards have been revised and are identified in Recommendation # 1 Chapter 3. Drinking Water Quality Issues: The May Creek Basin Action Plan should include a recommendation to protect King County, Renton, and Newcastle drinking water supplies. Location of Text Discussion: Proposed actions regarding drinking water quality are described in Recommendation #9 in Chapter 3. Education Issues: A public education program should be developed to educate basin residents about watershed characteristics and the measures local residents can take to improve current basin conditions. Location of Text Discussion: Education will largely be a function of the proposed Basin Steward, as is discussed in recommendation #2 in Chapter 3. Enforcement Issues: How regulatory plan recommendations will be enforced after implementation; permit requirements are not being met by some basin development projects. Location of Text Discussion: Certain aspects of the enforcement issue are discussed in two primary recommendations. A monitoring plan that will involve data gathering in support of the evaluation of implemented plan actions is discussed in Recommendation #3 in Chapter 3. The proposed Basin Steward would also play a role in the enforcement of resource protection standards, as is discussed in Recommendation #2. Erosion and Sedimentation May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Issues: Many of the erosion and sedimentation problems in the basin are closely related to the total volume of runoff occurring in the basin. Location ofText Discussion: The plan includes a number of recommendations for improvements that would reduce specific sources of current erosion and sedimentation problems and would reduce the likelihood of such problems developing in the future. These are identified in both the Primary and Secondary Recommendation sections of Chapter 3. Specific recommendations contain suggestions for actions addressing zoning densities, RID standards for new development. slope stabilization, and dredging at the delta. among other suggestions. In particular, this plan includes a land use recommendation that would retain existing zoning densities in May Valley. Combined with strict stormwater control standards for new development and a requirement to retain forestland as development occurs, this measure would limit future increases in runoff volumes. Flooding Issues: Erosion and sedimentation problems are contributing to flooding associated with land clearing and development in upland areas; the Basin Plan needs to emphasize a system-wide approach to adequately deal with flooding problems. Location of Text Discussion: Recommencjation # 1 referred to above in regard to erosion and sedimentation issues, is intended to address flooding related to runoff volumes in a more comprehensive manner than individual recommendations intended to deal with area-specific problems. Area specific effects of flooding, in May Valley in particular, are addressed in Recommendation #4, #5, and #6 in Chapter 3. Plan Follow-through Issues: An administrative infrastructure needs to be established in the Basin Plan to carry out the proposed recommendations. Location of Text Discussion: The program would be administered by City and County divisions responsible for surface-water quality and controls. Each of the Primary Recommendations in Chapter 3 includes the name of the implementing agency or agencies responsible for that measure. The proposed Basin Steward would work with basin residents and jurisdictions to help implement plan recommendations. An interlocal agreement between King County, Renton, and Newcastle should establish their mutual responsibilities to implement the basin plan. · Forest Retention Incentives Issues: How effective will forest retention incentives be and what are the results of using similar incentives in other basins in the County; the Basin Action Plan must include a forest retention recommendation; if increased density is allowed in the basin, it will result in the loss of forest cover. Location of Text Discussion: The plan includes forest retention recommendations within the discussion of RID standards in Recommendation # 1 in Chapter 3. Funding May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Issues: The Basin Action Plan needs to include a long-term funding source: funding for the plan is too minimal and will not result in significant improvements to the basin; the budget seems low compared to that for other basins. Location ofText Discussion: Funding for the plan is discussed in Chapter 2. Stormwater Infiltration Issues: Infiltration of stormwater in the basin should be required. Location of Text Discussion: Infiltration, where possible, is addressed in the discussion of proposed RID standards in Recommendation # I in Chapter 3. Plan Leadership and Guidance Issues: Without recommendations for zoning and future development densities, the Basin Action Plan will not offer sufficient guidance to address flooding problems in the basin. Location of Text Discussion: Maintaining existing zoning densities is stressed in Recommendation #17 in Chapter 3. Recommendation #3, regarding the monitoring plan, and Recommendation #2, regarding the Basin Steward, also support the concept of ongoing action to address flooding problems in the basin. Basin Land Uses Issues: Controlling land uses in the basin is the key to addressing flooding problems and the only way to address runoff volumes; need to minimize the potential for land conversions that increase density; existing development densities in the basin, as recommended by the King County Comprehensive Plan, should be maintained. Location of Text Discussion: Maintaining existing zoning densities is stressed in Recommendation # 17 in Chapter 3. Scope of the Plan Issues: The scope of the Basin Plan is limited to solutions for the magnitude of problems as they now exist. Location of Text Discussion: Chapter 4 presents an overview of the expected benefits of proposed plan recommendations, both for near-term improvements (Section 4.1) and long-term improvements (Section 4.2). The Primary and Secondary Recommendations arc also intended to prevent existing problems from worsening in the future, and together are intended to provide a comprehensive approach to addressing problems in the basin. Water Quality Issues: Water quality problems arc primarily the result of upland development and cannot be resolved only by establishing stream buffers. Location ofText Discussion: The plan contains a number of area-specific improvements that would increase local water quality. These measures are discussed in Chapter 3. Maintaining existing zoning densities, as May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 stressed in Recommendation #17, would also help limit water quality degradation resulting from future development. Recommendation # 1, in regard to RID standards in the basin, also contains measures that will help maintain or improve water quality in the basin. Mitigation Standards Issues: Mitigation measures for proposed development projects are inadequate. Regulations or standards that require mitigation will not guarantee resource protection, given that some permit violations in the basin have gone unpunished in the past. Location ofText Discussion: The proposed Basin Steward, as discussed in Recommendation #2 in Chapter 3, would serve as a point of contact for local residents when permit violations occur. Potable Water Issues: The Basin Plan has limited mention of the potential for potable water problems and needs to be more specific about programs in place to protect potable water sources. Location ofText Discussion: A number of the plan recommendations in Chapter 3 would improve local water quality, including Recommendation #I, which describes new retention/detention standards, and Recommendation #I 7, which stresses maintaining existing densities. This chapter also includes a recommendation to protect drinking water supplies, Recommendation #9. Recognition of Plan Preparers Issues: The Basin Plan should clearly identify Renton and King County contributors as authors of the plan and explain that Newcastle was not a full partner in providing money for the plan. Location of Text Discussion: This relationship has been clarified in Chapter 2, Section 2.1 of the plan introduction. Quarries Issues: The Basin Plan should include a recommendation to hire monitoring and enforcement staff for potential quarry operation permit violations; fees for quarry violations should be raised. Location of Text Discussion: Specific actions addressing concerns about quarry operations in the basin are included in Recommendation # 18 in Chapter 3. Retention/Detention Standards Issues: The retention/detention standards should not be Jess restrictive in Renton than elsewhere in the basin; will Level 2 standards in Renton be maintained after annexation; need to provide greater enforcement of retention/detention standards with higher monetary penalties for violations: four standards in the basin may be too complicated and allow loopholes for avoiding the most restrictive standards; the Basin Plan should recommend design standards for retention/detention, rather than relying upon changes in the updated SWDM. · Location ofText Discussion: Basin RID standards are discussed in Recommendation #1 in Chapter 3. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Septic Systems Issues: The inability of the Basin Plan to adequately address stormwater volume problems jeopardizes septic systems in the Valley; it is not realistic to propose connecting existing homes on septic systems to the Metro sewer line as it would not be feasible to provide the necessary pumping stations. Location ofText Discussion: These comments reflect that the septic system issue has two important aspects: development in the Valley and the contribution of stormflows from the upper basin. Stormflows in the Valley are in part dependent upon the density of development in the uplands that drain to the Valley. The zoning density in the areas draining to May Valley is addressed in Recommendation #17 in Chapter 3. Volunteer Activities Issues: A structured method for volunteer involvement in basin projects should be established in the Basin Action Plan. Location ofText Discussion: The proposed Basin Steward, as discussed in Recommendation #2 in Chapter 3, would serve as a point of contact for local residents interested in dedicating time to improving conditions in the basin. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix D Ranking the Secondary Recommendations May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix D: Ranking the Secondary Recommendations Figure 3-3 describes this plan's Secondary Recommendations. In the table the projects are shown in the order of their priority for implementation, as determined on a basinwide basis. This appendix describes the methodology used in that prioritization process. Criteria Description More than two-thirds of the possible points in this prioritization methodology are available in two major criteria: the importance of the problem addressed and the overall effectiveness of the proposed project in addressing that problem. • lmportance-(1-10 scale): How important is the problem that the project addresses? The determination of the significance of the problems addressed is generally guided by the Solutions Analysis and information presented in the Conditions Report. • Effectiveness -(I -6 scale): How effective is the project as a solution to the problem? The determination of effectiveness can be affected by the size and complexity of the problem: a well- conceived and planned project can get a low Effectiveness score if it addresses only one aspect of a large. complex problem. A little less than one-third of the possible points in this methodology are available in three minor criteria that cover less critical. but important, aspects of the projects. • Feasibility-(1-3 scale): How hard will it be to undertake the project and complete it effectively? This criterion primarily accounts for the ease or difficulty of meeting permitting requirements. • OITsite/Multiple Benefits: (-3 -+3 scale): What effect(s) -positive and/or negative -will this project have on surrounding areas and the system as a whole? • Public/Local Support -(-1 -+I): If the com·munity is aware of this project, has the response been positive or negative? The maximum point total a project can receive using this methodology is 23 points. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Table D-1· RANKING THE SECONDARY RECOMMENDATIONS Map ProjmName Projm~tlon Importance Effectiveness Feasibility O!Tsite/ Publid TOTAL Letter (1-10) (1-6) (1-3) Multiple Local Benefits Support (+/-3) (+/-1) A May Cm-k Pri Forest Conffl'Sion and St= Continue to restore mixed coniferous rorest to Improve su-eam reaches and 8 6 3 3 1 21 Enhancement riparian zones along May and Hnncy Creeb_ Continue to introduce vrry Jar~ organ le debris to =k drarmels. m Is included In primary recommendation. B Purchase Redalmed Quarry Area at Pai:ilk Complete the purchase of the closed quarry operation at the Pacific 8 2 3 3 1 17 T-~11sS11e To"""lls slle on lhe rldi;,e dJvi..llnn !he Mav and Tibbetts Clffll basins. C Pnsrrvatlon of Eastern Extent or May Valley Pu~ wttland and a substantial buff tr for preservation. Remo,.·al or nu 7 5 2 3 0 17 Wetland ts nlaced In the wttland and cnhant:cmmt actlvlUes. D N.E. 31st Street Private Rnad Culvert Private road at end ofN.E. 31st .'.:ltreet has been O\'enopped byprevtous 8 6 2 0 0 16 lmproYt'ments flooding, cutting off access to several residences. Any future development using the access bridge should be r~ulred to upgrnde to !00-year flood lr .. nar-11v. E May crm P•k Expansion AaJuh!Uons Continue to purchase lands along May Clftk Canyon. 7 4 2 2 1 16 F Boren Creek Residential Arnss Improvements Upgrade the bridgt along tht atttsS road to reduce lhe dfects of flooding. 8 6 2 -1 0 15 Condition any future construction permits on propcrttc:i; affected by Lake Boren access-road fioodlnl! 10 ,_.,ulre brid11e u~. G Pil'servalkm or Western Extent or May Valley Public i!CquistUon program to obtain aod consolidate ~ portions of 8 3 1 3 0 15 Wetland 15 aod Associated Buffers Wetland 15 for long.term pnsm-allon. Would lncludt rtplantlng 1 "-and r.hannrl and habltal t oro ........ H Gypsy Crttk Drainage Improvements Removal of nld mad fill and culvrrt folkr,,.-trl by revcgctallon. Exc.watlon 6 6 3 0 0 15 of nn and culvert could use hand labor. Tlghtllnr! road nmoff downskipe to creek. I 148th Awnue S.E. Brldge and Approai:h Improve thts more frequently nooded road" s Dood protecUon by raising Its 8 6 2 -2 0 14 1J ......... vements surf art" and ,.,.1,.,.1no brlrl .... 10 orovldt 100-vear Oood c,rn:w-ttv. J Coal C1ttl Parkway Trestle lmprovemmts Bridge pters supporting the Coal C1ttk Parkway cross.Ing of May Creek 8 have been designated • scour critical.· lmpect and monitor afttt major 4 3 -1 0 14 storm events. and Install protective channel bark watering measures as aonronrlate. K IH. 31st Stffl:I Bridge lmpt'IJY1'Inents Replace bridge to provide 100-yt-ar capacity and redure rtsk of structural 7 failure from strum erosion. Rtnton has 2rmUed fnr federal ;!5.Sislant:e. 6 2 -1 0 14 L N.E. 31st Street Culvert Improvements Upgrade undtnfz.ed culvert along N.E. 31st Strttt to ensure 100--year flood 7 6 2 -1 0 14 capacity for fut~ condltlniu. Redutc the risk nf structural underm.lnlng from erosion. M Baslnwltle Conifer Reforestation Aggressive tree-retention and planting program to plant high levels of 5 4 3 1 1 14 coniferous forest vcgt>tallon throughout the basin for maturity In 50-10 100-vear time frames. N May Creek Delia Restorailon Prestn'f! and restore main body of original May u~k Delta. Relocate 7 2 1 2 1 13 dianncl to lmprove sediment tramport. Lower dell a by removing deposlted till. and replant delta and buffer to restore tree-and shrub-- dominated habitats. D Lake Boren Wetland {Wetland 18) Habitat Restore woody plant vegetation. relocate Lhlna Creek to a new natural 5 3 1 3 1 13 Enhancement channel. and Incorporate gr.we] complexes and iarJ:I' woody dchri~ In new channel. p Forest Conversion of Wetland '28 Thinning of woody vegetation and understory plantlng with native 5 4 3 1 0 13 conifm. Replanting buffen with native conlfe~ Consider purchase for I orese1Yatlon. Q 164th Avenue S.E. Brldgt! and Approach Improve this road"s 11ood protection by raising roadway surface and 6 6 2 -2 0 12 11-rovements rer lacln~ b..i.-1-10 "-vide 100-vcar flood canaclrv. R North Fork Realignment Relocate portJons of the creek to near original locations, or 5 4 1 2 0 12 realign to restore meanders and channel diversity. large woody debris would be added to relocated stream reaches, and banks would be J;!:raded to reduce slonM. s North Fork Corridor Habitat Conservation Reduce sedimentation within stream channel. add large wondy 5 4 1 2 0 12 and Enhancement debris, and restore filled welland areas In riparian corridor. May Creek Basin Action Plan 02/22102 Table D-1: RANKING THE SECONDARY RECOMMENDATIONS /cont'd Map Project Name Project Description Importance Effectiveness Feasibility Offsite/ Publid TOTAL Letter (1-10) (1-6) (1-3) Multiple Local Benefits Support (+/-3) (+/-1) T Boren Creek Fish Passage Improvements Provide passable fish culverts at S.E. 84th Way and upgrade or 5 4 2 0 1 12 remove .:n-tvate driveway to imorove fish =~u. ..... u Enhancement and Restoration of Wetland Cleanup of existing trash piles, replanting of native vegetation, 4 4 2 2 0 12 12 and restoration of filled we!land areas. V North Fork Confluence Restoration Remove shallow layers of fill and replant disturbed area with 5 2 2 2 0 11 native forest vegetation. Added opponunity to relocate North Fork, provide gravel substrate, and restore large woody debris to channel. w North Fork Wetland f7S Enhancements Several acres o[fill at the southeast end of this wetland would be 4 2 2 3 0 11 (southeast end) removed and restored with native plantings to help reduce flooding on adlacent mnnPrtles. X Restoration of Outlet at Lake Kathleen • Removal of fill and planting native trees and shrubs in wetland 4 4 2 0 1 11 area at north end of the lake. y Wetland #50 Restoration Remove Illegal fill to enJarge wetland, plant native vegetation in 3 4 2 2 0 11 buffers and disturbed welland areas, remove trash and spoil !oiles. mav consider fendmi:. z Preservation of Lake Kathleen Headwaters Purchase wetland and large upland buffer for preservation. 4 4 2 0 0 10 M Preservation of Wetland 17 Purchase wetland and buffers for preservation. Portlons of 3 4 2 1 0 10 buffer may benefit from tree plantings, and opportunities for lnstream enhancement of Boren Creek are also oresent. BB Preservallon of Wetland #36 Purchase wetland and surrowidlng buffers (may Include 3 4 1 2 0 10 developed land) for preservation. Enlarge wetland by demolishing existing structures, removing fill, and restoring native woodv ve11:etalion. cc Preservation of Wetland 141 Purchase wetland and sizable buffer to Umbered steep slopes for 3 4 2 I 0 10 preservation. Alter deciduous forest and understory to encoura2e recruitment of conifers. DD Preservation of Wetland #41 Corridor Purchase ravine for preservation and recreation purposes. 3 4 2 1 0 10 R~tabllsh conifers on walls of preserve. Active management of recreation actlvltles is needed. EE Enhanrement of Wetland f3 Fenre/bridge tributary, plant wetland/riparian area with native 4 2 2 1 0 9 plants, and place large woody debris In channel In wetland area. FF North Fork Wetland #75 Enhancement Disturbed areas and adjacent agricultural lands would be 4 2 2 1 0 9 (north end) planted with native woody and forest vegetation. May be linked to ootentlal North Fork reallanment described above. GG Restoration of Wetland 134 Remove fill areas, plant native woody vegetation In disturbed 3 4 1 1 0 9 wetland and buffer areas, and remove ditches to restore wetland hvrlmlouv. HH Honey Creek Fish Passage Improvements RepJace or remove culvert lf determined to be a fish passage 2 4 2 -2 1 7 barrier, and a Department of Fish and Wlldllfe permit is 1 ....... uired as oart of the Devll"s Elbow lift station imomvements. II Improvements to Honey Creek, River Miles Return portions of creek to na1ural channel with abundant 1 2 I 1 0 5 1.3510 1.72 woody debris and gravel beds, restore wetland habitats and buffers associated with the channel, and plant native vegetation. Direct parklnu lot stormwater away from stream. May Creek Basin Action P]an 02/22/02 Appendix E Basin Conditions -Significant Resource Areas May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 The Conditions Report notes areas of high-quality habitat, and separates them into two categories: Regionally Significant Resource Areas (RSRAs) and Locally Significant Resource Areas (LSRAs). These areas will be given official status and receive protection through their inclusion in the adoption ordinance for this plan passed by the respective basin jurisdictions. Regionally Significant Resource Areas (RSRAs) contribute to the resource base of the entire southern Puget Sound region by virtue of exceptional species and habitat diversity and abundance, compared with aquatic and terrestrial systems of similar size and structure elsewhere in the region. RSRAs may also support rare or endangered species or communities. Although typically found together, any of the following criteria are sufficient to recognize RSRAs in the watersheds of King County: 1. watershed functions are not appreciably altered from predevelopment conditions, as measured by corridor integrity, hydro logic regime, sediment movement, and water quality, or 2. the diversity and abundance of aquatic or terrestrial habitats are of consistently high quality and are well dispersed throughout the system, or 3. aquatic and terrestrial life, particularly salmonids, exhibit abundance and diversity consistent with undisturbed habitats and make a significant contribution to the regional resources of Puget Sound. Only one wetland within the May Creek basin currently qualifies as a Regionally Significant Resource Area: • Wetland I I in the Long Marsh Creek (WRJA # 08.0289) basin: This Class 2 wetland meets criteria I and 2 of the RSRA definition. No stream reaches in the May Creek basin currently meet the criteria for RSRA categorization. Locally Significant Resource Areas (LSRAs) also contribute to the resource base of the region, but at a lesser level of both abundance and diversity compared with RSRAs. LSRAs are, however, significant within a particular basin, providing habitat that is important for plants and animals. Because aquatic systems require adequate functioning of all elements to contribute significantly to system productivity, all of the following criteria are necessary to recognize LSRAs in the watersheds of King County: I. watershed functions have been altered by clearing and filling, but corridor integrity, hydrologic regime, sediment movement, and water quality are adequate for spawning and rearing of salmon ids or for maintenance of other plant and animal species, and 2. the diversity and abundance of aquatic and riparian habitats are good but not exceptional; instability, damage, and stream alterations are evident but confined to localized sites, and 3. aquatic and terrestrial life, particularly salmonids, are supported at one or more species and life stages at population levels that may be low but are sustainable. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 The May Creek basin contains some of the best remaining habitat among the smaller Lake Washington tributary systems, and within this habitat is one RSRA as identified in the Conditions Report. The basin also contains numerous areas that have been categorized as LSRAs and contains other areas that may be categorized as such in the future. Several stream reaches and wetlands within the May Creek basin currently qualify as Locally Significant Resource Areas: Stream Reach LSRAs: • May Creek Mains/em (WR/A # 08.0282): River Mile (RM) 0.2 to 3.9 • Honey Creek (WRJA # 08.0285): RM 0.0 to 0.4 • Boren Creek (WR/A# 08.0287): RM 0.0 to 0.48 • Unnamed Tributary (WR/A# 08.0291A): RM 0.09 to 0.14 • Country Creek (WRIA # 08.0292): RM 0.09 to 0.14 • North Fork May Creek (WRJA # 08.294): 0.4 to 1.0 Wetland LSRAs: • Wetland 5 in the Mains/em May Creek and South Fork May Creek (WRJA # 08.0282) basin: A Class 1 wetland comprising a 20-to 30-acre conifer forest remnant east of SR-900 and south of SE May Valley Road only • Wetlands 38,39, and 40 in the Honey Creek (WRJA # 08.0285) and the May Creek Mains/em (WR/A# 08.0282) basins • Wetland 1 in the Lake Kathleen basin: A Class 1 wetland • Wetland 9 in the Gypsy Creek (WR/A # 08. 0284) basin • Wetland 8 in the China/Boren Creek (WR/A # 08. 0287) basin: A Class 1 wetland • Wetland 4 in the China/Boren Creek (WR/A # 08.0287) basin • Wetland 2 in the unnamed tributary (WRJA # 08.0291A) basin: A Class I wetland • Wetland 13 in the North Fork May Creek (WR/A # 08.0294) basin: A Class I wetland Figures E-1 through E-4 provide graphic illustration of important conditions in the May Creek basin, in particular the location of the basin's RSRA and LSRAs and specific problem areas. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Figure E-1: Lower Basin Conditions May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Figure E-2: May Valley Conditions May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Figure E-3: East Renton Plateau Conditions May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Figure E-4: Highlands Conditions May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 AppendixF Lake Boren Monitoring Data -1996 through 1999 Reports May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix F: Lake Boren Monitoring Data -1996 & 1997 Reports The following pages contain data pertaining to Lake Boren conditions. These data were collected and summarized for the respective 1996 through 1999 Lake Monitoring Reports as part of the Volunteer Monitoring Program administered by King County WLR. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 AppendixG Recommended Actions Undertaken During Plan Development May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix G: Recommended Actions Undertaken During Plan Development Several actions that were recommended during the development of the Basin Action Plan were implemented before the drafting of this document. These actions are presented below along with a description of their current status. In addition to these actions, the basin jurisdictions have undertaken a range of other actions that comprise at least a portion of other recommendations or that are complementary to the overall goal of improving basin conditions. Recommendation: Improve the Olympic Pipeline Crossing on May Creek and Rehabilitate the Associated Fish Ladder Current Status: This project was implemented during the instream construction window in the summer of 1998. The project is being monitored for effectiveness, including its effectiveness in allowing fish to pass. Implementing Agency: Olympic Pipeline Company Cost: To be determined by Olympic Pipeline Company Recommendation: Protect exposed pipeline and improve fish passage at River Mile 3.0 of May Creek. Discussion: In the past, a fish ladder was constructed at this site as mitigation for a pipeline crossing under the streambed. When not functioning properly. the ladder caused a fish barrier in May Creek. During the winter of 1996, flooding eroded the streambed, partially exposing the pipeline so that it was in danger of failing should high flows create further erosion and turbulence. Such a failure could have released petroleum products directly to May Creek and Lake Washington. The Olympic Pipeline Company began a project during the fall of 1996 to restore the stability of the crossing. This project also ensured fish access to the upper reaches of May Creek. The Olympic Pipeline Company was scheduled to return to the site in summer 1997 to install a permanent instream structure to protect the pipeline from erosion and turbulence. Because of the early return of spawning salmon to and above the subject reach, this permitted work was postponed until summer 1998. It is essential that the implemented permanent solution ensure fish passage to areas above the project site. The estimated cost of protecting the pipeline and ensuring adequate fish passage is unknown and is dependent upon the final design solution chosen by Olympic Pipeline. This design will be subject to permit review by the City of Newcastle, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other agencies. Recommendation: Rehabilitate the Lake Kathleen Outlet at S.E.134th Current Status: This project was implemented during the instream construction window in the summer of 1997. Customary post-project monitoring for project effectiveness is under way. Implementing Agency: King County Department ofTransportation Cost: $60,000 Recommendation: Replace the existing culvert with a new outlet to improve downstream conveyance. Discussion: Flooding is occurring at the north end outlet of Lake Kathleen and is expected to continue as runoff increases because of future urban development. Road overlapping occurs at approximately the five- year flow, resulting in difficult access for several homes. This recommendation would replace existing May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 culverts with an outlet that would retain most of the current retention/detention value while also preventing overtopping of the road. It also may require raising the roadway surface. If raising the roadway surface is required, the cost of the project will increase, possibly resulting in a re-prioritization of the project based upon the increased funding need. A higher retention/detention standard for Lake Kathleen was considered to prevent worsening of the problem as additional development occurs in the basin. Given the lack of new development anticipated there, it was concluded that such a standard would be ineffective. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix H Dredging May Creek: Technical Summary of Alternatives Analysis May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Appendix H: Dredging May Creek: Technical Summary of Alternatives Analysis During development of the May Creek Basin Plan, a number of alternatives for solving flooding in May Valley were analyzed. See Appendix A for a summary of the alternative solutions that were reviewed. This appendix presents a more detailed summary of the alternative analysis for dredging May Creek, updated as of October 2000. The conceptual scope outlined here is based on the HSPF hydrologic model developed for the May Creek Current and Future Conditions Report (King County and City of Renton, 1995) and on subsequent Solutions Analysis reports completed by a consultant for King County (Foster Wheeler, 1995 and 1996). Analysis of past, current and probable future storm runoff and flooding conditions of the May Creek Basin indicate that flood flows have increased significantly and will likely continue to increase as the basin is developed. Dredging of a simple trapezoidal channel would result in significant degradation of aquatic and wetland habitat. If a more natural compound channel were excavated, significant aquatic and riparian damage could be minimized and some improvements to aquatic and riparian habitat could be made. Therefore, compound dredge alternatives that include habitat benefits and mitigate downstream impacts are analyzed in greater detail below. Table H-1: Frequency MAY CREEK PEAK FLOWS NEAR 164'" A VE. SE Flow (cfs) Current Future Mitigated 2-year 170 193 I 0-year 285 348 25-year 350 439 I 00-year 461 590 The average annual flow in May Creek, as measured at 148ffi Ave SE, is 8.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). A summary of May Creek flow data from the HSPF model is shown above in Table H-1. A dredged channel sized to convey a I 0-year recurrence interval event under future mitigated conditions would require a normal flow channel 1.5 feet deep by 11 feet wide to convey typical flows, embedded in a 3.5 foot deep 61 foot wide overbank floodway to convey storm flows. The floodplain bench would be vegetated. The total average channel size would be 61 feet wide and 5 feet deep. To convey the JOO-year flow, (590 cfs) the floodway would need to be 1.5 feet deeper, increasing the channel width to 73 feet. All channel sizes are averages. The actual channel design would be somewhat smaller at the upper end of the valley and larger at the downstream end. May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Figure H-1: TYPICAL DREDGED CHANNEL CROSS-SECTION ~" ,~~ .. ;r;::.t; ~t .. ..-----'t..._.:::_ __ ;::!!. ____ . ~1 FT: 73 FT'-'-----~--,,--.--+ l)& ..... ~~: ~·~~. II ·" . ,. ,-... ~-4.. ----i.__, ( ,r....,,1? ; 15FT SFT-65 FT To improve aquatic habitat, the compound channel must provide habitat complexity and incorporate native vegetation, large woody debris, and backwater rearing channels. These features would increase the required channel size and therefore the land required for the project. Maintenance needs also significantly influence the design of the channelization proposal. The channel would need to be redredged and disturbed areas on the floodplain bench rcvcgetated approximately every 20 years. The existing channel slope averages 0.14% in May Valley. Increasing the stream gradient in order to minimize sediment deposition and maintenance significantly increases the channel excavation required at the downstream end of the valley. The extra depth required ranges from 9 feet to 32 feet as the stream gradient is increased to 0.2% through 0.5%. Either size of compound channel would compromise existing road bridges at 148" Ave. SE and 164" Ave. SE. Replacement of these bridges is currently a secondary recommendation in the Basin Plan, and would be necessary clements of a channelization project. Insofar as a dredging project moves water more quickly out of May Valley, it will increase peak flows in the downstream reaches of May Creek, significantly aggravating an existing erosion problem in May Creek canyon. To address this problem, retention/detention (RID) facilities must be included in the project design. Several options were explored, providing varying levels of protection. Decentralized approaches, which involve multiple ponds located on the tributaries and on the mainstem of May Creek downstream of SR-900 and at 148'' Ave. SE would require a total of 459 acre-feet offload storage. These ponds arc designed to reduce the 25-year future mitigated peak flows to the JO-year current peak flows. A centralized RID approach, designed specifically to protect May Creek downstream of the valley, would reduce the 100-year future mitigated flow (590 cfs) to the 2-year current peak flow (170 cfs). This level of protection would require siting 600 acre-feet of storage in the vicinity of 148" Ave. SE. The Stream Protection Standard is the current applicable standard, and would require even larger storage area. Whether the RID volume required for the final design is 459 acre-feet, 600 acre-feet or more, the feasibility of siting the ponds is poor. The valley floor between SR-900, SE May Valley Road, and 148" Ave SE is about 330 acres, and averages 1000 feet wide. A 100 acre-ft pond 4.35 feet deep would measure 1000 feet on a side and cover about 23 acres. Six such ponds on the valley floor would preclude all other land uses and eliminate wetland and riparian habitat in about one third of the valley, severely compromising the primary goals of the project. See Figure H-2 for a conceptual layout indicating the scale ofR/D facilities required. Irrespective of the siting of the ponds, dredging the creek to control flooding would severely impact May Creek Wetland 5. As identified in the 1990 King County Wetlands inventory, May May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 Creek Wetland 5 is rated I (a) and covers 142 acres. It is likely that at least 100 acres of wetland would be drained by constructing the dredged channel. Wetland mitigation requirements are likely to range from 200 to 400 acres of enhanced or created wetland, preferably in the May Creek basin. Finding suitable property would be extremely difficult, and the costs of acquiring the land and finishing the wetland mitigation project would be substantial. Obtaining the required project permits from local. state. and federal agencies will be difficult and time consuming. Even though the project is designed to provide in-stream habitat benefits and to mitigate downstream impacts. unavoidable short-term impacts and wetland impacts remain. Table H-2: PERMITS REQUIRED Permit required Intent Agency DOES SEPA. with EIS Public input and alternative County analysis. DOES Clearing and Grading Protects the public from poorly planned development. and protects sensitive areas. ODES Public Agency and Utility Requires review of project Exemption alternatives, impact minimization and miti~ation. WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval Protects fish and aquatic habitat. State DOE 401 Water Quality Certification Protects water quality. review USACOE Individual 404 Permit Protects integrity of waters of the Federal Possible federal EIS US, including wetlands. NMFS Concurrence with 404 Permit Protects chinook salmon and other threatened or endangered marine soecies. USFWS Concurrence with 404 Permit Protects bull trout. eagles. and other threatened or endangered freshwater and terrestrial species. Public comments, Input on Local and State permits Any group or individual may appeal Public permit appeals and approvals or file a lawsuit if they disagree with and potential the outcome of the process or feel third party that the agencies failed to lawsuits adequately enforce the laws. In 1996, costs of dredging the channel to control the JO-year flow, upgrading the two bridges, and constructing a 600 acre-ft retention/detention pond were estimated at $6 million or 30 million, depending on the design approach for the ponds. Maintenance of the channel was estimated at $2.8 million dollars every 20 years. Cost estimates done in 2000 that include wetland mitigation costs and updated costs for construction, permitting, and land acquisition total over $50 million, not including maintenance of the channel and RID facilities. The project also entails risks for which costs are difficult to quantify. These risks include mitigation May Creek Basin Action Plan 4/23/01 negotiation, studies that may be required to complete the permitting processes, potential third-party lawsuits, and non-monetary costs of habitat damage and downstream damage in case the proposed mitigation should prove insufficient. In summary, the overall feasibility of dredging May Creek is poor, even when significant habitat features and measures to protect downstream resources and residents are incorporated into the design. The most significant barriers can be summarized as follows: I) Low technical feasibility of siting regional retention/detention ponds required to mitigate negative impacts to downstream residents and stream habitat. 2) Significant wetland damage and associated mitigation requirements, 3) Low possibility of obtaining permits required by federal, state and local agencies, 4) Cost of capital improvements, land acquisition, and maintenance. May Cn,-ck Basin Action Plan 4/23/0 I :· ..... ! too Acre-feet i i floacMata Strmga_Valwno 1 ...... .: 1000 feet X 1000 feet ii 4.35 feet deep -, -Moy VaUoy Subanm Baundmy _,-. Stroam · ~~ Wetland AT l£AST 600,.t,CRE.fEET OF RETEN1ION/DETENTk:lN YOI.UME ARE tEQUIRB:I AT THE lOWER f.NO Of MAY VAUfV fO ROIEC1 THE DOWNSUE.t.M REAOIES 0~ MA'f CUR n.. i...i of p!Qwdi;iil • thi, onoi,,.. rm .. , i!tt 1()0.yecr lut;,,1 "'~CIMI p,,d. fl;,,,,, lSPO dsl ot tire a,rrem1 2,yom rlla/lTaaia inta-od peal ~ role (170 dal. lt.. 1bp,. cl~ Cr-111 Cl"'ly I .A 1"t 1Mlf 1 ())(I &..I, 1<:i lh• o:a~ d.fit+, lb!iwn Qi °"'AIM! h, probd:,t, nDI 1-ole. Pond Q!IIQ 1Jltf1'CI_ I, d11p6 l1 d-cn11:u..:I. May Creek Basin Action Plan May Valley R/D Conceptual Design Minimum Flood Storage Required for Dredging Moy Creek 4 4/23/0 I 9/28/20·1 l City Of Renton Attn; Hearing examiner Rocal Timmons ---ios-5-South-6'ra:dy-W Renton Wa. 98059 RE; Horne Rezone #LUA 11-023 To Whom it may Concern City of Rento o1a . n ' nn,ng Div,·s· 1011 OCT -4 2011 I ask that you support the Horne rezone for the very reason I bought my property in the Renton area and that is the right to develop my property someday at a 4 units per acre. A number of years back when City of Renton down zoned the whole east Renton Hill from R-8 to R-4, there was nothing said about down zoning to R-1 especially if the property was in the Urban or City limits. I drove by Mr. Horne's property and read the notice and it appears to be a good developable property with a brand new Sewer Station across the street. So my question is why should Mr. Horne not be allowed to develop to R-4 right now when he is ready to retire, because some rich folks next door don't want him too? Please allow the Horne rezone to go thru! Yours ~_J,(._.X..-<...4-:::;-f'-'--~ Doug Prellwitz 14302 156th Ave SE Renton, Wa. 98059 EXHIBIT 5 --- October 3, 2011 Attn; Rocale Timmons City Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98059 RE: Horne Rezone Request #LUA 11-023 City of A Pt . enton · ann,ng 0 .. 1v1sion OCT -L• ·,. · 0 ,U/1 My Family owns multiple pieces of properties inside the city limits of Renton and has resided in Renton for many generations. We have seen the slowing of growth and the loss of many small businesses recently which does not help any property owners where ever they live. The value of properties inside the city limits and the value of their life savings in those properties depend on the zoning. The Horne rezone appears to be requesting a zoning classification which is standard for most properties that are being developed within the city limits so why do these property owners have to request a rezone and go thru this process. When ever an area that has been run down or has an extremely amount of old housing and gets annexed to the city of Renton, isn't it likely that it should be developed into a new neighborhood with side walks and livable new homes! I do not think it is fair and quit frankly, it is UN-American to devalue a property owner's life savings with a zoning value that makes the property worthless, when all the other property around the Horne property are built out on standard sized lots! For the above reasons, I support the Horne rezone request and please let your department supervisors know my feelings also! Thank you for letting me airs my views on this land rezone. a~~ ~~~~~ Diane and Dennis Schwartzenberger 601 Shattuck Ave S. Renton, WA. 98057 --· October 3, 2011 City of Reriton Attention: Roca le Timmons 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA. 98059 RE: Rezone Request #LUAll-023 Dear Rocale, My sister-in-law Diane told me about a rezone filing by a property owner named Ed Horne and that some of the neighbors are protesting the rezone. So my husband, Greg and I took a ride over to see what all this protest was about and what Ed Horne was requesting. We got information off your web site, although the Information was limited, it did give us the location and properties involved. I do not understand why the property is zoned R-1 and why any property in the City of Renton would be zoned R-1. We live in an R-8 neighborhood and if the Horne property owners are trying to get R-4, that's only half of what we have; so I don't think anything would be wrong with approving this request. When Greg and I drove by, there was horse pasture, run down houses and the general feel for this change. I don't know why the surrounding property owners would protest this change, it can only Improve the total area. As a Renton resident, please let the judge know that Greg and myself support the Rezoning of Horne property from R·l to R-4. Thank you, Sherry Williams ' ' Stt~ w &.~Lll,Y'(\j } Rocale Timmons City Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 98059 RE; Horne Rezone Request #LUA 11-023 September 26, 2011 I own property to the south of the Horne Rezone and ask that you support the rezone request to an R-4 designation for the following Reasons. 1. All properties inside the city limits and the Urban growth boundry line shall be developable to a minimum of R-4 as designated by the state legislation. 2. There are no documented pervasive sensitive areas on the Horne Rezone properties. 3. There are recently installed sewer installed along 148th Ave SE to SE 102nd and along 26th Ave NE 4. There is a Large newly completed City of Renton Sewer pump station in a tract adjacent to 261h Ave NE to service the entire Horne Rezone area. 5. All the properties in the area happen to be built out too or equal too a R-4 density within a half mile surrounding the Horne Rezone Area. 6. With the New 2009 SWM manual in place, no untreated Storm water will reach the drainage ditch in the Stongate Neighborhood to the West of the Horne rezone area, unlike currently huge amounts of untreated storm flows into the drainage system daily untreated. 7, Newer Homes can replace the abandoned homes currently onsite in the Rezone area. 8. It will be safer when the area is built out with sidewalks, so Kids and Adults will be able to walk to schools and the Newly planned Jennifer Dunn Memorial Park just south of the Horne Rezone area .•' October 5, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Project Number LUAl 1-023, ECF, R Project Name: Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov City of Renton Planning Division OCT -7 1011 I am a property owner in the Home Rezone area. I fully support the efforts of Mr. Home who, with the unanimous consent of our neighbors, are supporting the rezone of our properties from their current R-1 zone to the R-4 zone, which better fits the attributes of our property. I offer the following facts, reasons, and rationale: • According to the City of Renton Code 4-2-020.C Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, the R-1 zone "is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas" (emphasis added). The Home Rezone area is not characterized by pervasive critical areas. In fact, there are no known critical areas on the entirety of the Home Rezone's 7.37 acres. While there might be one low spot in a tiny area of the Home Rezone area, it is not ''pervasive" nor is there any need for an extreme low density to protect any critical areas. The plain meaning of the adjective ''pervasive" in the dictionary is ''to become spread throughout all parts thereof'. The Home Rezone properties do not have pervasive critical areas. Therefore; the · existing Home R-1 zoning classification does not comport with the City of Renton definition for R-1 zoning. While the opponents of this rezone seek to throw up procedural roadblocks the plain fact is simple. The Home properties do not meet the definition of the R-1 zone and at some time the . City of Renton must recognize this fact and · rezone the property to the residential zone for which it does fit the definition, namely the R-4 zone. The only alternative is for the City of Renton to change their definition of the R-1 zone. That would of course run into the Growth Management Act and Growth Management Hearing Board problems as Renton would have to zone perfectly developable property at a non-urban density zone ofR-1 in order to provide open space to nearby owners who were allowed to develop at R-4 densities. 