The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-94-133' .. (I-• KIng County Office of Budget and Strategic Planning KIng County Courthouse . 516'rhln:l Avenue, Room 420 Seattle, WA 98104 (200)290.3434 November 18, 1997 Ben Werner, Chair King County Boundary' Review Board ',810 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 , Dear Mr. Werner: , ' , , King County's interdepartmental governance transition team has reviewed the Briarwood Incorporation Analysis prepared by Phillip K. Kushlan and Associates. The following comments are provided for use by the Boundary Review Board and the Briarwood community in their consideration of this proposed .city. The study is a thorough consideration o( the proposed city.. It is well organized and user~ friendly, with very informative projections of estimated revenue and expenditures for the first years of operation for the new city. The study presents reasonable assumptions to provide voters in' the proposed city of Briarwood a realistic representation of what city status would likely involve. The growth rates and inflation factors used in the study are conservative and well justified. The core assumption of the study is that ,the new city will provide the same levels of service at the , same cost as the County. In previous incorporation studies, this core assumption has been a sound basis to determine fiscal feasibility. In the case of Briarwood"the same level of service •• , same cost approach has not been fully adequate tO,determine fiscal feasibility of the new city. Plainly speaking, the levels of service provided by King County are quite low for Briarwo,od, and the cost of a new city providing the same level of service would also be very low. Therefore, as the consultant points out in the "ledger approach," the proposed city should ,have suffjcient revenue to meet day to day expenses only if the current very low level of public services is maintained. ' The study shows that the proposed city will not be able to provide the higher levels of service that have been expected in every recent incorporation in King County. The public service , analysis points out that there is no meaningful.way for the proposed city. to enhance public· services such as police protection, parks, and recreation, human servic,es and capital investments .. Significantly, the study also points out that the proposed city would have virtually no capacity for increased revenues, such as business and occupation taxes or other taxes and fees. ' ~- Ben Werner November 18, 1997 Page 2 For example, the study anticipates one police officer 8 hours a day and the equivalent of a police chief one day a week. To increase the level of police service so that Briarwood would have a dedicated chief and one officer on duty 24 hours a day would cost an additional $426,000. The study points out the Capital fund is about 1.2 million dol1~s underfunded and only $50,000 wil1 have been transferred to the reserve fund through the year 2002. Without the ability to increase revenue, defer, capital spending or draw from reserves, there is no feasible way. to pay for increased police service for this community. , The existing low density land use pattern and lack of basiC urban services, such as sewers, make it very unlikely that a community-scale activity center or ~'downtown" could be created in the foreseeable future. This means the proposed city will be unable to generate the revenue that an urban commercial center would provide. Additional1y, the proposed city would not be able to accommodate' the land uses required for al1 cities under the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies. There will be' no ability to provide new affordable housing or a variety of housing opti,ons until sewers are available. One final issue is the proposed city's dependence on sales tax equalization revenue;which is basically a grant from the State of Washington for cities that do not have sufficient 10cal1y generated sales tax revenue. Sales tax equalization for Briarwood is the largest revenue source for the city, about $750,000 per year. Actual sales tax revenue will only be about $10,000 per year. ~ . . hi summary, there are major issues raised by this proposed incorporation and documented by the feasibility analysis: • The proposed city will,not be able to increase existing levels of service in a meaningful way; • The proposed city will not be able to generate significant additional revenue; • The lack of sewer service precludes virtually all urban land uses, such as new affordable hOl)'sing and employment; • Briarwood is overly dependent on sales tax equalization, which is not a, guaranteed revenue source. In light of these serious issues, I would like to appeal to the community to please consider your governance options. Although a previous attempt by Renton to annex a portion of Briarwood was rejected, perhaps a single annexation of the entire community 'would maintain community , identity and provide the best opportunity to gradl,lal1y provide both higher levels of service and future land uses that are appropriate for an urban area. King County stands ready to work with citizens of Briarwood and the City of Rentonto pursue this option. L. Ben Werner November 18, 1997 Page 3 If you have questions on this material, please contact Paul Reitenbach of my staff at 205-0701. My staff and I look forward to continuing work with the Board and its consultants to provide· comprehensive information to the citizens of King County. Sincerely, Pat Steel Director cc: Steve Nolen, Deputy Director, OBSP Carol. Gagmit, GovernanceTransition Manager , ~'. .~ ... ....... ." ····~i· , ," ."t;;:~, . -Ll . ... , .. ,', :.: : . Mayor' . Jesse Tanner . ' " -. ;.' '. ":' ,N civember 7, 1997', 'Ben Werner, Chair '. . ....... . ..... Boa~d Meinbers' .. . . ... Bouridary Review Board' for King County Central Building, Suite 608' . . '; ... 810 ThitdAvenue " ." . , .- · Seattle;WA'gi!104-1693 .,':: . ,.-.. . . ... ',I , -:.'. '" .,:., '.', ." . .. ;-..... ". FILE NO. 1957 -PROPOSED CITY OF BRIARWOOD ". 'INCORPORATION . ..... · "" .... :." ... ' . . Dear Members of the Board:' . ,'-' . : ~,: ",". '.,.. ".--. . .. ,.", .. • ·The Ci~of Reniori takesno'position~ri meiits of the incorporation of the proposed City.of '., Briai'Wood. Th~" Cityencburagesthe . residents of the' East Reriton . Plateau. to' make 'Ii '. . circiimspect'and reasoned decis,ion c:m the futui:e ()f their ·community: •• Ho\Vever, the City. Of' . . ::; · .' Renton has concerns'regar<!ingthe bou!1~ary as propos~~. ,-' . . . ..,..... . . ., : .". " .: :.: .<::.: :;' :: .:: :';.,':' .. : .... :.:. ·~.>i·· ~ :': ~'. "':-":'>:'." .,,:,::.: ,:,7.,. >~;'r..p·;::'~:"·~I~,· :,~~:s):~r:<~::·-:·" .:~~i;'::;~~ . '. '" .. " .. :~ " . .;.: ...... : ,,~::, . ~:' .. ~ .:~ .... The eastern.boundar)'::·bfthe·;City:'bfRerifon ':has chaniied .. manYtimes over· the years.;" .• ' ':Respondirig to Ibc~l needs foriirban'serl;icesJilnnexatiOll's have iricreme~tally modified the city:' . '" ..•.. , ... .. .... '" ....'ii!?itsioprociuce.th~ b~~ii1"irY ·iI1i(e~isfi;J~~Y.~ Jien~rliily';::~~e~~tLo~S ,have)~eriex.Pect~d 10 ....... ." :' .. . ,,:'~:~~~iO~~~~~6~~~'~x~~@~~;;~~~:~~n~~,~~UJKi~~u~~:J~rv~l:~~~~:;:·no=~::~i:'im'.:: . . .•. : ....•. '. " . . . >,;app~bval :o.ftheBlln\st~ad . Ann~xalion'ipr~p,6~a):~FiIe ,:.No. ··1922), ':"I,t is . the finding of' die" .:'.' .... <'. ;.' '.' ,'BQuridarY' lleviewBoar4' tIi~L~It~iiug~Wi~rn~~.Sityi·])illindary Iin~s ci~ated by the annexation '.< .,. . ....•.. '·.i., are. irregula( in corifigiIr~tioii:th~y'ai~ lIOt :ti~~ess~~i,ly ·~abll0n.?ally iri~gular"whenvielVed as ' .. ' .. ... . ". ';onestejJ 'iri 'the 'p;oceif a/aChieving ':'ultimate"boundary ilii)es. ":(emphasis 'added) ··.The:·.·· '. . . . . .• . .. . " • '~,' ,", 't: '.-.,<;;, "",'i. ..., --, ,."" , " '. ' . . ". ' . '. iricorp()ration proposalhasnow)precipitated the need to. ,determine.~'.ultimate boundary lines ." . '. :withiri~e ~ont~xt~fa'n~W'7i~D(//~:\:,:>/ .. ,:: .. ,,~ .. :~:'/::~:,,/'" .... ,.;.' .,., .. " : . .'. · The decisions of the Board will f!lrever fix 'Renton's shared boundary with Briarwood, should • . the iricorPoration' succeed., Astlie.:boundarY·currentIY stands; this 'would bimefitileithercity,. ..... .' ." .' .··nor >theirresidents./:Thererore,"pur~iiaritAo·, the.i3daid 's . stanitoryauthority 'lo :niodify Ii ;': ...•. '.prc:iposed incorPoration 1Jy ten -percentofiis 'iand area; the' CitY of Renion respecifi!lIyrequests .' •... ' . .'.' ','. .. that the' Board consider'ce:rta,in "modificatioilsto'the'proposed boundary;· ; According to 'the: . Analysis o(F~asib!lity ,ili.e ar.ea of the' iri~o~bratioIi as origirially propos.ed is 2,740 lIcres .. ' ..... , ...•..... ". ~~:~r~~~ ~r~~~~~d f~r r~mo;al from '~:;~o;o~~dinc~rpo;ati~n b~~nda~iesa~e identi~ed b;' . . ":, . number on the enclosed map. ' .. ' '.. '.' ...'., . . . . . . . ,. . . .. ' " \'; ,," ,:.' .... ' ... ' " '. -, '" • .:":.,' -. • , ': .. ..,.. • • " ' ••.••. "::~'. _. "',.. '; • ,," .• ,.:. , .'. '. ..". • .", . ,1 " . Area .#1 . includes' two ,peniri~ulas of: currently 'unincorporated .land ' that . extend .into Reriton "' . . togeiher .withthe .more: urbanized at~aalongR.entori 's periphery. ,Theeastem bOUildin.y of this. . . . 'a~ea follows' SE144th Avemje ifexteiided north o{SE J28thStteet. . Although this boundary:<' . • ·~ .• "does not coiriCidewith'roadsor other'physical features; it foilows eXistlrig schooldistric(aiid; '.," ..•. , .. ~>fire districi'service' area.bouiidaries:· These special serviCe' di~iri~i :.boundari6s·. need, not.;" . . ' : .... '.' ..... coincidewitll other juri~diciioiialbouridaries::However;:the'.shaicid. boundary 'may provide'.. ..•. . . ' ":'some :adrriinistrative'ben~fh '~iid 'sdv~sto emphasize'commuiiiW ideriiity :,,: A'bci~iidaryat this'·· .•• :<' ........ '. . .: '<~·.Aocatioil'would als'o .mairitifriihen~ighb6rh6od orleniiitiort'6f propetties oii'~itIiersideo(142nd:(("~i;';:, :; ... ',:.'200 Mill Avenile Souih~ Renton,Washillgton980~5-(206j235~25.80 / FAX(206)235~2532 ... '..... .. . : : .> -,: : .. ~ .. ;", -,'. ".: ".: . ':,' ,-.';. :' :..~:~ ':"1'; n.;~;':"nt';;"~ ~~ ;":':~,~~ ·~ ... .:.~I~,' ... ..;0/ ~_.~. :~_.:,',,:,~: . '.' ".' '~ . ., ',::: . ':': ~ ,._~., , ... ' ,'-: " . : : .. ' .',.".:: ..•. :.:-'.,: '.' "' .. .. :,. . , , .. ', " /. :',,' .. '.," .. '." .,", . .-. -'. . ;., .;.'., ":. ,:', .... ",. . . -: ." .. ;., : ,: . ".-~.' ... ,: . ':'. " :. ':: : ,.' .. .' '.' "' .. : . " · . Avenue SE. ·.Using reai: yards as the dividing 'line would create a more. rational addressing •.. patterntha!1 a division along 142nd Avenue ~E., ,. ., .. Re~oval ~f Area #1 from the proposed i~corponition w~uld furth~r ihe Board's Objectives of preserving .natural neighborhoods and communities; prevention ofiri:egular and impractical boundaries, and creation of logical service areas; Further, it would create a more rational and lineal' boundary between the two cities. ,The 'to!alland area of Area #1 includes 20S,2 acres 'and represents 7.S .% of the total area. . . The CitY' of.Rent~n alSo proposes that A~ea#2 be removed from the incorporation boundaries .• The .boundary iscurrentIy .. inconsistent with the Board's Objectives' of creating physical .. boundaries, there are, none ,.as proposed, 'andpreservil!g logical service areas .. The area is , '. ,within Renton's water servkearea. Additionally, the most immediate, 'access from tJie arterial · .is through Renton along Duvall Avenue NE (l38th Avenue SE) .•. ' Certain lots are accessible ' only through the City. The Board's Objectives would be furthered by removirig Area #2 from the proposed incorporation. • Area #2 encompasses 66 acres or 2.4 % of the total area. . .. '.' '''., : :" · The Cityi of Rent~n'~cknOWled!ies that 'nimoval of Area #1 and' Area #2' will result in the , •. creation :of ishirids 'of unincorporated lands between .the two cities .PrlorBoard decisions, e:g.,' , the 'incorporaiiori of the City of Newcastl~.~have',set,!!precedent for' !hili.' ,:,If the 'Board grants' Reriton'srequestsand the incorpora~~isl@pproved brthe voters,the City of Renton:will work with King County and .slhf" Gitt!>. of l?jj~rwood w?e~u~;, that residents and property ~wners o! thes~,un~ncorpo:ated islIPds r~c~,i~e'~n 'approp~~leVe! of ~ervices.·:,:, ' . :' " ,.' .'. ' .' " .,' · . ..', ',' 1?7\"Y6 '. .D& 1f\\ "'.': ' Are~ '#3 :is. of seconda~y,~nt~;~s_t)~$l'th.e. Ci~'?f ~.~?n. IIi·:tl}e ~v~ntthat the Board rejects "." portIOns of: the precedmg boundary l!,dJus!lP:~ropp~als, \he : Clty~,requests that the Board " consider removing Area:i#3 froirl the".inco~~ation.bOilhdari~s. Although this area is within .,'" • 'the Waterpisttict 90 s~1vic~ar9a, i1Q~~~§.t~~~~Reni?n;th~log~f.alprovi~erof sllJiit~ry, , " ; '.' , ,·sewer'servlce,,' Removal of the area .. would leaYI?_the Bnarwood:proposaIWlth. a physIcal , ,," " <. boundaryai NE Sunset Blvd. Th~.re(~~Jt4~BoaiQ;O!:>jectivts. of iisingof physical b'oundaries , " '. , ' " . an~ . creating; logical , ser~~;:ec~~d'a~\W"ouid ;b~' furth~'fl1dby~tW:~;i!lJllJndnient ,to the proposed , 'Bnarwood boundary, Area\#3 mcludes 71.1 acres or 2.6% .ofthe total area.' ". ".,'.,' '.' '. ,',' , ' ",' '!-'-& -f'-""....;.,;' "\.,;. ... /'''''''1/ '" . ' '. '. , .,"'.' ' Th~i~~orp~rati6ri!prOP()n~~s'~i~e~r?~~~(:t~~.a~diilgP~Iarea~ toj~cl~de , inth~':' , , in~orporation ~pllnda~ies.,These' ar~en.tifie'\ion tlfe,~n~osea. m,a~~sAreas#4 and #S:The, ',',., ' CIty takes no Issue wlthAre~ #4 along SE~l~~fu;§treetfSo long as Jt IS not counted toward the ' ten, percent maximum area' that may be adjusted by the Boa~d.However; the City ,of Rimtori " , , strongly, encourages the Board to deny the inclusion of Area #S .. The areaischaracierizedbY· '. serisitiveareas; including floodplain" and )s\vithin Rentou'saquifer recharge area. '. • Jtwas . · . added'to . the ,Urban 'Area folloiving'negotlationsbetween King County; Renton. and the · 'residents' of the' 'area. King County argued that the 'area should remain rural. due to the', " . important resource iands and the' value of the area as It commuriity:sepanitor/opim space, · buffer." Renton wanted the areato be designaied Urbari to include'the site for the newElliol ',. . ... '. Bridge ~ithin the Vrban Gro~th Boundaryand'to protect iheriver'and Reriton'saquifer':'As a' . '. ' · . result Of these negotiations,' Renton 'designated' the area Residentlal Rural:, This is the City's.' ,. lowest )ritensity ,Comprehensive Plan land use des'ignation; allowing impleplenting zoning at , . . I . '. . '.. ' ; .'. one unit per ten acres.'· : " .~.;,"" ...".:-. ". . ' ,." :,' ':. "-:J; .. :.':~.,;.:. J:' :~.: .... :/ ::'-':::-::(:/.: :"~ ,\::'::. "" . .>.;;' "~.; ;'': .. : .. < >~. :.,': ':.: . : .. :.~ .. " .. "' " "". :::~>" ." .;.: :", :..:. . ::. ," " ..... : .... :.:'.': .'~'",: .... -" ..... ' .', . ,', ·.·!he"qty?LR~nton}.equ~sts that;the ,Bo~rd.~enYtl1e iriclusion,ofAi'e,a #S inthepr~posed , .. .',.' •. '. ' ..... ',' .. " mC(jrporatJon'on .threegrounds,·, first"the .9ty .of Renton has,agreed to' regulate ,the ·landat a." .• ..• :. ' • • ,;::\": ;; Jq?i,'iriiensitY,,<ir'Iarid 4s,e, co.nsisterit W,iihKing:Cpu'riti.'s' direc!iori:','S~~6iJd,depeiuieri~e,9n' iIie;;::,(/i, ", . ,:t;'>~':,:/:,\i~!.;';I.C~'Y ",: ;~'f;,'.·.:':,.::": ':('~" .. ' ,:"::,?,:'L·/:.::' .".: )), ,,;:~-~,,',;~,:.X;';\;::··:!':S<·: '.;".::":>'::;.: ,"::>.:::~ ': •. " '...(/>';;' ..•. '~/.~,;.;. >:,:X.·',~.':<,~0:6:./~ ~.", ~ , "," \", . : ;,'. .,: ,,' "';<0,,' c:;/.:,> ,'>'::~. ,:,' " '.' ' "', > ... :-,":" ;' ''::; ,. '. ;:-... .'-.:.: ".':;:' .,.:"~:>!~,.:.:.~:;>, ., ..... ~.:.:,.:.: .. : .. >.::::p.".. ." ...... '. 1..;, .• ;:/-" ; t},:'..:~· ,':' .. '. :'.' '. ',' · -.'. . :>'. . ' . :. ' ... ;.:.," ,--' . , . . ... ,'" ' ' .. ,' .. : ...... , ., '. , .... .... .. ','.' " ... . I.' ,', . . , ... .'. " '.' . "~ ',,: . '.:/ . ;. '. :,' "',.' '.,'. : .. , , ' .' . .' . .... -.;:, ',.' "'< · aquifer makes Renion, the logical steward ,of thisrecharg~ area .. Third, the Analysis of, . Feasibility clearly states tliat this area would incur net costs on the new City, which they may not be able to afford, and which would make 'stewardship of this area more difficult. These' issues support maintaining Area #5 in Renton's Potential Annexl\tion Area. ·.The City of Renton appreciates the Board's consideration of Reriton's issues: I believe that these requests are both reasonable and consistent with the Board's Objectives. As a final point of discussion, the Board's Feasibility Analysis ofthe incorponltion indiCates that the new city could not afford' its citizens the same level 'of services nor capital investment that Renton is able to' provide. 'Provision of municipal services is among the' factors that the. Board must weigh in arriving at .its decision, and the Board's' ultimate' responsibility is to the residents and · property owners of the. affected areas. I urge the Board to, take this into consideration, . together with the Board's other criteria; in deciding whether and to what degree to modify: the ' proposed boundaries;" Thank you for your consideration. . .'. " . ,,:, '. . . . ' , ,,'. .', "" , . ,". . ;'.' ~, . " '.: .. ;: ' . } .... : :, ' .... ,. ' .. · ,~ ; ;', "' .... " . ':.': ~.'.:. " . " .. " " . ... ';.' -.. ;. :' , . : ; .. ' " .. '. '. . " . ;. ' ... " .. . ' . : :.L . " . "." '.". ':' . . :' ,,:' :.:: ~: .. .: " . , .' .'~ ' .. ...... ; ..•. , ' ". '::'-" " " :-. ' .. ........ ',1: " .... .' '.' r": . . ,.', ' .. " ' . , '.,'. . ',~ . :.' " , ' , '! .' ...... '.', . ." ',.' .: : .. '. '. . ! .: . : :.; . . : ... : :,:,:" .,' .'. .-.:,.,-:.. .. ,.j . , .. ,,,.:' .,.' ,,~ . : :.' '-,' , ;'" "; " ",:' , .... .... ':', . , ..... ' . . . ' ,. 1 '," .. . . .,:: " ..•. .' '. '. .~ ' ... .... ,:.: ,', ".:', .". ," '; .. ,. Briarwood Incorporation Renton Proposed Boundary Amendments e Plannb< and T"hni,",S....,"" + tm + Planning/Building/Public Works . ~ O. Denmson, T. Schlepp, R. MacOme. 6 November 1997 . o 1,700 3,400 Ii! I~~~! 1:20,400 ----- _.-._.- Discussion Areas . Renton City Limits Urban Growth Boundary. • • • • • • • S( 12t1th 51 51 • --r--"f':!!:!!..:!.----o,; ••••••• " ~ .... ;:u; ... -tI. • • S( HOt" 51 S( IUlld 51 S( lHIII ........ -.... -...... ' .... : •. -... -... -.. '-... -... -... -... ~ .• -.~~~~r··:·-"·-"·-"·-".-".-",-",-,,~ Briarwood Incorporation Service Area Boundaries Long Range Planning Planning/Building/Public Works T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie 29 October 1997 '. IiiH:i.!;~Ki~i.i:m@~N DiS c u S sion Are a s W$~ Renton \oIater Service Area'*< -----Renton City liMits - . - . - . -Urban Growth Boundary • •••••••••••• School Attendance Boundary _ .. _ .. _ .. _ .. -Fire Response Areas r per E~st King County Coord~~ted V~ter SysteM Supply PlQJI (V~ter ffistrict 90's self-idenlified bound~ries • are reflected ~ the Analysis of feosibility) . , DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: ISSUE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 30, 1997 Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Council President Members of the City Council Jesse Tanner, Mayor ' '&1:- Gregg Zimmerman, AdministratoI\~~ .\or , Mike Kattenmuln (ext 6190) , , PROPOSED BRIARWOOD BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATION Which adjustments, if any, to the proposed Briarwood incorporation boundary should the City of Renton recommend to the Boundary Review Board (BRB)? RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that areas 2 and 4 through 9 (see attached maps) be excluded from the proposed incorporation boundaries and that areas I and 3 be included. If Council concurs in this recommendation, it will be forwarded to the BRB for their packet and Renton will offer testimony at the November 18, 1997 public hearing being coriducted by the BRB. Staff will be presenting this information to the Committee of the Whole meeting on November 3, '1997, and will be available to answer additional 'questions at that time. ' BACKGROUND: Staff examined the proposed City of Briarwood boundaries in terms of logical service areas, existing facilities, existing service area boundaries, and aquifer protection. A more detailed explanation of the criteria used for review, as well as specific area by area recommendations is provided below. Under RCW 36.93.150, the BRB may amend the boundaries by 10% of the original area .. The BRB informs staff that this provision is interpreted to mean that neither additions nor deletions can exceed 10%, and the calculation does not consider net change. The proponents for the City ofBriarwood have proposed adding two areas (identified as areas I and 2 on the attached map) for an approximately five percent increase. The City of Renton may request that the boundaries of the proposed incorporation be reduced up to ten percent of the original area, however, the request for reduction must be justified based on specific service area and neighborhood boundary issues. Criteria for Amending Boundary October 29, 1997 Page 2 Staff used several criteria to evaluate areas for inclusion/deletion from the proposal. The overall objective was to establish the most reasonable service area for Renton, reflect existing and potential neighborhood boundaries, and protect areas which are vital to Renton's interests. Review criteria include the following topics. : . Annexation Covenants Some properties carry covenants to annex that were obtairied when Renton extended water service outside the city limits. These covenants restrict the property owners form opposing future annexation to the city. Areas with several covenants are prioritized for deletion from the incorporation boundary. Aquifer Protection Portions of the proposed incorporation area are within Renton's aquifer recharge area along Maple Valley Highway. Renton has a strong interest in promoting low intensity land uses and community separator/open space in order to protect the aquifer in this' area. School District Boundaries School district boundaries are particularly important in defining neighborhoods and establishing community identity. Although the portion ofland within the Renton School District is larger than 10% of the incorporation area, an effort was made to prioritize existing and future neighborhood areas along school district boundaries where feasible. Water Service Areas Some portions of the proposed incorporation area are in Renton's water service area and will receive City water service even if incorporation occurs. These areas were given high priority for deletion in an attempt to provide more rational service boundaries. Sewer Service Areas Due to topography and existing sewer availability some P?rtions of the incorporation area will likely receive Renton sewer service despite incorporation. In other areas, the ultimate provider has not yet been determined. However, given the nature of this service (underground, less community contact) sewer service was given a lower priority than water service is ranking areas for deletion. Fire Districts The boundary between District 10 and District 25 occurs in the study area. Since Renton already serves District 25 by contract, an attempt was made to recognize this established service district I boundary. Park Facilities Renton is now planning and building a new park next to the PAA along Maple Valley Highway. This facility will be part of the park/golf course/open system owned and maintained by Renton along this corridor. Priority was given to preserving Renton's interest in this area. Area Specific Recommendations The City of Renton should request that the BRB amend the boundaries of the proposed City of Briarwood by an area of275.1 acres which is approximately 10.04% of the original 2,740 acre proposal. These acreage calculations are in some cases based on the street right of way and in others on the road center line. Clarification of whether the city wants to include roadways within each study area is needed prior to making a recommendation to the BRB. Deletion of roadways will bring the acreage figure below the 10% threshold. The following areas, which are identified by number on the attached' map, were analyzed with recommendations noted for each. H:IDIVlSION.SIP-TSIPLANNINO'S7-I030.DOC October 29, 1997 Page 3 Area 1 Support Inclusion in Briarwood North ofSE 136th and east of 164th Ave SE This area is proposed by the incorporation committee for inclusion in the new city. The area was added to the Urban Growth Area by King County in 1996 as a technical amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary. It was intended to create a more logical service boundary, and include the Briarwood Elementary School. It is recommended that Renton support inclusion of this area in the incorporation boundary provided that it does not count toward the 10% deletion allowance. Area 2 Oppose Inclusion in Briarwood Adjacent to Maple Valley Highway, South ofSE Jones Road and east of 148th SE . The area is characterized by sensitive areas, floodplain and is in Renton's aquifer recharge area. Area 'l..was added to the Urban Area after negotiations between King County, Renton and residents. King l'tounty argued that the area should remain rural due to the important resource lands and the value of the area as a community separator/open space buffer. Renton wanted the area to be urban in order to include Elliott Bridge within the Urban Growth Boundary and agreed to protect the area by designating it Resource Conservation. This land use allows a very low residential density potential. Based on the "Analysis of the Feasibility of the Proposed City ofBriarwood, Washington" report, staff questions whether Briarwood could maintain this bridge in the future, and notes that the inclusion of this area in the ;llcorporation is reported as a fiscal deficit. • Relevant Criteria Protection of sensitive areas/aquifernand use Concern about intensive residential or commercial uses. Renton is committed to development of a park facility adjacent to Area 2. Inside the Renton School District. Area 3 Support Inclusion in Briarwood North of Sunset Blvd., abutting Stonegate This area received a lower priority for deletion despite the fact that Renton is the likely sewer service provider in the area. Staff analyzed the trade offs involved in prioritizing these areas and concluded that this area was too large to include within the 10% limitation. Residents of this area claim existing and increasing surface water problems (Green's Creek). • Relevant Criteria Outside the Renton School District Outside Fire District Boundary Outside the Renton Water Service Area Renton Sewer Service granted without annexation Area 4 Support Deletion from Briarwood East of Hoquiam, North of N. E. 12th, if extended This small area would provide a more rational boundary occurring along a street frontage. East King County Coordinated Water System Supply Plan data is used to determine boundaries in this area. The Briarwood Feasibility Study uses Water District 90's data which does not agree. Consequently a determination of correct data will need to be made before a final recommendation is made. • Relevant Criteria Inside the Renton School District H:IDIVISION.&\P·TS\PLANNINO'IJ7-IOJO.DOC October 29, 1997 Page 4 Inside the Renton Water Service Area Inside Fire District Sewer Service Provider not determined . . . Area 5 Support Deletion from Briarwood 142nd St;· to 144th St. right-of way extending South to NE 128th St. Staff favored drawing the boundary at 144th St., if extended, rather than along 142nd for two reasons. First, they supported the idea of planning for both sides of a street right of way and recommended establishmg the boundary at the back property line rather than the street if possible. Second, there was strong support for including all of the area within the Renton School District. BRB criteria, on the other hand, support using roads as logical boundary areas. • Relevant Criteria Inside the Renton School District Inside Fire District Sewer Service Provider not determined Area 6 Support Deletion from Briarwood City Limits to 142nd St. South to NE 128th St. This area, is characterized by single family development which forms the edge of the Honeydew Neighborhood. Deletion is supported to provide more logical service area boundaries. • Relevant Criteria Inside the Renton School District Inside Fire District Sewer Service Provider not determined Area 7 , Support Deletion from Briarwood This area is differentiated from Area 6 because it is in the Renton Water Service Area and is surrounding by the existing Renton City limits on three sides. Water Service boundaries would also need to be confirmed for this area (See comment in Area 4). • Relevant Criteria Inside the Renton School District Inside Fire District Inside the Renton Water Service Area Sewer Service granted without annexation One covenant to annex Area 8a and 8b Support Deletion from Briarwood 656 feet north ofSE 128th St. between 140th Ave. SE 'and 144th Ave SE (if extended) These areas are shown on the map only for the purpose of discussion of other potential boundary configurations. If the Council favors including Area 3 rather than Area 9, for example, some other acreage would need to be deleted in order to meet the 10% threshold. An argument could be made to include either of these areas in the incorporation boundary. It is possible that the frontage of 128th Street will support some additional commercial development if the City of Briarwood is created. This H:IDIVISION.SIP·TSIPLANNING197·I030.DOC October 29, 1997 Page 5 area is adjacent to the existing small commercial node on 128th, and there has been some developer interest in commercial expansion. If that scenario occurs, there would be less concern about the School District boundary. • Relevant Criteria Inside the Renton School District Inside Fire District Renton Sewer Service Area 9 Support Deletion from Briarwood SE 136th Street (extended) on the west and 140th Ave. SE (extended) on the east This area abuts the City of Renton on the north and east and currently receives water from the City. The area was ranked as a high priority for deletion because it includes six properties with annexation covenants estimated as having less than $500,000 in assessed valuation. It also meets the other criteria for deletion. This area also includes McCann Trucking, a large non-conforrning industrial use. • Relevant Criteria Covenants to Annex Inside the Renton School District Inside the Renton Water Service Area Renton Sewer Service Also attached for your information is a summary of the Feasibility Analysis for the Proposed City of Briarwood. cc: Jay Covington LonyW= Sue Carlson Mike Kattennann Mruilyn Petersen H:\DIYlSION.SIP·TSIPLANNIN0197·1030.DOC. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 28, 1997 Mike Kattermann Owe~ Denni."ii;;e~ . ~~:-- Analysis of the Feasibility of the Proposed City ofBriarwood, WA The following appear to be the salient points from the Feasibility study. Base assumptions • Analysis was predicated on a "same cost/same level of service" as the existing circumstance "Realistically, however, the level of service in the Briarwood area is more rural than urban in character ... But the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, the demands of municipal governance and finance, and the predictable requests from the public for service enhancements make the status quo an improbable option." (page ii) • Analysis assumes no sewers and low development at 24 new single family units/year based on building activity data Revenues • Property taxes would be at the maximum level allowed under State law (i.e., equal to Renton's base levy) • No excess levy was foreseen . • Utility taxes are proposed at 2.2% -this rate is anticipated to recapture County road district levy revenues in excess of what the City will be able to collect "lost" with incorporation • Sales Tax Equalization revenues would constitute about one-third of the' City's budget and would be the single largest source of revenues. These funds are "most likely to decrease over time just as the City's needs to provide services -and the costs associate with those services -increases." (Page 24) • If the development activity is less than projected or even stagnant, through lack of sanitary sewers or other reasons, the City's General Fund would be compromised. Costs • Transportation program would be underfunded by $1,250,000 over the 6 year life of the CIP "Usually a municipality's total cost of needed improvements exceeds the area's ability and/or willingness to pay, but this is a more pronounced circumstance than most." (page 120) October 28, 1997 Page 2 Ledger analysis (comparison ofrevenues to costs) • "From a ledger perspective, then, it appears tbat the Entire Incorporation [incorporation without Bumstead area removed] is financially feasible for day-to-day needs only, but would be unable to fund an adequate capital investment plan." (page 129) • "The Entire Incorporation would, with exceedingly careful financial management, be able to meet operating costs, though it would have difficulty achieving an appropriate cash balance forward to meet expenses in the beginning of each new year until 2003. This would be possible, however, only if the City did not dedicate any General Fund revenues toward establishing a Reserves Fund until 2001 nor transfer revenues to the Capital Investment Fund with the horizon of this study." (page 130) • "Lacking meaningful revenues from grants or other external sources, or without foregoing capital expenses in many areas for several years, the Entire Incorporation's Capital Investment Fund would be inadequate." (Page 131) Public Service Analysis • " ... Briarwood's circumstances are such tbat a ·financial feasibility assessment on its own may be misleading. The facts tbat pertain to Briarwood today suggest it would have significant limitations in the areas of service enhancement, revenue, and growth." (page 133) • "Briarwood's ability to respond would be more limit~ than other newly incorporated cities. As finances look at this point, the City would have virtually no flexibility." (page 134) ''To have a Briarwood contract police department tbat would have a dedicated "police chief' [reactive patrol sergeant] and one officer twenty-four hours a day would add $ 426,048 (1997) to the City's operating expenses. This would wipe out the General Fund transfer to the CIF by an amount roughly equal to the transportation program." (page 135) • "Given these [public service] considerations, we do not project Briarwood to be financially viable in the long term in light of reasonable public service expectations. From a financial standpoint, the community would be viable were Briarwood to provide precisely the same level of service as today. But if the current level of service is satisfactory, the merits of incorporation seem nebulous." (page 136) Potential Territory Additions Since the filing for incorporation, the County has redesignated several areas contiguous to the incorporation boundaries from Rural to Urban. Incorporation proponents have requested tbat the Boundary Review Board modify the incorporation boundaries to include these areas. • Proposed North Addition (vicinity of SE 128th St. and 164th Ave. SE): Net revenues of$19,980 per year make this addition appear "financially acceptable" • Proposed South Addition (vicinity of Elliot Bridge, along SR 169): Net cost of $10,053 • " ... were the communityto,choose to enhance onlytbe'police coverage of the new City and no other service, the surplus revenue from the North addition could be cut in half, and the net surplus of the combined North and South additions could be eliminated, meaning the two additions would result in a net deficit to the City." (page ISO) cc: Rebecca Und H:IDMSION.SIP·TSlPLANNINOIANNEX\BRIARWDIFEASBLTY.OOC Locnl Governmental Organlzatlon-Boundaries-Reyiew Boards 36..93.180 (I) Preservation of natural neignoorhoods and communi- ties; (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies Of water, highways, and land contours; ... (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5)"Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7). Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8)" Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and " (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legisla- tive authority. [1989 c 84 § 6; 1981 c 332 § 10; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § 2; 1967'c 189 § 18.] Severabillty-1981 c 332: See nme following RCW 35.13.165. 36.93.185 Objectives of boundary review board- Water, sewer district annexations, mergers-Territory not adjacent to district. The proposal by a water district or sewer district to annex territory that is not adjacent to the district shall not be deemed to be violative of the objec'tives of a boundary review board solely due to the fact that the territory is not adjacent to the wqter district or sewer district. The proposed consolidation or merger of two or more water districts or two or more sewe"r districts that are not adjacent to each other shall not be deemed 10 be violative of the objectives of a boundary review board solely due to the fact that the districts. are not adjacent. [1989 c 308 § 13.] 36.93.190" Decision of board not to affect existing franchises, permits, codes, ordinances, etc., for ten years. For a period of ten years from the date of the final deCision, no proceeding, approval, nction. or decision on a proposal or an alternative shall be deemed to cancel any franchise or permit theretofore granted by the authorities governing the territory to be annexed, nor shall it be deemed to supersede the application as to any territory to be annexed, of such construction codes' and ordinances (including but not limited to fire, electrical, and plumbing codes and ordinances) as shall have been adopted by the authorities governing the territory to be annexed and in force at the time of the decision., [1967 c·189 § 19.] 36,93.~00 Rules and regulations-Adoption proce- dure, Each review board shall adopt rules governing the .formal and informal procedures prescribed or authorized by this chapter. Such rules may state the qualifications of persons for practice before the board. Such rules shall also include rules of practice before the board, together with forms and instructions. To assist interested persons dealing with it, each board shall so far as deemed practicable supplement its rules with descriptive statements of its procedures. " Prior to the adoption of any rule authorized by law, or . the amendment or repeal thereof, the board shall file notice thereof with the clerk of the court of the county' in which the . (1994 Ed.) board is located. ~"far as practicable, the board shall also publish or otherwise circulate notice of its intended action iu\d afford interested persons opportunity to submit data or views either orally or in writing. Such notice shall include (I) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule- making proceedings, (2) reference to the authority under which the rule is proposed, and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. This paragraph shall not apply to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of inter;,,;1 board organization, procedure or practice. [1967 c 189 § 20.] 36,93,210 Rules and regulations-Filing- Permanent register, Each board shall file forthwith with "the clerk of the court a certified copy of all rules and regulations adopted. The clerk shall keep a permanent register of such rules open to public inspection. [1967 c 189 § 21.] , , 36,93.220 ProvisIons of prior laws superseded by chapter; Whenever a review board has been created pursuani to the terms of this chapter, the provisions of law relating to city annexation r~view boards set forth in chapter 35.13 RCW and the powers granted to the boards of county commissioners to alter boundaries of proposed annexations or incorporations shall not be applicable. [1967 c 189 § 22.] 36,93.230 Power to disband boundary review board. When a county and the cities and towns within the county have adopted a comprehensive plan and consistent development regulations pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.70A RCW, the county may, at the discretion of the county legislative authority, disband the boundary review board in that county. [1991 sp.s. c 32 § 22.] Seclton headings notlaw-1991 sp.s. c 32: See RCW 36.70A.902. 36,~3,800 Application of chapter to merged irriga- tion districts, This chapter does not apply to the merger of irrigation districts authorized 'under RCW 87.03.530(2) ~nd 87.03.845 through 87.03.855. [1993 c 235§ 10.] 36,93,900 "Effective date-1967 c 189. The effective date of this chapter is July I, 1967. [1967 c 189 § 24.] 36,93,910 SeverabUlty-1967 c 189. If any provision of this act, or its application to any person or circumstance" is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. [1967 c 189 § 23.] Chapter 36.94 SEWERAGE, WATER, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Sections 36.94.010 Definitions. 36.94.020 Pu!pOsc-Powers. 36.94.030 Adoption of sewerage and/or wilter general plan as clemenl of comprehensive plan . 36.94.040 Incorporation of provisions of comprehensive phm in gener- al plan . [Tllte 36 RCW-page 227) , . I I : j I ., : . 36.93.160 Title 36 RCW: Counties proposed to be annexed. formed. incorporated. disincorporat- ed. dissolved or colisolidated. or within the boundaries of a special district whose assets and facilities are proposed to be assumed by a city or town. and to the governing body of each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the area and to the proponent of the change. Notice shall also be given by publication in any newspaper of general circula- tion in the area of the proposed boundary change at least three times. the last publication of which shall be not less than five days prior to the date set for the public hearing. Notice shall also be posted in ten public places in the area affected for five 'days when the area is ten acres or more. When the area affected is less than teli acres. five notices shall be 'posted in five public places for five days. Notice as provided in this subsection shall include any territory which the board has determined to consider adding in accordance with RCW 36.93.150(2). (2) A verbatim record shall be made of all testimony presented at the hearing and upon request and payment of the reasonable costS thereof. a copy of the transcript of the testimony shall be provided to any person or governmeptal unit. (3) The chairman upon majority vote of the board or a panel may direct tHe chief clerk of the boundary revi~w board to issue subpoenas to any public officer to testify. and to compel the 'production by him of any records. books. documents, public records or public papers. (4) Within forty days after the conclusion of the final hearing oil the proposal. the board shall file its written decision. setting forth the reasons therefor. with the board of county ~!,mmissioners and the clerk of each governmental unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate whether the proposed change is approved. rejected or modified and. if modified. the terms of the modification. The written decision need not include specific data on every factor required to be considered by the board. but shall indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissent- ing members of the board shall have the right to have their written dissents included as part of the decision. (5) Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a decision of a majority of the members of the board shall constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appeal- able to the whole board. Any other decision shall be appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall be on the record. which shall be furnished by the appellant, but the board may. in its sole discretion. permit the introduc- tion of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date .of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. The filing of the notice of appeal within the time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the. board. . (6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been [Title 36 RCW-page 226J prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions. or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board. or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure. or (d) Affected by other error of law. or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or (f) Clearly erroneous. An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. [1994 c 216 § 16; 1988 c 202 § 40; 1987 c 477 § 8; 1971 c 81 § 97; 1969 ex.s. c III § 9; 1967 e 189 § 16.] Effective date-1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35.02.015, Severabllity-1988 c 202: See nole following RCW 2.24.050. General corporate powers-Towns. rUlrictions as to area: NeW 35.21.010. 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board- Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environ- mental policy act. In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative. the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal. which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning. as adopted under chapter 35.63. 35A.63. or 36.70 RCW; per capita,assessed valuation; topography. natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincor- porated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect' of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects ~f governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on the finances. debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas; on mutual economic and social interests, and on the loeal'governmental structure of the county. The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environ- mental Policy. shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84 § 5; 1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220'§ 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § I; 1967 c 189 § 17.] Severabllily-1981 c 220: See nOle following RCW 36.93.100. Incor~oratiOlI procudings exempt from state em'ironment"/ policy act: RCW 43.2Ic.nO. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: , (1994 Ed.) .. -, · . CONCLUSIONs/REcOMMENDATIONS FROM SECOND MEETING OF THE E. PLATEAU PAA TECHNICAL TASKFoRCE, OCTOBER 14,1997 1. Support the Renton School District 403IIssaquah School District 411 boundary as an important existing jurisdictional boundary.. This also is the boundary for Fire Districts 10 and 25. Coincidentally, this extension of SE 144th Street (if extended) is also the eastern boundary of the President ParkIHoneydew Neighborhood. 2. Areas currently receiving Renton water should be a priority. Okay with three areas. Area south of SE 128th Avenue needs to be included because of existing annexation covenants. 3. The City should oppose the inclusion of the area south of Jones Road because this area is located in a floodplain and an environmentally sensitive area and what happens here effects Renton's Sole Source Aquifer. 4. We should drop the "key" area (Stonegate) because it is across both the school district and fire district boundary and is less defensible. Hard to show why our interests are served here. 5. We should oppose the inclusion of the area south of 128th SE (east of160th SE) if it works against how much area the City of Renton can ask for being deleted. 6. If the BRB allows inclusion of the area south of 128th SE and east of SE 162nd Street, so that we have to delete more area, than, the most likely candidate is area receiving water near 140th Avenue SE (if extended) and SE 136th Street primarily because of Mary Beth Hamlin, a vocal critic of the City. Document21 III J I East Renton Plateau Potential Briarwood Boundary Adjustment ~ Long Range PlannIng + am + Planning/Building/Public Works aft T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie Q 29 October 1997 PotentioJ Deletions AreQ Acres I. of study QreQ 3 71.9 2,6% 4 5,2 ,2% 5 80,2 2,9% 6 70,0 2,6% 7 33.0 1.2% 8Q 10,5 AI. 8b 9,6 AI. 9 66,6 2A% T otQl 347,0 12.71. * 101. Threshold: 274 Qcres • ... ., • III I J • I I • I • I • I • , • ~ Proposed o.dditions to Brio.rwood boundo.ries (BID Proposed deletions to Brio.rwood boundo.ries (CDR) V 7 7 /1 Renton Wo.ter Service Areo. =<=<=<== Renton City liMits ........... Urbo.n Growth Boundo.ry . +s... School Attendo.nce Boundo.ry Potenti0l Deletions AreQ Acres I. of study QreQ 3 71.9 2,6% 4 5,2 ,2% 5 80,2 2,9% 6 70,0 2,6'1. 7 33.0 1.2'1. 8n 10,5 .4'1. 8b 9,6 .4'1. 9 66,6 2.4'1. T otQl 347,0 12.7'1. )I; 101. Threshold: 274 Qcres _._. __ ._., o 1,800 3,600 I I I I 1:21,6 East Renton Plateau Potential Briarwood Boundary Adjustment e Long Range Planning + am + Planning/Building/Public Works iift T. Schlepp, R. MacOnie Q 29 Octoi)er 1997 • I • I • I • I _._._._. ._._._._-., • ~ ..... • I • I • I • I • I • , • Proposed ndditions to Brinrwood boundnries (BIC> Proposed deletions to Brinrwood boundnries (CDR) V 77 /1 Renton IJ n ter Service Aren ===== Renton City liMits _._._.-Urbnn Growth Boundnry s School Attendnnce Boundnry .' PLA~INING DIVISION 'F RE~JT(1~1 OCT 021997 hcCEIVED .,.. ., /!liKE cI?ft~I?If.!~N ./ (, l'.Oil... AI...!!. r; ;:'1.:., .. .,:':; Cr:i~jCE (·:·l.,' OF A;,'cAlS S;:---.. :·',',.',,3: liNG rON-D.'!;i:;:: :"J 1 I ..SEP. ... :.;.:L1~~? ....... i IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON I . KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, a Washington municipal corporation; and NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN, husband and wife, i NoF ) DIVISION ONE ) Respondents, ) v. THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, Appellant, and WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, a state agency; Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PUBLISHED OPINION FILED_-",S...,EPc...-:.:f :-'.lq,-1,"-,CJg"",,_ KENNEDY, A.C.J. --The City of Renton appeals the trial court's order reversing the decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County approving the City's proposed annexation of a portion of the East Ri:!OtClfL plateau ... -.--.-' community. The City contends that the trial court erred: (1) il') 9.ol}~.Iuding tbajJbs __ •••• ---.-••• _ •• -.,-._--•• +-' Boundary Review Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the annexation petition; (2) in concluding that the 30 day service requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act did not apply to this appeal; and (3) in imposing sanctions under CR 11. The City also 39006-6-1/2 challenges the Superior Court's jurisdiction over the respondents' appeal. Finding no , error, we affirm. FACTS In the spring of 1995, certain residents of the East Renton Plateau community petitioned the City of Renton to annex a 400-acre parcel of property pursuant to RCW , ' 35A.14.120 et seq. One of the petitioners was the Renton School District, whose Maplewood Elementary School was located within the proposed annexation ,area. Under ROW 35A.14.120, an annexation petition must contain the signatures of owners of at least 60 percent of the total assessed v.alue of !'III property in the proposed annexation,area. With the School District's signature, the petition met the requirements of RCW 35A.14.120. Without the School District's signature, the petition contained the signatures of owners of only 58.62 percent of the total assessed value of all the property. During a regular meeting in April of 1995, the Renton City Council accepted the annexation petition. On May 3, 1995, without adopting an ordinance formally approving the proposed annexation; the-City Council submitted a notice of intent to annex to the '''''Boundary'ReviewBoard for King'CbuntY'(BRB),-', ." Kin'g County Water District No. 90 and a group of annexation-area property owners (collectively, "respondents") opposed the'annexation. They petitioned the BRB 2 · . 39006-6-1/3 for review under RCW 36.93.100(3), arguing that the City of Renton's notice of intent to annex was not properly before the BRB because the petition in support of the annexation did not contain "sufficient, la'Nful signatures." (Emphasis in original.). In a letter to' the BRB, the respondents explained that they contended that the School District lacked the authority to sign the annexation petition, and without its signature, the petition contained the signatures of owners of only 58 percent of the total assessed value of aIJ the property. The. respondents requested that the BRB thus summarily deny the proposed annexation. The BRB held a public hearing on the proposed annexation on September 21, 1995. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the BRB stated that, having accepted the City's certification of the annexation petition, the BRB would not examine the legal sufficiency of the petition. Counsel noted, however, that the respondents' chaIJenge _"'' ___ --was made part of the record "in the event there's any legal chaIJenge down the line' to determine the legal sufficiency later on of the annexation petition." The BRB then addressed the issue of whether the proposed annexation met the substantive statutory criteria.-FolJowing the close of public testimony, the BRB \/6tedunanimo"uslyi6-'c!-pprove --."--.,,,---·"the-.proposed annexation, and on October 13, 1996,' issued-awritten'de'Cision ,----,----~-.-.. , summarizing its conclusions. The decision was mailed to respondent King County 3 39006-6-1/4 Water District No. 90, but not to respondents Norman and Cynthia Green, tWo property owners who opposed the petition. On October 20, 1995, the respondents appealed the BRB decision approving the annexation. They argued, inter alia, that the BRB erred in approving the annexation because the Renton School District lacked the authority to sign the petition, and without its signature, the petition was legally insufficient. .In response', the City of Renton filed three motions to dismiss, arguing that the cou~ lacked' jurisdiction to Consider the appeal, that the Water District lacked standing, and that the respondents failed to join the School District, an indispensable party. Following briefing and argument, the court rejected each of the motions' to dismiss. The case proceeded to trial on May 20, 1996. At trial, the City argued that the issue of the School District's authority to sign the annexation petition was properly -~-~--+- decided by the City of Renton, and was not subject to review by the BRB., The City asserted that the respondents should have appealed its decision to accept the School District's signature directly, and because they failed to do so, the time for appeal had passed. Addressing the merits;' the City also argued thaUhe School District possessed . . the authority to sign the annexation-petition'because-its'owriership of property included . the right to sign the petition. 4 39006-6-1/5 The court rejected the City's arg~ments. It held that because the City Council neither passed an ordinance nor entered final judgment with respect to the School District's authority. to sign the annexation petition, there, was no action ~requiring initiation of judicial review prior to action by the Boundary Review Board." The time for the respondents' appeal thus ha? not passed. The court further held that because the School District lacked the authority to sign the annexation petition, and because the petition lacked the requisite number of signatures without that of the Schoof District, the BRB lacked jurisdiction to consider the annexation. The court thus reversed the BRB's approval of the annexation. The City of Renton timely appealed the trial court's revl3rsal of the BRB's decision. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review Upon appeal of a superior court decision reviewing action taken by a boundary review board, this court applies the standards contained in the Boundary Review Board Act, RCW 36.93.160, directly to the record before the BRB rather trian-lothe deCision of the·superior court:· King Cy. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd:"122 Wn.2d 648,671-72,860 P.2d 1024 (1993); Snohomish Cy. v. Hinds, 61 Wn. App. 371, 375, 5 39006-6-1/6 ·810 P.2d 84 (1991). RCW 36.93.160(6) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may reverse the decision of the BRB if: any sUbstantial rights may have been prejudiced· because the administrative, findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions, or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or (d) Affected by other error of law, or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire , record as submitted, or (f) Clearly erroneous. An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. , RCW 36.93.160(6). II. Jurisdiction of BRB to Consider Annexation Petition , The City of Renton contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the BRB lacked jurisdiction to consider the annexation petition. It argues that, contrary to the trial court's conclusions, the School District possessed either the direct or implied power to sign the annexation petition, and because the petition met the 60 percent requirement of RCW 3SA.14.120 with the School District's signature, the BRB properly 'approved'the 'annexation.1 I • _", 0 •••• ~-'----:r . . .;----.-. ··1 As a preliminary matter, the City conten<;ls that the trial court never obtained jurisdiction of the issue of the validity of the School District's signature. It argues that the respondents waived their right to appeal by failing to challenge directly the School District's authority to sign the petition and the, City's acceptance of the District's signature. We reject the City's argument. First, the City cites no authority for its proposition that the respondents' remedy "must be by extraordinary writ or declaratory 6 "" .......... '.'.' .. -... ' .... '" -.. ', ..... . ".~. -.. ,' -_ .... '-.... ---.... " ... _.---_.--._- .. · . 39006-6-1/7 School Districts.are creatures of statute. Noe v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. 15.83 Wn.2d 97,103,515 P.2d97! (1973) (citing Seattle High Sch. Chapter 200 v. Sharples, 159 Wash. 424, 293 P. 994, 72 A.L.R. 1215 (1930)). As such, they can exercise only, those powers that "the legislature has granted in express words, or those necessary or fairly implied in, or incident to, powers expressly granted or those esser:Jtial to the declared objects and purposes of such district." Noe, 83 Wn.2d at 103 (citing Seattle High Sch., 159Wash. at 428). RCW 28A.335.11 0 governs the annexation of school property. It provides: In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law, every board of directors, if seeking to hav~ school property annexed to a city or town and if such sqhool property constitutes the whole of such property in. the annexation petition, shall be allowed to petition therefor under RCW 35.13.125 and 35. 13. 130. RCW 28A.335.11 0 (emphasis added). Although the City of Renton asserts that RCW 28A.335.110 does not place limitations on a school district's authority to petition for annexation of school property,' we conclude otherwise. The plain language of the statute conditions a school district's authority to petition for annexation on the presence 'judgmenl:"-'-Second, as the 'trial court found, the City Council neither passed an ordinance nor entered final judgment with respect to the School District's authority to sign the annexation petition. There was thus no formal ruling that the respondents could have appealed. Finally, RCW 36.93.160(6)(b) expressly provides that one of the issues to be resolved on appeal of a BRB's decision is whether the BRB exceeded its jurisdiction. Because the validity of the School District's signature was direc:tly relevant to the BRB's jurisdiction to approve the annexation. the issue was properly raised before the trial court. 7 39006-6-1/8 of one primary factor: the school property must constitute the whole of the property to be annexe:d. It is undisputed thatthis factor is not' present in this case. Focusing on the introductory language of RCW 28A.335.110, the City nonetheless asserts that "[b]y its language this statute grants extra powers." The City appears to argue that in addition io the method of annexation set forth in RCW 28A.335.110, school districts possess, as an attribute of their ability to own land, a general power to petition for annexation. The City's argument is without. merit. First, . I although the City relies on Parosa v. City of Tacoma,2 and Johnson v. City of Spokane,3 neither case supports its argument. In Parosa and Johnson, the courts held that the Porto-of Tacoma and the City of Spokane, respectively, had. the right to petition for annexation of their property under RCW 35.13.130 because that right was an attribute of their power to own property. Parosa, 57 Wn.2d at 417; Johnson, 19 Wn. App. at 725. In neither case, however, had the Legislature limited by:statute the Port's or the City's ability to participate in an annexation. Because the Legislature, through the enactment of RCW 28A.335.110, has expressly limited a school district's ability to participate in an annexation, this case is distinguishable on its facts4 ... . ~--...... , --...•...... ~.~ -.... ----...,..~-.--.-~ ._-,--.-... 257 Wn.2d 409: 357 P.2d 873 (1960). 3 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 (1978). 4 Significantly, following the court's opinion in Johnson, the Legislature amended RCW 35.13.130 to provide in pertinent parto.-"Thafin cities and towns with populations 8 . , 39006-6-1/9 Moreover, the City of Renton's argument that school districts possess a power above and beyond that set forth in RCW 28A.335.11 0 ignores the rule that the district, as a creature of statute, can exercise only those powers expressly granted or fairly implied in legislative enactments. See Metro. Seattle, 118 Wn.2d at 643; Noe, 83 Wn.2d· at 103. Its argument would also render inoperative the specific provisions of RCW 28A.335.11 O. See Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp., 117 Wn.2d 1, 13, 810 P.2d 917, 117 Wn. 1 (1991) (holding that no part of a statute should be deemed inoperative or superfluous unless it is the result of obvious mistake or error). The City next asserts that, as a code city, it exercises annexation authority under RCW 35A.14.120. It argues that because the limitation of the School District's authority to sign annexation petitions applies to petitions filed under RCW 35.13.125 aCId 35.13.130, and because the City does not exercise annexation authority under those statutes, the limitations of RCW 28A.335.11 0 are inapplicable in this case. The City's argument is misplaced. First, Title 35A expressly provides that code cities' relationships with school districts are governed by Title 28A: 39006-6-1/10 Code cities shall have the authority to enter into contracts for joint acquisition of land and improvement thereof with school districts. Code cities .. and their relationship with public schools, colleges and school districts shall be governed by the provisions of general law, including Titles 28A and 28B RCW. RCW 35A.28.010 (emphasis added). Thus, the absence of a .cross-reference in RCW 35A.14 to RCW 28A.335.110 is irrelevant. Second, the Legislative grant of authority to . . a school district to petition for annexation is set fo~h in RCW 28A.335.110. Despite the fact that the City of Renton exercises its authority under Title 35A, the limitations. of RCW 28A.335.11 0 will never be inapplicable when a school district is a petitioning , . party. Because the requirements of RCW 28A.335.11 0 were not met in this case, the School District lacked the authority to sign the annexation petition. Without the School District's signature, the petition in support of the proposed annexation was insufficient under RCW 35A.14.130. Because the proposed annexation was not supported. by a legally sufficient petition, we conclude that the BRB lacked jurisdiction to consider the annexation, and the trial court properly reversed its appro'val. III. School District as an Indispensable Party -j--. The City next.contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss for failure to join the School District,.an entity·it characterizes.as"an indispensable party. We disagree. CR 19(a)(2)(A) mandates joinder when an entity claims an interest in the subject matter. of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in its 10 .. , ..•. ;.. ... , ..... -. ', .... "." .. ".-~ .... ' "".", ... " .. " .• _~ • ., •• ····.··T .• ' ~".' __ '."", ... "," -"-,..".,-.. ' .• -, " .' -. . .•. -~-", "."-'-"' .. ~ .• -" ",,--,". ,,-.. ' _ •.• _ ........ ~ .'--"-'." •. "-".' -, ._, .. ".-.• _-.•.. -.' '", .••.• "' ,. .~~~.- 39006-6-1/11 absence may impair or impede its ability to protect that interest. Coastal Building Corp. v. City of Seattle, 65 Wn. App. 1, 5, 828 P.2d 7 (1992) (citing Verdale Valley Citizens' . Planning' Comm. v. Board of Cy. Comm'rs., 22 Wn. App. 229, 234-35, 588 P.2d 750 (1978)). Here, because the School District did not possess an inherent property right to sign the annexation petition, it was not denied the opportunity to defend. its statutory and property rights by not being a party to this action. Although facially appealing, the argument that the School District is indispensable because its authority to sign the annexation petition is at issue is ~isplaced. The more appropriate focus is whether the City could properly count the School District's signature in approving the annexation. The City is the true indispensable party here.s 5 Although the City also. asserts that neither it nor the BRB possessed the authority to rule on the validity of the School District's signature, this assertion is . inconsistent with the City's argument in its opening brief that "Renton had the statutory authority to determine whether or not the School District's signature was 'sufficient' on the petition to annex and to certify that the petition contained sufficient signatures. This was 'accomplished by Renton. No appeal was taken from Renton's decision either by extraordinary writ or action for declaratory judgment." The City's further argument that the respondents' appeal was untimely because they failed to file . a writ or declaratory judgment is' also 'inconsistent with its assertion that it lacked the authority to determine the sufficiency of the School District's signature. The "sufficiency" statute-;-RCW35,A;.01.040, has been amended since the actions taken by the City and the BRB .. As amended,it.appears that the county~auditor and assessor are the officers whose duty it is to determine the sufficiency of a petition. Because neither party addressed these amendments in their briefs, we will not decide whether· they are substantive changes or whether they were merely intended to clarify existing law. Rather, for purposes of this ruling, we will assume without holding .that the City had the authority under the former version of the statute, as it asserts in its brief, to d'etermine whether the School District's signature was "sufficient." With or'without that 11 39006-6-1/12 IV .. Timeliness of SeNice of BRB The City next contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It argues that the respondents' appeal of the BRB's decision was governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, and because the respondents failed to serve the BRB within 30 days of service of the final order as required by the APA, the trial court never obtained jurisdiction of the appeal. The respondents do not dispute that they failed to serve the BRB within 30 days of service of the final order. They i contend, however, that their appeal was govern~d not by the APA, but rather by the more specific provisions of the Boundary Review Board Act, RCW 36.93. Because they served the BRB within 90 days of filing their notice of appeal; as required under RCW 36.93, the respondents assert that the trial court properly obtained jurisdiction of tbis appeal. We agree with the respondents. The respondents filed this appeal in King County Superior Court pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(5), which provides in pertinent part: authority, the City did decide thaLiI. was sufficient --though not in such a way .as to trigger appeal timelines. But even before the amendment, the' statute stated that the petition must contain valid signatures of qualified property owners. To the extent that tlie City assumed the responsibility to determine the sufficiency of the petition, it was required to determine whether the School District was a "qualified" proPl'rty owner. Its erroneous conclusion in that regard is subject to judicial review. We need not decide whether the BRB possessed the authority to examine the validity of the School District's signature. Whether it did or not, the court most certainly did possess the authority under RCW 36.93.160(6)(b) and (d). 12 39006-6-1113 Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. RCW 36.93.160(5) (emphasis added). Although the statute thus provides that a notice of appeal must be filed y.<ithin 30 days, it contains no requirement as to the time within which service must be affected. In contrast, the APA requires that an appeal be filed and served within 30 days of the service ofthe final. order: "A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed with the court and sefYed on the agency, the office of the attorney general, and all parties of record within thirty days· after service of the final order." RCW 34.05.542(2) (emphasis added). The City acknowledges that, in general, the Boundary Review Board Act, being the more specific statute, governs the more general APA. Citing King Cy. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd.6 and Spokane Cy. Fire Protection Dis!. 9 v.,. Spokane Cy. Boundary Review Bd} it argues, however, that the general rule does not . . t.. .". apply when the BRB Act is silent as to a'particul?r issue. Be,cause the BRB Act is silent as to the number of days within which service must be achieved, the City argues that the 30 day service requirement of the APA controls. 6 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). 797 Wn.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982), 13 ., 39006-6-1/14 Neither case supports the City's argument. In King Cy. v. BRB, the Supreme Court declined to consider King County's argument that Ordinance 9849 prohibited the annexation at issue because King County had failed to raise the effect of the Ordinance before the BRB. In support of its holding, the Court relied on the APA as well as other sources of authority for the general proposition that issues not raised before an administrative agency may not be raised on appeal. King Cy. v.BRB, 122 Wn.2d at 668, 670-71, n.13. Nowhere in that opinion did the Supreme Court state, or even suggest, that the APA applies to BRB appeals when the BRB Act is silent as to a particular issue. Similarly, in Fire Protection Dist. 9, the Court simply held that the standard of review set forth in the BRB Act, rather than that set forth in the APA, • I . governed the appeal of a BRB decision. 97 Wn.2d at 925-26. Once again, tlle Supreme Court did not state, or even suggest, that the APA applies to BRB appeals when the BRB Act is silent as to a particular issue. The more' logical-interpretation is that wlien the BRB Act is silent as to a particular issue, the Superior Court Civil Rules and Title 4 governing civil procedure . .' control: Civii Rule 1, setting forth the scope of the Civil Rules, states in pertinent part: "These rules govern the procedure in the superior court in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity with-the exceptions stated in Rule 81." CR 1 (emphasis added). Civil Rule 81(a) provides in pertinent part: "Except where 14 39006-6-1/15 inconsistent with rules or statutes applicable to special proceedings, these rules shall govern all civil proceedings." CR 81(a). Civil Rule 3(a), governing the commencement of actions, states: fA] civil action is commenced by service of a copy of a summons together with a copy of a complaint, as provided in rule 4 !x by filing a complaint. . .. An action shall not be deemed commenced for the purpose of tolling any statute of limitations except as provided in RCW 4.16.170. CR 3(a). RCW 4.16.170 states in pertinent part: F or the purpose of tolling any statute of limitations an action shall be deemed commenced when the complaint is filed or summons' is served whichever occurs first. If service has not been had on the defendant prior to the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall cause one or more of the defendants to • be served personally, ... within ninety days from the date of filing the complaint. RCW 4.16.170 (emphasis added). Because RCW 36.93.160(5) contains no requirement as to the time within which service must be affected, we conclude'that CR 3(a) and RCW 4.16.170 govern the service of process in appeals of BRB decisions.8 Accordingly, the respondents were permitted to-serve the BRB any time within 90 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. . Because it is undisputed that they met this requirement, we hold that the trial court 8 See also East Gig Harbor Improvement Ass'n v. Pierce Cy., 106 Wn.2d 707, 724 P.2d 1009 (1986): North St. Ass'n v. City of Olympia, 96 Wn.2d 359, 635 P.2d 721 (1981), disapprov~d on other grounds by Sidis v. Brodie/Dohrmann, Inc., 117' Wn.2d .325, 331, 815 P.2d 781 (1991) (applying the 90 day service requirement of CR 3(a) and RCW 4.16.170 to-appealsof"administrative'decisions under writs of review). 15 .' .. "." ,'~'-.-... '.--," "', -. ~"---"-'-'-.. ,', -~ .... ~ .. , ...... 39006-6-1/16 obtained jurisdiction over this appeal, and properly denied the City's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 9 V. Imposition of Sanctions under CR 11 At the conclusion of trial, the respondents, as the prevailing parties, filed a cost bill seeking, inter alia, the taxation of costs associated with the preparation of the transcript of the BRB proceedings and the preparation. of a copy of the BRB record. In response, the BRB filed an objection to the cost bill contesting the taxation of costs for the transcript and the BRB record. The City filed an identical objection shortly thereafter .. On July 12, 1996, ~he respondents filed a reply in support of the cost bil1.1o , They argued that because the City and the BRB failed to articulate a legal or factual basis for their objections, the trial court should overrule them. In addition, the respondents argued that because the objections were also frivolous, the court should impose sanctions in the amount of $750. On July 17, 1996, the trial court signed an order taxing costs and imposing sanctions under CR 11. The order, which was entered on July 23, 1996, stated: [B]ecause the [City's and the BRB's] "Objeetions" to Cost Bill do not comply with the statutory and Civil. Rule requirements for a Motion to Retax Costs, do not 9 Our holding on this issue renders mo~t the respondents' argument that the BRB "is simply not a state agency subject to the APA." Accordingly, we do not address that contention. 10 Although the respondents assert that a copy of their reply was served on the City both by fax and by mail the same day, the .City states that it did not receive the reply until July 15, 1996. 16 39006-6-1/17 disclqse the legal and factual bases for them (leaving the Water District and Greens to only guess at how to respond),' and appear to be filed for the purpose of increasing the cost of litigation to the Greens and the Water District, [the City and the BRB] shall be jointly and severally liable to [respondents] and shall pay to them (through their counsel) within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this Order $250.00 as a sanction pursuant to CR 11. Clerk's Papers at 637. The City now contends that the trial court erred in imposing sanctions under CR 11. CR 11 provides, in pertinent part: Every pleading, motion, and legal memorandum of a party represented by an attorney shall be dated and signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, whose address and Washington State Bar Association membership number shall be stated .. '.' The signature of a party or of an attorney constitutes a certificate by the party or attorney that the party or attorney has read the pleading, motion, or legal memorandum; that to the best of the party's or attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or: a good faith argument for the extension,' modification, or reversal of existing law, . and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. . .. If a pleading, motion, or legal memorandum is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include ·an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or legal memorandum, including a reasonable attorney fee. CR 11 (emphasis added). The rule thus prohibits filings that lack legal or factual bases, and those that are interposed for an improper purpose. See Bryant v. Joseph Tree, . Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210, 217, 829 P.2d 1099'(1992). This court reviews the imposition of CR 11 sanctions under the abuse of discretion standard. Biggs v. Vail, 124 Wn.2d 193, 17 ," . .'. ',-~ -, .. -.. ,"'~ ," ".-,'. -C:', ~. ".' 39006-6-1/18 197, 876 P.2d 448 (199_~); Madden Y. Foley, 83 Wn. App. 385; 389, 922 P.2d 1364 (1996). The City argues first that its objection had a sufficient legal basis because no reference to the BRB transcript or record was necessary to the trial court's decision, and thus those costs should not have been taxed. The City's argument is without merit. On review of a BRB's decision, the trial court is limited to the record that was before the BRB. King'Cy. v. BRB, 122 Wn.2d at 671; RCW 36.93.160(5),(6). As the respon!