1 • According to the City of Renton Code 4-2-020.D Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, the R-4 zone "is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces". The facts show that the Home properties can be or already are service<! by urban utilities defined to mean public sewer, public roads, public/private stormwater retention/detention ponds, electricity, natural gas, telephone, CATV, roads, streets, sidewalks. There is nci dispute as to the provision of urban utilities, or their capability to be provided. Open spaces already exist adjacent to the site in the form of the Greene's Creek protected drainage area and many other nearby open spaces. Thus, the Home properties meet the exact definition of the R-4 zone while they categorically do not meet the definition of the R-1 zone, as · there are not pervasive critical areas on the Home properties. Once again, while the opponents may try to throw up procedural roadblocks as they selfishly seek "open space" owned by someone else, the City of Renton definitions are the final. arbitrator of what the zoning on the Home properties should be. • There is a question as to whether the Home Rezone is in the Public Interest . . I strongly believe it is and offer this evidence regarding sewerage disposal to support that position. Currently, most every home in the Home Rezone area is on a septic tank with a drainfield. While there. is nothing intrinsically wrong with on-site sewage disposal systems, as a matter of policy for properties located within the City of Renton, they are discouraged. In the long run, public, sewer systems are a preferrecl alternative for sewerage disposal. The existing Home Rezone properties will not hook up to public sewers unless public sewers are installed. Public sewers have not been installed to the vast majority of the Home Rezone properties during the time period that the property has been zoned R-1 for a very simple reason. It is uneconomical to install public sewers at such a low density. For very low density zoning such as R-1, the costs to install public sewers to just a few properties on lots.approximating 1-acre in size, is prohibitively expensive. A property owner or a collection of property owners can not amortize the costs of the public sewers over a sufficient number of new lots to justify the expense. Thus, public sewers will likely never serve the Home Rezone property as long as it is zoned R-1. However, the R-4 zone provides a suitable density for the provision of public sewers. Sin~e septic tank/drainfields are discouraged by long- standing Renton policy to encourage public sewers (and in fact mandates them in most new developments), it is in the public interest to zone the property R-4 to facilitate a more rapid conversion to public sewerage systems. 2 • On the continuing question as to whether the Home Rezone is in the Public Interest, I offer this evidence regarding storrnwater retention/detention to support the position that the Home Rezone is in the public interest. Currently, only one property in the Horne Rezone area is served by . storrnwater retention/detention ponds. All other stormwater from the site's roads, driveways, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces leaves the site by flowing overland without benefit of stormwater retention/detention facilities. Given a R-1 zone, it is highly unlikely that new developments would be of sufficient size to require platting and the resulting requirement for newly constructed stormwater retention/detention ponds. Instead, new development would likely be in the form of single family homes whose storrnwater protections are far less stringent than those required by platted developments. Under a R-4 zone, the platting of the Home Rezone will require the installation of storrnwater retention/detention ponds which will be built to the most recent storrnwater manual requirements. New storrnwater ponds will help mitigate existing development which is currently mostly untreated. Since only single-family development with limited stormwater treatment (limited to the newly constructed home) will likely be available under the current R-1 zone, it makes sense to move towards R-4 zoning where newly constructed stormwater retention/detention ponds would be built to mitigate existing development within the Home Rezone area. Providing storrnwater facilities to untreated areas is in the public interest, therefore the Home Rezone is in the public interest. • The current City of Renton Staff Report (we understand staff may revise its report prior to the hearing) and letters from some residents of the Stonegate neighborhood have tried to claim that the Home Rezone would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. They have cited impacts to Greens Creek and May Creek· as examples. However, the facts speak . otherwise. Greens Creek is a small basin area which flows from heavily developed properties in the south, northerly through the Stonegate neighborhood towards May Creek. Over the past 70 years of development (see 1936 aerial photos of the ·area -attached), Greens Creek has been heavily altered by man-made actions, and in fact the entire course of Greens Creek was rerouted by the developers of the Stonegate neighborhood back in 1995-96. I will leave it to Mr. Ed Home to recite the entire history of the alteration of the course of Greens Creek (as he was a first hand observe), · but suffice to say it is not the environmentally pure and unaltered stream that the staff and Stonegate residents make it out to be. . The Staff Report states that "Greens Creek is a sensitive hydrology system that is easily altered by human activity." Interestingly, the City of Renton was part of the 1995-96 approval process (through the inter-local agreements with King 3 County) by which the nature of Greens Creek was significantly altered by channeling and changing its course to promote better water flows through the neighborhood. The history of May Creek is similarly fraught with human activity to improve the flow regime through the May Creek valley. For decades May Creek has been dredged and channeled in order to improve flows and prevent the establishment of wetlands where none previously existed. After decades of intense human activity in which the creek was dredged repeatedly, the creek channel altered, and creek-side vegetation removed; to now claim that it is too "sensitive" to accept new development at R-4 densities with full stormwater protections, is almost too farcical to accept ·at face value. The City of Renton has adopted a new Stormwater Manual that will protect Greens Creek and May Creek. In fact, new development of the Home Rezone area will help mitigate impacts from the large portions of the area that currently is not provided with any stormwater retention/detention protections. • I beiieve that even just a casual review of the facts demonstrates there have been significant material changes in the vicinity of the proposed Home Rezone area including but not limited to: 1) the build-out of the Stonegate neighborhood at densities far above the underlying R-1 zone; 2) alteration and channeling of Greens Creek to allow a higher lot utilization in the Stonegate neighborhood; 3) a new sewer pump station; 4) build-out of major areas south of the Home Rezone (Windstone development) at a R-6 density, the stormwater from which flows into Greens Creek; and 5) the build-out of major areas to the southwest of the Home Rezone (Langley Ridge development)· at R-6 density. Second, the Staff Report mischaracterizes the May Valley Pre-zone Phase l action in 1996-96 (Ord. # 4667). When one reads the City of Renton Memorandum dated October 4, 1996 from Gregg Zimmerman (Planning/Public , Works) to Kathy Keolker-Wheeler (Chair of the Planning Commission) it is crystal clear that the R-1 zone on the Home property was "somewhat arbitrary" (see page 5). The zoning designations were a result of the City of Renton "generally assigning each zoning designation to the property owners who requested it". The October 4, 1996 memo clearly states, ''Unless overriding evidence of dire consequences of R-5 zoning is presented, allowing the higher density appears justified" (emphasis added). The September 13, 2011 Staff Report does not accurately represent the findings of the 1996-97 rezone process. I recommend that the Hearing Examiner closely examine the October 4, 1996 City of Renton Memorandum so . that the misrepresentations of the current Staff Report (9-13-11) can be exposed and the Home Rezone treated fairly without bias. 4 Considering the above and all the materials submitted under the application, the Horne Rezone meets all the requirements of the R-4 zone. The Horne Rezone by providing new public sewers and new stonnwater ponds, where none currently exist, is in the public interest. The Horne Rez.one will not be material detrimental to the environment. The history.of the zoning in this area, particularly the 1996-97 studies and recommendations, support R-4 z.oning for the Horne area. The proponents of the Horne Rezone have met their burden of proof. V~TM'j;; · ~ Kombol, , """""owntt;. th, Hom, Rozoo,""" 30533 -234th Ave. S.E. BlackDiamond, WA 98010 Enclosures: October 4, 1996 City of Renton Memorandum 1936 Aerial Photo of the area* with Greens Creek highlighted in blue 2007 Aerial Photo of the area* with Greens Creek highlighted in blue • Note: the source of these aerial photos is the King County iMAP service at www.KingCounty.gov. Both aerial maps show the current (as of2010) lot pattern and the current location of Greens Creek. It should be noted that the Jot pattern shown on the 1936 black and white aerial photo did not exist at that time. Also, the location of Greens Creek has changed significantly since 1936. The black and white map has the current lot pattern and the current location of Greens Creek superimposed onto a 1936 aerial map. The Horne Rezone area is highlighted in red on both maps 5 ., . DATE; TO; VIA:. PROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: lS5UE; CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUIL]?ING/PUBLIC WORKS MEM.QRANJ)UM ·october 4, 1995 Kar.by Keolker-Wheeler, Cha· . Planning and Develop.ment ommittee Members Mayor_Jesse Tanner Gregg Zlm1n11nnan, A inistrator U-e_ Plannlng/Building/Publlc Worlcs Departm_!lnt Mike Kattermann {ext. #6190) Owen Dennison (ext. #2475) · Mity VnUey flrezone • Phru;e 1 Zoning designations for Phase 1 of the May Valley Prewoo. (Exhibit· I) RECOMME,NPATJON; • Assign R-1. zoning to the northern porriciR and R·S zoning to the south. (Eathlblt 2) BACKGROUND SUMMARY; .. ") ·.•· .The C011nci! held !he first public hearing on the propostid prezone of 74 acres of the City's Potential AMeution Area on June !O, 1996, and th& s&e0nd public hearing on September 16, 1996. The statutory prerequisites for adoption of zoning for an area outside the City's corporate boundary have · been t\llfilled. Council is now at liberty to adopt a :zoning ordinance. Comorebeosive Piao and nntential ·wnes The area is designated Residential Rural on lhe Comprehensive Plan 14lld use map. Potential zones consistent with the designation lnclud~ · · • Resource Conservation (RC) wj,lch allow, up to one uttit per 10 acres: · • Res\dentlal· I (ll-1) whlch allows up 10 one unit pee net acre; and, • R.esldentlal-S (R-5) which allows up to S units per net acre. None of the potential :r;ones requirCJ a mtnlmum density. • I ' i I ' (?ctober. 4, 1996 Page2 Existjng King County zqnlng Toa aubject area Is zoned R-4; except fq~ 1he. lsolatllll p~l:et_al the northern end which is zoned R-1. Staff coromenm: A descrlptl~ of the area and potential zoni~g d,Ljgnations was referred I~ various departments and divisions throughout the City .. Respondents .we1{ asl:ed to provide a pretuence foe a zoning pattmi with respect to existing plans, environme"!_al condiJions, potential costs to the City or other criteria. Most coitlments lndicine4 that aervice provision woulcl not be affected by specific zoning, except that greater dtiiisity may increase demand for <:;ity resources. . . . The Wastewater Utility· &tated that R-5 zoning would mal:e ·sewer service proviaion more economically feasible than would lower density zoning. l:lo-. the Utility noted that any attempt by the City to provide ·sewer' i;ervice to this area may be met with opposition from. Water District 90, . -es it is within the District's water service boundary. The Surface Watec Utility expressed concerns about the potential effect of greater density oo run-off, erosion and flooding. The Utllity recommended !bat density should not exceed that allowed under exl6tlng County zoning .. However, critical areas mould bi> ~ned R-l. The only mapped· critical artlllll arc an ·ero11ion hazard area at the southwast ex~e and Greene's Creelc. Th~· Surface Water Engineering Sectl1.in conducted a rough calculation of the anticipated flow increases with R: 1 and R-5 zoning. · The results,· shown In the following table, list tho percentage increa.u In R:s over R-1. The .calculations include only the southern portion, aouth of S.E. 104th Street. S\Qrm Event I ncceased Flows Increased Volume (no detootlon is assumed) · 2 Year 48% · 32'1o 10 Yeac 28% 211\ 25 Year 23% ,,/ J 8 iii 100 Year 19$ 16!1' With detention, the 2 and l O year events should have flows about equal to the pre-development pattern. Tha percentage difference between R-1 and R-5 would also be lower at !he 2S and 100 year &vents, with detention. While a 19 9li dlfterence at the 100 year event is not considered ·stgnltlcant; the effect would depend on downstream' factors. Additional detention requirements could 1>e imposed on development in the area to mltlgalll potential flooding and erosion.problems. · Public Comment -fiat PYbJJc Hearing Five citiz.ens spoke at the ·public hearing. Of these, only three made a 11peClfic recommendation on zoning. All three supflOrted R-1 for the entire Phase l area. A foµrth speaker e.,cpressed coilcern that I ,...-t ·-· October 4, 1996 Page 3 · . . zoning may be implementoo du.I would preclude ~\n, from bulldins: homes on previously planed lots. The fifth expres&ed antipathy toward annexing to tM City of Renton. Among the Issues raised was existing .drainage and MlSioll' problclnS in the May Creek Drainage Basin in genei:al and the subject area in particular. The concern expt'l!SS8d by the~ people is that · d1.welo()ment anowed under R·S zoning would t~acerbat& the· e1lstln11 situation. · . · Additionally, two of the speakers noted thRt the Cclmprehenslve Plan SElS stated that the R-5 zone would not be applied to Residential Runi areas of the May Creek Drainage Basfn. J>ublic Comment~ Second Publjc. He&ring · · . Pour May Valley residenu and property owners spoke ln favor of R-l zoning for the entire area. Proponents of R~1 e.ipresaed concerns over the potential ror increased p_ro_perty dam3g,:. arid habitat d~gradation due to flooding and erosion. Photographs were submitted as evidence of citlstlng flooding problems. Three property owam with holdings totllllng about 21 acres supporced R-5 zoning for th&lr properties. .Proponents staled that downstream Impacts of developl1lflllt at a donsity of five qnlts per . n~t acre can be mitigated with appropriate retention fllcilities or City stonn sewers. · . . The City has received a number of lettm s\ltce the second public .hearing. No new issues were · raised, Five supported R-1 zionlng fol' the nonhern portion of the subject area.· Of these, four reco1111nended R-5 ftlr the soulhern porrlon. An OWflet of property located near the center of the area supported R-1 for an undefined area. E,iliiblt '2 shows prefereo~ Indicated by property owners within· the subject area. SIMl'lll proponents of R-1 zoning own properties nonhwest of the subjecl area along May Cree~. Tb03,. ar& . not shown in Exhibit 2 •. R espo,µ;e JO Public Comment1 Ex)Fting Development and Development of existing lots, Assignment of ei!her of the three potential zones would not preclude development ot a ,ing\e famlly home on an eic.istlng legal lot of any si%.e, providing that all setoacl;, l(lt coverage and other requirements of the mne are met. Even the more restrictive development standards of the R-1 Zone do not appear to create hardship for existing lots in the subject area. The smallest &Xisting IOI-is nurly 7,000 cquare feet. The building envelope on this lol would still be 2,024 square feet under the R-1 deve.lopmen! standards. However, the aetbaclc requirements jtf the R-1 Zone may make some existing structures non- . confonning. For single family hOmes, non-cnnfom,lng status hu only a limited .effect. Legally established, no11<0nformlng single family structUres ca-n be rebuHt in Ille event of fire or an act of. Ood. Additions-to legally established, non-conforming structures can be made, providing that those additions conform to the sundants in effact at the time of building pet'l)'l!t application. Alterations, · such as an Interior remodel, can occur, providing that the total oost of the work does not uceed S0'l(, of the value of the original structure. Alterations that c:ost from 50" 10 100!(, of the value of the . ' ' ctuno can be made under a Condltio'1al Approval Permit. May Creek Current and Future Condjtjpns Renott, The Report suw:m at e n en development of the subject area will have some e!fecl on May Creek. However, the Report indicates that the µrimary problems associated . wtih oew devel~t will primarily impact the ai:eas ' ·/ ' I . October 4, 19% Page4 surrounding Greene's Creelc; which originates within 1he subject !!fell. Utility comments, the Report states, Supporting Surface Water "Changing land uses actually seem to affect Greene's Creek hydrology more than n'e.arly every other May Creek tdbur.u-y ... More common floods in !he 2-to IO-year range would increase even more. Only 0)1JlSy creek 1n th~ Lower Basin experiences comparable flow increases. · These flows may be·quite deleterious to the cirtlt!ne's·Creelc channel morphology; a n;suli of this Ince-ease in the .size or peak flows is additional soour of the steep slopes between the platBllu nnd the mainstem of May Creek. Thi~ i~ ta11sfng Increasing sediment movement into May Creek and is resulting in property dan1ag~ due ·to gully erosion and' culvert bloclcage. The actual flow values in Greene's-Creek ~re lnw enough (due to the small size. of the drainage area and· moderate slopes) .that the ~fl'tcts on May Creek wlll be only moderately significant." (Page 4-42) "Even greattr inc<eases In flows are predicreJ fur Greene's Creek. This combined with the i;andy aUuviai substrate wlll lead to further ch~!'nel erosion. Without mitigation for the past increases in flows and sediment tranBpOrt, H.ntl without any sitnlficant LWD {large woody debris), . the channel will continue to degrade, delivering incrwed sand downstream. Increased Oow and sediment transport will incr~~e sand delivered to May Creek." (Page 1- SO) Ch,y of Renton Comprehensfye Plan Sunplemental EnyjmnmeotaJ ID11lact Statement, As n~ed by one speaker in his commenis to Council, in reference to the creation of,the. R·5 Zone the PSBlS 5tates, •:. Low Density Single Family [now· ·Residential Rural) ~reas located within the May Creel< Drainage Basin will continue to be llmjted to a maximum of llne unit {}Bf ai:,re." (Page 3-14) . Exlstjng floodjng prpt,)ems, The flooding noted by two speakers at the second public hearing may be attributabl.e to the routing of Greene's Creek outside nf its historic path by ono of tho same property owners. The original creelc course apparently cut acro~s e lot and passed under S.E.104tb through a 36 ·inch culvert. Now, it more closely follows the properry lines with seven! severe angles and passes under the right-of-way through a 24 inch culven. The smaller culvert may account for at least a portion of the existing difficulties. lncreasod tlows from upstream may be contributing to th~ current flooding but it cloes not appear to be exclusively responsible: CONCLUSION; There is not unan]mlty among the property owners in support of ei!her-R-1 or R-5 zoning. (&hlblt · .3, Zoning !'references) Certain property owners wish w maintain the current development potentiel if llllllexation should occ4r. Since anne)(ation of thi$ urea is not anticipated in· th.e immediate tumre, these property owners &h1>11ld have ample opponunlry tn COl!lj>lete the planing process through the County. The action of adopting R-1 zoning would n"t pre<:lude platting In ·the County at tho donsiliea pennitted under King County zoning regulru:h1ru.. Hnwever, plats for which preliminary plat approval is granted by the County could not be ·accepted by the City for final approval, if density exceeds that allowed under t:he adOf)led City 1:<ming. Density would not preclude annexation after the ' I \ ' ·__, October 4, 1996. -Page 5 If-sanitary sewen; are necessary to meet the ·allowed deru:ity urider County zoning, platting at these densities without ap(lmval or C\ly sewe( extension may not be pMsible. Currantly, !here ls no aft'ernative to the City rnr sewer service, 1n th& nre11. Roi zoning would generally make the .extension · of s.ewers to the area eoom,mically lnfeal:lhle, unles, extension·occurs prior to anneratlon. The application of the R:-1-Zone in the rrezone area would appear to inake several existing structures no·n-conforming. Thi, ~hould not create hardship situation.I lbr property owners. · The .primary issl1c B(l~eitr.i to be whether developinilnt at five units per net acre would · have significant dele.terirn1., unvinmmental consequences. As noted. in the May Creek Conditions Report, development will h:w~ smne Impact on the Creek arid ultimately on May Creek.' . AlthQugb .the eo·nditions 'Report stat<!!\ 1hn1 Greene's Creek is sensitive to changes In land use, modeling conducted by the City's· Surface Watl!r Eng-lneering Section suggcm tliat, with appropriate detention facll ltlos, the difference belw~tn R· 1 and R·S may not _be signlfican1 in ~s of increa.sctl flow and total volume of run-off. 11,is <Ines not nece:ssiicily i:i>ntradict the an~ly,is of the Conditions Repo:t, as cwen develOP.ment at one unit per acre would likely result in the loss of existing fomted areas and · would increase imp~rvinu~ · surface IU'fta. The ellstlng tloodinJ ()l'Obfems presented In support of R-1 may_ ba discounted to a d~gree, as other factors appear to contribute to the current situation. ln ·total, the evidenetl does not appear to entirely support either R·l or R.·5. · Therefore, the cecornrnendatlon. is buse<I on ·staff's underttaudlng of two basic:, Council polley directions. First, single family nelghhnrhCIOds should b~ ~couraged whera appropriate. Second, property owners should be allowed as mcich discretion over the use of their land as possible, ·providing the environment Bild the lnlerests·of surrounding residents and property owners are protected. Unless overriding evidence Of direct consequences of R-5 zoning ls presented,· allowing the higher dellllity appears justified. · Any division between R-1 und R-S WO\lld be somewhftl atbitruy. Consequently, .the reco.mll)endation generally assignt ench u,nlng designation to the property owners who requested it. This [lllttern i,rovid6' a buffer areu <tf R-t between propdtles zoned R-5 and May Creek. At Council's direction, .staff will i:,cplore mechanisms to create an overlay designation for the area that would require a higher detention standard than is applied el~where in the City or would identify Ille area for additional environmerna\ mirigation through SEPA review of proposed developments .. This WQUld be consistent with the K\ng C(lunty Critical Drainatte Basin deslgnatlon currently assigned to the subject area. , '. I I J i I -Phase l May Valley· P·rezo.;ne Vicinity Map. E~ilirtl -r---:-:i---i---r--r=~~--r~~===rr:-~r-:-i w U1 C e Plcutlno .and Technk:al ServlctH ·SR· ~Worb · . IL Mm:Ollle, O. Dwmon . Y> Sept...., 1996 . . O 500 1,000 1:6,000 .. Cl) (I) Q} $..,. .____,! ?rezone ·Area -Phose 1· i ··! ' I I I i ! I 0 .• . . . . Ma,y Valley Pre.zone. ·w c.n. · Zoning Pref e.rences . Exhibit 3 . -· . Phase 1 • ·1 . I 1---..V •, ) Preione /Veo -Phase-1 :::: ...... ::::: .. ; : _.:::! .. ::. Proi,onanlc of R-5 Zoning for South Portibl 10 S...IIINI« 1996 500 . 1,000 • "' nnn Proponents of· R-1 Zoning for Ali or o Portion of Area . . ,. ·, : . ,' ' ~-' -" -. iMAP . . The Information included on this nap has bean canpilecl by Kinjil County staff from a variety of sourass and Is llllbjact lo change vwlthout l'IOtica. Klng c;curty inaka, no rep,Mentationt or,.wamimlea, exprm;s or,implied,.aa to accuracy, completon-. tlmellr.aa, or rightl to Iha UN of such nformation. tQ iThi1 docu .. ·'"°". t ia 1riol intilnded far use· n a aurvoy product. King County,&hal not bll. liabla for_ any general, apodal, ind!raat. inddanlal, or consequential • K' C t ltam"aga1 inCludlng; but"not limiled to~ l6at rM'lues DI" losfprofita l'fllUlilng from Iha UH or.misuaa QI( tha infonnation ccntalned 00 this map. Any sale of 1ng oun y lhi1 map or'lntormation on 1h11 map la prohlbit8d except by wrtttari permlsalon of Kltlg County;' , • -. . ,-.---_ ·_: ,-.·' •• ,,,·· . .-' .::._·_,, ·• "' ' -· -, ~; .1~1.1-·_.:_So~r!)O; ~ ~nty iMM' ~·~rty lnfo_rmatiiin {httpJ!www.metro_kc.pfGISJIMAP) 1936 Aerial Map iMAP ·. The information·ioc:luded on lhia map ho1 been,oornpilod by King County staff from a variety of IOUfCIIS and i• tubjecl to ctlange without nolice. King 'County maua no'ntprnenlatiana or waf'l'Dnlies;-aJCPlllSII or irriplllld,: as' to accuac:y; completeneu, limelinn1, or rights to the la8 of such nformalil:J:n. ~ This document is not intonded ror use n a survey PfOduet. . aha I not be liable for any QOnefll!, 1pecllll, indirecl, incidental, or ~n1i81 a • damages lnduding, but "°' limltad to, 1o11 TllYMl~~°'·IOlll p~ = from the use or m1suse °' the lnformalion ooma1nec1 on lhl, map. Any sole ar King County thla·map or intam,atiori on this map is prohibited aX&8pl by wrltten pemiluion of King County:•, ,. '0ami 1~~f -~ King County r~: ~ ,~{ht1p_:1~.~.govJG 0 1SJ!w.P) . --. ----, -. ----' 2007 Aerial Map 9/28/2011 City Of Renton Attn: Hearing examiner: Roca! Timmons 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 98059 RE: Horne Rezone #LUA 11-023 To whom it may concern: City of Renton Planning Division ocr 1 7 1011 I have no economic interest in the groups promoting the rezone. I do however own one of the homes that has had the highest historical sales price in the area at $850,000 in 2005. I am an expert in Renton Real.Estate and know values will not go down due to the rezone. Since 2005 when I moved into my home in the rezone area, I have managed to eliminate the criminal activity that occurred in front ofmy home every weekend by calling the police and adding flood lights to forcing the drug dealers to find a darker place to hang out. Allowing more homes to be built in the area will create more light and more people vested in keeping their families and homes safe. The main reason I support the rezone has to due with the fact that Nile Ave NE is a very busy road with a huge open ditch on the east side and no curbs, gutters and side walks on the west side. In fact the distance of the edge the under sized road to the property line of owners is only 6". This 6" is sometimes the only distance for people walking along the road and cars passing • by. At 8:30 am Monday-Friday two little children have to walk the 6" to go to the bus stop that is in front of my home. The City of Renton has no plans or money to improve the road beyond to where it is now. Tax dollars seem to be decreasing. If the rezone is improved there is a higher probability of have the road brought up to a safe standard by private development. Please support the Horne rezone to promote future sidewalks along Nile Ave NE so the little kids have a safe walk to their bus stop! Yours, Paul F Mackay Jr 5625 NE 26th St Renton, Wa.98059 Rocale Timmons City of Renton Planning Dept 1055 So. Grady Way, 61n floor Renton, WA 98057 Subject Home Rezone {Ref. LUAlll-023) Dear Ms. Timmons, Oc.T /'(1 ZD!/ City of R Ptanninc enton g D,v,sion OCT 1 7 LUil Although I do not live adjacent to or near the Horne Rezone properties, I have become aware of the proceedings through a friend who Is Involved in the rezone effort. I lived In Renton for 40 years and stlll own property within the City of Renton. I wish to offer my support and comments for the subject effort to Increase a R-1 dassification to a higher density. ·As I understand it, the R-1 classlflcation was typically administered to areas that may contain localized wetlands, very steep slopes, unstable solls and possibly other factors. I believe that each property should be judged on its own merits with an "on the ground" technical analysis by licensed engineers that address the issues listed above. Consideration can also be given to compatibility with surrounding areas and City development planning. In addition, property owner rights to develop their property has to be given significant consideration. · In August 2010, I was given a Preliminary Plat approval by the City of Renton for subdivisions of my property (Ref. LUA09-140). This property contained overlays of zoning designations R-8, R-1, R-14. Based on rational examination of the property and technical data, together with consideration for city ordinances, a reasonable compromise acceptable to the applicant (myself) and the Oty was reached. I am currently involved in the submittal process on my other property, adjacent to the one described above, to obtain a Preliminary Plat approval as well. This property is zoned R-14 on the western portion and R-1 on the eastern portion. The adjacent property directly to the east is ~oned R-8. As I walk the property in the R-1 area, it is hard to see why it Is R-1 area because the soils analysis is good, there are no wetlands and there are very good building sites. The "on the ground" examination and technical analysis should support a much higher density potential than R-1. I expect that an acceptable compromise will be reached between the City and myself. I strongly believe It is in the public interest that the Oty of Renton should strongly consider the applications that propose higher density usages of properties currently designated R-1 using the "on the ground" examination and technical analysis as described earlier. This will create more close In urban densities compatible with employment centers and commuting requirements. Not only will higher density housing Increase Oty revenue, but It is apparently what many future home buyers want . . Si';rer:lv, ~ / ,. /) 1~lJ~ Robert Wilson ..... , , I October 13, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Project Number LUAI 1-023, ECF, R Project Name: Horne Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: I am a property owner in the Horne Rezone area. I fully support the efforts of Mr. Horne who, with the unanimous consent of our neighbors, are supporting the rezone of our properties from their current R-1 zone to the R-4 zone, which better fits the attributes of our property. I previously provided you a letter dated October 5, 2011. I supplement my previous letter and statement with the following facts, reasons, and rationale based on the recently provided Staff Report, dated October 11, 2011: • In order to fully understand the dynamics of the Horne Rezone area, one must first deconstruct the sophistry of the opponents who have attempted to paint this action as an "illegal spot zone". The City of Renton Staff Report dated October 11, 2011 adopts this reasoning, but in doing so contradicts its own definition of an "illegal spot zone". The Staff Report is instructive, as it quotes the Narrowsview Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma case. In it the Appeals court properly defined spot zoning as follows: "illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is single out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan". When analyzing the particular situation it is extremely important to note that while the adjacent Stonegate neighborhood is zoned R-1, it is in · fact developed at a density and arrangement much more equivalent to the R-4 zone classification. Calling the Stonegate neighborhood an R-1 area is no more accurate than calling the sky orange. The sky would not become orange even if the City of Renton code held that it was orange. It would still be blue. Though the Stonegate neighborhood is zoned R-1 -that is an historical anomaly. The Stonegate neighborhood was developed consistent with R-4 zoning. In fact, every lot in the Stonegate neighborhood is an inconsistent use in the R-1 zone because the Stonegate densities far exceed (by two I ,, orders of magnitude) those allowed under the R-1 density which requires one dwelling unit per acre, A review of the attached density map and the Stonegate lot size report and map of Stonegate will amply illustrate this point. Also attached is a copy of the original Stonegate approval (DOES Report File No. S90P0068), which also reflects that Stonegate when it was developed in an area increasingly characterized by ''urban residential subdivisions." That report is instructive as it makes clear that the vast majority of the Stonegate lots were developed as part ofa SR-15000 zone which is about 3 lots per acres. This approval was in June 1994. Yet, the Stonegate opponents of this rezone like to "pretend" that they are in an R-1 zone. They're not, except in name. Their build-out density is R-4 but their zoning is R-1. Just because the Stonegate neighbors want to pretend that they live in an R-1 density area; is no reason to deny the Home neighbors their right (under the City of Renton code definitions) to an R-4 zone and density. • The City Staff report repeats this same sophistry when speaking of the properties to the south of the Home Rezone (see Revised Report of October 11, 2011, page 3, section G.l. Project Description/Background). In this paragraph the City Staff report trumpets the fact that ''the properties to the south are zoned R-4 according to the County's zoning map but are pre- zoned R-1, by the City, should they annex." What the City Staff report doesn't tell you is that the built out density of this area to the south is 2.5 to 5.0 dwelling units (DU) per acre. The City Staff adopts a "see no evil" attitude when it pretends that an R-1 pre-zone is somehow demonstrative of an R-1 density. It isn't. The County's current R-4 zone is consistent with the built-out density of the area to the south. Pretending that an area developed at an R-4 density (like this area to the south) is really an R-1 zone is pure sophistry, reasoning sound in appearance only. • The City Staff report does get to the heart of the issue on page 5, section 5.b. The build-out difference between an R-1 and R-4 zone is a ''possible" 16 lots (12 lots under R-1 and possibly 28 lots under R-4). With 400 or 500 current lots and residences in this sub-area (all of which have been able to build out under an effective R-4 density, regardless of their R-1 or R-4 zone classifications), and zoning allowing several hundred more lots, are we really to believe that a ''possible" 16 lots will be materially detrimental to the public welfare of other persons located in the vicinity? Are 500 lots just perfect, but 516 lots material detrimental? • The City Staff report commits another non-sequitur on page 7, section 2, Consistency with the Zoning Classification. In the second paragraph the Staff Report states, ''The R-4 designation serves as a transition between 2 rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density zone". Then in the third paragraph, the Staff Report states, "the proposal would not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density zones." How, in the name of logic, can the R-4 designation "serve as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density zones" (as it is defined in the Renton municipal code, Section 4.2.020 D), yet ''not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density zones" (as used as a rationale in the Staff Report)? If someone can make logical sense out of two statements that are completely contradictory, it will surprise me. Yet. this same Staff Report adopts that contradictory non-sequitur to conclude, "based on the analysis above the subject property is most appropriately zoned R-1 and a rezone to R-4 is not supported by staff." • The Staff Report makes a factual error on page 4, Section G. l. Project Description. In the second paragraph on page 4, the Staff Report states, ''the site is also bisected by a 30-foot wide tract. owned by the Stonegate neighborhood .... " This is not true. The Stonegate H.O.A. is the taxpayer of record for this 30-foot wide property commonly known at Tract I in the Stonegate plat (see King County File S90P0068 recorded under recording number 9609101362). According to the Stonegate plat notes and restrictions on Sheet 1 of 7, Condition 17, "Tract I, access tract in favor of properties to the south of Tract I shall be dedicated by separate deed from the Chaffey Corporation to the abutting property owners". The "abutting property owners to the south of Tract I" are the properties within the Home Rezone. The Stonegate H.O.A. is not "abutting property owners to the south of Tract I" (see sheet 2 of 7 which shows Tract I and its relationship to the Stonegate Plat to the west, and the abutting Home Rezone properties to the south). Therefore the Stonegate H.O.A. does not own Tract I (the 30- foot wide tract). Chaffey Corporation did issue a quit claim deed to the Stonegate H.O.A. but that deed did not dedicate what it could not dedicate, since the Stonegate Plat Condition 17 in King County records is the controlling dedication. Also, there are a number of other easement holders (including Mr. Home, utility companies, etc.) who have easements rights across that tract. The Staff Report should be amended to correct this error. • What the Staff Report is really trying to say is this: "we are biased against this rezone request, and even though this rezone request meets the definitions and the criteria set forth in the R-4 zone, we are going to oppose it anyway. " 3 The Home Rezone meets all the requirements set forth by the definitions and the criteria of the R-4 zone. The Home Rezone is not a "spot zone" as defined by Washington courts. The City Staff Report uses sophistry and non-sequiturs to oppose the rezone. The City Staff Report incorrectly lists the owner of Tract I as the taxpayer of record for Tract I. The City Staff bases their opposition to this rezone on biases, not logic and facts. The proponents of the Home Rezone have met their burden of proof and the rezone should be granted. "UN William Kombol, a property owner in the Home Rezone area 30533 -234th Ave. S.E. . Black Diamond, WA 98010 Enclosures: Area Density Map showing the existing densities of properties surrounding the Home Rezone Stonegate Lot size report and map of Stonegate Jots (from King County Assessor and King County iMAP information) Stonegate Approval Report-ODES File No. 89P0068 dated June 10, 1994 (11 pages) Stonegate Plat under King County File No. 89P0068 recorded under King County recording number 9609101362, Sheet 1 of 7 with Note No. 17 highlighted, and Sheet 2 of 7 with Tract I highlighted (both highlights with a red dot) 4 .... ---... ·---s· ... ··---·- AJ1SH30 OOOHllOIUWl3H • w ie~ ~~ ~~ "" ,z I g g g ~i>I ~Q wW WW [{ -~ ~~ t~ ~~ -~ :::i :i ~~ ~. ac cici de z~ :~ ~C! 0~ WU N~ ui~ &ii! til . ~ . LJ 0 II I 1 ~\ 8 Stonegate Lots Lot# Address Tax Lotsa ft Lot# Address Tax Lot sq ft 3 5608 NE 26th St 803540-0010 15000 32 5315 NE 22nd er 803540-0310 14192 4 5602 NE 26th St 803540-0020 15000 33 5309 NE 22nd er 803540-0300 16058 5 5512 NE 26th St 803540-0030 16575 34 5303 NE 22nd er 803540-0290 16503 6 5506 NE 26th St 803540-0040 15312 36 5302 NE 22nd CT 803540-0280 16870 7 5500 NE 26th St 803540-0050 15136 37 5308 NE 22nd CT 803540-0270 19726 10 2508 LvonsAve NE 803540-0510 15448 38 5314 NE 22nd er 803540-0260 26111 11 2502 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0500 13915 39 5320 NE 22nd CT 803540-0250 16861 12 2406 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0490 13579 40 5326 NE 22nd er 803540-0240 16525 13 2400 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0480 12872 41 2205 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0230 16906 14 5502 NE 24th CT 803540-0530 29305 42 2211 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0220 14169 15 5505 NE 24th CT 803540-0520 27775 43 2217 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0210 13113 16 2310 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0470 13047 44 5313 NE 23rd er 803540-0200 16992 17 2302 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0460 14452 45 5307 NE 23rd er 803540-0190 18111 18 2218 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0450 15026 46 5301 NE 23rd er 803540-0180 17832 19 2212 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0440 15883 47 5300 NE 23rd er 803540-0170 16684 20 2208 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0430 15492 48 5306 NE 23rd CT 803540-0160 19397 21 2202 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0420 14877 49 5312 NE 23rd CT 803540-0150 16954 22 2106 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0410 15844 so 2303 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0140 15243 23 5504 NE 21st er 803540-0400 15268 51 5405 NE 24th CT 803540-0130 14897 24 5510 NE 21st CT 803540-0390 14978 52 5311 NE 24th CT 803540-0120 16383 25 5511 NE 21st CT 803540-0380 15096 53 5305 NE 24th er 803540-0110 22998 26 5505 NE 21st er 803540-0370 17568 54 5304 NE 24th er 803540-0100 18401 27 5501 NE 21st CT . 803540-0360 14130 55 5310 NE 24th CT 803540-0090 20535 28 2003 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0350 14527 56 5316 NE 24th CT 803540-0080 16437 29 2009 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0340 16328 57 5404 NE 24th er 803540-0070 17389 30 5401 NE 22nd CT 803540-0330 17133 58 2401 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0060 21853 31 5321 NE 22nd CT 803540-0320 13952 Tracts not part of the General Anaylsls 803540-0540 803540-0580 Average Lot Size 16805 803540-0550 Median lat Size 16058 803540-0560 - !STONEGATE LOTS( 8DJS.COD320 80'.JS(Ol,)]JQ 032:30592S7 amoasu,I~.- 5230000!.90 i . ·'. II _, .. I 1M: § 5230000110 . .,..,.. ' i, 5230000100 tJ230000050 : i ; I ........ ..... • °t" -•• ·---· , \ I E' '~i -::I June 10, 1994 OFPICI or THE ZONING AlfP 8UBPXYISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY I WASKIHGTON 700 central Building 810 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 RBPOR'l' AND. RECOIOIEIIDA'rION TO TBl!l RDIG CPUHTY COUJICIL, SUNll<;'f: Department of. Development and Environmental Services File Ho. S9DP0068 Proposed Ordinance No, 91-762 Proposed Plat of STOHBGATE Generally between 148th Avenue southeast and 143rd Place Southeast ( if extended) and generally between southeast 104th street and Southeast 96th Street (if both roads were extended) SUMM:ARY Of RRCQHMRNDATIQH8: Division's Preliminary: Division's Final: Examiner: PRELIMINARY REPORT: Approved, 'subject to conditions Approved, subject to conditions (modified) Approved, subject to conditions (modified) The Land Use Services Division's Preliminary Report on Item Ho. S90P0068 vas received by the Examiner on !lay 12., 1994. PUBLIC HRARIHG: After reviaving the Land Use Services Division's Report and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner v.isited the site .arid surrounding area and conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item Ho. S90P0068 vas opened by the Examiner at 9:20 a.m., Hay 26, 1994, in Hearing Room Ho. 2, Department of Development end Environmental Services, 3600 -136th Place S,E,, Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, and. closed at 12:16 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutee. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the zoning end Subdivieion Examiner. · FINDINGS·, CONCLUSIONS ii BECO!P'BHQATIQN: Having reviewed the record in thie matter, the Examiner · now m.i<es and enters the following: FlNDINGS: · 1. General Inforuiation: Developer: The Leavitt Company, 301 116th Avenue SE, Suite #570, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206) 455-4224 MASTER CC?Y Stonegate Engineer: owner: STR; Location: zoning: Acreage: Number of Lots: Typical Lot size: Proposed Use: Sewage Disposal: water supply: Fire District: School District: Date of Application: S90P0068 Page 2 David Evans , Associates, 3 01 116th Avenue SB, suite 1170, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206)455-3571 The Levitt Company, 301 116th Avenue SE, Suite f570, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206)455-4224 3-23-5 Cenerally between 148th Avenue southeast and 143rd Place southeast (if extended) and generally between Southeast 104th Streat and · southeast 96th Street ( if both roads were extended) SR 15,000, SC-P & G-5-P ' 38.4 53 Ranges from approximately 15,000 to 28,000 square feet Detached single family residences Septic King County Water District #90 t 10 -J:Bsaquah f4ll -Issaquah August 9, 1990 2. 8"cept aa modified below, the facts set forth in the King County I;,and Use Services Division's Preliminary Report to the zoning and Subdivision BXaminer for the May 26, 1994 public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. COpies of the said report will be attached to the copies of this report submitted to the County council. 3. Urban residential subdivieions exist adjacent to and west of the southern portion of the site. Those plats (Summerwind and Newcastle. Terrace) drain onto the subject property. Lota in the Swmnerwind development ere approximately 7000-8000 square ·feet in area, those in Newcastle Terrace are approximately 13,000 square feet. The Applicant has agreed to·prcvide biofiltration for untreated surface water run-off from those developmen~. · 4 • The extended environmental review pi:ocess for this proposal has resulted in project aodifications and mitigating · measures which will eliminate significant adverse impact of the development upon the environment. These modifications and mitigating measures have·generally been agreed to by the Applicant, and have won support for the development from many adjacent.property owners. 5. The Applicant has been willing to develop the proposed plat with either public sanitary sewers or individual septic systems and draintields. In 1989 and 1991 the applicant made formal requests to Renton for al\Jlexation, which would enable sewer service to be provided by the city; these requests were .denied. 6. . The subject property is above an extensive aquifer used by the City of· Renton for its potable water supply. The nearest city well which draws from the aquifer is approximately two miles.west: the next closest well is approximately four miles from the ·site. The preliminary design for sewage disposal by septic tanks and drainfields· Stonegate S90P0068 Page 3 has received preliminary approval from the King county Department of Public Health. The subject property is underlain by glacial till, an impermeable soil, below the sanc1s and gravels wbich ;exist near the surface. The testimony of the DOES geologist is that there would be essential.ly no impact on the aquifer from septic drainfields on the site.· This testilllOny is consistent with virtually all other evidence ana information contained in the environmental..dOCU11Snts. There is no substantial evidenoa in the recora to support tile City of R.enton•s concert\ tor aquifer contamination, and no evidence was presented at the public hearing to indicate that the information contained in the Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate. COHCLU8'.IOXB: 1. If approved subject to the conditions recommended below, the proposed subaivieion will comply. with the goals ana objectives of the. King county Comprehensive Plan, Newcastle community Plan, Subaivision and zoning coaes, ana other official lanc1 use controls and policies of King County. 2. If approved subject to the conditions recommenc1ed below, this proposed subaivision will make appropriate provision for the public health, safety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, streets, other public;, ways, transit stops, potable water supply, sanitary wastes, parks ana recreations, playgrounds, schools anc1 school grounc1s, ana safe walking conditions for st...Sants wbo only walk to school; ana it will serve the public use and interest. 3, The conaitiona for final plat approval recommenc1ed below are in the public interest ana are reasonable requirements to mitigate the impacts of this development upon the environnen.t. 4. The dedications of land or easements within ana adjecsnt to the proposed plat, as recommanaed by the conc1itiona· for final plat approval or as shown on the propo,re,1 preliminary ·plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the development of this proposed plat. s. The Environmental Impact statement prepared for this action provides adequate information and reasonable discussion of the proposal, .its impacts, alternatives and the impacts of the alternative proposals. There is no evidence that the factual information contained in the Environmental Xmpact Statement or the discussion of impacts upon the environment is inadequate. REOOJOIBHJ)l'l'?OI: APPROVE the proposed preliminary plat of Stonegate as revised and received May 10, 1994 subject to the following conc1itiona of final plat approval: 1. Compliance with all platting provisions of title 19 of the King county.Code. 2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King County council Motion No. 5952. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 4 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. Proposed LOts l through 5, and 50 and 51 are •oned sc-P. The area and dimensions of these lots shall meet tbe minimum requirements of the SC zone claaaification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved preliminary plat; whichever is larger. Minor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the land use services Division. Proposed Lots 6 through. 49, and 52 and 53 are aoned SR 15000. The area and dimensions of these lots shall mset the minimum requiremants of tbe SR 15000 zone classification or shsll be as shown on the fac,e of the approved preliminary plat,. whichever is larger. llinor revisions to the plat which do not result in substantial changes may be approved at the discretion of the land Use services Division. The applicant must obtain final approval from the King County Healtb Department. If tbe applicant proposes to serve the final plat with sewers, in lieu of septic tanks , approval of a Local Service Area (LSA) extension must first be secured from King county or the subject property must ·be annexed to the City of Renton. (Note: an LSA extension would require the convening of a pul>lic bearing before the Hearing Examiner, and the passage of an ordinance by the County Council.) All ·construction and upgradi119 of public and private roads shall be done in accordance with the King County road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance.No. 8041, subject to variances granted by the. King' county Road Engineer. The Applicant 111USt obtain the approval of the King county fire Protection Enginear and demonstrate compliance with the fire bydrant, veter main,. and fire flow standards of chapter 17.0B of the King County COde. Final plat approval shall require ful.l compliance with the. drainage provisions set forth in Ung county code 9.04, and the storm drainage requirements and guidelines as established by the Surface Water Management Division. Compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as shown on the preliminary approved. plat. The following conditions represent portions of the Code and apply to all plats. a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. (except as modified by Condition 9 below). LtJSD approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construction. b. ·current standard plan notes and ESC notas, as established by LUSD Engineering Review, shall be shown. on tbe engineering plans. · c. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat: "All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains frc,m all iJIIJ)ervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be. connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved constructio~ drawings.4 on file with LUSD and/or the Department of Public Works. 'this plan shall be ·submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection Stonegate S90P0068 Page 5 approval. Por those. lots that are designated for individual lot infiltration systems, .the systems shall be constructed at the time of the ·building permit and shall comply with the plans on til:e. •. 9. The following conditions specifically address drainage issues for this particular plat: a. stormvater detention shall ba computed using an scs- based hydrograph method (or other. method as approved by King County) • The performance of tha proposed · detention facilities shall be such that discharge from the developed area shall be no more than, * One-half of the pre-developed, 2-year/24-hour release rate for design storm ·events up to and including the 2-yaar/24-hour design storm; • The pre-developed., 2-year/24.-b.our. release rate for design storm events greater than the 2-year/24- hour design storm event and up to and including the lO-year/24-hour storm event; * The pre-developed, .10-yaar/24-hour release rate for design storm events greater .than the lO- year/24-hour storm event and up to and including the 100-year/24-hour.design storm event. All other aspects of the sto:m watsr system design shall conform to the 1990 King county Surface Water Management Dasign Manual, including· wetpond and biofiltration. b, Offsite water from the Bwmnervind Division 2 Tract X detention pond and Newcastle Terrace shall be conveyed through the site. Thie offsite water shall receive biofiltration par the 1990' SWMDM prior to discharge. c~ Offsite drainage currently enters the southwest corner · of the proposed subdivision via a pipe from HE 20th Street. The final engineering plans approved by King county shall· incorporate this system into the final design of the drainage plans. d. Tbe·cross culvert which will ultimately convey the Tract A and Tract B stream beneath Road A shall be designed to accommodate the 100-ysar design storm. lO. A note shall be shown on the final plat and engineering plans which states that the finish floor elevation for residences on Lots 1-s shall be at a minimum of one foot above the 100 year floodplain .. 11. All clearing·and grading for roads, drainage facilities and utilities shall be performed between April 1st and September 30th. LUSD may allow clearing and grading activities beyond thsse seasonal limits, at its discretion. In dstermining whether to allow clearing and grading beyond the seasonal. restriction, I.DSD shall consider the Applicant's · construction practices and actual weather conditions. A note implementing the preceding clearing and grading requirements shall appear on the final sngineering plans. 12. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King county Council prior to final plat recording. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 6 13, The Applicant·or subsequent owner shall comply with King County Code 27,40, King county road Mitigation Payment system (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee as determined by.King County Pul>lic works, plus an administrative fee. The Applicant has an option to either,· 1) Pay the MPS fes and MPS administrative fee at final plat application, or 2) pay the MPS fee and MPS administrative fee at the time of building permit application. Xf the first option is chosen, a note shall be placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required.by King county Code 27.40, King county Road !litigation Pa}'lllent system (MPS), have been paid.• It the second option is chosen, the fee paid shall be the amount in effect as of the data of bui\ding permit application. 14. The following are required road improvements for this subdivision: . · a. streets A and B shall be dl\lsignad to the urban subcollector standard. b. Streets C, D, B and P shall be designed to the urban minor acCess standard. C. · Frontage imp:i,ovements to 148th Avenue So~theast are required as follows: d. e. f, g. * Tbe frontage along the west margin of .148th Avenue Southeast shall be improved in accordance with approved Road Variance S92V0182. • A bus pullout area shall be designed, and constructed. near the intersection of 148th Avenue Southeast and Streat A. * Street illumination shali be provided at the intersection of Streat A and 148th Avenue, in accordance with KCRS 5.05, • Plans for the above-noted improvemants to 148th Avenue Southeast shall be submitted to the Department of Public works .for review by the Traffic and Planning section and the Bridge Engineer at the time of engineering plan submittal tor the sµbdivision. 148th Avenue southeast shall be regraded and lowered to achieve adequate entering sight distance at the Streat A intersection, par the King County road Standards. Plana shall be submitted for this improvement with the engineering plan submittal. Any pavement failures in the vest lane of 148th Avenue southeast between the Street A intersection and the above road lowering· section shall be repaired, · Modificatfons to the above road conditions may be corisidered by King County purstiant to the variance procedures in RCRS 1. 08 . Lots 52 and 53 shall have undivided ownership of Tract E and be responsible for its maintenance. Tract E shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and be improved with an 18 foot wide paved surface. The paving Shall have a cross slope in one direction, with curb or thickened edge on one side. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 7 h, Tract P ehall provide for pedestrian use and amsrgency vehicle access. The tract ehall be a minimum of 30 feet in width, and shall have.a 20-foot-wide, paved surface. irhe 20-foot-wide, paved access road shall have a cross slope in one direction, with curb or thickened edge on one side. the access road shall have bollards placed at both ends of the .tract, consistent with the rsquirsments of the Rine;, county Road Standards, Tract P shall be dedicated to Ring County, 15 • A geotechnical rsport, prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer, ·shall be.submitted with the engineering plans to address any structural fill needed for development of the plat. In this regard, it has been noted that structural fill may be.needed on Lot l, 16. The planter islands (if any) within the oul-de-saoa ehall be maintained by the abutting lot owners. This shall be stated on the .face of the final p~at. 17, the on-site portion of May creek Wetland f5, a Class I wetland, shall have a minimum 100 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation, except to the extent that disturbance is allowed as provided in condition 24 below (May creek Wetland f5 lies in Tract Eon the 'preliminary plat map,) ·1e. May creslt, a Class II stream used by salmonids, shall have a minimum 100 foot. buffer of undisturbed native vegetation. 19, The Class III stream (lying within Tracts.A, B, D and B) shall have a minimum 25 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation. 20.. Wetlands, streams and their buffers shall be placed' in a separate sensitive area tract. A minillum building setback line of 15 feet shall be required from the edge of a sensitive areas buffer. 21, The approved filling of the o. 07 acre Class 3 wetland shall be mitigated by setting aside 0.1 acres of existing. forest adjacent to the Class 3 strBIIID buffer. (The proposed mitigation area shown on the Kay 10, 1994 preliminary plat map is acceptable,) · 22. All approved alterations of streams shall.insure that there will be no net loss of stream functions on the site,.and no impact on stream functions above or below the si ta due to the alterations. 2·3. All stream crossings by roads or driveways shall use bottomless, arched culverts or other construction techniques wbicb do not disturb the stream bed or bank. All crossings shall be constructed during summer low flow. Crossings shall not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the stream. Crossings shall be minimized and serve multiple purposes whenever possible. (The location ot the crossings for street A and Tract E are acceptable.) 24. A stream Mitigation Plan for the relocation of tbe stream shall be submitted for review and·approval by I1J8D, The mitigation plan shall be submitted as part of the subdivision engineering plans. The Stream Mitigation Plan shall include proposed final grades and hydrology; outlet to May creek Wetland f5; a detailed planting plan showing'plant spe~i8s, sizes and iocatipns; and construction notes. 25. Required stream mitigation must be completed prior to King county's granting of finai approval to the subdivision. stonegate S90P0068 Page B However, if tbe applicant demonstrates that seasonal requirements· or other circumstances beyond their control prevent completion of the mitigation prior to final approval, the applicant may .post a -perfonianca bond or other security instrument as ·approved, which guarantees that all required mitigation measures will be completed no later than the time established by WSD. Upon satisfactory-completion of tha performance inspection, Il!SD wetlands ataff shall reoommend release of the performance bond and i ta replacement with a maintenance bond. A maintenance bond shall be required, in a form and amount sufficient to guarantee aatisfactory workmanship,· materials, and performance of structures·and improvements allowed or required, for a period of up to five yeara. Upon satisfactory completion of the final monitoring inspection of the site, King county WSD wetlands staff shall release the maintenance-bond. If the -project has not met its performance atandards at the end of the monitoring period, the Applicant is responsible for preparation and implementation of a contingency plan to remedy the situation. · 26. Prior to recording of the final plat, the owner of the property shall SUDmit proof that a Notice on Title has been filed for record with the Records and Elections Division, to run with the land containing sensitive areas. The Notice shall be approved by WSD and inform the public record of the presence.of a sensitive area or buffer, the ·application: of KCC 21.54 to the property, and that limitations on actions in ."or affecting such areas· or buffer may exist. 27. Prior to ooamenoing construction activities on the site, the applicant shall mark wetland and stream senaitive areas in a highly visible manner, and these areas must remain so marked until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the.sensitive area are completed. 28. Prier to aaamencing construction activities on the site, permanent survey stakes using iron or c;:ement markers as established by current survey standards ehall ba sat delineating the boundary between adjoining property and the sensitive areas tracts. 29. Prior to final approval of construction activities en the · site, the boundary between a sensitive area tract· and adjacent ·1and shall be identified using permanent signs. sign specifications shall be supplied by WSD and shown on the subdivision engineering plans. 30. Prior to final approval of construction activities ori the site, the boundary between a sensitive area tract and · adjacent land shall be permanently fenced. Fencing details shall be shown en the subdivision engineering plans. 31. The following note ehall be shown on the final engineering plans and_recorded plat: RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE ARBA TRAC'?S AND SENSITIVE ARBA SB'l'BACK ARBAS Dedication of a Sensitive Area Tract/Sensitive Area setback area conveys to the public a beneficial int~rest in the land within the tract/setback area. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of sl~pe stability, visual and aural buffering, and protecti~n of stonegate S90P0068 Page 9 plant and animal habitat. The sensitive Area Tract/ Sensitive Area. Setback Area imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers of the land sul>ject to the tract/satl:lack area the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the public by King county, to leave undisturbed all trees and ether vegetation within the eaeaaent. Tbe vegetation within the tract/setback area may not be cut, pruned, covered.by till, raaoved or damaged without approval in writing fram King County Land Use services Division or ite successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law. , Tbe common boundary between the.tract/setback area and the area of development activity must be marked or otherwise flagged to the eatisfaction of King county prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity on a lot sul>ject to the Sensitive Area 'l'ra·ct/Seneitive Area Setback Area. The requ.l,red marking or flagging shall remain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the sensitive area are completed. Ho building foundations are· allowed beyond tbe required building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 32. Tbe subject plat shall comply with KCC 19.38 by providing a fee-in-lieu of open -ce. The emount of tbe fee shall be detel'llined by DDES 11114 the !Ung county Parka Di vision, consistent with the provisions of KCC 19.38. The fee shall be paid to King county prior to recording of the final plat. 33. A homeowners• association or other workable organization ehall be established to the satisfaction of.LUSD which provides for the ownership 11114 continued llaintenance of the open space areas and sensitive areas tracts. 34. The final engineering plans for the proposed subdivision shall limit the clearing and grading to the minillUJl1 necessary to install roadWays arid utilities including the grading associated with the relocation of the unnamed tributary. All trees and undarstory shall be retained on the proposed lots ·until recording of the final subdivision. Due to the grading necessary to relocate the unnamed tributary, Lot 1 shall be exempt from this requirement. 35. Per l!xbibit Ho. 18, the engineering plans for this project shall identify the location of.any wells on the site and provide notes which address the requirements for the contr21ctor to abandon such wells pursuant to requirements outlined in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-160). ORDBRED this 10th day of June, 1994. Examiner TRAHSMJ:'l'TED this 10th day of June, 1994 to the following parties of record: John Affolter Eric Evans/Donald Leavitt DMI George Dorselt Halinen & Associates Julia Bonwell Chaffey Corp. Michael Donnelly Peter Gonzales/Ron Kranz George Mathewson stonegate M.C.' McLeod ·cave Miller David & Vickie Olson A.R. Tabacek . Henry Vonjouanne 890P0068 Cindy Meritt Dennis Noland -M.A. stemwell Anil 81,tt:ail 'R. Jean Yourkcwski TRANSJIITTED this 10th day of June, 1994 to the-following: Lanny Benoch, Land Use Services Division Joe Miles, Land Use Services Division Bruce Whitteker, Land use Services Division Rich Hudson, Engineering Division Larry West, Land Use Services Division Vaughan Norris, Kin,; county Council Paul Reitenbach, community Development Section Tam:my·Johnsonrr Land Use Services Division Paulette Norman, Public Works Department King Conservation District Roger Dorstad Larry Ratte/Dept. Fisheries Gayle Kreitman/Dept. Fisheries · Ellen Gullholm Tom Kellogg Diana Kinared Harbour Homes Don Erickson New construction Services Janine De Tracy HOTICK Of BXGBT TO PfEAL AND ADDXTIOffll ACTJON Jj!IOOIRED Page 10 In order to appeal the reoammmdation of the BXIUliner, written notice of appeal must· be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $125, 00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before June 24, 1994. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and 6 copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal 11UBt bs tiled with the Clerk ot the King county Council on or before July 1, 1994. Ap~l statements may refer only to facts contained in ths hearing reccrd1 new facts may not be preaent·ed on appeal. · Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the. council, Rooa 403, King county courthouse, prior to the close of business (4:30 p.m.) on the data due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does net occur within the applicable time period. The BXaminer dose not have authority to extend the time period unless tlie Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient- to meet the filing. requirement. If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within 14 days calendar days of the date of this report·, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within. 21 calendar days of the date of this report, thB Clerk· of the council shall place a proposed ordinance Which implements the BXaminer•s recommended action on the agenda of the next available Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council may adopt the Examiner's recommendation, may .defer action, may.reter the matter to a Council committee, or may remand to the EXaminer for further hearing or further consideration. · Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving· or.adopting a recOJ;IIDlendation of .the.Examiner shall be !inal and conclusive unless within thirty (30) days from the date of the Stonegate S90P0068 Page 11 ·action an aggrieved party or parson applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the aotion taken, MINUTES OF THE MAY 26, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE SERVICES DIVISION FILE NO, S90P0068 -STOIIEGATE . . James N. o•connor was ·the Hearing Examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Lanny Henoch, Larry West, Eric Bvans, curt Smelser, Don~d Leavitt, Everett Wilcock, Mary Keech, Andrew Duffus, Dennis Noland, Ed Horn, Don Erickson, Mike Merritt, ·Julie Bonwell, Peter Gonzales, Ron Kranz, Anil Butail, Lyn Keenan, Don Tubbs, Mark Jacobs .. The fo11owing exhibits ware offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1 Exhibit No. 2 Exhibit No. 3 Exhibit No. 4 Exhibit No. 5 Exhibit No. 6 Exhibit No. 7 Exhibit No, 8 Exhibit No. 9 Exhibit No. 10 Exhibit No. 11 Exhibit No. 12 Exhibit No, 13 Exhibit No. 14 Exhibit No. 15 LUSD File No. S90P0068 Staff Report 5-26-94 public hearing Application, received 8-9-90 DEIS, date of issuance 4-13-93 FEIS, date of iseuance 11-30-93 DS -effective date 10-8-91 · Affidavit of Posting -date of posting 4-26-94 received affidavit 4-26-94 Revised preliminary plat map (J sheets) which includes a conceptual drainage. plan -received 5-10-94 Land Use Map -Kroll Maps BOOE, 801W, 460E, 464W, portion of 800W Assessor Map NE 3-23-5 · LUSD File for Road Variance S92V0182 Modification of Condition 9 and additional condition f34 Applicant's hearing presentation notebook at tabe 2-9 Letter dated May 26, 1994 to DDES/LUSD from Jean Rollene statement prepared by and read into record by Andrew Duffus \plats\s90p\s90p0068 JNOC:jc/ckp · e: . ' " )~~ oo (D Q 0, 6 . 'z ..... . :l ' Lu LO Lu ~6 • I- • (!) Zz I'") - N :C • V') a. < f::: 3: \\.1 200 .,.·:' "" STONEGATE /'PORTIO}~--GOV'T LOT ,> •• .... =:. THE S.E. 1 / 4, COUNTY OF 1 AND RENTON, N.E. 1 / 4, SEC.3, KING, STATE OF ... /' · "°""' CITY OF ,.,···· SC,t,l[ : 1• • 200' 200 "" !!NFLAiTED / )I) 7"!'-; :; ,,,,,··1. .:.:: · . ..,}TR.ACT A )'. A-'-.._ . ,,;.'.., ·" ~;(~. Ii " 2 ·.·····1"'""'"''·• '::,:•,:: 1'.::z:~:::· FOOND I~' .-/ P!R •.A:ECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED IN.,~ 103 OF S!JffVEYS, PAGE L!l,8, ~DING NO. 950$039001 ,~· .----, .. , ... LUA-96-043~FP LND-10-0304 W.M. TWP .23N., RGE.SE., WASHINGTON No. 2007 (NAO 1883/81) N lltl.108.M.12 -"""'"'"' """"" """'" frf t_,!ltll.5414 [ 1.31&,760.4500 E 10,022.lllM (I ,. ~ ___ N A"JT2r w 26<4";;'~";;--· ""'"''°"K~ J lJll.~--,11,1100' I~ ~,;:: \~\ ,.. ~ GOVT LOT 2 ~:~ : \ ::;:-6 = ·~ \ =F,;· . ~n:: . . ! \ b -: w \ ~ . '• !::i \ cf" { • I + ( ,· ':'f.,. ) SCALE JN rEET 60, • '¥•· . .' fl : .iASEMEMTs,eOin'~ uMDVi:AFH's ,,. z~.' :ii:o ~~ M[Rll)IA.N: K.C.A.S. B.t.SS Clf 8EARINO: N 1'58"00" E BCnlE£N Kt,IC COUNTY MONUMDlT B-IIIO AHO AREA.·;'NO PHYSICAL EV'lbf".NCE TH,f,T ,. -!II ~ ~~·~~W~T~~~N ,~ _ ........... , ' .. , ie . ~OOT~"'~a~'f,::..ENF./ ~-· a !'z ~ ~ / SHW 1 f mE NORlMEAST CORNDI OF SECTIC* J-:U-!!,, W.M,::,,,. 1 ··, . o .,,· 4 or··:1:-.. ,;"1~' SHEET 5 OF 7 ~ SHEET 6 OF 7 SHEET 7 OF 7 ....... _] . ., .~ ·r:. ,.. w .. ,~ .. ,,, ... __ ·1··· ·1· iB· ... ~ . • . . wc::s:=:s :. ~ I ;,.... .. 1 ·..; ,...,...,. , r " ... . , .,~... "' '. ,.,,~ ·,,, l;•' · ..... ~ ,e r;: .,,,.-2.jl ~ .... ,.•' => .. j:l -/;y ) ~·: ~ '-t9 .... , r...?\t ..._ 4 ~ .. s· ~~· a,·· -•. 10 ..... 21 , .,\; . + • ,, ' ' ""' " N 17':li SHEET INDEX .. INO£T£fhitaw'1'£;.~ PHYSIC~lF / • ' 1.l.22.18' ' . 1l ~ •:. EVIDENCE EXISTS 'NOR IS PIE ·.' .l • , ;;.--f ai ·:DESCRIPTION ~CIENT "Jn OETE~N£ :, ,,..,_,,• N '&!'.26"2.11" *..', 1 : !::Jg~~?,"f, ~~NT p.~~--,,, ........ , .... ,,.,. ,, ... ,.: ·:. • ~ I / ··. ,/ gov·r ... LOI , 1 AN_? TH_.E ./ ~ ~ NF 1 / 4, SEc;.3.,:f .23N,, R .• -5E., .:W.M. • ~ •. • ,... .• " ·• I Z 0 ~ :, ...... , ... (~,? 1• ~-.'~ •. .a·· n£ 80UMDNIY ~.-.NO~~ AfC0°SOUNt1AAY ~~!h~ ~~..rtl~~:s.:~~ BEIN RCCOll'D£l> t,I BOOK 1D.l OF SURVEYS, PMlE i5&.: RfS. NO. ll5050J9D01, R[CMOS OF IONG COUNTY. WASI-GMOTON PER WAl;'"ll32-130-0:10. . ~RT~~~~o!.~·s~~Rl'"=Eo~PCO:ci~-3iRAVERSE AS 'PER W.-C 332-130-090, PART C. LEGAL _DESCRIPTION _,.. . 1Wt.t:f'Oll'nciN°:ar.~WDlT LOT NO. I, SECllON l. t1'WGHII' :U -"TH. 1WG: li CA$T, W.W.. ... ICING C(ll:i,ITY, WASKtfCTOM. DESCRIBED "5 FtUOtlS: BtQMNlNc ... r~·PDKr CN·lFIE.NOll.lH U£ or SAID CCMRIAIENT Lot, NDfllH U"Jr!T WE.$T _,».DO fEET ~ 1HC·.NOll1K'.An:CORNER ft£REOf"; ;.1'MCMCE ~ llfl'3TI7" 'IIEST. ',lDNG .$!,ID NOl'tffl UNt. !184.U FEU, MOIII£ OR l.£SS. TO ... POWT _,-.. CH rs-'• nnntOM M 1(11.nnlltst ~ or SAil OO'loOINWENT LOT: -::-:w-n: =,fflNE ~-=6~~~ ~ ~ ~ "':" ~ ~~ Of SAD-.~ LOT; ,•'•"··· ·:. ,.-·.·, •. fflE1ta: ~ 1"'2SOT WEST, PNl',W.0. '11ml SAID'llbrr UNE tif"•.c;o"9HM[HT LOT. 9!1..71 ~ MIR;OI lfiS, le' "IH[ SWll!C lM'. Of" SAID ~ u,t, ~,~r:r~"'i"J'""IH[~=.-~.=-~-~~...:~TO~tOlll M,l,ltQN-Of" 1411H ""1EN..E: SOUl]«'...sT: .:• ;; ·: l'HENllt NORTH o:J!2S'2T E"5T,."L.ONG SMJlu.RQN, ;Ml.00 FEET: .: ....... ,, •• 1HQ(a: NDRlH ..lll'Vl'27" WEil"<US..00 fiO": ·; .. ntb«J, NOR11i:01"25'2r E,\$T U2.J3 RU; "!HDICE'~ a5"00"oo" DIST 113.119.l'EET: •• •• : ~~":!'~J~ ~Ol~;:sr~._..tp,Rf*. TO ... _:'~J,~ lHENCC Nmmt Ol'1:f:zt:·&"5T, P~ •l)t·lM[ u.sto.E:.CF SAil ~-L9f'AM;) ALCWG ll£ wtsT lllARCIN tl"·U&6 14lt1 A\'DIJE ~,-·7.1$.55 FEEJ;'~ ~·(tss, to lHE !'(MOil Cf" BEONIINO. ' • • • • . ••• • }: ~ ··· .. ;: .. =.=. ·=· ..... .. ll1E $OJ1lOST QUARTE:Jl OF" nt[ N0Rn£AST bi,N!TOI. Cf" !i;tCllOH l. TOll!llllffll'!z.l_ JIClllH, ••• , ~~ 5~~.Mffl II r::'\&::· WA.StOtt.lTOH; \·. ·'.··:.,. (ALSO KlfOW "5 LOT ..._ OC COUNTY LOT LINE ADJJSll,IDIT ........ S--11248, !l£c:oir:o UNOER RECORDINO ~ I0092108&4.) ·•:,,,. •• ,.,,· "' ' z ~,; ;i ~ ;l 6 ,• : " ,, ,. -·,t,:· .. ... ./'' King County File No. S90P0068 HOJITON DEJOOI l ~aaoaATEI, INC. lHUffi co,uSUJ.:nxe EMatNEERI J20 Second Aw. South IMI-S,~) ll~::rs SHEET O.t 'l· ~-~ 2 October 17, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 . Re: Project Nwnber LUAl 1-023, ECF, R Project Name: Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov I have written two previous letters (October 5, 2011; October 13, 2011) in support of the Home Rezone. However, neither of those letters makes clear why I believe the Home Rezone complies with the Renton Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and the implementing policies, objectives, and zoning classifications. In this letter I intend to state why the Home rezone meets the policies and definitions of the R-4 zone, but do not meet the policies and definitions of the R-1 zone. RCP Policy LU-147 is clear that urban densities of at least 4 dwelling units per acre are the default residential zone in the city of Renton. The R-4 zone is one of two low-density land use designations where larger-Jot housing stocks are allowed. The Pwpose Statement in the Residential Low Density Land Use Designation section of the Renton Comprehensive plan clearly states: "Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance are zoned Residential 4." Policy LU-151 also makes clear that "density should be a maximwn of 4-du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints (steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplain, wetland, designated Urban Separator) are not extensive." It is important to remember that the R-4 zone is a larger-lot, Residential Low Density zone. Policy LU-146 supports "small lot, single-family infill development and plats ... to both increase the City's supply of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities." The Home Rezone area is a perfect "infill development" opportunity to fulfill this goal in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. Continued R-1 zoning would not fulfill LU-146. Next, one must address Policy LU-153 which concerns how "prevalence of significant environmental constraint should be interpreted." Because the prevalence of critical areas is a primary driver of R-1 zoning, Policy LU-153 is to understanding whether the Home area is properly zoned R-1. Policy LU-153 has 1 five tests for mapping R-1 zoned land. Mapping is obviously a proxy for zoning. When the five tests [nwnbered I through 5 in Policy LU-153] are applied to the Horne Rezone area, the answer to each test is a resounding "no", as follows. 1) Critical areas do not encumber a significant percentage of the Horne Rezone area. 2) The Home Rezone area has !ill critical areas and all of the area is developable. 3) The Home Rezone area can be developed contiguously. 4) The Home Rezone area is not a designated urban separator. 5) There are uo critical areas in the Home Rezone area, so the allowed density can be accommodated. The Horne Rezone area fails all five tests, and thus is not suitable for R-1 zoning. LU-II and Policy LU-157 further support the Home Rezone application for R-4 zoning. The physical evidence about the Home Rezone area is conclusive. There are no constraints such as steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands, or critical areas on the Home Rezone property. Thus, by RCP policies the Horne Rezone meets the designation criteria for R-4 zoning as contained within the Comprehensive Plan. But, the question must still be asked, "does the Horne Rezone meet the criteria and definition for inclusion in the R-1 zone?" In reading the definition of the R-1 zone, one should compare each zoning requirement to the characteristics of the Horne Rezone property to detennine if the criteria would dictate an R-1 zone for that specific property. The first criteria is: ''pervasive critical areas". There are no critical areas on the Home Rezone property, so clearly this would not apply. The second criteria is: to ''protect critical areas". The only allegation made in the Staff Report that speaks to a rationale for applying the R-1 zone to the Home Rezone area is a reference to the May Creek Plan prohibiting increase density. This is patently fulse. The May Creek Plan makes no such policy statement. The plan makes different recommendations for different areas within the May Creek basin. The East Renton basin, in which the Home Rezone properties are located, contains no such prohibition on increasing density where such an increase can be adequately mitigated. The third criteria for R-1 zoned properties is: for properties that have been designated as urban separators by the Countywide Planning Policies. The City of Renton has adopted urban separators in the May Creek basin, but the Home Rezone properties are not so designated. The urban separators which the City of Renton adopted are for properties northwest of the Home Rezone area, along May Creek and the S.E. May Valley Road (see attached May Valley Urban Separator Overlay). The Home Rezone properties do not match, nor even fit the definition provided for R-1 properties. Ali we move to the definition of the R-4 zone, we find a nice fit to the Horne Rezone property. First, the Home Rezone neighborhood is serviceable by urban utilities. Amenity open spaces are adjacent to the Home properties (see Greens Creek protected areas) and can be easily provided with the area. Because of the lack of critical areas on site, the Home Rezone area can be develop as either a 2 "small lot cluster" where open space amenities are created, or developed conventionally in an area rich with open space. The Home properties provide a fitting transition between rural designated properties to the east, and R-8 properties further to the west By allowing the Home properties to develop at an R-4 zone, the resulting development can be easily superior in design and site layout than that which currently exists and would continue to exist otherwise. Other supporters of the Home Rezone have recounted the impossibility of improving older structures on existing large lots without the prospect of enhanced density to prod new development. Newdevelopment would indisputably be superior in design and site layout than the continuation of the slow, inexorable decline of this neighborhood under R-1 zoning. If one takes a fresh and fair look at the Home Rezone area, it is impossible to state that it meets the R-1 zone. It is easy and clear to see that it comports comfortably within the R-4 zone. The City Staff in their report have decided to side with a small cabal of NIMBY neighbors who are attempting to deny to the Home Rezone property owners the same density which those neighbors have for themselves. The City Staff has failed in their obligation to fairly implement the policies of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. I ask the Hearing Examiner to be the adult in the room and rule what is patently obvious to anyone with a command of the English language who will read the RCP policies fairly and objectively. The StaffReport ignores or misrepresents the above cited Objectives and Policies in the Renton Comprehensive Plan, and in doing so, comes to the wrong conclusion and the wrong recommendation. Very Trul~}o/' .~ p;,,,_,f William Kombol, a property owner in the Home Rezone area 30533 -2341h Ave. S.E. BlackDiamond, WA 98010 Enclosures: May Valley Urban Separator Overlay (with the Home Rezone area highlighted in red) 3 6---·--'g,!.eo-.- Horne Rezorie Area '·• I October 13, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Project Number LUA! 1-023, ECF, R Project Name: Home Rezone Dear Ms. ,Timmons: RTimmons@Rentonwa.gov I am a property owner in the Home Rezone area. I fully support the efforts of Mr. Home who, with the unanimous consent of our neighbors, are supporting the rezone of our properties from their current R-1 zone to the R-4 zone, which better fits the attributes of our property. I previously provided you a letter dated October 5, 2011. 1 supplement my previous letter and statement with the following facts, reasons, and rationale based on the recently provided Staff Report, dated October 11,2011: • In order to fully understand the dynamics of the Home Rezone area, one must first deconstruct the sophistry of the opponents who have attempted to paint this action as an "illegal spot zone". The City of Renton Staff Report dated October 11, 2011 adopts this reasoning, but in doing so contradicts its own definition of an "illegal spot zone". The Staff Report is instructive, as it quotes the Narrowsview Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma case. In it the Appeals court properly defined spot zoning as follows: "illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning action by which a smaller area is single out of a larger area or district and specially zoned for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of surrounding land, not in accordance with a comprehensive plan ". When analyzing the particular situation it is extremely important to note that while the adjacent Stonegate neighbor)lood is zoned R-1, it is in fact developed at a density and arrangement much more equivalent to the R-4 zone classification. Calling the Stonegate neighborhood an R-1 area is no more accurate than calling the sky orange. The sky would not become orange even if the City of Renton code held that it was orange. It would still be blue. Though the Stonegate neighborhood is zoned R-1 -that is an historical . anomaly. The Stonegate neighborhood was developed consistent with R-4 zoning. In fact, every lot i.n the Stonegate neighborhood is an inconsistent use in the R-1 zone because the Stonegate densities far exceed (by two 1 ', orders of magnitude) those allowed under the R-1 density which requires one dwelling unit per acre. A review of the attached density map and the Stonegate lot size report and map of Stonegate will amply illustrate this point. Also attached is a copy of the original Stonegate approval (DOES Report File No. S90P0068), which also reflects that Stonegate when it was developed in an area increasingly characterized by "urban residential subdivisions." That report is instructive as it makes clear that the vast majority of the Stone gate lots were developed as part of a SR-15 000 zone which is about 3 lots per acres. This approval was in June 1994, Yet, the Stonegate opponents of this rezone like to "pretend" that they are in an R-1 zone. They're not, except in name. Their build-out density is R-4 but their zoning is R-1. Just because the Stonegate neighbors want to pretend that they live in an R-1 density area; is no reason to deny the Home neighbors their right (under the City of Renton code definitions) to an R-4 zone and density. • The City Staff report repeats this saine sophistry when speaking of the properties to the south of the Home Rezone (see Revised Report of October 11, 2011, page 3, section G.l. Project Description/Background). In this paragraph the City Staff report trumpets the fact that "the properties to the south are zoned R-4 according to the County's zoning map but are pre- zoned R-1, by the City, should they annex." What the City Staff report doesn't tell you is that the built out density of this area to the south is 2.5 to 5.0 dwelling units (DU) per acre. The City Staff adopts a "see no evil" attitude when it pretends that an R-1 pre-zone is somehow demonstrative of an R-1 density. It isn't. The County's current R-4 zone is consistent with the built-out density of the area to the south. Pretending that an area developed at an R-4 density (like this area to the south) is really an R-1 zone is pure sophistry, reasoning sound in appearance only. • The City Staff report does get to the heart of the issue on page 5, section 5.b. The build-out difference between an R-1 and R-4 zone is a "possible" 16 lots (12 lots under R-1 and possibly 28 lots under R-4). With 400 or 500 current lots and residences in this sub-area (all of which have been able to build out under an effective R-4 density, regardless of their R-1 or R-4 zone classifications), and zoning allowing several hundred more lots, are we really to believe that a "possible" 16. lots will be materially detrimental to the· public welfare of other persons located in the vicinity? Are 500 lots just perfect, but 516 lots material detrimental? • The City Staff report commits another non-sequitur on page 7, section 2, Consistency with the Zoning Classification. In the second paragraph the Staff Report states, "The R-4 designation serves as a transition between 2 rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density zone". Then in the third paragraph, the Staff Report states, ''the proposal would not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density zones." How, in the name oflogic, can the R-4 designation "serve as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density zones" (as it is defined in the Renton municipal code, Section 4.2.020 D), yet "not be consistent with the R-4 designation in that it would not offer a transition between rural and higher density zones" (as used as a rationale in the Staff Report)? If someone can make logical sense out of two statements that are completely contradictory, it will surprise me. Yet, this same Staff Report adopts that contradictory non-sequitur to conclude, "based on the analysis above the subject property is most appropriately zoned R-1 and a rezone to R-4 is not supported by staff." • The Staff Report makes a factual error on page 4, Section G. J. Project Description. In the second paragraph on page 4, the Staff Report states, ''the site is also bisected by a 30-foot wide tract, owned by the Stonegate neighborhood .... " This is not true. The Stonegate H.O.A. is the taxpayer of record for this 30-foot wide property commonly known at Tract I in the Stonegate plat (see King County File S90P0068 recorded under recording number 9609101362). According to the Stonegate plat notes and restrictions on Sheet 1 of 7, Condition 17, "Tract I, access tract in favor of properties to the south of Tract I shall be dedicated by separate deed from the Chaffey Corporation to the abutting property owners". The "abutting property owners to the south of Tract I" are the properties within the Home Rezone. The Stonegate H.0.A. is not "abutting property owners to the south of Tract I" (see sheet 2 of 7 which shows Tract I and its relationship to the Stonegate Plat to the west, and the abutting Home Rezone properties to the south). Therefore the Stonegate H.O.A. does not own Tract I (the 30- foot wide tract). Chaffey Corporation did issue a quit claim deed to the Stonegate H.O.A. but that deed did not dedicate what it could not dedicate, since the Stonegate Plat Condition 17 in King County records is the controlling dedication. Also, there are a number of other easement holders (including Mr. Home, utility companies, etc.) who have easements rights across that tract. The Staff Report should be amended to correct this error. • What the Staff Report is really trying to say is this: "we are biased against this rezone request, and even though this rezone request meets the definitions and the criteria set forth in the R-4 zone, we are going to oppose it anyway. " 3 The Horne Rezone meets all the requirements set forth by the definitions and the criteria of the R-4 zone. The Home Rezone is not a "spot zone" as defined by Washington courts. The City Staff Report uses sophistry and non-sequiturs to oppose the rezone. The City Staff Report incorrectly lists the owner of Tract I as the taxpayer of record for Tract I. The City Staff bases their opposition to this rezone on biases, not logic and facts. The proponents of the Home Rezone have met their burden of proof and the rezone should be granted. v:u:u William Kombol, a property owner in the Horne Rezone area 30533 -2341h Ave. S.E. Black Diamond, WA 980 IO Enclosures: Area Density Map showing the existing densities of properties surrounding the Horne Rezone Stone gate Lot size report and map of Stone gate lots ( from King County Assessor and King County iMAP information) Stonegate Approval Report -DDES File No. 89P0068 dated June I 0, 1994 ( 11 pages) Stonegate Plat under King County File No. 89P0068 recorded under King County recording number 9609101362, Sheet 1 of 7 with Note No. 17 highlighted, and Sheet 2 of 7 with Tract I highlighted (both highlights with a red dot) 4 :.J 2 -~ t~ u :J ·n J c i :: = C. c.: ~ ,cc ... .;;;, -,.. .... --:--.... ' .. -CL " ; ... ~<: C. --,, ~·- 11 l l ..., ,.._ ~ ,u • ---~. ~ Stonegate Lots Lot# Address Tax Lotsa ft Lot# Address Tax Lot sq ft 3 5608 NE 26th St 803540-0010 15000 32 5315 NE 22nd CT 803540-0310 14192 4 5602 NE 26th St 803540-0020 15000 33 5309 NE 22nd CT 803540-0300 16058 5 5512 NE 26th St 803540-0030 16575 34 5303 NE 22nd CT 803540-0290 16503 6 5506 NE 26th St 803540-0040 15312 36 5302 NE 22nd CT 803540-0280 16870 7 5500 NE 26th St 803540-0050 15136 37 5308 NE 22nd CT 803540-0270 19726 10 2508 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0510 15448 38 5314 NE 22nd CT 803540-0260 26111 11 2502 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0500 13915 39 5320 NE 22nd CT 803540-0250 16861 12 2406 L\/Ons Ave NE 803540-0490 13579 40 5326 NE 22nd CT 803540-0240 16525 13 2400 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0480 12872 41 2205 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0230 16906 14 5502 NE 24th CT 803540·0530 29305 42 2211 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0220 14169 · 15 5505 NE 24th CT 803540-0520 27775 43 2217 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0210 13113 16 2310 Lvons Ave NE 803540·04 70 13047 44 5313 NE 23rd CT 803540-0200 16992 17 2302 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0460 14452 45 5307 NE 23rd CT 803540-0190 18111 18 2218 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0450 15026 46 5301 NE 23rd CT 803540-0180 17832 19 2212 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0440 15883 47 5300 NE 23rd CT 803540-0170 16684 20 2208 L vons Ave NE 803540-0430 15492 48 5306 NE 23rd CT 803540-0160 19397 21 2202 L'll<lnS Ave NE 803540-0420 14877 49 5312 NE 23rd CT 803540-0150 16954 22 2106 L'llnnS Ave NE 803540-0410 15844 so 2303 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0140 15243 23 5504 NE 21st CT 803540-0400 15268 51 5405 NE 24th CT 803540-0130 14897 24 5510 NE 21st CT 803540-0390 14978 52 5311 NE 24th CT 803540-0120 16383 25 5511 NE 21st CT 803540-0380 15096 53 5305 NE 24th CT 803540-0110 22998 26 5505 NE 21st CT 803540-0370 17568 54 5304 NE 24th CT 803540-0100 18401 27 5501 NE 21st CT 803540-0360 14130 55 5310 NE 24th CT 803540-0090 20535 28 2003 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0350 14527 56 5316 NE 24th CT 803540-0080 16437 29 2009 Lvons Ave NE 803540-0340 16328 57 5404 NE 24th CT 803540-0070 17389 30 5401 NE 22nd CT 803540-0330 17133 58 2401 Lyons Ave NE 803540-0060 21853 31 5321 NE 22nd CT 803540-0320 13952 Tracts not part of the General Anaylsls 803540-0540 803540-0580 Average Lot Size 16805 803540-0550 Median Lot Size 16058 803540-0560 I I . ·~180.?.L !.~!r_.L_ ~----' : I J I I : I ' i 1 'ltnco110 I ~18720030C! . (181'2D03?0 ! 032W..tl102 ! : j I ' I ... -•/1111fJtro . . . -·-·~---·---· .. --' .. "' ... ____ , __ ..... _ ... _4 •• ..... ,., -.. ~----.._...i I ,1,120011;0/7 ./ I _____ I' I ' I I t ']B12001!.0 . l I f STONEGATE LOTS! 9Q3~0'J330 ti O:IMOOJW ~ .,.,,. r-~·--1 ,.--· j J / .. ~ doo&.4000~ , ~ l ! 8035400010 ~\ f JI I "' ' J.--,-......l _, ... __ . ....._ ...... . _ .. , ..... -.. --.,...,..· "'• -.... ·--· .. • f .. :·.:-:-:-:-·•·· ···-· ·.llJ.a.»fST . , ... --··.-·--80~---. -· .... - i f l 0'2305i1Q3 Ol2J059'11)9 0123059106 1 ~5!)004( ..... ---- , : 032~1~ ----~J._ ---1---r-----· June 10, 1994 OFPICJ OP TRI ZONING MP 8UBPIYISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY C WASHINGTON 700 Central Building 810 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 REPORT AHO RECOlllll!IIDATION TO Tllll XING COllllTY CODNCIL, SUBJECT: DepartDent ot.Developaent and Environmental Services File No. S90P0068 Proposed Ordinance No. 91-762 Propo11ed Plat of STONl!GATE Generally between 148th Avenue aouth.eaat and 143rd Place Southeast (it extended) end generally between Southeast 104th Street and Southeast 96th Street (it both roads were extended) SUMMARY OF RECQ)tMENDATIOHS: Division's Prelillinary: Division's Final: Examiner: PRELIMINARY REPORT: Approved, ·aubj act to conditions Approved, subject to conditions (aoditied) Approved, subject to conditions (modified) The Land Us~ Services Division's Pral~inary Report on Item No. S90P0068 was received by the Ex1U1iner on !lay 12, 1994. PUBLIC HEl,RXHG: After reviewing the Land Use Services Division's Report and examining available information on tile with the application, the Examiner viaited the site arid surrounding area and cOnducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item No. S90P0068 was opened by the ExaJ11iner at 9:20 a.m., May 26, 1994, in Hearing Roon No. 2, Department of Development and Environmental services, 3600 -136th Place S.E., Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, and closed at 12:16 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibita ofrered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS i RECQ!QIBHQATIQN: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General Information: Developer: The Leavitt Company, 301 116th Avenue SE, Suite #570, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206) 455-4224 MASTER CC?Y Stonegate Engineer: owner: STR: Location: Zoning: Acreage: Number of Lots: Typical Lot size: Proposed Use: sewage Disposal: water supply: · l'ire District: School District: Date of Application: S90P0068 Page 2 David Evans , Aasociatea, 301 116th Avenue SB, Suite 1170, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206)455-3571 The Levitt Company, 301 116th Avenue BB, Suite f570, Bellevue, WA 98004/(206)455-4224 3-H-5 Generally between 148th Avenue southeast and 143rd Place Southeast (if extended) and generally between Southeast 104th Street and Southeast 96th Street (if both roacle were extend ad) SR 15,000, SC-P, G-5-P 38.4 53 Ranges frOll approximately 15,000 to 28,000 square feet Detached single flllllily residences septic King county water District f90 flO -1aaaquah 1411 -Issaquah August 9, 1990 2. l!,tcept ae modifie4 below, tbe tacta sat forth in the King county Land use Services Division's Preliminary Report to the Zoning and Subdivision Bxaainer for the May 26, 1994 public hearing are found t·o be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. COpies of the said report will be attached to the copies of this report submittad to the County Council • 3. Urban residential subdiviaions exist adjacent to and west of the southern portion of the site. Thoae plats (Summerwind and Newcastle Terrace) drain onto the subject property. Lots in the SWlllllerwind development are approxiaately 7000-8000 square feet in area, those in Newcastle Terrace are approxilllately 13,000 square feet. The Applicant has agreed to provide biofiltration for untreated surface water run-off from those developmen~. 