=lents point out, to enable the trial court to review the decision of the BRB, they were required to provide the trial court with the record that was before .the BRB. Although the trial court did not reach the merits of the BRB's determination to approve the annexation, the respondents appealed that determination as well. Thus, they were required to provide the full record to the Superior Court. The City next argues that because it had not filed a formal motion to retax costs under CR 78(e)(4), the respondents' cost bill "stood as unchallenged" and there was thus no need to expend any time filing a reply brief. This argument, too, is without merit. Because the City and the BRB filed objections to the cost bill, it did not stand as unchallenged: The only reasonable inference froin the record is that the objections, which were filed within the time constraints of CR 78(e)(4), were intended as motions to 18 .' 39006-6-1/19 retax costs. We thus conclude that the respondents acted within their rights in filing a reply brief, Citing Bryant, the City next asserts that its due process rights were violated because it was given neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions, In Bryant, the court held that CR 11 procedures '''obviously must comport with" the due process requirements of notice and an opportunity to be he2rd, Bryant, 119 Wn,2d at 224 (quoting Fed, R. Civ. p, 11 advisory committee note, 97 F.R.O, at 201). The court noted that the inclusion of a request for sanctions in a reply brief constitutes notice within the requirements of the due process 'clause, Bryant, 119 Wn,2d at 224, Here, the respondents requested CR 11 sanctions in their reply brief, Although it appears that there was no time set for a hearing on the motion, arid although the court signed the order on July 17, only two days after the City was served by mail, the order imposing sanctions was not entered until July 23, giving the City eight days to respond, It failed to do so. Moreover, the City failed to move for reconsideration following the entry of the order imposing sanctions. We conclude that under these circumstances, the City ~as given sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions. Finally, without citation to authority, the City argues that the imposition of $250 in sanctions was inappropriate because the basis of the fee was not disClosed in the 19 .. "." ," 39006-6-1/20 record, and the trial court failed to enter a finding that the amount was reasonable. Contrary to the City's argument, the order taxing costs and imposing sanctions explicitly sets forth the bases for the imposition of sanctions. Moreover, the trial court's imposition of $250 in sanctions, in response to the respondents' request for sanctions of $750, is an implicit finding that that amount was reasonable in light of the expenses incurred. We thus conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions of $250. Affirmed. WE CONCUR: ~/T. 20 . , . . . 'I, '", " L'I"~' j';'/ L.',W OFFICES OF );ERMAN, R.ECOR., KAUFMAN & SIMMER.l.Y ~·~,rl·Ic.N "I' ~fV\KI M. CP.A."I..t) I II!!R.MI\N 1C,t.")I'lp'1t. 'T" tt, IAC't...o;ON Koar.a.T C"" K...o\tl~"N :i'T IN}';N r~ !tl.r.c.:o~ P"u\. E. SIMMP..'UoY . TI I(;IMA.:!. O. MIL .... " '0' . LPO ·"'.(0 ..... 101.' ",1,""N, ... JL ..... ~ Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney P.O.80x626 Renton, WA 98057 RE: "Bumstead" AnDexatioD Dear Mr. Warren: PLANNING DIVISION C,ITV 0" ReNTON MAY 121997 RECEIVED. May 8,1997 £1.00 C .. ry ellN 1"l;1t. Bt;I.u.vtm 50(,) -I06TtI,4,V6Nue NOI,'!IItA5r 8W:L.,-I1VtlB. """,, ... MINCTQN QROO.1 r"'CSIMII.i!: C;!OG) ASI-IGSO T~l..tLPMoNn: (;lOG) .,.,&1-1...,00 v.L4 FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAlL I write in response to your letter of April 1 to Alda H. Wilkinson, Executive Secretary to the Boundary Review Board. The Board is bound by the decision of the King County Superior Court reversing the approval of the Bumstead annexation, and has no alternative but to process the proposed incotpOration of the city of Briarwood as if no such annexation ever occurred. My. research has disclosed no precedents which would provide any insight into the legal consequences of a successful election and a successful appeal. I cannot speculate as to the outcome of either the incorporation effort or appellate process. I do not believe the Board has legal standing to seek any type of stay or injunction while the appeal is pending. The incorporation process is on a very tight time line, and any action by the City of Renton to seek an injunction should probably be brought sooner rather than later. While . the Board laeksstanding to mstitute legal action on this matter, it will not oppose any attempt to stay its incorporation hearings if the citY seeks the same, Finally, please note that the incorporation study presently being conducted will examine the feasibility of the proposed city with and without the territory which is the subject of the Bumstead annexation If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to oontact me. '-· "'~"\ .... Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney -2-fI1ay 8, 1997 v~ yours, MAN, & SlMMERL Y RCKIIsv cc: AIda H. Wilkinson, Executive Secretary --._-_ .. __ . ---------.-.. -.--.~------.----------~------------,-.-----------.--~~------- ~ ------------ ----------------------~------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- -------\---------------.------------- ~(--.~----~-------------- Renton annexation plan now up to appeals court ., ,By Katherine Hedland. ' Journal Reporter 5/.20/'7 Arguments over the contro- versial Burnstead annexation on Renton's East Plateau contin- " .----~- Court of Appeals iIi \3ellevue !list week. The judges aren,;i 'E;iwect- ed to issue a rulIng for at least three months, Renton City Attorney Larry Warren said. . The city maintains the annex- ation is proper, while the law- suit says it would destroy area residents' attempts at cityhood and a sewer franchise for Water District 90 .. " Among other things, annexa- tion opponents claim the city did- n't review tlie'legality of the Renton School District's signa- ture in support of the petition. Warren said that wasn't the city's responsibility. Resident Norman Green filed the initial lawsuit, which has become a major issue in the fight over governance of the plateau. The state's Growth Management Act mandates that urban areas including the Plateau either annex to existing cities or form their own governments. . A drive to create a new city.of Briarwood in the area is moving ahead, with the issue expected to be before voters in November. Incorporation wouldn't work if the huge chunk of Bumstead land becomes part of the city of Renton. Bumstead Construction Co. launched the original annexation drive in 1994 to secure city sewer service so it could build 64 homes .. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM February 25, 1997 Filer!) _ ~ (277-2475) Proposed Briarwood Incorporation At the Utilities Committee meeting of February 18, 1997, members of the Committee inquired as to when the City could request that certain areas be removed from the proposed Briarwood incorporation boundaries. The Boundary Review Board staff stated that, while the City could submit a letter the Board any time, no decision would be made until the conclusion of the public hearing. The .public hearing will not be scheduled until the feasibility study is complete. The BRB is just starting the process of hiring a consultant. The study typically takes from three to six months. Therefore, the earliest we could anticipate a public hearing would be May. We are awaiting confirmation of this schedule by the Executive Secretary to the BRB. The City will receive a copy of the feasibility study upon its release. The City need not submit a request for removal of lands until the BRB public hearing. However, staff will need time to analyze what areas to request be left unincorporated. Any boundary revisions proposed by the City will need to be justifiable in terms of the BRB's Objectives as outlined in State law. Additionally, the City may have to address potential commitments to serve those unincorporated islands formed by the creation of the City ofBriarwood, if they are.to remain in our PAA. These analyses should be complete by the end of April to allow sufficient time for Administration and Council review before a possible May public hearing. co Mike Kattennann Rebeoca Lind H:IDMSION.SIP&TSIPLANNINOIANNEXlBRIARWDI ... " .' ...... ~. . . ..... , . , '" . . . ....... , . , . ; .. ," .~' ' , , . . ". ,.~ -." .... ~ :',,:-' . . .",' '. " ,. .. , . .' .. ~\~ p;Cs- CITf "OF RENTON . . --. .' . :.1 ." '.' . '. .... '~'., • Mayor Jesse Tanner ., .. ' ~. .:: . . " . , ... ". '. February 5, i,997 :' . " " .. ::,,,, ,.". . " , : ,_ ..... ," .. .. ,. " " ,,' .... .. .. :. " ',.. .';' . ~',. '. '. . . . " , . '".: . . -; , '. . '\'. ' .. ' .' .~ . .' .'., 'PLANNING:DIVISIO~~ .... 'CITYOF RPi'" : .. '. ," .' , : .. '~gC~~ntYExec~~ive Ro~ Sinis . ". :' FEB 6'1997, .. '.' , . .. 400 King C~UtitY Courthouse . ,516 Third Avenue . . ........ . . :.' . R~CEIVED . ", '" ' " · Seatt1e;W~shington 98104 . . " . '. ~ . . .. . Kin:g County Co~nci1 .' . ' .. 1200 King County Courthouse '. ,I -.' .' 516 Third Avenue '. . " . · Seattle, Washington 98104 . , "·l':::;:~"!t. 'i:,"'", ;;::!J.~'"'' " .... \ ... ~ " ./~:;i'1' .... ':;1 ..... ,~ 7" , .. 'OJ,'''''.;,... . ..~ ''1( ". '~~. . . -....;\-i;>.. . " .... . ,r:} , 1( ~-\';' '.11"~""·~\>""·· ' , ' Re: Funding for Economic Viability Study for Proposed City of Briarwood , 1', . ~~ ... ~., • "b. '.' .... {. . . ''\ __ • 't-,~ ~,. "\'~ ''''''~) \ " '. . ,': ,,-, ;' /" _ .. " l,; , ,;!-~'l "<"'l' . Dear Executive Sims and CountY Council Members: . '''''' \,;:-:\ \ \', . . ~. ~ .... .'. ;:/ . ·",~~.I~./ . :~~~~ 19;}~',.~~ .. }~~.; ',\\-_,., ,~\ \:' '. .' , You have been or soon will; be requested :to.Jlppropnale the necessary funds to study the economic viability of the proposed CitY ofBri~Q'od> ,Thls')etter is:~ request that you defer or . table that inatter. The City of Renton is currentiY'iDvo!y~d in a case before the Court of Appeals concerning the legality of anne;Bng tothc: CitY 'of Renton Jrporti~nofthe:property that would be included within the proposed City of Briarwood.· The Bound~ Review Board approved 'the annexation and a superior court judge:reversed that decision. The City has appealed the superior .. "". ",~ '. ~., ' .. ~", \~:-r ~-. . court's decision to the Court of Appeals askinlfthat the 'BciunClary'Review Board decision be affirmed and this territory annexed to the' City ofRentcin. ",', ::~, .. f . ' .. :". .' ':' "" ">"",,~,\'t:,~;--,u~~~~ -r', ,p.,-;";c'"' . You should be aware that the annexationproposaJ. predated the filing of the incorporation · proposal. The proponents of the incorporation have admitted that the anriexation to'. the City of Renton would render the incorporation proposal unworkable. . '. .' . ,".,', " ",. ". - . .' : r. '. .' . ',: ",: . . . :, I have. been told, by my city attorney that all of the appellate. briefs have been filed and that the . : . court should assign a hearing date in the 'near future .. The 'city attorney has ruso indicated that he "'. plims:to ask the Court of Appeals for expedited review. Therefore, the delay to awaitthe Court· .. of Appeals decision should not be excessive. . " :, .' . .' " There. are a llUlIlber of important reasoilswhy the incorporation of the proposed City of '. Briarwood should,not proceed until the courts are finished with the annexation issue: I mentioned previously ihatihe annexation proposal was filed first and handled bY.the Boundary Review . · Board. Under the. law the anmixation proposal, there(ore, took precedence. However, there is . . 200 Mill Avenue South· Renton,Washington 98055 • (206)235·2580/ FAX(206)23S·2532 . * This paper contains 50% recycled mat,erial, 20% post c~nsumer '~ . d' ~~:~~?~'J9~7 " .~ .. ' ~ . ' ". ", ' . .' .. :'.--. .. ,-:' ';" , ' '-''-" '" ' •. " .' • •. : ~ I ";' " "'I' "'., (,"< ',.'" ',' ":,,,. :: .. '~ ....... _."" 1:.'.' . ..,-":" '. ,," " \ ,:'t.'>.~ " .' ~. .... . ._", . ~ ",:._ . ,: . ,:. :\", } ,.;.' .:-", '.:: . - : .. '," .', ':: >.' :',,,, . ~~.,' : '. ,.', ~'; '. .' , .. ' . . .'-:: ! . " ,." .', '"app'an;ntlylittIe 'or 'no lawa,bout whafw(l\:4doccur if an mcorporation election was positive for .:' ". :the mcorpobition of the ,City of Briarwood 'and there was a later court decision, thatthe . ,'Iiim~xationw~ lawful. ,Would there b~a new,cit}tcr'eatC:d?Wmild the jiro~ertydiatw~the .' , :subJeCt ofihe m.ne~atio~ he 'niinoV'ed from the City ofBriarwood leaving nonviablenimriailts to \ '"their Ultimate 'fiml~cial ruin?' "" " , "',:.,:,::. ,'::;. ' ': " "" ," .. ,' :::, .' ,:, ," '. , .' ~ .. "'":'" .. ~., .. :".:",,:"';-;":".:,.'~ .. .';':'~"'.: :'., .. <~:", .... '.:.::'.:': .'\"-:.,"', .. ;,,-,. ',,",",-': :'.,., .',:",' :-,': "_.', ,My'cityatiomey'informsme that hehaS~,onsulted with theBouitdary Review Board's attorney. " ' .' < He has been .told that the Boulldiuy ~eYi~w l30ard d~es not believe that it can halt or delay the, .' viabilitY studyonce,!unds have been pro~dedbyKirig County. If thestlidy'shows thanhe ", proposedc:::itY ofBnarwood is fiscally viable, then the Bouiidliry Review Board feels like it niust " ',proceed wjththeiiormalhandlmgofthe incorporation proposal despite the' many I~galissu¢s that, ," this will raise. A successful election mevitably will lead to extensive litigation. The 'easies(way to , ' " ~(lIe the entire situation is for the King Co~ntY Executive and the King County Council to. delay :, 'or table the funding for the fiscal viability study for die City,ofBriarivood untilslIch time 'as the' court cases have been aecided on the annexation .proposal: At that point the contested territory· " • will either be, part of the. CitY of RentOrijl~ fre~,:fromany"'pe.pding 'annexation proposals,',' The ' incorpo~ation petition could the~~~ceed~ .. ~y I~gal )Iu~stions . raised' by the, pending annexatIon. :./1, ,'J, . 'J>" ""-.,, \ "', ~,'Il A 'Q~ _r ' ._'~ , , ,,' , . '" " , l ( .);:/ ,,' , " ' , , ,"').., "'.'\ \" " ' ' , " ' I am sure that you will give our ft:5lue!rt dl:1e 'co~id~~B:t\on. It appears "to me that this proposal is .. ". '. ,,1 1 , . -. I, .;,,1,_ ~',' !.r\"}~'.'~ "'.' r" '~)' "," . the most lOgical. cost effectIVe and sunple;way:ofproceedJ!lg. " ':', ' " ,,', " " ., ... : .. , .. ",... H' /i\~ ~ L:~ii;;:;~f:~~~~~~~i;;'~::~·~· : .~~:/? '~~ '.. . . If I ,can provide you with any, further ilet8ils,please feeCfree to contact'me: , ,.. . :~: .. t. S"5~Ji~ ,~a,:~"J ",-":'i;'~ . j:;. ", '~\' .. )\, ;J;:,,:~';}:,;' -'(~.:\~'" '/ \" d Sincerely, ' ... ,,/'. \", I f c~" ' .. "' "" .". . .. t~~"t::~,,; "~~.' ,". <~~~"~ .. ~.~~ '~}~ 2~-J~ "':\~:;{~>}':;~~"J'''~'~~;''~ ,"i~' " . .' '. ~,~" .; -\'\. ',';. --~, . ./ ' .. , , ' '~" ' J Ii I:\-. ,--, esse Tanner .. ' , , '~~,~,_", -'.,', -'. ,p?1,I", Mayor " ' ' "'! .. '2:1!--,;,-c:~ ... ,UW:u,' , AS.129.67. ' , :' " , , ~ ,-' . .' ., :' .. . ,':.-: . ': .. "': .... . ., .. ". ' :-' : .' I I' { PLANNING DIVISION . CITY OF RENTON DE.C 9 1996 RECEIVED NO. 39006-6-1 THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DMSIONI KING COUNfY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90. a Washington corporation; and NORMAN &: CYNfH[A GREEN. husband and wife. CITY OF RENTON. a Washington municipal corporation. vs. Respondents. Appellant. RESPONSE BRIEF OF KING COUNfY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNfH[A GREEN 1325 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1500 P.O. Box 21846 Seattle. Washington 98111 Tel: (206) 292-1144 HELSEU. FETI'ERMAN UP Peter J. Eglick. Bar No. 8809 Bob C. Sterbank. Bar No. 19514 Attorneys for Respondents TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 II. RESPONDENTS' STATEMENT OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ...................... 2 ill. STATEMENT OF TIlE CASE ................................................... 3 IV. ARGtn.1ENT ............................................................................ 12 A. Standard of Review ...................................................... 12 B. The Trial Court's Decision, that the Boundary Review Board Lacked Jurisdiction Because the Proposed Annexation Illegally Relied Upon the Signature of the Renton School District Was Correct and Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 14 C. The Trial Court's Conclusions that It Properly Had Jurisdiction Pursuant to RCW 36.93 and that the Administrative Procedure Act Did Not Apply, Were Correct and Should Be Affirmed .................... 28 1. Review of Boundary Review Board Decisions Is Conducted Pursuant to RCW 36.93 or RCW 7.16, Which Both Provide 90. Days for Service ................................................................. 29 2. The Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05, Does Not Apply to Review of Boundary Review Board Decisions ........................................................ 31 3. Service Was Timely In Any Event ........................... 38 D. District 90 Properly Raised The Issue Of The Sufficiency Of The Annexation Peti~on ........ ; ........ 40 i 1. Because the City Failed to Review the Sufficiency of the Annexation Petition and Adopt an Annexation Ordinance, District 90 Was Not Required to Bring An Interlocutory Appeal ................................................. 41 2. Because The School District Did Not Make An Appealable Decision to Sign the Annexation Petition, District 90 Was Not Required to And Could Not Have Brought an Interlocutory Appeal ............................................ 42 E. The Trial Court Properly Awarded Sanctions Pursuant to CR 11 ..................................................... 45 F. If The Court of Appeals Determines to Reverse the Trial Court Decision, It Should Remand Appendix A AppendixB AppendixC AppendixD AppendixE AppendixF the Case to the Trial Court ....................................... 48 APPENDICES Trial Court Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment Reversing Boundary Review Board Decision King County Boundary Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure AGO 1988 No.2 AGO 1990 No.8 CR 3(a) RCW 4.16.170 RCW 4.84.010 RCW 28A.315.250 RCW 28A.320.015 RCW 28A.335.090 RCW 28A.335.110 ii RCW 2BA.335.120 RCW 2BA.335.130 RCW 2BA.335.200 RCW 2BA.335.220 Appendix G RCW 34.05.010(2) RCW 34.05.010(lB) RCW 34.05.330 RCW 34.05.3BO RCW 34.05.404(a) RCW 34.05.446 RCW 34.05.449 RCW 34.05.455 RCW 34.05.510 RCW 34.05.542(2) RCW 34.05.554 AppendixH RCW 35.13.125 RCW 35.13.130 RCW 35.21.010 Appendix! RCW 35A.01.040 RCW 35A.14.120 -.140 RCW 35A.2B.010 AppendixJ RCW 36.70C.020(1)(a) AppendixK RCW 36.93.010 RCW36.93.090 RCW 36.93.100 RCW 36.93.130 RCW 36.93.160 RCW 36.93.160 RCW 36.93.200 AppendixL RCW 53.0B.010 RCW 53.0B.047 AppendixM RCW 5B.17.1BO TABLE OF AlITHORlTIES iii CASES Beste v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 81 Wn. App. 330, 914 P.2d 144 (1996) ........................................... 38 Birch Bay Sales v. Whatcom County, 65 Wn. App. 739,829 P.2d 1109 (Div. I 1992) ........................................ 31 Bosley v. Cowiche Canyon, 118 Wn.2d 801, 828 P.2d 549 (1992) ............................................................................ 27 Byant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210, 829 P.2d 1099 (1992) .......................................................................... 47 In Re City of Bellevue Proposed Annexation [for] Newport Hills, King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773 ............................................................ 16 Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge No. 827, 84 Wn.2d 551, 527 P.2d 1121 (1974) ................................. 27 Devore v. DSHS, 80 Wn. App. 177, _ P.2d _ (Div. ill 1995) ............................................................................... 40 In Re Electric Lightwave, Inc., 123 Wn.2d 530, 869 P.2d 1045 (1994) ................................................................. 27 Felida Neighborhood Association v. Clark County, 81 Wn. App. 155, _ P.2d _ (1996) ...................................... 38 Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King County Boundary Review Board, 118 Wn.2d 488, 825 P.2d 300 (1992) ................................................................... 29 Friends of the Law v. King County, 63 Wn. App. 650, 821 P.2d 539 (1991), review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1006 (1992) .............................................................. 34 Gibson v. Auburn, 50 Wn. App. 661, 748 P.2d 673 review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1028 .......................................... 34 iv Griffin v. DSHS, 91 Wo.2d 616,631, 590 P.2d 816 (1979) .................................................................................... 34 Griffith v. Bellevue, 77 Wo. App. 759, 893 P.2d 689 (Div. I 1995) ......................................................................... 31 Howard v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. 10,88 Wash. 167, 152 P. 1004 (1915) ...................................................................... 15 Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wo. App. 722, 577 p.2d 164 (Div. ill 1978) ............................................. : ........................ 17 King County v. BoundaIj' Review Board, 122 Wo.2d 648. 860 P.2d 1024.(1993) ............................................. 13,33 King County v. BoundQIj' Review Board, Supreme Court Case No. 59249-7) ................................................. 34,35 Kitsap County v. Department of Natural Resources, 99 Wo.2d 386, 393, 66 P.2d 381 (1983) .................................. 34 Leson v. Department of Ecology, 59 Wo. App. 407, 799 P.2d 268 (Div. 1990); ............................................. 38 1oca12916. IAAFv. Public Employment Relations Commn, 128 Wo.2d 375, 907 P.2d 1204 (1995) ................. 27 MacDonald v. Korum Ford, 80 Wo.App. 877, _P.2d _(Div. II 1996) ................................................................... 48 Madden v. Foley, 83 Wo. App. 385, _ P.2d _ (Div. I 1996) .................................................................................. 48 Nisqually Delta Assn v. Dupont, 27 Wn.App. 163, 617 P.2d 446 (Div. n 1980) ................................................. 36 Nisqually Delta Association v. City of Dupont, 95 Wn.2d 563~ 627 P.2d 956 (1981) ........................................ 29 Noe v. Edmonds School Dist., 83 Wn.2d 97,515 P.2d 977 (1973) ...................................................................... , ..... 15 v North Street Association v. Olympia, 96 Wn.2d 359, 635 P.2d 721 (1981) ............................................................. 30 PaIOsa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409,357 P.2d 873 (1960) ................................................................................... 17 Pasco v. PERC, 119Wn.2d 504,833 P.2d 381 (1992) ..................... 27 Pugel v. Monheimer, 83 Wn. App. 688, 693, _P.2d _ (Div. 11996) ................................................................... 47 RJL Associates v. City of Seattle, 61 Wn. App. 670, 811 P.2d 971 (Div. i 1991) .................................................. 44 Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 v. Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau, 87 Wn.2d 887, 558 P.2d 215 (1976) ........................................ 44 Seattle High Sch. Chapter 200 v. Sharples, 159 Wash .. 424,293 P. 994 (1930) ................ : ....................................... 15 Snohomish County v. Hinds, 61 Wn. App. 371, 810 P.2d 84 (Div. 11991) ........................................................... 13 Spokane County Fire Protection District No.9 v. Spokane County BoundaIY Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982) ...................................... 36 State ex reI. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10 v. Clausen, 126 Wash. 90, 217 P. 712 (1923) ............................................... 15 Sterling v. County of Spokane, 31 Wn. App. 467, 642 P.2d 1255 (Div. ill 1982), rev. denied 97 Wn.2d 1041 (1982), ............................................................. 31 Union Bay Preservation Coalition v. Cosmos Development and Admin. Corp., 127 Wn.2d 614,902 P.2d 1247 (1995) .................................................. 40 Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26, 873 P.2d 498 (1994) ................................................................... 49 vi STATIITES RCW 36.93.010 ............................................................................... 32 RCW 36.93.100(3)(a) and (b) ........... , .......................................... 5.29 RCW 36.93.160(6) ..................................................................... 12.13 23.26 29.30 31.45 49 RCW 36.93.200 ............................................................................... 24 RCW 53.08 ................................................................................ ; ..... 19 RCW 53.08.010 , ............................................................................... 19 RCW 53.08.047 ............................................................................... 19 RCW 28A.335.110 ....................................................................... 1.14 15.16 17.18 20.21 22.28 42 RCW 28A.335.120 .......................................................................... 20 RCW 28A.335.130 .......................................................................... 20 RCW 28A.335.200 .......................................................................... 20 RCW 28A.335.220 .......................................................................... 20 RCW 4.16.170 ............................................................................ 30.31 RCW 4.84.010 ................................................................................. 11 RCW 7.16 ................................................................................... 29.35 43 vii RCW 28A ........................................................................................ 22 RCW 28A.320.01S(1)(b) ................................................................. lS . RCW 28A.33S.090 .......................................................................... 20 (RCW 3S.13.130) .............................................. : ........................ 17.18 21 RCW 3S.21.010 ................................................................................ 19 RCW 3SA.01.040 ................................. , ..................................... 24.41 RCW 35A.12.120 •. 130 •. lS0 .......................................................... 42 RCW 3SA.14 .............................................................................. 21.22 RCW 35A.14.120 ......................................................................... 4.21 RCW 35A.14.120-.140 ............................................................... 13.23 RCW 35A.14.130) ........................................................................... 26 RCW 3SA.14.140 ......................................................................... 5.24 41 RCW 35A.28.010 ............................................................................ 22 RCW 34.05 ................................................................................... 2.28 31 RCW 34.0S.010(2) ..................................................................... 31.38 RCW 34.0S.330 ............................................................................... 33 RCW 34.05.380 ............................................................................... 33 RCW 34.05.446 .............................. : ................................................ 33 RCW 34.0S.449 .............................................................................. 33 RCW 34.0S.461(9) .......................................................................... 38 viii RCW 34.05.510 ............................................................................... 35 RCW 34.05.542(2) ....................... , .................................................. 38 RCW 34.05.554 ........................................................... ; ................... 34 RCW 35.13.125 and .130 ............................................................... 15 RCW 36.70C ................................................................................... 32 RCW 36.70C.020(1j(a) ..................................................................... 32 i.x I. INTRODUcnON This case is resolved by a single principle codified in RCW 28A.335.110: an annexation that relies upon a school district's signature on an annexation petition cannot be approved, because school districts are not authorized to sign annexation petitions unless the school district property makes up the entire annexation area. Appellant City of Renton, which seeks to annex a portion of unincorporated King County to help pay for a costly sewer line it has already constructed, duly acknowledged this principle in a published statement widely distributed early on in the annexation process. When the signatures on the annexation petition were counted, however, and it became clear that Renton lacked the mjnjmum number of signatures legally required for it to proceed with the annexation, Renton ignored the legal restriction on school district signatures it had previously acknowledged, and annexed the property anyway. After the annexation was approved by the King County Boundary Review Board ("BRB"), King County . Superior Court Judge Mary Wicks Brucker overturned the annexation, holding that the BRB lacked jurisdiction to have considered the annexation in the "first place because the annexation • 1 '. petition erroneously relied upon the signature of the Renton School District to reach the legally required minimum number of signatures. n. RESPONDENTS' STATEMENT OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The issues pertaining to the City of Renton's assignments of error are properly stated as follows: A. Should the Superior Court's Decision Reversing the Boundary Review Board's Decision Be Affirmed Where the Annexation Petition Illegally Relied Upon a School District Signature and Therefore Failed to Contain the Legally Required Minimum Number of Signatures? B. Should The Superior Court's Rejection of Renton's Procedural Objections Be Affirmed? 1. Should the Superior Court's Decision that a County Boundary Review Board Is Not a State Agency, and that an Appeal of a Boundary Review Board Decision Is Governed by the Boundary Review Board Statute (RCW 36.93) and Not the Administrative Procedure Act (RCW 34.05), Be Affirmed? 2. Should the Superior Court's Decision that a School District Is Not an Indispensable Party in an Appeal of a Boundary Review Board Decision Be Affirmed? 3. Should the Superior CoUrt's Decision that a Challenge to the Sufficiency of an Annexation Petition Is Properly Brought First Before a Boundary Review Board Be Affirmed? 4. Should the Superior Court's Decision to Award Sanctions Against the City of Renton and the Boundary Review Board for Frivolous Opposition to the Respondents' Cost Bill Be Affirmed? -2- \ 5. Should the Court of Appeals Remand the Case to the Trial Court for a Determination on the Issues that Were Presented at Trial But Not Ruled Upon? m. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case concerns the proposed annexation of a 400-acre portion of the East Renton Plateau cOIllI!lunity, located due east of the City of Renton, on the plateau above the Cedar River. CP 659 (oversized exhibits).l The City conducted a 'public meeting in November 1994, and set the proposed annexation boundaries for an area of approximately 600 acres. As part of its public hearing, the City distributed flyers to the public informing them of the annexation. In one such flyer, the City included a map of the then- proposed 600-acre annexation area, and explained that because of a state law prohibition, it was not including local school district property: The boundary shown on the back defines the area for which an annexation has been initiated. 1 The record In this case is comprised of the certified record of the King County Boundary Review Board (CP 13). This record is separately paginated, and for ease of reference will be referred to In the same manner as the City of Renton (I.e., "BP _oJ. The Court should note that the BRB paginated its record in reverse order, 50 that citations to a range of pages appear In descending order (e.g., "BP 10-7," rather than "BP 7-10"). The transcript of the proceedings before the BRB will be referred to as "BTR _." The verbatim report of proceedings before the trial court will be referred to as "VRP I _", for the May 3,1996, proceedings, and "VRP U _" for the May 20, 1996, proceedings on the merits. A few (oversize) exhibits from the BRB were brought to the Court separately. on the day of trial. by counsel for the BRB. These exhibits are described In the Plaintiffs' Exhibit Ust (CP 659). - 3 - * * * Since Washington State law requires that School District properties constitute the entirety of annexations. Maplewood Heights Elementary has been excluded from this proposal. BP 604 (emphasis added). When petitions for the annexation were circulated the City was unable to obtain the signature of the owners of 60 percent of the total assessed value of all property in the annexation area, as required by law.2 This forced it to dramatically scale back the annexation area, from 600 acres to only 200 + acres. Howe~er, the City still could not get sufficient signatures to support this annexation. The City then changed its position and included the Renton School District's property, which reduced the number of signatures of other property owners needed to support the annexation. Only after the City counted the value of the elementary school, as well as the properties of several property owners who were misled into signing the petition, did it have enough signatures.3 Without adopting an ordinance formally approving , RCW 3SA.14.120. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that there will be some baseline of public support for the 8llll8xation. J Some property owners were told their signature would put the 8llllexation on a public election ballot. BTR Vol. lat 100 (Testimony of Don Maggard); BTR Vol. II at 160; BTR Vol. 1 at 93-94. -4- the proposed annexation (another step required by law). 4 the City Council then submitted a formal Notice of Intent to Annex to the King County Boundary Review Board on May 3, 1995. BP 61. King County Water District No. 90 and a group of annexation-area residents and property owners (including the Greens, respondents here), opposed the annexation, on the grounds that it would split the existing community and District 90's sewer service area. BP 96-83;5 BP 82-81.6 The Board therefore set the matter for a public hearing on September 21, 1995. BP 191. Prior to the hearing, the Greens and the citizens' group to which they belonged, Neighbors United for Representation (UNUR)," requested that the Board summarily deny the annexation, pointing out that the statutes governing school districts permit them to sign annexation petitions only when the school district property comprises the entirety of the area to be annexed .. BP 224-206. • RCW 35A.14.140. • Although to obtain a hearing under RCW 36.93.100(3j(a) and (b) Neighbors United for Representation were required to submit signatures of the owners of property consisting of only 5% of the assessed valuation, or 5% of the registered voters, the petitions submitted contained the signatures of ll22 of the registered voters, and 19.2% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. well In excess of that required. BP. 96.. . • Pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2), the Boundary Review Board's duty to conduct a hearing and review the annexation proposal can be triggered by a simple request for review of the proposal by "any governmental unit affected." -5 - j I Here, it was pointed out, the City of Renton did not have the legally required 60 percent of assessment-value signatures to support annexation without counting the school district signature; consequently, the BRB had no jurisdiction. Rather than review the . merits of this request, however, the BRB followed its attorney's advice not to act on it, but instead to proceed to the BRB public hearing.7 At the hearing, the BRB allowed its attorney to decide that the BRB would not examine the issue of the illegality of the School District signature although the issue would be preserved for appeal. BTR Vol. I at 10-12. The BRB then heard extensive testimony concerning the annexation's failure to meet substantive statutory criteria. The Water District testified, and affected residents, through Neighbors United for Representation, submitted a lengthy written rebuttal to the proposed annexation, complete with numbered and tabbed exhibits supporting its arguments.s A King 7 BP 227 (August 30,1995, letter from Boundary Review Board Executive Secretary AIda Wilkinson to Boundary Review Board attorney Robert C. Kaufman requesting advice on how to handle letter from annexation opponents); BP 250 (letter dated September 6, 1995, from Boundary Review Board attorney Kaufman to the Greens' attorneys, advising Boundary Review Board "policy" not to address sufficiency of annexation petition). • The testimony and evidence highlighted the highly irregular shape of the proposed annexation area. and described how It would fracture the existing East -6 - County Councilmember testified on behalf of his constituents in opposition to the annexation, powting out the thoroughness of the NUR written submittal, and requesting that the BRB focus on the legal criteria and address the issue of the iIisufficiency of the petitions. BTR Vol. I at 74-83. The BRB, however, took a casual attitude toward·the hearing. See, e.g., BTR Vol. I at 66-67 (complaiIit by witness that Board members were laughing during testimony). At the close of the public's testimony, two Board members outlined in detail how the proposed annexation failed to meet the statutory requirements. Board member Loren Dunn9 succinctly explaiIied: Mr. Dunn: I do think that, when you look at our objectives, that we come out on the negative with this more frequently, and perhaps frequently more frequently, than we do on the positive .. I am deeply troubled by the creation of islands and peninsulas that show no prospect of BetMB urban services in the future. with no coherent plan for dealing with that. And I think - - I feel it would be irresponsible for me to vote in favor of any proposal that results in that. in the long-term absence of a plan for services to those ~. * * * Renton Plateau community and create an illogical sewer service area, and fail to use natural or physical boundaries. BP 429-304. • The Court may take official notice of the fact that Mr. Dunn is himself an accomplished land use attorney practicing with the Seattle law firm of Graham & James U.PlRiddell Williams P.S. -7 - So there are a couple of areas where this is clearly a suitable proposal. but for me the detractions are -- way outweigh the consequences .... I'm not entirely persuaded that there aren't other ways to deal with those problems than incorporating a large portion of the area pursuant to a plan that doesn't fit our criteria the way it should. BTR Vol. ill at 13-17 (emphasis added). Mr. Dunn's comments were seconded in large part by Board member A.T. Culver who acknowledged that the annexation did not meet the majority of applicable statutory objectives. BTR Vol. ill at 2-8. Notwithstanding Mr. Dunn's analysis and Mr. Culver's hesitations, the Board voted to approve the annexation 9 to 1, with Mr. Dunn dissenting. BTR Vol. ill at 25.10 No written decision was adopted, however. At its next regular meeting, on October 12,1996, the Board adopted a written decision. BP 535-517. Consistent with Board attorney Kaufman's statement at the comrilencement of the hearing, the Decision ignored the issue of the sufficiency of the annexation petitions and the illegality of the School District's signature thereon. 10 Some Board members indicated they did not believe it made a: difference which way they voted. BTR Vol. ill at 10 (Board member Werner). Apparently. the Board believed that because the annexation area lay within King County's Urban Growth Area adopted under the Growth Management Act. all the Board needed to do was rubber stamp the annexation. BTR Vol. ill at 9-10. 21 (Aldredge); at 24 (Werner). -8 - As if in anticipation of an appeal, the Board's decision added !!!nY: findings and rationales --not stated by the Board in its deliberations . on September 26 -in an effort to buttress its decision. See BP 534- 522, generally. The decision was mailed to District 90, but not to the Greens. CP 361-65. Procedural History Respondents King County Water District No. 90 and t!te Greens (collectively, "District 90") appealed the BRB deCision to Superior Court. Rather than seek a decision affirming the BRB on the merits, the City of Renton adopted what can only be characterized as a "scorched earth" litigation strategy, filing no fewer than seven pretrial motions on what, by statute, is supposed to be a straightforward case on the record.tt Three of the motions were motions to dismiss, based on standing, jurisdiction, and the indispensable party doctrine. CP 189-200, 89-114, 62-88. Each was rejected by the trial court after extensive briefing and argument. CP 366-98,206-08, and 402-07; VRP Vol. I at 31-32 (transcript of trial 11 CP 399-401, 651-53. and 654-56. The City moved for reassignment, then filed three separate motions to dismiss, and three motions to strike. Apparently embarrassed by its own strategy, the City went so far as to move to strike District 90's reference to the City's cascade of motions as a "scorched earth" approach. The City then withdrew this motion to strike (and one other) on the day of hearing, after it had forced District 90 to expend resources responc1in8 to them. -9- , court oral decisions); CP 594-599 (orders denying motions). The case then proceeded to trial on the merits. The City, however, had not exhausted its collection of procedural objections. At trial, the City raised another procedural argument, to the effect that District 90 should have challenged Renton's reliance on the School District's signature before the matter was heard by the BRB, despite its primary jurisdiction over annexations. CP 237-38. When it finally reached the merits, the City argued that the School District was allowed to sign the annexation petition because the ability to sign such a petition was a "property right" that accompanied the School District's mere ownership of property. VRP Vol. II at,65-66; CP 242-47. The trial court rejected the City's arguments. It held that because the City did not adopt an ordinance approving the annexation or otherwise formally act to put the public on notice, and because of the statutory scheme vesting primary review , jurisdiction in the BRB, District 90 had timely challenged the sufficiency of the annexation petition.12 The trial court also held u VRP Vol. II at 109-110; CP 601-02. CP 604 (Findings of Faet, Conclusions of Law and Judgment Reversing Boundary Review Board Decision at Finding 1.3. Conclusions 2.7-2.8). The trial court decision is attached as Appendix A. -10 - that because school districts lack authority to sign annexation petitions, and because the annexation petition lacked the required number of signatures when the Renton School District signature was excluded, the BRB lacked jurisdiction to approve the annexation.!3 The trial court therefore reversed the BRB's decision. CP 604 Uudgment Paragraph 3.1). As the prevailing parties, District 90 then filed a Cost Bill. CP 606-07. Pursuant to RCW 4.84.010, the Cost Bill included sums charged by the BRB (or its agents) and paid by District 90 for preparation of the transcript of the BRB proceedings ($1,176.78), and for preparation of a copy of the Boundary Review Board record ($495.00). CP 607. Nevertheless, on July 1, 1996, the BRB filed what it styled as an "Objection to Cost Bill," which purported to object to taxation of costs for the transcript and BRB record. CP 608. The City of Renton filed an identical "Objection" nine days later. CP 609. This forced District 90 to request that the Court overrule the objections and order the costs taxed. CP 610-17. Because the "Objections" contained ~o factual or legal explanations to support 13 CP 601.004 (Finding 1.1, Conclusions 2.1.2.6). -11 - them, and appeared to be filed (like the City's seven pretrial motions) solely to force District 90 to incur additional expenses, District 90 also requested that the Court award $750.00 as sanctions to compensate for the costs and fees incurred clearing away the frivolous "Objections." CP 615-16. District 90's Reply requesting sanctions was filed on July 12, 1996. A copy was served on the City by fax and mail on the same day.14 Nothing further was heard from the City or the BRB. On July 17, 1996, Judge Brucker signed the Order Taxing Costs and Imposing Sanctions Pursuant to CR 11, which was then entered on July 23 and subsequently sent to the parties. CP 636-38. The City did not seek reconsideration of Judge Brucker's order, or offer any explanation for its actions: IV. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review An appeal of a trial court decision reviewing a BRB decision comes before this Court pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(6). This Court " The City now claims in its Brief (withou~ record basis) that it called the court to inquire whether the matter had been noted for hearing. learned that Judge Brucker would be on vacation from July 29 to August 2. and decided not to file a response . to the Reply or to request that the trial court refrain from ruling on it until it had done so. City Brief at 10. -12 - reviews trial court decisions in such circumstances "by applying the proper standard of review directly to the record [of] the admjnjstrative proceedings." Snohomish County v. Hinds. 61 Wn. App. 371. 375. 810 P.2d 84 (Div. I 1991). In other words. the Court is to "apply the standards contained in RCW 36.93.160(6) directly to the record before the [boundary review) board ... " King County v. Boundmy Review Board. 122 Wn.2d 648. 672. 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). -, Because this case principally concerns the legal insufficiency of the annexation petition that brought the proposed annexation before the King County BRB. the Court also must consider whether the Notice of Intention to Annex and the petitions upon which it relies comply with the applicable statutes and BRB Rules of Practice and Procedure. RCW 35A.14.120-.140; King County Boundary Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure at Rule B 15 1. .1. " A complete copy of the BRB's Rules are attached as Appendix B. The Rules can also be found in the record as CP 156-188 (Appendix A to District 90's Opening Brief to the trial court). -13- B. The Trial Court's Decision That the BOilndarv Review Board Lacked Iurisdiction Because the Proposed Annexation Illegally Relied Upon the Signature of the Renton School District Was Correct and Should Be Affirmed. As noted above, the central issue in this case is whether the BRB could approve an annexation by petition, when the petition relies upon the signature of a school district to achiev.e the legally required number of signatures .. Because RCW 2BA.335.110 authorizes a school district to sign an annexation petition only when the school property comprises the entire annexation area (a condition not met here), the trial court's decision that the annexation petition was "legally insufficient,,16 and 'that the BRB lacked jurisdiction to approve the annexation was correct and should be affirmed. The City devotes little of its Opening Brief to this issue, limiting the sum total of its discussion to three pages (27-30) of its 40-page brief. Essentially, the City argues that the right to sign an annexation petition is a property right that flows to any owner of property, regardless of whether that property owner is a school district whose powers the Legislature has limited by statute. City '6 CP 602·04 (Conclusions 2.1, 2.6. 2.B. and 3.1 J. -14 - Brief at 28-29. The trial court, strongly correctly rejected this exact same argument. CP 602-03 (Conclusions 2.2-2.6). First, the law is well established that a school district's authority is limited to that provided by statute. RCW 28A.320.015(1)(b);17 Noe v. Edmonds School Dist., 83 Wn.2d 97, 103,515 P.2d 977 (1973).18 Second, RCW 28A.335.110 on its face conditions a school district's authority to sign an annexation petition upon the presence of two circumstances: (1) the school property constitutes the entirety of the property to be annexed; and (2) the annexation petition is brought under RCW 35.13.125 and .130. Renton has already admitted --publicly, and in writing --that this provision prohibits it from counting the signature of the Renton School 17 The statute provides that a school district board of directors may exercise powers to determine educational policies along with other powers "expressly authorized by law" or "necessarily or fairly Implied in the powers expressly authorized by law." That this statutory grant is a limited one is confirmed by several formal Attomey General opinions. BP 285 (AGO 1988 No.2 (school districts lack authority to establish adolescent health care or health Improvement programs, or contract with private or other public agencies to provide such services)): BP 282 (AGO 1990 No.8 (school districts lack authority to finance acquisition of real property by borrowing from institutional lender and securing repayment with purchase money security interest on the p,roperty)). • See also Howard v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. 10,88 Wash. 167, 152 P. 1004 (1915); Seattle High Sch. Chapter 200 v. Sharples, 159 Wash. 424, 293 P. 994 (1930); State ex reJ. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10 v. Clausen, 126 Wash. 90, 217 P. 712 (1923). -IS - District (the owner of the Maplewood Heights Elementary School within the annexation area): Since Washington State law requires that School District properties constitute the entirety of annexations, Maple Wood Heights Elementary has been excluded from this proposal, BP 604 (City of Renton Annexation Information brochure) (emphasis aaded),19 Further, Renton does not dispute that the required circumstances were not present here, and even admits that the annexation petition in this case lacked the legally required number of signatures when the Renton School District's signature is not counted, City Brief at 4, Under these circumstances, the trial court's conclusions were correct, Implicitly acknowledging that the statute does not grant " The BRB has itself recognized such a limitation in a previous case. In In He City of BellfWllB Proposed Annexation [for] Newport Hills,King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773, the City of Bellevue's original annexation petition had included three Bellevue school sites. When the prohibition against school district participation in annexations contained in RCW 28A.33S.110 was raised, the City of Bellevue contacted the Bellevue School District, which removed its signature from the annexation petition. The Notice of Intention was then submitted to the BRB, without the school properties: The school district properties were eliminated from the original proposal. due to a prohibition in state law against school district properties joining together with other properties to petition for annexation. . BP 211 (Resolution and Hearing Decision, dated December 11, 1992, at 7) (emphasis added). Because the annexation petition contained a sufficient number of other signatures, the school district's removal of its signature did not jeopardize the petition, unlike the case here. CP 600 (Finding 1.1). -16 - school districts the power to sign an annexation petition, the City attempts to attack the trial court's decision by claiming that school districts possess implied authority to sign an annexation petition because school districts are statutorily authorized to own property. City Brief at 28·29. The cases cited by the City, Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 (Div. ill 1978), and Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960), however, are stale authority. City Brief at 28, 29. First, RCW 28A.3"35.110 was reenacted in 1990 as part of a comprehensive recodification; this occurred 12 years after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson.2o To the extent Johnson purported to grant school districts any authority to assist in initiation of annexations, it has been superseded by the Legislature's reenactment of a statute (RCW 28A.335.110) limiting that authority. Second, the annexation statute at issue in Johnson (RCW 35.13.130) has also been amended. It now states as follows: Except where all the property sought to be annexed is '0 See Washington Laws 1990, Ch. 33. § 4. It is hornbook law that the Legislature is presumed to know the status of its existing enactments, and judicial interpretations thereof. U the Supreme Court's opinion in Johnson did in fact provide school districts with authority to sign annexation petitions. the Legislature presumably would not have reenacted the prohibition against it. . 17· i I I. property of a school district, and the school directors thereof file the petition for annexation as in RCW 2BA.335.110 authorized, the petition must be signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned: PROVIDED, That in cities and towns with populations greater than one hundred sixty .thousand located east of the Cascade mountains. the owner of tax exempt propertv may sign an annexation petition and have the tax exempt property annexed into the city or town. but the value of the tax exempt property shall not be used in calculating the sufficiency of the required property owner signatures unless only tax exempt property is proposed to be annexed into the city or town. RCW 35.13.130 (emphasis added showing amendment). This amendment makes clear that the Legislature Views the inclusion of tax-exempt property owned by a school district or city as an extraordinary event that is generally not permitted, except in specified limited circumstances. The rationale for this is obvious. The purpose of the signature percentage requirement, to ensure that a substantial majority of the property owners in the annexation area are in favor of the annexation, is too easily circumvented if municipal corporations owning large parcels may sign annexation petitions and outweigh the signatures of individual property owners. The Supreme Court's interpretation of RCW 35.13.130 in Johnson with respect to a city simply cannot be read to extend authority to a school district where the statute at -18 - issue in the case now recognizes not one but two limitations upon . such authority. Statutory text and amendments aside, Johnson and Paroso simply do not provide authority to school districts (as opposed to cities or ports) to ~etition for annexation, because the statutory authority of school districts is more limited than the authority of cities and ports at issue in those cases. In both Johnson and Parosa, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court focused upon RCW 35.21.010 and RCW 53.0B, which authorized the City of Spokane and Port of Tacoma, respectively, to own property. Johnson, 19 Wn. App. at 725; Parosa, 57 Wn.2d at 417. At the time of the decisions in Johnson and Parosa, those statutes constituted broad grants of authority, and did not limit either a ~ or port's ability to hold property or to participate in a=exation.21 In contrast, the Legislature has treated school districts differently, limiting their authority both to hold and dispose of 21 See. e.g .. RGW 35.21.010 (authorizing cities to acqlilie, hold, possess and· dispose of property); RGW 53.08.010 (authorizing port to acqlilie by purchase or condemnation all property necessary for its purposes); RGW 53.08.047 (provisions of chapter not to be construed as restriction or limitation upon any port powers). -19 - property and to petition for annexation of property. See, e.g., RCW 28A.335.090 (school districts authorized to acquire, hold, . and dispose of property, subject to other laws and RCW 28A.335.120) . .The Legislature then went on to specially limit district authority to petition for annexation (RCW 28A.335.110), to sell the district's real property (RCW 28A.335.120), to dispose of proceeds from such a sale (RCW 28A.335.130), to enter into a conditional sales contract to acquire property (RCW 28A.335.200), and to exercise the power of eminent domain (RCW 28A.335.220). In light of these restrictions, and in particular the restriction on a district's authority to petition for annexation, Johnson and ParoSQ do not apply here. Their application is limited to circumstances in which a municipal corporation (such as a city or port) has broad, unlimited authority concerning property ownership, and can properly be s!rld to have implied authority to sign an annexation petition as a consequence. In addition to its erroneous interpretation of Johnson and ParoSQ, Renton also makes several incorrect assertions about RCW 28A.335.110 itself. For example, Renton correctly notes that RCW 28A.335.110 provides a grant of authority to a school district (namely, the authority to sign an annexation petition), which grant -20- is "in addition" to other powers "provided by law." City Brief at 29. The City then argues that this means the statute "grants extra powers," as if this confirms that school districts already have implied authority to sign annexation petitions by virtue of some other statutory provision. [d. The "in addition to"language, however, does not eliminate the fact that the power to sign a petition is granted only when specific circumstances are present. If RCW 2BA.335.110 is interpreted based on an assumption that school districts already possess annexation authority under another statutory provision, the "additional" authority provided in RCW 2BA.335.110 --and the conditions placed upon it --would be superfluous. Renton also points out that it is a code city which exercised its annexation authority here under RCW 35A.14.120, and argues that because that statute does not cross reference RCW 2BA.335.110 in the same manner that RCW 35.13.130 does, RCW 2BA.335.110 does not apply here. 22 City Brief at 29-30. This argument borders " The City offers no rationale as to why the Legislature would have (silently) decided to treat school district property differently depending only on what annexation statute were used. The absence of a reference to annexations under RCW 3SA.14 weakens the City's position rather than strengthening it; it more likely means that school districts cannot sign at all under RCW 3SA.14, regardless of whether school property constitutes the whole of the annexation or not. -21 - on the frivolous. Title 35A expressly provides as follows: 35A.28.010 General laws applicable. Code cities shall have the authority to enter into contracts for joint acquisition of land and improvement thereof with school districts. Code cities and their relationship with public schools. colleges and school districts shall be governed by the provisions of general law. including Titles 28A and 28B RCW. RCW 35A.28.010 (emphasis added). Thus, it is irrelevant whether RCW 28A.335.110 itself cross-references annexations under.RCW 35A.14, since. under RCW 35A.28.010, Renton's relationship with a school district is already expressly governed by RCW 28A (which includes RCW 28A.335.110). Renton also argues implausibly that the BRB lacked the statutory authority to have considered the validity of the Renton School District's signature in the first place, and that the BRB's decision not to substantively address the issue must be given substantial weight. City Brief at 25-26. The City made both of these arguments below (CP 238-9), and the trial court's rejection of both should be affirmed. First, as the trial court concluded. the issue of whether the BRB could or would entertain the issue of its own jurisdiction is largely moot, given that a superior court challenge to the BRB's decision on the merits is the appropriate forum in which the issue -22- .; can be resolved. The trial court held: Here, where the Washington State Boundary Review Board ' for King County did not choose to resolve or did not believe it could resolve questions relating to its own jurisdiction, it is appropriate that. as part of the Court's review of the Board's decision. the issue of law pertaining to the Boundary Review Board's jurisdiction be resolved by the Court. CP 604 (Conclusion 2.8) (emphasis added). This conclusion tracks RCW 36.93.160(6)(b), which provides that one of the issues· to be reviewed at trial is whether the BRE exceeded its jurisdiction. Second, the BRE not only had jurisdiction to consider the sufficiency of the annexation petition when the issue was raised, it was required to do so by its own statute and Rules of Practice and Procedure. RCW 3SA.14.120-.140 contains a list of detailed steps that must be complied with before a Boundary Review Board may consider a Notice of Intent to Annex. These steps include, inter alia, the filing of a petition containing the signatures of the owners of 60 percent of the annexation area's assessed value, along with a legal description and map; the holding of a public hearing; the adoption by the local legislative body of an annexation ordinance; and the filing of the annexation ordinance with the board of county commissioners of the county in which the -23- annexation area is located. The King County BRB's own Rules of Practice and Procedure, adopted pursuant to RCW 36.93.200, require that, before an annexing city may seek Board approval of an annexation, the city must submit a Notice of Intention to Annex meeting the Board's requirements. Board Rule l.B.l requires that: NOTICES OF INTENTION shall be submitted follow4Ig the appropriate format, which shall be furnished by the Executive Secretary upon request. Attached hereto and made a'part hereof is the Notice of Intention format currently in use. BRB Rule l.B.l (Appendix B). The BRB's current format requires that a Notice of Intention include: A signed and certified copy of the resolution/ordinance [accepting the annexation) proposal as officially passed. Notice of Intention format at 1.2. This is required so that the Board can assure itself that the municipality has actually approved of the annexation based upon a valid petition, since a municipal legislative body is required to adopt an ordinance if it "determines to effect the annexation." RCW 35A.l4.140. Attaching the ordinance (which would in the normal course incorporate by reference the required petition) allows the Board to review the Notice in light, inter alia, of the requirement in RCW 35A.01.040 -24- that a local government determine that the petition contains the requisite percentage of signatures before proceeding. If, however, the Board determines after such a reView that a Notice of Intention is defective, the Board must deem the Notice void and return it. Rules I.B.S and 9. Here, although the BRB's Executive Secretary forwarded Renton's Notice of Intent to its attorney, Mr. Kanfma n , to determine its legal sufficiency (BP 67), he apparently failed to consider that Renton had completely failed to submit a copy of its annexation ordinance or the petitions on which it was based. BP 72; BTR Vol. I at 10-12 (remarks of BRB counsel Kaufman). The BRB (and Mr. Kaufman) should have, however, followed the procedure prescribed by its Rules and followed in other cases, 23 by refusing to take action on Renton's petition because it was legally impossible for the BRB to proceed with an annexation that relied on school district property to meet the required percentage of signatures. Although it claims here that the BRB lacked authority to do %l The King County BRB has taken just this type of action -returning a Notice of Intention as void .• in circumstances analogous to this case. For example. in a case concerning a proposed incorporation of Vashon Island. the Board advised the submitter of a Notice of Intent that the Board would not take any action on the proposal and was returning the Notice because of its failure to comply with Board requirements. BP 206 . 205 (Letter dated August 22. 1994. from Special Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Kaufman to CarolR Campbell). -2S- so, the City has previously tacitly acknowledged the contrary, in its written correspondence to the Board. The City stated: Because of this language [RCW 35A.14.130) it would appear that the decision on whether or not ilie sixty percent petition is sufficient is left to the local legislative body and is not within the purview of the Boundary Review Board unless that step was totally skipped. BP 251 (September 7,1995, letter from Lawrence Warren to the BRB) (emphasis added). The City's argument concedes that the Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the required petition step "was totally skipped," as the City puts it. The City does not explain how or why the Board has jurisdiction to determine this if the Board cannot address the legal suffiCiency of petitions which are submitted. Of course, as the City acknowledges, a city cannot submit an annexation proposal to the Board in the absence of any valid petitions, and then claim that the BRB lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it. By the same token,-a city cannot submit petitions signed by people off the street (rather than authorized property owners, as required under the statute) and expect the Board to proceed without inquiry. Such a result would be absurd. The Court should not construe the BRB's statute to achieve such a result, but should affirm the trial court's reversal of the BRB pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(6)(b). -26- f t This Court also should not defer to the BRB's deliberate decision not to address its own lack of jurisdiction to proceed in the face of the petition's insufficiency. Although appellate courts often defer to a board or agency's interpretation of its own governing statute and regulations, such deference stops when issues of the board or agency's jurisdiction arise. Determining the extent of an administrative decision-maker's authority or jurisdiction is a power vested in this Court --not the BRB. Local 2916, IAAFv. Public Employment Relations Comm'n, 128 Wn.2d 375,379,907 P.2d 1204 (1995); In Re Electric Lightwave, Inc., 123 Wn.2d 530, 540, 869 P.2d 1045 (1994).24 Even were that not the case, deference is not accorded to a board or agency decision in the absence of an ambiguous statute, or where the agency decision purports to create jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist under explicit statutory or regulatory provisions. Pasco v. PERC, 119 Wn.2d 504, 507-08, 833 P.2d 381 (1992); Bosley v. Cowiche " Neither of the two cases cited by the City involve an agency's interpretation of its own jurisdiction. City Brief at 26. citing Saint Francis Extended Health Care v. Department of Social and Health Sezvices. 115 Wn.2d 690, 695, 801 P.2d 212 (1990](concerning Interpretation of methodology for determining financing allowance portion of the return on investment reimbursement for a nursing home operator's land lease); and citing Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge No. 827,84 Wn.2d 551, 556, 527 P.2d 1121 (1974) (concerning Shorelines Hearings Board's interpretation of policy of RCW 90.58 with respect to over-the-water development). -27- Canyon, 118 Wn.2d 801, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Here, there is no ambiguous statute at issue; the BRB simply chose to ignore the plain language of RCW 28A.335.110 and its own Rules of Practice and Procedure. No deference is required to such a decision. In sum, RCW 28A.335.110 prohibits a school district from signing an annexation petition unless the school property constitutes the entirety of the property being annexed. The King County BRB lacked jurisdiction to consider the City of Renton's proposed annexation because it was not supported by a petition containing the legally required minimum number of signatures. Finally, the trial court was correct that the superior court was the appropriate forum in which to resolve the issue of the BRB's jurisdiction, regardless of the BRB's belief that the BRB itself could not entertain this issue. C. The Trial Court's Conclusions that It Properly Had Iurisdiction Pursuant to RCW 36.93 and that the Administrative Procedure Act Did Not Apply. Were Correct and Should Be Affinned. The City's Brief focuses most of its attention on its claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. City Brief at 11·17. The City asserts that District 90's appeal of the BRB decision to superior court was governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, ·28· RCW 34.05 ("APAn). Because the APA requires that an appeal of a state agency decision be both filed and served within 30 days, and because District 90 did not serve the BRB within 30 days, the City concludes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. As the trial court correctly concluded, however, District 90's appeal was governed by the specific Boundary Review Board statute, RCW 36.93, not the more general provisions of the APA; the BRB is not a state agency as defined in the APA. As with most lawsuits, appeals under RCW 36.93 can be served within 90 days of filing. Because District 90 timely served the BRB within 90 days of filing their Notice of Appeal, the trial court had jurisdiction and its· decision to that effect should be affirmed. 1. Review of Boundary Review Board Decisions Is Conducted Pursuant to RCW 36.93 or RCW 7.16, Which Both Provide 90 Days for Service. Superior Court review of boundary review board decisions may occur in one of two ways: (1) pursuant to RCW 36.93; or (2) pursuant to a writ of certiorari under RCW 7.16.25 Under either '" RCW 36.93.160(5); RCW 36.93.100(3)(a); Nisqually Delta Associatton v. City of Dupont. 95 Wn.2d 563, 570-71. 627 P.2d 956 (1981) (writ of certiorari "always available to contest governmental action"): Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King County Boundary Review Board. 118 Wn.2d 488. 493. 825 P.2d 300 (1992) ("appellants might have appealed the decision of the Boundary Review Board through a Writ of Certiorari ... "). -29- method, District 90 had ninety days in which to serve the Boundary Review Board and the City of Renton. Superior Court review of BRB decisions under RCW 36.93 is governed by RCW 36.93.160(5), which states in pertinent part as follows: Decisions [of the BRB) shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. RCW 36.93.160(5) (emphasis added). This appeal provision contains no special time requirement for service on the BRB or any other party within 30 days which means the time for service of process is ninety (90) days from the date of filing. CR 3(a); RCW 4.16.170. Under RCW 36.93, BRB decisions may also be reviewed by writ of certiorari. Friends of Snoqualmie Valley, 118 Wn.2d at 493. Under the applicable writ procedures, a plaintiff has ninety (90) days after filing to obtain service of process on defendants/ respondents.26 Since it is undisputed that all parties here were " See. e.g., North Street Association v. Olympia, 96 Wn.2d 359, 365-67, 635 P.2d 721 (1981) ("application' in reference to Writ of Review refers to filing Petition for Writ; therefore, RCW 58.17.180 governs oiLly time in which Petition for Writ must be filed and does not affect rule allowing ninety (90) days for -30- served prior to ninety (90) days from the date of the BRB decision. the trial court obtained jurisdiction. 2. The Administrative Procedure Act. RCW 34.05. Does Not Apply to Review of Boundary Review Board Decisions. The City attempts to get around the clear application of the BRB appeal statute (RCW Ch. 36.93.160(5)). CR 3(a). RCW 4.16.170. and the North Street Association case and others. and import a thirty-day service requirement from the APA into Superior Court review of BRB decisions. City Brief at 11-17. The APA does not apply to review of BRB decisions however. First. as the trial court concluded (VRP I at 31). although the Boundary Review Board bears a somewhat confusing name (its official name is the 'Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County"). it is not an "agency" within the purview of the APA. RCW 34.05.010(2) defines an "agency" as any Board \ authorized by law to make rules or conduct adjudicative proceedings. "except those in the legislative or judicial branches service'); Sterling v. County of Spokane. 31 Wn. App. 467. 471. 642 P.2d"1255 (Div. ill 1982). rev. denied 97 Wn.2d 1041 (1982). accord. Birch Bay Sales v. Whatcom County. 65 Wn. App. 739. 745. 829 P.2d 1109 (Div. 11992) (Sterling applies 'ninety-day extension provided in CR 3(a) to the filing of Writs of Certiorari and supporting affidavits'); Griffith v. Bellevue. 77 Wn. App. 759. 761. 893 P.2d 689 (Div. 11995) (court rules allow 90-day period to cure defects in -31 - ,} ... " (emphasis added). Boundary review boards carry out . legislative functions in deciding upon annexations. The BRE's own enabling statue (RCW 36.93.010) describes the purpose of the BRE Statute as a legislative method of guiding and controlling creation and growth of municipalities. The Land Use Petition Act, RCW 36.70C, adopted by the Legislature in 1995, confirms this by exempting annexations as a form of "legislative approval.,,27 Thus, review of BRE decisions is not subject to the APA. The BRE itself came to the same conclusion. It opposed Renton's motion to dismiss before the trial court below, by filing an affidavit from its attorney, Robert Kaufman, the BRE pointed out that the BRE is funded by King County (not the state), expends funds based on County (not state) requirements, and.is covered by the County's tort claim funds (not ~e state's). CP 209-12 (Declaration of Robert C. Kaufman at 2); VRP Vol. I at 27-29. Further, Mr. Kaufman noted that if the BRE were a state agency subject to the APA, it would be required, inter alia, to publish its rules of procedure in the Washington Administrative Code, and pleading and service of writ of review); rev'd on other grounds, 130 Wn.2d 189. P.2d _ (September 12. 1996). '""RCW 36.93.010; RCW 36.7OC.020(1)(a) ("land use decision" means final detennination by local jurisdiction. excluding "applications for legislative approvals such as , .. annexations"). -32- provide for an adjudicative proceeding wherein parties could subpoena witnesses and cross-examine opposing witnesses, and in which ex parte communications with witnesses would be barred. CP 209-12.28 Further, state agencies must also provide procedures for interested parties to petition for rulemaking. RCW 34.05.330. The BRB does none of these things.29 The BRB is simply not a state agency subject to the APA. Although i~ never discuses the language of RCW 36.93 or the APA, the City argues to the contrary by citing King County v. BoundaJY Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 646, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). City Brief at 12. That case simply does not support the proposition for which the City offers it. In King County v. BRB, the Court addressed whether it could consider King County's argument that its Ordinance (No. 9849), barred annexations by outlying cities, given that King County had not raised this argument before the BRB. 122 Wn.2d at 668-69. The issue was ,. See also RCW 34.05.380 (fLling of agency rules with code reviser required); RCW 34.05.446 (parties' attorneys may issue subpoenas for discovery); RCW 34.05.449 (presiding officer shall afford opportunity to respond. submit rebuttal. and cross-examine witnesses); RCW 34.05.455 (presiding officer may . not engage in ex-parte communications). 19 Kaufman Declaration at 2-4; BTR Vol. I at 9 (BRB limited witnesses to three minutes each. provided no opportunity for cross-examination. and gave City of Renton 30 minutes for presentation plus ten minutes rebuttal). -33- " raised by one of the respondents. Plum Creek Timber. which noted that the rule (against considering arguments for the first time on appeal) was well established by case law,30 As a secondary authority only. Plum Creek Timber also cited to the APA. specifically RCW 34.05.554. Id. This was confirmed by Robert Kaufman. who represented the BRB in King County v. Boundary Review Board and in this case: I participated in the King County vs. Boundary Review appeal·that is relied upon to show that the APA does apply in this case. For what it's worth. I can tell Your Honor that issue was never squarely before the Supreme Court. VRP Vol. I at 28 (emphasis added). In agreeing with Plum Creek Timber's contention that Ordinance 9849 could not be considered because King County had not raised it before the BRB below. the Supreme Court focused upon the policies behind the rule (irrespective of their source) and relied upon cases applying statutes other than the APA31 as well as those that did construe the APA.32 Thus. as the 3D CP 352-54 (Brief of Appellant Plum Creek Timber Company. at 31-32. in King County v. Boundcuy Review Board, Supreme Court Case No. 59249-7). 31 [d. at 668-69 (discussing policies behind rule); at 670-71, n.13 (citing Friends 01 the Law v. King County, 63 Wn. App. 650, 655 n.l. 821 P.2d 539 (1991). review denied 119 Wn.2d 1006 (1992) (construing RCW 58.17); Gibson v. Auburn, 50 Wn. App. 661, 668, 748 P.2d 673, review denied, 110 Wn.2d 1028 (1988) (construing RCW 41.14)). -34- ., trial court here concluded: The analysis of the Court in King County Iv.] Boundary Review [Board] case. seems to me to be focused on the historical issue of whether an appeal ... on the record. can be broadened to hear issues that weren't heard in the initial hearing, and we have those issues under many different operations, that the superior court gets appeals from other entities, the district courts, the court commissioners, the various agencies, and it's definitely a longstanding rule that they --you don't broaden the issues unless it's a trial de novo or it's provided for. VRP Vol. I at 31-32 (emphasis added). The trial court's conclusion is especially well-founded because judicial review,in King County v. Boundazy Review Board, occurred pursuant to a writ of certiorari --not under the petition for review form of action required under the APA.33 Because the APA explicitly states that review under its provisions is the exclusive form of review available (RCW 34.05.510), the APA simply cannot have been applied in a case in which review occurred pursuant to a different mechanism (writ of certiorari Under RCW 7.16). King County v. Boundazy Review Board cannot be read to require application of the AP A here. 3Z [d. at 668 (citing Al'A cases such as Griffin v. DSHS,.91 Wn.2d 616, 631,590 P.2d 816 (1979). and Kitsap County v. Department of Natural Resources. 