4. The extended environmental review process for this proposal has resulted in project aodificationa and mitigating · measuree which will eliminate significant adverse impact of the developnent upon the environment. These modifications and mitigating measures have·generally been agreed to by the Applicant, and have won support for the development from many adjacent property owners. 5. The Applicant has been willing to develop the proposed plat with either public sanitary severs or individual septic systems and drainfielda. In 1989 and 1991 the applicant made formal requests to Renton for annexation, which would enable sewer service to be provided by the city; these requests were .denied. · 6. The subject property is above an extensive aquifer used by the City of Renton for its potable water supply. The nearest city well which draws from the aquifer is approximately two miles west: the next closest well is approximately four miles from the site. The preliminary design for sewage disposal by septic tanks and drainfields Stonegate S90P0068 ·Page 3 has received preliainary approval fr1>1i'the Ring county Depart .. ent of Public Haalth. The subject property is underlain by glacial till, an impermeable soil, below the aanda and gravels which exist near the surface. The teatillony of the ODES geologist is that there would be eseentially no impact on the aquifer from septic drainfields on the site. This testimony is consistent with virtually all other evidence and informa_tion contained in the enviroimental dOCU11811ts. There is no substantial evidence in the reoord to support the City of Renton•s concern tor aquifer contaaination, and no evidence was presented at the public haaring to indicate that the infon,ation contained in the Environmental Impact Statamant is inadequate. COHCLUStDJfl: l. If approved subject to the conditions recOllllllended below, the proposed subdivision will comply vith the goals and objectives of the Ring County C011prehenaive Plan, Nevcsatle Community Plan, Subdivision and zoning Codaa, and other official land use controls and policies of Ring County. 2. It approved subject to the conditions reco ... nded below, this proposed subdivision will aalte appropriate provision for the public haalth, aafety and general welfare and for open spaces, for drainage ways, atreeta, other public ways, transit stops, potable water eupply, sanitary vaates, parka and recreations, playgrounds, school• and acbool ground.a, and safe walking conditions for students vho only valk to school, and it vill serve the public use and interest. 3. The conditions for final plat approval recammended below are in the public interest and are raasonable requirements to mitigate the iapacte of this developaent upon the environuen.t. 4. The dedications of land or easements within and adjacent to the proposed plat, as recomnended by the conditions for final plat approval or as shown on the propo""4 preliminary plat submitted by the applicant, are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the development ot thi• proposed plat. 5. 'l'he Environmental I.m.pact S~te11ent prepared. tor this action provides adequate information and reasonable discussion of the proposal, .ita impacts, alternatives and the impacts of the alternative proposals. 'nlere is no evidence that the factual information contained in the Environmental Impact Statement or the discussion of impacts upon the environment is inadequate. RBCOJOIUPU''.IOJ: APPROVE the proposed preliminary plat of Stonegate as revised and received May lO, 1994 subject to the following conditions of final plat approval: l. Compliance with all platting provisions of title 19 of the Ring County.Code. 2. All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the face of the final plat a dedication which inc.ludes the language set forth in King County Council Motion No. 5952. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 4 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Proposed Lets 1 through 5, and 50 and 51 are zoned sc-P. The area and diaensiona of these lots shall aeet the minimum requirements of the SC •one olas•ification or shall be as shewn on the faca of the approved preliminary pl at, whichever is larger, Niner revisiona to the plat which do not result in substantial changes say be approved at the discretion of the Land use Services. Division, Prc;,poaed Late 6 through 49, and 52 and 53 are 1oned SR 15000, The area and dl.aenaiona of the .. lots llhall ll8et the minimum requirements of the SR 15000 1one cla••ification or shall be as shcvn on the face of the approved preliainary plat,.whichsver ia larger. llinor revision• to the plat which do not result in substantial change• uy be approved at the discretion of the Land Use services Division, The applicant must obtain final approval frca the Kinq County Health Department. If the applicant propoae• to serve the final plat with sewerw, in lieu of septic tanks, approval of a Local Service Area (LSA) extenaion must first be secured froa King county or the subject property aust be annexed to ths City of Renton, (Note: an LSA extension would require the convening of a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and the passage of an ordinanca by the County Council,) All.construction and upgrading of public and private roads shall be done in accordance vith the King County road Standards established ·and adapted by Ordinance.No, 8041, subject to variancas granted by the Jting county Road Engineer. The Applicant lllUflt obtain the approval of the King county fire ~ction Bng1118Gr and dGIIOlllltrate C011Pliance with the fire hydrant, water aain, and fire flow atandards of cbapter 17,08 of tbe King County cede, Final plat approval aball require full compliance with the drainage provisiona set forth in King County code 9. 04, and the storm drainage requireaente and guidelinea as established by the surface Water xanag.,,..nt Division. compliance may result in reducing the number and/or location of lots as sbown on the preliainary approved plat. The following conditions represent portions of the Code and apply to all plats. a. Drainage plans and analysis shall comply with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design llanual (except as modified by Condition 9 below). LIJSD approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any construct.ion. b. ·cu.rrent standard plan notes and ESc notes, as established by LIJSD Engineering Review, shall be shown on the engineering plans. c. The following note shall be shown on the final recorded plat: "All building downspouts, footing drains, and drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the permanent storm drain outlet as shown on the approved construction drawings I on file· with LUSD and/or the Department of Public Works, this plan shall be submitted with the application of any building permit. All connections of the drains ~ust be constructed and approved prior to the final building inspection Stonegate S90P006B Page 5 approval. For those lota that are designated tor individual lot infiltration systeaa, the systems shall be constructed at the ti:ae of the building permit and shall comply with the plans on file.• 9. The following conditions specifically addreaa drainage issues tor this particular plat: a. stcrmvater detention aball be C011pUted using an scs- based hydrograpb .. thod (or other aethod as approved by King county) • Tha perfo,,..._ of the proposed detention tacilitiea llllall be such that diacharge from the developed area shall be no acre than: • one-halt of the pre-developed, a-year/24-hcur release rate tor deaign storm event• up to and including the 2-year/24-hour design storm, * The pre-developed, 2-year/24-hour release rate for design stora events greater than the 2-year/24- hour design storm event and up to and including the 10-year/24-hour ·stora event, ·• The pre-developed, lO-year/24-ilour release rate tor design storm events greater than the 10- year/24-hour atora event and up to and including the 100-year/24-hour design atora event. All other aspects of tha atcr11 water ayataa design shall conform to the 1990 King county Surface Water Management oeaign Manual, including vetpond and biofiltration. b. Offsite water troa the 5-rvind Division 2 Tract X detention pond and Newcastle Terrace shall be conveyed throUgh the site. '!'bis ottsite water shall receive biofiltration per the 1990 SWMDII prior to discharge. c. o~tsite drainage currently enters the southwest corner of the proposed sul>division via a pipe from NE 20th Street. The final engineering plans approved by King county shall· incorporate thia aysta. into the final design of the drainage plans. d. The·crosa culvert which will ultimately convey the Tract A and Tract B atreu beneath Road A shall be designed to accom11odate the 100-year design storm. 10. A note shall be shown on the final plat and engineering plans which states that the finish floor elevation for residences on Leta 1-s shall be at a minimum of one foot above the 100 year floodplain. 11. All clearing.and grading for roads, drainage facilities and utilities shall be pertorme4 between April lat and September 30th. UJSD may allow clearing and grading activities beyond these seasonal liaits, at its discretion. In determining whether to allow clearing and grading beyond the seasonal restriction, UJSD shall conaider the Applicant's construction practices and actual weather conditions. A note implementing the preceding clearing and grading requirements shall appear on the final engineering plans. 12. All utilities within proposed rights-of-way must be included within a franchise approved by the King county council prior to final plat recording. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 6 13. The Applicant or subsequent owner shall comply with King county Code 27.40, King County road Mitigation Payment systen (MPS), by paying the required MPS fee as determined by .King County Public works, plus an adllilliatrative fee. The Applicant has an option to either: l) Pay the MPS fee and MPS administrative fee at final plat application, or 2) pay the MPS fee and MPS adlliniatrative f•• at the tiloe of building per,ait application, lf the first option is chosen, a note aball be placed on the face of the plat that reads, "All fees required.by King county Code 27,40, King county Road Mitigation Pay.ant systea (MPS), have been paid.• If the sacond option is chosen, the fee pal.cl shall lle the amount in effect as of the date o'f building permit application. 14. 'l'he following are required road improv8118Jlta for this subdivision: a. streets A and B eball ba designed to the urban sUbcollector standard. b. Street& c, D, B and P sball ba designed to the urban minor access standard. c. Frontage improvements to 148th Avanue Southeast are required as follows: * The frontage along the vest margin of 14i8tb Avenue Southeast sball be improved in accordance vi th approved Road Variance S92V0l82. • A bus pullout area shall be deeigned, and conetructed near the intersaction of 148th Avenue Southeast and Street A • . • Street illumination shall be provided at the intersection of Street A and 148th Avenue, in accordanca vi.th KCRS 5.05. • Plans for the above-noted improveaents to 148th Avenue Southeast &ball :t,e GUbllittad to the Depart.ant of Public Works for review by the Traffic and Planning Section and the Bridge Engineer at the time of engineering plan sUblDittal for tbe subdivision. d. 148th Avenue southeaet shall be regraded and lowered to achieve adequate entering sight distance at the Street A intersection, per the King County road Standards, Plans shall be subaitted for this illprovemant with the engineering plan submittal. · e. Any pavement failures in the vest lane of 148th Avenue Southeast between the Street A intersection and the above road lowering·section shall be repaired, f. Modifications to the above road conditions may be considered by King County pui:-atlant to the variance procedures in KCRS 1.oa. g. Lots 52 and 53 ehall have undivided ownership of Tract E and be responsible for its maintenance. Tract E shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and be improved with an 18 foot wide paved surface. The paving shall have a cross slope in one direction, with curb or thickened edge on one side. Stonegate S90P0068 Page 7 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. 21. 22. 23, 24. 25. h. Tract F shall provide for pedestrian use and emergency vehicle access. The tract shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width, and shall have a 20-foot-vide, paved surface. The 20-foot-vide, paved.acoess road.shall have a cross slope in one direction, with curb or thickened edge on one side. the access road shall have bollards placed at both ends of the tract, consistent with the requirementa of the lting county Road Standards. Tract F shall be dedicated to lting county. A geotechnical report, prepared by a licensed geotacbnical engineer, shall be.submitted with the engineering plans to address eny structural fill needed for development of the plat. In thia regard, it has been noted that structural fill may be needed on Lot 1. The planter islands (if any) within the cul-de-sacs shall be maintained by .the abutting lot owners. Thia shall be stated on the face of the final plat. the on-site portion of Nay Creek Wetland fS, a Class I wetland, shall have a minimua 100 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation, except to the extent that diatur'bance is allowed aa provided in condition 24 below (Nay creek wetland ts lies in Tract Bon the ·preliminary plat aap.) Nay creek, a Clas• II stream used by aalaonids, shall have a ainilllUIII 100 foot buffer of undisturbed native vegetation. Tba Class III stream (lying within Tracts A, B, D and E) shall have a minillllll 25 foot 'buffer of undisturbed native vegetation. Wetlands, strBallll and their buffers shall be placed in a separate eansitive area tract. A •inimua buildi119 set'back line of 15 feet shall be required froa the edge of a sensit.ive aress buffer, The approved filling of the 0.07 acre Claas 3 wetland shall be mitigated by setting aside 0,1 acres of axisting forest adjacent to the Class 3 stream buffer. (The proposed mitigation area shown on the Kay 10, 1994 preliminary plat aap is acceptable,) · All approved alterations of streams shall.insure that there will be no net loss of streaia functions on tho site, and no impact on stream functions above or 'belov the site due to the alterations. All stream crossings by roads or driveways shall use bottomless, arched culverts or other construction techniques which do not disturb the stream bed or bank, All crossings shall be constructed during SUJIIID8l' low flow. Crossings shall not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the stream. crossings shall be minimized and serve multiple purposes whenever possible, (The location of the crossings for street A and Tract B are accepta'ble,) A Stream Mitigation Plan for the relocation of the stream shall be submitted for review and approval by LUSD. The mitigation plan shall be su'bmitted as part of the subdivision engineering plans. The stream Mitigation Plan shall include proposed final grades and hydrology, outlet to May creek Wetland f5, a detailed planting plan showing plant species, sizes and locationsi and construction notes. Required stream mitigation must be completed prior to King county's granting of final approval to the subdivision. Stonegate S90P006B Page B However, it the applicant demonstrates that seasonal requirements or other circ\11:tiatancea beyond their control prevent completion of the mitigation prior to final approval, tho applicant aay post a -perfonaance bond or other security instrument as approved, vbich 911arantees that all required mitigation aeasures vill be completed no later than the time established by LUSD. Upon satisfactory coapletion ot the pertoraance in•pection, LUSD wetlands staff shall r8COlllllend release ot the performance bond and its replacement vith a 111aintanance bond. A 1111intenance bond shall be required, in a form and amount sufficient to guarantee .. tisfactory vorkllanahip, material&, and perforaance of structures and improvements allowed or required, for a period of up to five years. Upon satisfactory ccmpletion of the final aonitoring inspection of the site, King County UlSD wetlands staff shall release the maintenance· bond. · If the project has not met its performance etandards at th• end of the monitoring period, the Applicant is responaible for preparation and implementation of a contingency plan to ra11edy th• situation. 26. Prior to recording of the final plat, the owner of the property shall Blll>llit proof that a Matice on ~itle baa been filed for record with the Racords and Elections Division, to run with the land containing sensitive areas, The Motice shall be approved by UlBD and inform the public record of the presence of a aenaitive area or butfar, the application of KCC 21.54 to the property, and that limitations on actions in or affecting 11Uch areas or buffer may exist. 27. Prior to cooaaencing construction activities on th• site, tbe applicant shall aark wetland and stream sensitive areas in a highly visible aanner, and these areas must remain ac marked until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the.sensitive arwaa are C0111Pleted; 2e. Prior to conencing construction activities on the site, permanent survey stakes using iron or ceaent markers as established by currant survey atand&rda shall be set delineating the boundary between adjoining property and the sensitive areas tract.a. 29, Prior to final approval of construction activities on the site, the boundary between a .anaitive area tract and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. Sign specifications shall be supplied by UlSD and shown on the subdivision engineering plans. 30. Prior to final approval of construction activities on the site, the boundary between a sensitive area tract and adjacent land shall be permanently fenced. Fencing details shall be shown on the subdivision engineering plans. 31. The following note shall be shown on tha final engineering plans and recorded plat, RESTRICTIONS FOR SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND SENSITIVE AREA SETUCK AREAS Dedication of a Sensitive Area Tract/Sensitive Area Setback erea conveys to the public a beneficial int,rest in the land within the tract/setback area. This interest includes the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health, safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance of slope stability, visual and aural buttering, and protection of . • Stonegate S90P0068 Page 9 plant and animal habitat, The Sensitive Aree Tract/ sensitive Area Setback Area I.Jlposes upon all present and tuture owners and occupiers ot the land subject to the tract/setback area the obligation, entorceable on behalt of the public by King County, to leave undisturbed all trees and other vegetation within the easaaent. The vegetation within the tract/setback area may not be cut, pruned, covered-by till, r8ll0Ved or dallaged without approval in writing fraa King County Land Uae Services Divi•ion or its successor agency, unless otherwise provided by law, , The coJIIIDOn boundary between the tract/ setback area and the area of development activity 1111at be aarked or otherwise flagged to the satistaction ot King County prior to any clearing, grading, building construction or other development activity on a lot subject to the Sensitive Area Tract/Sensitive Area Setback Area, The required marking or flagging shall re11ain in place until all development proposal activities in the vicinity of the ••n•itive area are completed. No building foundations are allowed beyond the required building setback line, unless otherwise provided by law. 32, The subject plat shall CDIIP1Y with KCC 19,38 bY providing a fee-in-lieu of open apace. The uount of the fH shall be datariained by DDU an4 the Jting County Parka Division, consistent with the provisions of ltCC 19,38, The fee shall be paid to King County prior to recording of the final plat. 33. A homeowners• association or other workable organization shall be established to the setiafection of LUSD wbicb provides tor the ownership and continued maintenance ot the open apace areas and sensitive areas tracts. 34. The final engineering plans for the proposed subdivision &ball liait the cloaring and grading to the ainillwa necessary to install roadirays and utilities including the grading associated with the relocation of the unnamed tributary. All trees and underatory shall be retained on the proposed lots ·until recording ot the final subdivision. Due to the grading necessary to relocate the unnamed tributary, Lot l shall be exempt from this requirement. 35, Per Bxhibit No. 18, the engineering plans tor this project shall identify the location of any walls on the site and provide notes which address the requirements for the contractor to abandon such velle purtluant to requirements outlined in the Washington Acministrative code (WAC 173-160). ORDERED this 10th day. of June, ·1994. Connor Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 10th day of June, 1994 to the following parties of record: John Affolter Eric Evans/Donald Leavitt DMI George Dorselt Halinen & Associates Julie Bonwell Chaffey Corp. Michael Donnelly Peter Gonzales/Ron Kranz George Mathewson . ! Stonegate M.C.' McLeod Dave Miller David & Vickie Olson A.R. Tabacelt Hen't)' Vonjouanne S90P0068 Cindy Meritt Denni& Noland M.A. Stemwell Anil Butail R. Jean Yourkovaki TRANSMITTED this 10th day ot June, 1994 to the following: Lanny Henoch, Land Dae servicea Diviaion Joe Miles, Land Use Sarvicas Division Bruce Whittaker, Land Use service• Division Rich Hudson, Bngineering Division Larry West, Land Uae Services Division Vaughan Norris, Ki119 County Council Paul Reitanbach, Co111111nity Development Section Tallllly Johnson, Land Use Services Division Pauletta Norman, Public works Department King conservation District Roger Doratad Larry Ratte/Dept. Fisheries . Gayle Kreitman/Dept. Fisheries Ellen Gullhol.Ja Tom Kellogg Diana Kinared Harbour Homes Don Erickson New Construction Services Janine De Tracy . HPTlSB or RIGHT 'l'O APPEAL MP APPJTIQDL ACTJOH BBOUIREP . Page 10 In order to appeal the recommendation ot the Exaainer, written notice ot appeal must be tiled with the Clerk ot the lling county Council with a tee of $125.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before J'W\e 24, 1994. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and 6 copies ot a written appeal statement specifying the baaia tor the appeal and &r,;JUlll8nt in support ot the appeal aust be tiled with the Clerk ot the King County Council on or before July 1, 1994. Appeal statelll8nts may refer only to tacts contained in the hearing recordr new facts may not be presented on appeal. Filing requires actual delivery to the Office ot the Clerk ot the. council, Rooa 403, King county courthouse, prior to the close ot business (4:30 p.111.) on the date due. Prior mailing ie not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable tille period. 'l'be Bxaainer does not have authority to extend the tille period unless the Office ot the Clark is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the tiling requirement. If a written notice of appeal and tiling tee are not filed within 14 days calendar days ot the date ot this report, or it a written appeal stat8llellt and argument are not tiled within 21 calendar days of the date of this report, the Clerk of the council shall place a proposed ordinance i,,hich implements the Examiner's reco1DJ11ended action on the agenda ot the next available Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council may adopt the Examiner's recommendation, may defer action, may refer the matter to a Council committee, or may remand to th~ Examiner for further hearing or further consideration. Action of the council Final. The action of the Council approving or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and coriclusive unless within thirty (30) days from the date of the • •. stonegate S90P0068 Page 11 action an aggrieved party or paraon applies for a writ of certiorari from the superior court in and for the County of King, state of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken. MINUTES OF 'l'HE MAY 26, 1994 PUBLIC BEARING ON L1.IID USB SERVICES DIVISION FILE NO. S90P0068 -S'J'OIIBGATB . James N. O'Connor was tile Bearing Bxuiner in this matter. Participating in the llearing were Lanny Henoch, Larry West, Bric Evans, curt SJ1elser, Donald Leavitt, Everett Wilcock, Nary Keech, Andrew Duffus, Dennis Noland, 11d Born, Don Bricltaon, Mike Merritt, Julie Bonwell, Peter con1alea, Ron JCranz, Anil Butail, Lyn Keenan, Don Tubbs, Mark Jacobs. Tile following exhibits vere offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No, Exhibit No. Exhibit No. Exhibit No. Exhibit No. Exhibit No. Exhibit No. Exhibit No, Exhibit NO, Exhibit No, Exhibit No, Exhibit No, Exhibit No, Exhibit NO, Exhibit NO, l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 LUSD rile No. S90P0068 Staff Report 5-26-94 public haaring Application, received 8-9-90 OBIS, date of issuance 4-13-93 FEIS, date of issuance ll-30-93 DS -effective date 10-8-91 Affidavit of Poating -date of posting 4-26-94 received affidavit 4-26-94 Revised preliminary plat nap (3 &beets) wllich includes a oonceptual drainage plan -received 5-10-94 Land Use Map -Kroll Maps 800B, 80111, 460!, 46411, portion of 80011 Assessor Map NB 3-23-5 L1JSO File for Rpad Variance S92V0182 Modification of Condition 9 and additional condition f34 Applicant's baaring presentation notebook at tsba 2-9 Letter dated May 26, 1994 to DDBS/LUSD from Jean Rollans statement prepared by and read into record by Andrew Duffus \plats\s90p\s90p0068 JNOC: j c/ckp • • uJ Lt) uJ <.!) z 0::: 0 • I-• <.!) Zz t<) - N J: • V) a. <( ~ 3: 62 ""' STONEGATE LUA-96-043-FP LND-10-0304 100 / PORTl.0.N <;OV'T LOT THE S.E. 1 / 4, COUNTY OF 1 AND RENTON, N.E.1 / 4, SEC.3, KING, STATE OF TWP .23N., RGE.SE., WASHINGTON W.M. ,; -· ,, CITY OF SUJ.E: ,· . ,oo' "" SCALE JU F"tF.1 MERIDINI: ~.C.."-S. •oo e .. srs or eE#oRNO: 11 1-se·oo· E ,-·_·:•·,., ··--CNP::'_'_'.:"'.'_ ___ §:1 l m· • H e=,r_w_ <J,,;'"' ,~m-:1 ;,;,,.,,~;;' ,, ::,} . <' ,~,,. :--,· ,.I ,,,'.t .... ,., .. ,,i'"°rr:. .. . I,,,· I . lR .... CT.... .'' ,;·-,.,, .. f •. /Sti'"5JJJM REBAR ~~~~ET7,T t'.'..-' ~,-~;: (> '. --:./Z:~"°::::· ,~. ~F;· z ~ ,,,,.,1··r .,--:·'' _:'} -........_~I! .. --~-...,f ' W'~ ~ ~~A~~' .., N 88:_t'!.'~~ W 'tr, N ~ :. 1...... f:l:nx>RDIN6 N0_:_~~~39001 'o • 1322.M< ~'-....'-><, . .,.--..;,::l===I I " t-· -· . -· "" ~ . ~,,,, ~ r ;<-'· --I 'I . .-· ;. . ~-~~ ... I 1RAC19 -· _.. _,·.' I ~;· '$~ :.'° ~. §' 1l ·1 I ~i-C:-, . ---, 1 .·-' _,iASEKNTs.<OiiT"'"" u•oop,.·s .""' ! ~~-,~~~ ~:~ ·' z :: AR[A.."'N!) PlfYSICAl. £Vl0£HCE T1'{AT , z ~ "' '\ 600 B£l'#EEN KING COlrtm' MONIJMEUT fl-11!1(1 ,._Nil lHf: NOP:THEAST CQftHEff Of st:CTION J--23-5, W.M .• : .• -. .. . :.... ·----.--..•• -.:· .,· ~!3 .ailNO 2~ COHTIJN ,. k:'.) ro ~..,:,':l:,-.: c-, ! 4 3 2 1,, •• if . ._, .::· . A6REE"1!£NT TO ACainQE_ E~ENJ{." ,.. 0 -~~ ~'-:: ; ', .. 1 :.-THIS:':OccuRRED. EXACT LOCATION ' ,. --· "' "'" ··-~vnT ..>!, , I i.f OF F'ROPOSE;l);.£AS£UENT LCJC-''.f{ON ,:' •' ~ ~ .....-;: /._..;:i ... -l H ~--ro' w ::; ·:.-. ~~:i"t~TS':l~~MV~IC~ ./ 4 3 ··_. 13:f_!I~' ' =:' . '" _· :r u l "-· ·:. ~-;;; SHEET ~~" 5 OF 7 !er·.;,,., ·-~ r.f···1 SHEET s or 7 7 OF 7 _ _..- ~':. 1JHPi.A T~E!J. "~--I! I \I....L.-....1 ' I I 9.1.s1 :h__: I -I SHEET INDEX ' "-":.-DESCRIPTION ~tNT jtl OETERflffl'E y ', . ..,_-.' N·&!.2628" Iii'_; 21145.37' .s"· • [ii ~Jg~:;~~,.C E~~NT P:~.-.-·: .: .• .• -: __ --gov•i:_.LOJ,1 AN!) Tl-!f __ Nt 1/1, SE.(;,}, .. t.23N;'; R,-SE., ,.W.M. ·· ... , ... !.~~ r • ~l """' ~BOVNDI.RY gm\O· ANO~~ "!«l·~u" ~~~~ ~~~"~:S.:~~ Bf.EN M'.CORtlm IN 80'Y 11>3 OfC SURYEYs. PM;(: ise.: R¢. NCI. ~001, RECC'IR.OS OF l<1NG COUNTY, WASl-ilNGTOM PER WA¢""332-IYl-0:IO. f{R WAC 332-130-100, EOOIPMENT USED, TC'PCON r,JS-3C:, !I THFCIOOLITE/EDM. Sll!NE\' P£RFORME0 SY Cl.OSEO TRAVERSE AS ""PEP WAC: 332-130-090, PART C. No. U:145 (H.0.0 111'"/91) N H'6, 170. 7,2..... (FT) LEGAL _ DESCRIPTION E 1,J16,637.&320 (n) ' a~ ·.1~ .~o ,z ' ' ,} ··, ~- 'IH .. •lt~:or: (:()V[Pt,11,IOH LOl NO. 1, S.:CllOM J. ~ 2J N(lflll-l, RMfGC ~ l,t,Sl, w.t.\,:. ·1N ...-...o COUNTY. •~TON. O£Salll![O ,.,s rouows: -~ m T ,1 ~G ... , .•. POINT c,ii"fl'IE:.N{>Rll-l UNE Of' SAIO ~ LOT, tlCJRll-l aa·Jr1r wr.Sf _,lo.oo F£ET fftOII M-iroRlliU5l,C(IAM[I! ~~; TI£NC£ ~ fl8"3Tll'" 'IIIEST. All:INc'; S"4' -lH UN£. 5°".1111 FEET. MOR[ Clfl l£SS. 10 A POINT -Cl-I IS .ffl n:n.~ 'TH[ !IMnwt!:T U!il'.N[R <" S.ut> ~ LOl; lHEMC:C.~ 1™"52" WEST'"5.0 J'E£T. MC111: DI'! L£SS. TO A -""4ICH IS~ ... f£ET SOUli:!:OF THE lfM1I-I U1E OF SM! GOV[1'tN[N'T'ioT ~t«> -ffil ["Sf or mi: WE5T UN[ {If" ~~~fc# _wist:·P~R~n W1ll s~-i-.ti;T-~·Of'·.0\£RNMENT LOT, ,.,~_19 ~-M~:~ l=, ~ THE SOI.Jl'!(UNE Of' SA1;1 ~ LOf1 ,'l'HENC£ SCUTI-1 ~'17" E"5T, Al.ONG SM! Y,,_~ LIMt. JH.$1 fW. MORE M LESS, lC' ii. PClll<T ··XI f'E£T:1£Sltlll.Y C1F lHC SC,U11-£1.ST COl!H&:R "t'IF" -:!,t,C> ~."L{\f MIO C"'f ll-£ WEST . MAR1;:t,:Of" 1'8'1M "'1ENIJE SOV'lJ"«',._Sf; ._:· :; lJ-EICt NORTH 0!~5'22" EAST,·."1.0NG S.<:ll MAAGll<I. ~-00 Fill; ~ tfO!l'ffl .98"01'27" WEST"-tl!>.00 rEU; ~ -n-,:tn"25':l:2" EM>,-2$2.JJ ml"; ~CEM("'lm ,so,:1·00· rll:ST ,,~.sv.m-t: _._..-:: _,,· 'II-IDltt: solJ'M 88'01'2r. i:11.Sf ~23.QO' FEET TO SAID ¥CST l!W,(l ll!M«l!M. TO ii. l'Q.IIU",f!ll'M :a:~~;.~~~ ~-:~~/1J{~l~.~-S.oJ0 00~~:t?f,._N[I ill.ONG M WEST M,t,RCIN OF"• SAIC) l .. ll'IM A\IDIIJC SOU1;£AST.",'/"J5.5!1 F£EJ/1.l()ftE OR "USS. TO lHE Pt91T Cf' BEQINNIIIO. ' ~~O.ST Olt.t.P'IU' t'f" 'INC -~~~~-b!,W!~ Of' ~C~ J. ~-?3 N~~:,/ Ril.NQ! 5 EAST. W.W .• IN l<INC COUNTY, '11,._SHNGTON: --. ·, ' - 0:CEPT M EAST 529 F£ET lHC!lEOf; ·._-. '.":· .: (Al.SO l".t+(IW "-SLOT•. "1NC COUl•tTY lOT UN( -.(IJJS1\1£NT >ll~.S--02-te. REOOflOEO .:·· UNOElt: !!£'::ORDING NVMBEl' 90IW:?10&6•.) .,. •" HORTON DENNIS l ASSOCIATt.8. INC. STONEGliTE """"" '°""" H 9.1Xl'fl.!><f1 .. E 10,022.1!2NI (FTl + ( r~oo·) -~ 0~ ~. i; ~~ !: ~ •• ~. ~~ "~ -· o" za z ' J , STOIIIEC:,._TE ,' ,._SSlMED COOff[l / N 5,0fl1 ... 1U (FT) E 9,900.~72 lFT) King County lffiIB] COIIIUL11NCI ENGrNEERI ~20 SeeMd ,.,.,.._ S<,uth K'ri:k,,,d, WA 980J3-6687 ~822-2525 File No. S90P0068 SHEET 2 OJ -·· '"" :2 ,,.. Rocale Timmons City of Renton Planning Dept. 1055 South Grady \,Vay, 6" Floor Renton, WA 98057 Suqject Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: September 29, 2011 First off I want to say that I live within the botmdaries of the Home Rezone (named for Mr. Hon1e, my neighbor) and I fully support the rezone of my property and the property of my 8 or 9 neighbors. Second, I want to stress that I have lived here for decades, long before any of these Stonegate neighbors even knew this part of Renton existed. Third, I want to be treated fairly so that our neighborhood can develop and not be stuck in the cuffent state of decline that it is in. Fourth, I own a home and a lot in the Home Rezone. My home was built in 1907. It has 5 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. It is fi.mctionally obsolete. My house is in a state of decline. I admit it. But, I don't have the 1noney to fix it up and buyers won't pay any value to simply tear down one home to put up another. I need the R-4 zone so that my property can be developed in a normal manner and help to clean up this neighborhood. It doesn't pay to fix up a house like this. The only way that things like this can improve is through better zoning, like R-4, which is the effective density of all the properties to the west of our neighborhood. Buyers want new homes that look like the homes being built today. 'l11ey don't want a home built in 1907, with one bathroom that doesn't fit the modern life style. The Stonegate people, who seem to be against my rewne, all enjoy R-4 density with modem streets and modem homes and modem sewers. \Vhy do they want to deny me and my neighbors the exact situation that they already have? This is unfair. The only reason they oppose it is that they would like to see the fields behind my property (to the southwest) kept for open space. This is llllfair. They don't own it. One more thing about Stonegate. In their letters they claim they own the Easement Tract (aka Tract "I") which borders my home and lot to the north (aka NE 24" Street on some maps). This Easement Tract I was supposed to be dedicated for use by the properties owners to the south of the tract, which means my properties and those of my neighbors. \Vhy wasn't this done. I don't see why the Stonegate HOA claims they own it, because according to the Stonegate Plat Conditions, it is supposed to be for the benefit of the properties owners to the south of Tract I, which means me and my neighbors. Please support this rezone. This rezone lits the criteria for R-4 zoning. There are no sensitive areas on the rezone property and the land can be easily developed with modem settling ponds to protect May Creek. Right now there are no settling ponds that serve the Home Rezone neighborhood. With new development, new settling ponds could be built, thereby serving the public interest. Also, my home is on a septic tank. With new development, all homes would be on sewers. Having homes on sewers is in the public interest, because sewers do not fail like septic tanks and drainfields some times fail. The development which would follow the rezone to R-4 zoning will better serve the public interest than the continued state of affairs, which includes homes in decline, septic systems that can fail, and no settling ponds for swface water runoff from the current homes (which all date the requirement for settling ponds). Do the right thing. The Stonegate neighbors are selfish. They don't want other people to eqjoy the same density and style of housing that they already have. The public interest will be served with new homes, higher assessed values, new sewers (to replace potentially failing septic tanks and drainfields), new settling ponds (to deal witl1 swface water runoff, which is currently untreated), new roads, new street lights, and new sidewalks. SUPPORT THE HORNE REZONE AND APPROVE IT!! David T. Orange 2357 Nile Ave. N.E. Renton, WA 98059 Rocale Timmons C/0 City Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton Wa. 98059 Rocale Timmons 9-S0-2011 Let this letter serve as my support for the Horne rezone request off Nile Ave NE and NE 24,th St over By May Valley. After driving by the area and seeing old housing, mobile homes ,md what appeared to be abandoned and overgrown properties, I believe the property would be a lot better if it would be developed into new housing. If the City of Renton encourages them to do sidewalks like the rest of the city streets, then I am sure that all the existing neighborhoods would love to see a new neighborhood spring up. Please let who ever will be making the decision on this rezone that I support it and think it will be a nice area for some new homes and it should also help the city tax base. ' 2 .j I-Yi [/ll.{tP1J1/) Jay Bankson . 569 Graham Ave NE Renton, WA. 980.59 ' 1066 ~,t/,,~m<{y &f, tJr.'enu,n &t: 980697 ~- 10/14/EOII J Ollflb a,honu, 'f?M tm me 6aek«ft, '!f me&tmu, #°f(} ~ and JtfunJ. /iauillff nou,h,o,mei {;,,ift in, me llll'tl• ,,,;/j lv.f, Oi/4' Aom,, t,abm!. !J1/j lut,Jbtuid a4ul ~uallud tku me a4't!a /a,Jt wetlc and mero aro mndm011 lwuti8J wid no Ju/u,,a/k, &o, _I ,,_ ~ IIJO(,/d /,,, e,n,oi;x/ men mem (QO(lld 6,, &td,wa/1.,J and would 6,, ,rum, &q/,n, fa /amiiM in me a,er:i. (i}h,me '!I ti,,,~ in, me JID?UI r all'tl• /u,o,, Joid ~ <km• t ~ tfu4 "'5°11(}• /;,,tit~ bt"fj-lxxfl£>1, ~ at home and M1em/f":?ec~e tlwt lioM 11otN,'# ,,, ,lo. bttt emnf'k,i,11, ,,/;oat "'"'':ftf,;41#, a,id a,'#'l,;41#. !JUj 9:/;ld&a,nd. SU'-a,,d J ~me~ ""!f"'u; to, {fj['..-4 and telkvJC it wilt/,,, rfa me nd~ and me riff a& "u,lio/,,. V 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBIT 6 HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON IN RE: Home Rezone, NO. LUA 11-023, ECF, R MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE The applicants for the Home Rezone hereby submit this Memorandum of Authorities for the Hearing Examiner's consideration in the above named application. It was the Applicants' understanding that staff intended to make changes to its first staff report, therefore the Applicant delayed submittal of this Memorandum in order to review staffs revised Staff Report, which was issued October 11, 2011. A. AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT Overview of authorities relevant to general review of site-specific rezone application. Zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owner's right to use the property for the property's highest utility, must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner and must not be extended through implication. Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, MEMORANDUM OFA UTHORIT/ES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE J of 14 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 I Fax (425) 451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 643, footnote 4, 151 PJd 990 (2007); Development Services of America, Inc. v. City of Seal/le, 138 Wn.2d 107, 979 P.2d 387 (1999); Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275, 279, 300 P.2d 569 (1956). Rezone applications fall under this rule of construction in the same manner as any other application related to private property. An applicant is responsible for preliminary showing of how the proposed rezone meets the adopted review criteria. Once an applicant makes that showing, the burden shifts to the city to address or rebut that evidence or analysis. See e.g., City of Medina v. T-Mobile, 123 Wn. App. 19, 33-34, 95 PJd 377 (2004) (Court reviewed and overturned a variance denial, similar to a rezone in that both are a request to change zoning standards for the subject property). It is proper for this Hearing Examiner to substantively review each rezone criterion and make an affirmative decision as to whether the proposed rezone is warranted on each criterion. Woods v. Killitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597, 608, 174 P.3d 25 (2007); Henderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App 747, 757 (2004), review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1028 (2005); Tugwell v. Kitritas County, 90 Wn. App I, 11-12, 951 P.2d 272 (1997). Rezone denials will be overturned if improperly denied. See e.g. JJ. Storedahl v. Clark County, 143 Wn. App. 920, 180 P.3d 848 (2008). In Storedahl, the Court had no compunction about overturning Clark County's denial of the requested rezone, particularly as Clark County had "failed to list the facts it found showing the appealed decision did not comply with applicable approval criteria .... " Storedah/, 143 Wn. App. at 933. B. It is improper to deny a rezone based on public opinion or fear of increased development. The City's decision on a rezone application cannot be based on local or parochially perceived welfare, public opinion or generalized fears of development. Kenart & Associates v. Skagit County, 37 Wn. App. 295,680 P.2d 439 (1984); Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 MEMORANDUM OF A U71/0RIT/£S IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE 2 of 14 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114 11' Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425)4512812/Fax (425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wn. App. 64, 851 P.2d 744 (1993); Norco Construction Inc. v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 685,649 P.2d 103 (1982); Henderson v. Killitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747, 755; Sunderland Family Treatment Services v. City of Pasco, 127 Wn.2d 782, 903 P.2d 986 (1995); Marana/ha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wash. App. 795, 804, 801 P.2d 985 (1990). Anecdotal commentary by a single individual expressing generalized or parochial disapproval of the proposed rezone is an improper basis to deny a site-specific rezone. Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2"d Cir. 1999); City of Medina v. T- Mobile USA, 123 Wn. App. 19, footnote 45. Even if the majority of comment is against the rezone, "neighborhood opposition alone may not be the basis of a land use decision." Henderson, at 755 (citing Tugwell v. Ki/Ii/as County, 90 Wn. App. I, 9). In this case, the October 11th Staff Report appears to be based on little more than a preconceived, generalized fear of the rezone without actual and meaningful evidentiary analysis. As is addressed herein, in the application materials, and in the forthcoming presentations at the hearing, the Staff Report's very summary conclusions are not based on meaningful analysis, substantial evidence or a proper recitation of underlying public documents. C. The Horne rezone is consistent with Policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. (Criterion F (I )(a)) General conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is all that is required under a site- specific rezone analysis. Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I, 8; Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846, 899 P.2d 1290 (1995); Cathcart-Maltby-Clearview Community Council v. Snohomish County, 96 Wn.2d 201,634 P.2d 853 (1981). When a rezone implements policy contained in the Comprehensive Plan, "this fact alone would justify the rezone." Henderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747, 756 (emphasis added), citing to Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846. MEMORANDUM OF A U71/0RITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE] of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Following are a list of Policies with which the Home rezone is consistent and, in italics, a short comment on how.I In summary, the application's consistency with these Policies shows that the properties (a) do not have the attributes that are required for R-1 zoning and (b) would have far more benefits to the City and far greater consistency with the City's long range planning policies ifrezoned and developed under the R-4 zone. • Policy LU-11. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land development practices result in an average development density in each land use designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the provision of urban services. (emphasis added) Evidence in the application materials and as will be provided at the hearing shows that rezoning the properties to R-4 will provide greater efficiency in the provision of urban services. • Objective LU-FF: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that: I) Supports transit by providing urban densities, 2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and 3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features Evidence in the application materials and as will be provided at the hearing shows that rezoning the properties to R-4 will provide growth that will better meet the elements of this Objective than development under R-1. • Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. The Horne rezone properties do not contain, and are not in an area of. identified and documented sensitive areas and are not identified as urban separators. Ther~fore, under this Policy, the properties should be rezoned to R-4. More specifically, the properties subject to the proposed Horne rezone do not have the qualities which the Comprehensive Plan defines as necessary for having a prevalence of significant environmental constraints that this Policy is concerned with (see Policy LU-153, below). I A copy of the Policies are attached hereto. MEMORANDUM OF A U1'f/ORIT/ES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE4 of ]4 JOHNS MONROE M!TSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 I 14'' Ave. SE, Suite I JO Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 45 I 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818 ( \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • Policy LU-148. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. As is shown below, "larger lot' refers to development at a density of 4-dulnet acre, i.e. development consistent with R-4 zoning. • (Residential Low Density Land Use Designation) Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-Jot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. This statement explains that the term "larger lot' r~fers to development at a density of 4- du!net acre, i.e. development consistent with R-4 zoning. • Objective LU-HH: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators, and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County. Under this Objective, R-4 zoning is considered to be an appropriate zone to provide a transition to Rural Designations in King County. The properties subject to the proposed Horne rezone do not have the qualities which the Comprehensive Plan defines as necessary for having a prevalence of significant environmental constraints (see Policy LU-153, below). • Policy LU-151. Base development densities should range from I home per 10 acres to I home per acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate except as provided in Policy LU-I 34a. (emphasis added) Again, the Horne rezone properties do not have the qualities defined as necessary for having a prevalence of sign/ficant environmental constraints (see Policy LU-153, below). Therefore, under this Policy, the Horne rezone area is properly rezoned to R-4. • Policy LU-153. For the purpose of mapping, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean: I) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; 2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; MEMORANDUM OF A t.rrHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE 5 of 14 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'' Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pattern; 4) The area is a designated urban separator; or 5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or variances to other standards. None of the listed factors are found within the Horne rezone area as shown in the applicants· submillal reviewing the rezone area's environmental constraints (actually, a lack thereof) made by an expert critical areas biologist. • Objective LU-II: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings. The Horne rezone area is a suitable environment for suburban and/or estate-style dwellings. • Policy LU-157. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 units per net acre lo encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. Again, rezoning of the Horne properties to R-4 is consistent with this Policy, the applicants are not requesting anything more dense than R-4 zoning. With respect to the Environmental Policies, it appears that Staff used an outdated set of Comprehensive Plan Policies in drafting the Staff Report. The version of Policy EN-I that Staff relies on was in effect in 2008. However, under Ordinance 5499, the Environmental Chapter was updated and Policy EN-I appears to have been removed.2 Instead, Policy EN-I now reads "Manage water resources for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water supply, energy production, and open space." This Policy is totally inapplicable to the rezone request. The rezone implements the Environmental Chapter generally in that it does not adversely affect any onsite wetlands or have any adverse impact on offsite wetlands. The evidence in this 2 A copy of the 2008 policy and the current Policies are attached hereto. MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORJTIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE6 of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 regard, and this conclusion, is supported by the City's Determination of Non-Significance that was not appealed. D. The Horne rezone properties were either not specifically considered at the last area land use analysis and area zoning or, since that time, there have been changed circumstances. (Criterion F (l)(b)) The 'changed circumstances' criterion is deemed satisfied and the rezone is justified where the proposed rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747, 756; Save Our Rural Environment v. Snohomish County ("SORE"), 99 Wn.2d 363, 370- 371, 662 P.2d 816 (1983); Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. I. The premise is that, "if changed circumstances always were required, the policies of a comprehensive plan would never be fulfilled." Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. at 8, footnote 6. Further, as is explained in the rezone materials and presentations to be made at the open record hearing, the Home rezone properties were not specifically considered at the last area !'and use analysis and area zoning. Additionally, since that time, there have been changed circumstances. First, even Staff recognizes that the Horne rezone properties were not specifically considered in the City's last area-wide rezone in 2004, nor when they were annexed as part of a larger area in 2009. Staff Report, page 7. The last time the City considered the zoning of the Horne rezone properties was in 1996-1997, during a 'pre-zone' review with King County. Id. The 1996-7 review was prior to the City's annexation of the property and the City's "last area land use analysis". Second, since 1996-1997, the application and presentation materials show that there have been substantial changed circumstances in this area. Changed circumstances can be demonstrated through change in development in the area. Henderson, I 24 Wn. App. at 754. MEMORANDUM OF A UTf/ORIT/ES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE 7 of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Therefore, while this criterion does not have any clear meaning or effect since the rezone meets applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies, the rezone satisfies this criterion both because the properties were not specifically considered at the last area land use analysis and area zoning or, since that time, there have been changed circumstances. The Horne rezone need meet only one or the other of these two possibilities; in this application, the rezone actually meets both. E. The Horne rezone is in the public interest. (Criterion F (2)(a)) A rezone that conforms to and implements a Comprehensive Plan consequently also bears a substantial relationship to the public he~lth, safety and welfare. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747, 754, 756; see also, SORE, 99 Wn.2d 363, 369; 78 Wn. App. 840. Beyond this rule, the proposed rezone is in the public interest based on the following anlaysis. i. The rezone would implement the City's purposes and intents for the R-1 and R-4 zones. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Horne properties are more appropriately zoned R-4 based on the City's zoning descriptions and intents. From a review of the zoning code statement of purpose and intent for each zone, it becomes evident that the Horne rezone is proper. C. RESIDENTIAL-1 DU/ACRE (R-1): The Residential-I Dwelling Unit Per Net Acre Zone (R-1) is established to provide and protect· suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. It is intended to implement the Low Density Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. The zone provides for suburban estate single family and clustered single family residential dwellings, at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per net acre, and allows for small scale farming associated with residential use. Density bonus provisions, of up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities within the zone. It is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment. No minimum density is required. (Ord. 5590, 2-28-2011) MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONJ: PAGES of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D. RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/ACRE (R-4): The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per' Net Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. Larger lot subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot clusters" are allowed on sites where open space amenities are created. Resulting development is intended to be superior in design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. (Ord. 5355, 2-25- 2008) RMC 4-2-020. The R-1 zone "is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas." Id. The Home rezone properties are not characterized by pervasive critical areas. The R-1 zone "is further intended to protect critical areas, provide separation between neighboring jurisdictions through designation of urban separators as adopted by the Countywide Policies, and prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment." Id. None of the foregoing qualities exist on or in relation to the Horne rezone properties. There are no onsite critical areas that need additional protection (there are no measurable onsite critical areas), the properties are not designated as urban separators, and there is otherwise no need to limit the properties to R-1 zoning in order to prohibit the development of incompatible uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment. Conversely, the R-4 zone "serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones." The Horne rezone properties are properly situated to meet this purpose and are developable consistent with the zones standards and intents. MEMORANDUM OF A UTHOR!T/ES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE 9 of ]4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'' Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rezoning the properties to R-4 would implement the purpose and intent of the City's zoning code. Such is in the public interest. ii. The rezone is generally in the public interest. The City's zoning code provides that the rezone to R-4 will allow for a certain number of additional dwelling units beyond what is allowed under R-1. Further, the quality of the community would be higher, with more desirable amenities. As a result, any development under the R-4, versus R-1, zone would provide an additional construction and ongoing tax base to the City. Such increased tax base is in the public interest and satisfies this criterion. Henderson, at 756. The Staff Report only looks to the City's belated imposition of its R-1 zone on property that was previously developed at a higher density. The City's own maps, as well as the Applicants' materials and presentations at the fo1thcoming open record hearing, demonstrate that (a) the R-1 zoning adjacent to the Horne rezone properties is highly misleading and (b) that a .rezone to R-4 would allow for development consistent with the smTOunding built environment. Further, Staffs apparent belief that the R-1 zone is more appropriate for property adjacent to unincorporated King County is not supported by the City's own zoning code. As discussed above, the R-4 zone "serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones." RMC 4-2-020. Under the zoning code express language, R-4 is appropriate for the Horne rezone properties. Even if the rezone would provide higher density than the surrounding built environment, such is not at all evidence of a lack public interest for the rezone or a lack of substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare. See e.g. Woods, 130 Wn. App. 773; Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. 1; Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747. In Henderson, the Court upheld the proposed rezone despite intense opposition that the rezone would be inconsistent MEMORANDUM OF A UTHOR/T/ES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE ]0 of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 I 14 1h Ave. SE, Suite I JO Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with the neighborhood. Instead, the Court found that other considerations including the additional tax base and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan satisfied this criterion. Henderson, 124 Wn. App. at 756. Staffs assertion of spot zoning belies Staffs failure to recognize the existing built environment, and Staffs egregious disregard of the zoning code purposes and intents for each zone. Spot zoning involves scenarios where a property is singled out for use that is totally different from and inconsistent with existing development and zoning. For example, it was unlawful spot zoning for King County lo rezone two lots for a gas station that were within an existing single family community. Pierce v. King County, 62 Wn.2d 324, 382 P.2d 628 (1963). Such spot zoning scenruios are totally distinct from and inapplicable to the instant rezone application. There is no credible basis for Staff to raise a concern of spot zoning under this application. Unfortunately, such an assertion belies Staffs apparent acquiescence to the general public displeasure of certain, individual surrounding property owners without regard to substru1tial evidence or appropriate rezone analysis. F. The Horne rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner. (Criterion F (2)(b)) The Staff Report recognizes at least here that the rezone meets this criterion. As noted above, zoning ordinances are in derogation of a property owner's right to use the property for the property's highest utility, must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. S/easman v. City of Lacey, 159 Wn.2d 639, 643, footnote 4. The rezone implements the City's own zoning code; the property owners have a property right in being able to develop their property consistent with the most applicable and appropriate zoning. MEMORANDUM OF A l/7'11011/T/ES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE 11 of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114 1h Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425)4512812/Fax(425)451 2818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G. The Horne rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the property and persons in the vicinity. (Criterion F (2)(c)) Criterion is very similar to Criterion F (2)(a). Again here, the rezone may well bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare even if the rezone is not consistent with the existing developed neighborhood or if surrounding neighbors or members of the public vociferously object. See e.g. Woods, 130 Wn. App. 773, affirmed 162 Wn.2d 597; Tugwell, 90 Wn. App. 1; Henderson, 124 Wn. App. 747. The Applicants also feel there are two interpretation comments relevant to this criterion. First, development-specific considerations are an inappropriate basis for rezone denial. See e.g., Tugwell, 90 Wn. App 1, 11-12. Second, the phrase 'materially detrimental' means that any potential detriment from the rezone must have an actual, measurable, substantive negative impact -vague aesthetic concerns, unarticulated public policy or public discontent would not satisfy the phrase 'materially detrimental'. Rezoning the properties to R-4 would implement the purpose and intent of the City's zoning code. Such also reflects that the rezone would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of the property and persons in the vicinity. There is simply no actual evidence that the rezone would be materially detrimental in any way. Instead, the Staff Report raises the question of whether the decade-old May Creek Drainage Basin Action Plan should preclude the rezone. Staff asserts without actual citation that the Basin Plan 'recommends zoning densities not be increased above existing levels in upland areas draining to May Valley .... " This is an incorrect restatement of the Plan's actual recommendations for the area in which the Horne rezone properties lie. As a preliminary matter, Staff fails to state whether the City actually ever adopted the Basin Plan as a governing document. Absent such proof, the Basin Plan has no operative effect in the City. Further, as it is more than a decade old, its analysis and recommendations MEMORANDUM OF A /.ffHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE] 2 of J4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are seriously antiquated and have been largely superseded by much more environmentally protective critical area and stormwater regulations. The only specific development regulations that Applicants find relative to the Basin Plan is the May Creek urban separator, that does not include the Horne rezone properties. RMC 4-3-110. As is discussed under the Level 1 Downstream Analysis and further addressed in expert testimony to be presented at this hearing, the Horne rezone properties are located in the "East Renton Plateau and Highlands Subareas" part of the basin. The recommendations related thereto clearly anticipate that zoning densities will be increased and provides standards therefore. The recommendations for the subbasin in which the Horne properties lie provide that zoning could be increased if stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to predeveloped conditions. Basin Plan, page 3-29.J The Applicants find no City standards adopted under the Basin Plan that would provide increased regulation above and beyond the most recent critical area and stormwater regulations. The City has adopted an urban separator to protect May Creek. RMC 4-3-110. The Horne rezone properties are not in that urban separator. Staff simply has no basis to assert that the adopted urban separator, critical area and stormwatcr regulations are insufficient to protect May Creek. Nothing in the decade-old Basin Plan precludes this rezone request or supports Staffs assertion that the rezone is either not allowed by the Basin Plan or otherwise would be materially detrimental. To the contrary, the applicant's expert and lay material in support of the application shows that the rezone will not have any materially detrimental effect on to the public welfare of the property and persons in the vicinity. J Relevant pages and map of the Basin Plan are attached hereto. MEMORANDUM OF A UTHORIT/£S IN SUPPORT OF REZONE PAGE /3 of /4 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 114'" Ave. SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel:(425)4512812/Fax(425)4512818 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REQUEST Based on the application materials and forthcoming presentations and testimony, the City's rezone criteria, Comprehensive Plan and zoning code, and the above analysis, the Applicants req[!est this Hearing Examiner to GRANT a rezone of the Home properties from R-1 to R-4. DA TED this \-:} ~ay of _ _i.Qc_ii....,lro=i\ .. e'~,-~----' 2011. 1427-1 Memo qf A111horities /0-17-1 I MEMORANDUM OF A l.!1'1/0RITIES IN SUP PO/IT OF REZONE PAGE /4 of 14 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOV A, PLLC B Y.'C:::-----'--~c::--:--:c:'---:-:c:-=::--"-<c:-:::-::-:-- ana T. Kolouskova, WSBA 32 Attorneys for Horne rezone applicants, Newfourth LLC, and Ed Home JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA KOLOUSKOVA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1601 I 14'h Ave.'SE, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 451 2812 / Fax (425) 451 2818 '. l Amended 12/08108 subsequent 21-year period. These areas include existing cities and unincorporated areas. Within the Urban Growth Area, the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) is designated for future municipal expansion and governance. Policies guiding annexation and provision of services within the PAA are also located in the annexation portion of the Land Use Element; Utilities Element; Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Element and Transportation Element. Objective LU-B: Evaluate and implement growth targets consistent with the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. Policy LU-4. Adopt the following growth targets for the period from 200 I to 2022, consistent with the targets adopted for the region by the Growth Management Planning Council for the 2002 Renton City limits and Potential Annexation Areas: J) City of Renton Housing: 6,198 units 2) City of Renton Jobs: 27,597 jobs 3) Potential Annexation Area Housing 1,976 units 4) Potential Annexation Area Jobs: 458 jobs Policy LU-5. Amend growth targets as annexation occurs to transfer a proportionate share of Potential Annexation Area targets into Ren ton's targets. Objective LU-C: Ensure sufficient land capacity to accommodate forecast housing and job growth and targets mandated by the Growth Management Act for the next twenty-one years (2001-2022). Policy LU-7. Plan for residential and employment growth based on growth targets established in the Countywide Planning Policies, as a minimum. (See Housing Element Goals and Capacity section and Capital Facilities Element, Policy CFP-1 and Growth Projection section. Policy LU-8. Provide sufficient land, appropriately zoned, so capacity exceeds targets by at least twenty percent (20%). Policy LU-9. Encourage infill development as a means to increase capacity for single- family units within the existing city limits. Policy LU-10. Use buildable lands data and market analysis to establish adopted capacity for either jobs or housing within each adopted zoning classification. Policy LU-I I. Minimum density requirements shall be established to ensure that land development practices result in an average development density in each land use IX-4 Amended 12/08108 designation sufficient to meet adopted growth targets and create greater efficiency in the provision of urban services. Policy LU-12. Minimum density requirements should: 1) Be based on net land area; 2) Be required in residential zones, with the exception of the Resource Conservation, Residential I, and Residential 4 zones, 3) Not be required of individual portions or lots within a project; 4) May be reduced due to lot configuration, lack of access, or physical constraints; and 5) Not be applied to construction ofa single dwelling unit on a pre-existing legal Jot or renovation of existing structures. Policy LU-13. Phasing, shadow-platting, or land reserves should be used to ensure that minimum density can eventually be achieved within proposed developments. Adequate access to potential future development on the site must be ensured. Proposed development should not preclude future additional development. Policy LU-14. Parking should not be considered as a land reserve for future development, except within the Urban Center. Policy LU-15. Amend capacity estimates as annexation and re-zonings occur. Objective LU-D: Maintain a high ratio of jobs to housing in Re~ton. Policy LU-16. Future residential and employment growth within Renton's planning area should meet the goal of two jobs for each housing unit. Policy LU-17. Sufficient quantities of land should be designated to accommodate the desired single family/multi-family mix outside the Urban Center, and provide for commercial and industrial uses necessary to provide for expected job growth. Policy LU-18. Small-scale home occupations that provide opportunities for people to work in their homes should be allowed in residential areas. Standards should govern the design, size, intensity, and operation of such uses to ensure their compatibility with residential uses. Policy LU-19. Support uses that sustain minimum Urban Center employment levels of 50 employees per gross acre and residential levels of I 5 households per gross acre within the entire Urban Center. Discussion: The ratio of new jobs to new housing units will affect the future character of the City. Renton currently is an employment center with a high jobs/housing ratio characterized by a high level of daytime activity, a high demand for infrastructure, a high tax base, and a high volume of commuter traffic. IX-5 Amended 12/08/08 IX. RESIDENTIAL POLICIES Goal: Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: a) Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b) Arc walkable places where people can shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; c) Arc developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; d) Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; e) Arc varied or unique in character; I) Support "grid" and "flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; g) Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; h) Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and i) Provide a sense of home. Discussion: The purpose of the Residential policies is to provide a citywide residential growth strategy. 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 housing types and neighborhoods and the Community Design Element for policies guiding quality design.) Responsibility for residential objectives and policies lies with the City of Renton for implementation and the development community, which should propose projects that meet the residential goals, objectives, and policies of the City. Objective LU-FF: Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that: I) Supports transit by providing urban densities, 2) Promotes efficient land utilization, and 3) Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features. Policy LU-140. Pursue multiple strategies for residential growth including: I) Development of new neighborhoods on larger land tracts on the hills and plateaus surrounding downtown; 2) Infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in Renton's established neighborhoods; 3) Multi-family development located in Renton's Urban Center; IX-25 Amended 12/08/08 4) Infill in existing multi-family areas; and 5) Mixed-use projects and multi-family development in Commercial and Center land use designations. Policy LU-141. Promote the timely and logical progression of residential development. Priority for higher density development should be given to development of land with infrastructure capacity and land located closer to the City's Urban Center. Policy LU-142. Encourage a citywide mix of housing types including: 1) Large-Jot single family; 2) Small-lot single family; 3) Small-scale and large-scale rental and condominium multi-family housing; and 4) Residential/commercial mixed-use development. Objective LU-GG: Maintain the goal ofa fifty-fifty ratio of single family to multi- family housing outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU-143. A maximum of fifty percent (50%) of future residential land capacity should occur in multi-family housing in parts of the City and PAA located outside of the Urban Center. Policy LU-144. Infrastructure impacts of the goal of 50/50 ratio of single-family to multi-family outside the Urban Center should be evaluated as part of the City's Capital Improvements program. Policy LU-145. Multi-family unit types are encouraged as part of mixed-use developments in the Urban Center, Center Village, Commercial/Office/Residential, and .the Commercial Corridor Land Use designations. Policy LU-146. Small-Jot, single-family infill developments and plats should be supported as alternatives to multi-family development to both increase the City's supply of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities. Policy LU-147. Adopt urban density of at least four (4) dwelling units per net acre for residential uses except in areas with identified and documented sensitive areas and/or areas identified as urban separators. Policy LU-148. Encourage larger lot single-family development in areas providing a transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas. Policy LU-149. Discourage creation of socio-economic enclaves, especially where lower income units would be segregated within a development. IX-26 Amended 12/08/08 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Policies in this section are intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of 4-du/net acre, to its inventory. Lands that are not appropriate for urban levels of development are designated either Resource Conservation or Residential Low Density Zoning. Lands that either do not have significant sensitive areas, or can be adequately protected by the critical areas ordinance, are zoned Residential 4. Lands developed with existing manufactured home parks that provide a transition to adjacent Rural Areas and/or are·adjacent to critical areas but were established uses in King County prior to annexation may be considered for Residential Manufactured Home Park zoning. Objective LU-HH: Provide for a range of lifestyles and appropriate uses adjacent to and compatible with urban development in areas of the City and Potential Annexation Area constrained by extensive natural features, providing urban separators, and/or providing a transition to Rural Designations within King County. Policy LU-150. Identify and map areas of the City where environmentally sensitive areas such as 100-year tloodplains, floodways, and hazardous landslide and erosion areas are extensive and the application of critical areas regulations alone is insufficient to guide future development. Policy LU-151. Base development densities should range from 1 home per 10 acres to I home per acre on Residential Low Density (RLD) designated land with significant environmental constraints, including but not limited to: steep slopes, erosion hazard, floodplains, and wetlands or where the area is in a designated Urban Separator. Density should be a maximum of 4-du/net acre on portions of the Residential Low Density land where these constraints are not extensive and urban densities are appropriate except as provided in Policy LU-I 34a. Policy LU-152 A density exception to the 4 dwelling unit per acre maximum is allowed for pre-existing manufactured home parks within the Residential Low Density designation. Upon cessation of the manufactured home park use, these properties should be considered for Residential 4 zoning. Policy LU-153. For the purpose of mapping, the prevalence of significant environmental constraints should be interpreted to mean: · I) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; IX-27 Amended 12/08/08 2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; 3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pattern; 4) The area is a designated urban separator; or 5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be accommodated on the remaining net developable area without modifications or variances to other standards. Policy LU-154. Warehousing, outdoor storage, equipment yards, and industrial uses should not be allowed. Where such uses exist as non-conforming uses, measures should be taken to negotiate the transition of these uses as residential redevelopment occurs. Policy LU-155. Control scale and density of accessory buildings to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. · Policy LU-156. Residential Low Density areas may be incorporated into Urban Separators. Objective LU-II: Designate Residential 4 du/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwellings. Policy LU-157. Within the Residential 4 du/acre zoned area allow a maximum density of 4 units per net acre to encourage larger lot development and increase the supply of upper income housing consistent with the City's Housing Element. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Land designated Residential Single Family is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of ·existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single- family living environments. Policies in this section are to be considered together with the policies in the Regional Growth, Residential Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Element, the Community· Design Element, and the Housing Element. Policies are implemented with R-8 zoning. Objective LU-JJ: Encourage re-investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: I) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets, 2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation; and 3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. IX-28 '' ,·~, ,;r • . ::1~ftfi1/ ,.I,• !, ,, " I ',, i.·:r', ', '11:,i/,1 "l ':,·i· ,, l •I ,' '. ',I, I ', I •1' Uj ' ./'r:';1), ''.,'I Ji.i<' ::~:·;1;:_i\' ' ~1!, '·'·' 11·: ', ft,• ._h .,J Amended 12/08/08 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT GOAL Continue protection of Renton's natural systems, natural beauty, and environmental quality. VI-I Amended l 2108/08 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, Stonnwater & Aquifer Protection Sections of the Utilities Element for policies related to Environmemal Element.) General Objective and Policies Discussion: Development clustering, preservation of significant natural features, and retention of or establishment of vegetated corridors are examples of development pallems that implement these objectives. 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 where development would create hazards to life, property, or environmental quality. Surface Water Discussion: The quality of surface water resources is importanl for the City of Renton for public health and safety reasons, as well as recreational and environmental reasons. Surface water pollution may ultimately mean aquifer pollution. High water quality can be achieved through the use of Best Management Practices for industries and businesses. Preservation of riparian corridors can protect receiving waters from stonn water effects such as erosion and sedimentation. Further protection of surface water will come through aquifer protection policies and ordinances, which could limit discharges of pollutants. Land uses are suggested in the plan which will also secondarily address surface water impacts. 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 and farming practices. Policy EN-4. Limit discharges of pollutants such as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, and other hazardous wastes to surface waters. Vl-2 Amended 11/25/09 ENVIRONMENT ELEMENT GOAL Protect and enhance Renton's natural ecosystems, natural beauty, and environmental quality. Vl·l Amended 11/25/09 Introduction A goal of the Washington State Growth Management Act is to use Comprehensive Plans to protect the environment. Specifically this goal directs jurisdictions to: "Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water." The purpose of the environment element is to achieve this goal. This element provides the policy background and basis for future environmental actions by the City of Renton as it attempts to balance urbaniiation, economic development, tree canopy cover, natural area protection, and a high quality of life for all residents. Environmental policies will be implemented through economic development decisions, natural resource management and planning, critical areas regulations, and incentives for environmental protection. Resource Protection The quality of Renton's environmental resources holds great importance for the citizens. Environmental resources, such as wetlands ar wildlife habitat, ore intrinsicaffy valuable and should be protected for the unique features that are provided. The City af Renton, unlike many major Puget Sound cities, has several unique areas of habitat, many of which coincide with our wetlands and water resources. The Cedar River supports major fish runs during the year. Springbrook Creek, Honey Creek, and May Creek also provide habitat for safmonids. The Black River Riparian Forest provides habitat for over 35 species of birds, including heron and eagles, and many sma/1 mammals. The Cedar River, May Creek, and Panther Creek corridors have forested, meadow, and shrub habitats that provide shelter and food far many species. Policies that preserve these areas not only preserve their unique features, but also enhance the quality of life and provide recreational opportunities for Renton residents. ft is important to protect natural areas for public health and safety reasons, as we// as for recreational and environmental reasons. Human and natural systems are interrelated, thus when natural systems are threatened, human health and quality of life is threatened. Preservation and protection of riparian corridors can prevent storm water effects such as erosion and sedimentation. Aquifer protection policies and ordinances, limit discharges of poffutants to Renton's water supply. For areas that have already been degraded, a// efforts should be made to naturalize them. For new areas, the natural systems should be protected. When natural systems are protected and enhanced, human health and quality of life is protected and enhanced. Objective EN-A: Protect and enhance water quality of surface water resources including the City's lakes, rivers, major and minor creeks, and intermittent stream courses. Policy EN-1. Manage water resources for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife, flood protection, erosion control, water supply, energy production, and open space. Polley EN-2. Minimize erosion and sedimentation by requiring appropriate construction techniques and resource practices. Vl-2 Amended 11/25/09 Policy EN-3. Limit discharges of pollutants such as chemicals, insecticides, pesticides, and other hazardous wastes to surface waters. Polley EN-4. Degraded channels, streams, creeks, and banks should be naturalized by public programs and new development. Objective EN-B: Preserve and protect wetlands for overall system functioning. Policy EN-5. Achieve no overall net loss of the City's wetlands. In no case should development activities decrease net acreage of existing wetlands. Polley EN-6. When development may impact wetlands, the following hierarchy should be followed in deciding the appropriate course of action: a. avoid impacts to the wetland, b. minimize impacts to the wetland, c. restore the wetland when impacted, . d. recreate the wetland at a ratio which will provide for its assured viability and success, e. enhance the functional values of an existing degraded wetland. Policy EN-7. Protect buffers along wetlands to facilitate infiltration and maintain stable water temperatures, provide for biological diversity, reduce amount and velocity of run-off, and provide for wildlife habitat. Polley EN-8. Water level fluctuations in wetlands used as part of storm water detention systems should be similar to the fluctuations under natural conditions. The utilization, maintenance, and storage capacity provided in existing wetlands should be encouraged. Polley EN-9. Pursue an overall net gain of wetland functions and values by enhancing significant wetlands and providing incentives for the enhancement of wetland functions and values through private development. Objective EN-C: 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. Polley EN-10. Emphasize the use of open ponding and detention,vegetated swales, rain gardens, clean roof run-off, right-of-way landscape strips, open space, and stormwater management techniques that maximize water quality and infiltration where appropriate and which will not endanger groundwater quality. Policy EN-11. Acquire the most sensitive lands such as wetlands and flood plains for conversion to parks and greenbelts. Vl-3 Amended 11/25/09 Objective EN-D: Protect and enhance wildlife habitat throughout the City. Polley EN-12. Identify unique and significant wildlife habitat as defined by Washington State Habitat and Species Project and ensure that buildings, roads, and other features are located on less sensitive portions of a site. Policy EN-13. Encourage protection of existing habitat areas through regulation and the preservation and enlargement of existing habitat areas through development incentives. Policy EN-14. Re-establish self-sustaining fisheries resources in appropriate rivers and creeks through habitat improvement projects that encourage and enhance salmon id use. Hazards Renton is located in o geographically unique area filled with recognized hazards such as: landslide hazards, erasion hazards, seismic hazards, steep slopes, floodways, and coal mine hazards. The walls of the plateaus and river valleys contain both steep and erosive conditions. 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. In addition to natural hazards, Renton has a long history of coal mining. Although these operation have ceased, there may be subterranean dangers that are often unnoticeable on the.surface. These policies set up standards which will protect public health, safety and welfare and allow development to proceed in appropriate areas. Objective EN-E: Protect the natural functions of 100 year floodplains and floodways to prevent threats to life, property, and public safety associated with flooding hazards. Polley EN-15. Prohibit permanent structures from developing in floodways and limit development within the 100 year floodplain. Policy EN-16. Emphasize non-structural methods in planning for flood prevention and damages reduction. Policy EN-17. Dredge the Cedar River bed within the existing engineered channel as one method of flood control. Objective EN-F: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to seismic events and geologic hazards. Polley EN-18. Land uses in areas subject to geologic hazards should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation before, during, and after construction. Existing vegetation and tree canopy coverage should be preserved and enhanced to the Amended 11/25/09 maximum extent possible in order to protect the integrity of natural drainage systems, existing land forms, and maintain wildlife habitat values. Policy EN-19. Allow land alteration only for approved development proposals or approved mitigation efforts that will not create unnecessary erosion, undermine the support of nearby land, or unnecessarily scar the landscape in areas subject to geologic hazards. Policy EN-20. Protect high landslide areas from land use development and roads. Objective EN-G: Reduce the potential for damage to life and property due to abandoned coal mines, and return this land to productive uses. Policy EN-21. 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. Sustainable Development Planning for hazards, and for the protection of natural resources, are steps that clearly meet the environment goal of the Growth Management Act. However, it is necessary to go beyond these steps to achieve sustainable development that will ultimately enhance quality of life in the long term. Environmental systems, whether at the scale of the global climate, or at the scale of local forest, often change incrementally. Cumulative effects are best managed through a combination of engineering, preservation of natural systems, education, and collective action. Objective EN-H: Protect and promote clean air and minimize individual and cumulative noise impacts to ensure a healthful environment. Policy EN-22. Maintain high air quality standards through efficient land use patterns promote air quality through reduction in emissions from industry, traffic, commercial, and residential uses. Policy EN-23. Analyze Renton's existing tree canopy cover, establish canopy cover goals, and promote urban forestry programs in order to maintain healthy atmospheric conditions. Policy EN-24. Use land use planning and development regulations to ensure that the design, construction, and on-going operations of land uses do not create noise impacts on adjacent land uses and activities. Objective EN-I: Implement a stormwater management program which optimizes Renton's water resources and promotes low impact development to combine engineering with the preservation of natural systems. Vl-5 Amended 11/25/09 Policy EN-25. Maintain, protect, and enhance natural drainage systems and natural surface water storage sites to protect water quality, reduce public costs, and prevent environmental degradation. Policy EN-26. Promote the return of precipitation to the soil at natural rates near where it falls through development design which minimizes impermeable surface coverage and maximizing infiltration through the exposure of natural surfaces through the use of grassy swales, trees, landscaping, where feasible. Objective EN-J: Create a sustainable urban forest that enhances the livability of the community. Policy EN-27. Promote development of Renton's urban forest through tree planting programs, tree maintenance programs that favor the use of large healthy trees along streets, in parks, in residential, commercial, and industrial areas, and through the protection and restoration of forest ecosystems. Polley EN-28. Require trees and other vegetation along newly constructed or reconstructed streets to reduce impacts from development. Policy EN-29. Establish canopy cover goals for public and private development through the survey of forested areas and the development of site specific forest management plans. Polley EN-30. Integrate urban forestry plans with other City plans and projects to maximize environmental, economic, and health benefits. Objective EN-K: Protect, restore and enhance environmental quality through land use plans and patterns, surface water management programs, park master programs, urban forestry programs, transportation planning, development reviews, incentive programs and work with citizens, land owners, and public and private agencies. Policy EN-31. Reduce the impact of new development on the environment by encouraging the use of sustainable design techniques in public and private development, by encouraging low impact stormwater techniques, and through certification programs such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and Built Green. Policy EN-32. Build civic facilities and other City buildings to LEED silver standard or better. Policy EN-33. Establish regulatory standards for sustainably developed public and private projects, to include standards for site design and layout, construction, and on-going maintenance and operation. Policy EN-34. Promote elements of sustainability in development and redevelopment of Renton's transportation network by expanding non-motorized and alternative transportation modes. Vl-6 Amended 11/25/09 Policy EN-35. Establish and maintain a secondary system of corridors to protect agriculture, forest lands, and wildlife habitat, and to provide linkages between critical areas in order to provide for public health and safety, and provide visual relief from urban structures and development. Policy EN-36. Where appropriate combine environmentally sensitive areas with to provide public access and educational opportunities. Policy EN-37. Utilize review at the project specific level for the final identification of environmentally sensitive or critical areas, hazardous sites or portions of sites. Policy EN-38. Develop the urban forestry program to maintain and expand vegetation on public and private property in order to minimize the impact of development on natural systems such as forests and individual trees and increase canopy cover to increase the ecosystem services that trees and other vegetation provide. Objective EN-L: 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 resources. Policy EN-39. Provide information for and participate in informing and educating individuals, groups, businesses, industry, and government in the protection and enhancement of the quality and quantity of the City's natural resources and to promote conservation. Policy EN-40. Increase the community's understanding of the City's ecosystem and the relationship between the overall health of the ecosystem and quality of life for Renton residents .. Policy EN-41. Create the long-term community commitment that will be necessary to sustain efforts to protect, maintain, and improve the City's natural resources through educational programs. Policy EN-42. Educate residents adjacent to critical areas about the value of the resources present and encourage residents to protect the vegetative cover from damage. Objective EN-M: Increase the participation by the. City of Renton in resolution of regional ecological issues that may impact Renton residents . . Policy EN-43. Promote the use of interlocal agreements with other agencies to restrict land use in sensitive aquifer recharge areas to minimize possible sources of pollution and the potential for erosion, and to increase infiltration. Vl-7 Amended 11/25/09 Policy EN-44. Actively participate in regional highway planning, construction, and traffic restrictions. Policy EN-45. Discourage the continued use of, and hauling of waste to, the Cedar Hills landfill through the City of Renton. Polley EN-46. Use interlocal agreements and cooperative planning programs to coordinate, where appropriate, with King County, Tukwila, and Kent and other agencies for stormwater management, land use decisions, and waste water treatment. Policy EN-47. Actively participate in non-point source pollution watershed plans including those for the May Creek, Cedar River, and Green River Basins. Policy EN-48. Actively participate in state and regional efforts to control the atmospheric pollutants responsible for global climate change. Vl·B ·~·· ,,~.; L•a'·!I ><1'1' '1",1 ''·! ·,, . ·,'. ,,,.,, i '<' .. l', .', ""' ,'J, 1 '', I:• I ' ' ,,, ' I' ··1 ~ 1' ''il'IW. ''1 ',,,,iiJ, I I. ,Ju ,,...ru.,· ,, ... , r ~t,.,1. ii,' 1 I' ,i1J,,,1 f .. ,,, ~· It.ti r1 t· "I' n1 'I' • ·1, 1· ,. • · "· ,'1 · 'll lfl ·~ r'i .. ·\r ··: ,,,i .. 1:_h:, !\ 1,111.i·, r: ·.~,.:~ :,;1,/ , ,11.jj:. ·.·.v-1,I,, ,, ·,.,,, ,"··T .!•>1 l·•u·,11 ,,:···1,;·01,·,~: •t'·· '," •,.'" , I [ ' !'.'~,~ :, ' ;; IIJ I ,,, , ~· I ,, I ':.·. ,,,., •• ,' j . .,!J., I"', i,'' ' ,I'' ' ' ,,,,. ~.::-. :~. ',i:: . ... '~ : Final Adopted MAY CREEK BASIN ACTION PlAN April 2001 •--'-••·----·--•-.•·----·--··""'""'"-•-•·•~·--•-·-··-·--·-w-,, ·--•·•--••--• ~ ~ •,,. i:, ® KING COUNTY when debris collects at the intake. While such passage improvements are needed in at least two other upstream locations, funding has been identified only for improvements at the stream crossing at S.E. 89th Place in Newcastle. It is the farthest downstream of the blockages and therefore represents a logical starting point for implementation of this recommendation. Similar improvements at other locations on Boren Creek are included among this plan's secondary recotmnendations. Passage improvements are recommended for funding as part of the current City of Newcastle budget to upgrade the intersection of S.E. 89th Place with Coal Creek Parkway and, thus, could be accomplished relatively soon. The proposal would include an upgraded crossing of Boren Creek, probably with a bridge or open-bottom culvert. The total cost for the upgraded intersection is estimated to be $360,000. The cost of the crossing portion of the project would be approximately $100,000 to $150,000. 16. Improve the Newcastle Railroad Embankment Oudet Implementing Agencies: City of Newcastle Cost: $70,000 Reconunendation: Improve the outlet structure at the railroad embankment where water now collects and poses a hazard should the current embankment fail. Monitor the pond level and establish an emergency action plan. Discussion: The Newcastle embankment is an old railroad crossing constructed on a landfill trestle. Water collects and is impounded behind this embankment. This structure is located across Newpot1 Hills Creek approximately 0.13 mile above the confluence with May Creek. Leaks have occurred in the outlet pipe, and seepage also takes place through the embankment fill. Although analysis of the structure has indicated that it is not in immediate danger of failure, the embankment/outlet structure poses a potential hazard under severe flood conditions that could result from outlet clogging and substantial water being backed up behind the embankment. Failure of this structure could damage a home approximately 400 feet east of the embankment as well as several homes downstream. This approach would improve the outlet structure to prevent blockage of the outlet standpipe and reduce the potential of embankment failure. It would replace the existing standpipe with a new outlet structure, install pond-level monitoring devices at the outlet, and prepare an emergency action plan for evacuation in case of a breach in the embankment. The City of Newcastle has included this project as a high priority in its SWCP and would be responsible for installing the facilities, and monitoring and implementing an action plan in case of emergencies. These measures would provide the minimum action required to prevent the embankment from failing and endangering downstream homes and property and delivering substantial quantities of sediment to LSRA habitat areas of May Creek. 