99 Wn.2d 386. 393. 66 P.2d 381 (1983)). . J3 CP 358-60 (Brief of. Appellant Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. in King County v. BoundolY Review Board. Supreme Court Case No. 59249-7. at 5-6). -35- ,\0 This conclusion is further buttressed by the only published case to actually expressly consider the issue. In Spokane County Fire Protection District No.9 v. Spokane County BoundaIJ' Review Board. 97 Wn.2d 922. 925-26. 652 P.2d 1356 (1982). the Washington Supreme Court concluded that the APA does not apply to judicial review of BRB decisions. In that case. the court considered the argument that the standard of review contained in the former version of the AP A. RCW 34.04. governed judicial review of a BRB decision. instead of RCW 36.93. Spokane Fire Protection. 97 Wn.2d at 925. The Court concluded that RCW 36.93 --not the APA --governed the case. It pointed out that the APA. a statute of general applicability. could not be applied over a statute of special application such as RCW 36.93. which expressly applies to review of BRB proceedings. Id. at 925-26. Decisions issued both prior to and subsequent to Spokane Fire Protection have arrived at the same result 34 Ironically. the City cites these same cases as evidence that 34 See. e.g., Snohomish Countyv. Hinds, 61 Wn. App. at 378. nn.S and 6 (distinguishing applicable BRB standard of review from inapplicable IIl'A standard ofreview); Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. Dupont. 27 Wn. App. 163, 167, 617 P.2d 446 (Div. n 1980J (limitation on the right to appeal contained within 36.93 was determinative because it was not expressly or impliedly repealed by the IIl'A or SEPAJ. -36- the APA applies to judicial review ,of BRB decisions. City Brief at 12-13. Although the City argues that it is implicit in the court's discussion in Spokane Fire Protection that both the APA and RCW 36.93 apply, because "logic would dictate that if the court is addressing the question of competing standards that it has decided that both apply in the first instance" (City Brief at 13), the City cannot provide any citation in support of this claim. T9 the contrary, the Court in Spokane Fire Protection expressly noted that it could discern no legislative intent that the APA apply to BRB decisions, despite the fact that one house of the Legislature had passed the APA before the BRB statute. [d. at 926. That is why the Court in NisqualJy Delta Ass'n held that the appeal provisions in RCW 36.93 governed appeal of a BRB decision: "a limitation on the right to appeal from an administrative body which is contained within the statute on which the action is based is determinative," unless expressly or impliedly repealed by another statute such as the APA or SEPA. 27 Wn. App. at 167. Because the APA does not expressly or impliedly repeal the BRB statute, RCW 36.93 is what governs appeals of BRB decisions --not the APA. 3. Service Was Timely In Any Event -37- Even assuming the APA does apply, service of the Notice of Appeal of the BRB decision below was timely. Under the AP A, an agency is required to serve a copy of its decision on the parties -- not their attorneys. It is this service that triggers the 30-day period in which a party must file an appeal to superior court and serve other parties of record. RCW 34.05.461(9); RCW 34.05.542(2). Service of the agency's decision is complete upon deposit of the decision in the mail. RCW 34.05.010(18). Where an agency fails to mail its decision to a party of record (as opposed to its attorney) or otherwise serve it directly, the 30-day clock for filing and service of an appeal of its decision never begins to run. See, e.g., Leson v. Department of Ecology, 59 Wn. App. 407, 410, 799 P.2d 268 (Div. IT 1990); Devore v. DSHS, 80 Wn. App. 177, 180-83, _ P.2d _ (Div. ill 1995).35 Here, the BRBnever mailed its decision to the Greens so the 30 days did not begin to run. CP 361-65.36 Thus, service of the Notice of Appeal upon the BRB IS Cf Beste v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 81 Wn. App. 330, 339-40. 914 P.2d 144 (1996) (time for filing appeal of Ecology determinations did not begin to run where Ecology failed to serve notice ofits decisions); Felida Neighborhood Association v. Clark County, 81 Wn. App. 155, 162, _ P.2d_ (1996) (time for challenging Clark County's plat approval did not begin to run where County falled to serve notice of its decision as required by ordinance). I. The City apparently concedes the BRB's lack of mail service of its decision. City Brief at 17. -38 - was timely. The City argues, without citation to authority, that because the Greens somehow obtained a copy of the decision themselves, and filed an appeal, the APA's 30-day service period must be deemed to have begun nmnjng on the day the appeal to superior court was filed. City Brief at 17. This argument completely ignores Leson. In that case, the Pollution Control Hearings Board ("PCHB") mailed a copy of its decision to Leson's attorney, but not to him. 59 Wn. App. at 408-09. Leson filed an appeal pro se, but failed to serve the Board. [d. at 409. His appeal was dismissed by the superior court. [d. Division II of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the time for filing and service of an appeal did not begin to run until the Board mailed Leson a copy of its decision, regardless of the fact that Leson had filed (but had not . properlyserved) an appeal of it. [d. at 410-11. Here the BRB never mailed a copy of its decision to the Greens. CP 361-65. Thus, even assuming that the APA applies here (and it does not), service on the BRB was timely because the 30-day period for filing never began to run.37 37 The City may attempt to argue that the BRB substantially complied with the mailing requirement, as evidenced by the Greens' Notice of Appeal. This exact -39- D. District 90 Properly Raised the Issue of the Sufficiency of the Annexation Petition. The City's last line of defense is to claim that District 90 should have challenged the School District's signature on the annexation Petition --not the BRB's decision. Because District 90 did not do so at the time, the City argues, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the issue of the sufficiency of the Petition. City Brief at 20-27. This argument is new; at trial below, the City argued that District 90 should have challenged the City's acceptance of the petition. CP 238-40. This claim was rejected by the trial court (CP 604, Conclusion 2.7); it is unclear whether the City continues to contest it here.38 In any event, the claim that an interlocutory appeal of any kind should have been filed is incorrect. argument has been rejected; there cannot be substantial compliance with the Al'A's plaln requirement that decisions be mailed to parties and not their attorneys. Devore, 80 Wn. App. at 183, quoting Union Bay Preservation Coalition v. Cosmos Development and Admin. Corp., 127 Wn.2d 614, 620, 902 P.2d 1247 (1995). . ,. Renton argues on the one hand that the City is not charged with the responsibility of reviewing the suffiCiency of the school district's signature (City Brief at 20-23), but then states on the other that "Renton had the statutory authority to determine whether or not the School District's Signature was ·sufficient. .... City Brief at 24. As explalned below, the City did have the responsibility to determine whether the school district's signature was legaily valid but, because the City did not do so in the manner provided for by statute, or adopt its decision in an ordinance, District 90 had no duty (or ability) to appeal. -40- 1. Because the City Failed to Review the Sufficiency of the Annexation Petition and Adopt an Annexation Ordinance. District 90·Was Not Required to Bring An Interlocutory Appeal. In order to escape the thrust of the trial court's decision that the City had failed to adopt an annexation ordinance, the City argues that it was not required to review the sufficiency of the School District's signature. City Brief at 20-22. This argument is incorrect. Renton was r~quired under RCW 35A.01.040 to teview the sufficiency of the petition and, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.140, adopt an annexation ordinance confirming the annexation after it had done so. Although the City claims that it does not review the legal sufficiency of any signatures, and that doing so would be akin to examining the mental competency of the signers, the statute contemplates otherwise.39 In examining the sufficiency of a petition under RCW 35A.Ol.040, Renton must likewise determine whether a school district signature is authorized under RCW 28A.335.110; otherwise, the requirement in 35A.01.040(4) wotild be rendered meaningless. 39 RCW 35A.Ol.040(9}(a} -(d) (requiring determination of.property owners shown by county auditor records, requiring inquiry into whether corporate officers are authorized to execute deeds). -41 - Here, of course, the City does not even identify any document in its record indicating when (or by whom) the Petition's sufficiency was determined, nor pinpoint a date when such an action occurred. There simply was no Council action or a City of Renton administrative action that District 90 could have or should have appealed. The City ~ adopted an ordinance that could have been challenged; instead, the City Council merely passed an oral motion accepting the annexation Petition. BP 32 (April 10, 1995, Renton City Council Minutes).40 There was thus nothing for District 90 to appeal beforehand, even assuming such \ an interlocutory appeal would have been otherwise appropriate (see below). 2. Because The School District Did Not Make An Appealable Decision to Sign the Annexation Petition, District 90 Was Not Required to And Could Not Have Brought an Interlocutory Appeal Like the City, the School District also did not make a decision requiring District ~O to appeal before going to the BRB. The record discloses no formal decision, proceeding, vote, or resolution authorizing the school superintendent to sign the <. Under the Optional Municipal Code. however. the City can "act" only by adopting an ordinance or resolution. particularly with respect to annexations. See. e.g. RCW 35A.12.120 •. 130 •. 150; 35A.21.010; 35A.14.140. -42- petition, nor any public notice of such an action which couid have been triggered any time period for appeal.41 As such, there was no duty to appeal. Further, and perhaps most important, the City never identifies any viable mechanism for such a piecemeal appeal, assuming there was a "decision." Although it claims a writ of prohibition or declaratory judgment action could have been . sought to determine whether the school district had the authority (City Brief at 2.4), the City never explains how District 90 could have appealed once the school district had put pen to paper on the petition. In fact, there is none. A writ of prohibition only lies to challenge prospective actions. A writ of review under RCW 7.16 is only available to challenge quasi-judicial decisions; Renton does not suggest that the school district's act of signing meets this test, nor could it. Nor does the City explain what purpose there would have been in bringing an interlocutory declaratory judgment action, although it refers to such a possibility. City Brief at 26-27. The fact remains that the BRB advised District 90 that 41 See. e.g .. Felida, 81 Wo. App. at 162. -43 - the issue would be preserved in the record for appeal, and the City (which was present) never objected. BTR Vol. I at 11. Further, even assuming that the School District had taken an appealable action, any appeal would have been premature. District 90 was required to exhaust all administrative remedies, including review by the BRB, as a jurisdictional prerequisite to this Court's review.42 This well-known requirement serves several purposes: (1) defense against premature mterruption of the administrative process, (2) allows the agency to develop the necessary factual background on which to base a decision, (3) allows the exercise of agency expertise, (4) provides a more efficient process and allows the agency to correct its own mistake, and (5) ensures that individuals are not encouraged to ignore administrative procedures by resorting to the courts. R/LAssociates, 61 Wn. App. at 675. Requiring District 90 to 'bypass the Boundary Review Board's review of the annexation, including the issue of the sufficiency of the Petition, before seeking judicial review, would directly contradict the exhaustive .2 Retail Store Emp/oyees Union, Local 1001 v. Washington SUIVeying & Rating Bureau, 87 Wn.2d 887, 558 P.2d 215 (1976) ("agency action could not be challenged on review until all rights of administrative appeal have been exhausted"); RlLAssociates v. CityofSeattie, 61 Wn. App. 670, 675-76, 811 P.2d 971 (Div. I 1991) (developer's failure to utilize administrative code interpretation process barred judicial review of city building site detennination). -44 - requirement. The City's argument here is, in essence, an expedient defense which, if accepted, would mandate piecemeal judicial review of annexations proceedings --not the result contemplated under the exhaustion doctrine or in the BRB statute. Therefore, District 90 properly raised the issue of the sufficiency of the annexation petition on appeal of the BRB decision. E. The Trial Court Properly Awarded Sanctions Pursuant to . CRll Renton also raises several objections to the trial court's award of $250.00 in sanctions under CR 11. Each of.the City's objections is meritless. The City first argues that its objections had a sufficient legal basis under CR 11. The City's only claim in this regard is that no reference to the BRB transcript or record was necessary for the trial court's decision and that therefore its objections to repaying the cost District 90 was charged for preparing the record is well-taken. City Brief at 32. This argument is incorrect. Under RCW 36.93.160(6), a court can only review a BRB decision on the record (including the transcript) of proceedings before the BRB; District 90 was required to provide a record.43 Indeed, the City's " Hinds, 61 Wo. App. at 375; King County v. BRB. 122 Wo.2d at 672. -45- • own brief here refers to that record numerous times. City Brief at 4,5,8, and 9. The City's objection was frivolous and violated CR 11. The City then argues that because it had not filed an actual motion to retax costs, named as such, and District 90 should not have responded to the "Objection." The City claims that it was in the process of drafting such a motion, which it never filed. City Brief at 32-33.44 This argument makes no sense. The BRB filed its Objection within 6 days of the filing of the Cost Bill, obviously treating the Objection as if it were a motion to retax (required to be filed within six days). CR 78(e)(4). District 90 properly treated the BRB's Objection, and the City's subsequent, "me-too" Objection, as any prudent party would --as if it were intended to be a motion to retax. The City never explains what it thought it was doing when it filed the frivolous Objection; if it was not meant to seek retaxing, or postpone entry of a judgment on the . cost bill, what was its purpose? Renton does not say. District 90's response (CP 610-17) was proper.4S .. All such City claims are unsupported by citation to the record . •• . Cf. PugeJ v. Monheimer. 83 Wn. App. 688, 693, _P,2d _ (Div. I 1996) (party responding to inappropriate brief entitled to sanctions under RAP 18.9 even though party could have also moved to strike offending brief). -46- • Renton then argues that it-had no opportunity to respond to the request for sanctions. Citing Byant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., 119 Wn.2d 210,218,829 P.2d 1099 (1992), the City argues that because no formal motion for sanctions was filed, the City was deprived of due process because it lacked notice and an opportunity to respond. City Brief at 35. This argument is also incorrect. The Bzyant Court specifically held that the inclusion of a request for sanctions in an appellate reply brief constituted notice. 119 Wn.2d at 224. Here, Renton received notice when it was served with District 90's request for sanctions, which was faxed to it on July 12 (the day it was filed) and which was also served by mail. Renton asserts that, relying on what it claims it learned about the court's schedule, it decided on its own not to request a hearing or additional time for a response. City Brief at 10. Yet, once the trial court ruled, Renton nev~r moved for reconsideration, which would have also provided an opportunity for a response and hearing, nor did it ever make a record to the Court of the various claims and misunderstandings it now asserts on appeal. Renton received all the notice to which it was entitled. -47- • , Renton then argues that the sanctions were inappropriate because the trial court did not include specific findings as to the amount of attorneys' fees incurred by District 90. It neglects to point out, however, that the level of justification for a Rule 11 decision in the record need only correspond to the amount, type, and effect of the sanction applied. MacDonald v. Korum Ford, 80 Wn.App. 877, 1061, _ P.2d _ (Div. II 1996). Further, specific findings are not required where a trial court order indicates the basis upon which the sanctions were imposed. Madden v. Foley, 83 Wn. App. 385, 389, _ P.2d _ (Div. I 1996). Here, the trial court's order sufficiently discloses the basis for awarding sanctions, particularly given the small amount awarded ($250.00). CP 637. There was no error. F. If The Court of Appeals Determines to Reverse the Trial Court Decision, It Should Remand the Case to the Trial Court In light of the trial court's decision on the insufficiency of the school district petition, the trial court declined to reach the issues of appearance of fairness, due process, and the BRB decision's lack of compliance with the statutory factors in RCW . _ 36.93. CP 605 (Conclusion 2.9). Renton has ~equested that, if this Court decides to reverse. the trial court decision, this Court should -48- • • • not remand the case, but should decide the remaining issues itself. City Brief at 38-39. Assuming that it needs to reach the issue, this Court should decline the City's invitation. The City cites only Bl}'ant, but that case concerns a trial court's failure to enter findings on a specific issue (sanctions) it considered. 119 Wn.2d at 216-17,222. It does not concern circumstances such as those here, where a party requests an appellate court not to remand a case for issues on which there has been no trial court decision whatsoever. Because the trial court (not the Court of Appeals) has original jurisdiction over appeals from BRB decisions (RCW 36.93.160(6)), if the trial court decision is reversed --and it should not be --this Court should remand the matter to the trial COurt!6 If this Court nevertheless determines to reach these issues, District 90 requests that it consider District 90's briefs below (CP 115-188, CP 408-593) and the transcript of oral argument (VRP II). V. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the trial court's decision should .6 In Weyerhaeus~rv. Pierce County, 124 Wn.2d 26,37,873 P.2d 498 (1994), the Supreme Court did retain jurisdiction to resolve additional legal issues after reversing a trial court decision, but only after it had been requested to do so by the parties. -49- be affirmed. DATED this ;;..,..). day ofDecember. 1996. users\bcs\wpc\rspbrie3.doc , HELSELL FETTERMAN UP 'By:~ C!.~ Peter J. Eglick. Bar No. 8809 Bob C. Sterbank. Bar No. 19514 Attorneys for Respondents King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green ·50 - PLANNING D,!~~s~?,N CITY OF " rJ~N 7. 1997 RECEnlfD RE1URNCOPY No. 39006-6-1 COURT OF APPEAlS, DIVISION ONE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON . KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, a Washington municipal corporation; f J LED JAN·O 6 1997 and NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN, husband and wife, Respondents, v. THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, Appellant, and WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, a state agency, Defendant REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON Lawrence J. Warren, WSBA No.5853 of Warren, Kellogg, Barber, De8ll & Fontes, P.S., Attorney for Appellant, City of Renton P.O. Box 626, 100 S. 2nd Street, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 255-8678 TABLE OF CONTENTS I SUMMARY OF FACTS ................................................................ 1 n. ISSUES .......................................................................................... 3 m. ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 4 A. PROCEDURAL ISSUES: 1. 2. 3. DOES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT APPLY .. TO AN APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FROM A DECISION OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD? .................................. 4 IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AS A PROPERTY OWNER. AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY WHEN THE SUPERIOR COURT CONSIDERS THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RIGHT TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO A CITY? ............................................................. 6 DOES THE CITY OR THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE ON A PETITION TO ANNEX, OR MUST THIS ISSUE BE DIRECTLY PRESENTED TO THE SupERIOR COURT? ........... 6 SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY UNDER CHAPTER 35A.14 RCW?. ..... 10 IS THE CITY REOUIRED TO ADOPT LEGISLATION APPROVING AN ANNEXATION AND SUBMIT SUCH LEGISLATION TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AS PART OF THE CITY'S SUBMITTAL OF ITS NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION? .. , ..... , .... , .... , ......... " .. , .. , ... , ..... "., ... , ........ , .... 16 .': . ',: .. , ii J I I, 1 C. POST DECISION MATTERS: 1. WERE SANCTIONS IMPROPERLY AWARDED AGAINST THE CITY PURSUANT TO CR II? ............................................. 19 2. SHOULD THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDE THIS CASE ON THE MERITS? .............................................................................. 21 IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 22 ATTACHMENTS A. In Re: City of BeUevue Proposed Annexation (Newport Hills, King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773). B. Certified copy of page 419 of Renton City Council Minutes of November 6, 1995 relating to City Council adoption of an ordinance annexing the Bumstead annexation properties. C. Letter from Robert. C. Kaufinan,Special Assist~t Attorney General, to Ms. Carol R. Campben dated August 22, 1994. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES , TABLE OF WASHINGTON CASES ............................................. PAGE 1. Bryant v. Joseph Tree. Inc. 119 Wn.2d 210, ................................ 20 829 P.2d 1099 (1992). 2. In Re Salris, 94 Wn.2d 889, 621 P.2d 716 (1980) .......................... 5 3. Johnson v. Spokane"19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164, .................. 9,13 review denied 90 Wn.2d 1026 (1978). 4. King County v. Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d ................ 4 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). 5 ... .": :. Leson v. Department of Ecology; 59 Wn. App. 407, 799 .............. S P.2d 268 (1990). U1 6. Orchard Grove Water Ass'n. v. King Cy. Boundary Review Bd., 24 Wn. App. 116, 600 P.2d 616 (1979) ...................... 7 7. Parosa v. Tacoma. 57 Wn. 2d 409,357 P.2d 873 (1960) ............... 9,13 8. Spokane Fire Protection District No.9 v. Spokane ...................... 4 County Boundary Review Board. 97 Wn.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982). STATUTES 1. RCW 7.24 ........................................................................... 9 2. RCW 28A58.044 ...............................................•... : ........... 14 3. RCW 28A320.015(I)(c) ..................................................... 13 4. RCW 28A335.090 ............................................................. 13 5. RCW 2SA335.110 ............................................................. 10,11.13 6. RCW 34.05.542 .................................................................. 6 7. RCW35.13.125 .................................................................. 11 . S RCW35.13.130 .................................................................. 11 9. RCW35.14.120 .................................................................. 11 10. RCW35AI4 ...................................................................... 3,10 11. RCW 35A01.040(9)(a)-(d) ......... : ........ : .............................. S,12.15 12. RCW35AI4.120 ................................................................ 11.12 13. RCW 35A14.140 ................................................................ 17 ·14. '. RCW 36.70AII0 ............................................................... is IV , <~ " " j 3 :1 1 ~ ., i ~ • 1 :: '1 , , . , ;; ~ . . , I ., j , j 1 1 3.23.1a . 15. RCW 36.93 ......................................................................... 4.7.10 16. RCW 36.93.090 .................................................................. 16· 17. RCW 36.93.130 .................................................................. 17 18. RCW 36.93.157 .................................................................. 7,18 19. RCW 36.93.170 .................................................................. 7 20. RCW 36.93.180 ................................................................. : 7 21. RCW 36.93.200 .................................................................. 16 CIVIL RULES 1. CR 6(d) ............................................................................... 19 1. CR 6(e) ...... : .................. : ..................................................... 19 2. CRll ................................................................................. 4,19 v I. SUMMARY OF FACTS As in the City of Renton's (hereinafter City) opening brie£ references to the record will be BP to the Boundary Review Board (hereinafter BRB) papers, BTR to the BRB transcript, and CP to the Clerk's Papers. The facts in this case were extensively discussed in the Citis . opening brief and the respo~se brief of King County Water District .. No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green (hereinafter Opponents). However, for ease of reference and for context, the City will very briefly restate the facts. The City was petitioned to annex certain property. One of the signatories to the petition was the Renton School District (hereinafter School DistrictXBP 219). Without the School District's signature the petition would not achieve the statutory requirement of bearing the signatures of the owners of sixty percent of the assessed value of the land within the annexation. City staff reviewed the petition, including the School District's signature, and indicated to the City Council that the sixty percent signature requirement had been met (BP 253-259). The City Council approved the annexation and directed staff to file a notice of intention to annex with the . BRB, as permitted by law (BP 253) ... REPLY BRlEFOFAPPELD\NT--'-'~' CTIY OF CITY -Page 1 J ". " ., • • •• _.,.' " ,', .. Opponents challenged the legality of the School District's signature before the BRB (BP 204-226). The BRB indicated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue (BTR 10-12). The BRB conducted a hearing over two separate dates concerning the annexation, ultimately approving the annexation and adopting a resolution and hearing decision (CP 24). Opponents appealed that decision to the King County Superior. Court (CP 3-29) . . In superior' court Opponents continued to raise the issue of the legality of the School District's signature. The City moved to djsmiss that issue on a number of grounds. The City argued that the issue of legality of the School District's signature had not been preserved by appealing that issue to the BRB (CP 236-238). Also, the City argued that the right to sign a petition to annex was a property right of the School District and, thus, the School District was an indispensable party (CP 189-200). Despite the City's continuing objections, the superior court decided that the School District didn't have the legal authority to sign the petition to annex (CP 633), and without the School District's signature, the petitiOn. to annex was' insufficient and dismissed the petition. The City also raised several other procedural arguments which were rejected. by .the. superior court ... Finally, ·withoutadequate notice or.an .opportunity,tobe heard,.the. superior court . -.. '--. '-'REPI:V-BRIEF'OFAPPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 2 I ! I I , i I I sanctioned both the BRB and the City for filing an objection to a Cost Bill (CP 636-638). From these rulings the City has appealed. IT. ISSUES Since this is a reply brief the City has attempted to organize .its issues and argument to mirror, as closely as possible, Opponent's brief and . organization. Where possible the City has repeated its issue from its opening brief A PROCEDURAL ISSUES; 1. DOES TIIE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT APPLY TO AN APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FROM A DECISION OF TIIE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD? 2. 3. IS TIIE SeHOOL DISTRICT. AS A PROPERTY OWNER. AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY WHEN THE SUPERIOR COURT CONSIDERS TIIE LEGAL ISSUE OF TIIE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RIGHT TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO A CITY? DOES TIIE CITY OR TIIE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER TIIE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF TIIE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE ON A PETITION TO ANNEX. OR MUST THIS ISSUE BE DIRECTLY PRESENTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT? B. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES; 1. DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE THE·, LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY UNDER CHAPTER 3SA 14 RCW? . REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 3 , . .. .. " ~ .. ,' . J 1 1 , , 1 . I 1 .; 2. IS TIfE CITY REOUIRED TO ADOPT LEGISLATION APPROVING AN ANNEXATION AND SUBMIT SUCH LEGISLATION TO TIfE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AS PART OF TIfE CITY'S. SUBMITTAL OF ITS NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION? C. POST DECISION MATTERS: 1. WERE' SANCTIONS IMPROPERL Y AWARDED AGAINST THE CITY PURSUANT TO CR 11? 2. A 1. SHOULD TIfE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDE TInS CASE ON THE MERITS? m. ARGUMENT PROCEDURAL ISSUES: DOES TIfE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT APPLY TO AN APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT FROM A DECISION OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD? Opponents correctly argue that appeals from BRB decisions are conducted pursuant to RCW 36.93, but they further argue that the APA cannot also apply. Opponents miss the point made by the court in King County v. BOundary Review Board. 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993), and Spokane Fire Protection District No.9 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982). Those cases stand for the proposition that while both statutes apply, the BRB appeal statute, RCW 36.93, the more specific statute, governs the more general APA unless the:BRB appeal statute is silent. In an instance such as ·REPLYBRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 4 , : .i , lj 1 .. Ii : : i· ! 1 ~ .~ : I : I j .1 .. ~ j i i '. , 1 ! j ; , . i , ! J ·1 I , I j , I ; , , , \ ( ~ : the presented case where the BRB appeal statute is silent on the number of days for service, the APA applies. Opponents claim that service was timely because the BRB never served a copy of its decision on the Greens, indefinitely tolling the time for service. They cite to Leson v. Department of Ecology, 59 Wn. App. 407, 799 P.2d 268 (1990). That case holds that the time to appeal does not· begin to run on an AP A case until the decision is properly served. However, Leson notes an exception to that rule when there is substantial compliance resulting in full and, therefore, adequate notice of the decision, Ill. at 410 .. See In Re Saltis, 94'Wn.2d 889,621 P.2d 716 (1980), wherein substantial compliance was deemed sufficient for filing a notice of appeal under the APA. In this instance, the City would agree that the Greens were not served with the decision. However, the Greens joined Water District No.90 in an appeal, and a copy of the BRB decision was attached to the appeal Therefore, the Greens had full and complete notice of the decision as of the date of their appeal While the time to appeal may have been tolled, once the Greens had full notice, which they did when they filed the lawsuit, the tolling Stopped. Under the most advantageous set offacts, the Greens had thirty days after filing of this action under-the APA; RCW·, REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 5 ! I I 1 34.05.;42, to serve the pleadings on all parties, which they failed to do. The suit should be dismissed for failure to timely obtain service under the APA 2. IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AS A PROPERTY OWNER, AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY WHEN THE SUPERIOR COURT CONSIDERS THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RIGHT TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY TO A CITY? The response brief of Opponents lists this issue as issue B.2, but the text is silent as to whether or not the School District is an indispensable party to this action. The City will not. repeat the arguments made in its opening brief; but simply note that the right to sign a petition to annex has been held to be an inherent right flowing from ownership of real property (see City's opening brief at pages 18-20). Without the School District, the property owner, being a party to this litigation, the court should not have addressed this issue. 3. DOES THE CITY OR THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE ON A PETITION TO ANNEX. OR MUST THIS ISSUE BE DIRECTLY PRESENTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT? When the legal ability of the School District to sign a petition to annex was not raised before the School Board or the City, has that issue been preserved? The Cityc1aimsthat the BRB .. did not' have jurisdiction to REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 6 j consider the legality of the School District's signature on a petition to annex. Consequently, the City claims that the superior court did not have jurisdiction to consider that issue on appeal from the BRB decision. To answer this fundamental issue, the court must look to the BRB statute and BRB jurisdiction. A review of Chapter 36.93 RCW will disclose no authorization for the BRB to review the legality of signatures on a petition to annex. Rather, the BRB has the statutory authority to review statutory factors (RCW 36.93.170), statutory objectives (RCW 36.93.180), and the annexation's compliance with certain sections of the Growth Management Act (hereinatl:er GMA) (RCW 36.93.157). Nothing in those statutory sections implies a right or need to review the legality of signatures on a petition. Opponents make the argument that the BRB, through its own rules and regulations, may somehow expand its statutory authority and thereby achieve jurisdiction over the issue of the legality of the School District's signature. There is a reason why the BRB should not consider the legal issue of the School District's authority to sign a petition to annex. The BRB is supposed to ultimately decide, in an annexation case, if a City's boundaries should be extended. See Orchard Grove Water AsS'D. v. King Cv. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 7 . . J ; , , . ;,~ . r , -'1 1 ; . I 'j! , i Ji .. ; ·1 i 'j' i , I Boundarv Review Board. 24 Wn. App. 116, 600 P.2d 616 (1979). The issues are largely factual or, in certain instances, quasi judicial. However, the issue of the legaIity of the School District's signature is purely a legal question that is outside the authority or expertise of the BRB. Such an issue must be raised to a court through such a proceeding as a declaratory judgment action or an ·extraordinary writ . Indeed, the City does not have authority to render a. decision concerning the legal authority of the School District to sign the petition to annex. The City's authority in reviewing signatures on the petition to . annex is limited by RCW 35AOl.040(9)(a) through (d). That statute requires the City to determine that the petition is signed by the appropriate parties, such as: (a) the owner of the property, with or without a spouse's signature; (b) on mortgaged property, the signature of the mortgagor; (c) for property purchased on contract, the signature of the contract purchaser as shown by the records of the county auditor; or (d) for a corporation, an officer of the corporation duly authorized to execute deeds or encumbrances on behalf of the corporation. These are all factual questions that can be reviewed by checking signatures with county records or corporate records. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CIlY OF CITY -Page 8 There has been no question raised about the City's review of signatures meeting this statutory secti~n. Opponents, however, would argue that the City must go beyond the express language of the statute and render a legal decision about the authority of the School District to sign a petition to annex. That decision is one that is inherently made by the courts, and one over which City has been granted no power to decide. Opponents argue that their remedy cannot be by de<;iaratory judgment. That conclusion is erroneous. RCW 7.24, the Ulriform Declaratory Judgment Act, provides a ready relief The two cases in which the appellate courts have addressed challenges to the authority to sign petitions to annex are instructive. Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 410, 357 P.2d 873 (1960), involved a declaratory judgment action combined with an injunction request, and Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 723, 577 P.2d 164, review denied 90 Wn.2d 1026 (1978), was an action for a restraining order. Neither case arose from an appeal of a BRB decision. Even if a declaratory judgment action or extraordinary writ was not available to Opponents, it does not mean that Opponents have the right to appeal the legality of the School District's signature to the BRB. The lack of a precisely defined right of appeal does not invest the BRB with REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT··_····- CITY OF CITY -Page 9 !; i: i. i: ; j appellate authority over an issue not granted to it within its enabling legislation. Opponents did not challenge the legal ability of the School District to sign the petition to annex before either the School District or the City, nor did Opponents take this issue to court. Therefore, Opponents failed to preserve this issue. If the BRB did not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of the School District's signature on the petition to annex, then the superior court, on appeal, did not have jurisdiction to consider that issue. There is nothing in the BRB statute, Title 36.93 RCW, which authorizes the BRB to review the legality of signatures on the petition to annex. B. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: 1. DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY UNDER CHAPTER 35A.14 RCW? Opponents argUe that the School District is proluoited by RCW 28A.335.1l0 from signing a petition to annex property unless its property constitutes the entirety of the annexation. According to the clear terms of that statute, it does not apply to the School District. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 10 I , , I I , j RCW 28A.335.110 states: "In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law, every board of directors, if seeking to have school property annexed to a city or town and if such school property constitutes the whole of such property in the annexation petition, shall be allowed to petition therefore under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130." RCW 28A.335.110 refers to annexation under RCW 35.13.125 and 130, while the annexation at issue was under RCW35A.14.120. RCW 28A.335.110 is not applicable to the present case. Further weight is given to this argument by referring to RCW 35.13.130, one of the two statutes specifically referenced in RCW 28A.335.110: "A petition for annexation of an area contiguous to a city or town may be made in writing addressed to and filed with the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is desired. Exce.pt where all the property sought to be annexed is propertY of a school district. and the school directors thereof file the petition for annexation as in RCW 28A.335.110 authorized, the petition must be signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five Percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned: PROVIDED, That in cities and towns .with populations greater than one hundred sixty thousand located east of the Cascade mountains, the owner of tax exempt property may sign an annexation petition and have the tax exempt prop erty annexed into the city or town, but the value of the tax exempt· propertY shall not be used in calculating the sufficiency of the reQlli:red property owner signatures unless only tax exempt property is proposed to be annexed into the city or town." (emphasis added) _ . . --.- REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 11 j 1 I J .~ i "j Contrast that statute with the one under which the City processed the present annexation, RCW 35A 14.120, which states in relevant part: "A petition for annexation of an area contiguous to a code city may be filed with the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is desired. It must be signed by the owners, as defined by RCW 35AOl.040(9) (a) through (d), of not less than sixty percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned: PROVIDED, That a petition for annexation of an area having at least eighty percent of the boundaries of such arc;a contiguous with a portion of the boundaries of the code· city, not including that portion of the boundary of the area proposed to be annexed that is coterminous with a portion of the boundary between two counties in this state; need be signed by only the owners of not less than fifty percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which the annexation is petitioned." (emphasis added) These two statutory sections have at least four important differences: (1) . The statute applicable to this annexation does not reference the statute limiting the School District's authority to sign petitions to annex; (2) The statute applicable to this annexation only requires the oWners of sixty percent of the value of the property within the annexation to, sign the petition as contrasted with seventy-five percent in the inapplicable statute; REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 12 I I • i ; j , , , , ) (3) The statute applicable to this annexation does not contain the restraint on tax exempt properties in general not being able to sign a petition to annex unless it is the only property proposed to be annexed into· the city or town; (4) The inapplicable statute is applied to cities and towns over 160,000 population located east of the Cascade Mountains. Renton is located west of the mountains and has less than 160,000 population. According to its stated terms, RCW 28A335.110 does not apply to the annexation being contested in this case. Opponents argue that if this statute is not applicable, that there is no authority for the School District to sign a petition to annex. This is incorrect. A governmental entity owning property has, as an incident of such ownership, the authority to sign a petition to annex its property to a city. See Parosa v. Tacoma. supra, and Johnson v. Spokane, supra. Additionally, there is independent authority in support of the School District's authority to sign a petition to annex. RCW 28A335.090 gives school districts the authority to acqUire, hold and dispose of property. Additionally, RCW 28A320.015(lXc) grants school districts the powers "necessarily and fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law." Unless· specifically limited by statute, which is not the case before this REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 13 court, the power to sign a petition to annex would be a power necessarily and fairly implied as part of the ownership ofland Opponents argue that the BRB has recognized the prohI"bition against school districts' participation in general annexations and then cite to page 7 of the BRB's decision in the matter of In Re: City of BeUevue Proposed Annexation (Newport Hills, King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773) (Attachment A to this brief). However, Opponents' conchIsion is erroneous. The BRB statement was one of procedural fact and not part of its decision: "The original proposed Newport Hills annexation area is· modified to include three school sites excluded from the' . annexation as submitted by the Citv ofBenevue." The school district's properties were excluded from the annexation due to the provisions in state law, RCW 28A58.044, which may be interpreted to prohI"bit school district properties from joining in annexations involving additional properties not owned by the. school district." (emphasis added). The BRB was sitnply reciting the facts on how the petition came to the BRB. The BRB did not recognize any prohI"bition against school districts' participation in general annexations, as it was not an issue. Opponents cite in their brief to a flyer which the City distn"buted in the early stages of this· annexation. This flyer stated that the School District property was not included in the annexation because it did not REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT cm OF CITY -Page 14 l I I constitute the entirety of the annexation. When this flyer was distributed the City was providing general information about this annexation, but not soliciting signanires on a petition to annex. When presented with a petition containing the School District's signature, the City reviewed the petition under RCW 35AOr.040 (9Xa) through (d) and found that the School District's signature met the statute and certified the petition as adequate .. While Opponents have cited to the earlier flyer, they have not made an argument based upon it. There was no .argument that an estoptJel was worked, nor that this was a declaration against the City's legal interests. This reference was included for no apparent purpose and should be ignored by the court. The better rule in this case would be that the School District had the authority to sign the petition to annex in this case. The statute requiring that the School District own all territory in an annexation before it had authority to sign the petition to annex, according to its terms, is not applicable to this annexation. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 15 , .. '., -.~ . " 2. IS THE CITY REOUIRED TO ADOPT LEGISLATION APPROVING AN ANNEXATION AND SUBMlT SUCH LEGISLATION TO THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD AS PART OF THE CITY'S SUBMlTTAL OF ITS NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION? Opponents' brie±: at pages 24 and 25, argues that the BRB' s Rules of Practice and Procedure can be interpreted to require the BRB to review the petition to annex and the signatures thereon. The BRB's Rules of Practice and Procedure are adopted pursuant to RCW 36.93.200 which permits the adoption of rules governing the formal and informal procedures before the BRB. However, that statute does not attempt to give the BRB power to expand its own authority. Opponents' brief then argues that the BRB's Rules of Practice and Procedure require the filing of a notice of intent to annex which includes a requirement for a signed and certified copy of the resolution/ordinance accepting the annexation's proposal. From that, the Opponents' brie±: without citation to authority, states that the City's ordinance would, in the normal course of adoption, incorporate by reference the petition to annex, which would then give the BRB the authority to review the signatures on the petition. There is no requirement . that an incorporation ordinance or resolution be filed with the .BRB, nor is"the ordinance or resolution required to incorporate the petition by reference. ':In'fact; RCW36.93.090 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 16 allows the City Council to file a notice of proposed action (generally . referred to as a notice of intention) with the BRB immediately following the body's first acceptance of approval of an action, such as a change in the City's boundaries by annexation. The notice of intention is required to contain certain information pursuant to RCW 36.93.130, but there is no requirement for an ordinance or resolution as part of the notice of intention. While there is a requirement that the City adopt an ordinance approving the annexation, RCW 3SA.14.l40, there is no requirement that such ordinance be adopted prior to filing the notice of intention with the BRB. Ahhough it is not part of the record before this court, the City has adopted the ordinance on annexation, but instructed the City Clerk to withhold publishing the ordinance until after the BRB review of this matter was completed and the appeals exhausted (see certified copy of Council minutes, Attachment B). In order for Opponents' position to be correct, the BRB would have to create additional jurisdiction to review the legality of signatures of petitions to annex. Such review is beyond the authority that was delegated to the BRB by statute. The BRB then would have to be able to force a city to file an annexation ordinance or resolution when a city need only file a notice of intention to annex. Furthermore, the BRB would have to be able REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CIlY OF CITY -Page 17 to compel a city to 'craft its annexation ordinance or resolution in a manner not required by law by requiring the city to attach the petition to annex to the ordinance. Clearly, the BRB does not have such jurisdiction and power. Opponents suggest in footnote 23 to their brief on page 25 that the BRB interpreted and enforced its rules and regulation in a manner similar to that suggested by Opponents. Opponents cite to a BRB case inV<llving Vashon Island. However, that case is readily distinguishable. In that case Vashon Island wished to incorporate but did not have an urban growth area. The BRB refused to process the petition because it did not comply with the GMA. The BRB, by RCW 36.93.157, must make its decisions consistent with cited portions of the GMA, including RCW 36.70A 110, dealing with urban growth areas. The BRB interpreted its statutory authority to be exceeded when the proposed city was not within an urban growth area (see letter, Attachment C). As such, the BRB specifically performed its statutory function when it refused to process the petition for incorporation. The Vashon Island case is readily distinguishable uDm the case at bar. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY· Page 18 C. POST DECISION MATTERS: 1. WERE SANCTIONS IMPROPERLY AWARDED AGAINST THE CITY PURSUANT TO CR II? Opponents choose to argue the merits of the award of sanctions. The objection the City raises is to due process. CR 11 permits sanctions to be imposed upon motion or upon the court's own initiative. Opponents included a motion for sanctions in what they termed Appellants' Reply in Support of Cast Bill (CP 610-627). However, they did not include a note for the motion calendar. Opponents' brief: at page 47, reveals that it faxed a copy of the motion on July 12, 1996, the date it was filed, and served the motion by mail. There is no claim that the City agreed to accept service by fax, and so service was achieved by mail. CR 6( e) requires that three days shall be added to the prescnoed service time when service is made by mail. Service was thus achieved on July 15, 1996. CR 6(d) requires that "A written motion, ... , and notice of the hearing thereof shall be served not later than 5 days beyond the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by order of the court." The court's order was signed on July 17, 1996, two days after service. Opponents' brief: at the bottom of page 47, claims that the City received all the notice to which it was entitled. Two days notice is not what the City is entitled to receive. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 19 Opponents' brief does not discuss why it failed to note this motion or provide any legal reasoning why it was not required to comply with the Civil Rules by noting the motion. Opponents' brief; at page 47, also cites to Bryant v. Joseph Tree. Inc .• 119 Wn.2d 210,224, 829 P.2d 1099 (1992), for the proposition that it could properly include a request for sanctions in its reply brief becauSe the Bryant court had permitted inclusion of a request for sanctions in an appellate reply brief However, that case involved an appellate reply brief and the party against whom sanctions were claimed had an opportunity to address the court at oral argument. In the case at bar, no such opportunity was provided. There was no hearing date scheduled, nor given. Opponents also argue that the trial court's order sufl:iciently discloses the basis for awarding sanctions. However, the court order discloses no basis for awarding sanctions. Although the amount of sanctions imposed was nominal, the process was fundamentally unfair and indefensible. The imposition of sanctions must be reversed. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 20 2. SHOULD THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDE TIllS CASE ON THE MERITS? Since the filing of the City's opening brief; the facts have somewhat changed. As disclosed by the City in its opening brief; the City wanted a quick resohrtion of this case in order to try to save the School District money for installation of its sewer line. If this annexation is not approved, the School District will be required to install a forced main sewer which will be worthless and abandoned once sewers are extended to the area aroWld the school If this annexation is approved, the City would permit the installation of a permanent sewer line to serve projected development in the area, to the benefit of the school However, there is another reason for this court to resolve this case. There is a proposed incorporation in this area. The BRB is presently Wldergoing fiscal analysis to determine whether or not the proposed City of Briarwood is fiscally sOWld. The property that is the subject of this annexation is included within the proposed Briarwood incorporation. Although the exact timing of the fiscal analysis and any subsequent election is Wlcertain, extensive delay would potentia1ly include this territory within the incorporation election. Finally, the superior court judge in this matter -chose not to run again for office. Her term will be finished in January 1997. Therefore, REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 21 iJ :i ., 'j 1 , i !j !i II there is no benefit to remanding this case to superior -court for appellate reVIew. Therefore, the City requests this court to make a determination as to whether or not the BRB decision should be affirmed. IV. CONCLUSION Opponents failed to properly challenge the legal ability of the School District to sign a petition to annex its property to the City. The challenge should have been directly to superior court. The BRB had no authority to decide that legal issue. When Opponents appealed the BRB decision approving this annexation they had to properly serve the petition under the APA for the court to obtain jurisdiction. They failed to do so. They also were required to join the School District as a party in order to litigate the issue of the School District's right, as a property owner, to sign the petition to annex. Even if the City's jurisdictional arguments fail, the better reading of the law on the merits is that the School District had the authority to sign the petition to annex. The superior court's decision should be reversed and this court should determine that the BRB record'was sufficient to support its decision to approve this annexation. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 22 j i i I 11 I ,! DATED this 3rd day of January, 1997. 3.23:01:as. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT CITY OF CITY -Page 23 Respectfully submitted, I awrence 1. W / Attorney for Appellant, City of City WSBA No.S853 ( .• ,j' ,.. PLANNING DIVISION "-TV 1"), RENTON SEP 5 1996 Ht:CEIVED 39006-6-1 COURT OF APPEALS, DfHSIONONE OF THE STATE OF WASBlNGTON KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, a Washington municipal corporation; and NORMAN and C\(I;"TBIA GREEN, husband and wife, Respondents, v. THE cm' OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, Appellant, . and WASBlNGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIIW BOARD FOR KING COlJ~"TY, a state agency, Defendant BRJIF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON Lawrence J. Warren, WSBA NO.5853 of Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S., Attorney for Appellant, City of Renton • P. O. Box 626, 100 S. 2nd Street, Renton, Washington 98057 (206) 255-8678 -- • ., TABLE OF CONTENTS A ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR...................................................... 1,2 l. The trial court erred by denying Renton's motion to dismiss for failure to serve all parties within thirty (30) days as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 2. The trial court erred in denying Renton's motion to dismiss for failure to join· an indispensable party as it relates to that portion of this action which claimed that the Renton School District did not have the authority to sign a petition to annex. 3. The trial court erred in denying Renton's motion to dismiss for failure to timely appeal that portion of this action which challenged the Renton School District's authority to sign a petition to annex its property. 4. The trial court erred in determining that the Renton School District did not have authority to sign the petition to annex its property to the City of Renton. 5. The trial court erred in entering an Order Taxing Costs and Opposing Sanctions pursuant to CR 11, without a motion being noted and \vithout an opportunity to respond being prOvided to the sanctioned parties. 6. The trial court erred in not ruling on the merits of the appeal from the Boundary Review Board decision. ISSUES PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ............ 2,3 l. DID THE SUPERIOR COURT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER TIllS APPEAL FROM A BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION? A DOES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT APPLY TO BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD APPEALS? .. \I B. MUST THE APPEAL BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION? C. IS THE SERVICE REOUIREMENT TOLLED OR ELIMINATED IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE. DECISION ISN'T SERVED ON THE APPEALING PARTY? 2. IN AN ACTION CHALLENGING THE RIGHT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY: A. IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY? B. MUST THE CITY DECIDE THE LEGAL ABILITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SIGN THE PETITION TO ANNEX? . C. CAN THE CITY'S DECISION CONCERNING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE BE COLLA TERALL Y ATTACKED IN AN APPEAL OF A BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION. OR MUST IT BE DIRECTLY CHALLENGED BY A WRIT OR DECLA.RATORY JUDGMENT ACTION? . D. DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY UNDER CHAPTER 35A.14 RCW? 3. ARE SANCTIONS UNDER CR II APPROPRIATE? A. MUST THERE BE NOTICE' AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE REOUEST FOR SANCTIONS? B. MUST THE SANCTIONED PARTY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS ACTIONS WHICH WERE SANCTIONED? ." III , , C, MUST THE COURT APPLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARDS IN IMPOSING THE SANCTIONS? 4, SHOULD THE COURT OF APPEALS EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY AND DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL FROM THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION APPROVING THIS ANNEXATION? B, STATEMENT OF THE CASE"""""""",."""""",.""""""", ... "", 3 C, ARGUMENT ""." ",' ",' ""'" """""'''''""." "" "'" "," "" ""'''' "'" '" '" II D, CONCLUSION" '" "" "" "" "'" "'" ", """'" "" "" ,,", "" "" "" "'" "" "'" 40 E. APPENDIX .- IV TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I. TABLE OF WASHINGTON CASES. PAGE I. Barendregt v. WaUa WaUa No. 140, 26 Wn. App. 25 246,611 P.2d 1385 (1980). 2. Brvant v. Joseph Tree. Inc. 119 Wn.2d 210, 35,36,37,39 829 P.2d 1099 (1992). 3. Bryant y. Joseph Tree. Inc. 57 Wn. App. 107,791, P.2d 39 537 (1990), affirmed 1I9 Wn. 2d 210,829 P.2d 1099 (1992). 4. Burrichter v. Cline, 3 Wash. 135,28 Pac. 367 (1915). 32 5. City of Seattle v. Public Emplovment Relations 16,17 Commission, 116 Wn.2d 923,809 P.2d 1377 (1991). 6. Department of Ecologv v. BaUard Elks Lodge 26 No. 827, 84 Wn.2d 551, 527 P.2d 1I21 (1974). 7. Fay v. Northwest Airlines. Inc .. 115 Wn.2d 194, 16 796 P.2d 412 (1990). 8. Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. App. 530, 815 27 P.2d 790 (1991). 9. Fire Protec. y. Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982). 10. Hatzenbuhler v. Harrison, 49 Wn.2d 691,306 P.2d 745 (1957). II. Herring v. DSHS, 81 Wn. App. 1,33,914 P.2d 67 (1996). 12. Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 ( 1978). v 12,13,14 36,37 18,28 . . 13 King Coun~ v. Boundao: Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 12 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). 14. LobdeU v. Sugar 'n Sllice, Inc., 33 Wn. App. 881, 39 658 P.2d 1267; review denied, 99 Wn.2d 1016 (1983). 15. McDonald v. Korum Ford, 80 Wn. App. 877, 37 912 P.2d 1052 (1996). 16. NisguaUv Delta Ass'n. v. DUllont, 27 Wn. App. 13 163,617 P.2d 446 (1980). 17. Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn. 2d 409,357 P.2d 873 (1960). 18,28 18. Saint Francis Extended Health Care v. Dellartment 26 of Social and Health Services, 115 Wn.2d 690, 801 P.2d 212 (1990). 19. Schmitt v. Calle George Sewer Dist., 61 Wn. App. 1, 11,25 809 P.2d 217 (1991). 20. Smith v. Dellartment of Labor and Industries, 15 23 Wn. App. 516,596 P)d 296 (1979). 21. Snohomish County v. Hines, 61 Wo. App. 371, 11,13 810 P.2d 84 (1991). 22. Union Bav v. Cosmos Develollment, 127 Wn.2d 15,16 614,902 P.2d 1247 ( 1995). " -~. Veradale VaUev v. County Comm'rs, 22 Wn. App. 229, 19 588 P.2d 750 (1978). II. TABLE OF FEDERAL CASES. 1. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379, 29 35· L. Ed. 2d 113,91 S. Ct. 780 (1971». 2. Tom Grownev Eguill., Inc. v. SheUel: Irrig. 35 Dev., Inc., 834 F.2d 833,835 (9th Cir. 1987). V1 ill. STATUTES. I. RCW 4.84 10,32 2. RCW 4.84.200 32 3. RCW 7.16 26 4. RCW 7.24 26 5. RCW 28A.320.01S(I)(b) 28 6. RCW 28A.335.090(1) 20,28 7. RCW 28A.335.110 29,30 8. RCW 34.05 7,12 9. RCW 34.0S.010(18) 17 10. RCW 34.05.S42 7 I!. RCW 34.05.542(2) 14 12. RCW 34.05.554 12 , I 13. RCW 35.13.125 29,30 j RCW 35.13.130 .1 14. 28,29,30 15. RCW 35.14.120 4,20 16. RCW 35A.0 1.040 22,23 17. RCW 35A.01.040(4) 22 18. RCW 35A.0 1.040(9) S 19. RCW 35.01.040(9)(a)-(d) 21 .' VII 20. RCW 3SA.14.100 20 21. RCW 3SA.14.120 4,20,30 22. RCW 35A.14.130 4,22 23. RCW 3SA.14.220 5 24. RCW 36.93.090 5 25. RCW36.93.100 5 26. RCW 36.93.100(2) and (3) 25 27. RCW 36.93.157 ? -, 28. RCW 36.93160(5) 6,14,17 29. RCW 36.93.170 ? -, 30. RCW 36.93.180 25 31. RCW 43.21C 13 IV. CIVIL RULES. I. CR 6(d) 33~34 2. CR II 10,30,31,33)4,35,36,37 , CR 19 19 ~. 4. CR 19(a) IS 5. CR 19(a)(2)(A) 19 6. CR 54(d) 31 7. CR 7S( e)( 4) " ~~ VlII V. OTHER AUTHORITY. \. Const. art. I, § 3. 19 2. 3 Bancroft's Code Practice and Remedies (1927) 'J J_ 2863 § 2165 , Fed. R. Civ. P. II advisory committee note, 36 J. . 97 F.R.D. at 201. 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. II advisory committee note, 37 97 F.R.D. at 200. IX A. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. \. The trial court erred by denying Renton's motion to dismiss for failure to seNe all parties within thirty (30) days as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. 2. The trial court erred in denying Renton's motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party as it relates to that portion of this action which claimed that the Rentoq, School District did not have the authority to sign a petition to annex. 3. The trial court erred in denying Renton's motion to dismiss for failure to timely appeal that portion of this action which challenged the Renton School District's·authority to sign a petition to annex its property. 4. The trial court erred in determining that the Renton School District did not have authority to sign the petition to annex its property to the City of Renton. 5. The trial court erred in entering an Order Taxing Costs and Opposing Sanctions pursuant to CR 11, without a.motion being noted and without an opportunity to respond being provided to the sanctioned parties. r .. BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page I 6, The trial court erred in not ruling on the merits of the appeal from the Boundary Review Board decision. ISSUES PERTAINING TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR. 1. DID THE SUPERIOR COURT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER TInS APPEAL FROM A BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION? A. DOES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT APPLY TO BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD APPEALS~ B. MUST THE APPEAL BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS TO OBTAIN JURISDICTION~ C. IS THE SERVICE REOUIREMENT TOLLED OR ELIMINATED IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISN'T SERVED ON THE APPEALING PARTY? 2. IN AN ACTION CHALLENGING THE RIGHT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A' CITY: A. IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY~ B, MUST THE CITY DECIDE THE LEGAL ABILITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SIGN THE PETITION TO ANNEX~ C. CAN THE CITY'S DECISION CONCERNING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN AN APPEAL OF A BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION. OR MUST IT BE DIRECTLY CHALLENGED BY' A WRIT OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION? ., BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 2 , . D. DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY·UNDER CHAPTER 35A.14 RCW? 3. ARE SANCTIONS UNDER CR II APPROPRIATE? A. MUST THERE BE NOTICE AND. OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE REOUEST FOR SANCTIONS? B. MUST THE SANCTIONED PARTY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS ACTIONS WHICH WERE SANCTIONED? • C. MUST THE COURT APPLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARDS IN IMPOSING THE SANCTIONS? 4. SHOULD THE COURT OF APPEALS EXERCISE ITS' AUTHORITY AND DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL FROM THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION APPROVING THIS ANNEXATION? B. STATEMENT OF THE CASE .. Reference to the Record. The record in this case contains two transcripts and two sets of pleadings and other documents. There is a Boundary Review Board transcript. That transcript is a ~art of the Certified Appeal Board Record, subnumber 13 to the Index to Clerk's Papers. The original of the Certified Appeal Board Record'has been transmitted to the Court of Appeals as an unnumbered part of the Clerk's Papers. That transcript will be referred to as BTR followed by the appropriate page number .. The'written record before the BoUndary Review BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page 3 Board will be referred to as BP. For ease of reference the first two zeros of the page numbers have been dropped, i.e. BP 00123 will be BP 123. , The Clerk's Papers will be referred to as CP, and the very short oral decision of the superior court will be referred to as superior court TR. Annexation Procedure Before Renton. The City of Renton (hereinafter Renton) was petitioned to annex certain property to Renton pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. (BP 260- 263). According to RCW 35A.14.12,0, Renton must have received a petition bearing signatures of owners representing sixty percent of the assessed valuation within the area to be annexed before scheduling a public hearing on the annexation, as required by RCW 3SA.14.130. , Within the proposed annexation area lies the Maplewood Elementary Schoo~ operated by the Renton School District (hereinafter School District) (BTR 96). The School District signed the petition to annex its property to Renton (BP 219). With the School District's signature, the petition bore the signatures of property owners representing more than sixty percent of the assessed value 'within the proposed , annexation area (BP 253). Without the School District's signature, the petition did not attain the necessary sixty percent figure. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 4 The petition was presented to Renton. Renton, pursuant to RCW 35A.0 1.040(9), reviewed the petition and determint:d that the School District's signature was appropriate (BP 253-259). The City Council, at its meeting of April 20, 1995, formally· accepted the petition (BP 253). The City staff was directed to file the necessary paperwork with the Boundary Review Board for King County (hereinafter BRB) (BP 253) as required by RCW 35A.14.220 and RCW 36.93.090. Appeal to Boundary Review Board. Opponents of the annexation petitioned the BRB to accept review pursuant to RCW 36.93.100. The question of the legality of the School District's signature on the petition was formally raised by the opponents, for the first time, in a letter directed to the BRB (BP 204-226). Renton responded by a brief from its City Attorney (BP 228-247). There followed an exchange of letters between attorneys for the opponents, Renton, and the BRB (BP 249-250, 251, 278-296). The BRB held a hearing on the merits on September 21,1995 (BIR 1-122). The BRB indicated, through its attorney, that it did not have jurisdiction over the issue of the validity of the School District's signature on the petition to annex (BIR 10-12). The BRB then proceeded to conduct its hearing on this annexation. The hearing was continued until September 26, 1995 (BIR 123-226). BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 5 Following close of public testimony, the BRB voted 10-0 to accept the annexation and formally adopted and filed a resolution and hearing decision (CP 24). A motion to that effect was passed on .October 3, 1995. Opponents appealed the BRB decision to superior court (CP 3-29). Appeal of Boundarv Review Board Decision. This appeal was brought pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(5) which authorizes appeals from the BRB decision. As pa1 of the appeal to superior court, King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green (hereinafter opponents), not only challenged the BRB decision but also challenged the legality. of the School District's signature on the petition to annex (CP 6). Motion to Dismiss bv Renton. Renton argued that the right to sign a petition to annex property was a property right, and one of the "bundle of sticks" that makes up real property ownership (CP 238-243). Renton's arguinent continued that because a property right of the School District was being litigated, that the School District was an indispensable party to the litigation, and having not been joined, that cause of action must be dismissed (CP 189-200). The court denied this motion (CP 598-599). BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page 6 Renton ·also moved to dismiss this action arguing that the appeal from the BRB' Clecision was one controlled by the AdministratiVe Proc~dure Act, Title 34.05 RCW (hereinafter APA) (CP 89-114). Renton argued that the appellants had not served the BRB within thirty days as required by . , RCW 34.05.542, and therefore the superior court had not obtained jurisdiction over the appeal. The court ruled that the appeal of a BRB decision is not an APA appea~ and denied the motion (CP 596-597). Renton also claimed that the decision to count the School District's . siinature on the petition to. annex was a decision made by Renton, not -. reviewable by the BRB, and therefore not appropriately the subject of an appeal from the BRB (CP 236-239). Renton argued that the decision to accept the School District's signature should have been independently appealed by extraordinary writ or declaratory judgment, and that the time to make such an appeal had passed. The superior court did· not analyze how it obtained jurisdiction over this issue. ·Rather, the court decided that ·the court could decide the issUe (CP 633) and ruled that the School District was without authority to sign the petition (CP 633). Superior Court Decision. .' The superior court appeal went to hearing on May 20, 1996. After hadng considered arguments of the parties on the merits of the BRB BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page 7 : approval of this annexation, the court ruled that the School District did not have the authority to sign a petition to annex (CP 633), not having that particular right among its "bundle of sticks" (superior court TR 3-4) and, therefore, the petition to annex was insufficient when forwarded to the BRB (CP 633). The court further ordered that the d,ecision of the BRB approving the annexation must be reversed (superior court TR 5, CP 634). The court did not rule upon whether: or not the annexation met the statutory objectives, statutory factors, or satisfied the required portions of the Growth Management Act, despite extensive briefing and argument on those issues. Sewers for School Building. One of the controlling issues before the BRB was the need to eX1end sanitary sewer service to Maplewood Heights Elementary School (BTR 96-99). That school is in the process of being reconstructed (BTR 96). The King County Health Department would not permit such reconstruction on a. septic system (B[R 98). This results in requiring hookup to a sanitary sewer line (BTR 97). Water District No. 90 does not have any functioning sewer system at the present time (BTR 95, L28-129). Renton does have sewer service available immediately adjacent to the annexation area (BTR 22-23). However, annexation would be required BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 8 under Renton's sewer extension policy before the school could hook up to Renton's sewer system .. During the pendency of this matter before the supenor court, Renton negotiated with King County, the School District and Water District No. 90 to extend temporary sewer service to the school (CP 348- 350). Despite the fact that these negotiations were outside the scope of the record before the BRB, they were disclosed to the superior court in opponents' pleadings (CP 248-269, 392-393). This disclosure nonetheless highlights the critical timing of this review. The. School District's temporary connection to a sewer line will eventually be replaced by a permanent sewer line wh~n either Renton or Water District No. 90 pro,ides sewer service to this area (BTR 98-99). There is at least a chance that an early decision on this annexation would permit the School District to provide a sewer line that is pennaneni in nature in conjunction with other developing property owners and thereby save· substantial tax dollars (BTR 99). Facts Supporting Review of Merits by Court of Appeals . . . ' The superior court judge in this. matter, the Honorable Mary Brucker, has announced that. she will not seek reelection. Therefore, there \\ill be a new judge in this department of the King County Superior Court. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 9 The record from the BRB and the briefs of the attorneys are before this court, and so this court is in the same position as the superior ·court to make a ruling on the merits of the appeal from the BRB decision. Imposition of Sanctions. On June 25, 1996 the opponents filed a Cost Bill (CP 606-607). On July 1, 1996 the BRB filed an objection (CP 608) .. On July 10, 1996 Renton filed an identical objection (CP 609). On July 15, 1996 Renton was served Appellants' Reply in Support of Cost Bill (CP 6~0) which contained a request for sanctions for what was claimed to be a violation of the rules in objecting to the Cost Bill, and a claim that the objections were filed to increase opponents' litigation costs (CP 615-616). Tw? days later, on July 17, 1996, the court signed the Order Taxing Costs and Imposing Sanctions pursuant to CR 11 (CP 636-638). There was no opportunity for Renton to respond. At the time the Order was signed, Renton was in the process of preparing and filing a Motion to Retax Costs pursuant to RCW Title 4.84. Renton had determined that the trial judge was on vacation the week of July 29 through August 2, 1996, knew that no motion was noted, and therefore felt under no pressure to file a rapid response to what was an unsolicited brief BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 10 From the court's decisions this appeal has been brought by Renton , , ' (CP 628-629), C. ARGUMENT. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The superior court's review of the BRB decision was an appellate review of an administrative decision. The superior court decided the issue as a matter of law, construing a state statute relating to the authority of school districts to sign petitions to annex property to a city. The Court of Appeals reviews, de novo, an issue of law decided by the superior court while sitting in an appellate capacity. Schmitt v. Cape George Sewer Dist., 61 Wn. App. 1,4, 809 P.2d 217 (1991). Snohomish County v. Hines, 61 Wn. App. 371,375,810 P.2d 84 (1991). 1. DID THE SupERIOR COURT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER "TIllS APPEAL FROM A BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION? A DOES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT APPLY TO BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD APPEALS? The dispositive issue will be whether or not the APA applies to BRB appeals. If the APA applies, the court never obtained jurisdiction over this appeal as service was not timely obtained. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON· Page 11 . -.,.,.--.... ~ . ," The courts have generally presumed that the BRB is governed by the APA. See, for example, King County v. Boundarv Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 668·669, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). That case reviews a BRB decision. The case has several references to the APA. For example, at page 668, the court states as follows: : "The Washington Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05, provides that on judicial review of administrative actions, '(i)ssues not raised before the agency' may not be raised on appeal...' RCW 34.05.554." Later, at page 670, the court states: " ... Here, the law which we must apply is RCW 34.05.554, not Ordinance 9849." RCW 34.05.554 is part of the APA. Therefore, saying that RCW 34.05.554 is "the law which we must apply" is a direct statement from the Supreme Court that the APA applies to a BRB case. The presumption that the APAapplies to BRB decisions has come up in other contexts. Where the court has faced competing standards of review applied to BRB decisions, it has applied a special statute over the general. In the case of Fire Protec. v. Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 652 , P.2d 1356 (1982), the court considered the question of whether the APA standard of review was superseded by more specific, language in the BRB Act. The court applied the BRB standard of review because the BRB Act BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON· Page 12 , ',' is a special statute and "".the special statUte must control," Fire Protection at page 926. Logic would dictate that if the court is addressing the question of competing standards that it has decided that both apply in the first instance. Therefore, the APA applies. Similarly, in Snohomish County v. Hines, supra, at page 84, the court discussed the .standard of review on appeal from a BRB decision. The court distinguished the standard of review in a BRB decision from that of a decision under the APA. Once again, the court appears· to have presumed that both the APA and BRB appeal statutes apply. See also, Nisgually Delta Ass'n. v. Dupont, 27 Wn. App. 163, 167, 617 P.2d 446 (1980). In that case the court discussed the interplay between the State Environmental Policy Act, Title 43.21C RCW, the right to appeal from a BRB decision, and the APA. The court determined. that the limitation on the right to appeal contained within the . BRB appeal statute is determinative unless the limitation has been expressly or inlpliedly repealed by the AP A or other legislation. Courts have presumed the APA applies to appeals of BRB decisions and, in at least one instance, specifically stated that the APA applied. The issue seems well settled. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 13 B. _ MUST THE APPEAL BE SERVED ON ALL PARTIES WITHIN TIITRlY DAYS TO OBTAIN,JURISDICTION? This court, like the court in Fire -Protection, supra, must look to both the APA and BRB statutes to determine the service requirements of a BRB appeal. In this case, the court will find the two statutes complementary. Opponents have filed this action under the authority of RCW 36.93.160(5) which states in relevant part: "Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless: within thirty days from the date of said action a goverllinental unit affected by the decision or any p~rson owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decisio,n files in the superior court a notice of appeal." : This language is similar to that of the APA, but the APA contains a . service requirement. See RCW 34.05.542(2): "A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed with· the court and served on the: agency, the office of the attorney general, and all parties' ofrecord within thirty days after service of the final order." (emphasis added) Reading the BRB statute together with the APA statute shows that both have a thirty day statute of limitations within which to appeal, but the APA statute requires service on all parties of record within thirty days after service of the final order. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 14 The BRB decision was dated October 13, 1995. This action was filed on October 20, 1995. Randall Milhollan, Assistant Attorney General, was served on November 6, 1995. ,AIda Wilkinson, Executive Secretary of the Washington State BRB for King County, was served on November 30, 1995. Thirty days for service under the APA expired on November 13, 1995: Service was seventeen days late. Therefore, Renton's motion before the superior court to dismiss for failure to timely serve should have been granted. In a different form of adminiStrative ,appea~ the court, has previously held in Smith v. Department of Labor and Industries, 23 Wn. App. 516, 596 P.2d 296 (1979), that personal service on the Attorney General's office was not service on the Director of the Department of Labor & Industries as required by statute. Similarly, in the case at bar, service on the Assistant Attorney General would not be service on the BRB. In the most recent case discussing service of a petition for review, , service on a party's attorney was not service on a,party of record so a~ to vest the court with jurisdiction. See Union Bav v. Cosmos Development, 127 Wn.2d 614, 902 P.2d 1247 ( 1995). BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 15 "We find the language and legislative history of the APA exclude attorneys of record from the scope of the phrase 'parties of record. '" Also, in Union Bav the court held that service on the attorneys was not in substantial compliance with the requirements of service "".Because the language and history of the APA excludes service on attorneys, we cannot permit such service by relying on substantial compliance." . Therefore, service on the Attorney General's office was not service on the BRB. The case of Union Bay v. Cosmos Development. 127 Wn.2d 614, 902 P.2d 1247 (1995) states the rule when service has not been obtained within thirty days. I "When reviewing an administrative decision, the superior court is acting in its limited appellate capaciry, and all statutory procedural requirements must be met before the court's appellate jurisdiction is properly invoked. Fay v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 115 Wn.2d 194, 197, 796 P.2d 412 (1990). Therefore, under the administrative procedure act (APA), the superior court. does not obtain jurisdiction over an appeal from an agency decision unles's the appealing party files a petition for review in the superior court and serves the petition on all of the parties. City of Seattle v . . Public Employment Relations Commission, 116 Wn.2d 923,926,809 P.2d 1377 (1991)." (emphasis added) It is clear that the BRB was not served within thirty days of mailing its decision. Therefore, the Union Bav case and the earlier case of Seattle BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON· Page 16 v.PERC·require dismissal ofthi~ matter as the court has never obtained jurisdiction. C. IS THE SERVICE REOUIREMENT TOLLED. OR ELIMINATED IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION ISN'T SERVED ON THE APPEALING PARTY? The date of mailing of the decision. constitutes service of the final order and starts the appeal clock. See RCW 34.05.010(18) and Seattle v •. PERC, supra. The opponents to this annexation argue that the BRB never mailed its decision to them and therefore the time limits under the AP A, if applicable, dido't start to run. However, the opponents did obtain a copy of the decision and filed an appeal in superior court. While the time to file the appeal may have been.tolled by failure to mail the decision to the opponents, once the opponents had actual notice of the decision and filed their appeal, the statutory clock had to begin·running: Even in the broadest reading of the statute, service should have been obtained on all necessary parties within thirty days from the date of the filing of the appeal rather than the date of action as required by RCW 36.93.1.?0(5). This appeal was filed o~ October 20, 1995. Se~ce on the BRa was Nove~ber 30, 1995, forty days after filing. Because of the failure to serve the BRB within.thirty days of filing of this appeal, the court never obtained jurisdiction over this action. This action must be dismissed. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON· Page 17 2. IN AN ACTION CHALLENGING THE RIGHT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY: A. IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY? The issue, as framed by opponents' initial pleading in superior court (CP 6), at section 3.1.1, lines 9 through 13; states: "The Renton School District itself.lacks statutory authority to sign the annexation petition, and, without a signature, the petition for annexation lacked the legally required number of signatures". In the cases of Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 (1978) and Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wi!. 2d 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960), the court held that the right to sign petitions to annex were inherent rights flowing from ownership of property. CR 19(a) deals with indispensable parties. That rule states: ("a) Persons to Be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of theaction shall be joined as a party in the action if(l) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action' in his absence may (A) as a practical matter . impair or impede his ability to protect that interest ... " BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON', Page 18 CR 19 was applied in Veradale VaUey v. County Comm'rs, 22 Wn. App. 229, 232, 588 P.2d 750 (1978): 'We find that joiilder of the property owners is also mandated under CR 19(a)(2)(A).·' 10iilder is required when a person claims an iilterest iii the subject matter of the action and is so situated that the disposition of th'e action iii his absence may impede his ability to protect that iilterest. Here, the property owners have a special interest iii this proceediilg because their property is the subject matter of the lawsuit." . The effect of the superior court's ruling regardiilg the School District's autho~ty to signa petition of annexation impacts a fundamental right of property ownership. Without its joiilder, the School District is unable to protect its iilterest and authority over its real property. Therefore, the School District is an iildispensable·party. Not joiDiDg the School District iii this action violates not .only the court rules but also procedural due process. "Procedural due process requires that an iildividual has notice and an opportunity to be heard before he can be deprived of an: established property right, Const. art. 1, § 3." Veradale VaUey v. County Comm'rs, su'pra, at page 232. The issue beiilg litigat:d directly iilvolves a property right of the. School District; that is, its ability as an owner of property to sign a petition to annex its property to Renton. The superi,or court judge, iii making her BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 19 oral ruling in this case, recognized that a property rights issue was being decided. "The stick from the bundle of property rights can't be used ... that is, the ability to sign a petition to annex property cannot be used by the School District in this annexation proposed by this City, and that is what the statutes say and that is what the law.is." (superior court TR 3-4) , The School District has statutory authority to' own land, RCW 28A.335.090(l), which includes the implied right to sign a petition to annex. It also has an inherent property right to sign a petition to annex. It was denied the opportunity to defend its Statutory and property rights by not being a party to this action. Therefore, the superior court's denial of Renton's motion to dismiss this issue was error and must be reversed. B. MUST THE CITY DECIDE THE LEGAL ABll..ITY OF , THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO SIGN lirE PETITION TO ANNEX? This petition to annex was made under the direct petition method under RCW 35A.14, 1 00 et seq. As part of the petition method, RCW 35A.14.l20 requires that the city to which the property will be annexed be presented with notification of intention to con:imence' annexation proceedings signed by 'owners of not less than ten percent in value of the property for which annexation is sought. The legislative body then BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON' Page 20 I < . establishes a meeting date with the initiating parties. The statute sets forth in detail further requirements: "Approval by the legislative body shall be a condition precedent to circulation of the petition. 'There shall be no appeal from the decision of the legislative body'. A petition for annexation of an area contiguous to a code city may be filed with the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is desired. It must be signed by the owners, as defined by RCW 35A.OI.040(9)(a) through (d), of not less than six-ry percent in, value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which almexation is petitioned." The definition of "owners" authorized to sign a petition to, annex is set forth in RCW 35A.OIO.040(9)(a) through (d), which states as follows: "(9) When petitions' are required to be signed by the owners of property, the following shall apply: (a) The signature of a record o'I;VDer,.as determined by the records of the county auditor, shall be sufficient without the signature of his or her spouse; (b) In the case of mortgaged property, the signature of the 'mortgagor shall be sufficient, without the signature of his or her spouse; , (c) In the case of property purchased on contract, the signature of the contract purchaser, as shoWn by:ibe records of the county auditor" shall be deemed sufficient, without the signature of his or her Spouse; (d) Any officei' of a corporation owning land within the area involved who is duly authorized to execute deeds or , encumbrances on behalf of the corporation, may sign on behalf of such corporation, and shall attach to the petition a BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 21 certified excerpt from. the bylaws of such corporation showing such authority." Ther'e has been no challenge to the fact that Renton satisfied this statutory method of determining whether sufficient "owners" signed the petition to annex. The formal way in which Renton responds to a petition such as an , ' annexation petition, is contained in RCW 3 5A. 0 I. 040(4). "Within three working days after the filing of a petition, the officer or officers whose duty it is to determine the sufficiency of the petition shall proceed to make such a determination with reasonable promptness and shall file' with the officer receiving the petition for filing a certificate stating the date upon which such determination was begun, which date shall be referred to as the terminal date." The use of the sixty percent petition is detailed ill RCW 35A.14.130: "Whenever such a petition for annexation is filed with the legislative body of a code city, which petition meets the requirements herein specified and is sufficient according to the rules set forth in RCW 35A.OI.040, the legislative body , may entertain the same, fix a date for a public hearing thereon and caus~ notice of the hearing to be published in one or more issues of a newspaper, of general circulation in the city. The notice shall also be posted in three public places within the territory proposed for annexation, and shall specifY the time and place of hearing and invite interested persons to appear and voice approval or' disapproval of the annexation." BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 22 The statute requires that the sixty percent .petition be sufficient according to the rules set forth in RCW 35A:OI.040. That was accomplished. The statute does not require Renton to go· further and inquire into the legal authority of any signatory, as a separate legal entity, to sign the petition. For example, the City doesn't have to determine the mental competency of a·property owner to sign a petition. Indeed, a rule requiring the City to determine mental competency of a signatory· or the legal rights of a School District to sign the petition would have the City acting as a court. That is clearly outside the City's authority under the annexation statutes. Renton's task is complete when it determines that the signatures are sufficient according to RCW 35A:OI.040. There is no . challenge to the fact that Renton followed the rules set forth in RCW 35A:OI.040. Renton discharged its obligationuniier that statute. -. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 23 C.CAN THE CITY'S DECISION CONCERNING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN AN APPEAL OF A BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION OR MUST IT BE DIRECTLY CHALLENGED BY A WRIT OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION? The trial court never obtained jurisdiction over the issue of the validity of the School District's signature on the petition to annex. The School District had the duty to determine if it had authority to sign the petition to annex. Since opponents' challenge is to the School District's authority, suit should have been brought against the School District. For example, opponents could have sought a writ of prohibition against the District signing the petition. Opponents could have. also filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a court determination of the District's right to sign the petition. Opponents did neither. , Opponents could have also sued Renton. This action has a much weaker theoretical basis than suit against the District, as the challenged action was the decision of the School District to sign the petition. That is not Renton's decision. Renton had the statutory authority to determine whether or not the School District's signature was "sufficient" on the petition to annex and to certify that the petition contained sufficient signatures. This was BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page 24 L accomplished by Renton. No appeal was taken from Renton's decision either by ell.1raordinary writ or action for declaratory judgment. Rather than directly suing Renton or the District, opponents collaterally challenged the legality of the School District's signature before the BRB pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2) and (3). The BRB refused to consider the issue, but proceeded to consider the annexation and approved it .. From the BRB decision, the opponents appealed to superior court. It is Renton's position that failure to directly challenge the District's authority to sign the petition, and to a lesser degree, Renton '·s acceptance of the School Distr!ct's signature, waived any right to appeal. Renton also argues that the issue cannot be kept alive by '~ootstrapping." onto an appeal of a BRB decision. The BRB has a very specific. statutory task.. . The BRB is to consider: (1) statutory factors under RCW 36.93.170; (2) that the proposed annexation would further the objectives of the BRB as set forth in RCW 36.93.180, and (3) that its decision be consistent with cited portions of the Growth Management Act under RCW 36.93)57. The BRB, as a creature of statute, has only those powers expressly granted to it by statute or necessarily implied therefrom. Barendregt v. WaUa WaUa No. 140, 26 Wn. App. 246,.249, 611 P.2d 1385 (1980), Schmitt v. Cape BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page 25 . George Sewer Dist., supra, at page 5. Those statutes do not give the BRB the power to review the right of a party to sign the petition, or review Renton's detennination of the sufficiency :of signatures on a petition to annex. The BRB ruled that it does not have appellate authority on the sufficiency of signatures to the petition to annex. That BRB' decision about the intent, scope and meaning of its governing statute and its o\\n rules and regulations is to be given substantial weight by this court, as it is the -. agency with expertise to interpret its own statute, rules and regulations. See Saint Francis Extended Health Care v. Department of Social and Health Services, 115 Wn.2d 690, 695, 801 P.2d 212 (1990) and Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge No. 827, 84 Wn.2d 551, 556,527 P.2d 1121 (1974). If the BRB doesn't have the authority to review the question of , validity of the School District's signature, then the remedy must be by eX1raordinaty writ or declaratory' judgment. There is no claim by . opponents that the present case is either a writ or declaratory judgment action. Indeed, opponents would not make that claim as the pleadings are deficient to satisfY the writ statutes, Title 7.16 RCW,' or the declaratory judgment statute, Title 7.24 RCW. Additionally, the writ or declaratory BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON· Page 26 judgment action would not be timely under Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. App. 530, 815 P.2d 790 (1991), which requires filing within thirty days after the challenged decision. The question to be resoJvedby means of the writ or declaratory judgment action would not be the authority of Renton to accept a signature from the School District, but rather would be the authority of the School District to sign a petition to annex in the first instance. The time to challenge the School District's authority was within 30 days of its signature on the petition. It is inappropriate to challenge that decision months later through collateral attack before the BRB. Opponents have failed to preserve this issue and it must be dismissed. D. DOES A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX ITS PROPERTY TO A CITY UNDER CHAPTER 35A.14 RCW? If the coun believes that Renton has an, independent duty to look behind the School District's signature and determine whether or not the School District had the legal ability to sign the petition to annex, then Renton believes that the better. reading of the statute and case law is that the School District did have the authority to sign tht; petition to annex. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 27 There is ample authority that the School District may sign the petition to annex. This issue of whether or not a governmental ,property 'owner may sign a petition to annex has been directly answered by Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 (1978). In that case the appellant claimed that the annexation proceedings were improper because the City of Spokane considered city-owned property for purposes of meeting statutory petition requirements. The court decided, at page 724: "We conclude that for purposes of allowing the City of Spokane to petition for annexation the City of Spokane is an 'owner' under RCW 35.13.130." . In arriving at its decision, the coUrt cited to Parosa v. Tacoma. 57 Wn.2d. 409, 357P.2d 873 (1960). In that case the court determined that , the Port of Tacoma had authority to petition' the City of Tacoma for annexation as it was endowed with the power to own land, one of the anributes of which is the right to petition for annexation by a city. School districts have the ~ower to own land. RCW 28A.335.090(1) allows school districts to " ... purcha~e ... real and personal property ... ". Ownership, according to Johnson & Parsosa, carried the implied right to sign a petition to annex. RCW 28A.320.015(1)(b) grants school districts powers "necessarily and fairly implied in the powers BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 28 expressly authorized by law." The School District, therefore, has either direct or implied powers to sign the petition to annex. The superior court, in the case at bar, determined that RCW 28A.335.110 prevents the School District from signing a petition to annex. The .statute states as follows: "In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law, every Board of Directors, in seeking to have school property annexed to a city or town and if such school property constitutes the whole of such· property in any annexation petition, shall be allowed to petition therefore under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.,130." (emphasis added) In analyzing RCW 28A.335.110, one must focus on the fact that the statute grants powers ''in addition to other powers and duties as pro\ ided by law." By its language this statute grants extra powers . . ~ ' .. However, the superior court, in the case at bar, decided that the statute is a limitation on the powers of the Schoo!" District, rather than a grant of additional powers. The language is clearly different. Additionally, this statute refers to petitions to annex underRCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130. These statutes specifically crosNeference RCW 28A.335.110: "" .Prior to the circulation of a petition for annexation, the initiating party or parties who ,except as provided in RCW 28A.335.110, shall be eit.her not less than ten percent of the residents of the area to be annexed or the' owners of not less than ten percent in value".shall notifY the legislative body of the city or town in writing"of their intention to commence annexation proceedings." RCW 35.13.125 . . BRIEF OF APPELLANT •. CITY OF RENTON -Page 29 "Except where all the property sought to be annexed is property of a school district, and the school directors thereof file the petition for annexation as in RCW 28A.335.110 authorized, the petition must be signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent in value according to the assessed valuation for generaltaxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned." RCW 35.13.130. Renton, a Code City, operated imder RCW 35A.14.120. That I statute contains no reference to RCW 28A.335.110. The statute under which Renton operates also requires that sixty percent Of the value is to be represented by owners' signatures rather than seventy, five percent under RCW 35.13.130. The limitation of School District authority to sign is I applicable, according to its own terms, to petitions to annex under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130. Renton does not operate under those statutes. Therefore, the limitations of RCW 28A.335.110 are not applicable to this annexation. 3. ARE SANCTIONS UNDER CR II APPROPRIATE? A. MUST THERE BE . NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE REOUEST FOR SANCTIONS? The opponents to this annexation prevailed at trial. They filed a Cost Bill (CP 606-607)and both the BRB (CP 608) and Renton (CP 609) filed Objections to the Cost Bill. The opponents filed a brief entitled BRIEF OF APPELLANT.CITY OF RENTON-Page 30 Appellants' Reply in Support of Cost Bill (CP 610-627), and within that reply made a motion for temis under CR II (CP 6l5 C616). The request for terms claimed that the objections were intended to exhaust the financial resources of the opponents and were without legal basis. Opponents asked, without documentary sUpport, for $750.00 to compensate the . opp onents for costs and attorney's fees incurred in filing the reply brief (CP 615-616). The reply brief was accompanied by a proposed Order,. There was no Note for Motion filed, nor a hearing date set. The reply brief apparently is in reply to the Objections to the Cost Bill, but not in reply to any motion filed by the BRB or Renton. The reply brief was dated July 12, 1996 (CP 617). The reply brief and proposed order were received by the City Attorney's office on July 15, 1996. The court signed the proposed order on July 17, 1996 without an opporrunity for Renton to reply (CP 637). Despite no factual support by means ofan affidavit or otherwise, the court awarded $250.00 in terms (CP 637). A copy of the Order Taxing Costs and Imposing Sanctions pursuant to CR II was not provided to Renton until July 25, 1996, the day after the sanctions were to have been paid (CP 637). The Objection to Costs bad a Sufficient Basis Under CR 11. Costs are assessed under CR 54( d) entitled Judgment and Costs. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 31 "Costs shall be fixed and allowed as provided in RCW 4.84 or by any other applicable statute." RCW 4.84 does not contain any section that explicitly permits recovery of costs in this case. Renton's position is simple. The court made its decision that the School District couldn't sign the petition as a matter oflaw. No reference to the BRB transcript or record was necessary for that decision .. Costs of the BRB record and transcript should not, therefore; be taxed . . , In order to retax costs, the BRB or Renton would have had to bring a motion under RCW 4.84.200. Renton was in the process of preparing such a motion when the court entered its order without notice or an opportunity for a hearing. RCW 4.84.200 provides: "Any party aggrieved by the taxation of costs by the clerk of the court may, upon application, have the same retaxed by . the court in which the action or proceeding is had. " The only case on point appears to be Hatzenbuhler v. Harrison, 49 Wn.2d 691, 306 P.2d 745 (1957). That case states, at page 700: "Costs, which are taxed by the clerk, are not 1\ part of the judgment at the time it is rendered. 3 Bancroft's Code Practice and Remedies (1927) 2863 § 2165. They cannot be retaxed on appeal unless a motion was made in the trial court for retaxation and was denied. Burrichter v. Cline, 3 Wash. 135, 28 Pac. 367. RCW 4.84.200 places no time limitation upon the motion for .retaxation of costs; the only BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON -Page 32 ", ." ,. way in which the correctness of costs can be determined, under the statute, is by the motion to ·retax." (emphasis added) At the time of the Order Taxing Costs and Imposing Sanctions pursuant to CR 11 there was no motion pending to retax costs, and so there was no motion at issue. If the opponents' position was correct, as expressed in their brief entitled Appellants' Reply in Support of Cost Bill, their Cost Bill stood as unchall,enged unle,ss a motion had beenmad~. within six days after filing of the original Cost Bill under CR 78(e)(4). Therefore, there was no need to, expend any time on the brief or to make a motion. There was no Opportunitv.tei Respond to the Request for Sanctions. CR 6( d) provides that at least five days notice must be provided before the time specified for a hearing unless a different period is fixed by the rules or bY,order of the court. No such notice was given in seeking the sanctions pursuant 'to CR .11. In fact, even if the notice could be presumed by the filing of the request for sanctions ,without a motion or Note for' Motion, the court signed the proposed order two days after service and so the time for reply was eliminated. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 33 B. MUST THE SANCTIONED PARTY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS ACTIONS WHICH WERE SANCTIONED? There was a second part of the order entered without notice, whic~ imposed sanctions pursuant to CR 11. cit 11 states in relevant part: ''If a pleading, m!ltion or legal memorandum is signed in violation of this Rule, the court, upon motion, or upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties tht; amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or legal memorandum, including a reasonable attorney fee." The quoted section of this Rule has several key concepts. The first is that sanctions, if not imposed upon the court's oWn initiative, will be imposed upon motion. The sanction in this instance was imposed, not on the court's own initiative, but on a request of counse~ not made through a motion, and not upon a Note for Motion. The procedure utilized was discussed in the prior section of this brief and clearly violates CR 11 and CR 6(d). CR II also states that the sanction may include an order to pay reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of an improper pleading, motion or legal memorandum. There was no need for any filing to be made until the BRB or City filed a Motion to, Retax Costs. The BRB and Renton BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 34 had legitimate rea~ons to object to the Cost Bill that were "warranted by existing law or a good faith argUment for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law", as required by CR. II. However, because of the court's quick entry of the Order Taxing Costs and Imposing. Sanctions pursuant to CR II, the. BRB and Renton had no opportunity to explain their positions to the court and point out to the court why sanctions under CR 11 were inappropriate. Without the opportunity for a hearing, the sanctioned parties' due process rights were Violated in derogation of the purpose for CR 11. See Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc .. 119 Wn.2d 210, 218, 224, 829 P.2d 1099 (1992): "The federal advisory committee note to Rule 11 provides that CR 11 procedures 'obviously must comport with due process requirements.' Fed: R. Civ. P.· II advisory committee note, 97 F.R.D. at 20 I. Due process requires notice and an opportunity' to be heard before a governmental deprivation of a property interest. Tom Growney Equip., Inc. v. SbeUey Irrig. Dev" Inc., 834 F.2d 833, 835 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Boddie v. Connecticut; 401 U.S. 371,379,29 L. Ed. 2d 113,91 S. Ct. 780 (1971». A party seeking CR 11 sanctions should therefore give notice to the court .and the offending party promptly upon discovering a basis for doing so. Fed. R. Civ. P. II advisory committee note, 97 F.R.D. at 200." The court's unilateral entry of an order imposing sanctions violates the due process requirements under CR I I and must be reversed. BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 35 C. MUST THE COURT APPLY ASCERTAINABLE STANDARDS IN IMPOSING THE SANCTIONS? CR II allows as a sanction the imposition of a reasonable attorney's fee. There was no basis upon which the court could impose a $250.00 attorney's fee as there was no pleading or other action necessitated by the filing of the Objections to the Cost Bill. Not only that, there was no affidavit or other means of determining what attorney: s fees were requested. Rather, an unsupported request for $750.00 was made, and the court unilaterally entered a sanction of $250.00. The basis of the imposition of this attorney's fee is not disclosed in the r'ecord, nor is there a lIDding that the attorney's fee was reasonable. In reviewing CR 11 sanctions, the court normally reviews those sanctions for abuse of discretion. See Bryant v.Joseph Tree, Inc., supra, at 218, and Herring v. DSHS, 81 Wn. App. 1,33,914 P.2d 67 (1996). However, if the trial court did not enter lIDdings, the appellate court need not give deference to the trial court. See· Brvant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., supra, at 222: "The trial court in this case ·failed to enter any lIDding regarding whether or not the complaints lacked a factual or legal basis. Because of this, the appellate court could not exercise any degree of deference to a trial court's lIDding, as no such lIDding even existed. In such situations, instead of remanding a matter to the trial court for a factual lIDding, an BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 36 ..... _-, . i, t • appellate court, may independently review evidence consisting 'of written documents and make the required findings. " The court, therefore, ,should independently review the record to detennine if CR II sanctions were justified. This court will find no support in the record. In general, CR II sanctions are supposed to be the least severe sanction adequate to serve the purpose. Bryant v. Joseph Tree, Inc., at 225. The burden of proving the reasonableness of a, request for attorney's fees under CR 11 is on the party making the request, Herring v. DSHS, 81 Wn. App. 1,34, 914 P,2d 67 (1996).' The court must consider whether fees and expenses could have been avoided or were' self imposed by the mO\1ng party, McDonald v. Korum Ford, 80',Wn. App. 877, 891, 91i P.2d 1052 (1996). IIi this instance, the work preparing the brief in support of the Cost Bill was' Unnecessary as there was no motion pending to retax costs. There was no showing that the attorneys' fees were reasonable, :. !< necessary; or the total of the attorneys' fees incurred. For these reas?ns, CR 11 sanctions were imposed in violation of due process, in violation of the Court Rules, were not merited in the first instance, and were not factually or legally supported in the record. The Order Imposing Sanctions must be reversed. BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON· Page 37 . ,-: 4. SHOULD TIlE COURT OF APPEALS EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY AND DECIDE TIlE MERITS OF TIlE APPEAL FROM TIlE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION APPROVING THIS ANNEXATION? Sound public policy would be served by the; Court of Appeals deciding the merits of the appeal from the BRB decision approving this annexation. Maplewood Heights Elementary School needs a sewer line and would be better served by a permap.ent sewer line (BTR 96-29). A . quick decision would allow the School District to participate with surrounding property owners and share the cost of a permanent sewer line (BTR 98-99). This would save the expense of the temporary line currently planned. Scarce tax dollars would be saved. Additionally, the trial judge, the Honorable Mary Brucker, has announced that she will not run for office again and she therefore will b,e retiring from the bench at the end of 1996. If this· matter is remanded to the superior court, the benefit of the prior hearing will be lost and the matter will have to be rescheduled and reargued. There is authority for this court to. decide the case on its merits. Brvant v. Joseph Tree. Inc. 57 Wn. App. 107, 116,791 P.2d 537 (1990), affirmed 119 Wn. 2d 210, 829 P.2d 1099 (1992), stated the rule as follows: BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 38 • • "However, even if we consider the absence of a finding to be simply a failure to make any finding at all, remand ,to the trial 'court is unnecessary. The factual . record before the trial court consisted, entirely of affidavits. Therefore, the trial court is in no better a position to evaluate the evidence than is this court. Lobdell v. Sugar 'J'f Spice, Inc., 33 Wn. App. 881, 887, 658 P.2d 1267 (appellate courts may independently review evidence consisting of written documents and make the required findings), review deniea, 99 Wn.2d 1016 (1983)." The parties extensively briefed and argued the merits of the. BRB decision. 'The review of the BRB decision is an appellate decision which this court is as competent to decide as is the ~perior court. There is no deference to the superior court's findings offact, because none were made. This case is decided strictly on the BRB record and arguments of counsel. While the Court of Appeals is not compelled to decide this case on its merits, judicial economy and the possible benefits to the School District would seem to suggest that such a review is warranted. Renton's arguments on the merits of.affirrning the BRB decision are attached hereto as AppendLx A. BRIEF OF APPELLANT. CITY OF RENTON· Page 39 ., D. CONCLUSION . . For the reasons discussed herein, the decision in this case should be reversed and the case dismissed for violation of the seIVice requirements of the AP A. If the court finds that the court has jurisdiction over this matter . . it should dismiss the complaint involving the School District's signature. If the court wishes to address that issue on its merits it should find that the School District had authority to sign the petition to annex. Thecourt should then decide the merits of the BRB decision. Finally, this court should reverse. and dismiss the order on sanctions. . . DATED this 4th day of September, 1996. 3.21 :02:as. Respectfully submitted, C1-l~Si)l;J~ La~enceJ. VVaIT~ Attorney for Appellant, City of Renton VVSBA No.5853 BRIEF OF APPELLANT, CITY OF RENTON -Page 40 • . . , . . APPENDIX A 2 3 4 5 6 -, .. -, .... .... reco::d reveals the Re':ie'" Board heard and considered tes: imony by many witnesses. including ~lr. Fo::d. a:::. the hearing on October 20, 1982. It entered. its findings and conclusions after considering the stat:ut:ory criteria. The Review Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously." . . In s;.J.mmary. the court: must revie'~' the ent:ire record to 7 determine if the BRB's' decision, based upon G~L~, st:atutory 8 factors and statutory objectiv~si is supported by material and 9 substantial evidence in tl'_e record. The court will find that: 10 1 1 12 the BRB's decision is correct, based upon the entire record. The court cannot: consider arguments of motives or 13 gerrymandering. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 B. DO~S THE RECORD SUPPO~T THIS ANNE~~TION? As previously discusse~, the BRB had to do three things: 1. !-lake its decisic:-, consistent: with G~~; 2. Consider the sta:·.:.:ory factors; 3. Weigh the stat:'..!:::.o::y o~jectives. n',e ERB's resolut:io:-. and hearing decision did exact.ly that. '!he decision starts out discussing: the factors at pages 1 through 3 (Tr. 531-533). The decision then discusses G~L~ • from pages 3 through 9 (Tr. 525-531), and the objectives from 24 ~ 25 pages 9 through 12 (Tr. 522-525). C'J 26 This brief has previously discussed how the decision is N C> "Q c, o 27 consist:ent with G~L~ . and Countywide 28 CITX OF RE:-.,ON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page l~ of 39 Planning Policies. .- \\: ... RREi':. KELLOGG. BARile? .. DEAN e; FONTES. P.S. ATTOR!'IEYS .... T I..AW 1'Y:rI' O"ICf; OOX '~"'I$ • 1M StX.Tt1.W;O .... O fT"'l!:ET R!:~TOS .... ·."'~HI:oII;'TQ .... 'I"M' ('.,IIi) .!.'\.\."""~ ... ",. ~ .. ,--.. " .. -... , ... -...... " ...... ' . '"', • \ .,--,"",: ' 1 Appella:-.:s' b~ieE did not discuss the statutory facto~s 2 3 section c: the E?a decision, so there is no need to) respor-.d. 4 This portion of the brief will be limited to a discussion of '5 the obje::ives and the s'.lpport in the record· for the E2.3 6 .7 8 9 10 decision . (1) Preservation corr.r:-.unities; of The BRE determined, natural neighborhoods and "This decision to approve the 11 propose::' Burnstead annexacion is not inconsistent-with the 12 13 14 objective specified in RCloj 36.93.80(1)" (Page 10 of.Decision, lines 1 and 2, Tr. 52~) 71:e E2.E noted that it had received 15 conflict.ing testimony cotcerning corrmunity identification 16 (Page S :::: Decisior'., lit".e 39, 7r: 525). For example, Renton 17 City Cc~=cilman Tim Schlitze~ testified that the Council feels 18 19 20 21 that the ~ast ·Renco~ Platea~ is ~ natural part of Renton a~d noted that it was included ;.;ithin Renton's comprehensive plan (Tr. 2S1 The annexation area is within the county's urban 22 growth a~ea an4 potential annexation area (Tr. 150). It was 23 noted· by the ERB by the addresses given that· the area had 24 Renton ~ailing addresses. Robert Peterson testified by letter 25 that he has worked in Renton, played in Renton, and supported 26 , Renton youth programs and the Renton schools (EP 648). Renton 27 28 testified that every effort was made not ,u) split "r- C"-::! C'.~ Co ·c o o \W.RREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAS C: FONTES, P.S. CITY.OF RE:-.,ON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Pago 15009 . ATTOR.'Ii£yS ." I..AW ... m OHIC!: Ol)l ",!It • 1M ~l:T'K .i£C'O~O $TIU:~ .t:';'TIJ:oI. "'U"I~TO:'II9"'1<'\: (:.,.oil :.u.",":~ il i .\ .. ," . ,.' 1 neighbo:::-,:;,ods (Tr. 218). trom revie' .... of' the maps submitted, 2 3 Renton a:tempted to include or exclude platted neighborhoods II in their entirety (Bl? 568) . 5 On the other hand, Norman Green testified that the Eas~ 6 7 8 9 Renton Plateau constituted the neighborhood .and that this annexation split up that plateau (Tr. 43) Rod Dembowski testified similarly (Tr. 200) .' Such an argument invites 10 violation of the County-.... ide Planning Policies. The plateau is 11 quite large and much of it is not located within the urban .. . 12 growth area. According to GMA and Countywide Planning' 13 Pol icies, property ""ithin an urban gro' .... th area is to be 1 II 15 annexed to the adjoining. municipality, while property outside 16 the urba:-, gro' .... t.h area ca:-.:-.ot. be annexed,. The entire plateau )' 17 cannot. be conside:::ed as a nat.ural neighborhood or corr.munity 18 19 20 21 because such a pre~ise destroys the policy to annex 0:: incorporate an urban growt.h area. This court must find ~ha:the BRB's finding is based upon 22 substan:ial evidence in the record. 23 211 25 26 (2) Use of limited to contours; physical boundaries, including but not bodies of water, . highways, and land The BRB decided (Page 10 of Decision, lines 13 and 14,B!? 0:> C'J ('.! b C> c;:> o 27' 524) that "This decision to approve the proposed Burnstead 28 CITY OF RE>',ON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 16 of 39 - \V, ... RREN, KELLOGG, BAFJiE.R, DEAN e: FONTES, P,S. "rroR.'i£'i3 AT LAW PO:IT O,rtC1: OOX Uli • 1M sot.'Tlt nco~;) r,llt~ U.~'N!'I .... ·AJltl.orocTO~ ....atI~ ('..'INS) ~.\'\."'i':'~ • ...i 1 2 3 ..... annexatio:-, partially supports tr.e objective specified i:'. RC',; 36.93.180(2) " Renton testified that, to the degree possible, 11 it follo'.·ed streets and ·extensions of streets south of 128th, 5 but used lot lines north: of 128;:h due to lack of st:reets (BP 6 7 8 579, Tr. 15-16). Ho' .. ever, the urban growth boundary 'forms the eastern boundary of the portion of the annexation norch of 9 S.E. 128ch Street (Tr. 217-218 and BP 569). Renton did 10 consider topographical features for arriving at the boundaries 11 ( Tr. 216) , but there w~rQ no outstanding tcrgographical 12 13 14 15 features in the ge:1.eral a:-,:-.e:<ation area (BP 564). Alan Wallace referred to a supreme' cou=c cass supporcing the boundaries (Tr. 192). 16 Or. c1-,e other hand, NO::-r:'.an Green claimed that too many" 0: 17 18 19 20 21 the bour.daries were established by lot lines and that: the annexat io:". failed to fo'_' _, 0'" tn',,' dral.· ~ a' g= -,,-basins (Tr. 44) I parts of which are alrea:iy part of Renton. 'Rod Dembowski claimed that the annexatio~ failed to use physical boundaries, 22 and that: it should have included Maple'Hood Canyon and the 23 Cedar River Bluff (Tr. 202 ) areas which are located 24 25 26 27 28 substantially to the south of the proposed annexation. Based upon this conflicting testimony, the BRB's decision is supporced by substantial evidence. CITY Of RE:-''TON'S BRIEf ON THE MERITS • Pag~ 17 of 39 .. W"'R.RE~, KELLOGG. BARBE?'. , DEAS C: FClt'TES, P.S, "rroR."~\'S AT t."-W "'1ST O,,!C~ 00:( 1S:."tI • ,,-., jlJt:TH .H:CO,";O ,"n~!:.-r R~:o.1'O!O. \liA.:iHlSCTO!O 9"'1.~~ (:!l0ll1 :~\ • .oIti7~ 1 2 3 . (j . ' " .. ' (3) Creat.ior. a:'.d preservation ot logical service areas; 4 The B::<'B decided (Page 11 of Decision, lines 28-30, B? 5 523) that "This decision to appt"ove the annexation with the 6 7 8 modifica~ion of boundaries to add adjacent segments of street right-ot-way tends to accomplish the objectives specified in RCW 36.93. 180 (3) ." 9 10 The BRB noted that voters have repeatedly turned down 11 sewer (Page 10 of Decision, lines 38 -40, BP 524) and that 12 13 14 15 sewer se~,ice is the crucial irsue in the case of the proposed Burnstead annexation. Fire service will co:'.tinue to be provided by Renton under 16 contrac;: ',;ith Dis:rict No. 25 a"d water service will continue 17 to be p:-o·;ided by WD 90. jl..ppellants claim in their opening 18 19 20 21 22 23 brief t::a: the an;-,exat.io:: -.·:ould split I'lD 90' s existing service I area in half and thus des;:roy the se' .... e:-franchise 0: WD 90 withir, its boundaries. This is hard to understand as tr.e annexation will have no effect on the provision of water service by I'lD 90. The annexation cannot split WD' 90' s se' .... er .. . 24 service area as it has no service area until it has an .' o 25 approved sewer comprehensive plan tTr. 25, 153) Furthermore, 26 all 27 s a"'='''''' -"'--service areas ""ere eliminated' by county planning 28 Policy F-30a (BP 966-970) Finally, the franchise, 'Lgiant in WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN I!; FONTES. P.S. CIT,( OF RE:-..,ON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 18 of 39 ,.TtQRS£,YS AT 1..A'.Io' I"OS'!' o,,,Ct I)IU '"!Ii. 11'In 1lO1,"'T1t StCO."o J-r:t!:!1' II.t ... "TO!'O, V;.,"iHI~"TO'" 9MOII~ 1'-'.-\I:~>IO:i':'''' -;... . . ' .. -. , ...... . 1 the nat~~e of an easement. is not destroyed by the annexation 2 3 since it is. by its terms. nonexclusive (~P 448 section 2) and 4 still exists after the annexation. 5 The BRB summarized. an. important part of that testimony 6 when 7 523) 8 9 10 1 1 12.'· . 13 14 15 16 it stated (Page 11 of. Decision, lines 8 through 14, B? as follows: "The City of Renton is the only provider of se' .... er service needed within the annexation area at this time. The City of Renton has planned and implemented the logical extension of the City sewer service area into t~_e area including the Burnstead annexation site: The City of Renton is the logical provider of sewer in the long term, as 'well as the short term. The City of Renton is also the preferred provider of service under the G~L; (G~"'), the CountY' .... ide Planning Policies, a,nd the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, all of which state tha:: cities are the appropriate providers of urban se=--.. ,tices. " 17 .. 1) 90, on the other hand. would need ac least t' .... o years 18 Co ge::. co the point of construction of se· .... ers (TR 137-138). 19 This time-frame is based upon the presumpcion that there would 20 be no e:-sironmental impacc: statement required and no appeals 21 22 filed, despite the fact that the sewer line would follow a 23 very steep road, where there has been previous opposition to 24 this sewer line (Tr. 24, 28), and would cross the Cedar River. 25 One citizen expressed concern about the delay .. that such a 26 route would encounter, 'including the possibility that it would 27 28 .- .-I C') N "0 Co> c:.> o W\RREN. KELLOGG, BARB~K. DEAS f:J FONTES, P.S. CITY Of RE:-',ON'S BRIEf ON THE MERITS -Page 19 of 39 "TTUR~E"S AT LAW ;'}rf Orr!CE !lOll. .~.,. • 100 :IOL""T11 UCO:-'O ,'7.~~~ .[~N ..... ·.'-"'Ht~C1'ON ~)o\~ (:""U~~7" . ' .. '." .. ' .,~, ," -" " .... " .. ~. -.', .". -.. '.~ .. .. I ~ delay the construcc"ion' of a·· ne· .... bridge over the Cedar River 2 3 (Tr. 165·167). 11 There is substantial evidence in the record. to support 5 this BRa finding. 6 (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; 7 8 The BRB decided that "Although this decision to approve --- 9 the annexation does not support the obj ectives specified in 10 RCW 36.93.180 (4) in the short. term, it: constitutes a step 11 toward eventual accomplishment of the obj ective in the long 12 13 term." (Page 12 of Decision, lines 8-10, BP 522). The BRB 111 noted that the ultimate Renton boundary lines at the urban 15 growth area boundary lines would be ace-.ieved incrementally 16 17 over tir:-.: I and that: this annexation constitute·s:· one step toward that eventual boundary line. 18 The BRa does find that 19 the boundaries, although ir"egular, are not necessarily 20 "abnorr,ally irregular" ,.·hen vie· .... ed as one step in the 21 22 23 211 processing of achieving ultimate city boundary lines. (Page 12 of Decision, lines 5 and 6, ~P 522). Nuch of this finding is based upon the shape of the 25 annexation (BP 569) . Renton did note that the annexation is 26 contig'Jous to Renton's limits, was originally of a. larger 27 area, but was squared off to maintain logical service areas 28 N '"" N o o c:;> <:;) \V, ... RRE". KELLOGG. BAR.B1OR. CIT.y' OF RE1'o"TON'S BRIEf ON THE MERITS· Page 20 or 39 DEA!': a FO!'!TES. P.S. An"OR.'"(YS AT L.A' .... N:IT or,eCE oo:c ... '" • 1"-1 jOL"Tli .. u:co~o j'l')t!!:T 1!:!o"TO!I'. w,""Hr!'iIJTON 0;.00 .... : r~u"J ·!M . .c.;~ ... • • I ; . .. 1 2 and the 60' appro'lal o~ theprope~ty owners (BP 577, ~r.·17). Norman Green testified tr.at the boundaries .... ere irregular and 3 4 created two large uriincorporated peninsulas of land (Tr. 45- 5 46). 6 The BRE finding is based upon substantial evidence in the 7 record. Even though~his finding could be termed adverse to 8 9 Renton, it is only slightly adverse when taking into account 10 the ERE's note that later annexations will square up these 11 boundaries. Just as one positive factor cannot .justify an 12 anne;<ation if the other factors are negative, one negative 13 factor cannot prevent an annexation if the other factors are 14 15-positive. 16 17 18 19 20 (5) Discouragement of multiple ~ncorporations of small cities and e:'.cO'.:ragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in hea~ily populated urban ,reas; _The BRB decided "This decision tends to discourage the proposed incorporatio:'. in s~pport of the objectives specified 21 22 in RCW 36.93.180(5) but has a limited potential for resulting 23 in smaller city incorporation." (page 12_ of -Decision, lines 24 26-26, -B? 522). 25 This somewhat convoluted finding means that the annexation discourages the incorporation of the _ City_.of 26 Briarwood which would have less than ten thousand popul-ation, 27 28 and thus the objective is furthered. M ("':l N c: . c_ e;. o \";>.RREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. CITY·Of RE>.TON·S BRlEf ON THE MERlTS • Page 21 of 39 DEAN I':: FONTES, P.S. ArroR~EYS AT LAW I'Q~ O'I"IC'E OOX .~, • 1M :lA)1.'"n1 :uco .. ·O )'T.'l!!1' It£~rul'l. \1",.uKI!oCTO~ ~·.r {:'~1Oi1 '!M·-'Ioi~~ , . , . The BRB noces earlier on chat same page that the 2 3 annexacion is supporced by che 1994 King Councy Comprehensive 4 Plan policy favoring annexacion over incorporacion (lines 22- 5 24). Those policies are included in the record (BE' 966-970). 6 7 It was admitted on the record that the proposed City of Briarwood would not achieve 10,000 population for at least two 8 9 years (Tr. 208). The BRB found' that the current estimated 10 population is 8,500. (Page 12 of Decision, line 18, BP 522). 11 By definition, this' objective has been met. and there is 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .substancial evidence in che record to support the BRB's decision. (6) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urba~ in character; n',: ERB decided "Th:'s decision tends to accomplish the objectives specified in RCW 36.93.180(8)." 19 (Page 12 of 20 Decision, line 35, BE' 522) .. The BRB. noted. in the shori: 21 paragraph above this finding that the annexation was within 22 the urban growth area and that the annexation was appropriate density development and the extension of urban There is extensive discussion in the tes t imony "':!' (""j area being within the urban: gro' .... th area (Tr. 19, 27150,162,176). 28 As previously discussed in this brief on the .- ,,~ 0' o. o o .. \V.-\R.REN, KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN 0 FONTES. P.S. CITY OF REI-o,ON'S BRlEF ON THE MERlTS • Page 22 of 39 A1"rOR~E"S AT ~.".' ...m O"ICI: on:t.::.I • 1M $O(."Tlt .u:COSO j":'U;r' u,:l'oTQ"" \1o°,uK1...:GTO'" \INl-"~ (';IIII1!-'-\""",":', ~. • I ,ti . " .. " . (.~' r'_~ 1 secc ion 0:", G~L; and. in che factual summary, s tate la'" and King 2 3 county planning policies favor the annexation of this property 4 to Renton, both because it. is in the urban growth area, but 5 also because Renton is the preferred provider of se'"ers. 6 Because the property is located within 'the urban growth area, 7 8 by .definition, it is urban in nature.'· RCW 36. 70A .110 (1) . \. " 9 While there was extensive discussion in the record that 10 incorporation of the City of Briarwood' would be preferable, 11 . that is clearly contrary to G1<Lu.. and the obj ectives of, the BRB. 12 This finding has not only.e:<!:ensive support in the record, but 13 also is compelled by law under the facts in this case. 14 15 The BRB did not enter findings on objectives 6, 7 and 9 16 because they were not applicable; Objective 6 relates to 17 dissolution of inactive special purpose districts, which would 18 not occur. Objective 7 relates to the adjustment oE 19 impractical boundaries. There were no impractical boundaries 20 21 existing at the time of this annexation, and thus no need to 22 adjust them. Objective 9 relates to, protection of 23 agricultural and rural lands which are not in existence in 24 this area. 25 26 27 King .. ~ '. This court, in engaging in the balancing as reqUired in county v. Boundary Review Board, ,can then count that L,,) c:' C'\~ c Cl o '0 28 there was one factor somewhat negative to the anne~C!'tion, two WARREN, KELLOGG. BARBEF .. DEAN e-FONTES. P,S, CITY OF RE:-''TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 23 of 39' "rnJR:-IE:Y::i ..... T Lo,I,Ir," . I'O:S1' O"fI~"t OOlt.:N • I'''' :sllL""I'M ;\£co."O jT!l!:- ~t;o.TOS ... ·."'-"HI ... r.l'tl~ .,...~i: (,-"u.ol ~V. . .wi71 1 2 ;.' ~ , -..-' : .... . ..:. .. . .. .. factors neutral to slightly favorable, :and three faccors 3 strongly in support of this annexation.· Based upon thai: 4 balancing, . and ·the fact that· each of the BRB's findings is 5 supported by substant.ial e·.rid"nce in the record, this court. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 must affirm the BRB decision. C. K~VE APPELLANTS LOST THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE VALIDITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE BY NOT TIMELY APPEALING TF~T ISSUE TO SUPERIOR COURT? . 1. Renton's decision was not appealed. . '. Appellants urge this court to hold that the School District. does not have the statutory authority to sign a petition.to annex its property to Renton. Renton ar~Jes that 14 5 the decision as to whether or not the School District had the .1 16 authority to sign the petition was appropriately decided by 17 Renton a:-,d is not. subj ect. to revie· .... by the BRB. Renton's 18 decision was appealable to superior court, but no such appeal 19 was timely pursued, and the time for that appeal passed before 20 21. this accion was filed. Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. 22 App. 530, 539, B15 P.2d 790 (1991). 23 24 25 26 2. Renton had the duty and respon,sibility to judge the sufficiency of signatures on the petition to annex. RCW 35A.01.040(4) is the method which the City must use to determine the sufficiency of the signatures: 27 28 Cln"OF RE:-.,ON·S BRlEF ON THE MERlTS • Page 24 of 39 w: ... RREN KELLOGG, BARBeR. DEAS e FONTES, P.S .. "nORSE-Y! .,T t,.Av.' M.:rI" O"I~ eo:c ",:,I • I •• ' SOI.TH nr.'O."1) )~'tt:r:' l£ST\)I'o' ... ·.~KI ... GT'O ... 'l*lI\~ I'.:n.u '!s.\.~~'1 CiTY OF RENTCJN June 28, 1996 .)I}.) 2 B 1996 ,"i::Gtl'iEO !~ITY CLERK'S OFFICE To: Mayor Jesse Tanner CoUncil Member Toni Nelson Council Member Kathy Koelker-Wheeler Council Member Dan Clausen Council Member Randy Corman Council Member King Parker Council Member Bob Edwards Council Member Tim Schlitzer City Clerk . . . . We'ask that this letter be read during the City Council meeting on Monday, July 1, 1996. Neighbors united for Representation understands the desire 'of the Renton City Council to improve the infrastructure of the East Renton Plateau (ERP). We share the Council's recognition that the ERP is the eastern doorway to the City of Renton and affects the City in several critical ways. We also share your concern that as Mr. Bumstead and others continue with the inevitable growth and development of their property, civic improvements must be responsibly planned and adequately funded. We hope that, as your neighbors now and possibly, fellow Renton citizens in the future, we can work together and not as adversaries. To that end, we ask that the City forgo any appeal of the Superior Court decision on the Bumstead annexation. If an appeal is filed, the case could drag out well into 1998. This would serve no one's interest. It would only delay a process that everyone wants to occur in a timely and orderly fashion. In the few days since the court decision was filed, landowners in the area have already begun pursuing alternate solutions to their infrastructure requirements. To them, timeliness is as important as cost and, (with due respect), more important than jurisdiction. As we speak, Water District #90 is beginning the preliminary process of sewer installation, The Water District is working to identify ULID boundaries and is putting the finishing touches on the update of its Comprehensive Plan. By this time next year, Water District #90 will be well along in meeting the expressed and future needs of residents and property owners on the East Renton Plateau. It has been publicly stated that the reason Renton was pursuing the annexation was not simply to enlarge the city limits but to provide needed utility services which would preserve the quality of our neighborhoods. Indeed, since the cost of providing city services to residential neighborhoods can be more than the revenue provide, annexation is not always the preferred solution. As a result of Renton's annexation pressure, Water District #90 is now moving forward with infrastructure improvements. So at this time, the City of Renton is relieved of the larger financial burden of providing the other services. normally associated with new annexed areas. Like any other interested party, the City would be free to monitor and comment with regard to the design and installation ofWD 90's sewer plan. The Bumstead annexation was initiated during the previous administration. Since this process began, the City Council has heard many voices, some in favor, some in opposition. However, pursuing this case to the bitter end by filing an appeal will only continue an adversarial relationship and raise controversy that can only diminish the goodwill between neighbors. Your attorneys have likely briefed you on the issues that could justify an appeal. But these issues are the livelihood of lawyers, not issues that bring neighbors and constituents together. Sitting opposite each other in Court doesn't help build community relationships. There is time, after the September vote on the Maplewood annexation and the Briarwoodincorporation study, to discuss options dealing with the entire East Renton Plateau. We would welcome discussions with the City. So, we ask you, with respect and neighborliness, to drop any consideration of an appeal. It is time to put an end to this quarrel. We look forward to your response regarding this mater. Thank you. Sincerely, Norman W. Green Neighbors United for Representation· .... ----;:- ., 1 f * , il" i' .. ': ••• Pending statutory or J ~cial guidance, any of the foregoing tempt . methods may be more desirable than the complete absence of a zoning provision when temtory is annexed to a city. However, all of these temporary measures still require appropriate zoning to be provided soon after annexation. The inadequacies of each of these methods of zoning newly annexed territory make a strong case for utilizing the procedures outlined above for appropriate planning and zoning of an area prior to annexation. III.. Assumption of Indebtedness IV. The annexation statutes authorize the city council to reqwre· property in an area being annexed to assume, as a condition of annexation, a pro rata share of the annexing city's then outstanding indebtedness that had been approved by the voters, contracted, or incurred prior to, or existing at, the date of annexation. In each city there will be different factors that should be considered in deciding whether to require debt assumption. Some of the issues a city should examine in reaching a decision on this question are: . • Was the outstanding indebtedness incurred to finance an improvement or facility that will benefit the newly annexed area? • Will assumption of a proportionate share of the city's outstanding indebtedness place an excessive fmancial burden on annexed property in light of other indebtedness previously placed on the property through the county or special districts, which will remain on the property after annexation? • Will the property to be annexed be forming an expensive LID for special improvements, such that requiring assumption of the outstanding indebtedness would not be equitable? • To what extent does the annexing city desire to encourage (or . subsidize) the annexation? Most cities do require the assumption of indebtedness as a condition of annexation, unless in a particular cin:umstance this would not be equitable. This issue may be addressed in a city's annexation goals and policies, so that the city is conSistent in its requirements, and all potential annexation areas are aware of them. . Community Municipal Corporations , Chapter 35.14 RCW authorizes the formation of community municipal corporations in certain annexed territory for the purpose of preserving the community identity of the annexed territory. This purpose is to be accomplished by allowing the community municipal corporation to have an effective "veto" power with respect to application of city planning and land use laws to the area it encompasses. To qualifY to organize as a community municipal corporation, the area must have one of the following· characteristics: • It would be eligible for incorporation as a city or town,'" or . "'The 1994 legislature increased the threshold population necessary to incorporate from 300 to 1500. RCW 35.02.010. 37 -Annexation Handbook • It has a population of at least 300, and it has at least ten percent of the population of the annexing city, or • It has a minimwn population of 1,000 inhabitants. RCW 35.14.010. Conummity municipal COlpOIlItions may be formed only through the election methods of annexation. Formation of a community municipal corporation is the eXception, rather than the rule, when cities annex tenitOly. Often, annexations are not of sufficient size to allow for establishment of these organizations, or the area aimexcd is not SlIfficiently cohesive. CWTClltly, community municipal cOlporations exist only in the cities of Bellevue (which has two), Kirkland, and Des Moines. Moreover, cities generally do not encourage the formation of community municipal colporations. The statutes pUlport to give these bodies the authority to "veto" city council enactments relating to land use matters within the community municipal colporation service area. In theory, the result of a community municipal colpOration's veto authority with respect ~ land use matters could be two or more different planning, zoning, or subdivision standards within one city. . With the passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA), an issue has been raised concerning the continued authority of community municipal colpOrations in GMA counties to veto city land use enactments. Cooperative and coordinated planning is a basic GMA policy. Moreover, the GMA requires consistency between comprehensive plans of cities and counties that have common borders. Consistency is also required between a city's comprehensive plan and its zoning regulations. The disapproval authority of a community municipal colporation is contrary to and can frustrate this basic policy of consistency and coordination in land use planning. The city attorneys of both Bellevue and Kirkland opined shortly after passage of the GMA that a community municipal colporation no longer has the authority to disapprove a comprehensive plan provision or zoning regulation enacted for the pU!pose of complying with GMA mandates of coordinlltion and consistency. There are other legal issues with respect to community municipal colporations, including whether the statutory scheme for them is even constitutional. A nwnber of arguments can be made to challenge community municipal corporations, including the lack of standards and procedures in the statute, the lack ofa clear legislative intent that the colporation should have more than advisory authority, violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution, and the conflict with other statutes on the authority of the city legislative body, city planning commission, and the board of adjustment. On the other hand, the courts apply a preswnption of constitutionality to legislative enactments. Anyone challenging community municipal cOlporation statutes would have the burden of convincing a court of the alleged constitutional infirmity. The validity of the community municipal colpOration laws may not be resolved until this issue is squarely addressed by a state appellate court. However, any group forming a community municipal cOlporation should be aware of the potential for legal challenge. I Statutory procedures for forming and operating a community municipal colporation are outlined below. Due to the infrequent formation of community municipal colpOrations, the statutes governing them, contained in ehapter 35.14 RCW, are only briefly summarized. • The community municipal cOlporation is to be governed by a community council composed of five members, who are qualified electors. residing within the service area of the corporation. They are to be elected at the same election at which the annexation is decided. ' Annexation Handbook -38 .'.} . ,. A. -", ' l' / . ~,; -i:, .,'1:' ''; :,; . • , . • • • j "/ ''i .,. \ ' ' Procedures of Governing Body (Community Council) (RCW 35.14.030) I. Voting: A community municipal corporation takes action by resolution, approved by a vote of the majority of all community council members. 2. Meetings: Meetings are held at the times and places as provided in the community council's rules. 3. Expenses: The city budgets and pays for the necessary expenses of a community council; the city provides clerical and technical assistance. B. Jurisdiction/Authority (RCW 35.14.040) Subject to the above reservations, the community municipal corporation has jurisdiction over the adoption, amendment, or granting of the following by the city council or planning commission with respect to land, buildings, or structures within the corporation's service area: I. Comprehensive plan 2. Zoning ordinance 3. Conditional use permit, special exception, or variance 4. Subdivision ordinance S. Subdivision plat 6. Planned unit development C. Procedures for Action (RCW 35.14.040) Aut enactment of the city council or commission on diese-matlCrs is to be effective within the community municipal corporation, I. On approval by the community council, or 2. By' failure of the community council to disapprove it within 60 days of its final enactment (Disapproval does not affect the application of any ordinance or resolution outside the community municipal corporation.) 39 -Annexation Handbook °fffi 1'r\o~V\e-5 -~~ q.se _ ~ kch~ ,~fi~} d:~.~ , ~~tk ros/ ~ <Vo..,,-epd,m..~'Ch\.c.vw.t~ Lit/ "~y;;t!Or,;h.~ Do Advisory Powers and Duties (RCW 35.14.050) The community municipal corporation, through its community cowicil, may also: , 1. Make recommendations concerning any proposed cOmprehensive plan or other proposal much directly or indirectJy affects the use of property within the service area; 2. Provide a forum for consideration of the conservation, improvement, or development of property or land within the service area; and 3. Advise, consult, and cooperate with the legislative authority of the city on any local matters directly or indirectly affecting the service area. ° E. Term of Existence (RCW 35.14.060) F. l. The original tetm of a community mlUlicipai corporation is at least four years, and until the first Monday in January following the Dcxt regular municipal election in the city. 2. The term of the community municipal corporation may be extended for four-year periods pursuant to voter approval at an .election. The election may be held if: a. A resolution petitioning continuation of the community municipal corporation is adopted by the community COIDlCiI and filed with the city legislative body at least seven months before the end of its term; or b. A petition for continuation, signed by at least ten percent of the registered votefs within the service area, is filed with the city legislative body at least six months before the end of the term. 3. Successive members of the community council are to be elected at the election involving continuation of the corporation. 4. Additional technical details on election procedures are contained in RCW 35.14.060. Public Disclosure Candidates for positions on the community municipal corporation council must file financial disclosure and campaign registration staIl:mI21ts with the Public Disclosure Commission in most instances. Annual filing of fUlanciai disclosure formS would also be required of corporation community council members. 35.13A.080 Tide 35 RCW: CIties and Towns the governing body of the district agree to. and petition for, dissolution of the district. The petition for dissolution shall be signed by the chief administrative officer of the city and the district, upon authorization of the legislative body of the city and the governing body of the district, respectively and such petition shall be presented to the superior court of the county in which the city is situated. . If the petition is thus authorized by both the city and district, and title to the propeny, facilities and equipment of the district has passed to the city pursuant to action taken under this chapter, all indebtedness and local improvement district or utility local improvement district assessments of the district have been discharged or assumed by and trans· . fened to the city, and the petition contains a statement of the distribution of assets and liabilities mutually agreed upon by the city and the district and a copy of the agreement between such city and the district is attached thereto, a hearing shall not be required and the coun shall, if the interests of all interested parties have been protected, enter an order dissolv· ing the district. In any of the cases provided for in RCW 35.13A.020 and 35.13A.030, if the petition for an order of dissolution is signed on behalf of the city alone or the district alone, or there is no mutual agreement on the distribution of assets and liabilities, the superior coun shall enter an order fixing a hearing date not less than sixty days from the day the peti' tion is filed, and the clerk of the coun of the county shall give notice of such hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the district once a week for three successive weeks and by posting in three public places in the district at least twenty-one days before the hearing. The no- tice shall set fonh the filing of the petition,. its purposes, and the date and place of hearing thereon. After the hearing the coun shall enter its order with respect to the dissolution of the district. If the court finds that such district should be dissolved and the functions performed by the city, the coun shall provide for the transfer of assets and liabilities to the city. The coun may provide for the dissolution of the district upon such conditions as the coun may deem appropriate. A cenified copy of the coun order dissolving the district shall be filed with the county auditor. If the coun does not dissolve the district, it shall state the reasons for declining to do so. [1971 ex.s. c 95 § 8.) 35.13A.090 Employment and rights of district employees. Whenever a city acquires all of the facilities of a water district or sewer district. pursuant to this chapter. such a city shall offer to employ every full time employcc of the district who is engaged in the operation of such a district's facilities on the date on which such city acquires the district facilities. When a city acquires any portion of the facilities of such a district, such a city shall offer to employ full time employees of the district as of the date of the acquisition of the facilities of the district who are not longer needed by the district. Whenever a city employs a person who was employed immediately prior thereto by the district. arrangements shall be made: 1T111.3S RCW-pag. 421 (I) For the retention of service credits unde~ the' plan of the district pursuant to *RCW 41.04.070 41.04.110. (2) For the retention of all sick leave standin'; ;if;. employcc's credit in the plan of such district. (3) For a vacation with pay during the first' employment equiValent to that to which he would entitled if he had remained in the employment of the [1971 ex.s. c 95 § 9.) ·Revlser's nole: RCW 41.04.070 Ihrough 41.04.100 WC~ by 1980 c 29 t 3. 