3.2.4 East Renton Plateau and Highlands Subareas 17. Require Full Mitigation for Future Increases in Zoning Density in Areas Draining to May Valley May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-28 4/23/01 Implementing Agencies: Metropolitan King County Council, Newcastle City Council, Renton City Council, County and City planning departments Cost: No direct public cost Recommendation: In areas of the basin draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge, existing zoning densities (including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that stormwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre- developed conditions. Density bonuses provided under development incentive programs should not be approved for these areas. The proposed Basin Steward (Recommendation 2) shall work cooperatively with each jurisdiction and, if requested by the jurisdiction, may coordinate the technical review of mitigation designs to address future flow-related impacts. Each jurisdiction will detennine the consistency with local surface water management and development regulations and may consult the Basin Steward to assess overall impacts. Further, a proposed amendment to the 2000 update of the King County Comprehensive Plan proposes designating an area in the unincorporated King County portion of the May Creek basin as the May Valley Urban Separator. This area is in the Urban Growth Area and zoned R-1. The amendment changes the land use designation to Greenbelt/Urban Separator to recognize the sensitive features of the area. In accordance with Countywide Planning Policy LU-27, the Greenbelt/Urban Separator land use designation on this parcel, if adopted, cannot be changed to other urban uses or higher densities . until the next 20-year planning cycle, which would begin in 2012. This provision applies even if the property is annexed to a city. Discussion: Zoning in the May Creek basin is a complex issue. The basin contains three jurisdictions that have control over land use decisions in distinct areas of the basin, and within these jurisdictions, a range of zoning designations exist (Figure 3-4). In addition, the basin is bisected by the line demarking the Urban Growth Boundary, which approximately separates the upper part of the basin, draining to May Valley, from the lower basin. The Urban Growth Boundary was moved to its existing location during deliberations of the Growth Management Planning Council, in significant part to protect the rnral character of May Valley and to reduce its flooding problems. There are, however, areas that drain to the valley within the Urban Growth Boundary, which either are part of Renton or Newcastle or are anticipated to be annexed by one of the Cities (Figure 3-5). Some of these areas are already built out, but portions of them remain undeveloped and subject to future building activity. These circumstances contribute to a challenging environment for addressing the relationship between zoning and surface-water problems in the valley. The basin's jurisdictions make zoning decisions in response to a variety of circumstances, including the goals of their respective comprehensive planning processes, growth management requirements, equitable treatment of property owners, and surface-water conditions. Circumstances may become even more complex as the basin jurisdictions incorporate ESA response requirements into their zoning and land use regulations. The primary surface-water problem in May Valley is extended periods of flooding. In addition, there is especially significant erosion at the upstream end of May Canyon, just above the Coal May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-29 4/23/0\ Creek Parkway bridge. Future development in upland areas will increase flows to these areas and will aggravate these conditions to some degree, even assuming implementation of this plan's recommendations to protect individual property owners and aquatic resow·ces in the valley. Enhanced requirements for drainage facilities in upland areas (see Recommendation I) will be of some benefit but will not be of major significance in reducing flooding for a nwnber of reasons, including the relatively impervious till soils in much of the upland area (which limits the possibility of groundwater infiltration), the fact that smaller developments will not trigger special drainage requirements, and that RID standards focus primarily upon future development. Upland drainage requirements will reduce erosion and delay stom1water mnoff from reaching the valley, but during significant floods upland mnoffwill still generally arrive in time to add to the valley's slow-draining floodwaters. The total volume of upland stom1water runoff, which prima,ily relates to the density of upland development, will largely detem1ine how future development in the basin affects valley flooding. Although the Basin Action Plan accepts existmg zoning (including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be armexed) in the areas draining to May Creek upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge as a legitimate response to the variety of concerns affecting land use decisions, it recommends that densities in these areas be increased only if a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that hydrologic impacts can be fully mitigated. This would include mitigating all flow-related impacts from development with regard to the entire range of peak flows, flow durations, sto1m water volumes and impacts on groundwater recharge. Properties draining to this area, whether in incorporated or unincorporated King County, should not be considered potential "receiving areas" for density bonuses, such as those that may be available through a Transfer of Density Rights program for rural forest or farmlands in King County or other possible incentive programs that may be developed in the region. 3.2.5 May Valley and Highlands Subareas 18. Reduce the Potential for Negative Water Quality Impacts Originating at the Basin's Quarry Sites Implementing Agencies: King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, King County Water and Land Resources Division, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Natural Resources Cost: Included within Recommendation 2 and current agency budgets Recommendation: Ensure that the basin's closed quarry sites are reclaimed in a technically sound manner that protects resource quality and that any future quarrying activity is undertaken in compliance with existing water quality standards. If quanies remain open, develop a strategy to provide improved enforcement, technical assistance, and/or incentives to quarry operators to improve operating practices and reclamation techniques to minimize impacts on surface-water quantity and quality. May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-30 4/23/01 _,-Basin Boundo,y • --• Suborea Boundary (l'l.91 ~ Stream & Stream Number -Loke '°~ Wetland & Wetland Number ~?B Incorporated Areas ' i L _______ i '----. ,,. ~ ... ,,:i_ ':'.;(..,"':~~~-I , "':," ',··-, r I "5",,. .. --L. ,. '" ' . '! I Figure 2-1 Water Features/Subareas Map May Creek Basin ·~, I ~ -,~ ,.Ji" ..,,..,.,, ~. HIGHLANDS N * 0 112 1 Mile October 1998 ·' ~' µ \ .. + ... ~ ,, --~----·-------------------------- " 9510 ~-1w~1ei ft~twes--Sub Alea~ we; II E,IJ.£QH1~§S &; ~ October 17, 2011 Rocale Timmons, Planning Department for the City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Re: Project Number LUA 11-023, ECF, R Project Name: Home Rezone Dear Ms. Timmons: The May Creek Basin Action Plan outlines criteria allowing zoning densities to be increased. As shown on Figure 2-1 (see attached) within the plan, the Home Rezone is located within the East Renton Plateau Subarea. It is stated in Section 3.2.4 page 3-28 (see attached) in the May Creek Basin Action Plan that zoning densities should not be increased unless a qualified hydraulic analysis demonstrates that stonnwater runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to predeveloped conditions. The Home Rezone area is located within a Level-2 Flow Control area. Per the 2009 Surface Water Design Manual, Level-2 Flow Control criteria require the area to be modeled based upon historic site conditions (forested) as the predeveloped conditions. In addition, Level- 2 flow control matches developed discharge durations for the range ofpredeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the 50-year peak flow and developed peak discharge rates are matched for the 2, 10, and 50 year return periods using forested conditions as the predeveloped conditions. The Level I Downstream Drainage Report dated January 18, 2011 includes a conceptual detention design using Level-2 Flow Control criteria. It is our opinion the Level-2 Flow Control criteria meets the May Creek Basin Action Plan recommendation as stated in Section 3.2.4 for this subarea. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Ct.-r c:----.. Chad Allen, PE Encompass Engineering & Surveying Together with Baima & Holmberg, Inc. Western Washington Division 165 NE Juniper St., Ste 20 I, Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (425) 392-0250 Fax: (425) 391-3055 .... ---· ....... ··---·-·---~ . www.EncompassES.net Eastern Washington Division I 08 East 2"' Street, Cle Elum, WA 98922 Phone: (509) 674-7433 Fax: (509) 674-7419 .. ---.. --------~- '! _,-. Basin Boundary •.• *" .. Suboreo Boundary 1 'i ! r ' I L--· -,._•-... -·----...... '\. _ --j/ L _______ , I N!WtASTI! ,-' . , .. • • • '·-·- • -----·-is-·, ...__r-._ • . ~,. •• ~ g.,.,1 ,-"":.!:..!" .. -'--~-' it J·· I .. ' ' ' I I r-'t -u,. __ ,-~ Lj ;:.: \ Q,.. ' ,·, :--i ' L.> ,:, i ;_~--~~ •• ·~, ,, N '\,::; ' ' ' u,·l~, ....::;,,--Slreom & Streom Number * ...... take ' 0 "" 1 Mile Jll~ Wetland & WeHond Number :::::::1 Incorporated Areas October 1998 Figure 2-1 Water Features/Subareas Map May Creek Basin •• ·, . ~-....... 9BiO 2•1WJ!erfNtu~·Sub/ms i'JG Implementing Agencies: Metropolitan King County Council, Newcastle City Council, Renton City Council, County and City planning departments Cost: No direct public cost Recommendation: In areas of the basin draining to May Creek or any of its tributaries upstream of the Coal Creek Parkway bridge, existing zoning densities (including adopted pre-zoning for unincorporated areas to be annexed) should not be increased unless a qualified hydrologic analysis demonstrates that storm water runoff peaks and volumes can be fully mitigated to pre- developed conditions. Density bonuses provided under development incentive programs should not be approved for these areas. The proposed Basin Steward (Recommendation 2) shall work cooperatively with each jurisdiction and, if requested by the jurisdiction, may coordinate the technical review of mitigation designs to address future flow-related impacts. Each jurisdiction will determine the consistency with local surface water management and development regulations and may consult the Basin Steward to assess overall impacts. Further, a proposed amendment to the 2000 update of the King County Comprehensive Plan proposes designating an area in the unincorporated King County portion of the May Creek basin as the May Valley Urban Separator. This area is in the Urban Growth Area and zoned R-1. The amendment changes the land use designation to GreenbelUUrban Separator to recognize the sensitive features of the area. In accordance with Countywide Planning Policy LU-27, the Greenbe!UUrban Separator land use designation on this parcel, if adopted, cannot be changed to other urban uses or higher densities until the next 20-year planning cycle, which would begin in 2012. This provision applies even if the property is annexed to a city. Discussion: Zoning in the May Creek basin is a complex issue. The basin contains three jurisdictions that have control over land use decisions in distinct areas of the basin, and within these jurisdictions, a range of zoning designations exist (Figure 3-4). In addition, the basin is bisected by the line demarking the Urban Growth Boundary, which approximately separates the upper part of the basin, draining to May Valley, from the lower basin. The Urban Growth Boundary was moved to its existing location during deliberations of the Growth Management Planning Council, in significant part to protect the rural character of May Valley and to reduce its flooding problems. There are, however, areas that drain to the valley within the Urban Growth Boundary, which either are part of Renton or Newcastle or are anticipated to be annexed by one of the Cities (Figure 3-5). Some of these areas are already built out, but portions of them remain undeveloped and subject to future building activity. These circumstances contribute to a challenging environment for addressing the relationship between zoning and surface-water problems in the valley. The basin's jurisdictions make zoning decisions in response to a variety of circumstances, including the goals of their respective comprehensive planning processes, growth management requirements, equitable treatment of property owners, and surface-water conditions. Circumstances may become even more complex as the basin jurisdictions incorporate ESA response requirements into their zoning and land use regulations. The primary surface-water problem in May Valley is extended periods of flooding. In addition, there is especially significant erosion at the upstream end of May Canyon, just above the Coal May Creek Basin Action Plan 3-29 4/23/01 •I "HORNE REZONE" JUSTIFICATION: FROM R-1 TO R-4 Note: Renton Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan language is in italics, while the proponent's justification language is underlined. c· If.JI Of P1i'inn· Rent 'n9o·. on . '"1sion The proposed rezone area has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Residential Low 4PR Density (RLD), which may be implemented through one of the following zoning 2 8 1017 classifications: • Resource Conservation (RC), Residential -I DU/acre (R-1) • Residential -4 DU/acre (R-4) • Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) /Pjfei (Q)~!Jw~@ The proposed rezone area is currently zoned R-1, a zoning classification which is: "established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas" (RMC 4-2-020.C). This proposed rezone is to change the zoning from R-1 to R-4, while maintaining the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Residential Low Density-RFD. The proposed zoning classification is: · ... established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone. Larger lot subdivisions are preferred; however, "small lot clusters" are allowed on sites where open space amenities are created Resulting development is intended to be superior in design and siting than that which would normally otherwise occur. Small lot clusters may also meet objectives such as the provision of efficient sewer services. (RMC 4-2-020.D). Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC -4-9-180)-the following criteria must be met during the rezone process: F. DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION: 2. Criteria/or Rezones Not Requiring Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Reviewing Official shall make thefollowingfindings: a. The rezone is in the public interest, EXHIBIT 7 I This proposed rezone is in the public interest insomuch as it is an effort to establish the R-4 zoning as articulated in Objective LU-II of the Comprehensive Plan, a plan written with explicit public interest intent, as follows: Designate Residential 4 DU/acre zoning in those portions of the RLD designation appropriate for urban levels of development by providing suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single:family residential dwellings. This proposed rezone area is a suitable environments for suburban and/or estate style, single-family residential dwelling. The adjacent, surrounding, and nearby areas, both in the urban Renton city limits and the urban King County areas have existing densities primarily consisting of2.6 to 5.0 DU/acre, within the first 1,000 feet from the site and from 5.0 to 12.0 DU/acre beyond that. The proposed density of rezone area would clearly support furthering development: ... at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. This principal is outlined in the Residential Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The public interest would be further served by increased zoning densities which would increase the tax base of the area and thus better support the funding of municipal and other publicly provided services. b. The rezone lends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property rights of the petitioner. The ability of the owners to develop the rezone area to increased densities is clearly in their interest. The owners of all of the property in the rezone area unanimously support the rezone. c. The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and d. The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F 1 of this Section. F. DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION: 1. Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The following findings shall be made: The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and b. At least one of the following circumstances applies: i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. 2 The proposed rezone is not a proposal that would trigger a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Therefore, the criteria cited above, namely a, b, i and ii, do not apply to this proposed zoning change from R-1 to R-4. The R-1 zone is established to provide and protect suitable environments for residential development of lands characterized by pervasive critical areas where limited residential development will not compromise critical areas. Two of the subject properties. tax parcels 032305-9221 and 032305-9219 were zoned R-1 in King County prior to annexation. The remaining properties were zoned R-4 in King County prior to annexation. Properties to the south of the proposed rezone area are currently in King County and are zoned R-4 for urban development. A portion of the Stone gate development which abuts the property on the west and north is zoned R-J. A seasonal stream runs through a portion of the Stonegate development from south to north. This stream was the critical area requiring protection which justified the R-1 zoning for that particular development. Nonetheless, while a few lots adjacent to sensitive areas in Stonegate are developed at densities of 1.4 to 2.5 DU/acre, the majority ofStonegate lots have densities of2.5 to 5.0 DU/acre. The same is true for R-4 properties to the south of the proposed rezone. With regard to the subject property. surveys and studies of the subject properties have verified that the seasonal stream does not flow across any of the properties requesting the rezone. The buffer from the stream will impact tax parcels 032305-9221 and 032305-9106 only slightly. and the stream itself is not on the subject properties. There are no sensitive areas on the subject property. thus the R-J zone is not a suitable zone classification given the urban and undeveloped nature of these properties. Furthermore. the surrounding areas are developed at densities which support a R-4 zone for the subject areas. Since there are no critical areas on the properties which warrant the protection afforded by a R-1 zone. the R-1 zone is not appropriate for the properties. The R-4 zoning requested will allow residential development consistent with the neighboring properties and compliant with Growth Management Act requirements and ruling which support developed densities of 4 DU/acre when neither existing development patterns nor sensitive areas preclude such densities. Because the buffers which will be established from the offsite seasonal stream, provide sufficient protection of that stream, and because the proposed rezone area is suitable for R-4 zoning, the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved. 3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS!~tyo, ~ .. _ento '& D1111s· '1 tor, City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: !Pd~ 4Pf? 2 8 iQJ/ ©~!!)fi The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to'/f!!ltJJ consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge, In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as · zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply," IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D), For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Y:\Jobs (J)\10110526 Steve Beck\DOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKL1ST.doc04114111 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Horne Rezone 2. Name of applicant: Steve Beck -Newfourth LLC 19244 391 " Ave. S SeaTac, WA 98188 425-444-0461 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Contact Tom Redding -Encompass Engineering and Surveying 165 NE Juniper St--Suite 201 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-392-0250 4. Date checklist prepared: 12/7/10 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 2011 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Possible future platting of the property. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None known. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Not known. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Not known. 11. GiVe brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This is a proposal to rezone 12 single-family lots from R-1 to R-4. The site totals about 7.4 acres. Y:\Jobs (J)\10110526 Stove Beci<\OOCS\SEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located between NE 26th St. & SE 102nd St., just west of 148th Ave SE. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ------ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) 12%± c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. According to the 1973 King County Soils Map, the site is underlain with Alderwood, Gravelly Sandy Loam (AgC). City maps show that there is a "Low to Moderate Liquefaction Susceptibility' at the north and west portion of the proposed rezone area. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.· None. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NIA g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NIA h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None. Y:\Jobs (J)\10110526 Steve Beck\OOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 3 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NIA 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it fiows into. There is a stream approximately 12' to 25' west of the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Because is a proposed rezone only,. there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year fiood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Y:\Jobs (J)\10\10526 Steve Beci<IDOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _x_ shrubs _x_ grass _x_ pasture __ crop or grain __ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _x_ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Y:\Jobs (J)\10\10526 Steve Becl<\DOCS\SEPA\RENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 5 Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other-------- Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other---------- Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _____ _ b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Not known. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 6. ENERGY ANO NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe. whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes ta the existing use of the land. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. Y:\Jobs (J)\10\10526 Steve Beck\DOCS\SEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECK! !ST"'" 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? There are existing single family residences on Tax Parcels 032305-9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9199 and 032305-9194 that will remain. A barn and concrete pad on Tax Parcel 032305-9322 will also remain. Tax Parcels 032305-9106, 032305-9233, 032305-9004 and 032305-9221 are vacant. Adjacent properties in general are occupied with single-family residences. The current"zoning of the property is R-1. Property to the north and west (and partial east) is zoned R-1 (Renton). Property to the south is zoned R-4 (King County). Part of the property to the east and south is zoned RA-5 and RA-10 (King County). Property in all directions is single family residential. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Y:IJobs (J)\10\10526 Steve Beck\DOCS\SEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 7 The KC IMAP 1936 online aerial photo shows agricultural activities on the site. A portion of the site is currently used for pasturing horses. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are existing single family residences on Tax Parcels 032305-9219, 032305-9257, 032305-9224, 032305-9258, 032305-9193, 032305-9199 and 032305-9194, and a barn and concrete pad on Tax Parcel 032305-9322. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R-1 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? RLD -Residential Low Density g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Unknown. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Apparently not, but there is a stream about 12' to 25' to the west of the site. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NIA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? none k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None at this time, just the proposed rezone. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A Y:Uobs {J)\10110526 Steve Beck\DOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None at this time. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. NIA b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NIA 11. LIGHT ANO GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NIA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NIA c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NIA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NIA 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are no formal parks in the immediate area, but the Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlife Park (King County) is located about a half a mile to the northeast and the May Valley Park (King County) is located about a half a mile to the south. There is a private park located about 300' west of the site on NE 261 h Street--0wned by the adjacent plat's HOA. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NIA Y:\Jobs (J)\10110526 Steve Beck\DOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 9 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None at this time. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Unknown. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next lo the site. Unknown. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The property is currently served by public streets NE 26th Street, SE 102nd Street, 148th Avenue SE, and a private access tract, NE 24th Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, the nearest stop is on Duvall Ave NE, about 'X of a mile to the west. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The site will continue to access the local streets. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Y:Uobs (J)\10\10526 Steve Beck\DOCS\SEPA\RENTON SEPA CHFr.l<I IST ""' Not known, but because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land, or the trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None at this time. 16. UTILITIES <I· Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity. natural gas. water. refuse service. telephone. sanitary sewer. septic system. other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing thEl service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Because is a proposed rezone only, there will be no construction or changes to the existing use of the land. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Tom Redding Date: 12/7/10 (Updated 1/18/11) Y:\Jobs (J)\10110526 Steve Beck\DOCS\SEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 11 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and ro rams. You do not need to fill out these sheets for ro·ect actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Because this is a proposed rezone on, there wouldn't be any effects. But a future residential plat made possible by the rezone could increase some of the discharge to water/etc because there would be an increased in driving surfaces, house construction and other activities that' a local population increase might bring. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Presumably any future development would have environmental regulations that would be followed in design and construction. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Because this is a proposed rezone on, there wouldn't be any effects. But a future residential plat made possible by the rezone could increase some of the discharge to plants and animals because there would be an increased in driving surfaces, house construction and other activities that a local population increase might bring. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Presumably any future development would have environmental regulations that would be followed in design and construction, thus resulting in the protection and/or conservation plants, animals, fish, or marine life 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Probably not. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Probably not. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? There would likely be little impact. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Because this is a proposed rezone on, there wouldn't be any effects. But a future residential plat made possible by the rezone would increase demands on transportation, public services and utilities because of an increase in density. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: It would be expected that additional roads would be constructed, mitigation fees paid and taxes paid that would reduce and/or respond to such demands. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. It is not anticipated that the proposed rezone would conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful Jack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: ~< (u?lJP! V 1 Name Printed: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6/BB Tom Redding 1/18/2011 Y:\Jobs (J)\10110526 Steve Beck\DOCSISEPAIRENTON SEPA CHECKLIST.doc 13 Plat Description and Application Summary for Horne Rezone Request LUA 11-023, ECF, R PRESENTED BY William Ed Horne, P. E. 5604 NE 24th St Renton, WA 98059 206 571 8524 EXHIBIT 8 * Plat Description for Horne Rezone Request ... ~ Twelve tracts representing eight owners and totaling approximately 7.34 Acres * Tract 8035400590 is totally committed to Egress, Ingress and Utilities by Statutory Deeded Easements to Proposed rezone tracts 0323059221, 0322059221 and 0323059258 and also bynote 17 of Stonegate Recording Certificate (Ref. 1 and 2). It is not a buldable tract and is not subject to zoning. Reference 1: Statutory Deeds Granting Easements and Maintenance Agreements Thereof. (Copies Attached) Reference 2: Stonegate Recording Certificate, LUA-96-043-FP (177 62) Approved September 10, 1996 Adjacent Boundary Descriptions for Horne Rezone Request North: Lyons Avenue--------Paved with sidewalks East:: Nile Avenue------------Major arterial South: NE 23rd Street--------Paved street accessing R-5 development West:: Buffered "Greene's Stream"-----------an intermittent stream that dries up between rainy periods, basically all of July, August and September (See Photo). Center: Bisected by Tract 8035400590 (See Photo)-------Committed by statutory deeded easements (1) for ingress and egress and utilities. Water, electric, Telephone and cable TV already in place along the tract's length . Greene's Stream Bed Completely dry (Sept. 14, 2011) ,.., , , ,M .• ,.;. t.: ,·,:; :"" .,,. "~~ ....... ~ ,.;,.,.., .. ,---:::;,-,,:;;;,, - l_. , . . ,.,_ ",, ,.·.~.· ' -... ,~_,,,. .. 1,. , ' Deeded easement was also dedicated for use by "owners to the south" of Stonegate by the Stonegate Recording Certificate (2). It is not a buildable lot subject to zoning. Reference 1: Statutory Deeds Granting Easements and Maintenance Agreements Thereof. (Copies Attached) Reference 2: Stonegate Recording Certificate, LUA-96-043-FP (177 62) Approved September 10, 1996 Horne Rezone Request is in Public Interest Public Safety Development will enable sidewalks and street lights along Nile Ave which is a narrow, two- lane street with very narrow shoulders and no street lights. It attracts crime and vandalism. Examples: e -1989 Young man found beaten, stripped, bound, gagged and left in ditch along Nile Ave. opposite proposed rezone area. • -2007 Murder Victim's dead body dumped along Nile Ave opposite the rezone area • 2011 Strangers meet at night in the yard of abandoned house on Nile Ave.in rezone area and are vandalizing property. beer cans and bottles are found in the yard and adjacent easement on a regular basis and recently windows of car parked on property have been broken out. 2011 Foot prints found in Horne's pasture indicated that thieves parked on Lyons Ave and • crossed vacant pasture to break into and burglarize neighbor, Paul McKay's garage 1997 -2011 Cars regularly park on Lyons Ave along north side of Horne's pasture late at • night for unknown reasons. Tarp Covered Car With Recently Broken Windows In Rezone Area Development will provide more eyes and better lighting in these areas and reduce propensity for crime. Horne Rezone Request is in Public Interest (Con't) Public Economics I Tax base will be increased I Build out of area with new houses at R-4 density will add thousands in property taxes I Jobs will be provided Heavy equipment operators Concrete workers Carpenters Pipe layers Truck drivers Electricians Plumbers Roofers Asphalt Pavers Finishers I Local Property values will be increased I Most of the Horne Rezone area is surrounded by aging homes, Mobile homes, condemned and abandoned homes. A real estate professional, Paul McKay, whose home is part of this rezone application, predicts that the build out of the rezone area with new, upscale housing will greatly enhance the values of aging properties to the east and south of the rezone area and southerly all along Nile Ave as well. To a lesser extent, the value of the Stonegate properties will be enhanced as the nearby neighborhoods are upgraded. Horne Rezone Request is in Public Interest (Con't) Public Health Five of the seven homes in Rezone Area are served by Septic Systems One house per acre does not provide sufficient economic incentive to extend public sewer systems onto rezone properties. R-4 Density will justify extension of sewers into the rezone area and eliminate potential health hazard if septic systems should fail Rezone will promote use of public sewers Horne Rezone Request is in Public Interest (Con't) Physical Environment New Environmental Protection Regulations New Development would be required to meet the latest surface water management manual's specifications so that peak surface water runoff to Greene's Stream and ultimately, May Creek will actually be reduced below the level prior to development. This reduction has been verified by our engineering analysis. Proposed rezone area is separated from May creek by 1) Lyons Ave, 2) a row of Stonegate houses and 3) a greenbelt wetland buffer No foreseen measurable effect or detriment to Greene's Stream (that is already buffered) or to May creek Concern has been expressed for increased traffic on Lyon's Ave by Stonegate HOA. Traffic on Lyons Ave need not be impacted since no additional driveway or road connections to Lyons Ave need be added to develop rezone area Additional traffic added to Nile Ave would be negligible compared to existing traffic load on this popular arterial. No Significant Physical Environmental Impact Due to Rezone Horne Rezone Request is in Public Interest {Con't) Local Aesthetics Condemned Unmaintained Abandoned _,.~;,.,:• -"' .', ~ Aging Community to South of Rezone Reclamation, removal or upgrading of condemned, abandoned and unmaintained buildings in the surrounding neighborhood will Improve the aesthetics and value of the overall community Last Rezone Assessment Prezoning Study during early 1996 was the last real zoning assessment performed on subject properties. "City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Rezone Recommendation HORNE REZONE LUA 11 023, EC F ReP,prt of September 13, 201 I Page 7 of" 7 e. The rezone -s either not considered in the last area wide rezoning, or, since the last are wide zoning circumstances af"f"ecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. While the property was not considered in the City's last area-wide rezone in 2004; the property was reviewed very thoroughly as part of the May Valley Pre-Zone-Phase I in 1996 and finally adopted by ordinance (Ord. #4667) in 1997. During that public process two public hearing;;; were held before the City Co~cil to discuss the possibility of the 74 acre area which included the subject parcels, either being zoned R-I or R-5 (since that time the R-5 zone had been replaced with the R-4 zoning designation). After months of contemplation and de liberation of drainage concerns raised earlier in this recommendation, Planning staf"f recommended and the Counc ii affirmed, the pre-zoning of the subject property most appropriate with an R-l application. The property was annexed in May of 2009, where the zoning of" R-1 took eff"ect. Since the time of annexation it does not appear that the subject property q,as undergone signi fie ant changes that would constitute a change from the R-1 zoning designation." Current R-1 zoning is Based on 15 year old Assessment " Last Rezone Assessment Zoning imposed at time of 2008 Annexation was automatic, being based on the "arbitrary" recommendation of the 1996 prezone assessment. "In total, the evidence does not appear to entirely support either R-1 or R-5. Therefore, the recommendation is based on staffs understanding of two basic Council policy directions. First, single family neighborhoods should be encouraged where appropriate. Second, property owners should be allowed as much discretion over the use of their land as possible, providing the environment and the interests of surrounding residents and property owners are protected. Unless overriding evidence of direct consequences of R-5 zoning is presented, allowing the higher density appears justified. Any division between R-1 and R-5 would be somewhat arbitrary. Consequently, the recommendation generally assigns each zoning designation to the property owners who requested it. This pattern----- " May Valley Prezone-Phase I Report to Council, Page 5, Oct, 4, 1996 By Its own conclusions, the 1996 prezoning recommendation was "somewhat arbitrary and should lean toward R-5 (now R-4) unless circumstances indicated otherwise." Coirca.nmstanices IT1l@ ~«>Bilgeir oncdloicaite (O)!iherwnse! Last Rezone Assessment Rezone Area Sensitivity Concerns Current professional surveys and analyses have been conducted: There are no pervasive sensitive areas on the properties proposed for rezone. The only finding was one small class 3 wetland on the south east corner of the proposed area Greene's steam is separated from the proposed rezone area by a buffer zone established during the platting and development of the Stonegate suburb. Any peak surface water runoff that would result if the area were developed at R-4 would be less than that prior to development The Proposed Rezone Area is Not Environmentally Sensitive Last Rezone Assessment May Creek Drainage Sensitivity Concerns The 1996 prezone assessment based its decision toward R-1 zoning for the area on the sensitivity of May Creek to drainage problems. Based on the current staff recommendation to this hearing this reasoning is still of such importance that up zoning even 5 acres (-.07°/o of May Valley Basin Area) would be too extreme for such a sensitive area. In spite of this reasoning, another division of the city, as well as the county, does not share such a concern and, indeed, propose to dredge the May creek channel in the exact region where the intermittent stream being called "Greene's creek" would enter the channel if the water did not soak into the soil before it reaches the creek .. Given 2012 Surface Water Management regulations and changing May creek conditions, drainage sensitivity concerns no longer justify the 1996 R-1 zoning currently applied to the proposed Horne rezone area. Last Rezone Assessment Proposed Rezone Area Relative to May Valley Urban Separator Overlay Map --. .ORDINANC~Jlf() .. sti2. Published 4/;~,;-005 . . \" . . . . . l ',, II', .... '\, J--11 I I I I' I L t1~· I· . .. ™f f l!El'it~ lJ.f' .. :t: ;~ .-. ' .. '· ,} _ ; May ~Urban Sepaiaa Overlay: ~ ContguousOpat $pllla A .··. . • · . . t=j UitanSoipe•-.., V Ci: ·' L Proposed Rezone Area :;·::.: .. ... , ... , ,,,-~ -.-. -~ t Rezone Area Is Not In a Designated Urban Separator Changes Since Last Rezone Assessment Surface Water Management Surface water management regulations have been changed to require that peak surface water runoff from newly platted developments must be less than the runoff from the proposed plat prior to development. Prior to 1997 the intermittent stream {now called "Green's creek) ran easterly in a ditch along the north boundary of the Horne rezone property, under a farm access road through a -6 inch pipe to another ditch directly to May creek. It overflowed the ditch with almost every major rainstorm. During the Stonegate development in 1997 the intermittent stream was rerouted from that ditch to a large -36 inch culvert passing under lyons Avenue resulting in complete elimination of previous water drainage problems along that north boundary of the Horne rezone area. (1997) According to the 1996 Prezone conclusions, the arbitrary decision to prezone to R-1 as opposed to R-4 was based on drainage considerations. Given the new surface water management regulations it appears that this reasoning for the lower density zoning is no longer relevant. No drainage issues now justify the 1996 R-1 zoning designation Changes Since Last Rezone Assessment Sewer and Utilities Availability • During the time of the 1996 prezone assessment, sewers and natural gas were not available to the proposed rezone area. • 1997, Sewer, natural gas, and other utilities were installed under Lyons Avenue along north boundary of Horne Rezone property. • 2009, Sewer facilities were extended southward from Lyons Ave. along 148th Ave to NE 23rd St. to serve properties on East boundary of rezone area. • 2010-2011 Largest sewer pump station in city of Renton system was built at the corner of Nile and Lyons Avenues just across the street a the north east corner of the Horne rezone area. 2011 Sewer Pump Station Sewer, Water, Natural Gas, Electric and Communication Utilities are now available to the Horne rezone area Changes Since Last (1996) Rezone Assessment 53 homes built at R-4 density in 1997 and 1998 to north and west and 2 additions on the east in 2006 resulted in the complete surrounding of the Horne Rezone Area at R-5 Density (As actually built out on the ground) Satellite Picture of Rezone Neighborhood ' .... a .. - "'• ... ' . " ·~· . •• • ...... ... . . ... ..... t • • • • \ ....... . 11 'Ill & .. = ... • ' = ·• -• •, • -~ I • I .. -" •• I at ~. • I -• c:;i Q - Q • a ~ .... I I a [J Ill 1:1 ~. I e) a D IJ a ' c:, -0 11 a Cll n n ~ CIJI fl -.. t1 IJ Housing footprints in Rezone Neighborhood Proposed Horne Rezone Property is completely surrounded by homes built out at R-4 density Changes Since Last (1996) Rezone Assessment Between 2005 and 2009 The Windstone Development (which drains via Green's stream to May creek) consisting of approximately 76 houses and located south of the Horne prezone area was permitted, platted and built out at R-4 density. Apparently, this large development was able to mitigate drainage and other environmental and community impacts. Yet the current recommendation of staff indicates they do not believe the same is possible for our proposed area that is less than one-fifth of the Windstone area. City Staff's Permitting and Zoning decisions do not appear to be evenly applied to all property owners. J V • • • • • Conclusion The proposed rezone is in the public interest The proposed rezone supports owner's property rights Changes since the last zoning assessment support the rezone request There are no impacts on sensitive areas or surface water drainage The entire neighborhoods surrounding the proposed rezone are actually built out at R-4 Recommendation 1. The Horne Rezone Request should be Approved 2. The city of Renton should reassess the R-1 zoning of the other properties to the south that are still in the county as R-4. I Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC AOA Carnation, W,\ !1811 I ·I September 13, 2011 Horne Living Trust Ed Horne, Manager 5604 NE 24th Street Renton, WA 98059 Fax H~:JJ :1:n-150!1 Environtnental Planning& L1nclscape Architecture AOA-4004 SUBJECT: Wetland and Stream Reconnaissance for Horne Rezone, Renton, WA Dear Mr. Horne: On September 8, 2011 I conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance on the entire Horne rezone area (Figure 1) utilizing the methodology outlined in the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. This additional reconnaissance was intended to supplement the previous critical areas study that we had conducted in January 2011 specifically for the northwestern portion of the re- zone area (Parcels 032305-9221 and -9106). Although no wetlands or streams were identified within Parcels 032305-9221 and - 9106 during the January 2011 field investigation, a Class 4 stream and an associated Category 3 wetland were identified off-site to the west within the Open Space Tract F of the Stonegate development. The northern and central portions of the Horne re-zone area consist of a mix of single-family residences and associated upland yard and landscaped areas. Land use within the southern portion of the re-zone area consisted of an existing barn and actively grazed horse pasture. Wetlands within the re-zone boundary appear to be limited to a potential small Category 3 wetland located within a swale in the far southwestern corner of the site. Seasonal runoff within the swale drains west into a catch-basin located off-site just beyond the west property line. No streams were identified anywhere within the re- zone property boundary. EXH1BIT9 Horne Living Trust September 13, 2011 Page2 Conclusion Based on field investigations, there are no pervasive wetlands and streams located within the re-zone area and these critical areas are limited to: 1) a Class 4 stream and associated Category 3 wetland located off-site to the northwest and 2) a potential small Category 3 wetland located in the far southwestern corner of the property. If you have any questions regarding the stream and wetland reconnaissance, please give me a call. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist ' . SNOlllCNO::> 3!16 ~NU.S1X3 -----------------------------~~ ' ' ' ' ' I ' 3NOZ31:1 3NHOH "" ........ ~, ............. -.,., .... ,. __ ,. __ , .. , .. . -___ , ,..,.,.,~-~v,,,,;:,.