35.13A.I00 Assumption ·of substandard· system-Limited Immunity from liability. A city ing responsibility for a water system that is not in ance with state or federal requirements for public water systems, and its agents and employees. are from lawsuits or causes of action, based on :~~~~~~ with state or federal requirements for public systems, which predate the date of assuming and continue after the date of assuming r~~~:~~~,:~,~~ provided that the city has submitted and is CI a plan and schedule of improvements nnrn\,.rl department of health. This immunity shall earlier of the date the plan of improvemlee~~n.~ts~ii~S.sf~i~~~~~~ four years from the date of assuming re immunity does not apply to intentional injuries, fraud, faith. [1994 c 292 § 5.) Flndlnp-lntent-:-l994 c 292: Sec nOie following RCW 35.13A.900 Severability-1971 ex.s. c 95. provision of this act, or its application to any circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the application of the provision to other persons or ci"curnstan es is not affected. [1971 ex.s. c 95 § 12.) Chapter 35.14 COMMUNITY MUNICIPAL rORPI)R)lTIIONS Sections 35.14.010 35.14.020 35.14.030 35.14.040 35.14.050 35.14.060 When community municipal corponuion may be org.· nizcd-Scl'\lice areas-Tenil0ry. Community council-Mcmbcrship-Eleclion-Terms. . Communily couricil-Employecs-Officc-Officers-'.,' Quorum-Meelings-Compensalion and expen~ .. '.: 'I Ordinances or resolutions or city applyinllo land. bUlldln,,· or sUUctures within corpor3tion, effectiveness-Zonia, 5. ordinances. resolutions. or land use conlrols 10 remain iD ~ , effed upon annexadon or consolidation-;:'l.'. Comprehensive plan. . Powers and duties or community municipal c01pOration. Originaltenn or existence or communiry municipal ""'_'~'.''!l lion-Continuation or existence-Procedure. 35.14.010 When community municipal corporadoo-' . may be organlzed-Service areas--Territory. Whenever .. ' unincorporated territory is annexed by a city or town puCSU" . ant to the provisions of chapter 35.13 RCW, or whenever I .. unincorporated territory is annexed to a code city pursu~ I ... to the provisions of chapler 35A.14 RCW. communllY~ municipal corporations may be organized for Ihe comprised of all or a pan of an unincorporated area anrlex,:d' to a city ortown pursuant to chapler 35.13 or 3SA.14 RcW~. . Community Municipal Corpo~alions 35.14.010 """ if: (I) TIlc'.~ervice area is such as w: .. ' • be eligible for incorporation as a city or town; or (2) tl.-__ rvice area has a minimum population of not less than three hundred inhabit- anlS and ten percent of the population of the annexing city or town; or (3) the service area has a minimum population of not less than one thousand inhabitants. Whenever two or more cities are consolidated pursuant to' the provisions of chapter 35. 10 RCW. a community municipal ·corporation may be organized within one or more of the consolidating cities. No territory shall be included in the service area of more than one community municipal corporation. Whenever a new community municipal corporation is formed embrac- ing all of the territory of an existing community municipal corporation. the prior existing community municipal corpora- tion shall be deemed to lie dissolved on the effective date of the new corporation. [1993 c 75 § I; 1985 c 281 § 24; 1967 c 73§ I.] .• :,. S.v.rablIIty-t98S c %81: Sec RCW 35.10.905. 35_14.020 Community council-Membership- A community municipal corporation governed by a community council composed of five Jllc;ml:>c"s. Initial council members shall be elected concur- ~n.tly. with the annexation election to consecutively num- ~red positions from qualified electors residing within the ·'.''IIi<:_ area. Declarations of candidacy and withdrawals in the same manner as is provided for members of ci~l. cl~urlcil or other legislative body of the city to which :lI'lilex.ation is proposed .. Subsequent council membership the same in number as the initial council and such ttJrtbers shall be elected 10 conseculively numbered posi- """.M.·u,~continuation election pursuant to RCW 35.14.060 qU:BlIIlea electJrs residing within the service area. of original council members shall be coexistent thc:.ong:inal term of existence of the community ~~:!r~~:~~lj~:~~ and until their successors·are elected Vacancies in any council shall be filled for of the unexpired term by a majority vote of !,~lnairling members. [1985 c 281 § 25; 1967 c 73 § 2.] : •. S. ..... blllty--tS'85 c %81: Sec RCW 35.tO.905. Commun counclI-Employees- ~e:q>ense". Each community council shall be staffed by to the city clerk of the city with which the service . consolidated or annexed and shall be provided witll other clerical and technical assistance and a properly office as may be necessary to carry out its func- community council shall elect a chairman and vice from ilS membership. A majority of the council a quorum. Each action of Ihe communilY corporation shall be by resolution approved by . majority of all the members of the community ~eetings shall pc held at such times and places as 10 the rules of the community council. M_mbers council shall receive no compensation. necess:ary expenses of the community council shall :u6,",ouand paid by the city. [1967 c 73 § 3.] .~. "/ . 35.14.040 Ordl. '<;S or resolutions of city applying to land, buildings o •• tructures within corporation, effectiveness-Zoning ordinances, resolutions or land use controls ·to remain In effect upon annexation or consoli- dation-Comprehensive. plan. The adoption. approval. enactment. amendment. granting or authorization by the city council or commission of any ordinance or resolution applying to land. buildings or structures within any commu- nity council corporation shall become effective within such community municipal corporation either on approval by the community council. or by failure of the community council to disapprove wilhin sixty days of final enactment. with re- spect to the following: (I) Comprehensive plan; (2} ~ning ordinance; (3) Conditional use permit. special exception or vari- ance; (4) Subdivision ordinance; (5) Subdivision plat; (6) Planned unit development. Disapproval by the community council shall not affect the application of any ordinance or resolution affecting areas oUlSide the community municipal corporation. Upon annexation or consolidation. pending the effective enactment or amendment of a zoning or land use control ordinance. without disapproval of the community municipal corporation. affecting land. bUildings. or structures within a community municipal corporation. the zoning ordinance. resolution or land use controls applicable to the annexed or consolidated area, prior to the annexation or consolidation, shall remain in effect within the community municipal corporation and be enforced by the city to which the area is annexed or consolidated. Whenever the comprehensive plan of the city. insofar as it affeclS the area of the community municipal corporation has been submitted as part of an annexation proposition and approved by the voters of the area proposed for annexation pursuant to ·chapter 88. Laws of 1965 extraordinary session. such action shall have the same force and effect as approval by the community council of the comprehensive plan. zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance. [1967 c 73 § 4.] -Reviser's note: Chapter 88. Laws or 1965 ex. seu. is codified as RCW 35.13.015. 35.t3.020. 35.13.030. ·35.13.080.35.13.090.35.13.100. 35.13.110.35.13.125.35.13.130.35.13.160. 35.13.m. and 35.13.178. 35.14.050 Powers and duties of community munici- pal corporatIon. In addition to powers and duties relating to approval of zoning regulations and restrictions as set forth in RCW 3S.14.040. a community municipal corporation acting through ilS community council may: (I) Make recommendations concerning any proposed comprehensive plan or other proposal which directly or indirectly,affects the use of property or land within the service area; (2) Provide a forum for consideration of the conserva- tion. improvement or development of property or land within the service area; and (3) Advise. consult. and cooperate with Ihe legislative authority of the city on any local matters directly or indirect- ly affecting Ihe service area. [1967 c 73 § 5.] [TIll. 35 RCW-pag. 431 . -" " . ,,' ,; 35.14.060 Title 35 RCW: Cities and Towns 35.14.060 Original term or existence or community municipal corporation-Continuation or exlstence- Procedure. The original terms or existence of any commu- nity municipal corporation shall be for at least four years and until the first Monday in January next following a regular municipal election held in the city. ' Any such community municipal corporation may be continued thereafter for additional periods of four years' duration with the approval of the voters at an election held and conducted in the manner provided for in this section. Authorization for a community municipal corporation to continue its term of existence for each additional period of four years may be initiated pursuant to a resolution or a petition in the following manner: (I) A resolution praying for such continuation may be adopted by the community council and shall be filed not less than seven months prior to the end of the term of existence of such corporation with the city councilor other legislative body of the city in whiCh the service area. is located. (2) A petition for continuation shall be signed by at least ten percent of the registered voters residing within the service area and shall be filed not less than six months prior to the end of the term of existence of such corporation with the city council or other legislative body of the city in which the service area is located. At the same election at which a proposition is submitted to the voters of the service area for the continuation of the community municipal corporation for an additional period of four years. the community council members of such munici- pal corporation shall be elected. The positions on such council shall be the same in number as the original or initial council and shall be numbered consecutively and elected at large. Declarations of candidacy and withdrawals shall be in the same manner as is provided for members of the city council or other legislative body of the city. Upon receipt of a petition. the city cleric shall examine the signatures thereon and certify to the sufficiency thereof. No person may withdraw his name from a petition after it has been filed. . Upon receipt of a valid resolution or upon duly certify- ing a petition for continuation of a community municipal corporation. the city clerk with whom the resolution or petition was filed shall cause a proposition on continuation of the term of existence of the community municipal corpo~tion to be placed on the ballot at the next city general electIon. No person shall be eligible to vote On such proposition at such election unless he is a qualified Voter and resident of the service area. The ballots shall contain the words "For continuation of community municipal corporation" and" Against continuation of community municipal corporation" or words equivalent thereto. and shall also contain the names of the candidates to be voted for to fill the positions on the community council. The names of all candidates to be voted upon shall be printed on the ballot alphabetically in groups under the numbered position on the council for which they are candi- dates. If the 'results of the election as certified by the county canvassing board reveallhat a majority of the votes cast are for continuation. the municipal corporation shall continue in existence for an additional period of four years. and certifi· cates of election shall be issued to the successful candidates ITllie 35 RCW-po.e 441 . who shall assume office at the same time as membei$ , city council or other legislative body of the city. [ § 6.) Sections 35, t6,OOt 35,t6,010 35.16,020 35.16,030 35.16,040 35.16,050 35,16,060 35,16,070 . Chapter 35. J6 REDUCTION OF CITY LIMITS Actions subjeCt to review by ~undary R:vicw board. Petition. rcsolulion (or election. Notice of election. Canvassing the returnS-Abstract of vote. Ordinance 10 reduce boundaries. Recording of ordinance and plat on effective date of lion. Effect of exclusion as to liability (or indebtedneu. Previously granted franchises in excluded terrilary. 35.16.001 ' Actions subject to review by bOtID"'~ review board. Actions taken under chapter 3S,I6 may be subject to potential review by a boundary board under chapter 36.93 RCW. [1989,c 84 § 29.) 35.16.010 Petition, resolution for election. filing of a petition which is sufficient as detenninled'l!f RCW 35A.01.040 requesting the exclusion from the aries of a city or town of an area described by metes bounds or by reference to a recorded plat or go'vern~e6"f' survey. signed by qualified voters of the city or town in number to not less than ten percent of the nUlmber':j;1 voters voting at the last general municipal election. the onown legislative body shall submit the question to voters. As an altemale melhod. the legislative body of city or town may by resolution submit a proposal to voters for eXCluding such a described area from the aries of the city or town. The question shall be sul,mi.tte<~, alt ~j the next general municipal election if one is to be within one hundred eighty days or at a special election called for that purpose not less than ninety days nor more thiln one hundred eighty days after the cenificatio~ of sufficiency-of the petition or the passage of the resolution. The petition resolution shall set out and describe the territory to be • excluded from the city or town. together with the boundaries : of the city or town as it will exist after such change is made. [1994 c 273 § I; 1965 c 7 § 35.16.010. Prior: (i) 1895 c 93 § I. part; RRS § 8902. part. (ii) 18~5 c 93 § 4. part; RRS § 8905. part.) TiIMlfor holding elrcl;oru: Chllpler 29.1 J RCW. . 35.16.020 Notlce·or election. Notice of a corporate limil reduction election shall be published at least once each week for two consecutive weeks prior to the election in the official newspaper of the city or town. The notice shall distinctly state the proposition 10 be submitted. shall desig- nate specifically the area proposed to be excluded and the boundaries of the city or town as they would be after the proposed exclusion of territory therefrom. The ballots shall contain the words "For reduction of city limits" and "Against reduction of city limits" or words equivalenl thereto. [1994 c 273 § 2; 1985 c 469 § 19; 1965 c 7 § 35.16,020. Prior: .1895 c 92 § I. part; RRS § 8902. part,) (1994 Ed.) ; . ' .. i I. -------------- Chapter 35.02 Title 35 RCW: Cities and Towns 35,02.135 35.02.137 35,02.139 35,02.140 35.02. ISO 35,02.1S5 35.02.160 35,02.110 35,02.180 35.02.190 35,02.200 35.02.200 35.02,202 35,02.205 35.02.210 35.02.220 35.02,225 35.02.230 35.02.240 35,02.250 35.02,260 35,02,270 Newly incorporated city or town-May borrow from munic· ipal sales and usc tax. equaJization account Newly incorporalcd cily or town-Moratoria on develop· ment pennilS and approvaJs. Newly incorporaled ciey or town-Firsl general election of councilmembcn or commissioners-lnitiaJ. subsequent 1Cm1S. Disposition of uncollected road district wes. Pending final disposition of pelition no other petition for incorporation to be acted upon-Withdrawal or lubstitu· tion-Action on petition for annexation authorized. Effect of proposed annexation on petition. Cancellation. acquisition. of franchise or pennit for opera· tion of public servicc business in tcnitory incorporated. Use of riaht of way line IS corporate boundary-When right . of way may be: included. Ownership of county roads 10 reven to chy or town- Tenitory within city or town to be removed from fire protection. road, and library districts. Annexation of fire protection districc-Transfer of assets when AI least .ixty percent of assesSed valuation i. annexed or incorporalcd in city or town. Annexation of fire protection district-Ownership of asicts of\,fire pl'Olcccion district-When less than sixty percent (as amended by 1989 c 76), Annexation of fire protection distrid-Ownershlp of assets of fire protection district-When less than sixty percent (as amended by 1989 c 267). Annexation of fire protection disuict-Delay of transfer. Annexation of fire protection. district-Distribution of assets of district when less than fivc percent of district an· nexecS-Distribution agreement-Arbitration. Fire protection disttict and library disuict-Conlinuation of service. at option of city or lown. Duty of county and road. library, and rare districts to contin· I ue scs:vices during transition period-Road maintenance I and law enfon:.cment services. County may contract to provide essential services. Incorporation of city or town loalled in more than one . county-Powers and duties of county after incorpora· don-Costs. Incorporacion o( city or lown located in more than one county-Taxes-Powers and duties of county after . incorporation-CostS. Corporate powen in dealings with federal government. Duty of depanment of conununity development to wi.t newly incorporated cities and towns. Other local governments and state agencies-May assist newly incorporated cities' and towns. Combined city iu&d county municipal corporations: Slale Conslitulion Art. /I § 16 (A"".d""., 58), Fire protection districts. effect upon: Chapur .12.22 RCW. Incorporation tIl municipalities: State Constitutiun Art. J J § 10 (Amend. tMnl 40).: Incorporation proceedings e~empl from Stale enviwnmenlal Poli~ Act: RCW J6.9J,170. 4J.21C.220. 35.02.001 Actions subject to review by boundary review board. The incorporation of a cily or lown is subjeci 10 review by a boundary review board under chapler 36.93 RCW if a boundary review board exislS in Ihe counly in which all or any portion of the lerritory proposed 10 be incorporaled is located. [1994 c 216 § II; 1989 c 84 § 25.) Effective date-1994 c 216: See note rollowing RCW 35.02.015. 35.02.005 Purpose. The purpose of chapler 35,02 RCW is 10 provide a clear and uniform process for Ihe incorporation of cilies or lowns operaling under eilher Tille 35 or 35A RCW, An incorporation may resuh in the creation of a second class city or town operating under Title , 35 RCW or a noncharter code cily operating under . RCW. [1994 c 8.1 § 6; 1986 c 234 § I.) 35.02.010 Authority Cor Incorpoorlltlon-·Nun.hl , Inhabitants required. Any conliguous area c~::~!'!..~ , less Iban one thousand five hundred inhabitanlS Ibe limilS of an incorporaled city or lown corporaled as a cily or lown operating under RCW as provided in !his chapter: PROVIDED. -n., •• '""!,' which lies within five air miles of Ihe boundary having a populalion of fifleen Ihousand or incorporaled which conlains less Ihan three inhabitanlS. [1994 c 216 § 12; 1986 c 234 § 2; , I; 1965 c 7 § 35.02.010. Prior: 1963 c 57 § 1; ,§ I; 1888 p 221 § 1; 1877 P 173 § 1; 1871 p 51 § § 8883.} Efl'ectln dale-l994 c 116: Sec nOle following RCW Valldatlon-I961 ex..s. c J6: Validation of cenain i~orp-iaol annexations-Municipal corporations of the (ounh clu.: . roliowing RCW 35.21.010 .. Valldatlng-l899 c 61: "Any municipal corporation wbl,oh1>'" incorporated under the eXisting laws of this stale shall be a corporation notwithstanding a failure to publish the notice held or to be held for che purpose of determining whether or .han become incorporated. (or the length of time':,ifi~ii~,'I;;' governing such incorporation: PROVIDED. A notice ~I respects the requirements of law shall have been published prior to .uch election in a newspaper printed and published . boundaries or the corporalion." [1899 c 61 P 103 t I.) ValIdating-IS93 c 80: "The incorporation of all cities and this stale heretofore had or attempted under sections one. two an act entitled' An act providing for (he organization. cl ... iI~c~1 incorporation and government of municipal corporations. emergency: ,!,proved M ... h 24. 1890. and the ... incorpolnlli')ft and towns in this state heretofore had or anempced uilder and five of said act, under which ancmpced incorporacion or ... incclCJlCin an orsanizcd government has been maintained since the date hereby (or all. purposes declared Icgal and valid. and such cities an: hereby declared duly incorporated: And all contracts and heretOfore made. enlered into or incurred by any such city or incorporated or re-incorporalcd arc hereby declared legal and valid ruli rorce and effect." [1893 c 80 p 183 t I.) ValldatlnB-1890 c 7: ·When so incorporated. the debu such lawn. village or city to any person. firm or cOlrpo'".tion assumed and paid by the municipal aUlhorities of such town. and all deblS due to such town. village or city from any corporation shall be deemed ratified. and may be CO!~~~:;:')~I.:::ri manner and in all lespeCts as though such original valid." [1890 c 7 p t361 7,1 35.02.015 Proposed incI,rplor.atl,oml-Notice county-Boundary review hearing. proposing Ihe incorporalion of a cily or lown notice of Ihe proposed incorporation wilh Ibe counly tive aulborily of the county in which all or Ibe major of the proposed cily or lown is localed .. The nolice include lbemallersrequiredIObeinciudedinlheinc:o!J".I1~. lion pelition under RCW 35.02,030 and be accompatliell both a one hundred dollar filing fee and an affidavit ftom person stating thai he or she is a regislered voter residing the proposed city or town. The counly legislative authorily shall promptly Ihe boundary review board of Ihe proposed which shall hold a public meeling On Ihe prc,posed ralion within thirty days of the notice ~rc.nnc. (~vnrino :tnti nnnn"inp thr:: • ,i >. " . 1 "'> : Steps in election annexation process following City Council acceptance of the petition: 1) Copies of the petition and a statement of the provision on assumption of debt are filed with the County Council and BRB, 2) Within 60 days of the passage of the resolution, petitioners shall be notified by mail or by publication of the approval of the proposed action 3) Notice ofIntention is filed with the BRB (must be within 180 days of the filing for annexation) 4) BRB approves, with or without boundary modifications, or disapproves the annexation. 5) Within 30 days of the BRB decision, the City Council must indicate a preference for election date to the County Auditor 4) For the two weeks prior to the election, notice must be posted in 4 public places within the area to be annexed, and published once a week in one or more newspapers of general circulation. 5) On Monday following the election, the County canvassing board must canvass the returns and submit a statement of canvass to the County Council. 6) If voters approve any of the ballot propositions, the County Council must enter a finding to that effect in its minutes and transmit and file a certified copy of its minutes to the City Clerk. 7) The City Clerk must transmit the certified copy of the findings of the County Council to the City Council at its next regular meeting. ,:,,;. :Js! . . ~:f 8) The City Council adopts annexation ordinance. 're nvited .. Burnstead Annexation Open House Tuesdav, September 12-7:00 pm Maplewood Heights Elementarv 113430 144th Ave. S.E.J #ark your calendar and plan to attend the informational meeting at the Maplewood Heights Elementary School with City of Renton staff and elected officials to discuss facts about Renton's services. We hope you will take this opportunity to get answers to your questions and concerns and learn about the exciting programs that Renton offers its residents. Proposo.:d Zoning D Residentilll-5 du/acre !~~I Residential-8 dulacre .Residential-IO du/ acre -Proposed Annex:lIion Area SE 128th Street ... Annexation occurs when residents or property owners of King County request or agree to become part of the City of Renton for improved services and representation. Propenv Taxes Property taxes would increase, for example, by only $21 per year for a $150,000 house. For that $21 increase you receive more and better services including police, surface water, parks and libraries. Renton will acquire a 40 acre site for park development when the annexation goes through. Other residential costs would be a utility tax for phone, electric and gas that King County does not charge. Fees for street lights, animal licenses and storm water will decrease upon annexation. Storm andSurfaco'·'·~ Water Management Surface water charges would be $24 less per year in Renton compared to King County. Renton's Surface Water Util- ity rates for single family residential cus- tom.ers is $5.00 per month compared to $7.09 per month for unincorporated King County residents. Renton Surface Wa- ter Utility can provide the best customer service to the citizens within the pro- posed annexation area because the Util- ity is nearer to: • Respond quickly to drainage prob- lems. • Be involved in the review of new development. • Provide frequent maintenance of pub- lic storm drainage. • Annually inspect private storm drain- age to ensure that they work and are maintained. • Provide planning, permitting, design and construction of surface water projects, to solve drainage problems . in the basin. Beginning January 1996 you can use both Renton and King County libraries. The Renton Public Library and High- lands Library currently serve as infor- mation centers, stock popular materials and provide basic reference services. The Library is in the process of in- stalling a new automated circulation control system. A wide array of com- pute databases and CD-Rom products will be provided for public access. Fire The City of Renton currently provides fire service to the area under contract with King County Fire District #25. . There will be no change in service or response time. Pollee Services . Upon annexation, the area will be served by Renton Police, which means increased patrol coverage and protec- tion. Renton has a ratio of 1.8 officers serving each thousand residents. Renton's average response time to emergencies is less than four minutes. Renton is proud to be one of four de- partments with both state with national accreditation. The Renton Police De- partment' offers 'many cOrinJllinity"ori!'" ented programs including highly suc- cessful Block, Business and Night Watch, DARE, Neighborhood Speed Watch, and more. Road Maintenance .enton and King County have compa- rable cost and effectiveness for roads. Upon annexation road maintenance will be Renton's responsibility. Renton's maintenance includes pavement over- lays, crack sealing, sweeping, and snow clearance. Water /(fng County Water District 90 will con- tinue to provide service after annexation. Water rates will continue to be set by the District. Sanitary Sewers Property o~ners would IlQl be required to connect to the sewer system auto- matically upon annexation. Circum- stances under which connection could be required in the future are if a parcel is within 330 feet of an available sewer main and at least one of the following conditions exist: I. The existing user has a failed or failing septic system: or 2. Building occurs on the parcel that is classified as 'new construction' by the Renton Building Code; or 3. The parcel is involved in a Local Improvement District for sanitary sewers. There are no sanitary sewers in this portion of King County. If this area annexes, it would become part of Renton's sanitary sewer service area. The East Renton Sewer Interceptor is complete and ends at NE 4th Street and. Duvall Avenue SE (SE 128th Street & 138th Avenue SE). This interceptor is designed to carry sewage from the an- nexation area and the larger basin. Annexation would not change exist- ing septic tank regulations. Septic sys- tems in King County 'and Renton are regulated by the Seattle-King County Health Department. _1Ii •••• _, ·".~~~":l:::,.:"._~·f;;:. :'. Garbage Service Renton has lower garbage collection rates than King County. Renton citizens are currently charged a one can rate of $9.25 as compared to ~§~~~ $17.18forKingCounty ~ residents. Under state law, cur- rent service and rates would continue for 5 years. After that, gar- bage, curbside recycling and yard waste collection would be pro- vided by the City. Garbage service is mandatory in Renton. Access to local Council Members .fiected by Renton voters, the seven City Council members have the respon- sibility to assess the needs of the public and set priorities. They develop and adopt ordinances, resolutions·:md'policy .• alternatives to meet those needs. Although the Renton City Council is a part-time council, many members de- vote countless additional hours each week on city-related issues. City Council members also represent Renton citizens regionally on various committees established by the Subur- ban Cities Association, King County, Regional Transit Authority and others. By actively participating in these re- gional groups, the Council makes sure that Renton's poin of view is heard as regional decisions are made that affect our residents and our community. Zoning/Growth Management Mnety-five percent of the annexation area would be zoned for exclusively single family homes. The remaining 5%, adjacent to the existing city limits, would allow single family, duplex, tri- plex or fourplex homes-not apartments. County zoning allows greater density in this area and allows commercial devel- opment along SE 128th. Renton would change the County's commercial zon- ing to residential zoning. Much of the East Renton Plateau, in- cluding your area, was designated for urban growth, through planning under the 1990 Growth Mangement Act. Un- der the Act, King County was required to distinguish between urban areas and rural areas. The Act is intended to en- sure orderly land development and the efficient and timely provision of urban services. I ......••..........• 235-:2642 1 . RESOURCES. · .. ·.1 RISK MANAGEMENT 1 p.rsonn.VClvll S.rvlc •............. : .. 235-2556' 1 I 24-Hour Job Line ..... , ........... :: ........ 235-2514 1 IPLANH.'NGlBUlLDINGlPUBLIC WOR~S .' 'I Administration ...........•.......•........... 235 2569 : 1 . Building CustolTler Service ... ::.: .. :. 235-2540 1 I. Inspection R.qu •• ts;: .... : .. ::::: .. : .... 235-2542 1 . Engln •• ring Cus10mer Service .... 235-2631 -: 1 1 Maint.nanc9JS1re.t & Utilities .•.... 235-2566 : I: . Planning (Long' Range) ...• ,:.: ........ 235-2552 -I L Transportation Sys1ems ....... --.. : ... 235-2621 1 1 Zonlng/Land Use Applications ..... 235-2550 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT. . r· G.neral I~formation ........... : ......... 235-2600 1 I. Community Relatlon~ ................... 235-2511 1 I ." Animal ContrOl ......... , ........ : .. , ........ 235-2574 1 PUBLIC SAFETY ". I' Emergency!PoliceiFireiMedlc ............... 911 1 L _.k.. .:_f11.e.andSavs.. ___ .J ----------------------c----------------- 55086 YM 'UO IU<1}[ /flnoS <1nu<1tl.Y ll!W DOl EU!Pl!ng /vd!:J!unw UOIU<1}[ Eu!uuv/d <1Euv}l Euo? uOlu3}l fo lin;) SE 120th Street Burnstead Annexation Open House ~~~ ... -. ~ ~I---I Date: Tuesdav. September 12 Time: 1:00 pm Place: Maplewood Heights Elementarv School [13430 144th Ave. S.U f;r;l '" " ;. ..: .c = ... ... Proposed Zoning D Residential-5 dulacre Residential-8 dulacre • Residentiul-I 0 du/ acre -Proposed Annexation Area ... SE l28th Street I '\ - -r--~ ''----_- L -- L \ --- - I -- - - I -{ \ I f- LU CJ j) w > fC ~ -+--' CXJ ~ I" t-124th c ~ l- t-'-- I I I I ,cn 1/ f) Q) Q) -::: -;::> I~ <--l.... ~ ~ -+--' -+---' o ,<:t' 89,OOOU) ~ " , ~ ,<F ,0' 106,900 , ~ ~ 97,500 ..,00 149,500 187,300 ,~. 105.500 65,000 , 129,200 ,,? 70,000 , ,00 .... """. ". , 147,800 lo~ ~E nth St 00 92,300 60,000 0,0' ~~ q,<:,o I",~' 1 I- 215,600 148,500 t 242,400 19,050 83,183 SE 128th St I J , ~ - ~ r- ~ 116,800 143,900 75,700 99,400 138,800 212,600 128,849 1 171,400 179,700 SE r-; 64,200 r-- ,,0 9)"? I~ 'l) 100,400 91,500 102,200 81,200 45,000 .60,000 ~ 8 P1. ~ 1 1<''' 8 8 8 C§ 8 8 35,000 'V ~ ~ .... qj <0 "'. 'Y 9)' ,,' "" ,,' 129.400 :::: r c :::: !Y .... r ... 73,500 LLJ en 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 OJ lIj C qj lIj " 'V '0' '0' '0' "" 9)' ,,' ~' ... .... .... .... ~ 2'. I::-... ~ ... Q) 170,000 80,000 > < 135,700 95,000 30,000 1 L -0 . 110,000 C 15,000 ( f# 40,000 162,600. 116,400 # SE !?' 0) • ~ .A L -l> j LLJ .L..L::l. S' & & 8' § "i & ° ~. 1'\ ~ -~ ~. Co' 0 0 00 ~ 0,' o· ~ ~. <rj 8' 8' ° 95,000 ":i ~ ° 50,000 50,000 ~~. io' o. ~ '" 1 1 ..., v It 197000 152,500 108,000 112,000 150,900 70,000 70,000 111,400 88,300 140,700 103,700 30,000 106,300 l1spOO 2nd ~ Sl 8' ~ .'?-~ ~ # 12,)10G-~ 1'\ OJ 326,000 Co' p,' ". ". "'. 1'\ ,,' ~ ~ ~ ::> ". 0, " §' ~ 106, 00 157,900 OJ 171,300 ..... w-81,1 0 0, ~ 164,100 88,7 0 129,700 117,900 J21° 102,300 I ~, en 70,000 145,700 83,400 101,000 38,100 5 70,000 ~ ~ 100,000 2,473,000 --+----' CD ~ ..,-- 211,800 1 36th St 1 " 200,300 145,500 . 230,400 ~ 107,0 00 135,500 , , . 226,600 r--- \ SE 13~ nd 6t 240,500 ..l -+ UJ W . UJ C!) -. .--: = <c.......L... C!) > <C ~ -0 CD C U) N ~ L() c E 13 6th ( pt ~ '-'- + BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Request for BRB Review Signatures Ullil IL r-=II-..d t=1 ~I r r-r' 1== ~ ~ ~ "' I---':::co-~ ~ J 05 - 1"-l-Ll ~ ~ ,h.-I II h ~I"~r ~ -f---{ U ) _ <-I*-HIlSf I: f-~ EI. lln::i I I !!l IIV --.I ( 11111 l-I-(~ >l.1\' ~ _ 1-- liT 1= f=U 105 ---.J . 1== I-* 1=-1= n ~ ~ I b 1=-1=-;u I=-J.24th ~I~II ~ .c ~ I-L PI';, ~ '---I=-i -~ 1= -"~ t- -~ ::!: :) I I-1= -r:< ~ 5i~ l-=-l-e ~ f-O I-05 05 ~ 5i~ I ::: ::t: .I~ i!" r----~ ~~ ~ l-e ffi I :J ~ n SE 12E St -nSE Ir:II .. l1'J!F 1-1=-Ith St r ,h St .-.;1= ~ h '--~ gl If-~ H II u -'-- ~ 81 ~ t5i l-f>! w Vl I-- rl I ~ I I--; J ~ I ~ tl .. -- 0 ... .... .. Inht/ F SE 13: lij tE ~~~ f>! \.l.ClIIII I I I I I I I I l-t--~ ",/'rTTl u: "" l[ <C ,lll J Ul t7 J. I ~~ ~ 1 ~ v Li ~ jL-L ~ ~ ..'-~ ~ u~IIT ~ II SE ~St m~\ ,~-~ w [/) I=-= !li I-= « ~r---1; ~ \'\ :'!: -~ t-:rt= \ ~~ Y\ Irr _, o I L J ''\ i::L -l Irri'j Planning and Technical Services Planning/Building/Public Works O. Dennison, R. MocOnie, D. Visneski 17 July 1996 1000 I 2000 I _L ~ ~ ~ <i ~ ~ h ~ I-l ;C _SE 136th $1. 1 I .ti SE . - II 3. I I-I I I J U pq 1'~Q(mjl-'l. I ~ I ~" Pilw '-1\. I I I 1/ )2j!t ~ ILLUIII\ T -~Hl" 1-' II OJ: ~~Im '\. >..f'-.. -----Renton City Limits -.-.-.-Urban Growth Boundary (;;;21%;;<;;;2<,:«;1 S i 9 n ·a t u res 0 f V 0 t e r s and/or Propery Owners ---Burnstead Boundary BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Request for Removal of Petition Signotures !=;- ~ l- E t st e -...dl .............. ' .". ~Worb o. DennIson, R. MacOnIe, D. VIsneIId V .wy 1996 + o 1 1000 ; 2000 I rl > « h .c r I-o SE 13 nKt t f= I=:Ejl 1111111111111--_~ ____ ~ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary { I Request to be Removed from Petition r:c1·=;··...,..:."....,...,··=.,:1 Signafure Not Counted on Petition ___ Bumstead Boundary + BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION 60% Petition to Annex Signatures + + ~worb e I'IoonIoo ond T ................ SR ~. ~6 R. MacOn/e. D. VIuw.ld . o I 1000 ; 2000 I -----Renton City Limits -'-'-'-Urban Growth Boundar.y Signatures on Petition to Annex --.....;.... Burnstebd Bound,ary BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION ® PL»NG1BlADtG1PUIUC WORKS + Am + 0. DImIIan ~ R. ~, D. vt.n.Id 12 I pi,.... 1995 o 1000 2000 --.,-- -----Renton City Limits ~~~Proposed Annexation Boundar , ................... , Proposed Maplewood Annex. L--_--II Signed Annexation Petition June 25, 1996 The Honorable Greg Nickels Chair, Unincorporated Affairs Committee Metropolitan King County Council King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue, Room 400 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Proposed Briarwood incorporation feasibility study Dear Councilmember Nickels: CIT"'-~ OF RENTON Mayor Jesse Tanner I am Writing to you ~th two concerns regarding Item four on your June 24, 1996, agenda. My first concern is that Renton was not notified or invited to provide a briefing to your Committee on a matter that is of significant importance to our City. Staff found out about the meeting and agenda from another interested party and attended the meeting as an observer. My second concern is the request made to the Committee during the briefing from Mr. Dembowski, a proponent of Briarwood. I understand that Mr. Dembowski is asking the County Council to appropriate the funds and direct the Boundary Review Board (BRB) to begin scoping the feasibility study for the proposed Briarwood incorporation. While I can appreciate the desire to move forward, I am concerned that such action by the County Council could have unintended consequences for the Maplewood Heights Annexation election. This annexation was initiated by residents who prefer annexation over incorporation. As you know, under state law, the annexation election takes precedence over the incorporation election. Any work on a feasibility analysis for the Briarwood incorporation before the Maplewood Heights Annexation election has taken place would be premature and potentially misleading to residents and voters in the election area. By appropriating the funds and directing the BRB to initiate work on the study (even scoping), the County Council's actions could be misconstrued as supporting the incorporation effort ov.er the annexation. In addition. even scoping the feasibility study would seem premature given the size of the Maplewood Heights annexation relative to the proposed incorporation. Whether or not Maplewood Heights is included in the Briarwood incorporation would have a substantial effect on the analysis and conclusions of the study. In fairness to all of the residents of that area, I am requesting that your Committee and the full County Council wait until the Maplewood Heights annexation is resolved before proceeding with any actions on the proposed Briarwood incorporation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~reIY' -=r ~-.J~ •.......... _. esse Tanner Mayor co: Members. Renton City COWlcil GIlI)' Locke, King COWlty Executive Members, Metropolillln King COWlty COWlcil Members, King COWlty BoWldary Review Boord 200 Mill Avenue South· Renton, Washington 98055 . (206)235·2580 I FAX(206)235·2532 ® ThIS papor contains 500 ", recVclod material, 20~~ post consumer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6-J../-"16 The Honorable Mary W. Brucker IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASI-ITNGTON FOR KING COUNTY KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90. ) a Washington municipal corporation; and ) NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN. husband ) and wife; ) Appellants. v. WASI-ITNGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY. a state agency; and THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation. Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) -------------------------) NO. 95-2-27556-7 FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDG~1ENT REVERSING BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION (Clerk's Action Required) TI-ITS ~L\TTER came before the Court on appellants King County Water District No. 90's i and Norman and Cynthia Green's Notice of Appeal pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(5). The Court considered the record certified to the Court by the Boundary Review Board. the oversize exhibits that are part of that record but are labeled Respondents' Exhibits 1-4. the transcripts of the public hearings before the Board on September 21 and 26, 1995, and the transcript of the Board's deliberations on September 26. 1995. The Court also considered the Opening Brief and Reply Brief of the appellants. the City of Renton's Brief on the Merits. and the Trial Brief of FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT - 1 HELSELL FETTER-MAN 1500 PUGH SOU NO PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTlE.WA 98111-3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 · '. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [the] Washington State Boundary Review Board. On May 20,1996, the Court heard oral argument from Peter J. Eglick and Bob C. Sterbank of Helsell Fetterman lLP, for appellants King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green; Lawrence J. Warren of Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S., for the City of Renton; and Robert C. Kaufman of Hermann, Recor , Kaufman & Simmerly, for the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. The Court considered the pleadings and files in this matter and, being fully advised in the premises, hereby enters the following: I. flNDINGS OF FACT 1.1 The annexation at issue in this case came before the Renton City Council on a petition by owners of property within a 400-acre section of the East Renton Plateau community. The petition requested annexation to the City of Renton. The petition bore the . signature, among others, of a representative of the Renton School District, which is the owner. of the Maplewood Heights Elementary School located within the annexation area. Not; counting the value of the Renton School District's Maplewood Heights Elementary School property, the petition contained the signatures of the owners of no more than 58% of the assessed value of all property within the annexation area. 1.2 The City of Renton City Council held a public hearing pursuant to RCW 35A.14.1 : on April 10, 1995, to consider the annexation petition. 1.3 At the conclusion of that hearing, the City Council passed an oral motion i , accepting the annexation petition and authorizing the City of Renton administration to prepare I a notice of intention package concerning the annexation for submission to the Washington i F1NDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT - 2 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO, BOX 21846 SEAITlE.WA 98111·38~6 PH:(2QSI292-1144 , I . - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 State Boundary Review Board for King County. The City Council did not pass an ordinance ati I or after that hearing to adopt or otherwise effect the annexation. ! 1.4 The Boundary Review Board received the City of Renton's Notice of Intention to I I annex on May 8, 1995. I 1.5 Although raised by the Greens and others through the group Neighbors United I . I for Representation, the Boundary Review Board declined to consider the issue of whether it! lacked jurisdiction to approve the annexation because it was not supported by a petition' containing the signatures of owners of at least 60% of the assessed value 0; property within the I annexation area. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court hereby makes the following: II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The Court's decision is based on a question of law; i.e., whether the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County lacked jurisdiction to. approve the proposed . -annexation because the annexation was not supported by a valid petition containing the signatures of owners of property constituting at least 60% of the total assessed value of property within the annexation area. 2.2 School districts, like the Boundary Review Board and the City of Renton, are creatures of statute. Accordingly, their authority is limited to that granted by the Legislature in applicable statutes. F1NDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT - 3 HELSELL FETTERMAN . \ I ,,,,,,,',11.,,,1.'/,,, I'.,,'/H." '/"1' 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTlE,WA 98111·38.:6 PH:1206)292·1144 " .' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.3 RCW 28A.335.110 authorizes school districts to participate in petitioning for an I annexation only when: (1) the school property constitutes the whole of the annexation; and (2) I the school district petitions for annexation under RCW 35.13. 2.4 Because the Renton School District's Maplewood Heights Elementary School property did not constitute the whole of the annexation, and because the City of Renton's annexation was proposed under RCW 35A.14, not RCW 35.13, the Renton School District was not entitled to sign the annexation petition in this case. 2.5 RCW 35A.14.120 requires that, to be valid, an annexation petition contain the I I signatures of the owners of at least 60% of the total assessed valuation of the annexation area. I I 2.6 Because the Renton School District's signature could not be counted toward the! i 60% requirement, the petition did not contain the signatures of the owners of at least 60% of i I the assessed value of the annexation area, as required, and was therefore legally insufficient. I I 2.7 The April 10, 1996, oral motion by the Renton City Council sending the proposed I ! annexation to the Boundary Review Board did not constitute an action by ordinance as I required by Rew 35A.14.140, nor did it constitute an act requiring initiation of judicial review prior to action by the Boundary Review Board. 2.8 Here, where the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County did i not choose to resolve or did not believe it could resolve questions relating to its own jurisdiction, it is appropriate that, as part of the Court's review of the Board's decision, the issue of law pertaining to the Boundary Review Board's jurisdiction be resolved by the Court. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT -4 HELSELL FETTERMAN .\/ .. """//",;,,1,:.1',1111,,,,1"1' 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P.O. BOX 218~6 SEATTLE. WA 98111·J8J6 PH: (206) 292-1 lJ~ · .. - 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.9 In light of these conclusions. it is unnecessary for the Court to reach the merits of the Greens' and King County Water District No. 90's challenges. that the annexation did not comply with the criteria in RCW 36.93.180. and that the Boundary Review Board violated due process and the Appearance of Fairness doctrine. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. the Court hereby enters the following: III. JUDGMENT 3.1 Pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(6). the October 12. 1995. Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County shall be and hereby is REVERSED and the proposed annexation disapproved. DONE IN OPEN COURT this ..aL day of June. 1996. Presented by: HELSELL FEn E&\1AN LLP By: Peter J. Eglick. WSBA No. 8809 Bob C. Sterbank. WSBA No. 19514 Attorneys for Appellants FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT - 5 #J MARY BRUCKER HONORABLE MARY W. BRUCKER HELSELL FETTERMAN .1/.,"III,·'/U"/,r/",/""""',,lIi,, 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEAnLE. \NA 98111-3846 PH: (206) 292-1144 · .' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Approved as to Form; Notice of Presentation Waived: WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN & FONTES. P.S. By: ~ C. ~ JZ.tA /st:Ik.~ ~: Lawrence J. Warren. WSBA No. 5853 Attorneys for Respondent City of Renton Approved as to Form; Notice of Presentation Waived: HERMAN. RECOR. KAUFMAN & SIMMERL Y By: ~c..~I'tV\~~~" Robert C. Kaufman. WSBA No. 12543 Attorneys for Respondent Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County G:ILWiA."mUN\Fh"'Dl~CS FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT, 6 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET saUNO PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SE~nlE. WA 98111-J8-l6 PH: 1206) 292·1144 June 3, 1996 King County Water District No. 90 Commissioners 15606 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington 9il059 , PLANNING DIVISION CITY O~ RENTON , JUN 3 1996 RECEIVED . ' Re: Sewer Service For White Fence Ranch Sub-Division and The East Renton Plateau Dear Commissioners: " This is to formally request sewer service for the White Fence Ranch Sub-Division. This request is being made based on the immediate health hazard created by failing septic systems in the area. This health risk and the potential pollution of the May Creek drainage basin were documented in a Health department study conducted in the spring of 1993 and further supported in Public testimony before the Boundary Review Board by Sid Foreman, Health Department Director. While it is recognized that sewers for the White Fence Ranch Sub-Division cannot realistically be supported solely by existing homeowners in the Sub-Division, there is also the need for sewers to allow undeveloped property owners, both in the Sub-Division and in surrounding areas, the ability to utilize their property. We feel that Water District 90 should actively pursue participation of surrounding property owners. Since Water District 90 has taken an active role in opposition to sewer service being provided by the City Of Renton, (who stands ready and willing to provide the service), it is assumed you will take an active role in providing timely and cost effective service to the area to alleviate a potentially serious health risk. \ ' . To this end we request that Water District 90 prepare any required studies, petitions, elections, permit applications, cost estimates or any other actions as required to provide service to the area in the most expedient manner possible. Your public testimony , indicated that Water District 90 could provide service to the area within a two year time frame. We fully anticipate you will be able to live up to your claim. Sincerely, Chris Holstrom, (Representing individuals who total over 60% of the property ownership and lot frontage in the White Fence Ranch Sub-Division) · ........... DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM June3,1996 Mike Kattennann .' O~~Dennis.~~ Annexation Questions You referred two questions to me. 1) Must electors be registered voters to vote in an election annexation? RCW 35A.14.060 states, "An annexation election shall be held in accordance with chapter 35A.29 RCW of this title and only registered voters who have resided in the area proposed to be annexed for ninety days immediately preceding the election shall be allowed to vote therein." While this is explicit, the question probably stems from the portion of the RCW governing election annexation petitions. 35A.14.020 states that the petition must be signed by "qualified electors". MSRC defines qualified elector as anyone over 18 years who has resided in the area for 30 days. King County Elections disagrees with this interpretation and requires that all signatures be registered voters. 2) Is a one-year moratorium on annexation of the Bumstead Annexation area required by statute? RCW 36.93.150 'states, "When the board, after due proceedings held, disapproves a proposed action, such proposed action shall be unavailable, the proposing agency shall be without power to initiate the same or substantially the same as determined by the board, and any succeeding acts intended to or tending to effectuate that action shall be void, but such action may be reinitiated after a period of twelve months from date of disapproval and shall again be subject to the same consideration." RCW 36.93.160, which governs appeals ofBRB decisions to superior court, does not include a one- year moratorium requirement. The court may affirm the decision, remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse the decision. Perhaps one could conclude that a reversal of the decision constitutes a BRB denial and, hence, would require the year suspension of further action. However, even under this reading of the statute, the moratorium would seem not apply to the Bumstead Annexation. It is my understanding that the court ruled that, since the petition was invalid, the BRB had no jurisdiction to rule on the proposal. Therefore, it does not appear that the Board's decision was reversed as much as invalidated. If a reference to a one year moratorium on annexation is elsewhere in the RCW, I am unaware of it. H:IDIVlSION.SIP&TSIPLANNINOIANNEXlMOKMEMO r~(,.'1;,.I~O .: Local Governmental Organization-lSounaarlCs-Kevlcw Jioaros ·:;u;o~ ~e""vi~w of any proposed action, sh?ll ~ake such of the following actions as it deems necessary ~ ,st carry out the intent of this chapter: (I) Approve the proposal as submitted. (2) Subject to RCW 35.02.170, modify the proposal by adjusting boundaries to add or delete territory. However .. any proposal for annexation of territory to a town shall be subject to RCW 35.21.010 and the board shall not add additional territory, the amount of which is greater than that included in the original proposal. Any modifications shall nof interfere with the authority of a city, town, or special purpose district to require or ,not require preannexation' agreements, covenants, or petitions. A board shall not modify the proposed incorporation of a c1ty with an estimat- ed population of seven thousand five hundred or more by removing territory from the proposal, or adding territory to the proposal, that constitutes ten percent or more of the total area included within the proposal before the board. Howev- er, a board shall remove territory in the proposed incorpora- tion that is located outside of an urban growth area or is' annexed by a city or town, and may remove territory in the proposed incorporation if a petition or resolution proposing the annexation is filed or adopted that has priority over the proposed incorporation, before the area is established that is subject to this ten percent restriction on removing or adding territory. A board shall not modify the proposed incorpora' tion of a city with a population of seven thousand five hundred or more to reduce the territory in such a manner as to reduce the population below seven thousand five,hundred. (3) Detennine a division of assets and liabilities between two or more governmental units where relevant. (4) Determine whether, or the extent to which, ftinctions , of a special purpose district are to be assumed by an incorporated city or town, metropolitan municipal corpora- tion, or another existing special purpose district. (5) Disapprove the proposal except that,the board shall not have jurisdiction: (a) To disapprove the dissolution or disincorporation of a special purpose district which is not providing services but shall have jurisdiction over the 'determination of a division of the assets and liabilities of a dissolved or disincorporated special purpose district; (b) over the divisiori of assets and liabilities of a special purpose district that is dissolved or disincorporated pursuant to chapter 36.96 RCW; nor (c) to disapprove the incorporation of a city with an estimated population of seven thousand five hundred or more, but the board may recommend against the proposed incorporation of a city with such an estimated population. Unless the board disapproves a proposal, it shall be presented under the appropriate statute for approval of a public body and, if required, a vote of the people. A proposal that has been modified shall be presented under the appropriate statute for approval of a public body and if required, a vote of the people. Ira proposal, other than that for a city, town, or special purpose district annexation, after modification does not contain enough signatures of persons within the modified area, as are required by law, then the initiating party, parties or governmental unit has thirty days after the modification decision to secure enough signatures to satisfy the legal requirement. If the signatures cannot be secured then the proposal may be submitted to a vote of the people, as required by law. (1994 Ed.) The addition or del r " 'n of property by the board shall not invalidate a petitiOl .ich had previously satisfied the sufficiency of signature provisions of RCW 35.13.130 or 35A.14.120jWhen the board, aftei d~e proceedings held;_ ;-disapproves a proposed' action, such proposed action shall be ' ",unavailable, the proposing agency shall be without power to 'initiate the same or substantially the same as determined by , 'the board, and any succeeding acts intended to or tending to' 'effectuate that action shall be void, but such action may b~ reinitiated after a period of twelve months from date of C1isapproval and shall again be subject to the same consider: ~oo. 1 . ' . ' . The board shllll not modify or deny a proposed action unless there is evidence on the record to support a conclu- sion that the action is inconsistent with one or more of the objectives under RCW 36.93.180. Every such determination to modify or deny a proposed action shall be made in writing pursuant to a motion, and shall be supported by appropriate written 'findings and conclusions, based on the record. [1994 c 216 § 15; 1990 c 273 § I; 1987 c 477 § 7; 1979 ex.s. c 5 §'13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § 10; 1969 ex.s.,c 1\1 § 8; 1967 c 189 § 15.] Effective dale-1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35.02.015. Severabllity-1990 c 273: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circum~tances is not affected." [t990 c 273 I 3.1 Severablllly-I979 tu. c S: Sec RCW 36.96.920. LegLslaUve Ondlng, lntent-1975 l~t ex.s. c 220: See note follo~ing RCW 35.02.170. " 36.93.i53 Review of proposed Incorporation In county with boundary review board. The proposed incorporation of any city or town that includes territory located in a county in which a boundary review board exists . sball be reviewed by the boundary review board and action taken as described under RCW36.93.150. [1994 c 216 § 10J . '. EfTectlv~ date-1994 c 116: -Sec note following RCW 3~,ri2.(H5:· 36.93.155 Annexation approval-Other action not authorized. Boundary review bOard approval, or modifica- tion and approval, of a proposed annexation by a city, town, or special purpose district shall authorize annexation as approved and shall not authorize any other annexation action. [1989 c 84 § 16.] 36.93.157 Decisions to be consistent with growth management act. The decisions of a boundary review board located in a 'county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 must be consistent with.RCW 36.70A.020, 36.70A.llO, and 36.70A.21O. [1992 c 162 § 2.] 36.93.160 Hearings-Notlce-Record~ubpoenas-, DeCision of board-Appellate review. (I) When the jurisdiction of the boundary review board has been invoked, the board shall set the date, time and place for a' public hearing on the proposal. The board shall give at least thirty days' advance written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing to the governing body of each governmental unit having jurisdiction within the boundaries of the territory [Title 36 RCW-page 2251 i' , " i: i' • I I : ! \36.93.1~0 1 Title 36 RCW: Counties proposed to be annexed. formed. incorporated. disincorporat- ed. dissolved or consolidated. or within the boundaries of a special district whose assets and facilities are proposed to be assumed by a city or town. and to the governing body of each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the area and to the proponent of the change. Notice shall also be given by publication in any newspaper of general circula- tion in the area of the proposed boundary change at least three times. the last publication of whieh shall be not less than five days prior to the date set for'the public hearing. Notice shall also be posted in ten public places in the area affected for five days when the area is ten acres or more. When the area affected is less than ten acres. five notices shall be posted in five public places for five days. Notice as provided in this subsection shall include any territory which the board has determined to consider adding in accordance with RCW 36.93.150(2). (2) A verbatim record shall be made of all testimony presented at the hearing and upon request and payment of the reasonable costs thereof. a copy of the transcript of the testimony shall be provided to any person or governmental unit. (3) The chairman upon majority vote of the board or a panel may direct the chief clerk of the boundary review' board to issue subpoenas to any public officer to testify. and to compel the 'production by him of any records. books. documents. publi~ records or public papers. (4) Within forty days after the conclusion of the final hearing on the proposal. the board shall file its written decision. setting forth ihe reasons therefor. with the board of county ~9mmissioners and the clerk of each governmental unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate whether the proposed change is approved. rejected or modified and. if modified. the terms of the modification. The written decision need not include specific data on every factor required to be: considered by the board, but shall indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissent- ing members of the board shall have the right to have their written dissents included as part of the decision. (5) Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a decision of a majority of the members of the board shall constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appeal- able to the whole board. Any other decision shall be, appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall be on the record. which shall be furnished by the appellant, but the board may, in its sole discretion, permit the introduc- tion of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date . of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. The filing of the notice of appeal Within the time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board. '(6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the I boardor remand the case for further proceedings; or it may ,reverse the decision if a~y §ubstan!iai rights may have been } .- ITllte 36 RCW-page 2261 prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences. conclusions, or decisions are: (a) In violation of constitutional provisions. or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or (d) Affected .. by other error of law, or <e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire, record as submitted, or (I) Clearly erroneous. ' An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment 'of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. [1994 c 216 § 16; 1988 c 202 § 40; 1987 c 477 § 8; 1971 c 81 § 97; 1969 ex.s. c III § 9; 1967 c 189 § 16.] Effective dat&-1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35,02.0lS. Severablllty-1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050. General corporatt powers-Towns. restrictions as 10 area: RCW 35.21.010. 36.93.170 Factors'to be consIdered by board- Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environ- mental policy acL In 'reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative. the board shall consider !!>e factors affecting such proposal. which shall. include. but not be limited to the following: . (I) Population and territory; population density; land area and 'land uses; comprehensive plans and loning. as adopted under chapter 35.63. 35A.63. or 36.70 RCW; per capita assessed valuation; topography. natural boundaries and drainage basins. proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincor- porated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; . (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances. governmental codes. regulations and resolutions on existing u'ses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects ~f governmental services from other sources; probable-future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on the finances, debt structure. and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests. and on the local governmental structure of the county. ' The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW. State Environ- mental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84 § 5; 1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § I; 1967 c 189 § 17.] SeverabUity-1981 c 120: See note following RCW 36,93.100. Incorporation procudings eump' from Slare environmenwl policy acl: RCW 43.21C.220. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1994 Ed.) " " . , T.it!e 3SA RCW: Optional Municipal Code .... ' 35A.14.015 .. Scvcrability-1979 ex.s. c 124: "U any prt. .10 of Ihis 1979 ael or its applicalion 10 any person or circumstance is held invalid. [he remainder of the acl or the application of the provision (0 alher persons or circum; 'stances is not affecled," (1979 ex.s. c J 24 § I J.J . Leglsladve finding. lnteot-197S lst ex.s. c 220: See nOle following /l.CW 3S.02.170. Seyerablllty-1971 ex ... c 251: See RCW 3SA.90.0S0. 1 3SA.14.020 IEleetion method-Contents of petition- Certification by auditor~Approval or rejection by legislative body-Costs. When a pelition iSisufficient under the rules set forth in RCW 35A.01.040: calling for an election to vote upon the annexation qf unincorporated lerritory contiguous to a code'city. describing the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed. stating the number of voters therein as ~early as may be. and signed by qualified I eleclors resident in such territory equal in number to teni . percenl of the voles casl at the lasl state general election' 'therein. it shall be filed wilh the auditor of the counly in which all, or the greatest portion. of the temtory is located. and a copy of the petition shall be filed with the legislative body of the code city. If the territory is located in more than a single county, the auditor of the county with whom the petition is filed shall aCI as the lead auditor and transmil a copy .of the petition to the auditor of each other county within which a portion of the territory is located. The auditor or auditors shall examine the petition. and the audilor or lead audit!,r shall certify the sufficiency of the petition to the legislalive authority of the code city. If the signatures on the petition are certified as contain· ing sufficient valid signalures. the cily'legislative authority shall. by resolution entered within sixty days thereafter. notify the petitioners, either by mail or by publication in the same manner notice of hearing is required by RCW 35A.14.040 to be published. of its approval or rejection of the proposed action. In approving the proposed aClion the legislative body may require that there also be submilt~d 10 the electorale of the territory to be annexed, a proposition that all property within the area 10 be annexed shall. upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at Ihe same rate and on the same basis as the property of such annexing cily is assessed and taxed to pay for all or any portion of the then· outstanding indebtedness of the city to which said area is annexed. which indebtedness has been approved by the voters. contracted for. or incurred prior to. or existing at. the date of annexation. Only after the legislati ve body has compl~ted preparation and filing of a proposed zoning regulauon for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCW ~5A.14.330 and 35~.14.340. the legislative body in approving the proposed action, may require that the proposed zoning regulation be simultaneously adopted upon the approval of annexation by the electorate of the area to be anne~ed. The approval of the legislalive body shall be a condition precedenl to further proceedings upon the petition. The costs of conducting the eleclion called for in the petition shall be.a charge againsl the city concerned. The proposition or questIons provided for in this section may be submined 10 the voter eilher separately or as a single proposition. 11989 c 351 § 4; 1981 c 332 § 6; 1979 eu. c 124 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.14.020.] Severablllty-1981 c 332: Sec nOle following RCW 35.13.165. (1992 Ed,) , Severabillty-19'> c:x.s. c 124: See nOle (ollowing RCW 3SA.14.0IS. , 3SA.14.030 Filing of petition as approved by city. Upon approval of the petition for election by the legislative body of the code city to which such territory is proposed 10 be annexed. the petition shall be filed with the leoislalive authority of the county in which such territory is ioca,ed. along with a statement. in the' form required by the city. of the provisions. if any there" be. relating 10 assumption of the portion of the deb I that the city requires to be' assumed by Ihe owners of proPerty of the area proposed 'to be annexed., andlor the simultaneous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation for the area. A copy .of the petition and the statement •. if any, shall also be filed with the boundary review board as provided for in chapter 36.93 RCW or the county annexation' review board established by RCW 35A.14.160. unless such proposed annexation is wilhin the provisions of R,~W 35A.14.220. 11979 ex.s. c 124 § 3; 1971 ex.s. c 251 § 6; 1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.14.030.] SeverabIJity-1979 u.s. c 124: See no Ie (ollowing RCW 3SA.14.0IS. ' ' " SeyerablUty-1971 ex .... c 251: See RCW 3SA.90.0S0. 3SA.14.040 Election method-Hearing by review board-Notice. Within ten days after receipt of a petition or resolution calling for an election on the question of annexation, the·county annexation review board shall meet and. if the proposed annexation complies with the require· ments of law, shall fix a date for a hearing thereon. 10 be held not less than fifteen days nor more than thirty days thereafter, of which hearing ,the cilY mUSI give nOlice by publication alleast once a week for two weeks prior thereto in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the city and in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the area proposed to be annexed. The hearing shall be held within the city [0 which the territory is proposed to be annexed. at a time and place to be designated by Ihe board. Upon the day fixed. the board shall conduct a hearing upon the petition or resolution, at which hearing a representative of the city shall make a brief presentation to the board in explanation of the annexalion and Ihe benefits to be derived therefrom. and the petitioners and any resident of the city or the area proposed to be annexed shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The hearing may be adjourned from time to time in the board's discre· tion: not to exceed thirty days in all from the commencemenl of the hearing. [1967 ex.S. C 119 § 35A.14.040.] 3SA.14.0S0 Decision of the county annexation review board-Filing-Date for election. After consider· ation of the proposed annexation as provided in RCW 35A.14.200. the county annexation review board. wilhin thirty days after the final day of hearing. shall lake one of the following actions: (I) Approval of the proposal as submined: (2) Subject to RCW 35.02.170. modification of the proposal by adjusting boundaries to include or exclude territory; except that any such inclusion of territory shall not increase the total area of territory proposed for annexation by an amount exceeding the original proposal by more than five {Title J5A RCW-page 251 ( c ( . \ , : . ~ , , , I' ! I ' ; , ; . I: r , ' :j :; i; :1. :! 'I ;1, :, Ii: :: " !Il' ;!:' : , i: iii: Ii: u;; ," ", , ii, if \ ':, . I ') " 11 !.; + " , ! I, ,1: 1 , I I 1 i ! [" j: :j :1 I ! I' , d ( . ~ ... " 'I 1 ii; ! r Iii ( : II 35A.14.050 Title 35A RCW: Optional Municipal Code percent: PROVIDED, That the county annexation review board shall not adjust boundaries to include territory not included in the original proposal without first affording to residents and propeny owners of the area affected by such adjustment of boundaries an opportunity to be heard as to the proposaL (3) Disapproval of the proposaL The written decision of the county annexation review board shall be filed with the bollrd of county commissioners and with the legislative body ot the city concerned, If the annexation proposal is modified by the county annexation review board, such modification shall be fully set forth in the written decision, If the decision of the boundary review board or the county annexation review board is favorable to the annexation proposal, or,the proposal as modified by the review board, the legislative body of the city at its next regular meeting if to be held within thirty days after receipt of the decision of the boundary review board or the county annexation review board, or at a special meeting to be held within that period, shall indicate to the county auditor its preference for a special election date for submission of such annexation proposal, with any modifications made by the review board, to the voters of the territory proposed to be an'nexed, The special election date that is so indicated shall be one of the dates for special elections provided under RCW 29.13.020 that is sixty or more days after the date the ,preference is ,indicated. The county legislative authority shall call the special election at the special election date so indicated by'the city. If the boundary review board or the county annexation review board disapproves the annexation proposal. no further action shall be taken thereon. and no proposal for annexation of the same territory, Or substantially the same as determined by the board. shall be initiated or considered for twelve months thereafter, [1989 c 35 I § 5; 1986 c 234 § 30; 1975 1st ex.s. c 220 § IS; 1971 ex,S. c 251 § 7; 1967 ex.S. c 119 § 35A.14.050.) Legtslatlve finding, lntent-l97S 1st ex.s. c 120: See notc rollow;ng RCW 35,02.170, Severabtuly-1971 ex ... e 251: See RCW 35A,90.050, 35A,14.060:' Election method-Conduct of election. An annexation election shall be held in accordance with chapter 35A.29 RCW of this title and only registered voters who have resided in the area proposed to be annexed for ninety days immediately preceding the election shall be allowed to vote therein. [1967 ex.s. c 119 § 35A.14,060,j 3SA.14.070 Election method-Notice of election. Notice of an annexation election shall particularly describe the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed. as the same may have been modified by the boundary review board or the county annexation review board. state the objects of the election as prayed in the petition or as stated in the resolution. and require the voters to cast ballots which shall contain the words "For Annexation" or "Against Annexation" or words equivalent thereto. or contain the words "For Annexation and Adoption of Proposed Zoning Regulation", and "Against Annexation and Adoption of Proposed Zoning Regulation", or words equivalent thereto in case the simulta- neous adoption of a proposed zoning regulation is proposed. and in case the assumption of all or a portion of indebted- (TItle 3SA RCW-page 16I ness is proposed, shall contain an appropriate, sel,ar.t' proposition for or against the portion of indebtedness city requires to be assumed. The notice shall be 1"""O<J"IClr at least two weeks prior to the date of election in pUblic: places within the area proposed to be annexed and published :: at least once a week for two weeks prior to the date election, in a newspaper of general circulation within the ' limits of the territory proposed to be annexed, Such notice ' shall be in addition to the notice required by RCv{ 35A.29.140, [1979 ex.s. c 124 § 4; 1967 ex,s. c 1l9,'§ 35A.14.070.j ,. " Severabllity-1979 ex.s. c 114: Sec note (ollowing RCW 3SA.14.01S. ,.\' .:. ,q 3SA.14.080 Election method-Vote required for 'fJ' anneXation-Proposition for assumption or Indebted-,';;: ", ness-CertIfiClitlon. On the Monday next succeeding the ,J: annexation election, the county canvassing board shall :,\ proceed to canvass the returns thereof and shall submit the .~, statement of canvass to the county legislative authority." ',' ,,'; The proposition for or against annexation or for or .,. against annexation and adoption of the proposed zoning ,_ regulation, as the case may be, shall be deemed approved if . a majority of the votes cast, on that proposition are cast in favor of annexation or in favor of annexation and adoption c; of the proposed zoning regulation, as the case may be. If a ;\: proposition for or against assumption of all or any portion of ':! indebtedness was submitted to the electorate, it shall be k deemed approved if a majority of at least three-fifths of the } electors of the territory proposed to be annexed voting 'oii :\ such proposition vote in favor thereof, and the number,of ,persons voting on suth proposition constitutes not less th~ forty percent of the total number of votes cast in sucb I.: territory at the last preceding general election. If either'or. ': 'both propositions were approved by the electors, the county 'legislative authority shall enter a finding to that effect on itS minutes. a certified copy of which shall be forthwith uansmitted to and filed with the clerk of the city to whicli annexation is proposed, together with a certified absuact or " the vote showing the whole number who voted at the , election, the number, of votes cast for annexation and the ' ' number cast against annexation or for annexation and adoption of the' proposed zoning regulation and the number , cast against annexation and adoption of the proposed zoning regulation. as the ,case may be, and if a propositionJor assumption of all or any portion of indebtedness was submitted to the electorate. the abstract shall include the number of votes cast for assumption of indebtedness and the number of votes cast against assumption of indebtedness! together with a statement of the total number of votes cast in such territory at the last preceding general election. [1979 ex.s. c 124 § 5; 1967 ex.S. c 119 § 35A,14.080,j Severablllty-1979 ex.s. c 114: See note follo~ing RC~, 35A.14.015, ' 3SA.14.,085 Election method-Vote required for, annexation with assumption of Indebtedness-Without, assumption of Indebtedness. A code city may cause 8 proposition authorizing an area to be annexed to the city t~ : be submitted to the qualified voters of the area proposed t~ , be annexed in the same ballot proposition as the question to 'c' .~") :', (1992 Ed.l.; PROPOSE MAPLEWOOD A~.NEXATION City of Renton With Burnstead Annexation Area " I e PIam .... and Tedrical Ser'ffc:es +.