-"'~'!:,"~-:;::""'·'~'""•'~ ... ~"'" -' -• 111"':i Roca le Timmons City of Renton Planning Dept. 1055 So. Grady Way, 61h floor Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Horne Rezone (Ref. LUAlll-023) Dear Ms. Timmons, Although I do not live adjacent to or near the Horne Rezone properties, I have become aware of the proceedings through a friend who is Involved in the rezone effort. I lived in Renton for 40 years and still own property within the City of Renton. I wish to offer my support and comments for the subject effort to increase a R-1 classification to a higher density. As I understand It, the R-1 classification was typically administered to areas that may contain localized wetlands, very steep slopes, unstable soils and possibly other factors. I believe that each property should be judged on Its own merits with an "on the ground" technical analysis by licensed engineers that address the issues listed above. Consideration can also be given to compatibility with surrounding areas and City development planning. In addition, property owner rights to.develop their property has to be give·n significant consideration. In August 2010, I was given a Preliminary Plat approval by the City of Renton for subdivisions of my property (Ref. LUA09-140). This property contained overlays of zoning designations R-8, R-1, R-14. Based on rational examination of the property and technical data, together with consideration for city ordinances, a reasonable compromise acceptable to the applicant (myself) and the City was reached .. I am currently involved In the submittal process on my other property, adjacent to the one described above, to obtain a Preliminary Plat approval as well. This property is zoned R-14 on the western portion and R-1 on the eastern portion. The adjacent property directly to the east Is zoned R-8. ' As I walk the property In the R-1 area, It is hard to see why It is R-1 area because the soils analysis is good, there are no wetlands and there are very good building sites. The "on the ground" examination and technical. analysis should support a much higher density potential than R-1. I expect that an acceptable compromise will be reache~ between the City and myself. ' I strongly believe It is in the public interest that the City of Renton should strongly consider the applications that propose higher density usages of properties currently designated R-1 using the "on the ground" examination and technical analys'ls as described earlier. This will create more close In urban densities compatible with employment centers and commuting requirements. Not only will higher density housing increase City revenue, but it is apparently what many future home buyers want. Sincerely, Robert WIison EXHIBIT 10 z "' N E-- "' 0 \D A ' II I I i r--r----''._l_/ .. . I_ RM-F ZONING MAP BOOK I I PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON U/13/09 --· ...... -.. -·--···-· ....... --.-• .i ...... _ --·-"""°" __ _.. ~·"·'~~~--.,. , .. ,~·· rrlt,:;1·r·1·rR -·=· ~-:~:..:.;. ............. ·~ <l-$.\ t:, -:i 0 .... ..., N "' '.Z ~ th t_zj ~ .... -N D6 EXHIBIT 11 03 T23N RSE E 1/2 5303 ~ Horne Rezone -Classified Streams EXHIBIT 2 Clly of Renton, Washington Lakes and Rivers Streams (Classified) Unclan!ned ' 3 4 Parcels Street Names Rights of Way Streets Roads Jurisdlcttons Belevue Das Molnel; fuaqUlillh Kenl ( .: Kina County Mercer Island Newcastle RENTON S11aTac SeatUe Tukw1111 Aerial (March 2010) • Red: Band_1 llil!J Grt!en: Baru:1_2 • Blu11: Barn:I_J 1: 5,626 @ 8.5" X 11" om an Internet mapping site and r on this map may or may not be 11 Enter Map Description le, current, or otherwise rellable. J BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0 ~ 820 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 466; Womac, 160 Wn.2d at 658. It is clear when the judgment and sentence is read in conjunction with the information that Strandy was convicted twice for each homicide (aggravated murder and felony murder). The double jeopardy violation is therefore evident on the face of the _judgment and sentence, making Strandy's collateral challenge on this issue timely. RCW 10. 73.090(1); see also In re Pers. Restraint of Hinton, 152 Wn.2d 853, 858, 100 P.3d 801 (2004) (information may be considered as part of face of judgment and sentence). The remedy is to vacate the lesser convictions. See Turner, 169 Wn.2d at 466; Womac, 160 Wn.2d at 658.1 'll7 We reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court with directions to vacate Strandy's two felony murder convictions.2 [No. 84296-5. En Banc.) Argued March 15, 2011. Decided June 16, 2011. PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL., Respondents, V. THE CITY OF WooDINVILLE ET AL., Petitioners. [1] Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -"Land Use Decision" - Site-Specific Rezone. A local agency's denial of a site-specific rezone is a "land use decision" that may be reviewed by a court only under the provisions of the Land Use Petition Act (ch. 36. 70C RCW), 1 We do not consider Strandy's additional claim of prosecutorial misconduct because that is not a ground for relief exempt from the one-year time limit on collateral attack. We also do not consider Strandy's double jeopardy claim as to other convictions because the claimed double jeopardy violation is not evident on the face of the judgment and sentence. Double jeopardy is itself a ground for relief statutorily exempt from the time limit, RCW 10.73.100(3}, but since Strandy raises other grounds for relief that are not exempt, his petition on those other points is "mixed" and may not be considered. In re Pers. Restraint of Hankerson, 149 Wn.2d 695, 702, 72 P.3d 703 (2003). 2 We leave it to the trial court to determine whether to appoint counsel for Strandy on remand. I I ' I w I ' i I I ' ' / I ' I i I I r i I ' 11i I ! r} June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 821 171 Wn.2d 820 ' which provides the exclusive means for judicial review of land use decisions, except for those decisions subject to review by bodies such as the growth management hearings boards. (2) Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Appellate Review -Role of Appellate Court. An appellate court reviewing a local land use decision that a superior court has reviewed under the Land Use Petition Act (ch. 36.70C RCW) stands in the same position as the superior court. [3) Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Statutory Grounds for Relief. Under the Land Use Petition Act (ch. 36.70C RCW), a court may grant a party relief from a land use decision only if the party establishes one of the standards of RCW 36.70C.130(1). (4] Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Appellate Review - Issues of Law -Standard of Review. Whether relief from a local land use decision is warranted under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a), (b), (e), or (f) of the Land Use Petition Act because the decision is the result of an unlawful procedure or a failure to follow a prescribed process, involves an erroneous interpretation of the law, was made by an (5) [6] agency acting outside its authority or jurisdiction, or violates a constitutional right is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo. Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Appellate Review - Sufficiency of Evidence. An appellate court reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a local land use decision under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) of the Land Use Petition Act views the . facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest forum exercising fact-finding authority. Under the substantial evidence standard, there must be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true. Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Appellate Review - Clearly Erroneous Decision -What Constitutes. An appellate court will not find a local land use decision to be the product of a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts within the meaning ofRCW 36.70C.130(1)(d) of the Land Use Petition Act (ch. 36. 70C RCW) unless it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. [7] Municipal Corporations -Ordinances -Construction - Officials Charged With Enforcement -Judicial Deference - In General. The con~t:r11rtlnn nf ::i rnnnlrln::il n-..Min~nrQ hu tho officials charged with deference by a reviewit EXHIBIT 12 ":-:,-r,:.,,, 822 PHOENIX DEV: v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 [8] Municipal Corporations -Land Use Controls -Growth Management Act -Development Regulation -Role of Act. The Growth Management Act (ch. 36. 70A RCW) does not prescribe a single approach to growth management. Under the act, the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the statutory planning goals, and implementing a county's or city's future rests with the local community. The act is implemented exclusively through Jocal governments and is to be construed with the requisite flexibility to allow local governments to accommodate local needs. These principles of deference apply to a local government's site- specific land use decisions where the Growth Management Act considerations play a role in its ultimate decision. [9] Zoning -Rezoning -Site-Specific Rezone ~ Criteria - "Demonstrated Need" -Local Interpretation -Deference by Reviewing Court -Standard of Review. Under a local ordinance stating that a zoning reclassification "shall he granted only if ... [tJhere is a demonstrated need for additional zoning as the type proposed," the local jurisdiction's interpretation of "demon- strated need" as requiring a showing that a rezone is needed to achieve larger policy objectives as expressed in the local jurisdic- tion's plans, goals, policies, and time frames is entitled to deference by the courts. The local jurisdiction's denial of a requested rezone on the ground that there is not a "demonstrated need" for the rezone under its interpretation of "demonstrated need" is entitled to be upheld by a reviewing court if the decision is supported by substan-tial evidence in the record. [lOJ Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Appellate Review - Weight and Credibility of Evidence. An appellate court review- ing a local land use decision under the Land Use Petitiori Act (ch. 36. 70C RCW) does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the local agency making the land use decision. [11] Administrative Law -Judicial Review -Findings of Fact -Substantial Evidence -Alternative Conclusions -Effect. The possibility that alternative findings may be drawn from the evidence presented in an agency adjudication does not prevent the agency's findings of fact from being supported by substantial evi- dence. A reviewing court's role is not to determine whether the evidence may support one decision over another but whether there is a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record for a reasonable person to find as the agency did. [12] Zoning -Reioning -Site-Specific Rezone -Legislative Criteria -Compliance -Necessity. An application for a site- specific rezone may be denied if the proposed rezone does not satisfy legislative criteria for rezones. [13] Zoning -Rezoning -Validity -Standards. Three general rules apply to rezone applications: (1) there is no presumptiou. of validity favoring a rezone; (2) the applicant must demonstrate that f ., I I ! I ' I I I ' i I ' t:, ii ,9 I ! I I ! ' ' I I I ' ' 1i ' ; June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 171 Wn.2d 820 823 circumstances have changed since the original zoning; and (3) the rezone must have a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. [14] Plats -Zoning -Density Limitation -Rezoning -"Ad- equate Services" Criterion -Effect. A local ordinance stating that "[d]evelopments with densities less than [four dwellings per acre] are allowed only if adequate services cannot be provided" does not compel approval of an otherwise qualified application to change the density zoning of an area from one dwelling per acre to four dwellings per acre when adequate services can be provided. The ordinance provides only that the availability of adequate services shall guide the density zoning designation: if adequate services cannot be provided, then developments with densities less than four dwellings per acre are allowed but not required, and if developments with densities less than four dwellings per acre are not allowed, then adequate services can be provided. [15] Zoning --Rezoning -Site-Specific Rezone -Nature of Activity. A local jurisdiction's decision to rezone a specific area is quasi-judicial in nature, and the local jurisdiction acts in an adjudicatory capacity, not a legislative capacity, when doing so. An action is legislative if it declares or prescribes a new law, policy, or plan. A site-specific rezone is an application of existing policies and of the rules governing rezone applications. [16] Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -Procedural Error - Harmless Error. Under RCW 36. 70C.130(1)(a), a local jurisdic- tion's procedural error in making a land use decision may be deemed harmless. [17] Zoning -Rezoning -Judicial Review -Procedural Error -Harmless Error. A local jurisdiction's erroneous mischaracter- ization of a finding made in support of a decision to deny a rezone request as being legislative in nature is harmless error if substantial evidence in the record supports the jurisdiction's declared basis for denying the rezone request. [18] Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Judicial Review -Land Use Petition Act -"Land Use Decision" - "Final Determination" -What Constitutes. It is a local juris- diction's final land use decision that controls a court's review under the Land Use Petition Act (ch. 36. 70C RCW), not the decision of the local jurisdiction's planning agency or staff [19] Building Regulations -Land Use Regulations -Compre- hensive Plan -Construction -Administrative Construction -Judicial Deference. A court must defer to a local jurisdiction's construction of what is consistent with its comprehensive land use plan. Nature of Action: Property developers sought judicial review of a city council's decision to deny the developers' 824 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 site-specific rezone requests and preliminary plat ap- plications for two properties proposed for residential subdivision. Superior Court: The Superior Court for King County, No. 07-2-29402-3, Dean Scott Lum, J., dismissed the plain- tiffs' petition for judicial review on August 18, 2008. Court of Appeals: The court granted review, reversed the city council's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the preliminary plat applications at 154 Wn. App. 492 (2009), holding that the rezone denials were improper because the proposed rezones will imple- ment the city's comprehensive plan and current zoning code and comply with the general rezone criteria in the city code. Supreme Court: Holding that substantial evidence in the record supported the city council's decision to deny the rezone request and plat applications under the controlling city ordinance, the court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstates the superior court's dismissal order. Greg A. Rubstello (of Ogden Murphy Wallace PLLC); Philip A. Talmadge (of Talmadge/Fitzpatrick); and J. Rich- ard Aramburu and Jeffrey M. Eustis (of Aramburu & Eustis LLP), for petitioners. George R. Hill (of McCullough Hill PS) and John M. Groen (of Groen Stephens & Klinge LLP), for respondents. Timothy M. Harris on behalf of Building Industry Asso- ciation of Washington, amicus curiae. Daniel B. Heid on behalf of Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys and Association of Washington Cities, amici curiae. Brian T. Hodges and Daniel A. Himebaugh on behalf of Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae. LexisNexis® Research References Washington Administrative Law Practice Manual Annotated Revised Code of Washington by LexisNexis i t 11 , ' \ ~ ,f, if l .. June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 171 Wn.2d 820 825 'Ill J.M. JOHNSON, J. -In 2007, the city council of Woodinville (City) unanimously denied two applications submitted by Phoenix Development Inc. to rezone undevel- oped property in northeast Woodinville. Seeking reversal of the City's decision, Phoenix filed a land use ·petition in King County Superior Court. The superior court dismissed the petition, holding that Phoenix failed to establish compli- ance with any of the six standards set out in RCW 36.70C.130(1). The Court of Appeals ·reversed and re- manded for further consideration. We reverse the Court of Appeals and uphold the City's decision, thus affirming the trial court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY '1[2 Phoenix owns two undeveloped properties in north- east Woodinville, referred to as the Wood Trails proposal and the Montevallo proposal. The properties have been zoned as R-1 (one dwelling per acre) since Woodinville's incorporation in 1993. '1[3 In June 2004, Phoenix asked the City to amend the zoning map for these two properties. Phoenix asked the City to rezone each from R-1 to R-4 (four dwellings per acre) and submitted preliminary plat applications for approval. Phoe- nix planned to build 66 houses on 38.7 acres at Wood Trails (1. 7 dwellings per acre) and 66 houses on 16.48 acres at Montevallo (4.005 dwellings per acre).1 '1[4 City staff engaged in two years of environmental review and analyzed whether the proposals complied with Woodinville's comprehensive plan and the City's criteria for a rezone under Woodinville Municipal Code (WMC) 21- .44.070.2 The staff concluded that both proposals were 1 The alternative conceptual plan recommended by the hearing examiner allowed for 56 houses on 16.48 acres (3.398 dwellings per acre). Hr'g Examiner's Montevallo Decision (May 16, 2007) at 4-5, 15. 2 WMC 21.44.070 statesc A zone reclassification shall be granted only if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable I I 826 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 consistent with the purpose statements for R-4 zones3 and stated that two of the three criteria required to rezone were met, WMC 21.44.070(2) and (3). The staff report did not make a recommendation with respect to the first crite- rion-the "demonstrated need" requirement of WMC 21.44.070(1)-stating that this criterion "'ultimately re- quires an objective judgment by the hearing examiner and city council based upon relevant City plans, policies, goals, and timeframes.' "Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, 154 Wn. App. 492, 499, 229 P.3d 800 (2009) (quoting Wood Trails Staff Report at 32; Montevallo Staff Report at 27). City staff recommended approval of the requested rezones if the "demonstrated need" requirement was met. 'l[5 Public hearings were held in March and April 2007. The hearing examiner considered extensive testimony and documentary evidence, including the "Final Environmental Impact Statement" and a 2,144 page analysis of the propos- als submitted by the Concerned Neighbors of Wellington (CNW). On May 16, 2007, the hearing examiner recom- mended that the City approve the rezones from R-1 to R-4. functional plans at the time the application for such zone reclassification is submitted, and complies with the following criteria: (1) There is a demonstrated need for additional zoning as the tYPe proposed. (2) The zone reclassification is consistent and compatible with uses and zoning of the surrounding properties. (3) The property is practically and physically suited for the uses allowed in the proposed zone reclassification. (Emphasis added.) 3 The purpose statements for R-1 and R-4 zones are found in WMC 21.04.080: (2) Use of this zone is appropriate in residential areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as follows: (a) The R-1 zone on or adjacent to lands with area-wide environmental constraints, or in well-established subdivisions of the same density, which are served at the time of development by public or private facilities and services adequate to support planned densities; (b) The R-4 through R-8 zones on urban lands that are predominantly environmentally unconstrained and are served at the time of development, by adequate public sewers, water supply, roads and other needed public facilities and services. WMC 21.04.020 provides that the WMC 21.04.080 purpose statements "shall be used to guide tha application of the zones and designations to all lands in the City of Woodinville." I l I ¢· 'I o l I I I ' l ! ! • ' A 1 ,, '.v ' June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 827 171 Wn.2d 820 The hearing examiner also recommended approval of the preliminary plat applications subject to numerous condi- tions. CNW appealed to the City. 'l[6 The City unanimously denied the rezone requests and preliminary plat applications after conducting a closed record review of the hearing examiner's recommendation and holding a pubhc meeting. Among other things, the City found that there was no "demonstrated need" to rezone the properties, that rezoning was inappropriate because of deficient facilities and services (other than sewer), and that rezoning would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. In finding of fact (FF) 6 of both decisions, the City stated that it was acting in its "legislative capacity" when it found that the R-1 zone was appropriate for the properties. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 21, 28. '1[7 Phoenix filed a land use petition under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA)4 in superior court, seeking reversal of the City's decision, approval of the Wood Trails and Montevallo proposals, and at least $5,000,000 in damages. The superior court dismissed the petition, holding that Phoenix failed to establish compliance with the six stan- dards set out in RCW 36.70C.130(1). Phoenix appealed. Phoenix, 154 Wn. App. 492. 'l[8 Although not saying so directly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Phoenix had met three of the standards set out in RCW 36.70C.130(1). See Phoenix, 154 Wn. App. at 503, 510-11, 514, 516. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the City for reconsideration of Phoenix's preliminary plat applications. Id. at 516. Both the City and CNW petitioned for review, which was granted. Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, 169 Wn.2d 1006, 236 P.3d 206 (2010). STANDARD OF REVIEW [1-3] 'l[9 The denial of a site-specific rezone is a land use decision. Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597,610, 174 ' Ch. 36. 70C RCW. 828 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 P.3d 25 (2007); RCW 36.70B.020(4). In reviewing a land use decision, we stand in the same position as the superior court. Isla Verde Int'! Holdings, Inc. u. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 751, 49 P.3d 867 (2002) (citing Wenatchee Sportsm.en Ass'n u. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3cl 123 (2000)). 'fllO LUPA provides the exclusive means for judicial review of a land use decision (with the exception of those decisions separately subject to review by bodies such as the growth management hearings boards). Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 610. Under LUPA, courts may grant relief from a site- specific rezone denial only if a petitioner has met its burden of establishing one of the following standards: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the con- struction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; (d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts; (e) The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdic- tion of the body or officer making the decision; or (f) The land use decision violates 'the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief RCW 36.70C.130(1). Only standards (a), (b), (c), and (d) are arguably at issue. [4-6] 'l{ll Standards (a), (b), (e), and (f) present questions oflaw that we review de novo. Phoenix, 154 Wn. App. at 502; HJS Dev., Inc. u. Pierce County ex rel. Dep't of Planning & Land Serus., 148 Wn.2d 451,468, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under subsection (c), we view facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest i I l * 'f ~ I I I I ,l 1)! ·, ! ! i , June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 829 171 Wn.2d 820 forum exercising fact-finding ·authority, in this case the City and CNW. Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 617. Under the substantial evidence standard, there must be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.2d at 176. A finding is clearly erroneous under subsec- tion (d) when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. (citing Norway Hill Pres. & Prat. Ass'n v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)). 'l{l2 Finally, the court may affirm or reverse the land use decision under review or remand it for modification or further proceedings. RCW 36.70C.140. If the decision is remanded for modification or further proceedings, the court may make such an order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of the parties and the public, pending further proceedings or action by the local jurisdiction. Id. ANALYSIS 'l{13 The Court of Appeals reversed the City's land use decision for four reasons: (1) substantial evidence does not support the City's decision that the proposed rezones are not needed;5 (2) substantial evidence in light of the entire record does not support the City's conclusion that adequate services cannot be provided to Wood Trails and Montevallo;6 (3) the City engaged in an unlawful legislative procedure during a quasijudicial decision-making process, and such error was not harmless; 7 and (4) its conclusion that the proposed rezones are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan is an erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of the law.8 Accordingly, the court 5 See Phoenix, 154 Wn. App. at 511. 6 See id. at 510. 7 See id. at 503. 6 See id. at 514. 830 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 reversed the City's land use decision and remanded for wnsideration of the plat applications. Id. at 516. We ad- dress the Court of Appeals' holdings in turn. A. Substantial Evidence Supports the City's Decision that the Proposed Rezones Are Not Needed l. We defer to the City's interpretation of what constitutes a "demonstrated need" under WMC 21.44.070(1) [7, 8] '1!14 When construing an ordinance, a" 'reviewing court gives considerable deference to the construction of' the challenged ordinance 'by those officials charged with its enforcement.'" Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle, 160 Wn.2d 32, 42, 156 P.3d 185 (2007) (quoting Gen. Motors Corp. v. City of Seattle, 107 Wn. App. 42, 57, 25 P.3d 1022 (2001)); see also Keller v. City of Bellingham, 92 Wn.2d 726, 731, 600 P.2d 1276 (1979); Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275, 300 P.2d 569 (1956). Although this is not a Growth Management Act (GMA) (ch. 36.70A RCW) case,9 to the extent that the GMA is implicated, we note that the GMA does not prescribe a single approach to growth management. Viking Props., Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wn.2d 112, 125, 118 P.3d 322 (2005). Instead, the legislature specified that " 'the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning, harmonizing the planning goals of [the GMA], and implementing a county's or city's future rests with that community.' " Id. (alteration in original) (quoting RCW 36.70A.3201). Thus, the GMA acts exclu- sively through local governments and is to be construed with the requisite flexibility to allow local governments to accommodate local needs. Id. at 125-26. These principles of deference apply to a local government's site-specific land use decisions where the GMA considerations play a role in its ultimate decision. 9 Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.2d at 172· 73 (04site-specific rezones are project permiLc; and hence not development regulations under the GMA"); Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 614 ("a site-specific rezone cannot be chalJenged for compliance with the GMA"J. .I f I I f)1I -~ l . I I f f ! I I ! f ' ' f ! i I I ! JI: • June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 171 Wn.2d 820 831 [9-11] '1!15 WMC 21.44.070 states that a zone reclassifi- cation "shall be granted only if ... (1) [t]here is a demon- strated need for additional zoning as the type proposed." The City interpreted the "demonstrated need" criterion under WMC 21.44.070(1) to require "an objective judgment by the City Council based upon plans, goals, policies and timeframes." CP at 193 (FF 14), 200 (FF 13). To this end, the City found that "the proposed rezone is not 'needed' at this time" because current property zoning is consistent with its comprehensive plan;10 the City is on target to meet its growth targets for 2022;11 the City currently has a diversity of housing to allow for a wide variety of housing types, incomes, and living situations;12 and because the City has prioritized development of the downtown area to implement the GMA, "Vision 2020" (a long-range growth and transpor- tation strategy for the Puget Sound region) and relevant King County-wide planning policies.13 We defer to the City's determination of what constitutes "demonstrated need" under WMC 21.44.070(1) and hold that the City properly interpreted its own ordinance to require a showing that a rezone is needed to achieve larger policy objectives. 2. Substantial evidence supports the City's decision that rezoning the properties is not needed at this time '1!16 When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under subsection (c), we view facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest forum exercising fact-finding authority, in this case the City and CNW. Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 617. Under the substantial evidence standard, there must be a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true. Wenatchee Sports- '° CP at 22 (FF 13), 28 (FF 14). "CP at 21-22, 29 (FF 7). 12 CP at 22, 29 (FF 8). 13 CP at 22 (FF 16), 29-30 (FF 17). tL 832 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 men, 141 Wn.2d at 176. We do not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment. 'lll 7 A sufficient quantum of evidence exists in the record to persuade a reasonable person that rezoning is not needed at this time. The CNW analysis, for example, is a 2,144 page, three-volume set of information that shows, among other things, that the City is meeting all of its housing goals, is exceeding its growth targets, and has approved other developments to provide for Woodinville's housing and growth needs. CNW Analysis, vol. 2, § 3. Additionally, Ray Sturtz, the City's planning director, stated at the March 14, 2007, public hearing that "[t]he bottom line is the City does not need any residential rezones to meet its GMA obligation or comply with its Comprehensive Plan and meet the goals and visions stated therein." CP at 285 (emphasis added). Evidence was also presented that, when considering market demand as the measure of "need," there is a shortage of R-1 properties, not R-4 lots. Id. at 285-86. 'll 18 Although there is also evidence in the record to support Phoenix's claim that there is a "need" to rezone the properties, the court's role is not to determine whether evidence may support one decision over another. The stan- dard of review here is to determine whether there is a sufficient quantum of evidence in the record to persuade a reasonable person that rezoning is not needed at this time. The evidence presented by the City and CNW is sufficient to persuade a person that rezoning is not needed at this time, in light of the City's interpretation of "demonstrated need" as stated above. 'lll9 Supporting this conclusion, City staff also acknowl- edged there was no need to approve Phoenix's rezone request: [I]t is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate "need" which can be determined in a number of ways. The city has evaluated "need" based on residentially available or developable lands, population allocation, and current forecast of consumption of residential lots. Using this information only, R-4 is not neces- sary at this time or until 2022, but may at a later time. ! l I I l I i ~J I f ~;·I', I l ) • June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 171 Wn.2d 820 833 Montevallo Staff Report at 24; Wood Trails Staff Report at 29 (emphasis added). Elsewhere, the staff also noted that "[t]he Montevallo subdivision, as proposed, could assist in accommodating the future growth forecast to 2022," but noted that "there are other opportunities to accommodate that growth that is already being accounted for in current residential development other places in the city." Mon- tevallo Staff Report at 11 (emphasis added). City staff also noted: Given that the City is currently meeting and I or exceeding its growth targets through approval of substantial residential development elsewhere within the City's jurisdiction, the extent to which a "demonstrated need" for additional R-4 zoning exists is potentially subject to differing interpretations. While some code and Comprehensive Plan provisions can be construed as supporting further development within the Low Density Resi- dential areas of the City, the extent, character and timing of any such development is not indelibly predetermined. Montevallo Staff Report at 20; Wood Trails Staff Report at 32 (emphasis added). B. Substantial Evidence Supports The City's Decision under WMC 21.44.070(2) and the General Rules Governing Rezone Applications 'll20 WMC 21.44.070 is the linchpin for determining whether a rezone should be granted by the City. Thus, in order to deny a rezone, the City need only find that one of the requirements is not satisfied. Because substantial evi- dence supports the City's determination that Phoenix failed to satisfy WMC 21.44.070(1), the claim fails. In contrast to cases such as Woods, 162 Wn.2d 597, in which we analyzed each enumerated requirement of former Kittitas County Code 17.98.020(E) (1996) under the standards of RCW 36.70C.130(1), here we need only to find that one of the City's conclusions under WMC 21.44.070 withstands our review under RCW 36.70C.130(1) (i.e., there is no demon- strated need for the rezone). This is because the site-specific rezone requested in this case was denied, whereas it was approved by the county in Woods. ij' R. 834 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 [12, 13] 'l]21 Nonetheless, substantial evidence in the record also supports, at a minimum, the City's decisions that rezoning to R-4 is not consistent and compatible with the uses and zoning of surrounding properties under WMC 21.44.070(2);14 that conditions have not changed since the original zoning;15 and that the rezone does not bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.16 Thus, Phoenix's claim also fails under the more general rules we apply to rezone applications: "(1) there is no presumption of validity favoring the action of rezoning; (2) the proponents of the rezone have the burden of proof in demonstrating that conditions have changed since the original zoning; and (3) the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 874-75, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997) (citing Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 462, 573 P.2d 359 (1978)).17 C. Former WMC 21.04.080(1) (2001) Does Not Require the City To Approve a Rezone Application Even If "Adequate Services" Can Be Provided [14] 'l]22 Former WMC 21.04.080(1) states, in pertinent part, that "Developments with densities less than R-4 are allowed only if adequate services cannot be provided." 14 See, e.g., CNW Analysis vols. 1-3. IS fd. 16 [d. 17 We also note our long-standing precedent that courts " 'do not possess the power to amend zoning ordinances or to rezone a zoned area.'" Open Door Baptist Church u. Clark County, 140 Wn.2d 143, 161, 170, 995 P.2d 33 (2000) (quoting Bishop v. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn.2d 786, 792, 420 P.2d 368 (1966}); see also McNaughton u. Boeing, 68 Wn.2d 659,414 P.2d 778 (1966); State ex rel. Gunning u. Odell, 58 Wn. 2d 275, 362 P.2d 254 (1961). LUPA did not abrogate this rule. Ballard Square Condo. Owners Ass'n u. Dynasty Cnn.<:tr. Co., 158 Wn.2d 603, 146 P.3d 914 (2006); In re iviarriage of Williams, 115 Wn.2d 202, 208, 796 P.2d 421 (1990). I I {' :11 , t , • I I June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE 835 171 Wn.2d 820 (Emphasis added).18 The Co~rt of Appeals held that former WMC 21.04.080 "requires that the city approve an other- wise qualified rezone application unless adequate services cannot be provided." Phoenix, 154 Wn. App. at 515-16 (emphasis added). This is not supported by a plain reading of the ordinance, which yields two possibilities: (1) if ad- equate services cannot be provided, then developments with densities less than R-4 are allowed (not required) and (2) if developments with densities less than R-4 are not allowed, then adequate services can be provided. Former WMC 21.04.080 does not require the City to rezone under any circumstance-this work is done by WMC 21.44.070. 'l]23 Phoenix argues that former WMC 21.04.080 creates the possibility that land currently zoned as R-1 cannot be developed (without rezoning), even though adequate ser- vices can be provided. This may be true, but it simply does not follow from this logical possibility that the City is required by former WMC 21.04.080 to approve an otherwise qualified rezone application just because adequate services can be provided. 'l]24 WMC 21.04.020 confirms that WMC 21.04.080 does not require anything (such as a rezone) if adequate services can be provided, only that such a circumstance "shall guide" zone designations.19 In sum, WMC 21.04.080(1) does not require the City to approve a rezone application even if 18 The italicized clause in WM:C 21.04.0BO(l)(a) is no longer part of that ordinance; Phoenix could develop the properties as R-1 land ifit were to submit a renewed application. WMC 21.04.080. 19 WMC 21.04.020 states: The purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following sections shall be used to guide the application of the zones and designations to all lands in the City of Woodinville. The purpose statements also shall guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations, and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to this title. (Emphasis added.) To this end, WMC 21.04.080{2)(a)-(b) also guides, but does not require, a determination by the City under WMC 21.44.070. See supra note 3. This conflicts with the Court of Appeals' interpretation ofWMC 21.04.020-that it is a mandate requiring the City to rezone property from R-1 to R-4 if adequate services can be provided. Phoenix, 154 Wn. App. at 506. 836 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 "adequate services" can be provided. Thus, we do not reach the issue of whether substantial evidence supports the City's determination that there are "deficient public facili- ties and services ( other than sewer)" to support the Wood Trails and Montevallo properties as an R-4 zone. CP at 24, 31, 195, 202. The City's decision to rezone does not turn on this issue. D. The City Did Not Engage in an Unlawful Procedure [15-17] 'l[25 Phoenix argues that the City engaged in an unlawful procedure by invoking its legislative authority during a quasijudicial proceeding, allegedly "adopt[ing] a new policy rather than applying existing policies and regu- lations." Answer to Pet. for Review at 5. Because the City is bound to follow its own ordinances governing rezone appli- cations, we agree with Phoenix that a city's decision to rezone is a quasijudicial act. See Woods, 162 Wn.2d at 616. However, we also hold that the City's action was not legislative, although it was mischaracterized as such. 'l[26 An action is legislative if it declares or prescribes a new law, policy, or plan. Ruano v. Spellman, 81 Wn.2d 820, 823-24, 505 P.2d 447 (1973). FF 6 does not declare or prescribe a new law, policy or plan or even modify existing standards. Rather, it makes statements that are directly tied to existing policies, and to the general rules governing rezone applications. Compare CP at 21, 28 (FF 6), with WMC 21.04.080 and WMC 21.44.070, and Citizens for Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d at 874-75. If anything, FF 6 is a restatement of the evidence in the record supporting its ultimate conclusions, not an unlawful procedure. 'l[27 However FF 6 is characterized, it is not fatal. See · RCW 36. 70C.130(1)(a) (stating that an unlawful procedure error may be harmless). Substantial evidence in the record supports the City's conclusion that a "demonstrated need" for a rezone was not shown-a required element to approve Phoenix's application. ~iJJ! 9 ' I I r g !I~\ j June 2011 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVlLLE 171 Wn.2d 820 837 E. The City Did Not Err when It Concluded that the Proposed Rezones Are Inconsistent with the Com- prehensive Plan 1. The City's conclusion is not an erroneous interpre- tation of the law 'l[28 Under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b), Phoenix must estab- lish that the City's "decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction ofa law by a local jurisdiction with expertise." (Emphasis added.) Since its incorporation in 1993, it has been an express goal and vision of the City "to preserve our Northwest Woodland Character." Montevallo Staff Report at 5. Indeed, the first goal listed in the land use section of the City's comprehensive plan is "[t]o guide the City's population growth in a manner that maintains or improves Woodinville's quality of life, environmental attributes, and Northwest woodland character." CP at 420 (Goal LU-1) (emphasis added). Therefore, .to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, Phoenix must establish that its devel- opment would maintain or improve Woodinville's "North- west woodland character." [18] 'l[29 The R-1 zone area represents approximately 30 percent of the total acres of the City and approximately 50 percent of the residentially zoned land. Wood Trails Staff Report at 7; Montevallo Staff Report at 5. It also contains a significant amount of the City's native tree cover and wooded hillsides, "the primary elements that define North- west Woodland Character." Wood Trails Staff Report at 7; Montevallo Staff Report at 5. As the City staff reports noted, "[W]hile the City strives to fulfill its obligation to provide housing, it will be important to take advantage of the carrying capacity outside of the R-1 Zone area in order to retain these important and unique elements for future generations until the need is identified." Wood Trails Staff Report at 7; Montevallo Staff Report at 5.Although the City staff concluded that the proposals complied with the com- 1 838 PHOENIX DEV. v. CITY OF WOODINVILLE June 2011 171 Wn.2d 820 prehensive plan, 20 it is the City's final decision that con- trols our review. [19] 'l[30 Phoenix argues that the Wood Trails and the Montevallo proposals are consistent with the comprehen- sive plan because the developments would reduce urban sprawl. See, e.g., Answer to Pet. for Review at 17-19. Phoenix also notes that the hearing examiner found that the proposals were "reasonably compliant with the Compre- hensive Plan" after examining eight land use policies, two housing policies, three community design policies, one capi- tal facilities policy, and four environmental policies. Appel- lant's Br. at 37-39; Hr'g Examiner's Wood Trails Decision (May 16, 2007) at 9; Hr'g Examiner's Montevallo Decision (May 16, 2007) at 8. The City did not cite any comprehen- sive plan policy in its final decision. See CP at 20-32. We defer to the City's construction of what is consistent with its comprehensive plan and hold that the City's conclusion is not an erroneous interpretation of the law. See Viking Props., 155 Wn.2d at 125-26. 2. The City's conclusion is not a clearly erroneous application of the law 'l[31 A finding is clearly erroneous under RCW 36.70C- .130(1)(d) 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.Ancheta u. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259-60, 461 P.2d 531 (1969) (quoting United States u. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948)). Given the deference afforded to the City to implement its comprehensive plan, we hold that its decision was not clearly erroneous in light of the evidence. CONCLUSION 'l[32 Substantial evidence in the record supports the City's decision to deny Phoenix's request under the control- 20 Wood Trails Ex. l; Montevallo Ex. 1. f;JJ ) fi,I\ , June 2011 EUGSTER v. STATE 839 171 Wn.2d 839 ling city ordinance, WMC 21.44.070. Courts defer to local government decisions under the laws and rules applicable to such decisions. The City is not required to rezone to R-4 in every case where adequate services can be provided, and it did not err when it concluded that the proposed rezones are inconsistent with its own comprehensive plan. We reverse the Court of Appeals.and affirm the trial court. MADSEN, C.J., and C. JOHNSON, ALExANDER, CHAMBERS, OWENS, FAIRHURST, STEPHENS, and WIGGINS, JJ., concur. [No. 84380-5. En Banc.] Argued May 17, 2011. Decided June 16, 2011. STEPHEN K EuGSTER, Appellant, V. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ET AL., Respondents. [I] Dismissal and Nonsuit -Failure To State Claim -Review - Standard of Review -In General. An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court's dismissal of an action under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. [2] Judgment -Summary Judgment -Denial -Review - Standard of Review. An appellate court reviews de nova a motion for summary judgment that is denied by a trial court. Review is conducted by viewing the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and applying the summary judg- ment standard of CR 56(c). [3] Dismissal and Nonsuit -Failure To State Claim -Test -In General. An action is subject to dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no facts exist that would justify recovery. [4] Statutes -Validity -Presumption -Rebuttal -Burden of Proof -Degree of Proof. When ruling on a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute, a court begins with the presump~ tion that the statute is constitutional. The party claiming that the statute is unconstitutional has the burden of proving that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. [5] Constitutional Law -Construction -Meaning of Words - Ordinary Meaning -Time of Drafting. The words of the text of a constitutional provision are given their common and ordinary meaning, as determined at the time they were drafted. · CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTIONNO. 3506 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO ENTER INTO THE MAY CREEK BASIN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the May Creek Basin lies within the jurisdiction of King County, the City of Renton, and the City ofNewcastle; and WHEREAS, the Basin has an extensive natural resource system of streams, lakes and wetlands worthy of restoration and protection; and WHEREAS, the parties recognize the importance of protecting .and restoring the water resources and habitat quality of Lake Washington by maintaining the water quality of surface waters entering Lake Washington from the May Creek Basin; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to address existing drainage, flooding, erosion and sedimentation problems in the May Creek Basin; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to complete the May Creek Basin Action Plan, . . . . . . . which outlines recommended programs, policies and actions to protect the Basin's natural resources and water quality, and to address funding; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. SECTION TI. The above findings are found to be true and correct in all respects. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby ·authorized to enter intc> t•· May Creek Basin Plan Implementation Int.erlocal Agreement. EXHIBIT 13 1 RESOLUTIONNO. 3506 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21st day of_,_,M=a.,_y ____ _,, 2001. Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 21st day of__.M:....ai,ly'---------'' 2001. · Approved as to fonn: Lawrence J. Warre RES.844:4/19/01:ma 2 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting May 21, 2001 Council Chambers MINUTES Municipal Building Mayor Jesse Tanner led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. DAN CLAWSON, Council President; TERRI BRIERE; KING PARKER; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS KA THY KEOLKER-WHEELER AND DON PERSSON. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE JESSE TANNER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MICHELE NEUMANN, Deputy City Clerk; JIM SHEPHERD, Community Services Administrator; DEREK TODD, Assistant to the CAO; SERGEANT TIMOTHY TROXEL, Police Department; DA VE CHRISTENSEN, Utility Engineering Supervisor; RON STRAKA, Utility Engineering Supervisor. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 200 I and beyond. Items noted included: AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Bean -St. Anthony's Church Vacation, * On May 15th Olympic Pipeline Company successfully conducted hydrostatic pressure retests at federal standards ( 125% maximum operating pressures) in two sections of the 16-inch pipeline at Renton Station and in the Tiffany Park neighborhood. * The Cedar River Boathouse Grand Opening will be held Thursday, May 31st at 6:00 p.m. Participants will enjoy refreshments, demonstrations and tours of the boathouse. * The Human Services Division has compiled a 200 I Greater Renton Summer Activity packet to assist parents and families in locating summer activities for children ages 3. I 2. Some teen activities are also included. Limited copies may be obtained by phoning Human Services at 430-6650. Paula Bean, 334 Morris Ave. S., Renton, 98055, expressed concern that Morris Ave. S. could tum into a major thoroughfare if Whitworth Ave. S. is vacated as proposed, and pointed out that the Printed on 10/18/2011 I from Folio document Citizen Comment: Bean -St. Anthony's Church Vacation, Whitworth Ave S between S 4th St & Parallel Alley (V AC-00-003) Citizen Comment: Webb - Correspondence to Elected Officials CONSENT AGENDA Council Minutes of May 14, 200 I CAG: 01-072, Highlands Park Play Area Renovation, Southworth & Sons CAG: 00-067, 1-405/NE 44th St Interchange, Environmental Assessment, Huckell/Weinman Associates EDNSP: 200 I Neighborhood Grant . Program Plat: Geneva Court, Talbot Rd S (PP-00-160) Utility: Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm, Gray & Osborne Joe Bean, 334 Morris Ave. S., Renton, 98055, concurred with his sister Paula Bean's comments and asked that the City consider the impacts the proposed vacation will have on surrounding streets and neighbors. Sanford E. Webb, 430 Mill Ave. S. #3, Renton, 98055, expressed his concerns regarding how correspondence addressed to the Mayor and Council is distributed and responded to. Mr. Webb also submitted a letter to the Mayor and Council in which the same concerns were addressed. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council minutes of May 14, 2001. Council concur. City Clerk reported bid opening on 05/16/200 I, for CAG-01-072, Highlands Park Play Area Renovation; ten bids; project estimate $71,800; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Southworth & Sons, Inc., in the amount of$75,225.86. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department recommended approval of Amendment #5 to CAG-00-067, contract with Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., for completion of the Environmental Assessment on the 1-405/NE 44th St. interchange as part of the Port Quendall project. The costs will be paid I 00% by the developer. Council concur. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department submitted the applications received for this year's Neighborhood Grant Program. Total project budget amount is $50,000. Refer to Community Services Committee. Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Geneva Court preliminary plat; 25 single-family lots on 3.63 acres located on the east side of the 5400 block of Talbot Rd. S. (PP-00-160). Council concur. Surface Water Utility Division recommended approval of a contract in the amount of $22,600 with Gray & Osborne, Inc. for the final design of the Maplewood Golf Course Cart Path Berm project. The project will restore flood protection provided by the west bank of the Cedar River, which was destroyed during the 1995 and 1996 flood events, by raising an existing section of the golf course cart path by four feet above the natural ground elevation. Council concur. Printed on !0/18/2011 2 from Folio document Utility: Wells 1, 2 & 3 CT Pipeline Construction/Liberty Park, PWTF Loan Utility: Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements Design, PWTF Loan CORRESPONDENCE Citizen Comment: Blaskowsky - Request for stop sign at Williams Aves&ssthst OLD BUSINESS Planning & Development Committee Development Services: A-Frame Signs Utilities Committee Utility: Sewer Connection by Property Owners Outside City Limits, City Code Revision Utility Systems Division requested approval to apply for a Public Works Trust Fund loan in the amount of $814,527, at an interest rate of 1 /2%, for the Wells I, 2 &. 3 CT Pipeline Construction.project at Liberty Park. The City's project share is $155,148. Council concur. Utility Systems Division requested approval to apply for a Public Works Trust Fund loan in the amount of $567,831, at an interest rate of I /2%, for the Maplewood Water Treatment Improvements Design project. The City's project share is $108,159. Council concur. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. COUNCIL CONCUR. Correspondence was read from Barbara Blaskowsky, 528 Williams Ave. S., Renton, 98055, requesting installation ofa stop sign on Williams Ave. S. at the comer of S. 5th St. to prevent motorists from speeding on Williams Ave. S. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THIS LETTER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Briere presented a report regarding A-frame signs. The Planning and Development Committee met to evaluate the A-frame sign regulations one year after adoption, and to discuss whether the regulations should remain in effect. The Committee determined that the regulations respond to requests by local businesses for A-frame or sandwich board portable signage, and that the permitting and enforcement associated with the signs does not create a hardship on City staff The Committee recommended that the A-frame sign regulations (RMC 4-4-1 OOJ) remain in effect, and that RMC Section 4-I -I 4M3 (Fees) be amended to adopt fees for A-frame sign permits. The recommended fees for A-frame signs are $100 for the first sign and $50 per sign for each thereafter. The period of validity for the A-frame signs is recommended to be for 12 months. The Committee further recommended that the City Attorney prepare the ordinance amending the Code and present it to Council for first reading. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Chair Briere presented a report concurring with the staff recommendation that Council approve the proposed modification to City Code Section 4-6-040.C requiring annexation covenants be executed for sewer connection in the City's potential annexation area. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance for this revised code be nresented for first ccadino MOVED BY BRIERE SECONDED Printed on 10/18/2011 3 from Folio document Utility: May Creek Basin Plan Agreement, King County & Newcastle Transportation (Aviation) Committee Airport: Restaurant Building Demolition Utilities Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the May Creek Basin Action Plan and Implementation Interlocal Agreement adoption. The Utilities Committee recommended concurrence with staff recommendation that Council adopt the May Creek Basin Action Plan. The Committee recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the May Creek Basin Action Plan Implementation lnterlocal Agreement with King County and the City of Newcastle. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 164 for resolution.) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Member Briere presented a report regarding the airport restaurant building demolition and recommended that Council: I. Permit demolition of the entire restaurant building to proceed, as previously authorized by Council on 2/14/2000. 2. Not accept the two informal proposals for utilization of the ground area on which the restaurant is presently located. 3. Authorize the Airport to transfer sufficient funds from the Airport Fund Reserve, if necessal)', to cover the demolition costs established by competitive bidding. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Franchise: Time Warner Telecom of Transportation (Aviation) Committee Member Briere presented a report Washington, Fiber Optics System regarding a franchise agreement with Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC. Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC, is a telecommunications provider and carrier requesting a franchise agreement with City of Renton to install conduit and cable underground using conventional trenching, horizontal boring and directional drilling methods. This is a proposed ten-year franchise agreement between the City of Renton and Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC. Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC is partially owned by Time Warner. Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC is registered with the Washington Utilities and Trade Commission as a competitive telecommunications company and is authorized to provide non-switched dedicated and private line high capacity fiber optic transmission services. The Transportation (Aviation) Committee recommended concurrence with staff recommendation to approve the Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC franchise agreement. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the franchise agreement. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 164 for ordinance.) Printed on I 0/18/2011 4 from Folio document Finance Committee Community Services: Capital Projects Coordinator (Downtown Parking Garage), Temporary Hire Finance: Vouchers Community Services Committee Appoinnnent: Municipal Arts Commission Appoinnnent: Board of Adjustment ORDINANCES AND . RESOLUTIONS Resolution #3506 Utility: May Creek Basin Plan Agreement, King County & Newcastle EDNSP: Right-of-Way Use Code Amendments Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending authorizing the Administration to hire one limited-tettn project . management employee to manage the design and construction of the Downtown Parking Garage. Due to the nature of the project, it is also recommended that the position of Capital Projects Coordinator be hired at a Grade 25 with a tettn not to exceed 30 months. Funds in the amount of $215,000 from the Parking Garage Fund (30 I) will be used to cover the cost of this position for the duration of the project. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 192819 -192830 and three wire transfers, totaling $2,162,230.46; and approval of Payroll Vouchers 31477 -31729 and 540 direct deposits totaling $1,032,182.04. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services Chair Nelson presented a report recommending concurrence in the Mayor's appointment of Loren Perreault-Jones to the Municipal Arts Commission to fill Marie Kurka-Brown's unexpired tettn expiring on 12/31/2002. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, CONCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services Chair Nelson presented a report recommending concurrence in the Mayor's appoinnnent of Eric Cameron to the Board of Adjusnnent, Position No. 7 (member of the general public) for a four-year tettn, which expires on 12/6/2004. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY CLAWSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an interlocal agreement with King County and the City of Newcastle for implementation of the May Creek Basin Plan. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRJED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 6/04/200 I for second and final reading: An ordinance was read amending Sections 9-2-1 through 9-2-5, and Section 9-2-7 of Chapter 2, Excess Right-Of-Way Use, of Title IX (Public Printed on I0/18/2011 5 from Folio document Franchise: Time Warner Telecom of Washington, Fiber Optics System Utility: Sewer Connection by Property Owners Outside City Limits, City Code Revisions Ordinance #4904 Rezone: Rolling Hills Reservoir, Puget Dr SE, P-1 to R-8 (R-01-008) Ordinance #4905 Community Services: Capital Projects Coordinator (Fire Station #12 Construction), Temporary Hire NEW BUSINESS Citizen Comment: Roeuith - Assistance Programs for Cambodians AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Cross -St. Anthony's Church Vacation, Whih¥ort:b Ave S heh;ueen S 4th St An ordinance was read granting unto Time Warner Telecom of Washington, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, its successors and assigns, the right, privilege, authority and franchise to install fiber optics cable underground together with appurtenances thereto, upon, over, under, along, across the streets, avenues and alleys of the City of Renton for the purpose of installing infrastructure to operate as a broadband digital communication provider and carrier utilizing switching and fiber optic facilities. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/04/2001. CARRJED. An ordinance was read amending Section 4-6-040.C, of Chapter 6, Street and Utility Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code revising policies by which the City allows connection to its sanitary sewer system by property owners outside of the current city limits. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/04/200 I. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property consisting of 12.97 acres located at 240 I Puget Dr. SE, near the intersection of Puget Dr. SE and Edmonds Way SE, from the P-1 (Public Use) zone to R-8 (Residential Single Family; eight dwelling units per acre) zone with a P-suffix designation (Rolling Hills Reservoir Rezone; File No. R-01-008). MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read appropriating monies from the Fire Mitigation Fund balance, increasing the expenditures in the Fire Mitigation Fund, and increasing the 200 I Budget by $54,000 for the purpose of hiring a limited term employee to manage the design and construction of the new Fire Station #12. MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRJED. Councilman Corman request.ed that the Human Services Division respond to a letter from Hoeuith Roeuith, PO Box 66743, Seattle, 98166, in which Mr. Roeuith expressed concern for the plight of Cambodians and asked for advice on how he can establish a program to assist the people of Cambodia. Wade Cross, 322 Morris Ave. S., Renton, 98055, expressed his concern about the potential impact on neighborhood traffic and parking near St. Anthony's Church if Whitworth Ave. S. were to be vacated. In addition, Mr. Cross stated that he believed that the yellow painted on the curbs of Printed on 10/18/2011 6 from Folio document I ' ' .. Police: Directional Parking Tickets Council President Clawson requested an explanation as to why tickets are given for parking in the wrong direction on City streets. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:25 p.m. Recorder: Bonnie Walton May 21, 2001 MICHELE NEUMANN, Deputy City Clerk Printed on 10/18/2011 7 from Folio document y . ~ ·' .. l CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. '4667 \ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ESTABLISHING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF RENTON TO RESIDENTIAL 1 DU/AC (R-1) AND RESIDENTIAL 5 DU/AC (R-5) (MAY VALLEY PREZONE-PHASE I; FILE NO. A-96-004). WHEREAS, under Chapter 31 (Zoning Code), of Title IV (Building Regulations), of Ordinance No. 4260 known as the "Code of General· Ordinances of the City of Renton," as amended, and the maps and reports adopted in conjunction therewith, the property hereinbelow described has not been zoned in the City of Renton; and WHEREAS, said property owners petitioned the City of Renton for assignment of zoning classifications prior to annexation, and the City Council having held two public hearings to consider this pre zoning application, the first. hearing being held on June 10, 1996, and the second hearing being held on September 16, 1996, and said zoning request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the City Council having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The following described property in the City of Renton shall bear the following zoning designations once annexed to the City of Renton: Residential 1 du/ac (R-1) and Residential 5 1 EXHIBIT 14 ORDINANCE NO. 4667 du/ac (R-5), as hereinbelow specified, the Development Services ~· '·.\ Director is hereby authorized and directed to change the maps of the zoning Ordinance, as amended, to evidence said rezoning, to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. (Said property, approximately 74 acres, is bounded by 148th Avenue S.E. on the east, N.E. Sunset Boulevard on the south, and the Renton corporate boundary on the north and west.) SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2nd day.of June 997 ~~~~~~-· 1 . APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 2nd day of City Clerk ~~J~u~n~e'--~~~~~' 1997. s to form: Date of Publication: ORD.654:4/18/97:as. Attorney June 6, 1997 2 - anner, Mayor ... .. .... May Valley Prezone -Phase I Legal Description of Zones R-1ZONE Lots 1 through 14, inclusive, Block 1, May Valley Co-Op Community;\ccording to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, Page 93, King County Records, King County, Washington. All situate in the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington. R-1 ZONE That portion of Government Lot 1 in the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of Government Lot 1 in said quarter section; Thence North 01 ~.25' 22" East, along the east line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 30 feet; Thence North 88° 01' 27" West, a distance of30 feet, to the True Point of Beginning, said True· Point of Beginning also being the Northeast comer of Tract "I'' of Stonegate, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 177, Pages 62 through 68, inclusive, King County Records, King County, Washington; Thence continuing North 88° 01' 27" West, (North 88° 0 l' 50" West per said plat), along the northerly line of said Tract "I'', a distance of 425 .00 feet; Thence North 01° 25' 22" East, a distance of262.33 feet; ' Thence North 65° 00' 00" East, a distance of 113.89 feet, to a poinfon the southerly right-of-way margin of NE 26th Street; Thence South 88° 01' 27" East (South 88° 01' 50" East per said plat) along said southerly right-of- way margin, a distance of 323.00 feet, to a point on the westerly right-of-way margin of 148th · Avenue SE (County Road); Thence South O 1 ° 25' 22" East, along said westerly right-of-way margin, a distance of 314.00, to the True Point of Beginning. R-SZONE That portion of the East 1/2 of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North; Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of NE Sunset Boulevard (SE Renton· Issaquah Road, Primary State Highway No. 2) and southerly.of the North 198 feet of said subdivision; LESS the East 30 feet thereof for County Road (148th Avenue SE); and EXCEPT that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of the South 198 feet of the North 396 feet of said subdivision; Pagc2 May Valley Prezone -Phase I Legal Description of Zones Thence North 87° 26' 08" West, a distance of30 feet, to the True Point of Beginning; ,, Thence South 01 ° 25' 02" West, a distance of 81.5 feet; Thence North 87° 26' 08" West, a distance of 126.63 feet; Thence North 02° 33' 52" East, a distance of 81.5 feet; Thence South 87° 26' 08" East, a distance of25 feet; Thence North O 1 ° 25' 02" East, a distance of 5 feet; Thence South 87° 26' 08" East, a distance of 100 feet; '\ Thence South 01 ° 25' 02" West, a distance of 5 feet, to the True Point of Beginning. H:IDIVISION.SIP&TSIPLANNINOIANNEX\PREZONE\MAYVALLl.DOCI Pagci3 "' ....... ... . \ . . . .. ~. MAY VALLEY PREZONE Exhibit A w (/) C e Plarlllng and Tec:lrical Services ~Worb 0. Domla,on, R. Ma<Olie A Nc,omboo 1996 0 500 1,000 1 :6,000 PHASE I SE 104th St --Prezone Area -Phase 1 WAI R-1 Zoning [:::::::::::::::::::::::::::! R-5 Zoning MAY VALLEY PREZONE -PHASE 1 Exhibit,A \ Legal Description R-1 ZONE That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, lying northerly of May Valley Co-Op Community, according· to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, Page 93, King County Records, King County, Washington, and lying easterly of Stonegate, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 177 of Plats, Pages 62 through 68, inclusive, King County Records, King County, Washington; LESS County Road (148th Avenue SE). TOGETHER WlTii Lots 15 through 23, Block 2, May Valley Co-Op Community, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Volume 66 of Plats, Page 93, King County Records, King County, Washington. R-1 ZONE The North 198 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington; LESS the South 5 feet of the East 130 feet thereof; and LESS County Road (148th Avenue SE). TOGETHER W1Tii that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the South 198 feet of the North 396 feet of said Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter; Thence North 87° 26' 08" West, a distance of30 feet, to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 01 ° 25' 02" West, a distance of81.5 feet; Thence North 87° 26' 08" West, a distance of 126.63 feet; Thence North 02° 33' 52" East, a distance of 81.5 feet; Thence South 87° 26' 08" East, a distance of25 feet; Thence North 01 ° 25' 02" East, a distance of 5 feet; Thence South 87° 26' 08" East, a distance of JOO feet; Thence South 01° 25' 02" West, a distance of 5 feet, to the True Point of Beginning. ' . ,I ,., '. AMENDMENT 2005-M-1 -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MAP REVISIONS DESCRIPTION: Low-density residential areas are subject to increased scrutiny upon review by outside authorities under the Growth Management Act. Although never explicitly stated in the Growth Management Act, the minimum urban density of four dwelling units per acre (du/acre) has consistently been held as a standard for compliance with the Act. In proceedings before the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB), the Board has noted that it is not necessary for cities to designate all lands within their jurisdictions at a minimum four du/acre. However, those portions of the city zoned at densities less than this standard will be carefully examined and the lower density must be justified. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan sets aside land for residential low-density use, including lands appropriate for larger Jot housing stock at four du/acre and lands inappropriate for urban densities. Lands containing significant sensitive areas or assigned as urban separators are to be zoned at densities below the urban standard. Review of decisions by the CPSGMHB support this approach; the Board consistently upholds the standard that densities less than four du/acre are allowed in order to protect pervasive natural hazards or critical areas large in scope, of high rank order value and complex in structure and function. Cities proposing development areas at densities Jess than the four du/acre urban standard have been found in non-compliance with the Growth Management Act if they have been unable to meet the sensitive areas standard above. Policy LU-135 of the Comprehensive Plan requires the City to review implementation of its low density zoning to ensure consistency with the Residential Low Density objectives and policies. Such a review consists of an evaluation of all lands currently designated at densities below four du/acre for compliance with urban bright-line standard set by the Hearings Board. It also involves an examination of the consistency of allowed uses and development standards of the implementing zoning with the Comprehensive Plan. ISSUE SUMMARY: I. Should areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Residential Low Density (RLD) be redesignated to ensure compliance with the four du/acre urban bright-line? 2. Should any areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Residential Single Family (RSF) be redesignated RLD due to the presence of sensitive areas? H:\Old CED\Comp Plan\zArchive Comp Plan\Amendments 2005 and Earlier\2005\2005 map amendments\Low Density Residential\Low Density Residential Issue PC Workshop (9-05~_ _ EXHIBIT 15 ~ ' . AMENDMENT 2005-M-01-Residential Low Density Revisions 3. Should the zoning ofRLD lands be changed, where appropriate, to either provide additional protection to sensitive areas or to allow for more intense development? 4. Is a Title IV text amendment needed to ensure that the development standards and allowed uses in the zones implementing the RLD designation (RC, R-1, and R-4) are consistent with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan? RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Rezones that Increase Land Capacity- • Recommend that the parcels zoned R-1 along Lake Washington Boulevard be rezoned from R-1 to R-4 due to a lack of significant critical areas (inventory area B; map I). Rezones that Decrease Land Capacity- • Recommend RC zoning and RLD designation for a strip of primarily publicly owned properties near May Creek and Jones Avenue due to the presence of major critical areas (inventory area EI; map 2). • Recommend R-1 zoning, and an RLD land use designation, for two areas near May Creek due to the presence of significant critical areas and to further protect the May Creek basin (inventory areas E2 and E3; map 2). • Recommend that the portion of the Maplewood Addition area in the Potential Annexation Area be redesignated RLD and pre-zoned R-4 to protect major sensitive areas near the Cedar River (inventory area K2; map 3). • Recommend a change in land use designation from RS to RLD for the Maplewood subdivisions, along Highway 169 and the Cedar River, and a rezone from R-8 to R-4, due to the presence of critical areas and the location on the Cedar River (inventory areas K3 and 12; map 3). • Recommend R-1 zoning, and RLD land use designation, for the area of the Panther Creek Wetland, north of Valley Medical Center due to the presence ofa major wetland (inventory area P; map 4). • Recommend that the Potential Annexation Area near the Springbrook watershed be redesignated RLD, and pre-zoned R-4, to protect major sensitive areas near the Springbrook watershed (inventory area V; map 5). Areas that should remained designated RLD and zoned RC (map 6)- • Gene Coulon Park (inventory area A) • Kennydale Blueberry Farm (inventory area C) • Large natural areas along the Cedar River (inventory area Kl and LI) Page 2 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-01-Residential Low Density Revisions • BPA Substation on Puget Drive (inventory area M) • Oaksdale A venue Wetland Bank (inventory area Q) • Springbrook Watershed (inventory area T) These areas should be zoned for Resource Conservation to preserve the valuable natural functions of complex systems and to preserve exisiting areas dedicated to public openspace and agricultural activities. Areas that should remain designated RLD and zoned or pre-zoned R-1 (map 6)- • Natural area at the junction ofl-405 and Highway 900 (inventory area D) • Stonegate plat (inventory area G) • May Valley Urban Separator (inventory area H) • Area near Greene Stream (inventory area J) • Natural area near NW 7th Street (inventory area 0) • Natural area along Highway167 south of Valley Medical Center (inventory area R) • Natural area near Carr Road (inventory area U) These areas should remain zoned R-1 due to the presence of critical areas that make them areas unsuitable for urban densities. Recommend that changes be made to the uses for the R-1 and RC zones to restrict activities of an urban size, scale, and intensity and allow for greater protection of sensitive areas. T bl fR a co d dU Ch ecommen e se ' th R 1 anees ID e -zone Use Current Code Proposed Code Adult Day Care II H Dav Care Centers H25 Convalescent Centers H Medical Institutions H T bl fR a eo d d U Ch ecommen e se h RC RDl!CS ID t e zone Use Current Code Proposed Code Group Homes II for 6 or less p AD Group Homes II for 7 or more p Retirement Residences H Cemeterv H Service and social organizations H Bed and Breakfast, professional AD H Page 3 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-O 1-Residential Low Density Revisions Adult Dav Care II H Dav Care Centers H25 Convalescent Centers H Medical Institutions H Blank= not allowed, P=permitted use, AD= administrative conditional use, H= Hearings Examiner conditional use, #25= A preschool or day care center, when accessory to a public or community facility listed in RMC 4-2-0601, is considered a pennitted use ANALYSIS: In order to comply with Policy LU-135 and ensure that the City conforms to the urban bright-line standard, a full inventory of all lands designated RLD in the Comprehensive Plan is necessary. The test of compliance is whether existing significant environmental constraints justify a residential density of less than four du/acre. Significant environmental constraints occur, as defined in policy LU-135, when: I) Critical areas encumber a significant percentage of the gross area; 2) Developable areas are separated from one another by pervasive critical areas or occur on isolated portions of the site and access limitations exist; 3) The location of the sensitive area results in a non-contiguous development pallern; 4) The area is a designated urban separator; or 5) Application of the Critical Areas Ordinance setbacks/buffers and/or net density definition would create a situation where the allowed density could not be accommodated on the remaining net deve/opable area without modification or variances lo other standards. Significant environmental constraints provide justification for lands with a density below the urban bright-line and the Comprehensive Plan provides additional assistance in determining the implementing zoning in RLD areas. Under objective LU-DD, the purpose of the residential low-density designation is to provide for a range of lifestyles, protect critical areas and promote compatible uses, and to provide a transition area to rural designations in King County. Low-density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan is implemented using three zoning districts: Resource Conservation (RC), Residential One du/acre (R-1) and Residential Four du/acre (R-4). Policy LU-134 stipulates that lands should contain significant environmental constraints in order to justify RC or R-1 zoning. Each area designated RLD has been analyzed using these criteria to determine the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. Additionally, lands designated RSF that meet the criteria for RLD designation have been included in the inventory. The complete inventory is shown on figures I and 2. Inventory ofRLD Lands A. Coulon Park is public open space and is not available for residential development. It also is a location of seismic hazard. B. Property cluster in the vicinity of N 26 1h Street, north of Gene Coulon Park, containing very few sensitive areas. Most of the parcels are already subject to development. This area is suitable for development at an urban density. Page 4 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-01-Residential Low Density Revisions C. Parcel south of NE 20th Street between Jones and Aberdeen Avenues. This property contains a portion of a mapped wetland and has been in use for many years as a working berry farm. As long as the property is used for agriculture, it should remain zoned RC. At such time that the agriculture use is discontinued a rezone of this parcel would be appropriate. D. Strip of properties in the southeast comer of the intersection of Highways 405 and 900. Steep slopes, erosion hazard, and high landslide hazard on these parcels make them appropriate for the current R-1 zoning. E. Property cluster in the vicinity of May Creek, along Jones Avenue NE and extending southeast along Honey Creek to the vicinity of NE 17th Place. This is dominated by multiple sensitive areas: high and moderate landslide hazards, seismic hazards, flood hazards along May Creek, steep slopes, and approximately five acres of mapped wetlands. This portion of May Creek is within the Lower Basin sub area in the May Creek Basin Action Plan (adopted April 2001 ). The Action Plan was developed to control sedimentation and non-point pollution in the May Creek Basin and to protect the recharge of the aquifer supplying drinking water to the City of Renton. May Creek is also a recognized wildlife corridor for salmonids and other species in the Renton Comprehensive Plan. As a result, development should be limited to protect the multiple functions provided in this basin sub area. This includes limiting development on the parcels adjacent to May Creek in the northeastern comer of the cluster with only limited sensitive areas. Additionally, it may be prudent to down zone some of the larger parcels that are currently zoned R-8. The eight parcels zoned R-8 to the north of this cluster along Highway 405 are primarily in public ownership and subject to extensive critical areas. There are also parcels that should be down zoned to provide additional protection near the confluence of Honey Creek and May Creek. F. Group of properties just north of the City limits and South of SE 95th Way. These properties are designated in the Comprehensive Plan as residential low density. There are no major sensitive areas and the existing development is at approximately three du/acre. Development is appropriate at urban densities. G. Area of the Stonegate plat in the northeast corner of the city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. These parcels primarily represent an existing plat developed at a density of two to three dwellings per acre. Rezoning the platted property is a moot issue since the pre- existing development has already determined the housing density. The only critical areas are located on a larger parcel divided by May Creek, which is owned in common by the Stonegate property owners. This area is unlikely to be intensely developed since it is a common space for the plat. Nevertheless, it should remain in R-1 to protection from erosion, sedimentation, and run-off to control flooding and protect wildlife habitat in conjunction with the May Creek Basin Action Plan. H. This area south of May Creek lies just outside city limits and is a designated urban separator that must remain pre-zoned R-1. This is also a portion of the May Creek Valley sub area in the May Creek Basin Action Plan, which has been targeted for protection from erosion, sedimentation, and run-off to control flooding and protect wildlife habitat. I. Parcels in the vicinity of SE 95th Way and NE 24th Street containing very limited critical areas. They should be rezoned R-4 to match the adjacent property. J. This cluster represents the large expanse of properties designated residential low density in the Comprehensive Plan that lie east of the city limits and extend to the urban growth boundary, bounded on the South by the Renton-Maple Valley Highway. Few sensitive Page 5 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-Ol-Residential Low Density Revisions areas appear on planning maps for this area, much of which is characterized by existing suburban style housing developments. This area is appropriately pre-zoned R-4. cH owever,-there·is-a-smal I-cl uster.of.properties-i n-the-northeas,portion·ofthi s-area-( east.of CStonegate.ancJ·in-the·viciniffof.Greene-Stream,which-have.been_prezoned_R~l .. Jhis.are11::J Cwas·exte_nsively_studied-dur-ing-the-prezoning-:P-ro·cess·and·due·to·stormwater·concems·near7 (Qreene.Sffeam,.tnis.area_slioul(Lremain.prezoned.R-11 K. Property cluster lying south of the Cedar River. Most of the property in this cluster is in public ownership for use for utilities, open space, aquifer protection, a wildlife corridor, and future park development. There is a small cluster of residential development, the fully developed Maplewood Estates Plat, which is zoned R-8. Multiple sensitive areas characterize this land: aquifer protection zone, coal mine hazards, seismic hazards, erosion hazards, steep slopes, and moderate and very high landslide hazards. The properties already designated RLD should remain RC as currently zoned. The area along the Cedar River is part of a complex natural system and should be preserved. The Maplewood Estates area should be redesignated RLD and down zoned to R-4 (which is consistent with the existing density) to prevent additional development in that area. L. Property cluster along the Cedar River and north of the Renton-Maple Valley Highway. Similar to the property above, the parcels on the other side of the Cedar River are also subject to multiple sensitive areas: steep slopes, erosion hazards, moderate and very high landslide hazards, seismic hazards, mapped wetland areas, and flood hazards. The area along the Cedar River is part of a complex natural system and should be preserved. The land is primarily set aside for open space on both the publicly owned lands and the privately owned lands (which consist primarily of commonly held tracts owned by the homeowners of adjacent subdivisions). There is also an area of residential development, the fully developed Maplewood Addition plat, which is designate RSF. For the best protection of the critical areas and use of the Cedar River area as a wildlife corridor and for aquifer recharge, the properties designated RLD should remain RC as currently zoned. The Maplewood Addition area should be redesignated RLD and rezoned and prezoned R- 4 to prevent additional development in that area upon annexation. Existing development in Maplewood Addition is consistent with the R-4 density standard. M. Triangular shaped parcel in the vicinity of the intersection of Puget Drive SE, Edmonds Way SE and Royal Hills Drive SE. This is the location of the BPA substation. The undeveloped portion of the parcel contains a daylighted portion of Ginger Creek, a type 3 stream, and is part of a larger wildlife corridor. This parcel should remain zoned RC. N. Areas designated RLD in the Comprehensive Plan in the area of the Cedar River Valley floor outside city limits south of the Renton-Maple Valley Highway and north of the Fairwood area. Much of this area is subject to erosion hazards, landslide hazards, and steep slopes making it unsuitable for development at urban densities of four du/acre. Additionally, development of the hazard-free portions of this land has already occurred at net densities much greater than the City of Renton would have allowed had the properties been annexed prior to development. The areas characterized by hazards should be pre- zoned R-1 and the rest of the area pre-zoned R-4. 0. Parcel south of NW 7th Street containing high landslide hazard, erosion hazard, and steep slopes. It should remain zoned R-1. P. Property along 167 and running from the 405 interchange south to Valley Medical Center. Similar to the area above, this area shows seismic hazard and an extensive mapped wetland, the Panther Creek Wetland, in the R-1 area, as well as the adjacent R-8 area to Page 6 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-01-Residential Low Density Revisions the south. There are potentially more than 80 acres of wetlands here that should be protected with low-density zoning. All of the parcels zoned R-1 and all of the parcels zoned R-8 that do not contain improvements are owned by the City of Renton. These parcels should all be zoned R-1. The parcels containing improvements are mainly on the edge of the sensitive area and should be zoned R-1 on the eastern portion of each parcel, in conjunction with the mapped wetland boundary. In 1998, the City had the Panther Creek Wetland surveyed, and the line should be drawn at the wetland floodway easement boundary for the Tatro and Schultek properties. The remaining unencumbered area of these parcels should remain zoned R-8. Q. City owned property cluster in the vicinity of Oakesdale Avenue SW. These city-owned properties are part of a wetland mitigation bank created by the City of Renton. Every parcel is between 50%-100% covered in mapped wetlands. The current RC zoning protects this area adequately. R. Property along 167 and south of the S 43rd Street exit. Examination of this area shows seismic hazard and over 20 acres of mapped wetlands in the R-1 zone and a portion of the adjacent RM-I and R-14 zones. The potential size of the wetland in this area indicates the area should be protected with low-density zoning. The adjacent parcels in the RM-F and R-14 zones have achieved their maximum development potential and do not need to be rezoned to protect the wetland. S. Properties just outside city limits to the South in the Springbrook area that are designated for low-density development in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to land that should be set aside for drinking water protection a major portion of this area is a designated urban separator and should be pre-zoned R-1 accordingly. The Cleveland property is also planned for future park development. T. Properties owned by the City in the most southern portion of the city limits. This property is part of the Springbrook watershed and is subject to steep slopes, erosion hazards, and high and moderate landslide hazards. It should remain zoned for low-density development. U. Property cluster in the vicinity of SE 179111 Street and Carr Road. This area is . characterized by moderate and high landslide hazards, erosion hazards, and steep slopes and should remain zoned R-1. V. Area south and west of City Limits near the Springbrook area. The platted property in this area has been developed at approximately four du/acre and many of the non-platted properties show erosion hazards and steep slopes. Given the proximity to the Springbrook watershed reserve and the existing development pattern, this area should be redesignated RLD and prezoned R-4. Development Standards and Use Review The RLD designation is implemented through the development regulations for the RC, R-1 and R-4 zones. The Comprehensive Plan makes a distinction between R-4 zoning and lower density zoning in the policies under objective LU-DD. R-4 zoning should provide for urban, estate-style and higher income housing on lands without critical areas. Lower density zoning in the RC and R-1 zones should be implemented in areas with a prevalence of significant environmental constraints. There are no policy criteria for distinguishing between the lowest density zones. Page 7 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-01-Residential Low Density Revisions The differences in the development standards for the zones are in line with the purposes and policies that direct each zone. Under the standards in Ordinance 5100 and RMC 4-2-11 OA, the R-4 zone provides for higher income, estate-style development through landscaping standards for new plats, residential density at the four du/acre standard, options for both larger lots and small lot clusters, and setback and yard standards that are larger than higher density single-family area~ and smaller than the lower density zones. Development in the RC zone promotes and protects critical areas and agricultural uses through large lot size, very low maximum density, large setbacks, large yard sizes, the absence of landscaping standards, and provisions for agricultural uses. R-1 standards provide an intermediary development standard with urban-style yard and setback standards, like the R-4 zone, but much larger lot sizes and lower densities to provide protection for critical areas and create open space. The development standards appropriately account for the differences between the zones and do not require amendment. Although the development standards are appropriately distinct for each zone, the uses for the zones may require some revision. A typical range of uses for low-density urban development is allowed in the R-4 zone: residential, hobby and accessory uses, schools, utilities, limited services and community facilities and no commercial and industrial uses. The R-1 zone allows a similar range of uses, broadening the mix to include more opportunities for recreation, animal uses, and agriculture. This is appropriate since the purpose of the R-1 zone is broader and the lower density allows for greater protection of sensitive areas. However, a few uses that include activities of an urban size, scale, or intensity are better served in a more urban zone and should not be allowed in the R-1 zone. Evaluation of the allowed uses in the RC zone reveals that the intensity of a number of allowed uses may not be compatible with the zone's purpose. Larger, more intense uses should be extremely limited or prohibited as they might affect the quality and functions of adjacent critical areas due to potential increases in traffic, impervious surfaces, light, noise, and other issues. Lower intensity uses closely related to the purpose of the zone should be permitted outright with related uses deemed accessory. Mid-range uses, in terms of size, scale and intensity should be allowed, subject to the review and oversight afforded by either an administrative conditional use permit or a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. Allowing less intense uses provides a variety of options for property owners and limiting more intense uses provides a better opportunity to protect and enhance critical areas. Few, if any, private property owners would be adversely affected by tightening use regulations in the RC zone to more closely match the purpose and intent of the zone. More than 75% of the parcels zoned RC are publicly held and approximately one third of those parcels in private ownership are open spaces held in common as part of an existing plat. The few changes proposed for the R-1 zone only serve to limit uses ofan urban scale and intensity. Tightening the regulations in these zones truly sets aside land for resource conservation and for the protection and promotion of valuable resources that affect the quality of life for the City's citizens and businesses. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: The proposed amendment must meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020G (at least one): Page 8 of9 AMENDMENT 2005-M-OJ-Residential Low Density Revisions 1. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, or 2. The request supports the adopted Business Plan goals established by the City Council, or 3. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies, or 4. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of the City Council. These citywide redesignations meet all of the review criteria for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The recommended changes comply with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ZONING CONCURRENCY: The proposed prezones, rezones, and text amendments are concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION CRITERIA FOR CHANGE OF ZONE CLASSIFICATION The proposed rezone must meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-1 SOF: a. The proposed amendment must meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020G; and b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and c. At least one oft he following circumstances applies i. The subject reclassification was not specifically considered at the lime of the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development, or other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant and material change. The proposed prezones and rezones meet the review criteria for rezone. CONCLUSION: The recommendation is to adopt the redesignations and rezones as proposed. Page 9 of9 r ' • I Inventory of Residential Low Density Properties Figure 1: Overview Map e Eco nomic Develop ment , Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning Alex Pietsc h, Administrator G. Del Rosario 28 Morch 2005 0 4000 8000 I : 48 00 0