+~Warb Proposed Annexation (Approximate Area: 526 Acres) R. ~, O. 0.,1 011 U Mttq 1996 o 1,000 2,000 ~I ~I iiiiIiIil~~~1 1:12,000 MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ANNEXATION ROADWAYIMPROVEMENT COSTS TO BRING UP TO CITY STANDARDS PATCHING 4280 SO FT AT $2 /SO FT = CRACK SEALING 71376 UN FT AT $ .40IlIN FT= PATCHMASTER 360 SO FT AT $4.50S0 FT= TOTAL YEARLY MAINTENANCE COSTS AT $1.25 PER UNEAL FOOT= EIGHT SEGMENTS SHOULD BE OVERLA YEO WmtIN THE NEXT 3 YEARS THE TOTAL AREA = TONS AT 1 1/2"= COST AT $45 TON = $8.560 $28.550 $1.620 $38.730 $60.B29 64214 713 $32.107 Oll 1J..\2>tz!l (;\lJE 5... AT 1:1(i)J... TIlE... SR\6::r 1'5 ~ IJkib lUlLL E-VO-JTLMLL'1 ~UQb /"Ct3 ~ M\£t.\L n\"Y\T tbIMIVli3:1IATEL.'-I. d6lJ.llbL'({XI~ Jb Ilff... S-ro.e2r. TI£ <JlEjJ111Jl, \.u ILL Il:£ ~~\£ J -4 ,..sic.. -.:$dfX.>1L 0\ ft6"1"1k.. &LeE:fc i511u6CD ntE-~Ubc. W2 aa.l~"bCi-u...~ 7116 A ~~A(£ \i.I.A~ ~1 £ ~O:>IlIJ\ .... 1 5/24/96 12:18 PM PAGE 5 MAPlANE)('XLS -.. -,' _.,." " -' :~ ... .,:~::--.. ! • I ! , I I :" ,-;,;, DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM May 16, 1996 Larry Warren Gregg Zimmerman G. l:.. Some Thoughts on Burnstead Annexation Case Larry, several thoughts have occurred to me regarding the Bumstead Annexation Court Case that I wanted to share with you. Except for the last thought, these are not new, but I think they are very important, especially in regard to responding to WD#90's main complaint that we are bisecting their so called "service area". 1. The Peninsula argument, which states that the Bumstead Annexation will divide the area up into "peninsulas" that will preclude WD#90 from providing sewer service in the future. This is a ridiculous argument. I have personally, during a WD#90 Commissioners meeting last year, offered to them that Renton would be willing to enter into a service agreement with the District allowing District sewers to connect into the City's East Renton InterCeptor. Our interceptor is what makes future service to this "peninsula" to the north of the Annexation area even feasible. The annexation does not change this. The City has joint use water and sewer facilities with several neighboring districts including Coal Creek Utility District and the Bryn MawrlLakeridge District. These joint use facilities are located within the City, but are used by the districts. In fact we would encourage such an agreement with WD#90. Revenues from use of this interceptor is exactly what the City needs to retire the construction debt without tlle need to raise sewer rates. I also don't buy the District's argument that loss of the rate base in the annexation area will make providing service economically infeasible. If the District ever gets into the sewer business, they will constrain developers to pay for sewer extensions, just like Renton and everyone else does. Any trunk lines the District does decide to build will be financed up front by bond issuance and low interest loans, and the District will no doubt set up a special assessment district to pay off the debt ( but I doubt any trunk lines would be needed in this area: my bet is that it would all be done by developer e>.1ension). Either way, availability of the East Renton Interceptor will actually reduce these costs, and make extensions of sewer economically feasible. Other costs incurred by the District would be operation and maintenance costs, which are paid by the rate payers. Rates will be used to pay for this whether the annexation happens or not. From all angles, this is a specious argument. 2. An even larger shortcoming of the peninsula argument as it applies to WD#90 is that it ignores the fact that much of this so-called peninsula is located on the rural side of the Urban Gro\\1h Boundary established by King County and regional governments in response to the Gro\\1h Management Act. Construction of sewers are discouraged (if not downright prohibited) in the designatcd"nJral areas by policies in King County's regionally approved May 16, 1996 Page 2 3. 4. co: Countywide Planning Policies document, and in King County's Comprehensive Plan. If you need support documentation on this, I can have Long Range Planning provide it to you. These policies have a far larger impact on any plans to sewer this area than the Bumstead Annexation would have. WD#90 should be challenged on this, in my opinion. WD#90 would not be prohibited from running sewer lines through the area subsequent to the Bumstead Annexation whether they chose to connect to the East Reriton Interceptor or not. The district could obtain a franchise from the City similar to their franchise with the County. The District already has significant water infrastructure within the City limits (without a franchise, by the way). It would be a specious argument for them to claim that the annexation would prevent them from running sewer lines through the area. As we discussed briefly at Mayor's staff, the CountY appears to be moving toward getting out of the local urban service business, consistent with Countywide Planning Policies LU-29, LU- 31, LU-35, RF-4, RF-5 (see attached document from the Suburban Cities Association). Denying the Bumstead Annexation would run counter to GMA, the regionally adopted Countywide Planning Policies, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and would potentially leave this area without urban services in the coming years. Jay Covington /. Mike Kattennann Sue Carlson Ron Olsen Dave Christensen RECEIVED Suburban Citieh~~o~~;~; ;~~NCll !' . . . i.' . . . 9611 S.E. 36th Street, Mercer: Island, WA 98040-3732- Phone (206) 236-7676 Fax 1/206) 236 .. 3088' . 1-800-266-141.8 or Fax 1~80ci-550-0161 FAX TRANSMISSION D~tatl:l_.5i,;... . .L.t.:::..f:L..J9:...;~:::;..· _...."..... .. __ _ Number of Pages: . f ,lIncludlngCovj:l.rl . . '. " I From: Lynda Ring. Executive Director I ; :. ' . To: Please DIstribute one c9PY to each person on thi lls~. I Message: . . '. , !. · . · i . . !. :. "" i I-,. i . i , . , , · .. .. Ot, I ;" /- , I 1996 Work Program j ! Project: Potential Annexation Areas Description: The Potential Annexation Area (P AA) program is moving forward in two phases. First, PAA Boundaries are beiog established through interlocaj agreement3 end subsequent amendOlent of the King County Comprehensive Plan. Thelsecond phase of the project is a detailed service agreement that addresses land development municipal service provision and fmencing of capital facilities within the P AA. The ifounilary agreement inclUdes a detailed scope of the service agreement and a com.tnitment to completei.the service agreement within oIle year of signing the boundary agreement. Legal Requirements: The PAA program is basCd on several ~ey pri,nciples o~the Growth Management Act (OMA). First, urban services are the respon4ibility of the clties. and urban services should not be provided in rural areas. The GMA also c~lis for counties to consult with cities, and each city shall propose the location of an urban growth!area. The CoUhty is: to reach agreement with each city on the location of an Urban Growth Ar~ (RCW 36. 70A.ll 0.2 and .3). City end County comprehensive plans should be coordinated end consistent with each other CReW 36. 70A.l 00). The Countywide Plarming Policies call for each city to designate a P AA in collaboration with adjacent cities and King County (LU-31). the King County Comprehensive Plan calls for P AA plarming, which will include Interlocal agreements with eaCh city, to address PAA boundaries as well as regional and local servica j~ues and strategies to facilitate an orderly transition of the P AA from unincorporated to inco orated statu!! (KCCP Policies 1-210 and 1-211 and text, page 223). The P AA map in the Ki g County Comprehensive Plan will be amended to reflect the P AA boundary agreements. . Program Elements: The PAA program involves two determinatitiDs: the geographic boundaries of the PAA, and how public services will be provided and fmanced within the PAA. Each of these determinations will be made by an interlocal agreement.: Cities will be prioritized based on: . • The presence of unincorporated urban areas where King County has significant capital or . operating obligations meeting local needs, which is not consistent With out long-term role as regional service provider; • The ability to reach agreement with neighboring cities to resolve oyerlaps or gaps of unincorporated areas; : • Demonstrated interest in accepting responsibility for facilities or p~ojects withJn the PAA; • Adoption of a comprehensive plan showing a P AA; . • Allocation of Staff resources to the P AA negotiation process and wiilingness to share the responsibility for conducting a public process for the P AA agreements. ';". "\ ';.J0 - , , \ \ .' • • Ir---'---~-'-' . . . I Relevant Countywide Pla.rining Policies: i LU-29. AlljurisdlCtiollS shall develop growth phasing PI~S consisten,t with appli~able capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate pubUe facilities and services to maintain an Urban Area to meet atlek! the six year intetmediate household and employment tal'get ranges consistent with LU.j;7 and LU·6S: 1bese . growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted deftnitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State Growth MaIiag~ent Act requirements. The phasing plans for cites shall not extend beyond their pot~tial allllexatiolllltW. Interlocal agreements shall be developed that specify the appli¢ilble minimum zoniDg, development standards, impact mitigation an future annexatio~ fur the potential annexation areas. '. LU·31. In collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, 8i1d in consultation with residential groups in ~ected areas, each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential anneocation areas shall not overlap. Within the potential anne$tion area the city shall adopt criteria for ann~t~oll, including ~nforrnanc:e. ~th ~o~ntywide PJ~ing Poli~es, and a schedule for proVldlllg urban selVlces and facilities ~ the potential allllexatioil area. This pro~ess shall ensure that unincorporated urban islljIlds ofKiilg County are not created between cities and strive to elimioate existing islands between cities. LU-35. A jurisdiction may designate a potential impact *ea beyond its potential , annexation area in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions. A!J part of the designation process, the jurisdiction shall establish criteria for the review df development ptojlOSlIIs under consideration by other jurisdictions in the impact area.! . RF·4 Each city with a. potential annexation area shall doter into an Intl!rtocal agreement with the County fur defining service delivery respohsibilities. A financi!lg plan for investments in the annexation areas shall be included in the: interloca1 agreement for capital facilities and service delivery. Level-of-service standarfls III!d financial capacity should be considered for each area, together with density issu~s and phasing of developments. RF·5 In order to traosition governmental roles so that ilie cities become the provider oflocal urban servi~es and tbe County becomes the r~sional goverrui1enl providing countywide and rural services, unincorporated Urbati Growth Areas are encourage to annex or incorporate \vithin the 20-year timefrarile of'these Policies. To achieve this goal, all cities that have identified potential annexttioil areas shall enter Into interlocal agreements with King County that includes a plan for development stalldards and financing of capital and operating expenditures during the ~eriod prior to annexation I \ , , ..• ., .' • • .. 1 -... , I I . I Remalnlng issues f~r Auburn include provision ofmunicipaJ servicL IIild financing of capital facilities; ! • Continue boundary negotiations with Rural Cities. : . Eourth Quarter: • Continue service negotiations with Issaquah and Aubwn; . • Initiate boundary negotiations \\ith at least one addi~onal city base~ on final PAA priorities; • Transmit Rural cities' boundary agreements. " . I , 1I'\wp9~""1' ! 4 ) . ' I • • i·_H. I , i In response to the budget proviso in Ordinance 12029, the PAA proJam must be ciose1y , coordinated with subarea planning efforts. In 1996, the only subarea plan is being developed fer Maple VaUey. The planned action ElSs are also belng undertaken asE' of the Maple Valley subarea plan. No existing city has included Maple Valley with its P BO Office of Budget i\nd Strategic Planning staffwill monitor Maple Valley's incorporation e orts and focus ,on PM negotiation elsewhere. The OBSP will also contillue to actively supWrl DDES as the nlaek . Diamond Urban Growth Boundary is established through a joint planhing process in 1996. Major Prod nets: Each Quarter: PM Boundl\!)' Agreemen~Setvice Agreements Tasks: Firs! Quarter: . • Transmit Auburn and Issaquah boundl\!)' agreements and staff Council review of these agreements; • Initiate Auburn Development Standards negotiations. Evaluate oRtions for establishing common development standards and prepare a draft interloca1 a~ment between AubUIl1 and King County that would establish commOn standards; ! • Transmit Des Moines pre-annexation agreement; : • Develop criteria to prioritize cities for participation in P AA nego~atlons; • Send a letter to each city that describes the P AA negotiating proc~s and eXplains the criteria that will be used to detennine priority cities. Ask each city to evaluate bow they meet the criteria and to respond within 45 days. ! Secqnd Quarter i • Complete public ,process and transmit the Auburn Development S~dards agteem.ent. Staff review by King County Council; I . • Prepare an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan PAA Map to Implement fue Issaquah and Auburn boundary agreements; , • Develop model interlocal agreement for service negotiations with;the assistance of the , interdepartmental team; : • Ewluate city responses to PAA criteria and develop proposed PA}\. priorities; • Initiate boundary agreements with the rural cities (DuvaU, CarnatJon, North Bend, Snoqualmie and Enumclaw) if tIl,e Growth Management Hearings!Board upholds the Rural City Urban Growth Areas in the King County .Comprehensive Pli.n; • Assist DDES with Black Diamond UGA negotiatiOns. Thjrd Quarter: • Brief the Executive and Council on P AA priorities and finalize th~ priorities; , • Develop PM boundary agreement for Black Diamond and transdtit the agreement to Council; ! • Initiate Issaquah Service Agreement; • Initiate Auburn Service negotiations. The Development Standard~ Agreement compleied In the second qu~rter is only one of three major areas to be addressed in service agreements. 3 oJ I , • • r " .. 0·'·--. I , About 28 cities have designated or will likely designate P AA boundaries. 'This means approximately 56 Interlocal agreements will be necessary in the next several years. Three factors make it difficult to estimate the timeline necessary to complete the P AlA program for all cities: First, the issues are complex, involving nearly every department ofbollljudsdictions, as well as planning commissions and the concerns of elected officials. Second, qhanges in elected officials and staff can affect the substance and timing of negotiations. Third, ~terlaps between adjoining cities must be resolved with or without County Involvement. The timing ofthls resolution is very unpredictable and beyond County control. In summary, the PAA process includes the following steps: • Notify all cities of the criteria to develop priorities and descriptionlofPAA process. Ask cities how they meet the criteria; : 0 • Prepare list of prioritized cities. Cities may self-select, based on tlieir respohse to the criteria or be selected based on County interests; . • Prioritized cities visited by advance team Including representative of the Executive to begin. negotiations; ; . • Negotiate boundary agreements with prioritized cities that eliminate overlaps and saps; • Councils authorize Executive and mayor to sign the boundary agre~ment; • Departments prepare lists ofissues, goals and strategies for servicd negotiations; •. • Initiate service negotiations with an agreed 12-montb goal for completion from the sigiling date of the boundary agreement; . • Councils authorize Executive and mayor to sign service agreement? • Develop a plan for implementation and monitoring of service agre~ments. . A boundary agreement for a city which meets the criteria should take <I to 6 staff level meetings to complete. There Is extensive departmental and lega! review (which imay' decrease after the first agreements have been completed), public notification and at leastione public meeting. This. process should take 6 calendar months and about 3 months (.25 FIE) 6f staffwork, primariiy by the Office of Budget and Strategic Planning (OBSP). . . A 'service agreement is more complex than a boundary agreement, including issues such as land development, municipal service provision and financing of capital faci)itles. A 12-tnqnthgoal from the signing date of the boundary agreement has been establiShed,' 0 cOmplete this work. . Participation by staff from several departments is essent.ial. Therefore about.S FTE.in the . Office of Budget and Strategic Planning documents is required for eac)l service. agreement. About .25 FTE each should be allocated by DOES, Roads and SurlacefWater Management to . participate. Virtually every service department has an interest and is prepared to participate in service negotiations on an as-needed basis. 2 .. , • :', .. " ...... ' .. ...... .'" ' ... . .... -. . .. '.' '.: .. ' : " .. ." ,.,;. ", .. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM April 6, 1996 Michael Kattennann Owen Dennison Burnstead Brief /1,_" v.,.- I found few factual errors. Page 2. The progression of boundary revisions went from 210 to 600 to 400 acres. Page 22 Line 21, Page 25 Line 14. A portion of the East Renton Plateau is already within the city limits. Thus, the annexation would join portions of a divided "natural neighborhood". Page 25 Line 20. In general, streets were used where available. For the portion above 128th, physical boundaries do not exist until you reach SE I 16th St. Page 39 Lines 16+. Sid Fonnan was speaking as an expert witness, not as a proponent of the annexation. In general, where they optimistically refer to sewer service provision by WD 90, they are ignoring 25 years of inaction. h:IDIVJSION.SIP&TS\PLANNINGIANNEXlBRNSTDIAPBRIEF L BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION e :'~=/BU1'IllNGlPlJIlJC WORKS ~ R. MacOnie, D. Visneski , 5 October 1995 o 1000' 2000 I ' I h- w Vl Vl L.; 1---..-1 ~1-----!f53l r "C U5 "'"I .G '" f-Lr--I '" SE 136th $1. r -=i SE~f-_-I ~ I r--t'I I ~tJ n~1II1 ~ ~ ~ r t::LlII ~ f-r- -----Renton City Limits -·-·-·-Urban Growth Boundary i , Proposed Annexation BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION . _. ..." 8 LU'._' •• -·· .... -----Renton City Limits II!!I1!!!!\I ., -.-.-.-Urban Growth Boundary iiiiiI* ::=:::~ Proposed Annexation Boundar I . I Signed Annexation Petition + u rn .~ ~ t-~ i-LO ~ ~l-r 1m 51 h I II~ ~ H !.-., h; ~ ~ l ~ ~ h I-Y a L BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION l:±f-I-~ ~ f--I-I---I-+-II-,~ In5E iuSlh 51 I \ 5E 128th 51 1 f- ~~ 11 : , I-1=1= l- I:: 1=1= l- I:: 1=1= I:: ~ l-I:: 1=1= I:: ( J) \:: 1=1= I:: = 1=[:: '" I;-;; b-" 1-1- I~ 1= r=r= t- ~ I=~ ~~ ~I 9 [:: ~ h W ~ .---11---I 1-----1 J h- f- _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary 1000 I 2000 eM ==::::1' Proposed Annexation --1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 _ 24 25 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, ) a Washington municipal corporation; and ) NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN, husband ) and wife; ) Appellants. v. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, a state agency; and THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ----------------~--------) NO. 95-2-27556-7 REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN _ I. INTRODUCTION Appellants King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green ("District 90") submit this brief on the merits in reply to the Response Briefs filed by the City of Renton and the Boundary Review Board ("BRE,,).1 1 Because the BRB's Brief largely adopts the City's arguments, this Reply refers to the City and the BRB jointly as' "The City," unless it is replying to a specific point included in the BRB's Response Brief. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHLA GREEN· 1 HELSELL FETTERMAN .1 1",,,,,,,/1,,,,1,,1,,, ","'10,-,,,,,/, 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAnlE.WA 98111·3846 PH"ZC61292·11.;.; '.' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Like the City's briefing on its unsuccessful Motions to Dismiss, the City's Response Brief is as notable for what it does not say as for what it does. For example, the City never addresses the transcript of the Board's deliberations, or the Board members' admissions in it that the annexation is actually contrarv to many of the statutory BRE objectives. Likewise, in discussing whether school districts may sign annexation petitions, the City fails to mention QI address the fact that the City itself issued a public information flyer -- which is part of the record --stating that school districts are not permittea to be part of annexations. For this reason, District 90 requests that the Court carefully review the authorities discussed in this Reply, as well as the record as a whole. Such a review will reveal that the BRE's decision was erroneous as a matter of law because it was based on an annexation petition that was not supported by the legally-required percentage of signatures, and because it failed to further the BRE's statutory objectives when· taken as a whole. The BRE's decision must therefore be reversed. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -2 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 .. 2 3 II. ARGUMENT 4 A. The Boundary Review Board Lacked Iurisdiction to Consider the Proposed Annexation Because the Annexation Petition Lacked the Legallv-Required Percentage of Signatures. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. The Issue of the Boundary Review Board's Iurisdiction Is an Issue of Law on Which No Deference Is Owed to the BRB's Decision. Although the City has emphasized only the "substantial evidence" basis for review contained in RCW 36.93.160(6)[e).2 the City overlooks the fact that BRE decisions must also be reversed if they are in excess of the ERB's authority or jurisdiction, or affected by other error of law.3 A BRB decision is reversible if it is: (b) In excess of the statutorv authoritv or jurisdiction of the Board, or ( d) (f) • • • Affected bv other error of law, or Arbitrary or capricious. RCW 36.93.160(6) (emphasis added). Determining the extent of an administrative decision-maker's authority or jurisdiction is a question of law, and is a power vested in this Court --not the ERB. Local 2 City Brief at 10-14; BRB Brief at 10-11. 3 RCW 36.93.160(6)(b) and (d); see also Responsible Urban Growth Group v. City of Kent, 123 Wn.2d 376, 382-84, 868 P.2d 861 (1994) (on writ of review,. superior court examines whether decision-maker "had jurisdiction to take the action at issue. whether the action was lawful, or whether the action was arbitrary and capricious")(emphasis added). REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN - 3 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111-3846 PH' (2061 292·\ 14.: ·• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2916, U\AFv. Public Employment Relations Comm'n,·128 Wn.2d 375, 379, 907 P.2d 1204 (1995). Likewise, the Court also reviews issues of law de novo because they "are the responsibility of the judicial branch." 4 "Under the error of law standard, this court is charged with independently determining the purpose and meaning of the administrative regulations as applied to the facts of this case." S&'S Market v. Liquor ControlBoard, 65 Wn. App. 517, 521, 828 P.2d 1154 (Div. II 1992) (court reverses Liquor Board's erroneous denial of license reissuance). Here, therefore, the Court reviews de novo the legal issue of whether the Boundary Review Board's decision exceeded its statutory authority or jurisdiction because the annexation Petition was not supported by the legally-required percentage of signatures. The City's response, that the BRE's "choice" not to consider the issue of the sufficiency of the signatures must be given deference (City Brief at 26), is not on point. Deference cannot extend to allowing an agency to create jurisdiction where it does not exist under explicit statutory provisions. In short, deference is not appropriate in the absence of an ambiguous statute. Pasco v. PERC, 119 Wn.2d at 507-08 (construing Bosley v. Cowiche Canyon, 118 Wn.2d 801, 828 P.2d 549 (1992)). Further, "an administrative determination 4 Tapper v. Employment Security Department, 66 Who App.448, 451, 832 P.2d 136 (Div. III 1992) (court reverses commissioner's conclusion that applicant's inability to get along with co-workers or to perform her job constituted misconduct disqualifying her for unemployment benefits); rev'd on . other grounds, 122 Wn.2d 397, 858 P.2d 494 (1993);followed, Hilltop Terrace Homeowners Ass'n v. Island County, 72 Wn. App. 91, 97-98, n.3, 863 P.2d 604 (Div. I 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 126 Wn.2d 22, 891 P.2d 29 (1995). REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -4 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PtAZA PO. BOX 21846 SElTTLE. WA 9Bl11·~8':6 PH r2051292·IUJ -. 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 will not be accorded deference if the agency's interpretation conflicts with the relevant statute." Cowiche, 118 Wn.2d at 815. Here, there is no ambiguous statute at issue. RCW 28A.335.110 expresslv prohibits school districts from signing annexation petitions unless school district properties constitute the whole of the annexation. The BRB simply chose to ignore this. No deference is required to such a decision. As discussed at pages 14-21 of District 90's Opening Brief, the BRB lacked jurisdiction to consider the annexation proposed here, because the annexation Petition lacked the legally-required percentage of signatures. The BRB's failure to review the sufficiency of the annexation Petition, and its subsequent review and approval of the annexation, was therefore outside its statutory authority and jurisdiction, was an error of law, and was arbitrary and capricious. 2. The Boundary Review Board Had Iurisdiction But Failed to Review the SufficiencY of the Annexation Petition. As discussed in District 90's Opening Brief at pages 14-17, the BRB's decision was in excess of its statutory authority or jurisdiction, because the "60% Petition" for annexation was legally insufficient. The Petition was insufficient because it was based on the signature of the Renton School District (which lacked authority to sign). Without the . . School District's signature, the Petition failed to contain signatures of owners of 60% of the annexation area's assessed value, as required by RCW 35A.14.120. The BRB arbitrarily and REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -5 HELSELL FETTER-MAN ,1/""",,-<1/'''''''/''''''''''''''1;''1' 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 ~E.1rrlE WA ~8111·!!!j~ PH (20S1292·)W .' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 capriciously failed to even address this issue. Instead. its attorney issued a decision that the BRB would not be considering the issue. Tr. Vol. I at 10-12. The City argues now that the BRB lacked jurisdiction to consider the sufficiency of the Petition, claiming that RCW 3.6.93.130 does not include review of the right of a party to sign an annexation petition or review of the City's determination of the Petition's sufficiency. City Brief at 25. However, the City's argument completely ignores two key facts: (1) RCW 35A.14.140 requires the City's legislative body to adopt an ordinance annexing property based upon the annexation Petition; and (2) the BRB's own rules require a city to include a copy of that annexation ordinance (based on the Petition) in the Notice of I Intent to Annex required to be submitted to the Board for review. See BRB Rule of Practice and Procedure 1.B.l; Notice of Intention Format at I.2. Under the Board's own rules. then, and RCW 35A.14.140. the Board would in the normal courses be provided with th~ City's annexation ordinance and the underlying annexation petition, so that it could review any I I , issue raised concerning sufficiency of the petition. The City even tacitly acknowledged this I point in its written correspondence tu the Board, in which the City stated: I If that occurs [a petition meeting the requirements of RCW 35A.14.130 is submitted to the local legislative body] then the legislative body may entertain the petition for annexation. Because of this language it would appear that the decision on whether or not the sixty percent petition is sufficient is left to 5 Here, of course, the City of Renton did not follow statutory requirements and the Board's rule, because it failed to adopt an annexation ordinance or to submit that ordinance to the Board prior to the BRB's review and decision in this matter. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 6 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGE'T SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21845 SE.1ITLE.WA'l8111·JB46 PM'!2061292·11.U I 2 I 3 I I I 4 5 6 7 8 I , 9 I 10 I I 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the local legislative body and is not within the purview of the Boundarv Review Board unless that step was totallv skipped. R. 00251 (September 7, 1995, letter from Lawrence Warren to the BRB) (emphasis added). The City's argument concedes that the Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the required petition step "was totally skipped," as the City puts it. The City does not explain how or why the Board has jurisdiction to determine this if the Board cannot address the legal sufficiency of petitions which are submitted. Of course, as the City acknowledges, a city cannot submit an annexation proposal to the Board in the absence of any valid petitions, and simply claim that the ERB lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it. By the same token, a city cannot submit petitions signed by people off the street (rather than authorized property owners, as required under the statute) and expect the Board to proceed without inquiry. Such a result would be absurd. The Court should not construe the BRB'S statute to achieve such a result. The City's only response to the ERE Rules requiring inclusion of an annexation ordinance (which would allow the BRB to review the petition upon which the ordinance was based) is its claims buried on the last two pages of its Brief that the requirement for a notice of intention to annex does not require a copy of an annexation ordinance, and that, because the BRB's Notice of Intention Format bears the heading "Background/Maps", the annexation ordinance is not really required to be submitted. City Brief at 37-38. These arguments, however, cannot save Renton here. The BRB's Rules of Practice and Procedure REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 7 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111-3846 PH. (2061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 are binding pursuant to RCW 36.93.200, which directs each boundary review board to adopt such rules: . Each review board shall adopt rules governing the formal and informal procedures prescribed or authorized by this chapter. i RCW 36.93.200 (emphasis added). i , Further, regardless of whether the BRB's Notice of Intention Format groups the items I I I ! to be submitted into categories, one of which is labeled "BackgroundlMaps", all items are required: All Notices of Intention shall be submitted following the appropriate format, which shall be furnished by the Executive Secretary upon request. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the Notice of Intention Format currently in use. BRB Rule of Practice and Procedure I.B.l (emphasis added). The City cannot diminish the binding nature of the Board's rules requiring submission of an annexation ordinance (and the annexation petition upon which it is based) by relying on a subject heading such as "BackgrouncWvIaps." These are in fact kev items: for example, the Board could hardly review an annexation without review of the maps showing its location and configuration. The fact that the requirement for submission of the ordinance and petition materials is in the same category requiring maps is hardly evidence of insignificance. The City then falls back on two more equally weak arguments. First, it argues that it "substantially complied" by submitting a copy of its council minutes (R.0003838) in lieu of an ordinance annexing the property. City Brief at 38. As noted above, even though REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN - 8 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA p,o, sox 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111-3846 PH: ~2061 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 adoption of an annexation ordinance is mandatory under RCW 35A.14.140, and submission oEit to the BRE is required by the Board's rules, the City never submitted ru!Y ordinance to the BRE prior to its decision. Even assuming the doctrine of substantial compliance were available here, the City of Renton cannot claim to have substantially complied when it never adopted the ordinance required to be submitted. Nor may the City brush off its failure by claiming that the omission was "technical." or that it would not warrant dismissal of its Petition, and that the BRE would or should have contacted Renton and asked for the omitted document. City Brief at 38.6 As previously noted, an annexation ordinance is required, and BRE rules provide that a Notice of Intention that is not in condition for official filing (i.e., does not include required elements) "shall be deemed void" and returned to the jurisdiction that submitted it. BRE Rule I.B.9. That is exactlv what the BRE did in a similar case, where a party attempting to incorporate Vashon Island as a city failed to submit documents required by the BRE's Notice of Intention Format. R.00206-205 (letter dated August 22, 1994, from BRE attorney Robert C. Kaufman to Carole R. Campbell).7 6 The Court should note that the City provides no citations in support of its arguments. City Brief at 38. 7 While Renton attempts to distinguish the BRB's action in the Vashon Island case by pointing to the Supreme Court's decision in a subsequent phase of the case (Vashon Island v. Boundary Review Board, 127 Wn.2d 759, 771-72, 903 P.2d 953 (1995)), that case affirmed the BRB's decision, contained in the letter from Robert Kaufman cited above, that it was impossible for the BRB to approve the incorporation (even notwithstanding the lack of required information). That is exactlv what the BRB should have done here: return Renton's Notice of Intention because it is legally impossible for Renton to annex without the legally-required percentage of signatures (which could not include the School District's signature). REPLY BRIEF ON THE ~!ERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -9 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P:O BOX 21846 SEATTlE.WA 98"'·3846 PH"(2D61292·"4.t /\L l)lt WILl1eNS oyV , I rV 6L i0 f ONP ',,"- -1"0 ("It{ quG;,110rJ of 7t\~ C>O~'> «fQt.!! (l.{MCN (':> fo 12-&Q I\J (-0 (l-f"'A-NC C -r" 'fl-IG N07IC.r o\-,,,,7/£"'7 F<>{WI~<, 6iA1.: iP ,"1\lL (-I'TfE'? iJ" ,-,<r" Ifl'-;;' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 25 In short, the BRB possessed jurisdiction under applicable statutes and its own rule to ; consider the sufficiency of the annexation Petition. The Board, however, failed to do so. Its refusal to consider the issue was arbitrary and capricious, and rendered its subsequent decision (based as it was upon an insufficient annexation petition) beyond its statutory authority and contrary to law. 3. Renton's 60% Petition Violates the Prohibition in State Law Against a School District Joining with Other Property Owners to Petition for Annexation. As explained in District 90's Opening Brief, the City of Renton's 60% Petition does not contain valid signatures of owners of 60% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area, because it relied oil the signature of the Renton School District, which is not authorized to sign annexation petitions. Opening Brief at 17-21. The City, however, claims that the School District may sign annexation petitions under the authority of RCW 35A.01.040(a), and Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 (1978). City Brief at 26-28. The City's arguments are inapposite, for several reasons. First, the City's Brief ignores the fact that the City has already admitted --publicly and on the record in the annexation--that the School District lacks statutory authority to sign an annexation petition. The City's Annexation Information bulletin published in the I summer of 1994 frankly acknowledged: • Since Washington State law requires that school district properties constitute the entirety of annexations, Maplewood Heights Elementarv has been excluded from this proposal. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NOlUvlAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 10 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO. 80X 21846 SEArTLE. WA 98111·3846 PM.(206) 292·1144 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 , 16 1 i 17 I, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i R. 00604 (Annexation Information bulletin) (emphasis added).· Apparently, when the City: , later realized that annexation proponents would not be able to obtain sufficient signatures: i to support annexation, the City changed its mind and, contrary to its· public i I pronouncement --and the law --allowed the School District to sign the .Petition.. The City i , now pretends instead that its previous admission in the contemporaneous annexation I record relied upon by the public does not exist. i I While overlooking its prior admissions, the City now argues that, because RCW I I 28A.335.110 allows school districts to petition for annexation under RCW 35.13 when I school property constitutes the whole of an annexation, but does not cross-reference annexations under RCW 35A.14, the prohibition against school district signatures in Title 28A does not apply to annexations under Title 35A. The City offers no rationale as to why the Legislature would have (silently) decided to treat school district property differently depending only on what annexation statute were used. Moreover, the code itself does not I support the City's theory that such a distinction exists. City Brief at 29-30. Title 35A expressly requires that RCW 28A govern the relationship of code cities (such as Renton) with school districts: 35A.28.010 General laws applicable. Code cities shall have the authority to enter into contracts for joint acquisition of land and improvement thereof with school districts. Code cities and their relationship with public schools. colleges and school districts shall be governed by the provisions of general law. including Titles 28A and 28B RCW. Each code city shall be contained within one school district except as may be otherwise provided in RCW 28A.315.250. REPLY BRIEF ON THE IvIERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NOruvlAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -11 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUNO PLAZA P.O, BOX 21846 SEAITLE.WA 98111·3846 PH:t2061292·1144 l ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RCW 35A.28.010 (emphasis added). Thus, it is irrelevant whether RCW 28A.335.110 itself cross-references annexations under RCW 35A.14, since, under RCW 35A.28.010, a code ~ city's relationship with a school district is already expressly governed by RCW 28A.8 It is also irrelevant that, as noted by the City, the statute does not address situations in which a school district's property constitutes less than the whole of the property in the I annexation petition. City Brief at 30. RCW 28A.335.110 does speak to such a situation. : ! The statute. authorizes school district participation in annexations onlv when the school i I district property constitutes the entire property to be annexed. Because school districts' only have powers expressly granted or fairly implied in the granted express powers (RCW 28A.320.015(1)(b)), there is no authority when the school district's authority comprises only a part of the annexed property. Implicitly acknowledging that the statute does not grant school districts the power to sign an annexation petition, the City attempts to circumvent the authorities cited above by I claiming that school districts possess implied authority to sign an annexation .. I petltlOn I because school districts are statutorily authorized to own property. For this argument, the City relies on Johnson v. City of Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 (Div. III 1978). and 8 In any event. , the absence of a reference to annexations under RCW 35A.14 weakens the City's position rather than strengthening it. Under RCW 28A.335.110, school districts are able to partiCipate in annexations only when: (1) school property constitutes the whole of the annexation; and (2) they petition for annexation under RCW 35.13. The granting of authority to sign (in limited circumstances) on petitions for annexations under RCW 35.13 while omitting any parallel authority to participate in initiating annexations under RCW 35A.14 more likely means that school districts cannot sign at all under RCW 35A.14, regardless of whether school property constitutes the whole of the annexation or not. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -12 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAnLE. WA 9B!1I·J8~6 PH: (2061292-1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Parosa v. City of Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 357 P.2d· 873 (1960). City Brief at 27-28. These cases, however, are stale authority. First, RCW 28A.335.110 was reenacted in 1990 as part of a h . i compre enslve I I recodification 12 years after the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson.9 i To the extent! i , Johnson purported to grant school districts any authority to assist in initiation of I , annexations, it has been superseded by the Legislature's reenactment of the statute limiting! that authority. Second, the statute at issue in Johnson (RCW35.13.130) has also been amended. It now states as follows: Except where all the property sought to be annexed is property of a school district, and the school directors thereof file the petition for annexation as in RCW 28A.335.110 authorized, the petition must be signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned: PROVIDED, That in cities and towns with populations greater than one hundred sixtv thousand located east of the Cascade mountains. the owner of tax exempt propertv mav sign an annexation petition and have the tax exempt propertv annexed into the citv or town. but the value of the tax exempt propertv shall not be used in calculating the sufficiency of the required propertv owner signatures unless onlv tax exempt propertv is proposed to be annexed into the ci tv or town. RCW 35.13.130 (emphasis added). This amendment makes clear that the Legislature views the inclusion of tax-exempt property owned by a school district or city as an extraordinary o See Washington Laws 1990. ch. 33. § 4. The Legislature is presumed to know the status of its existing enactments. and judicial interpretations thereof. If the Supreme Court's opinion in Johnson did in fact provide school districts with authority to sign annexation petitions. the Legislature presumably would not have reenacted the prohibition against it. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -13 HElSEll FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUNO PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEA ITlE, WA 98111 ·3846 PH (206) 292·1144 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 event generally not permitted, except in limited circumstances (such as for cities greater than 160,000 in population located east of the Cascades, but not for code cities operating: i un~er RCW 35A). The rationale for this is obvious. The purpose of the signature i I percentage requirement is to ensure that a substantial majority of the property owners in I . : the annexation area are in favor of the annexation. This purpose is too easily circumvented i I (such as in the case before the Court here) if municipal corporations such as cities or school I I districts owning large parcels are permitted to sign annexation petitions and outweigh the I . . I signatures of individual property owners. . I Second, Johnson and Parosa simply do not provide authority to school districts (as opposed to cities or ports) to petition for annexation. The statute at issue in Johnson (RCW 35.130) expressly recognizes this: Except where all the propertv sought to be annexed is property of a school district, and the school directors thereof file the petition for annexation as in RCW 28A.335.110 authorized, the petition must be signed by the owners of not less than seventy- five percent in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned ... RCW 35.13.130 (emphasis added). This statute recognizes that a school district's authority to sign annexation petitions is limited by RCW 28A.335.110. The Supreme Court's interpretation of that statute in Johnson simply cannot be read to extend authority to school districts where the statute at issue in the case now recognizes a limitation upon such authority. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 14 HELSELL FETTERMAN ,1/"",,,,,{/,,,},,/,"/'''''''''''/III' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O, BOX 21846 SEAfTlE.WA 98111-3846 PH,/2D6129Z·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Even if RCW 35.13.130 (the statute at issued in Johnson) did not recognize the. limitations on school districts imposed in RCW 2BA.335.110, that statute would' nevertheless limit application of Johnson and Parosa. In both Johnson and Parosa, the I i , Court of Appeals and Supreme Court focused upon RCW 35.21.010 and RCW 53.0B, which! . I authorized the City of Spokane and Port of Tacoma, respectively, to own property. Johnson, 19 Wn. App. at 725; Parosa, 57 Wn.2d at 417. At the time of the decisions in Johnson and Parosa, those statutes, however, constituted broad grants of authority, and did !, 9 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 I I 16 I 17 I I 18 I I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i not limit either a citv's or port's ability to hold property or to participate in annexation. I See, e.g., RCW 35.21.0lD (authorizing cities to acquire, hold, possess and dispose of I property); RCW 53.0B.OlD (authorizing port to acquire by purchase or condemnation alii property necessary for its purposes); RCW 53.0B.047 (provisions of chapter not to be construed as restriction or limitation upon any port powers). In contrast, the Legislature has treated school districts differently. It has strictlv I -i limited a school district's authority both to hold and dispose of property and to petition for! annexation of property. In RCW 2BA.335.090, the Legislature authorizes school districts to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, with the express caveat that district property ownership is authorized "except as otherwise specially provided by law, and RCW 2BA.335.120." The Legislature then went on to specially limit district authority to petition for annexation (RCW 2BA.335.110), to sell the district's real property (RCW 2BA.335.120), to dispose of proceeds from such a sale (RCW 2BA.335.130), to enter into a conditional REPLY BRIEF ON THE ~!ERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -15 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO BOX 21846 SEAITlE. INA 981 \ 1·3846 PH: 12061292·1144 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sales contract to acquire property (RCW 28A.335.200), and to exercise the power of! eminent domain (RCW 28A.335.220). In light of these numerous restrictions on a school. district's powers to own property, and in particular its authority to petition for annexation, Johnson and Parosa simply cannot be read to extend to school districts (as opposed to cities or ports) the implied authority to petition for annexation. For all these reasons, then, neither Renton nor the BRE could rely on the School, ! • I District's signature to support the annexation Petition. And, as pointed out in District 90's I Opening Brief, the BRE itself recognized this in its decision in the Newport Hills I annexation. Opening Brief at 20 (citing R. 00211). I The City's response to the Board's Newport Hills precedent is to cite a portion of it out of context, and argue that the BRE did not come to a conclusion on the school district issue there because the Bellevue School District properties were allegedly not included in I the annexation proposal. City Brief at 28-29. This is incorrect. The City of Bellevue's original annexation petition included three Bellevu~ school sites. to When the prohibition I against school district participation in annexations contained in RCW 28A.335.110 was raised, the City of Bellevue contacted the Bellevue School District, which removed its signature from the annexation petition. The Notice of Intention was then submitted to the BRE, without the school properties. Because the annexation petition contained sufficient 10 R. 00279 (letter dated December 11, 1991, from Bellevue City Manager Phil Kushlan to Bellevue School District Superintendent Don O'Neil, stating City was to include schools in annexation). REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -16 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 f'UGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111-]846 PM: 12061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 other signatures, the School District's removal of its signature did not jeopardize the' petition, as the BRB's ultimate decision reflects: The school district properties were eliminated from the original proposal. due to a prohibition in state law against school district properties joining together with other properties to petition for annexation. R. 00211 (Newport Hills Decision at 7) (emphasis added). Renton's claim that the District: properties were never included is simply not correct.l1 i Finally, contrary to Renton's claim (City Brief at 26-27), RCW 35A:Ol.040(9) does not I i I provide additional authority to school districts to sign annexation petitions: RCW 35A.01.040(9) provides general rules for determining the sufficiencv of petitions --it is not I an enabling statute. To that end, 35A.OIO.040(4) requires a petition to "contain valid signatures of qualified electors or property owners ... " Where a signer of a petition lacks I I authority to sign, the signature is not valid.12 That statute has no application to school I districts, and cannot authorize the School District to sign an annexation petition where the I district's own statutory authority (RCW 28A.335.110) itself prohibits it. 4. District 90 ProperlY Raised the Issue of the Sufficiency of the Annexation Petition Before the BRB. 11 Of course, the curative action taken by Bellevue is not available to the City of Renton here, since without the Renton School District signature the petition here lacks the signatures of owners of 60% of assessed value of property within the annexation area, as required by RCW 3sA.14.120 --a fact unchallenged by the City . 12 See, e.g., RCW 3SA.Ol.040(9j(ej (only officer authorized to execute deeds or encumbrances may sign petition on behalf of corporation). REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -17 HELSELL FETTERMAN .\ 1., .. "/.,1/ .• ,,/,11,,, /',"1"''''''1' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO. BOX 21846 SEAnlE.WA 98'1'·3846 PH: 12061 292·""" I \ 2 The City's last line of defense is to claim that District 90 should have challenged the 3 Citv of Renton's acceptance of the annexation Petition --not the BRB's decision. Because it I 4 did not do so at the time (April, 1995), the City argues, this Court lacks jurisdiction to 5 review the issue of the sufficiency of the Petition. City Brief ,at 24-26. This argument that 6 an interlocutory appeal should have been filed is incorrect; it flies in the face of the BRB 7 8 statute and the well-accepted doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 9 First, to the extent Renton did make a decision, its decision was not appealable to 10 the superior court. Although Renton claims that the decision was appealable, and cites I 11 Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. App. 530, 539, 815 P.2d 790 (Div. I 1991), that case i . I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does not support the proposition for which it is cited. In Federal Way, King County adopted an ordinance vacating a street.' 62 Wn. App. at 532. The City of Federal Way filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the ordinance was void and that title to the segment of the vacated street had vested in the City of Federal Way. The ground for Federal Way's action was that the vacation ordinance had never taken effect because its emergency clause was invalid by virtue of the fact that it did not cite any basic facts giving rise to the claimed emergency. [d. at 533. The Court of Appeals held, however, that because a declaratory judgment action challenging a county's adopted ordinance must be brought within 30 days (the statutory time for challenging county commissioners' , decisions), Federal Way's action was too late. [d. at 539. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -18 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGH SOUNO PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAfTlE.WA 9Blll·3a~6 PH 12061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 14 I 15 1 16 ! Here, however, the City of Renton never adopted an ordinance that could have been challenged; instead, the City Council merely passed an oral motion accepting the annexation Petition. R.00032 (April 10, 1995, Renton City Council Minutes). Under the Optional Municipal Code, however, the City can "act" onlv by adopting an ordinance or resolution. See, e.g. RCW 35A.12.120, .130, .150; 35A.21.01O. This is particularly true with respect to annexations, where, if the municipality determines to "effect" an annexation, it "shall do so by ordinance." RCW 35A.14.140. Because Renton failed to adopt an annexation ordinance until after the BRE had acted, there was nothing for District 90to appeal beforehand. Moreover, although Renton asserts that District 90 should have appealed at the point the City determined the sufficiency of the Petition pursuant to RCW 35A.01.040( 4) (City Brief at 24-25). the City cannot even identify any document in the record indicating when (or by whom) the Petition's sufficiency was determined, nor pinpoint a date when such an I 17 I action occurred. There simply was no Council action or a City of Renton administrative 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 action that District 90 could have or should have appealed. Further, even assuming that the City had taken an appealable action, any appeal would have been premature. District 90 was required to seek relief through all administrative means available. including review by the BRE, as a jurisdictional REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 19 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PlAZA PO, BOX 21846 SEATILE. WA 9811! ·3846 PH-!206) 292· r 144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 prerequisite to this Court's review.13 This well-known requirement that a party exhaust administrative remedies serves several purposes: (1) defense against premature interruption of the administrative process, (2) allows the agency to develop the necessary factual background on which to base a decision, (3) allows the exercise of agency expertise, (4) provides a more efficient process and allows the agency to correct its own mistake, and (5) ensures that individuals are not encouraged to ignore administrative procedures by resorting to the courts. R/LAssociates, 61 Wn. App. at 675. Here, even assuming that the City of Renton actually made a final decision concerning the sufficiency of the annexation Petition, District 90 was required to exhaust its administrative remedies by invoking the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board to revise the annexation, including the issue of the sufficiency of the Petition, before seeking review in this Court. BRE's review serves the purposes of the exhaustion doctrine by preventing premature interruption of the administrative process, insuring development of facts by the administrative deCision-maker, and providing a more efficient process through consolidated rather than piecemeal judicial review in annexation BRE proceedings. 13 Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001 I'. Washington Surveying & Rating Bureau, 87 Wn.2d 887,558 P.2d 215 (1976) ("agency action could not be challenged on review until all rights of administrative appeal have been exhausted"); R/L Associa'tes v. City of Seattle, 61 Wn. App. 670, 675-76,811 P.2d 971 (Div. I 1991) (developer's failure to utilize administrative code interpretation process barred judicial review of city building site determination). REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -20 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA p,o, BOX 21846 5EAITLE. WA 98111·3846 PH; (2061292·1144 2 I 3 I i 4 I I In light of this, and in light of the fact that there is no statutory procedure --let alone requirement --for appealing a local jurisdiction's acceptance of an annexation petition, District 90 properly brought the issue before the BRB and this Court. 5 I B. The Boundary Review Board's Decision Failed to Further the Statutorv Objectives Set Forth in RCW 36.93.180. I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1. The BRB's Decision Failed to Consider Whether the Objectives Required to Be Considered by RCW 36.93.180 Would Be Furthered Overall, as Required in King Countv v. Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). In discussing the standard of review applicable to the merits of the BRB's decision, both the City and the BRB focus heavily upon the substantial evidence standard. City Brief at 10-11; BRB Brief at 10-11. However, the Court's review of the statutory objectives set forth in RCW 36.93.180 is "not merely an exercise in counting objectives;" rather, the Court must focus on whether: Overall the objectives of RCW 36.93.180 would be furthered rather than hindered by the proposed [annexation]. King County v. Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 680, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). In King County v. Boundary Review Board, the court affirmed the BRB's approval of two proposed annexations where two of the more important statutory objectives, preservation of natUral neighborhoods and communities, and creation and preservation of logical service areas,· "would be significantly furthered by the proposed annexations." [d. at 676-77. Here, however, the proposed annexation would hinder these two key objectives, as well as others. Therefore, the Court must reverse the BRB's decision. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -21 HELSELL FETTERMAN \ /""",111 ... 11,1/", /""""";"1' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE.WA 98111·1846 PH'12061292·"U 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2. The Proposed Annexation Fails to Preserve Natural Neighborhoods: the BRB's Decision to the Contrarv Is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence. As discussed in District 90's Opening Brief at pages 22-25, the proposed annexation fails to preserve natural neighborhoods and communities, as required by RCW 36.93.180(1). and the BRB's decision that the annexation was "not inconsistent" with the preservation objective is not supported by ~ubstantial evidence. The City's arguments to the contrary (City Brief at 15-16) underscore the lack of evidence supporting the Board's finding. For example, the City points to Renton City Councilman Tim Schlitzer's testimony that the Renton City Council "feels that the East Renton Plateau is a natural part of Renton ... " City Brief at 15. The City also points to a letter from Robert Peterson, who stated that he worked in Renton, played in Renton, and supported Renton youth programs and schools. Id. The subjective beliefs of Renton Councilmembers and the personal activities of one individual, however, are neither competent nor substantial evidence as to the existence of a natural community on the East Renton Plateau. nor do they define the jurisdiction with which the community as a whole identifies. In fact, substantial evidence demonstrated that the East Renton Plateau is an independent, "census-designated place," has been recognized as a separate and unique community in independent municipal rating guidebooks, and has its own community council, water district and fire district. Tr. Vol. I at 33-34 (Testimony of Norman Green); R. 00417-416, 00389; Tr. Vol. I at 54-57. Substantial evidence also demonstrated that the proposed annexation would remove the heart of this existing REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 22 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P,Q .. 80X 21846 SEArilE, W:' 98111·3846 PH 12061292·1!U 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i 15 , j 16 j l 17 1 ~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community --not preserve it. Tr. Vol. I at 43-44. This evidence is consistent with established' law, which holds that where annexation includes only half of a geographically distinct plateau, it harms rather than preserves "a natural neighborhood." Spokane County Fire Protection District No.9 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 97 Wp..2d 922,927,652 P.2d 1356 (1982). Rather than addressing this evidence, or the law, the City instead claims that much of the East Renton Plateau is not located within the urban growth area, and that, because property outside an urban growth area cannot be annexed, the entire plateau cannot be . considered a natural neighborhood. City of Renton Brief at 16. First, there is no basis for the City's claim that the East Renton Plateau neighborhood is located outside of the UGA boundary, and the City cites none. Second, even if the City's claim were true, it is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Renton's argument can be distilled to the claim that, because the plateau cannot be preserved under an annexation, it is therefore I acceptable to further split the portion of the 'plateau neighborhood that does remain within i the UGA down the middle, leaving portions of the neighborhood to the north and south of the I annexation area as unincorporated land. This argument is entirely contrary to the statutory objective. which requires an annexation to achieve "preservation of natural neighborhoods or communities." As noted. the proposed annexation affirmatively hinders this objective. and REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -23 HElSEll FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P_O, BOX 21S.a6, SEATIlE. WA 9811! ·3846 PH (206)292·11014 2 3 4 5 the BRB's decision to the contrary was erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence.H 3. The BRB's Decision Hinders the Use of Physical Boundaries. In its Opening Brief, District 90 pointed out that Washington courts have determined 6 I I that "legal lot boundaries" are not physical boundaries for the purposes of meeting the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 objective in RCW 36.93.180(2) that annexations use physical boundaries, and that two- thirds of the annexation boundaries here are based on property lot lines rather than streets. Opening Brief at 25-27. Further. Board members themselves acknowledged during their deliberations that the annexation was inappropriate for these reasons. Id.; Tr. Vol. III at 15 (Boardmember Dunn). Renton does not address QI dispute any of this. Instead, it claims merely that it used I lot lines north of 128th Avenue due to the lack of streets, and that it considered topographical features, but there were none in the general annexation area. City Brief at 17. Neither of these claims is supported by the record. In point of fact, there are streets in the annexation area that could have been used to draw the boundary; the City simply did not wish to do so since the property owners living on those streets would likely not have supported the annexation. Renton could have used Southeast 116th Street as the northern H The City also argues that it attempted to include or exclude platted neighborhoods in their entirety (City Brief at 15-16). See. e.g .. R. 00416. 00359 (Map) at Nos. 1-6). REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -24 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAnlE.WA 98111·J846 PH:12061292·tl44 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 I I 18 i 19 I I 20 21 22 23 24 25 south boundaries as well. R. 00356, 00354. And, despite Renton's claim that there are no outstanding topographical features in the annexation area, the City could have used the drainage space and boundaries or other topographical features such as Maplewood Canyon and the Cedar River Bluff. Tr. Vol. I at 44; Vol. II at 202. Although the City claims that these features are "substantially to the south of the proposed annexation" (City Brief at 17), this merely reflects the problems created by Renton's gerrymandering; by drawing the annexation to ensure that it could come close to the required percentage of signatures, it created an annexation area that fails to meet the statutory objectives required. Substantial evidence does not support the Board's finding that the propose~ annexation "partially supports" the objective that the annexation used physical boundaries, and must be reversed on this point. 4. The BRB's Decision Fails to Create or Preserve Logical Service Areas. As explained at pages 28-32 of District 90's Opening Brief, the BRB's Decision also failed to create or preserve a logical service area, as required by RCW 36.93.180(3). This is because the BRB erroneously based its conclusion upon which entity (the City of Renton or District 90) could provide sewer service faster (Tr. Vol. III at 5-6, at 10-11, at 17 (BRB members' comments concerning timing of sewer service)). The BRB also ignored the fact that the annexation would not create a logical service area because the City of Renton would need to use pumps to provide sewerserviceto some areas, and would have to undertake additional annexations in the future in order to provide service to the entire REPLY BRIEF ON THE lv!ERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -25 HElSEll FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P_o, BOX 21846 SEArTLE.VlA 98111·3846 PH,r2061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 drainage basin, while District 90, by contrast, has a plan to provide more economical, gravity sewer service to the entire basin. Tr. Vol. I at 30-41. Because the BRB's Decision depends upon the presence of additional annexations to "fill in the gaps," it fails to create a logical service area. Richland v. Franklin County Boundary Review Board, 100 Wn.2d 864, 871, 676 P.2d 425 (1984). Further, the BRB also ignored evidence concerning the annexation's adverse effect on logical police service areas. R. 00687 (September 26, 1995, Letter to BRB from Major Larry G. Mayes, Xing County DepartmentofPublic Safety). Like its response on the other statutory objectives, the City's response on the issue of logical service areas eschews any discussion of the law (Richland), the issue of logical service areas for police service, or the record with respect to the logical nature of District 90's gravity sewer plan as compared to the City's pump-oriented plan. Instead, the City claims, that the annexation would have no effect on District 90's sewer franchise, and then devolves into an attack on the timing of District 90's ability to provide sewer service. City Brief at 18-20. The City's arguments are contrary to the record. For example, the basis for the City's claim that the annexation will have no effect on District 90's sewer franchise is the fact that District 90 will provide water service even after the annexation. City Brief at 18. District 90 will do so through contract with the City, since District 90 already has water pipes in place and is currently providing service. The continuation of water service is irrelevant to the effect on viability of District 90's separate sewer franchise, however, as District 90 Commissioner McKaig Lovell explained. Gravity REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NO(li.,IAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -26 HELSELL FETTERMAN \ /""",d/,,,i.,/,,, 1''''''''''';11/' 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAnLE. wo.. SB111·3BJ6 PH" 1206) 292·114J 2 . sewer service can only be provided economically if the cost of doing so can be spread over 3 a great enough ratepayer base. Tr. Vol. I at 30-41; Tr. Vol. II at 131-49. If the proposed 4 annexation area is carved out of District 90's franchise area, it will simply not be possible to 5 provide economical, gravity sewer service to the remaining areas. Id. Whether District 90's 6 franchise is exclusive or not (City Brief at 19), or whether the District will continue to 7 8 provide separate water service. has no bearing on the issue. IS 9 The City also points to the BRE's recognition that cities are allegedly the preferred 10 providers of urban services such as sewers. City Brief at 19. This argument misconstrues 11 the GMA. RCW 36.70A.ll0(4) states that "in general, cities are the units oflocal 12 government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services." This portion of the 13 GNfA is the result of a recent (1995) amendment to the GNfA,16 which was changed to 14 I allow more flexibility in circumstances such as those presented by this case. When 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 originally adopted, the GtvfA categorically stated: [IJt is appropriate that urban government services be provided bv cities, and urban government services should not be provided in rural areas. 15 The City's other claim, that King County Land Use Policy F-308 under the GMA eliminated previously established local service areas, is also off-base. F-308 states that the entire Urban Growth Area is eligible to receive sewers, and therefore eliminates local service areas in which sewer service was previously able to be provided. Formerly, sewers could only be extended beyond municipal boundaries if sewers were to be located within an established local service area. F-308 eliminated local service areas because they were no longer needed; that elimination, however, has no effect on District 90's ability to provide sewer. If anything, it expands District 90's ability to do so, since sewer can now be provided throughout the Urban Growth Area. 16 Washington Laws 1995, ch. 400, Section 2. REPLY BRlEF ON THE MERlTS OF WATER DISTRlCT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -27 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE.WA 98111·3846 PH:!2Q61292·11,u 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Washington Laws. 1990 1st Ex. Sess .. ch. 17. Section 11 (emphasis added). As the Growth Management Hearings Board explained. the amendment relaxing RCW 36.70A.ll0( 4): says that "in general" cities are the units of local government services. This buttresses the Board's earlier holdings that cities are to be the primary providers of urban governmental services but that this primarv role does not mean that cities will be the exclusive providers of urban governmental services. i i . ; I I Bremerton v. Kitsap County. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Case : No. 95-3-0039. at 1194 (emphasis added) (copy attached). Instead. the Board recognized that entities such as special service districts (District 90) could be the appropriate service provider depending on the circumstances. Further. to the extent that the GMA expresses a preference that cities (as opposed to service districts) provide urban services like sewer service. the Growth Management Hearings Board has clarified that this preference includes either existing or future. yet-to-be incorporated cities. Id. at n. 24.17 In the interim. sewer service can be provided by special districts such as District 90. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that. in enacting the GMA. the Legislature also amended the statute governing sewer districts to provide that sewer service could be provided consistent with RCW 36.70A.110. RCW 56.08.020. If the Legislature had ", 17 Indeed. the Growth Board took judicial notice of pending petitions for incorporation: "The Board takes official notice of the incorporation petitions currently pending before the King County Boundary Review Board for the proposed cities of Maple Valley. Covington. and Briarwood. and the successful incorporation votes for the cities of Lakewood (1995). Edgewood (1995). and University Place (1994) ... " Id. at 1193. n.23. Here. Briarwood would subsume the proposed annexation area in the case before this Court. REPLY BRlEF ON THE MERlTS OF WATER DISTRlCT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 28 HElSEll FETTERMAN ,1/"'<11,,11.,,,',,;1/\"'''''''''/''1' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 218.;6 SEAT'TLE.WA 98111·3846 PH'(2061292·1144 I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 i ! 17 I 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intended that only existing cities could provide sewer service within Urban Growth Areas, it presumably would have included this direction within sewer districts' enabling authority' rather than directing them to provide sewer service consistent with the flexible rule , provided in RCW 36.70A.ll0(4). Thus, the GMA's general preference that cities provide urban services does not translate into a conclusion that Renton's proposed annexation here creates a logical service area just because the proposed annexation is located within King County's Urban Growth Area. On this theory, any service area within a UGA, no matter how illogical or tortured, would have to be approved. In fact, the GMA leaves it to the BRE --and on review, this Court --to determine whether the proposed annexation meets statutory criteria, such as creation of a logical service area, before an annexation may be approved. In short. the proposed annexation here fails to create or preserve a logical service area. Instead, it prevents one from being established. The BRE's conclusion to the contrary was not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed pursuant to RCW 36.93.180(3). 5. The BRB Decision Fails to Prevent AbnonnaIly Irregular Boundaries. The BRE Decision also fails to prevent abnormally irregular boundaries, contrary to RCW 36.93.180(4). Although the BRE acknowledged that the annexation utilized significantly irregular boundaries, a finding that the City acknowledges "could be adverse to Renton" (City Brief at 21), the BRE justified its conclusion that the boundaries were not REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -29 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO. BOX 21846 -SE.3.ITlE, WA 981' 1·3846 PH-12061292·1144 2 3 4 5 I I 6 I 7 8 9 j. 10 11 12 13 14 15 I I 16 I ! 17 I I I , 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "abnormally irregular" by speculating that future Renton annexations would fill in the abnormalities. Withoutpointing to anything specific in the record, Renton claims that this justification is supported by substantial evidence. City Brief at 21. In fact, the BRB's justification is supported by neither the law nor the record. First, the mere fact that King County has adopted an Urban Growth Area does not . mean that the area is urban or that it will be annexed by the City of Renton. Under the GMA, counties are required to prepare comprehensive plans to accommodate the growth projected over the next twentv years by the State's Office of Financial Management. RCW I 36.70A.070; 36.70A.110(2). Growth is to be located only within a designated Urban Growth I Area ("UGA"), which is to be drawn to include at least existing municipalities within the county. RCW 36.70A.110(1). If existing urbanized areas cannot accommodate the projected growth, a UGA boundary can be drawn to include land that is currently non- urban and unincorporated. Consequently. RCW 36.70A.110 allows a UGA to include not I I only urban land, but also non-urban land located in an appropriate relationship to an urban I area, or adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth. RCW 36. 70A.110(1); Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 93-3-0010, at 437-38 (copy attached). Further, a county may include up to 25% more land (urban or not) in its UGA than needed simply as a measure of providing sufficient land supply to prevent the market from driving up the price of the land remaining for development. RCW 36.70A.ll0((2) (allowing REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -30 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITLE.WA 98111·3846 PH-!20S1292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1°1 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 25 UGA to include "reasonable land market supply factor"); Bremerton ~'. Kitsap County at 1194-1196. Thus, a UGA may include "holding area"land that is not even contemplated for development with the 20-year planning timeframe. See, e.g., Achen v. Clark County, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board Case No. 95-2-0067, at 1138 (copy attached). Finally, as noted above, while the GMA generally contemplates that, as land within a UGA becomes' urban it will eventually become part of a city, this can occur either by incorporation of a new city or annexation to an existing city. Bremerton, at 1194, n. 24. Thus, the mere fact that the proposed annexation area is located with King County's UGA does not mean that the City of Renton will annex land in the future to "fill in" the gaps and irregularities which this annexation undisputedly creates. The UGA designation means only that the area is part of the land potentially available for King County's growth over the next 20 years. It is not promised to the City of Renton. I i Further, the record demonstrates that it is in fact unlikely that Renton will undertake i I [ future annexations to correct boundary irregularities. As the Court can observe from any of j the numerous maps in the record, Renton's easterly boundary is already severely irregular. [I See, e.g., R. 00020. Testimony before the BRE indicated that Renton has done nothing to [ initiate additional annexations to correct such irregularities. Tr. Vol. II at 205, In light of the fact that the Growth Management Act does not require that other lands surrounding the proposed annexation area and within King County's UGA be annexed to the City of Renton, and in light of Renton's historic failure to "fill in the gaps" created by REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 31 HELSELL FETTER.MAN ,11·''''''''o/!'''''''/''''''''''''''''''I' 1500 PUGET SOUND PlAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTtE.WA 913111-3846 PH f2061292·114J 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 previous annexations, the BRB's conclusion that the annexation boundaries are not "abnormally irregular" because future annexations will resolve the irregularities was contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence, and must be reversed.1s 6. The BRB's Decision Fails to Prevent Impractical Boundaries As pointed out in District 90's Opening Brief at 34-35, the BRB completely (and arbitrarily and capriciously) failed to address the requirement in RCW 36.93.180(7) that an annexation prevent impractical boundaries. The City's only response is "to cl"aim that this objective is "not applicable," because "there were no impractical boundaries existing at the time of this annexation, and thus no need to adjust them." City Brief at 23. This claim flies in the face of the record and testimony (R00020; Tr. Vol. II at 205) concerning Renton's existing, impractical boundaries. It is also contradicted by Renton's own statements to the BRB below implicitly acknowledging the existence of impractical boundaries ("The proposal neither creates nor improves impractical boundaries."). R00045 (emphasis added). The BRB's failure to even address this objective was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and must be reversed. 7. The BRB's Decision Fails to Encourage Annexation of Areas That Are Urban in Character . 18 There is no reported case upholding irregular boundaries in an annexation on the speculative theory that a future annexation may cure the problem. The flaw in this bootstrap application of the law is apparent: future annexations would be urged for approval regardless of their own merits because they were needed to cure irregularities in a previous annexation. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN" 32 HELSELL FETTERMAN \ /",,,,,.,, /.h'/"/'/' 1'""",'n;"I' 1500 PUGEl SOUNO PLAZA P,D BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111-3846 PH' (2061 292-1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 An annexation must also discourage incorporation of small cities and, in heavily populated urban areas, encourage incorporation of cities in excess of 10,000. RCW 36.93.180(5). The BRB Decision also fails to further the objective contained in RCW 36.93.180(8), requiring an annexation to utilize unincorporated areas which currentlv "are urban in character." King County v. BoundQIy Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at 678-79. In relationship to land that is currently urban, so as to make future urbanization of the UGA land appropriate. RCW 36.70A.II0(1); Rural Residents, at 436-38. A UGA may also include non-urban open space and green belt areas, or non-urban "holding area" land designed to help relieve market pressure that would otherwise artificially inflate land and housing prices. Bremerton v. Kitsap County at 1194-96; Achen at 1138. Thus, the fact that the proposed annexation area is located within King County's UGA means only that the area may develop urban character in the future --a quality currently lacking, as shown by evidence in the record. R00045 (Notice of Intention at 16); Tr. Vol. I at 13; R 00517 (map of annexation areas showing undeveloped parcels). The BRB's Decision that the proposed annexation furthers annexations of areas which are urban in character is an error of law and not supported by substantial evidence. 8. The BRB Decision Fails to Encourage Incorporation of a City in Excess of 10,000. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DLSTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -33 HELSELL FETTERMAN .1/",,,(,,1/ ... ,,0101 1 """''''''''''1' 1500 PUGET SOUNa PlAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE. WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·114.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The City maintains that the BRE correctly determined that its decision "tends to discourage the proposed incorporation [of the City of BriarwoodJ ... but has a limited potential for resulting in smaller city incorporation." BRE Decision at 12, R. 00522; City Brief at 21. In support, the City cites to the fact that the proposed City of Briarwood would not immediately achieve a population of 10,000. Id. The statutory criterion contained in RCW 36.93.180(5) does not require that every proposed annexation have a minimum population of 10,000; instead, the BRE is to encourage incorporation of cities in excess of 10,000 "in heavily populated urban areas." RCW 36.93.180(5). By splitting the proposed Briarwood incorporation area in half. the annexation encourages the incorporation of smaller cities, and discourages incorporation of larger ones, contrary to the statutory objective. The BRE's Decision in this regard also must be reversed. 9. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the Board's conclusion that the annexation supports the required statutory objections was unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. No weighing of the overall objectives, as performed by the Court in King County v. Boundary Review Board, is necessary, since the proposed annexation fails to support any of the required objectives. While the BRE's Brief claims that RCW 36.93.150 requires approval of an annexation unless specific evidence exists for a denial (BRE Brief at 4), the record here is replete with evidence that!!Q.!ill of the statutory objectives the BRE was required to consider were met by the proposed annexation, and REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 34 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO. BOX 21846 SEAnLE. WA 98111·)846 PH' (2061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I I 16 I I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 District 90's Opening Brief and this brief cite to the portions of the record where that evidence can be found. The Court must therefore reverse the BRE's decision. Reversal is appropriate where a party's substantial right has been prejudiced by the annexation decisiQn. RCW 36.93.160(6). Here, District 90's substantial rights to provide sewer service under its franchise granted by King County will be prejudiced, because the annexation will split the District's franchise area in half and render sewer service uneconomical in the remaining areas. Substantial rights of the Greens will also be prejudiced. They will be prevented I from selecting the government of their choice, since they will be unable to vote to form the i i new City of Briarwood or to remain in unincorporated King County. Their community will I be split in two. Further, their right to obtain the most logical and economical form of sewer I service (gravity sewer to the entire drainage basin) will be prejudiced, since they will be forced to accept more expensive sewer from the City of Renton and to subsidize Renton's existing, aging infrastructure. Given the proposed annexation's prejudice to these substantial rights, and its failure to further any of the required statutory objectives, this Court must reverse the ERE decision. c. The Boundary Review Board Violated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, RCW 42.36. and Due Process. As discussed in detail in District 90's Opening Brief at pages 37-39, the ERE committed numerous procedural errors which violated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, RCW 42.36, and violated the due process rights of District 90. These errors REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 35 HELSELL FETTERMAN .,1.",11/,.1/.,,,/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,,,, 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SE,.l,TTlE, WA 98111·3846 PH: 1206i 292·114~ I I I , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 occurred because the Board failed to maintain a complete record of its proceedings relating to the annexation (it erased the audio tape of the Board's October 12, 1995, meeting, when· it adopted its Decision), because the Board's attorney, Robert Kaufman, was counsel of i I , record for some of the annexation proponents and hearing participants at the same time Mr. : Kaufman decided that the BRE should not consider the issue of the annexation Petition's' sufficiency, and because Board Chair Richard Schoon engaged in ex parte communications with a witness who spoke in favor of the annexation. The City and BRE's responses to these issues are rebutted below. I First, the City claims that the BRE was not required to provide a tape of its October i I 12, 1995, meeting, because a transcript of the BRE's deliberations on another date has incomplete, and violates appellants' rights to due process and to have a complete copy of the record available to bring before the Court.19 19 The substantive value of a transcript of the October 12th tape should be obvious. given the BRB members' numerous admissions in the September 26. 1995. transcript that the annexation did not further the statutory objectives. and that BRB members were forced to assume the presence of evidence supporting the factors. Without a tape of the October 12th meeting, th~ Court is left to wonder what additional admissions BRB members made outside of the public's eye. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -36 HElSEll FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO, BOX 21846 SEAITlE. WA 9111" ·J846 PH: 12061 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ! 17 I I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Second, the BRB and the City complain that appellants have not timely raised the violations of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. City Brief at 34-35; BRB Brief at 7. In particular, the BRB claims that appellants had counsel who actively participated in the hearings before the Board, and that appellants observed BRB attorney Robert Kaufman speaking with annexation proponents during the Board's hearing. Id. at 7. The facts and the record itself, however, are to the contrary. Appellants' counsel were not present at the public hearings before the Board. Further, the Greens did not observe Mr. Kaufman speaking with annexation proponents until after the annexation hearing had concluded, and were unaware of Chairman Schoon's conversation with King County Health Department representative Sid Foreman until they were able to review a transcript of the public hearing. Appellants raised the conflict of interest presented by attorney Kaufman's simultaneous representation of the BRB and annexation proponents on October 3, 1995, before the BRB issued its Decision. R. 00505-04; 00509-08 (letters dated October 3 and 9, 1995, from District 90 counsel Bob C. Sterbank and Peter J. Eglick to BRB). The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation posed by ex parte communications between BRB Chairman Schoon and an annexation witness was raised as soon as possible after review' of the transcript. At the hearing, the appellants (not represented by counsel) were not monitoring such announcements: they were unaware that Sid Foreman had been asked by the Chairman to speak with him during a break until the transcript became available. In light of this, District 90's Appearance of Fairness claim was timely. REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN· 37 HElSEll FETTERMAN ISO/] PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITLE. WA 98111-3846 PH; 1206) 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Finally, the City and BRB claim that no violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine occurred. BRB Brief at 8-10; City Brief at 32, 34. Specifically, the City and BRB claim that Chairman Schoon's ex parte communications with King County Health i Department representative Sid Foreman did not constitute a violation because Mr. Foreman! later testified publicly before the BRB. RCW 42.36.060 requires, however, that a decision-II maker place on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications, and provide a public announcement of the content of the conimunication and of the parties' " rights to rebut the substance of it. Here, although Mr. Foreman testified publicly following his ex parte conversation with the BRB Chairman, no explanation was given on the record of the substance of the ex parte communication, nor was an announcement made that the parties had a right to rebut the substance of it. Tr. Vol. I at 83-86. Therefore, the fact that Mr. Foreman testified does not excuse the violation of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine that resulted from his ex parte communication with BRB Chairman Schoon. With respect to the Appearance of Fairness and due process violation posed by BRB attorney Kaufman's dual representation of the BRB and annexation proponents Forrest and Petersen, both the BRB and the City rely heavily on Sherman v. State, 128 Wn.2d 164, 185, _ P.2d _ (1995), for the proposition that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply to the conduct of individual attorneys. City Brief at 32; BRB Brief at 9. Sherman, however, is not applicable here. In Sherman, the plaintiff complained that a termination review board had mistakenly sent a draft of its decision by fax to the supervising doctor REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -38 HElSEll FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P:O. 60X 2184& SEAITlE,WA 98'1'·3845 PH:I2tlS)Z92·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 who had recommended termination. The court found that the fax was of no consequence because the administrative decision-maker had already maue its decision and all opinions had been drafted, and that the Assistant Attorney General representing the supervising doctor had no duty to disclose that they had received the fax. 128 Wn.2d at 164. In the instant case, however, BRB attorney Kaufman did not simply fail to reveal an errant fax; he simultaneously and affirmatively represented (albeit in different fora) both the BRB and parties who had petitioned for annexation and who testified before the BRB (and before Mr. Kaufman) in support of it. Further, Mr. Kaufman assumed the BRB's decision-making responsibility: he advised the BRB not to consider the issue of the annexation Petition's insufficiency in light of the School District's signature, and even :mnounced his conclusions on behalf of the BRB at the September 21, 1995, hearing. Tr. Vol. I at 10-12. If his decision had gone the "other" way, he would have directly and affirmatively harmed his clients' interests. In light of these facts, Mr. Kaufman's actions were tantamount to the actions of the BRB itself. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine must apply, and rights to procedural due process attach. Here, there was a disturbing conflict of interest arising where the BRB's attorney (without disclOSing the situation until a question was raised) both acted as attorney in another matter for annexation petition proponents and simultaneously made a decision for the BRB that a serious legal issue concerning the sufficiency of the annexation Petition would not even be considered. The REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -39 HELSElL fETTERMAN 1500 PVGET SOUNO PLALA Ptl 80X 21816 SEATTL£.WA .111-l .. & PH 12061~'z.l144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court can only conclude that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and appellants' rights to procedural due process and fairness were violated. III. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court must reverse the Boundary Review Board's October 12, 1996, Resolution and Hearing Decision, and deny the City of Renton's proposed i annexation. Respectfully submitted this lu:\bamb Ii n\rpymorit,brf REPLY BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN -40 .(t--- (Q day of May, 1996. HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP BY~C.~ Peter J. Eglick, WSBA #8809 Bob C. Sterbank, WSBA #19514 Attorneys for Appellants King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green HELSELl FETTE RMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PlAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WA 9Rt' l-JI!4/i PH' !20Al ?C!7·! 14J I , I , . 1 2 3 4 Pc LANNING DIVISION lTV rH' 'leNTON APR 1 9 1996 RECEIVED 5 6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 1 KING COUNTY WD 90 NO. 90, a Washington municipal 8 corporation and NORMAN and 9 CYNTHIA GREEN, husband and wife, 10 Appellants, v. 11 12 WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, a state 13 agency; and THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, 14 15 16 11 Respondents I. SUMMARY NO. 95-2-27556-7 SEA CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS 18 This case is an appeal from the decision of the State 19 Boundary Review Board for King County (hereinafter "BRB") 20 approving the annexation of certain territory to the City of 21 Renton. 22 There is one basic issue that controlled much of the 23 24 testimony before the BRB. There is an acknowledged need for 25 sewers in the annexation area. Maplewood Heights Elementary 26 School is remodeling and must have sewers. The City of Renton 21 28 (hereinafter "Renton") has a sewer line available adjacent to CITY OF REl'.'TON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 1 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN 6 FONTES, P,S. AITORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE 1lO:( tlZII • tOO sot.:TH SECO.';o snEr:T RESTO~. WASHISGTO~ '1*)1',7 (:!IIfl) 2M·llllj!j the annexation area which can immediately serve this 2 3 annexation. What is more, Renton is the preferred service 4 provider under the Growth Management Act (hereinafter "GMA") 5 and policies adopted by King County. 6 7 8 King County Water District No. 90 (hereinafter "WD 90") claims that it can provide sewer service. However, WD 90 has 9 not satisfied the statutory criteria to provide sewer. The 10 BRB correctly found that WD 90 is many years from being able 11 to provide sewer service, despite the present critical need 12 13 14 for sewers. The BRB is compelled, by statute, ·to consider GMA and the 15 Countywide Planning Policies adopted under GMA which prefer 16 annexations over incorporations and favor annexation of urban 17 growth areas (such as this annexation area) to a city. 18 The BRB is also supposed to balance statutory objectives and 19 20 21 determine that the annexation furthers those objectives. The BRB did that balancing and decided that this annexation 22 furthered the obj ectives. The BRB's decision is legally 23 correct, factually correct, and supported by substantial 24 25 26 27 28 evidence in the record. The BRB's decision should be affirmed. CITY OF REl'<'TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 2 of 39 WARREN. KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e: FONTES, P.S. ArrORSEYS AT LAW ~)ST OFFICE OOX 626 • IUO sot:TH SECQSO !i1"IIEET RESTON. WASHlsGTOS 91101';~ (:!Utl) l~lI·)U;jli ! 1 II. FACTS 2 3 This court, sitting as an appellate court, is limited to 4 the record developed before the BRB. That record consists of 5 two volumes of transcript, which are consecutively numbered 6 from pages 1 through 227. This brief will refer to the 7 transcript as Tr. followed by? page number, e. g. Tr. 16. The 8 9 record also consists of three volumes of documents of BRB 10 papers numbered from page 00009 to 00981. This brief will 11 drop the two zeros in front of each page number and cite to 12 the pages as BP followed by a page number, e.g. BP 421. 13 14 The property owners within the proposed annexati6n area 15 initiated the annexation procedure. Property owners 16 representing more than 60'0 of the assessed value within the 17 annexation area signed the petition to annex (BP 038). The 18 19 20 21 School District was one of the signers as owner of Maplewood Heights Elementary School. Many of the residents or their representatives testified of the need for sewers. See the 22 testimony of John McTighe (Tr. 68), Fred Burnstead (Tr. 69- 23 70), Virginia McElroy (Tr. 87-88), Brian Smith (Tr. 103), Mary 24 25 26 27 MacAdams (Tr. 110), Laurie Tarantola (Tr. 114-115), Larry Martin (Tr. 156), Alan WallacE (Tr. 189-192), Leslee Weisser (BP 651) and Chris Holstrom (BP 679) . Sid Foreman of the King 28 County Department of Health testified of the number of septic WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN er FONTES, P.S. CITY OF RE:-''TON' S BRIEF ON THE tvlERlTS . Page 3 of 39 Al'fOR",YS AT LAW POST OFFICE 00)( 6~ti • 10.1 SOt;TH ilECOSD ~TflE:f:T RE:O;TO~. 1Io'"SHISr.TO." 9~)i\; (:!U6) '2~.~·IiIi;tI 1 tank malfunctions in the general area of this annexation (Tr. 2 3 83-86). 4 The most compelling case for sewers was made by Maplewood 5 Heights Elementary Schaal. Sid Forman testified that there 6 had been a prior complaint concerning the septic system " 7 malfunctioning at the Maplewood Heights Elementary School (Tr. 8 9 86). He further testified that until sewers become available 10 to Maplewood Heights Elementary School, there will be no way 11 that the health department could grant approval for the 12 13 14 remodel of the school (TR 86) Renton School Board representatives testified about the 15 problems that lack of se';'/ers presented to Maplewood Heights 16 Elementary School. Rick Strake . testified that the Renton 17 School District (hereinafter "School District) is not being 18 19 20 allowed to reuse its present septic system (Tr. 95-96) Jan Durocher of the School District testified that the School 21 District cannot obtain a building permit without sewers, and 22 that while WD 90 said it could provide sewer service, it had 23 done nothing to accomplish that (Tr. 97-98). 24 Finally, Peg Staily, a consulting civil engineer for the School District, 25 26 testified that without sewers the School District would be 27 required to extend a forced sewer main 4,400 feet at a cost of 28 CITY OF RE:-'"TON'S BRIEF ON THE tvlERITS -Page 4 of 39 WARREN. KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e: FONTES, P.S. ATTORSEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE IlOX ti:!!j • LI)() SOUTH SECOND ;iTREET RESTO!' ....... Al<iHl~GTOS 91111.~7 (:.!(Hj) ~i\.~.IItj"1( " 1 $400,000.00, and that such money would be wasted once sewers 2 became available (Tr. 98-99). 3 4 There was also an engineer's report, summarized at BP 5 624, documenting septic system failures within a part of this 6 7 8 annexation known as the White Fence Ranch subdivision. Renton can provide sewer service now (Tr. 22, 129, 220). 9 On the other hand, WD 90 cannot legally supply sewers as it 10 does not have an adopted sewer comprehensive plan (Tr. 25) , 1 1 does not have a capital facilities plan (Tr. 26) , and would 12 its need approval of ratepayers to begin providing sewers (Tr. 13 27, 128-129). Furthermore, the voters in WD 90 have twice 14 15 previously turned down sewers at elections (Tr. 144). 16 GMP. requires King county to adopt policies and 17 development regulations to control growth. King County 18 adopted policies on planning goals, urban growth areas, and 19 Countywide Planning Policies. 20 The BRB, by RCW 36.93.157, is 21 required to make its decision consistent with GMA and the 22 county planning policies. 23 Tom Fitzpatrick, a representative of King County, 24 delivered King County's letter (BP 966-970) supporting the 25 annexation and acknowledging that the proposed annexation area 26 27 was located within an urban growth boundary, and that 28 Countywide Planning Polici~s supported Renton providing sewers \vARREN, KELLOGG. BARBER. CITY OF REl\,ON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 5 of 39 DEAN c FONTES, P.S. ATTORSF.YS AT LAW POST OffICE 00)( 6~!:I • lilO SOl:TIi SECOSD STR£ET RE""TOS, Vo'"SHISGTQS 11M!',':' (:.MI) ~~'1W711 1 and t:his area annexing to Renton (Tr. l50-151). He also 2 3 testified that for someone seeking to obtain a permit to build 4 a home or a school, .a Certificate of Availability for sewer or 5 an approved septic system would be necessary. In order for a 6 Certificate of Availabilit:y to be valid from WD 90, t:here 7 would have t:o be an up-to-date utility syst:em plan and a 8 9 comprehensive plan that had been approved by t:he county (Tr. WD 90 does not have t:hese current and approved plans 10 153). 11 (TR 25-26) 12 13 The Countywide Planning Policies, adopted under GMA, lists Renton as the preferred service provider for urban level 14 15 of services, such as sewers (Tr. 24 - 2 5) . The Countywide 16 Planning Policies strongly favor annexation of this area to 17 Renton over incorporation of a new city since it is located 18 within Renton's annexation area (BP 966-9?O). King County's 19 letter contains copies of Ki~g County's relevant policies and 20 21 includes several statements 22 Renton, such as: 23 24 • "The cities will assume which support annexation to primary responsibilities for coordinating the provision of local service delivery." 25 26 (Policy V-30?) . 27 28 CITY OF RE1'.TON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 6 of 39 \\ARREN. KELLOGG, BARBER DEAN f:J FONTES, P.S. AiTOR .... EYS "r LAW POST orrlce (lO~ d~'; • \I'IIl SOI;TH SEc.o~O ~'TIH:r.T RESro:-', W,-\!'>HISGTOS 91\O~7 • (~II'lJ ~~~·IW;II 1 2 • "King County shall favor annexation over incorporation 3 4 5 6 7 8 within the urban growth area. King County shall work with the cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and shall support annexations within the urban growth area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies." 9 (Policy U-301) 10 • "Incorporation shall be supported only when annexation is 1 1 12 not appropriate." (Policy U-l02) 13 • "The urban growth area is authorized to receive sewer 14 services." (Policy F-308) 15 16 These various policies resulted in King County concluding that the proposed annexation was within the urban growth area, 17 18 and that it was consistent with GMA and the King County 19 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, under its policies, King 20 County supported this annexation (Tr. 970) 21 The BRB concluded that this annexation complied with GMA, 22 satisfied the statutory factors, and furthered the· statutory 23 24 objectives of the BRB. Thus, the BRB approved the annexation. 25 This appeal followed. 26 27 28 CITY OF RE" "TON·S BRIEF ON THE tvlERITS -Pa~e 7 of 39 WARREt-;. KELLOGG, BARBE?" DEAN 1:7 FOt-;TES. P.S. ATIORSEYS "T LAW POST O'Flct GO)( 6;:1; • ifill SOt:TH :U:CO."-O .,nH:tT R£~TOS. W'''''';HISI.)TQS !l1IU~; (~~Iti) :!!';.~."!3,;"!I 1 2 3 A. 4 B. 5 C. 6 7 D. 8 9 E. 10 11 12 F. 13 14 15 G. 16 17 H. 18 19 20 21 A. 22 III. ISSUES ~ WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN THIS MATTER? DOES THE RECORD SUPPORT THIS ANNEXATION? HAVE APPELL~~S LOST THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE VALIDITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE BY NOT TIMELY APPEALING THAT ISSUE TO SUPERIOR COURT? DOES THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX? SHOULD THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE THE APPEAL? SHOULD THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES? SHOULD WD 90 BE DISMISSED AS AN APPELLANT FOR LACK OF STANDING? HAVE APPELLANTS PROPERLY PRESERVED AN APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ISSUE? CAN AN APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ALLEGATION AGAINST THE BRB'S ATTORNEY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE BRB ITSELF? DOES GMA PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THIS ANNEX.",-TION? IS THE CITY OF RENTON REOUIRED TO ADOPT AN ANNEXATION ORDnr."'-NCE PRIOR TO BRB REVIEW OF THE ANNEXATION? IV. AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN THIS MATTER? The superior court, in this matter, is sitting as an 23 appellate body pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(6). 24 section states: That statutory 25 26 27 28 "The superior court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 8 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN I':! FONTES, P.S. ATIOR .... E\·S AT LAW POST OFF1CE DOX; 1i~1\ • 1110 SOUTH SECO:"lO STRf.t::T RESTUS ..... "'SHISGTOS YKO!'.i (:"~llil ~~.Hljj" administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or 2 decisions are: 3 4 5 6 1 (a) In violation of constitutional provisions, or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or (d) Affected by other error of law, or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or 8 (f) Arbitrary or capricious." 9 10 1 1 The court is limited i~ this appeal to the record developed before the ERE. RCW 36.93.160(5) states in relevant "'; 12 part: 13 14 15 16 " ... On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board." The ERE, in its review of the testimony b~fore it, is compelled to consider three things: 11 18 1. That its decision be consistent with portions of GMA 19 (RCW 36.93.157). 20 The requirement that the ERE make its decision 21 22 consistent with cited sections of GMA is recent and has not been subject to judicial interpretation of how this section 23 24 affects judicial review of ERE decisions. 25 2. Factors such as need 26 governmental services (RCW 36.93.170) 21 28 CITY Of REt-.'TON·S BRIEf ON THE MERITS -Page 9 of 39 and availability of WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN f!:! FONTES. P.S. ATIOR .... EYS AT LAW POST OF'ICE DOX 6:!6 • LI'lO SOLIM S[COSD sTREf.T RESTO~, W.",SHI."GTO:'< 9>1,().~; (:!II6J '.!,~,~,"";711 J, ; . 1 The court, in King County v. Boundary Review Board, 2 3 122 Wn.2d 648, 672, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993), commented that it 4 does not impose strict requirements upon ERE decision-making ·5 based upon the statutory factors, but that the ERE should 6 state that it considered the factors and singled out several 1 of them for particular attention. 8 9 3. Statutory objectives (RCW 36.93.180). 10 There is substantial case law considering review of 11 a ERE decision to determine if the ERE decision sa·tisfied the 12 13 14 statutory objectives listed in RCW 36.93.180. The court, in King County v. Boundary Review Board, supra, at 673, 15 characterized ~he court's review as follows: 16 11 18 19 20 21 "The question on review is not whether the objectives were adva:1ced or hindered, but rather whether substantial evidence in the record supports a board's decision regarding the achievement of the objectives. Review for support by substantial evidence is an extremely limited form of judicial revie'tl. Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 260, 461 P.2d 531 (1969).n 22 The court applies the substantial evidence test at pages 23 675-676: 24 25 26 21 28 "A decision is supported by substantial evidence if 'the record contains evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the declared premise.'· CITY OF RE"TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page [0 of 39 W\RREN, KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN er FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OrF!C£ DOX 6::tl • hili SOUTH $ECO,",D ,;TR£ET RE!<ITON. WASHISGTnN 9>l411'i1 (::1)6) ~~.~·!'.ti7" 1 The court, in its revie'li of the statutory objectives, is 2 not supposed to focus on anyone objective, but rather is to 3 4 take a comprehensive approach to the objectives. King County 5 v. Boundary Review Board, supra, at 673-4: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "Boundary review board decisions when '{u}nsupported by material may and be reversed substantial, evidence in view of the entire record as submitted' . (Italics ours) RCW 36.93.160(6). The statute's reference to the 'entire record' supports the proposition that judicial review of the RCW 036.93.180 objectives is to involve examination of each of the objectives. It would be anomalous to interpret this provision as requiring a reviewing court to uphold a board decision based on the furtherance of only one objective when the remainder of the record manifestly displayed the hindrance of the other eight." 15 The court then went on to note, at page 675, that a 16 reviewing court such as this court would apply an appellate 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 standard of review. "The application of a comprehensive approach to the objectives in RCW 36.93.180 will not result in the replacement of the decision of a boundary review board with that of a reviewing court, since the standard for review is still that of substantial evidence." • "We therefore consider each of the statutory obj ec t i ves to determine w!-.ether substant ial evidence supports the conclusion that 0 the objectives of RCW 36.93.180 were furthered by the Board's decision to approve the proposed annexations." The court, on page 675 at footnote 14, states: CITY OF RE:-''TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page II of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN e. FONTES. P,So ATl\lR:-IEVS AT LAW pOST O"ICE OOX 6:!1i • 11)(1 :tI}L:TH $£CQSO STR£f.T RE~'TON, w.\.'iH.l .... \iTO .... ~KOM' (:!lIti) :!iVHW~H I , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 "Also, the board decision will still be accorded all of the usual forms of judicial deference to agency expertise. See, e.g., St. Francis Extended Health Care v. Department of Social & Health Servc., 115 Wn.2d 690, 695, 801 P.2d 212 (1990); Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge 827, 84 Wn.2d 551, 556, 527 P.2d 1121 (1974) " That court, from pages 676 to 680, analyzes theBRB decision, objective by objective, and concludes at page 680: "Applying this standarci, we conclude that, while there is evidence that one of the objectives of RCW 36.93.180 would be detrimentally affected by the proposed annexations, there is sufficient evidence in the record to convince a rational person that overall the objectives would be furthered (citations omitted) ." "To summarize, two of the applicable statutory objectives would .be significantly furthered, three would neither be furthered nor hindered, and one would be somewhat set back by the proposed annexations. While substantial evidence review of boundary review board decisions is not merely an exercise in counting objectives, our review of the record and the statutory objectives convinces us there is sufficient evidence to convince a fair- minded person that overall the objectives of RCW 36.93.180 would be furthered rather than hindered by approval of the proposed annexations. The decision of the Board was therefore supported by substantial evidence." In reviewing the case at bar, the court can determine 25 that the::e was one objective detrimentally affected by the 26 proposed annexation, two objectives weie neutral or slightly 27 advanced, and three substantially advanced. 28 CITY OF RE;-''TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 12 of39 These objectives \\ARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e: FONTES, P.S. "rrURNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BO)(. 1S:!6 • lOll SOUTH SECONO STRtr.T RESTQS. WA'''''HISl.rros \11101\7 (:!U6J :!S.~·~;14 1 are analyzed with references to the record in the next section 2 3 of this brief. 4 Appellants mention gerrymandering in their brief, 5 question Renton's motives in setting boundaries, and imply 6 that this serves as a basis to overturn the BRB decision. 1 Such a position is contrary to existing authority. 8 Spokane 9 County Fire Protection v. Boundary Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 10 928, 652 P.2d 1356 states: 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 "In addition to attacking the evidentiary .support for the conclusions just discussed, appellant has also made much of the apparent gerrymandering of the annexation boundaries to assure sufficient signatures for approval. The Board, however, is not responsible for the intent underlying the delineation of the area to be annexed. Its sole concern is the objective result, to be measured against the goals set out in RCW 36.93.180. Cf. Meyers v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 34 Cal. App. 3d 955, 960-61, 110 Cal. Rptr. 422 (1973) (gerrymandering not relevant to decision by LAFCO, the California equivalent to boundary review boards) . The gerrymandering in the instant case therefore is of no independent significance.- Appellants also claim the BRB's decision was arbitrary 22 and capricious. The test for what is arbitrary and capricious 23 is set forth in wenatchee v. Boundary Review Board, 39 Wn. 24 25 26 21 28 App. 249, 256, 693 P.2d 135 (1984): "Arbitrary and capricious action is willful and unreasoning action in disregard of facts and circumstances; if there is room for two opinions, discretion exercised upon due consideration will not be overturned. McDonald v. Hogness, supra. The CITY OF REI-o'TON'S BRIEF ON THE 1vlERITS -Page 13 of 39 \v''''RREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e FONTES, P.S. ATIQRSEYS AT LAW pOST O"lCE OOX 6:!!l • 11'H1 SOt;TIi ~£COND STRE1·;T RESTON. W.\:;Hl~GTOS \l1Ul~7 (:'~Ml) 2~5·lItml , .: i; , . "; 2 3 4 5 6 record reveals the Review Board heard and considered testimony by many witnesses, including Mr. Ford, at the hearing on October 20, 1982. It entered its findings and conclusions' after considering the statutory criteria. The Review Board did not act arbitrarily or capriciously." In summary, the court must review the entire record to 7 determine if the BRB's decision, based upon GMA, statutory 8 factors and statutory objectiv~s, is supported by material and 9 substantial evidence in the record. The court will find that 10 the BRB's decision is correct, based upon' the entire record. 1 1 12 The consider motives or of arguments court cannot 13 gerrymandering. 14 B. DOES THE RECORD SUPPORT THIS ANNEXATION? 15 As previously discussed, the BRB had to do three things: 16 1. l'lake its decision consistent with GMA; 17 18 2. Consider the statutory factors; 19 3. Weigh the statutory objectives. 20 The BRB's resolution and hearing decision did exactly 21 that. The decision starts out discussing the factors at pages 22 1 through 3 (Tr. 531-533). The decision then discusses GMA 23 from pages 3 through 9 (Tr. 525-531), and the objectives from 24 25 pages 9 through 12 (Tr. 522-525). 26 This brief has previously discussed how the decision is 27 consistent with GMA and Countywide 28 CITY OF RE:-'"TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 14 of 39 Planning Policies. \Y,-\RREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN I':: FONTES, P.S. ATIORSEVS .-\T l.A ..... POST OFFICE nox 6~6 • tOil !!/lI."H SEaJSO STREET RE:-'TO~. 'A·ASHISlOTI) .... !J1!I1.~~ (:':116) ~'~~'l'Iti71'1 Appellants' brief did not discuss the statutory factors 2 3 section of the BRB decision, so there is no need to respond. 4 This portion of the brief will be limited to a discussion of 5 the obj ecti ves and the support in the record for the BRB 6 7 8 9 10 decision. (1) Preservation of communities; The BRB determined, natural neighborhoods and "This decision to approve the 11 proposed Burnstead annexation is not inconsistent with the 12 objective specified in RCW 36.93.80(1)" (Page 10 of Decision, 13 lines 1 and 2, Tr. 524) The BRB noted that it had received 14 15 conflicting testimony concerning community identification 16 (Page 9 of Decision, line 39, Tr. 525). For example, Renton 17 City Councilman Tim Schlitzer testified that the Council feels 18 that hER Pl' 1 f d t east enton ateau 1S a natura part 0 Renton an 19 20 21 noted that it was included within Renton's comprehensive plan (Tr. 28). The annexation area is within the county's urban 22 growth area and potential annexation area (Tr. 150) It was 23 noted by the BRB by the addresses given that the· area had 24 25 26 Renton mailing addresses. Robert Peterson testified by letter that he has worked in Renton, played in Renton, and supported Renton )'outh programs and the Renton schools (BP 648). Renton 27 28 testified that every effort was made CITY OF RE\"TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 15 of 39 not to split WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e: FONTES, P.S. ATIORSEYS AT LAW PI)iIT orFlCE OO~ 6!6 • ton SOt,;Tli S[OOSl'l STRf.t:T RESTtJS ....... -\SHt~GTOS 9"'IW~ (211';) Z$.\·'"i;~ neighborhoods (Tr. 218). From review of the maps suomitted, 2 3 Renton attempted to include or exclude platted neighborhoods 4 in their entirety (BP 56B) . 5 On the other hand, Norman Green testified that the East 6 Renton Plateau constituted the neighborhood and that this 7 annexation 8 split up that plateau (Tr. 43) . Rod Dembowski 9 testified similarly (Tr. 200) . Such an argument invites 10 violation of the Countywide Planning policies. The plateau is 11 quite large and much of it is not located within the urban 12 13 14 15 growth area. According to GMA and. Countywide Planning Policies, property within an urban growth area is to be annexed to the adjoining municipality, while property outside 16 the urban growth area cannot be annexed. The entire plateau 17 cannot be considered as a natural neighborhood or community 18 because such a premise destroys the policy to annex or 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 incorporate an urban growth area. This court must find that the BRB's finding is based upon substantial evidence in the record. (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; 26 The BRB decided (Page 10 of Decision, lines 13 and 14, BP 27 28 524) that "This decision to approve the proposed Burnstead CITY OF REN'TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 16 of39 WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER, DEAN f:J FONTES. P.S. ATIOR~E\'S AT LAW POST OFFICE OOX d~d • 100 SOUTH :;£CO~D STREET R£."TOS, \I'Aj,HI.';GTOS \lHO~r (::116) ~f>.~.~~P4 1 2 3 annexation partially supports the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180(2) " Renton testified that, to the degree possible, 4 it followed streets and extensions of streets south of 128th, 5 but used lot lines north of 128th due to lack of streets (BP 6 7 579, Tr. 15-16). However, the urban growth boundary forms the eastern boundary of the portion of the annexation north of 8 9 S.E. 128th Street (Tr. 217-218 and BP 569) . Renton did" 10 consider topographical features for arriving at the boundaries 11 ( Tr. 216) , but there were no outstanding topographical 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 features in the general annexation area (BP 564). Alan Wallace referred to a supreme court: case supporting the boundaries (Tr. 192) On the other hand, Norman Green claimed that too many of the boundaries were established by lot lines and that the annexation failed to follm.; the drainage basins (Tr. 44) , parts of which are already part of Renton. Rod Dembowski claimed that the annexation failed to use physical boundaries, 22 and that it should have included Maplewood Canyon and the 23 Cedar River Bluff (Tr. 202) areas which are located 24 25 26 27 28 substantially to the south of the proposed annexation. Based upon this conflicting testimony, the BRB's decision is support:ed by substantial evjdence. CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 17 of 39 W-\RREN. KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN e: FONTES, P.S. ATTUR~EYS AT LAW P<)ST OFFICE 00."< d~ij • LIllI ~Ot..'TH SECO."O STRE,:T RESTO .... , ~·"-... HISGTOS g,m."7 (~'1I6J :!!';'~'IIIij'!I 1 2 3 (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; 4 The BRB decided (Page 11 of Decision, lines 28 -30, BP 5 523) that "This decision to approve the annexation with the 6 7 8 modification of boundaries to add adjacent segments of street right-of-way tends to accomplish the objectives specified in RCW 36. 93 . 180 (3) ." 9 10 The BRB noted that voters have repeatedly turned down 11 sewer (Page 10 of Decision, lines 38-40, BP 524) and that 12 13 14 15 sewer service is the crucial i<sue in the case of the proposed Burnstead annexation. Fire service will continue to be provided by Renton under 16 contract with District No.25 and water service will continue 17 to be provided by WD 90. Appellants claim in their opening 18 brief that the annexation would split WD 90's existing service 19 area in half and thus destroy the sewer franchise of WD 90 20 21 within its boundaries. This is hard to understand as the 22 annexation will have no effect on the provision of water 23 service by WD 90. The annexation cannot split WD 90's sewer 24 25 26 service area as it has no service area until approved sewer comprehensive plan (Tr. 25, 153) it has an Furthermore, all se'ller service areas were eliminated by county planning 27 28 Policy F-308 (BP 966-970) Finally, the franchise, a grant in WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN f:: FONTES, P.S. CITY OF RE"TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS" Page 18 of 39 ATrORSEYS AT !..AW POST OJl'JI'ICE BOX 6~6 • 100 SOUTH n:co,,*o !j'BE:ET RE~'TO"", \ .... \SHISGTON 91\01'\1 (:!utlJ ~1\.~·Kti7K , ' 1 2 3 the nature of an easement, is not destroyed by the annexation since it is, by its terms, nonexclusive (BP 448 section 2) and 4 still exists after the annexation. 5 6 1 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 11 when 523) The BRB summarized an important part of that testimony it stated (Page 11 of Decision, lines 8 through 14, as follows: "The City of Renton is the only provider of sewer service needed within the annexation area at this time. The City of Renton has planned and implemented the logical extension of the City-sewer service area into the area including the Burnstead annexation site. The City of Renton is the logical provider of sewer in the long term, as well as the short term. The City of Renton is also the preferred provider of service under the GMA (GMA) , the Countywide Planning Policies, and the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, all of which state that cities are the appropriate providers of urban services." BP WD 90, on the other hand, would need at least two years 18 to get to the point of construction of sewers (TR 137-138) . 19 This time-frame is based upon the presumption that there would 20 21 be no environmental impact statement required and no appeals 22 filed, despite the fact that the sewer line would follow a 23 very steep road, where there has been previous opposition to 24 25 26 21 28 this sewer line (Tr. 24, 28), and would cross the Cedar River. One citizen expressed concern about the delay that such a route would encounter, including the possibility that it would CITY OF REl'."TON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 19 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e, FONTES, P.S. A"'OR~EYS AT LAW POST OfFICE OOX 6:!1I • 11'111 sot.:TH :iECO."D !CiTR~:!':T RESTUN, W."-"HI~GTOS 9~1"'i (~"Ifj) :'>.'\.\.>W'II 1 delay the construction of a new bridge over the Cedar River 2 3 (Tr. 165-167). 4 There is substantial evidence in the record to support 5 this BRB finding. 6 (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; 1 8 The BRB decided that "Although this decision to approve 9 the annexation does not support the objectives specified in 10 RCW 36.93.180(4) in the short term, it constitutes a step 1 1 toward eventual accomplishment of the obj ecti ve in the long 12 13 term." (Page 12 of Decision, lines 8-10, BP 522). The BRB 14 noted that: the ul t imate Renton boundary 1 ines at the urban 15 growth area boundary lines would be achieved incrementally 16 over time, and that this annexation constitutes one step 11 toward that eventual boundary line. 18 The BRB does find that 19 the boundaries, although ircegular, are not necessarily 20 "abnormally irregular" wh'en viewed as one step in the 21 22 23 24 processing of achieving ultimate city boundary lines. (Page 12 of Decision, lines 5 and 6, BP 522) Much of this finding is based upon the shape of the 25 annexation (BP 569). Renton did note that the annexation is 26 contiguous to, Renton's limits, was originally of a larger 21 28 area, but was squared off to maintain logical service areas CITY OF REl'o'ON·S BRIEF ON THE /l.IERITS -Page 20 of 39 \';;'>'RREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN cr FONTES, P,S, A'M'!)RSEYS AT LAW POST O"[CE DOX tI~6 • 100 SOL:TH :iECOSD SHEET Re.'<TON, ~'.I\SHISIlTON !,I.ml\1 (:!Ild) 2!'o.Hl!l711 1 and the 60' approval of the property owners (BP 577, Tr. 17). 2 Norman Green testified that the boundaries were irregular and 3 4 created two large unincorporated peninsulas of land (Tr. 45- 5 46). 6 The BRB finding is based upon substantial evidence in the 7 record. 8 Even though this finding could be termed adverse to 9 Renton, it is only slightly adverse when taking into account 10 the BRB's note that later annexations will square up these 11 boundaries. Just as one positive factor cannot justify an 12 13 14 annexation if the other factors are negative, one negative factor cannot prevent an annexation if the other factors are 15 positive. 16 17 18 19 20 (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urba~ areas; The BRB decided "This decision tends to discourage the proposed incorporation in support of the objectives specified 21 22 in RCW 36.93.180(5) but has a limited potential for resulting 23 in smaller city incorporation." (page 12 of Decision, lines 24 26-26, BP 522). 25 This somewhat convoluted finding means that the annexation discourages the incorporation of the City of 26 Briarwood which would have less than ten thousand population, 27 28 and thus the objective is furthered. CITY OF RE1\'TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 21 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN er FONTES, P.S. ATTORSE:rS AT LAW POST O'fICE OOX 6:.!1i • 100 SOl:TH SECOSD ST!t~ET RESTUS. WASHI~tlTOS !jllOllj (206) ~~·!Ui7M 1 The BRB notes earlier on that same page that the 2 3 annexation is supported by the 1994 King County Comprehensive 4 Plan policy favoring annexation over incorporation (lines 22- 5 24) 6 Those policies are included in the record (BP 966-970). the proposed City of It was admitted on the record that 7 Briarwood would not achieve 10,000 population for at least two 8 9 years (Tr. 208). The BRB found that .the current estimated 10 population is 8,500. (Page 12 of Decision, line 18, BP 522) . 11 By definition, this Objective has been met and there is 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 substantial evidence in the record to support the BRB's decision. (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; The BRB decided "This decision tends to accomplish the objectives specified in RCW 36.93.180(8) • 19 (Page 12 of 20 Decision, line 35, BP 522). The BRB noted in the short 21 paragraph above this finding that the annexation was within 22 the urba~ growth area and that the annexation was .appropriate 23 for urban density development and the extension of urban 24 services. 25 There is extensive discussion in the testimony 26 about the area being within the urban growth area (Tr. 19, 27 150, 162, 176). As previously discussed in this brief on the 28 CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE ~!ERlTS -Page 22 of 39 WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN 0 FONTES. P.S. "nORSEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE DO" 6~t1 • LfNI SOt,;TH stemm STRr:r-:T RE!<iTON. ',A'ASHL"GTON \lIlO~7 (':!Ot;) ZM·l\tl711 , j . 1 section on GMA and in the fa~tual summary, state law and King 2 3 County planning policies favor the annexation of this property 4 to Renton, both because it is in the urban growth area, but 5 also because Renton is the preferred provider of sewers. 6 7 Because the property is located within the urban growth area, by definition, it is urban in nature. RCW 36.70A.llO(1). 8 9 While there was extensive discussion in the record that 10 incorporation of the City of Briarwood would be preferable, 1 1 that is clearly contrary to GMA and the objectives of the BRB. 12 This finding has not only extensive support in the record, but 13 also is compelled by law under the facts in this case. 14 15 The BRB did not enter findings on objectives 6, 7 and 9 16 because they were not applicable. Objective 6 relates to 17 dissolution of inactive special purpose districts, which would 18 not occur. Objective 7 relates to the adjustment of 19 impractical boundaries. 20 There were no impractical boundaries 21 existing at the time of this annexation, and thus no need to 22 adjust them. Objective 9 relates to protection of 23 agricul tural and rural lands which are not in existence in 24 25 26 this area. This court, in engaging in the balancing as required in 27 King County v. Boundary Review Board, . can then count that 28 there was one factor somewhat negative to the annexation, two WARREN. KELLOGG, BARBER. CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE IIoIERlTS -Page 23 of 39 DEAN f:: FONTES, P.S. AT'TtJR:-iEYS .... T LAW PO~"'T O"ICE GOX !I~!l • 11)1) St)t:TH SECOND STREeT RESTUS, WASHISGTOS !I~)!S7 1:.~Jtj) :.Ii'i~·IIt1~S 1 factors neutral to slightly favorable, and three factors 2 3 strongly in support of this annexation. Based 'upon that 4 balancing, and the fact that each of the BRB' s findings is 5 supported by substantial evid"nce in the record, this court 6 must affirm the BRB decision. 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 C. HAVE APPELLANTS LOST THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE VALIDITY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SIGNATURE BY NOT TIMELY APPEALING THAT ISSUE TO SUPERIOR COURT? 1. Renton's decision was not appealed. Appellants urge this court to hold that the School District does not have· the statutory authority to sign a petition to annex its property to Renton. Renton argues that 15 the decision as to whether or not the School District had the 16 authority to sign the petition was appropriately decided by 17 Renton and is not subj ect to review by the BRB. Renton's 18 19 20 decision was appealable to superior court, but no such appeal was timely pursued, and the time for that appeal passed before 21 this action was filed. Federal Way v. King County, 62 Wn. 22 App. 530, 539, 815 P. 2d 790 (1991). 23 24 25 26 2. Renton had the duty and responsibility to judge the sufficiency of signatures on the petition to annex. RCW 35A.Ol.040(4) is the method which the City must 27 use to determine the sufficiency of the signatures: 28 CITY OF REN'TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 24 of 39 W\RREN, KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN I!:! FONTES. P.S. ATIORSEYS ,.\T LAW POST O,.FICE BOX 6~11 • LIlli SOUTH ~H:cm.;o ~"'R£!:T RE:-.'TOt-'. W~SHI~GTO:-O 1I~11',7 (~!IIlJ :!5.~·lItij!l 1 2 3 11 5 6 7 "Within three working 1ays after the filing of a petition, the officer or officers whose duty it is to determine the sufficiency of the petition shall proceed to make such a determination with reasonable promptness and shall file with the officer receiving the petition for filing a certificate stating the date upon which such determination was begun, which date shall be referred to as the terminal date." It was at this point in the proceeding that the 8 decision was made by Renton that the School District has the 9 authority to sign the petition. Statutorily it was a city 10 decision to determine if there are sufficient signatures to 1 1 continue with the annexation process. 12 It is also at this 13 point that an appeal should have been taken. 111 3. The BRB is without jurisdiction to judge sufficiency 15 of the School D' t . t" . 1S r1C s slgnature. 16 17 18 review Instead of appeal ing to court, appellants sought before the BRB of Renton's decision that the Scheol 19 District could sign the petition to annex. The BRB statute 20 includes RCW 36.93.130 which states the required contents of 21 the notice of intention to That statute does not annex. 22 include review of the right of a party to sign the petition, 23 24 or review of the city's determination of the sufficiency of 25 signatures on a petition to annex. There is no legal 26 authority within the BRB statute for the BRB to review 27 28 CITY OF RE~"TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 25.of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN f:! FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEyS AT loAW POST OFfiCE aox IWI • l'lO SOt:TH !lECO.'iO STREET R£~TO!'I •.... ·ASHI)OGTOS 9t1O. .. 7 (~"6J 2M·i'llj7K 1 Renton's decision concerning the validity of the School 2 District's signature. 3 II The BRB ruled that it does not have such appellate 5 authority on the sufficiency of signatures to the petition to 6 1 8 annex. That BRB decision about the intent, scope and meaning of its governing statute and its own statute, rules and 9 regulations is to be given substantial weight by this court, 10 as it is the agency with expertise to interpret its own 11 statute, rules and regulations. See Saint Francl.s Extended 12 Health Care v. Department of Social and Health Services, 115 13 Wn.2d 690, 695, 801 P.2d 212 (1990) and Department of 'Ecology 1 II 15 v. Ballard Elks Lodge, 827, 84 Wn.2d 551, 556, 527 P.2d 1121 16 (1974). 11 18 19 20 This court does not have jurisdiction to review Renton's decision about the sufficiency of signatures to the petition to annex. 21 D. DOES THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAVE AUTHORITY TO SIGN A PETITION TO ANNEX? 22 1. 23 The School District may sign the petition under 211 annexation law. 25 The statute applicable to this annexation is RCW 26 35A.14.120. In relevant part that statute states: 21 28 CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 26 of 39 \\~R.REN. KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN e, FONTES, P.S. ATIORSEYS AT LAW POST O"p'rCE [)()X 11~f; • 11-"1 :IOt;TH SE:CO.'IOO ~n~r.T RESTlJS, ..... MH1StiTO:o.; ~"')r.7 (::111;1 Zr..\·Mlm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "A petition for annexation of an area contiguous to a code city may be filed with the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is desired. It must be signed by the owners, as defined by RCW 35A.01.040(9) (a) through (d), of not less than sixty percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned:.- RCW 35A.01.040(9) defines who has authority to sign 8 as owners of property on petitions. That statute refers to 9 10 11 "owners of property and record owners as determined by the records of the county auditor.-The School District meets 12 those definitions. Therefore, under RCW 35A. 01. 040 (a), the 13 School District has the authority to sign the petition and 14 have its property value considered in the petition to annex. 15 2. ~he School District may sign the petition under case 16 law. 17 18 This issue of whether or not a governmental property 19 owner may sign a petition to annex has been directly answered 20 by the Washington courts. See Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 21 722, 577 P.2d 164 (1978). In that particular case the 22 appellant claimed that the annexation proceedings were 23 24 improper because the City of Spokane considered city-owned 25 property for purposes of meeting statutory requirements. The 26 court decided, at page 724: 27 28 CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 27 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN 1:7 FONTES, P.S. ATIORSEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 6:!!I • 100 SOUTH SECOro;D STRt:ET RESTON. W,\ .... HI. .. GTON 9"1l1';, (:!IIIi) 2M.Kt)7K 1 2 3 4 "We conclude that for purposes of allowing the City ,of Spokane to petition for annexation the City of Spokane is an 'owner' under RCW 35.13.130." In arriving at its decision, the court cited to 5 Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d. 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960). In that 6 case the court determined that the Port of Tacoma had 1 authority to petition the City of 'Tacoma for annexation as i.t 8 9 was endowed with the power to own land, one of the attributes 10 of which is the right to petition for annexation by a city. 11 The School District is similarly endowed with the power to own 12 13 14 15 land, such as Maplewood Elementary School, and has the power to petition Renton for annexation. Appellants argue that the BRB has recognized the .16 prohibition against school districts' participation in general 11 annexations and then cites to page 7 of the BRB's decision in 18 19 20 21 t he rna t t e r 0 f "I"'n'-=-r"'e'-'.'_---"C'-'io-,t ... v<.-..>o'-'f'--"B"'e"'l"'l..,e ... v"-u"""e--'P"'r"-o"""p"'o"'s"'e:>d"-"'An .... n"'e"'x""a....",t"i.",o=n (Newport Hills), King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773. However, appellants' conclusion is erroneous and 22 misleading. The BRB statement was one of procedural fact arid 23 not part of its decision: 24 25 26 21 28 "The originally proposed Newport Hills Annexation area is modified to include th;re'e school si tes excluded from the annexation as submitted by the City of Bellevue. CITY OF REl'."TON·S BRIEF ON THE lIolERlTS -Page 28 of39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN EJ FONTES, P,S. ATIOR .... EYS AT (.AW POST OFFICE BOX 8~6 • LI'IO SOl'TH ~ECI)~D STH£ET RE~TON. W~:;HISGTO.o,; 9litlfi7 (~U';I ZM.1I/.i711 r , I , I i I ! t.' l l !: I I ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 The school district properties were excluded from the annexation due to the provisions in state statute, RCW 28A.58.044, which may be interpreted to prohibit school district properties from joining in annexations involving additional properties not owned by the school district (emphasis added) ." From this recitation of fact it is clear that the 7 school district properties were never included within the 8 Newport Hills Annexation, so the BRB couldn't rule on the 9 legality of a school district's signature on a petition to 10 annex as it was never pre'sented that issue. The BRB did not 1 1 12 recognize any prohibition against school districts' 13 participation in general annexations, as it was not an issue. 14 15 16 17 3. The School Distri(:t may sign the petition under School District law. Appellants rely on RCW 28A.335.110 to argue that the 18 School District isn't granted the power to sign petitions to 19 annex. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The statute states as follows: "In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law, every Board of Directors, in seeking to have school property annexed to a city or town and if such school property constitutes the whole of such property in any annexation petition, shall be allowed to, petition therefore under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130." However, note that RCW 28A.320.0l5(l) (b) grants school districts powers "necessarily and fairly implied in the CITY OF REl'."TON·S BRIEF ON THE l\!ERITS -Page 29 of39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBC:? .. DEAN f:J FONTES, P.S. ATTOR~EYS AT LAW POST OFFICE DOX 6~tl • LOll SOt;TK !lE:cm'n ~i~f.r.T R[:'"TO~· ..... : ... "HI.'1GTO .... 911Mj (,,:ulI) :!!').~·IIIi~14 1 powers expressly authorized by law." There is no question 2 3 that scheol districts have the power to own land. Johnson v. 4 Spokane, supra, makes it· clear that ownership of property 5 includes the right of a government to sign a petition to 6 annex. Therefore, the right to own property "fairly implies" 7 the right to sign a petition to annex. 8 9 The biggest problem with appellants' reliance upon 10 RCW 28A.3S.110 is that it does not cite to RCW 3SA.14.120. It 11 cites instead to the statutes for first class cities and other 12 forms of city government but .not to the annexation statute 13 applicable to Renton (RCW 3SA.14.120) since Renton is an 14 15 optional municipal code city. The statute also does not 16 address what occurs when the school district property is less 17 than the whole of the propE'!rty in the annexation petition. 18 Since Johnson v. Spokane has previously decided that a 19 20 21 governmental body can be an owner for purposes of signing an annexation petition, one need not discuss the applicability of 22 RCW 28A.33S.110. 23 Appellants also rely on a letter from the BRB' rejecting a 24 Vashon Island incorporation to further their argument that the 25 BRB should consider whether the School District's signature is 26 27 valid. However, the court's decision in that case made it 28 clear that incorporations must be within urban growth areas. CITY OF REl'o'TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 30 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN cr FONTES, P.S. ATrORN&YS AT LAW POt-I on'ICE BOX 6:!1I • IllO liOl,"TH :i£cmm ~'T"lH:[;;1" R£~TUN, WA!oiHl)o'Oro .... 91Ul1\1 (:!IUI) 2i'>o\.!kl'l'!I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 Vashon Island v. Boundary Review Board, 127 Wn.2d 759, 771- 772, 903 P. 2d 953 (1995) states: "We are. satisfied, therefore, that the trial court properly resolved the apparent ambiguity in favor of an interpretation of RCW 36.93.150(2) that results in a conclusion that incorporation of Vashon is an impossibility, because after all of the nonurban growth area is removed from the proposed incorporation, as it must be, nothing remains to be incorporated." The Vashon Island case ~imply shows how the BRB must apply GMA and has nothing to do with BRB revie·w of the validity of signatures on a petition to annex. 12 13 E. 14 SHOULD THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE THE APPEAL? SHOULD THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES? SHOULD THE WD 90 BE DISMISSED AS AN APPELLANT FOR LACK OF STANDING? 15 16 Renton has filed motions to dismiss this matter for lack 17 of jurisdiction because of failure to timely serve the 18 petition. Renton has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to 19 20 21 join the School District and Burnstead Construction, indispensable parties, to this action. Renton has also filed 22 a motion to dismiss WD 90 as an appellant for lack of 23 standing. Because these motions have not been decided at the 24 time of submission of this brief, Renton wishes to continue to 25 assert its arguments as detailed in the briefs supporting 26 27 those motions and, to the extent the motions have not been 28 granted, Renton continues to assert these arguments. CITY Of REl';'TON'S BRIEf ON THE MERITS -Page 31 of39 WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER. DEAN I:; FONTES, P.S. ArTORSEYS "T I..AW POST Of'rICE DO" 6:!ti • Lflll :iOllTM S[CO,'I,O :.TR£ET R[.STOS, \I."ASH1."01'l,)N \1111)1\, (~utiJ '2~\·>ki;1t ! 'l .. ' '. U i.l . , 11 2 3 4 5 F. HAVE APPELLANTS PROPERLY PRESERVED AN APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ISSUE? CAN AN APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ALLEGATION AGAINST THE BRB'S ATTORNEY BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE BRB ITSELF? The appeal in this matter at page 10, lines 1 through 5, 6 and the opening brief at page 38, line 13 through page 39 line 7 15, allege that the attorney for the BRB has a conflict of 8 interest that affects or taints the BRB's impartiality. No 9 authority for that proposition has been cited. In fact, there 10 1 1 is contrary authority. , See Sherman v. State, 128 Wn.2d 164, 12 185, P.2d (1995) That case at footnote 4 states as 13 follows: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 "The trial court also concluded, like the ALJ, that the AAG's conduct violated the appearance of fairness doctrine. We note, however, that the appearance of fairness doctrine applies to the acts of administrative bodies, not to the conduct of indi vidual at torneys . See, e . g . , Narrowsview Preservation Ass'n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 420, 526 P.2d 897 (1974)." The Sherman case .also lays to rest appellants' argument that the BRB must produce a copy of the tape of the meeting of October 12, 1995, since the purpose is to review the record concerning the allegation of appearance of fairness violations 24 25 attributed to the BRB attorney. Since Sherman makes it clear 26 that the appearance of fairness doctrine applies to acts of 27 the BRB and not its attorney, there is no need to review the 28 CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 32 of 39 WARREN. KELLOGG. BARBER, DEAN C:J FONTES, P.S. ATTORSE"S AT LAW POST OFFICE oox 6~1j • 1011 sot.:TH S£CO~D STRC~:r RESTOs, .. liA..;;HISGTOS !l>!o ... t (~Ud) 2M-!W~!I , \ 1 2 record, and hence no need for the record. If the argument is 3 that the court should review the debate of the BRB, that has 4 already been submitted by transcript prepared by appellants. 5 The transcript of the debate is of little value, however, 6 since this court's task is to review the record to ensure that 1 there is substantial evidence to support the BRB's findings, 8 9 which is furthered by the testimonial and documentary record, 10 and not by debate. 1 1 12 13 14 The opening brief of appellants also alleges violations of the appearance of fairness doctrine because of ex parte communications with a witness. Apparently, the board chair, 15 Richard Schoon, spoke with Sid Foreman, off of the record (Tr. 16 .at 73-74). This witness, Mr. Foreman, is an employee of the 11 King County Health Department. Without more explanation, the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 contact described in the opening brief of appellants is not prohibited. See RCW 42.36.060: "During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the proceeding unless that person: (1) Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action; and (2) Provides that a public content of the communication rights to rebut the substance announcement of the and of the parties' of the communication WARREN, KELLOGG. BARBER, DEAN er FONTES, P.S. CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 33 of 39 ATTORSEYS A.T LAW POST O"ICE BOX 626 • 100 :3Ot.:TH SECQ,.,;o STRE:E:T RE!IITO~" ..... ·A. .... HI~,iGTO~' !I~1'i1 (:!()6J ~1I1\-lIti';'~ 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 shall be made at each hearing where action is cons ide red or taken on the subj ect to which the communication related. This prohibition does not preclude a member of a decision-making body from seeking in a public hearing specific information or data from such parties relative to the decision if both the request and the results are a part of the record. Nor does such prohibition preclude correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if any such correspondence is made a part of the record .when it pertains to the subject matter of a quasi-judicial proceeding." 10 In the case at bar the witness actually came forward and 11 fully testified on the record. There is no showing that the 12 BRB relied on anything outside of the record, and in fact the 13 ,testimony in the record is consistent with the BRB's findings. 14 See decision at pages 5 and 10 (Tr. 524 and 529) and testimony 15 16 at Tr. 83-86. 17 Even if the appearance of fairness doctrine applied, 18 appellants have not explained to this court why the objection 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 was not timely raised. RCW 42.36.080 requires promptness in raising an issue of appearance of fairness: "Anyone seeking to rely on the appearance of fairness doctrine to disqualify a member' of a decision-making body from participating in a decision must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for disqualification is made known to the individual. Where the basis is known or should reasonably have been known prior to the issuance of a decision and is not raised, it may not be relied on to invalidate the decision." CITY OFREN'TON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 34 of 39 WARREN. KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN 1!7 FONTES. P.S. ATTOR:-IEYS AT LAW POST OFfICE OOX d~ • 1(11) SQIJTH s£co,,'O ST.~.!:f.T REST\)N, .... 'A:iH[~uTON ..,,,o!';1 (~I)tJ1 "!!'i.'\·1IIj7K 1 Appellants Green and WD 90 were present at the hearing, 2 should have observed this conduct, and raised the issue when 3 4 any problem could be remedied. Also, note that appellants do 5 not seek to disqualify Mr. Schoon alone but the entire board. 6 However, there is no citation to the record or otherwise to 7 show any reliance on any ex parte communications. In fact, 8 9 the opposite is true. All of the findings of the BRB are 10 supported by testimony in the record. 11 This court is limited to the record before the BRB. There 12 13 14 is simply no factual support in the record to establish an appearance of fairness violation. 15 G. DOES GMA PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THIS ANNEXATION? 16 17 GMA has imposed new· criteria on the BRB. See RCW 18 36.93.157: 19 20 21 22 "The decisions of a boundary review board located in a county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 must be consistent with RCW 36.70A.020, 36.70A.110, and 36.70A.210." The cited statutory sections refer to statutes entitled 23 "Planning Goals, Comprehensive Plans -Urban Growth Areas and 24 Countywide Planning Policies." 25 The decision of the BRB discussed these statutory requirements and found that the 26 annexation met the requirements. (Decison, pages 3-9, Tr. 525- 27 28 531). CITY OF REl'.'TON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS· Page 35 of39 WARREN. KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN cr FONTES, P.S. ATIORSEYS A.T LAW POST O'FICE !lOX 6~6 • ItXl SOt..'TH SECOSO STREEi RE!<iTO!". WASHISUTON ~lIuti1 (~1I1>J 21\.\411;711 1 2 In fact, the Legislature apparently meant to have GMA 3 satisfy the objectives of the BRB. That is shown by RCW q 36.93.230, which authorizes the county to disband the BRB in 5 that county once the county and the cities and towns within 6 that county have adopted a comprehensive plan and consistent 1 development regulations pursui>nt to GMA. 8 It would appear, 9 that by complying with the county's planning goals, urban 10 growth areas, and Countywide Planning policies, the BRB 11 12 13 1 q complies with its objectives under the BRB statute. The area of the Burnstead annexation is located within a designated urban growth area (Tr. 19, 150). An urban growth 15 area is defined in RCW 36.70A.110(1) as follows: 16 11 18 19 " ... An urban growth area may include territory that is located .outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth. .Whether or not the urban growth area includes a city or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth ... " 20 By that same statutory section, each county that is 21 22 23 required to plan under GMA "shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged". Later, in RCW 36.70A.110, is stated " ... Each urban growth area 2q 25 shall permit urban densities ... " . 26 27 28 CITY OF REt-.'TON·S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 36 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER. DEAN er FONTES, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST orne! DOX 6~ri • 100 SOl:TH SECOND STREn RESTON. WA.'1HISOTOS 9!1O~7 t:,'U6J :!~5·>I6-:1t I \ I 1 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RCW 36.78.210(1) states that: " ... cities are primary providers of urban governmental services within urban growth areas. " Additionally, RCW 36.70A.110(4) states: "In general, cities are the units of local government most appropriate to provide urban governmental services. " Previously in this brief, under FACTS, there is a discussion of the Countywide Planning Policies that favor 10 annexation over incorporation and a city as the provider of 11 urban level of services. The BRB could make no other decision 12 than to approve this annexation and still comply with the 13 applicable sections of GMA and the Countywide Planning 14 Policies adopted under the Act. 15 16 H. IS THE CITY OF RENTOt;! REQUIRED TO ORDINANCE PRIOR TO BRB REVIEW QF THE 17 Appellants argue that the BRB was 18 19 this annexation because Renton did not ADOPT AN ANNEXATION ANNEXATION? compelled to reject attach a signed and 20 certified copy of the ordinance/resolution accepting the 21 proposal as officially adopted. The requirements of a notice 22 of intent ion to annex are contained in RCW 36.93.1-30. That 23 statute does not require a copy of an ordinance or resolution 24 25 to be submitted. When reviewing the BRB's Rules of Practice 26 and Procedure, it is interesting to note that the requirement 27 for the ordinance or resolution is included within the BRB 28 CITY OF RENTON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 37 of39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN e: FONTES, P.S. ATTORSEYS AT LAW POST O,,'CE 00" IJ'lIl • 100 sot."Tll SECO,,"O STRf.E1' RESTI)S ....... '-~H[SGTON 9110117 (:!UIi) 21m-1III111 1 section entitled "Background/Maps." There are several reasons 2 3 why the ERB did not rej ect this annexation for failure to 4 attach the annexation legislation: . 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 1. The information is background only and not statutorily required as part of the notice of intent to annex. 2 . Renton substantially complied by submitting a certified copy of its Council minutes showing acceptance of the annexation(BP 038) . 3. The omission was of a technical or minor nature not warranting the severe remedy of dismissal of the petition. 4. Before dismissing the petition the BRB would have contacted Renton and asked for the omitted document. Having 16 not taken that step, the BRB would not revert to the extreme 17 sanction of dismissal. 18 19 20 21 Whatever the reason for the BRB's action, the inclusion of the ordinance or resolution is not required by statute and apparently is for BRB purposes only. Since the information is 22 background only, the BRB could waive its rules or interpret 23 24 25 26 27 them in such a fashion as to not make the failure to include omitted background information as a reason for dismissal of the petition. In interpreting its own rules and regulations, the decision of the BRB is given substantial weight by the 28 courts. Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge, supra. CITY OF RE]\'TON'S BRlEF ON THE MERlTS • Page 38 of 39 WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN f:J FONTES, P.S. AiTORSEYS AT LAW POST O"ICE BOX 4!~d • \00 Wl:nt SECOND ~RE£T RESTON, "'ASH_SCTON 9KM1 (lllli) ':!.M.J4671l " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. CONCLUSION The court, after reviewing, the entire affirm the decision of the ERE. DATED THIS 18th day of April, 1996. 3.20:40.as. wrence Attorney Renton CITY OF REl\iON'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS -Page 39 of 39 record, should WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN f:; PONTES, P,S, ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE 00" 8~1I • 100 SOl;TI{ SECOND ~TR£r:T RESTON, ",,'A:>HISOTON \lKO",l (:!IMi) 21\.\-Mti~1I .. (' ,CIT'" Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren To: MEMORANDUM ~yor Jesse Tanner vMike Kattermann, Planning & Technical Services Director Billie Dunphy, COIUlcii Secretary From: Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney ,~~ .. .: ' .. " Date: April 3, 1996 Subject: Opening Brief of King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green ",' I am enclosing a copy of the opening brief by the opponents of the Bumstead annexation. Please review this docuUlent and provide me with any comments that you might have. I will be preparing a responsive brief and have approximately one month in which to do so. A copy of this brief is also being provided to Billie Dunphy for review by any interested Council members. LJW:as. Enclosure cc: Jay Covington ~. , Renton City Council A8:122.01. Post Office Box 626 -\00 S. 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 ® This paper contains 50"10 recycled material, 25% post consumer _. " . ,; •• , '. , .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTI KING COUNTI WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, ) a Washington municipal corporation; and ) NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN, husband ) and wife, ) Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTI, a state agency; and THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ---------------------------) NO. 95-2-27556-7 OPENING BRIEF OF KING COUNTI WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 AND NORMAN AND CYNTHIA GREEN 1. INTRODUCTION This case concerns the King County Boundary Review Board's ("BRE's") illegal and erroneous approval of a 400-acre annexation to the City of Renton. The annexation, poorly designed from the start, relies on an irregularly shaped parcel which, despite substantial gerrymandering, still lacks the legally required percentage of property owners' signatures. Further, the annexation splits King County Water District No. 90's existing service area in half, OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 1 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P.O, BOX 218.;6 SEAITLE.WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and will destroy the District's franchise to provide sewer service within its boundaries. Finally, the annexation also fails to meet the nine statutoI)' criteria required for annexation approval. The BRB nevertheless approved the annexation, apparently convinced it was under no duty to determine as a threshold matter whether the annexation had been submitted with the legally required number of petitions. As for substance, the BRB was apparently convinced that the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, absolved it of any duty to carefully apply the criteria for annexation review set out in the BRB statute. To make matters worse, in approving the annexation, the Board relied heavily upon the advice of its attorney, Robert Kaufman, who was at the same time counsel of record in another matter for some of the annexation proponents. These proponents, Mr. Kaufman's clientS, actually appeared and testified before the BRB. The Board then destroyed the tape recording of the meeting at which it discussed this issue with ~'fr, Kaufman, after it was raised by annexation opponents, Finally, the Board also engaged in ex parte communication when it conferred with an annexation proponent during a recess in a 'public hearing. Appellants Norman and Cynthia Green, who reside in the proposed annexation area, I I I I and the King County Water District No, 90, whose sewer franchise would be destroyed by the I annexation, therefore all respectfully request the Court to reverse the BRB's erroneous decision. : II. STATEMENT OF FACTS The annexation at issue was Originally initiated in 1994 by a developer, the Bumstead Company, which sought City of Renton sewer service for a 64-acre development Tr. Vol. I at 13 (testimony of Renton Planning and Technical Services Director,Michael Kattermann). The OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 2 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PlAZA P.O BOX 21846 SEATIlE. WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 I I .' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City conducted a public meeting in November 1994, and set the proposed annexation boundaries for an area of approximately 600 acres. As part of its public hearing, the City distributed flyers to the public informing them of the annexation. In one such flyer, the City included a map of the proposed 600-acre annexation area, and explained that because of a state law prohibition, it was not including local school district property: The boundary shown on the back defines the area for which an annexation has been initiated. The current boundary is subject to revision by the Renton City Council and then by the Boundary Review Board. • • • Since Washington State law requires that School District properties constitute the entirety of annexations. Maple Wood Heights Elementary has been excl uded from this proposal. R. 00604 (City of Renton Annexation Information brochure) (emphasis added). When petitions for the annexation were circulated, however, the City was unable to obtain the signature of the owners of 60 percent of the total assessed value of al; property in the I 1 II annexation area, as required by statute. This forced it to dramatically scale back the annexation area, from 600 acres to-only200'l'-(approximately)-acres;-However, the City and C ~ -..J Bumstead could not get sufficient signatures from property owners to support this annexati,?n. As a result, still determined to push the annexation through, the City changed its position and determined it would include the Renton School District's property, since including a large (and I . I 1 RCW 35A.14.120. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that there will be some baseline of public support for the annexation. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 3 HELSELL FETTERMAN ,\ 1"""irJI.i,,;'dill 1',,,,,,,,,1"1' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAlA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292-1144 I • therefore valuable) tract of land owned by a single (governmental) property owner (whose 2 signature the City could presumably obtain) would reduce the number of signatures needed to 3 support the annexation. Only after the City counted the value of Renton School District's 4 5 Maplewood Heights Elementary Schoo!, as well as the properties of several property owners ~o: ~who were misled into signing the petitiorn(they were told their signature would p~t the 7 JI'. ()d! ( ---- \J..~~~~ c.~nnexation up for a public election):Could the City proceed. Tr. Vol. I at 100; Testimony of ~~W~ ---~~ ~~ ~~ Don Maggard; Tr. Vol. II at 160; Tr. Vol. I at 93-94. The City Council then submitted a formal Ql'y Notice ofIntent to Annex to the King County Boundary Review Board on May 3.1995. R. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0061. A group of annexation area residents and property owner~. called Neighbors United for Representation (,'NUR,,).2 opposed the City's irregularly shaped annexation that would split their community in half. They therefore filed a petition with the Boundary Review Board invoking the requirement that the Board hold a public hearing to review the proposed annexation. R. 096-00083.3 The King County Water District No. 90. a local governmental jurisdiction. also submitted a letter to the Boundary Review Board objecting to the annexation 2 Appellants Norman and Cynthia Green are members of Neighbors United for Representation. 3 Although under RCW 36.93.100(3)(a) and (b) Neighbors United for Representation were required to submit signatures of the owners of property consisting of only 5% of the assessed valuation. or 5% of the registered voters. the petitions submitted contained the signatures of 27% of the registered voters. and 19.2% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area, well in excess of that required. R.00096. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -4 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P.O BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111·3846 PH: (2061292·' 144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and requesting formal Boundary Review Board review. R. 00082-81.4 In light of the Water District's request, and the NUR petitions which the Board found sufficient (R. 00110-108, at 00189), the Board set the matter for a public hearing on September 21, 1995. R. 00191. Prior to the hearing, the Greens and NUR requested that the Board summarily deny the annexation, pointing out that the statutes governing school districts pennit them to sign annexation petitions only when the school district property comprises the entirety of the area to be annexed. Here, it was pointed out, that was not the case. Therefore the City of Renton 4 Pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2), the Boundary Review Board's duty to conduct a hearing and review the annexation proposal can be triggered by a simple request for review of the proposal by "any governmental unit affected." OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -5 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE,WA 98111·3846 PH:(206J292·1144 -. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Green requests here to dismiss the annexation petitions. however. the Boundary Review Board allowed its attorney to decide that the Board would take no action upon the dismissal request. claiming that it was moot.s The matter then proceeded to a public hearing before the Board. At the hearing. the Boundary Review Board heard extensive testimony concerning the manner in which the annexation failed to comply with the statutory criteria. Neighbors United for Representation submitted a lengthy written rebuttal to the proposed annexation. complete with numbered and tabbed exhibits supporting its arguments.6 King County Councilmember .' Brian Derdowski testified on behalf of his constituents in opposition to the annexation. pointing out the thoroughness of the NUR written submittal/ and requesting that the BRE focus on the legal criteria and address the issue of the insufficiency of the petitions. Tr. Vol. I at 74-83. In the face of this evidence. the Board took a casual attitude toward the hearing. so s R. 00227 (August 30.1995, letter from Boundary Review Board Executive Secretary Alda Wilkinson to Boundary Review Board attorney Robert C. Kaufman requesting advice on how to handle letter from annexation opponents); at 00250 (letter dated September 6, 1995, from Boundary Review Board attorney Kaufman to Green's attorneys Eglick and Sterbank, advising Boundary Review Board "policy" not to address sufficiency of annexation petition); Tr. Vol. I at 10-12 (statement by Boundary Review Board attorney Kaufman stating that Boundary Review Board would not examine issue of illegality of School District's signature or sufficiency of annexation petitions). 6 The testimony and evidence highlighted the highly irregular shape of the proposed annexation area and described how it would fracture the existing East Renton Plateau co=unity, create an illogical sewer service area, and failed to use natural or physical boundaries. 7 Appellants request that the Court review this NUR submittal in detail in its entirety; it is contained in the record at R. 00429-304. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -6 HElSELl FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND Pt....llA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTlE,WA 98111·3846' PH: (2061 Z9Z·1 144 " 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much so that at one point, a member of the public testifying complained that Board members were laughing during his testimony. Tr. Vol. I at 66-67. At the close of the public's testimony, two Board members outlined in detail how the proposed annexation failed to meet the statutory requirements. Board member Loren DunnB explained: Mr. Dunn: I do think that, when you look at our objectives, that we come out on the negative with this more frequently, and perhaps frequently more frequently, than we do on the positive. I am deeply troubled by the creation of islands and peninsulas that show no prospect of getting . urban services in the future, with no coherent plan for dealing with that. And I think --I feel it would be irresponsible for me to vote in favor of any proposal that results in that. in the long-term absence of a plan for services to those areas. The --I am not persuaded that Renton is the logical service provider for the area that is in question here, not just the annexation area, but the area outside the annexation area .... I think Renton could be --very well be, as the logical service provider for this --for much of this area. But they have failed to bring forward a proposal that addresses effectively how to deal with those peninsulas and islands that would be created by this, * * * I think the comments that were made earlier about this being an annexation by design are appropriate in this instance. There isn't anything wrong with doing an annexation by design if it's well : designed. There isn't anything wrong with seeking services for the I properties that aren't developed yet out there and that deserved to be developed according to the County rules and regulations, and the I urban growth boundary plans .... The question really, in my mind. is, I is this a plan that is appropriate under the obiectives that we have I ______ h_e_r_e_,_a_n_d_I_i_ust don't see it. It doesn't use physical boundaries. And I 8 The Court may take official notice of the' fact that Mr. Dunn is himself an accomplished land use I attorney practicing with the Seattle law firm of Graham & James LLPlRiddell Williams, I OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 7 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGH SOUND Pl).lA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTlE.WA 9811\-3846 PH,(2061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm not talking about __ rivers here, I'm just talking about streets. It's quite appropriate to point out. I think, that on two-thirds of the boundaries here are lot lines. And that's something that we have historically had a great degree of difficulty in accepting as the basis for an annexation. In terms of logical service areas, I do think that by condemning this area to Renton without more specific plans for how to deal with the outlying areas, we may well be creating illogical service area. I agree that we're probably looking at __ ten years than five for sewers to this area, but the creation and preservation of logical service areas is what we're asked to do here, not to achieve the fastest service to the area. I think that that's verv important. .,. [W]e need to look at what is most logical, in the long-term perspective. And I don't think that that has been served well by the presentations that were before us. * * * With respect to abnormallv irregular boundaries, these are terribly abnormally irregular. And I think we'd be embarrassed under most circumstances to be even considering such irregular boundaries. The one area in which I disagree with A.J. is on adjustment of impractical boundaries. I am verv concerned that we are creating impractical boundaries. I don't know that I've had enough information to make a real strong decision on that, one way or the other. I am very concerned about that. Incorporation --on the incorporation of unincorporated areas or annexation, absolutely right, that thars what's going on here, and that's appropriate for this area, as it is included in an urban growth boundary. Discouragement of multiple incorporations, yes. I think this would discourage multiple incorporations. I think that in part this is truly a dagger pointed right at the heart of the Briarwood incorporation, and in that perspective it would be discouraging incorporation of a small area. So there are a couple of areas where this is clearly a suitable proposal. but for me the detractions are --way outweigh the consequences. I know the Board is troubled by the lack of --by th~ sewer services to certain of the developed areas. and the proximity in time that's supported by the attachment to Renton. I'm not entirely persuaded that there aren't other ways to deal with those OPENING BRIEF OF APPELU\NTS - 8 f-IELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATIlE,WA 98111-38';6 PH:j206)292·1144 .... : ..... .' .. " l' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 problems than incorporating a large portion of the area pursuant to a plan that doesn't fit our criteria the way it should. Tr. Vol. ill at 13-17 (emphasis added).9 Mr. Dunn's comments were seconded in large part by Board member A.J. Culver who, when he could point to specific evidence other than his own assumptions, concluded that the annexation did not meet the majority of the statutory objectives he believed were applicable: Let me, Madam Chair, run through the --some comments on the --on our objectives. And I'm gonna go backwards. The protection of agriculture lands, I consider that not applicable. Adjustment of impractical boundaries, I don't think that's applicable here. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts, I don't think that's applicable. Incorporations as cities or towns or annexation of cities and towns in unincorporated areas which are urban in character --I think that's very applicable here, and that's what's happening, is this is something --an area that is next to urban. It is in urban. And some of the area is urban. Some of the area next to it's very urban, and incorporated. So that is applicable. Discouragement of multiple incorporations in small cities, and encouragement of incorporation of city __ , etc. That was suggested that that is not --an approval of this would work against that objective. And I don't believe that to be so. This is not a multiple incorporation. It just is not. Logical service areas: it can be --this area can be serviced by Renton. Whether it's a logical service area for the whole east Renton plateau. probably not. Prevention of abnormal. irregular boundaries, and physical boundaries, etc., etc.: it doesn't do too well on that count. It is an irregular . boundary, there's no doubt about it. It's very irregular. Preservation of actual neighborhoods and communities: that's --I heard arguments on both sides for that. You can argue that this, because of the way the g Appellants urge the Court to read Board member Dunn's remarks --as well as the deliberations of the Board as whole --in their entirety, for what it shows aboutwhat evidence the Board considered as well as what it merely assumed. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 9 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE,WA 98111-JU6 PH.~206)292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 maps are presented. that the east Renton plateau is a community. And therefore this breaks that community apart. Well. I don't know whether that's true or not. It's partly in one school district, partly in another. I guess most of it's in one water district. You could also argue that this is an actual neighborhood in Renton, because it's Renton school district and Renton address. I'd say that would be --that would be a toss --I would assume that people who live in this area tend to shop in Renton. I will assume that. I didn't hear any testimony on that one way or another. Notwithstanding Mr. Dunn's and ~fr. Culver's hesitations, the Board voted to approve , I . I i I the annexation 9 to 1, with only ~fr. Dunn dissenting. Tr. Vol. ill at 25. Some Board members I indicated they did not believe it made a difference which way they voted. Tr. Vol. ill at 10 i (Board member Werner). And, apparently, the Board believed that because the annexation area' lay within King County's Urban Growth Area adopted under the Growth Management Act, all the Board needed to do was rubber stamp the annexation, because the area's ultimate merger with some city was a foregone conclusion. Tr. Vol. ill at 9-10,21 (Aldredge); at 24 (Werner). . . Thereafter, at its next regular meeting, on October 12, 1996, the Board adopted its Resolution and Hearing Decision on the Matter. R. 00535-517. Consistent with Board attorney Kaufman's statement at the commencement of the hearing, that written Decision ignores the issue of the sufficiency of the annexation petitions and the illegality of the School District's signature thereon. And, as if in anticipation of an appeal, the Board's decision added additional; findings and rationales --not stated by the Board in its deliberations on September 26 --to buttress them. See R. 00534-522, generally. This appeal followed. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -10 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,D BOX 218.l6 SEArTlE. WA 98111-3846 PH: (2061 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 III. ARGUMENT A. Introduction. In reviewing a proposed annexation. a Boundary Review Board must do several things. First. it must consider whether the Notice of Intention to Annex and the petitions upon which it relies comply with the applicable statutes and Board Rules of Practice and Procedures. RCW 35A.i4.120 -.140; King County Boundary Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure at Rule 1.B.l.1D Second. the Board must consider many factors. generally organized into three categories: (1) the physical layout and characteristics of the proposed annexation area and its environs; (2) the municipal services at issue and their costs; and (3) the effect of the annexation proposal on adjacent areas and the county governmental structure. RCW 36.93.170(1)-(3). Third. after considering the factors outlined in .170. the Board "shall." in rendering a decision. attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1) preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; (3) creation and preservation of logical service area; (4) prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of 10,000 population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; 10 A complete copy of the BRB's Rules are attached as Appendix A . OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANfS -11 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATIlE.WA 98111·3846 PH:(2061292·1144 .. 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (7) adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) incorporation as cities or towns or annexations of cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and (9) protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long- term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. RCW 36.93.180. These objectives are more than simply aspirational; "a decision which fails to achieve the objectives of RCW 36.93.180 is reversible." King County v. Boundcuy Review Board, '122 Wn.2d 648, 673, 860 P.2d i024 (1993).11 This principle (that a Board decision which fails to further the objectives is reversible) does not imply that a decision may be approved if it furthers only one objective; instead, the statutory objectives in RCW 36.93.180 must, on balance, be furthered overall before a Board may approve an annexation. [d. at 673- 675. B. Standard of Review. On appeal, a superior court's review of a Boundary Review Board decision is govemed by RCW 36.93.160(6), which states as follows: The Superior Court may affirm the decision of the Board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: a) in violation of constitutional provisions, or 11 "On at least one previous occasion, tI reviewing court has overturned Boundary Review Board decisions based on such a failure." King County v. Boundmy Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at 673 (citing Snohomish County v. Hinds. 61 Wn. App. 371, 379. 810 P.2d 84 (1991). OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -12 HELSELL FETTERMAN .11.""II,'oIl.i,,Ioi/j/'/'dn"'·"'''I' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEAnLE,WA 98111-3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 9 10 . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . ,'. b) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board, or c) made upon an unlawful procedure, or d) affected by other error of law, or e) unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or f) arbitrary or capricious. In undertaking this review, the Superior Court examines the evidence and record of the proceedings before the Board. RCW 36.93.160(5); King County v. Boundruy Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at671. In doing so, the reviewing court must: [EJngage in a comprehensive "balancing" of the various objectives to determine whether the objectives were more advanced or harmed by the Boundary Review Board's decision. • • • Boundary ReviewBoard decisions may be reversed when unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. The statute's reference to the "entire record" supports the proposition that judicial review of the RCW 36.93.180 objective is to involve examination of each of the objectives. . Id. at 673 (emphasis added). A decision that is not supported by a record containing "evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded rational person of the truth of the declared premise" is not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 675 .. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANrS -13 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE.WA 98111·38*6 PH: (206) 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C. The Boundary Review Board Lacked Iurisdiction to Consider the Proposed Annexation, Because the Annexation Petition Lacked the Legally Required Percentage of Signatures. 1. The Boundary Review Board Failed to Review the Sufficiency of the Annexation Petitions. Pursuant to RCW 36.93.l60(6)(b), the Boundary Review Board's decision may be reversed if it is "in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Board ... " Here,. the King County Boundary Review Board lacked jurisdiction to even enter its Decision, because the City of Renton's "60 percent Petition" was legally insufficient because it was illegally based on the signature of the Renton School District, and, without the School District's signature, the Petition failed to contain the required signatures of the owners of 60 percent of the annexation area's assessed value, as required by RCW 35A.14.l20. RCW 35A.14.l20-.l40 contains a list of detailed steps that must be complied with before a Boundary Review Board may consider a Notice ofIntent to Annex. These steps include, inter alia, the filing of a Petition containing the signatures of the owners of 60 percent of the annexation area's assessed value, along with a legal description and map; the holding of a public hearing; the adoption by the local legislative body of an ordinance annexing the proposed area; and the filing of the annexation ordinance with the Board of County Commissioners of the county in which the annexation area is located. The King County Boundary Review Board's own Rules of Practice and Procedure require that~ before a city may seek Board approval of an annexation, the annexing city must submit a Notice of Intention to Annex meeting the Board's requirements. Board Rule 1.B.l requires that: OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -14 HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PL).ZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE,WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 NOTICES OF INTENTION shall be submitted following the appropriate format, which shall be furnished by the Executive Secretary upon request. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the Notice of Intention format currently in use. King County Boundary Review Board Rule 1.B.l.12 The King County Boundary Review Board's current format requires that a Notice of Intention include: A signed and certified copy of the resolution/ordinance [accepting the annexation] proposal as officially passed. Notice ofIntention format a~ 1.2. This is required so that the Board can assure itself that the municipality has actually approved of the annexation based upon a valid petition, since a municipal legislative body is required to adopt an ordinance if it "determines to effect the annexation." RCW 35A.14.140. Attaching the ordinance (which must incorporate by reference the required Petition) allows the Board to review the Notice in light, inter alia, of the RCW 35A.14 requirement that a local government determine that the petition contains the requisite percentage of signatures before proceeding. When the Board determines, after review, that a Notice of Intention is defective, the Board must deem the Notice void and return it to the initiating party. Board Rules 8 and 9 states as follows: 8. Review The Board shall review as provided in RCW 36.93.100, all Notices of Intention as filed in accordance with RCW 36.93.090 and the Rules of Practice and 12 A complete copy of ilie Bow'd's Rules of Practice and Procedure is attached to this Opening Brief I as Appendix A. I OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -15 . I HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WA 98111-3846 PH: 12061292-1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Procedure (I.B.5 Notices of Intention: Filing Date), on the basis of the legal description contained in said Notice of Intention [as required by RCW 36.93.130(3)] on the date the filing is assigned as provided in these Rules of Practice and Procedure (1.B.6. Notices ofIntention: Notice to the Board). 9. Declaration as Void All Notices of Intention not in condition for official filing within six months following the date of receipt, due to legal insufficiency, shall be deemed void and the Executive Secretary will, following the end of the sixth month, return to the initiator all materials therein submitted by the initiator. Rules I.B.8 and 9: The King County BRE has taken just this type of action --returning a Notice of Intention as void' --in circumstances analogous to this case. For example, in The Matter of the Proposed Incorporation of the City of Vashon Island, the Board, through its counsel, advised the submitter of a Notice of Intent to Incorporate that the Board could not proceed to take action on the incorporation proposal for Vashon Island because "the Board is required to exclude the entirety of Vashon Island from the proposed incorporation." The Board's counsel (Robert C. Kaufman, the same attorney representing the King County BRE before this Court) stated: In order for a Notice of Intent of a proposed incorporation to be legally sufficient. the notice must complv with Board rules. In the case of incorporations, the rules require very specific financial and other data for the Board's determination of the feasibility of a new city. In lieu of providing specific information, proponents of an incorporation may provide the Board with assurances that a study will be conducted and made part of the Notice of Intent. As of this writing. no study has been conducted, the information required by the Board's Notice of Intention format has not been submitted, and the Board does not have a legallv sufficient filing in this matter. After lengthy research and review, I have advised the Board (and the Board has accepted my opinion) that it is legally impossible to incorporate Vashon Island under existing law. Accordingly. the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is returning your Notice of Intent without action. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -16 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE,WA 98111·3846 PH:(206)292-1144 . ". " --J' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 R. 00206 -205 (Letter dated August 22, 1994, from Special Assistant Attorney General . Robert C. Kaufman to Carol R. Campbell (emphasis added)). Here, although the ERE's Executive Secretary forwarded Renton's Notice of Intent to its ' attorney, Mr. Kaufman, to determine its legal sufficiency (R. 00067), he. apparently failed to consider Renton's failure to submit a copy of its annexation ordinance or the petitions on which it was based. R. 00072; Tr. Vol. I at 10-12 (remarks of ERE counsel Kaufman). The ERE (and Mr. Kaufman) should have, however, followed the same procedure they followed in the Vashon Island case, by refusing to take action on Renton's petition because it was legally impossible for the ERE to proceed with an annexation petition relying on School District property to meet the required percentage of signatures. 2. Renton's 60% Petition Violates the Prohibition in State Law Against a School District Ioining With Other Property Owners to Petition for Annexation. The City of Renton's Notice of Intent claims to be supported by valid signatures of owners of 60% of the total assessed valuation of the area to be annexed. The City's May 3, 1995, cover letter to the ERE, enclosing its Notice ofIntent, states as follows: This annexation is proposed under the 60%petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW. The petition contains signatures representing about 62.4% of the total 1995 assessed valuation within the proposed annexation area. R. 00061. What the letter does not disclose, however, is that the claimed 62.4% relies upon the signature of the Renton School District purporting to authorize inclusion of the Maplewood Heights Elementary School property within the annexation area. The School District property comprises more than 4% of the claimed 62.4% of total assessed value. R. 0.00219 (Petition to OPENING ERIEF OF APPELLANTS -17 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O, BOX 21846 SEAITlE,WA 98111·3846 PH:1206)292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Annex to the City of Renton under RCW 35A.14.120 (60% Petition -Bumstead Annexation), at 2).13 Without the School District's property the total percentage falls to 58%. R. 000218 (Spreadsheet showing percentage of valuation represented by Maplewood Heights Elementary). The Renton. School District, however, lacks any legal authority to sign the annexation petition. Washington law is clear. School districts are creatures of stcite law and .therefore have only the authority granted them by the Legislature. See, e.g., RCW 28A.320.015(1)(b) (school district board of directors may exercise powers to determine educational policies along with other powers "expressly authorized by law" or "necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.,,).14 As the Supreme Court explained in Noe v.Edmonds School Dist., 83 Wn.2d 97,103,515 P.2d 977 (1973): [School districts] are created by the legislature and can exercise only such powers as the legislature. has granted in expressed words, or those necessary or fairly implied in, or incident to, powers expressly granted or those essential to the declared objects and purposes of such district. \3 The petition is signed by Gary F. Kohlwes, the Superintendent of the Renton School District, and lists the tax lot number for Maplewood Heights Elementary Schoo!. 14 R. 00285 (AGO 1988 No.2 (school districts lack authority to establish adolescent health care or health improvement programs, or contract with private or other public agencies to provide such services)); R. 00282 (AGO 1990 No.8 (school districts lack authority to finance acquisition ofreal property by borrowing from institutional lender and securing repayment with purchase money security interest on the property)). OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -18 " ,. " HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 ?UGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEAITLE.WA 911111·3846 PH:(2061292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 Wn.2d at 103.'5 While the Legislature has expressly granted school districts sorrie authority to sign a petition for annexation. that authority can only be exercised in very limited circumstances set out in RCW 28A,335.110: In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law. every Board of Directors. if seeking to have school property annexed to a city or town and if such school property constitutes the whole of such property in the annexation petition. shall be allowed to petition therefor under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130. (Emphasis added.) Thus. a school district may petition for annexation in only two circumstances: (1) when it petitions under RCW 35.13; and (2) when the school property the district seeks to have annexed constitutes the whole of the property to be annexed. Id.'6 Here. the proposed annexation meets neither of the two criteria set forth in RCW 28A.335.110. First. because Renton is a code city operating under the Optional Municipal Code. RCW Title 35A. the annexation is proposed under RCW 35A.14. not RCW 35.13. Yet. it is only under Title 35 --not Title 35A--that RCW 28A.335.110 grants school districts power to 15 Howard v. Tacoma Sch. Dis!. 10.88 Wash. 167. 152 P. 1004 (1915); Seattle High Sch. Chapter 200 v. Sharples. 159 Wash. 424. 293 P. 994 (1930); State ex reI. Tacoma Sch. Dis!. No. 10 v. Clausen. 126 Wash. 90. 217 P. 712 (1923). 16 The City may claim. as it did below. that RCW 28A does not apply because RCW 35A.14.120 does not cross reference RCW 28A. However. RCW 35A.28.010 expressly states that: Code cities shall have the authority to enter into contracts for joint acquisition ofland and improvement thereof with school districts. Code cities and their relationship with public schools. colleges and school districts shall be governed by the provisions of general law. including Titles 28A and 28B RCW. RCW 35A.28.010 (emphasis added). Because a code city's relationship with a school district is already expressly governed by RCW 28A (per RCW 35A.28.010), it is irrelevant whether RCW 35A.14.120 cross references school districts or RCW 28A: OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS-19 -.' . HELSELL FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATIlE, WA 98111-3846 PH: (2tlS) 292·,,44 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 seek to have school property annexed. In short, pursuant to the first requirement in RCW 28A.335.110 that governs school districts, district directors do not have authority to sign petitions for annexation under RCW 35A.14.120, nor do petitioning cities operating under RC Title 35A have authority to include school districts on their petitions. The second requirement of RCW 28A.335.110, which once again is the Legislature's onl grant of limited authority to school directors to file annexation petitions, is also not met here. The Maplewood Heights Elementary School property o1lVIled by the Renton School District does not comprise the whole of the property being annexed as required under RCW 28A.335.110. Rather, as noted above, it constitutes only approximately 4% of it. Accordingly, the Renton School District director's signature is invalid and unlawful. The King County BRB itself has recognized the prohibition against school districts' participation in general annexations. In its Resolution and Hearing Decision concerning the' Newport Hills annexation, the Board acknowledged the exclusion of three Bellevue School District properties from an annexation proposal before it because of RCW 28.335.110's prohibi tion: The school district properties were eliminated from the original proposal due to a prohibition in state law against school district properties joining together with other properties to petition for annexation. R. 00211 (Resolution and Hearing Decision, dated December 11, 1992, in In Re City of Bellevue Proposed Annexation [for) Newport Hills, King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773, at 7) (emphasis added). OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -20 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.D.BOX 21846 SEATIlE.WA 98111·3846 PH:1206)292·1144 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Likewise, the City of Renton here also recognized --at least initially --that the Renton School District cannot legally sign a general annexation petition like the Bumstead annexation petition at issue here. Early in the annexation process, in the summer of 1994, the City of Renton published an Annexation Information bulletin, stating: Since Washington State law requires that school district properties constitute the entirety of annexations Maplewood Heights Elementary has been excl uded from this proposal. R. 00604 (Annexation Information bulletin) (emphasis added). Apparently, when the City later realized that annexation proponents would not be able to obtain sufficient signatures to support annexation, the City changed its mind and, contrary to its public pronouncements - and the la\v --accepted a petition with the School District's signature, and included the school within the annexation area. The King County BRE has not hesitated in analogous circumstances to return defective Notices of Intent without action because of legal impossibility. The legal impossibility inherent in the City of Renton's Notice of Intent is no less palpable: it has submitted a Petition I I which blatantly relies on School District property when such reliance, as the Board has I acknowledged in earlier decisions, is illegal. This illegality deprived the King County BRE of ! jurisdiction to proceed with consideratiori of the annexation, and its subsequent decision purporting to approve it was therefore in error. D. The Boundary Review Board's Decision Failed to Further the Statutory Objectives Set Forth in RCW 36.93.180. Even assuming the Boundary Review Board had jurisdiction to consider the proposed annexation, its Decision even as articulated by the Board fails to further as a whole the nine OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -21 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO FLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE.WA 98111-38-'6 PH:!206)292·1144 .. ,. '." ',,-',' ;-', I , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 statutory objectives set forth in RCW 36.93.180(1)-(9), and therefore must be reversed as unsupported by material and substantial evidence and as arbitrary and capricious. RCW 36.93.160(6)(e) and (f). As noted above, each ERE finding concerning an annexation's , . . compliance with a particular statutory factor must be reviewed by the Court, and a ERE decision that is unsupported by substantial evidence or that is arbitrary and capricious is reversible. King County v. Bo un druy Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at 673-75. Here, the ERE's . . barely lukewarm statement that the Decision only "tends to accomplish" the statutory objectives indicates the ERE's inability to endorse the proposed annexation. R. 00525 (Decision at 9). A review of the individual objectives further demonstrates that the ERE's findings are both unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious, and require reversal. 1. The Annexation Fails to Further the Preservation of the Natural East Renton Plateau Neighborhood and Community. The proposed annexation, and the BRE's approval of it, fails to further the preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, as required by RCW 36.93.180(1). "Natural I neighborhoods" mean: Either distinct geographical nreas or socially and locationally distinct groups of residences. I. \ King County v. Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at 676. Where annexation includes only half of a geographically distinct plateau, it harms "a natural neighborhood." Spokane County Fire Protection District #9 v. Spokane County Boundruy Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 927, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982). OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANrS -22 HELSELL FE T T E R M'A N 1500 PUGET SOUND PlAZA P,O. BOX 21845 SEATTLE, WA 98'11·3846 PH: 12061292·1144 l<fqO~us • R.IJ-.~~ H-:s h,~ 5. J ~. 11\.;. 'td.6/03 7 Gt7( R.en~ 'Aj~LJ: Cf!)P . /0."3 ~~. ih ,_ . if;YiO J..p~'1'iI:s '1S-;A t'~~ ft9f· J 3/;)/r ryd;tt-v-a/t..£-~/aoK ~ ,;..a~, 1~3K ~~ j(p,d.. G~. ~,'. pop, '-I? ~ tt' / '" :2 Y3 hPw;./~ 1»-; f-s I tfj '" r t!1c;.v"PI~ u,J1-val""",?/~3?V K )lIa~ ~)/T; ?z7' -, ~; M'H/J-t ttLl'7;)1}5 'It'd Ifh ~ Y ~ 't '0 '}~? ytffO liN '31'?:i #.... " . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The BRB's decision does not disagree that its decision does not furtHer preservation of natural neighborhoods, but only states that the proposed annexation "is not inconsistent with the objective specified in RCW 36,93,[1]80(1)," R000524 (Decision at 10), Even this holding, however, is unsupported by substantial evidence, and in fact affirmatively ignores substantial evidence to the contrary, For example, as Appellant Norman Green pointed out in his testimony, the East-Renton Plateau is recognized by the U,S. Census Bureau as a "census-designated place" ("CDP"j. The Plateau community has been recognized as a separate and unique community, and is rated by the American Suburbs Rating Guide and Fact Book as a separate community rated number 1 in fIl~ lvl/l/5 '63:)0;)'7 I the Seattle-Tacoma area for community stability, and number 3 overall (behind Mercer Island and Newcastle), Tr. Vol. I at 43-44; R00417, 00389 (comparing ranking of East-Renton Highlands Community with City of Renton in categories of economics, affordable housing, open spaces, education, and community stability), The King County Water District #90, and King County Fire District #25, were created to serve only the Plateau community, R00417. The East-Renton Plateau has its own community council. which also opposed the annexation, Tr. Vol. I at 54-57. And, the proposed annexation would remove the heart of this [East-Renton Highlands Plateau] community, seriously affecting the East-Renton Plateau's ability to continuej as a unique and distinct community. This arises in part from the fact that the annexation area I I splits existing residential subdivisions in several places, R 00416, R 00359 (Map, at Nos. 1 through 6), OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -23 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE, WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Beard's Decisien. hewever. cempletely and arbitrarily ignered this evidence. and instead fecused en cenflicting testimeny ef residents as to. whether particular individuals felt mere a part efRenten 0.1' net. R00525 (Decisien at 9). The Beard cencluded: The prepesed annexatien weuld cause no. disruptien ef the greater cemmunity. R00525 (Decisien at 9). Apparently. the Beard based its decisien selely en Beardmembers' assumptiens: Beardmember Culver: Yeu can argue that this. because ef the way the maps are presented. that the East Renten Plateau is a community. And therefore this breaks a cemmunity apart. Well. I den't knew whether that's true or net. It's partly in ene scheel district. partly in anether. I guess mest ef it's in ene water district. Yeu ceuld also argue that this is a natural neighberhoed in Renton. because it is Renten Scheel District and Renten address. I'd say--that weuld be a tess-- I weuld assume that peeple who live in this area tend to. shop in Renten. I will assume that. I didn't hear any testimenv en that ene wav er anether. Tr. Vel. ill at 7-8 (emphasis added). Beardmember Ingraham: And I can see that drawing a line dewn threugh the map and creating a new beundarv pertaining to. the City ef Renten mav disrupt seme neighberheeds as far as bleck to. bleck and street to street. but I think that en a day-in. day-eut basis. peeple are genna centinue to. shep and go. to. church. and they're all in the Renten Scheel District and have fire service from the same seurce. and so. ferth. And. reallv. there is no. disselutien ef the greater cemmunity here. There may be seme desire to. try to. incerperate seme ef this into a new cemmunity. and maybe that has seme merit. But putting this into Renten. this is part ef Renton. Semebedy __ that they have Renten addresses. and it seems to. me that this will centinue to. be the cemmunity that it is. [d. at 12-13. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -24 HELSELL FETTER-MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WA 98111·384& PH: (206J 292-1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Boardmember Werner: Id .. at 23. But I happen to agree with a lot of comments that were made by other Board Members here with respect to preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. We've seen other annexations, and you can always say that somehow or other these are going to disrupt the communitv or going to split it: people on one side of the street will be alienated from the ones on the other. I think Mr. Ingraham expressed that guite well. that the communi tv will probably continue to function regardless of our scope of action tonight. In short. the BRE disregarded the affirmative evidence and testimony concerning designation by the U. S. Census Bureau. and pre-existing discreet governmental entities (Water District. Fire District) to serve the Plateau community. indicating the East-Renton Plateau is a separate and distinct community. and that the annexation would not only not preserve that natural community. but would affirmatively disrupt it. Further. it failed to recognize that. because the annexation was of only a portion of the geographically distinct I East-Renton Plateau. it harmed a natural neighborhood. Spokane County Fire. 97 Wn.2d at . ! 927. The Board's holding on this factor was not supported by substantial evidence, and must be reversed. 2. The BRE's Decision Hinders the Use of Physical Boundaries Although the BRE conc:luded that the proposed annexation partially supports the objective in RCW 36.93.180(2) that annexations "use physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours" (R. 00524), the Decision in fact affirmatively hinders the use of physical boundaries. Washington courts have determined that OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -25 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITLE.WA 98111-3846 PH:(2C6/292·1144 i I I i i I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "legal [lot] boundaries" are not "physical" for the purposes of this objective. Spokane County Fire Protection District No.9, 97 Wn.2d at 927, n.1, followed King County v. Boundary Review Boord, 122 Wn.2d at 677. A proposed annexation that uses predominantly lot lines fails to use physical boundaries. King County v. Boundary Review Boord, 122 Wn.2d at 677 (annexation based entirely upon lot lines failed to use physical boundaries); Snohomish Countyv. Hinds, 61 Wn. App. 371, 381, 810 P.2d 84 (Div. I 1991) (annexation which split a drainage basin and used lot lines for boundary south of 132nd Street failed to use physical boundaries); Spokane County Fire Protection Dist. No.9, 97 Wn.2d at 927 (inside of L-shaped annexation was contiguous to city boundary, one-half to two-thirds of remainder based on existing roads and river bluff and therefore furthered objective of using physical boundaries). As Board member Loren Dunn succinctly put it, lot lines are "something that we have historically had a great degree of difficulty in accepting as the basis for an annexation." Tr. Vol. III at 15. Here, the evidence was uncontrad,icted that two-thirds of the annexation area boundaries were based on property lot lines, rather than streets. [d.; Tr. Vol. I at 44 (testimony I of Norman Green); R. 00415-414. Further, the annexation area carves a small area out of the larger, overlying May Creek Drainage Basin and the Cedar River Drainage Basin, and ignores the natural topogrephy of the East Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Collection Basin and the natural land contours formed by the Cedar River bluffs and/or the canyon between the existing City . limits and the area west of the proposed annexation border. [d.; R. 00358; Tr. Vol. II at 202 (testimony of Rod Dembowski). The ratio of portions where the annexation area abuts the City's existing boundaries, as compared to areas where it does not abut, is only 1 to 18. Tr. Vol. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -26 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE,WA 98111·38.t6 PH:(206)Z92·1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I at 46 (testimony of Norman Green). Finally, although King County Councilmember Brian Derdowski challenged the City of Renton and the Board to examine the aerial map for an illustration of how the proposal fails to use physical boundaries, the City of Renton's only response was to state that topographical lines do not present any barriers to service. Tr. Vol. II at 217 (testimony of Renton Planning and Technical Services Director Mike Katterman). As Boardmember Dunn summed up the evidence: The question really, in my mind. is. is this a plan that is appropriate under the objectives that we have here. and I just don't see it. It doesn't use physical boundaries. And I'm not talking about rivers here, I'm just talking about streets. It's quite appropriate to point o~hink. that on two-thirds of the boundaries here are lot lines. And that's something that we have historically had a great degree of difficulty in accepting as the basis for an annexation. Tr. Vol. ill at 15 (emphasis added). The BRB's written Decision acknowledges that two-thirds of the annexation area boundaries are lots, but ignores the remaining evidence discussed above and concludes that the annexation "partially supports" the use of physical boundaries. Using this logic, an '. annexation would only have to use a portion of a single street as a boundary to allow the Board I to conclude that the objective was "partially" supported. In light of the overwhelming, uncontradicted evidence demonstrating that the annexation fails to "use physical boundaries" as required by RCW 36.93.180(2), the Board's finding that the annexation "partially supports" the objective (R. 00542 (Decision, p. 10)) was not supported by substantial evidence and was error. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -27 HELSELL FETTER-MAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PlAZA P.O. BOX Z1846 SEATTLE,WA 98111·3846 PH:(2061292·1144 I 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 BRB's Decision Fails to Create or Preserve Logical Service Areas The BRB's decision also fails to create or preserve logical service areas, as required by RCW 36.93.180(3). A logical service area is one for which a service provider has prepared a i .. long-term plan (for several decades) and has the capability to provide service, and which takes i into account the entire service area bounded by natural boundaries and does not require additional annexations to fill in the gaps. Richland v. Franklin County Bo un druy Review Board. 100 Wn.2d 864, 871, 676 P.2d 425 (1984). Here, with respect to the key service at issue, sewer service, the BRB erroneously based i , , its conclusion upon which entity (the City of Renton or the King County Water District No. 90) i could provide service faster, and ignored the issue of whether annexation created a "logical" service area. The Board also ignored evidence concerning the annexation's adverse effect on logical police service areas. The ERE's Decision was therefore erroneous as a matter of law, unsupported by substantial evidence and!or was arbitrary and capricious, contrary to RCW 36.93.160(6)(d), (e), and (t), and should be reversed. The BRE Decision, and the transcript of the Board's deliberations, demonstrate that the BRB's chief focus was on how fast sewer service could be provided, not on whether the annexation created or preserved a logical service area. R. 00524 (Decision at 10); Tr. Vol. ill at i I 5-6 (comments by Board member Culver), at 10 (comments of Board member Aldredge), at 11, I 17 (comments of Board member Neiman ("I do believe that the City of Renton would be able to I solve that problem a few years earlier than Water District 90")). The Board was apparently concerned about timing because some large land owners had testified concernir:g their desire OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -28 HELSELL FETTER.MAN tll.i"",.-dl,i"/J(li/ll'.m",·,,/lII' 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE, WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 " ','.~. -." .,' . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for sewers so they could subdivide and develop their property (Tr. Vol. ill at 11 (comments of Neiman)), and because of alleged failing septic systems in the vicinity.17 This concern, however, is completely irrelevant to the issue RCW 36.93.180(3) directs the Board to examine: whether the annexation will create or preserve logical service areas. Board member Dunn expressly warned the Board on this issue: In terms of logical service areas, I do think that by condemning this area to Renton without more specific plans for how to deal with the outlying areas, we may well be creating illogical service area. I agree that we're probably looking at __ ten years than five for sewers to this area, but the creation and preservation of logical service areas is what we're asked to do here. not to achieve the fastest service to the area. I think that that's verv important. We need to look---while it's appropriate for the School Board and for Renton to look at how they can get services out there fastest, we need to look at what is most logical. in the long-term perspective: And I don't think that that has been served well by the presentations that were before us. Tr. Vol. III at 16 (emphasis added). In fact, the only evidence before the Board demonstrated that the annexation would , hinder the creation of a logical selvice area. King County Water District No. 90 Commissioner I i }'Jac Lovell testified that the Water District had prepared a plan to provide gravity-fed sewer ' service (the most economical alternative, when compared to expensive pumping) to the entire May Creek Drainage Basin, at a cost of only $725 per household. Tr. Vol. I at 30-41. He also 17 This latter issue was a red herring, since the areas identified by a representative of the King County Health Department as having failing septic systems were located predominately outside the annexation area. See Tr. Vol. I at 84-85 (testimony of County Health Department representative Sid Forman, concerning McGarvey's Addition and Puget Colony homes, located "outside the annexation area."). . . OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -29 HELSELL FETTERMAN .t/""II/.·,f{,w/',i",I',u/''''F1;''I' 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAnlE.W:' 98111·3846 PH:~2061292·1144 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 testified that the District had the financial capability, because it had no debt and an existing credit line to finance an additional planning necessary as well as construction. [d. Renton, on the other hand, had planned to serve only the annexation area, and had no plans to deal with provision of sewer service to the unincorporated peninsulas created by the annexation to the north and south of the annexation area; indeed, Renton,representatives could only testify that they, "felt" Renton has the potential to provide sewer service to the peninsula areas, but the City migh,t wind up contracting with Water District No. 90 to do so!. Tr. Vol. II. at 126_28.18 The Washington Supreme Court addressed this issue in the context of competition between the cities of Pasco and Richland to annex property. The court stated: Pasco had drawn up plans to service the entire annexation area for the next severa decades and had demonstrated its capability to carry out the plan. Its plans were mor ambitious and long term than were Richland's in addition, Pasco's annexation woul use the Columbia River as a bounda!}'. Richland's plans were to annex a smaller are immediately across the G:olumbia River and to provide it with services by extendin~ sewer and water lines across the liver. Richland's proposal w, ould extend its boundaries across the Columbia and into Franklin County. Richland argued that. the Ian remaining between its newly created boundalies across the Columbia and Pasco could be annexed and served by Pasco. I From this, it is evident that Pasco was the most logical municipality to provide the entire annexation area with the needed services and to provide the soundest growth pattern for the area., 18 To the extent that the issue of timing of sewer service is relevant, the Board's findings that the City could provide sewer before the Water District could is not supported by substantial evidence. Renton's adopted plans indicate that extending sewer service to the annexation would require expensive pumping. Although Renton officials indicated at the hearing (in response to the Water District's proposal) that the City suddenly felt that it could use gravity sewers for 80-90% of the annexation area, it provided no concrete evidence or actual plans to back up this assertion. Tr. Vol. II at 221. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -30 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O, BOX 21846 SEATIlE, WA 98111-3846 PH: 12Q6) 292·1144 2 3 4 . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Richland, 100 Wn.2d at 871. Here, like the City of Pasco, the Water District has drawn UI1 plans to serve the entire sewer drainage basin area for the next several decades; its plans ar more ambitious and long term than the City of Renton's, whose plans are limited to service 0 the annexation area and a limited area for its East Renton Sewer Interceptor outside of it. Renton has no plans to servo the areas north and south of the annexation area, unlike th Water District. Further, like Pasco, the Water District's plans use natural boundaries (the Ma Creek Drainage Basin), while the City of Renton does not. Finally, the City of Renton, like the City of Richland, argues that the unincorporated .land remaining can be later annexed to the l City of Renton to obtain City of Renton sewer service. Given these facts, and the law as established in Richland, the Board's decision that the annexation area created a logical serviJ area was erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence, and must be reversed. The Board's decision also failed to preserve a logical service area with respect to provision of police services. The evidence before the Board, in the form of a letter from Kingl County Police Precinct Commander Lany Mayes, that the annexation proposal leaves ani , I isolated peninsula of unincorporated King County, which creates concerns for provision 0[1 I emergency and police services, in part because Renton and King County use different streetl numbering and address protocols, which make response by King County police officers morel difficult in an emergency. Tr. Vol. II at 204-205; R. 00687 (September 26; 1995, letter to BREI from Major Lany G. Mayes, Southeast Precinct Commander, King County Department o~ Public Safety). There was no evidence before the Board that police response time would not OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -31 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA P,O. aox 21846 SEArTlE. WA 98111·3846 PH:j2061292·11.l4 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 away: I I I I I . I But one of the things I'm going to speak to here is the fact that the King Countyj policy mentioned the difficulty they would have if this annexation were to take place, and that they would have to traverse through incorporated city streets to geti to some of their constituents that they're still connected to. Frankly, that's a bit of ~ 'specious argument, becau,se this situation is just in and around practically everyj city, and the police don't avoid the streets that are not county maintained, b}1 circling. So I think that, as someone said, this becomes kind of transparent, and iii really not really an issue. I Tr. Vol. III at 23-24 (Boardmember Werner). The Board's failure to address the issue oft preservation of illogical service areas for police services was arbitrary and capricious, andi unsupported by substantial evidence, providing yet another ground for reversal of thel Decision. 4. The Board's Decision Fails to Prevent Abnormally Irregular Boundaries. In perhaps its most egregious failing, the BRE Decision fails to prevent abnormally irregular boundaries, contrary to RCW 36.93.180( 4). As the Court will observe from the numerous maps that are part of the record, the proposed annexation abuts existing City of Renton boundaries for only a very small portion, leaving a ratio of one to eighteen of abutting boundaries versus non-abutting boundaries. Tr. Vol. I at 46-47; R. 00517 (Map I attached to BRE Decision). By the Board's own admission, the annexation will create large I peninsulas of unincorporated territory, to the north and to the south of the portions of the II annexation area which jut out in a deformed "T" shape to the east of the existing Renton OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -32 HElSEll FETTER.MAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAITlE,WA 98111·3846 PH: (206) 292·1144 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 boundary. R. 00S17, 00S33 (Decision at 1,11, and Exhibit D). As Boardmember Dunn summed it up: With res ect to abnormallv irre ular boundaries these are terribl abnormall irregular. And I think we'd be embarrassed under most circumstances to be eved considering such irregular boundaries. Tr. Vol. III at 16 (emphasis added). To justify these abnormally irregular boundaries, the majority of the Board relied upon the fact that the annexation area is within the City of Renton's Urban Growth Area adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act, RCW 36. 70A.l10(1). Under the Board's theory, because the peninsula areas created by the annexation are also within the Urban Growth Area boundary, they will purportedly eventually be annexed as well, curing in the future whatever irregular boundaries are created by the current annexation. R. 00S23-22 (Decision at 11-12). This argument is specious. Under the G~IiIA, Urban Growth Areas are designed to provide areas sufficient to permit projected growth over a 20-year period. UGA boundaries are not required to I , include only urban areas, but can include areas "adjacent to territory already characterized! I by urban growth." Nothing in the GtvIA requires that an entire UGA be fully built out or annexed. Indeed, the evidence presented to the Board was that, when Renton had previously created abnormally irregular boundaries, it had never gone back and corrected those irregularities by subsequent annexations, Tr, Vol. II at 20S (testimony of Rod Dembowski), In light of this, the Board's reliance on the GMA was error. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -33 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O, BOX 21846 SEAnlE, WA 98111·3846 PH: !206) 292·1 144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Further, the Board's reasoning would effectively gut one of the criteria RCW 36.93.180 requires the Board to consider. The two statutes (GrvfA and the BRB's statute) must be read together. While an annexation may be more (rather than less) acceptable because it involves territory within an Urban Growth Area boundary, and while a BRB may anticipate that future annexations of other territory within the boundary may occur, each succeeding annexation must still comply with the mandate to prevent abnormally irregular I boundaries, to avoid practical problems with service areas, disruption of natural communities, and the like during the intervening years. The Board's holding that the annexation does not create abnormally irregular boundaries was unsupported by substantial evidence and contrary to law, and must be reversed. I 5. The BRB Decision Fails to Prevent Impractical Boundaries. '1 The Decision also fails to adjust existing impractical boundaries, contrary to RCW I 36.93.180(7). The BRB completely (and arbitrarily and capriciously) failed to address this I i criteria, even though both the City of Renton and annexation opponents addressed the issue. R. 00407 (Neighbors United for Representation Response, at 20); R. 00045 (City of Renton Notice of Intention to Annex, at 16). In fact, the evidence before the Board was that the proposal failed to adjust existing impractical boundaries, by failing to make more than a very small portion of its boundary contiguous to the existing City boundary. Although the City acknowledged that Hincreased contiguity could not be achieved due to insufficient support for annexation in areas west of the proposed boundaries" rid.}, this OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANI'S -34 HE~SELL FETTER.MAN "Limll,',II.",j,,/m ",m",·"I"I' , 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O, BOX 21846 SEATTlE.WA 98111·3846 PH:(2061292·1144 I I , I ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does not excuse the annexation's failure to adjust the existing impractical boundaries, or the Board's failure to even address the criterion. 6, The BRB's Decision Fails to Encourage Incorporation or Annexation of Unincorporated Areas Which Are Urban in Character. The BRE Decision fails to further the objective contained in RCW ·36.93.180(8), which requires an annexation to further annexation of unincorporated areas which "are urban in character." The BRE ignored the law and evidence on this point, and concluded that because the annexation area is within an Urban Growth Area boundary, it would become urban in the future and therefore supported the statutory objective. R. 00522 (Decision at 12). Washington courts have expressly held, however, that the fact that an area proposed for annexation may become urban in the future does not advance the statutory criterion: The notion that boundary review boards may rely on future urbanization wa~ specifically rejected in Spokane [County Fire District No.9 v. Spokane BRE}. ... Theil urban character focused upon by RCW 36.93.180(8) above is present urbaIlJ character. Future urbanization is of little relevance. [citation omitted] [This]1 hold in ... is consistent with the Ian uace of the ob'ective which addresses areas! which "are" urban in character, not those which are "becoming" urban in character. King County v. Boundruy Review Board, 122 Wn.2d at 678-79 (emphasis added). Here, eve the City of Renton acknowledged in its Notice of Intention to Annex that the area was largely not developed at an urban level, and that the primary motive for the annexation . ' was the desire of some property owners to begin developing at urban levels: Portions of the proposed Annexation Area are densities. Other ortions a ear to be sub'ect to OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -35 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE,WA 98111-3846 PH:(206)Z92·1144 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 constrained by the lar:k of urban services. Development. as envisioned in Count)! plans. is not likely to occur until sewers are available. J R. 00045 (Notice of Intention, at 16) (emphasis added); Tr. Vol. I at 13 (testimony of Rento Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Kattermann); R. 00517 (map of annexatio I area showing undeveloped parcels). In light of this, the Board's reliance on the fact of the Urban Growth Area bounda was error. The appropriate course would have been for the annexation to proceed after th area had become urban in character and had obtained urban services (from governmenta entities such as King County Water District No. 90 and King County Fire District No. 25), not to bootstrap the area into annexation by virtue of the Urban Growth Area boundary. 7. The BRB Decision Fails to Encourage Incorporation of Cities in Excess of 10,000 or Discourage Multiple Incorporations of Small Cities. By splitting the proposed city of Briarwood incorporation area, the annexation: discourages incorporation of a city in excess of 10,000 population, and encourages multiple incorporations of small cities, contrary to RCW 36.93.180(5). The Board held that the .' I I annexation would discourage multiple incorporations by splitting the proposed city on' Briarwood incorporation area, and therefore supported the objective in RCW 36.93.180(5). R. 00522 (Decision at 12). This analysis, however, turns the statutory criterion on its head. Members of the group Neighbors United for Representation have alread commenced the process to incorporate a new city, the proposed City of Briarwood. Tr. Vol. I at 47; Tr. Vol. II at 208 (testimony of Green and Dembowski concerning Briarwood incorporation). The proposed incorporation would have a population in excess of 10,000 OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS· 36 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA PO. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WA 98111·3846 PH: (2061292-1144 · .' " in two years or less; the area currently has a population of 8.700. Id. By cutting the cente 2 of the proposed incorporation area out. the annexation discourages the Briarwoo 3 incorporation (an incorporation of 10.000 or more). and. by leaving only two. smaller area 4 5 remaining. encourages multiple. sI?aller incorporations. This is blatantly inconsisten 6 with the command of RCW 36.93.180(5). and provides an additional basis for reversal 0 7 the Board.19 8 8. Conclusion. 9 As demonstrated above. the Board's conclusion that the annexation tends to suppo 10 the statutory objectives in RCW 36.93.180 was unsupported by substantial evidence. 11 12 arbitrary and capricious. and contrary to law; in fact. the proposed annexation fails t 13 support any of the required objectives. The Court therefore must reverse the BRE's 14 Decision 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E. The Boundar Review Board Violated the A earance of Fairness Doctrine andl Committed Procedural Errors Requiring Reversal. The Board also committed numerous procedural errors. First. the Board failed to maintain a complete record of its proceedings relating to the annexation. in that it erased the audio tape of the Board's October 12. 1995.' meeting. at which the Board considered and adopted its written Resolution and Hearing Decision. and discussed the potential 19 The two criteria in RCW 36.93.180(6) and (9). which concern dissolution of inactive Special Purpose Districts and protection of agricultural lands. are not applicable here and were not discussed by the Board. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS c 37 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGH SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATIlE, WA 98111·3840 PH: ~206J 292·1144 • • • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appearance of Fairness Doctrine violation raised by appellants and others. R. 00542 I (October 19, 1995, letter from Rodrick Dembowski to BRB); R. 00541-40 (Letter date, October 19, 1995, from BRB Executive Secretary Aida Wilkinson to Peter J. Eglick). The ERE i, "qui"d by l.w to m'intain • compl"" v"b.tim ~,o", of '" p~"'din" wi,! respect to annexations. See, e.g., Beach v. Board of Adjustment, 73 Wn.2d 343, 438 P.2d 61 (1968); RCW 36.93.160(5) (superior court reviews record of Board); RCW 36.93.160(2) (requiring verbatim record of all testimony presented at hearing).2o The Board's failure t maintain a complete record provides an independent ground for reversal. pursuant to RC 36.93.160(6)(c), which permits reversal of Board decisions "made upon unlawfu procedure." In addition, the Board violated. due process and the Appearance of Fairnes Doctrine, RCW 42.36, by virtue of the'fact that its attorney, Robert Kaufman, was counse of record for some of the annexation proponents at the time Mr. Kaufman advised the BRB not to consider the issue relating to the sufficiency of the annexation petitions containin1 the School District's signature. The facts of Mr. Kaufman's representation are detailed i I 20 The BRB may cite to King County Water District No. 108 v. King County Boundcuy Review Board, 87 Wn.2d 536, 554 P.2d 1060 (1976). a'nd claim that the Board was not required to maintain a tape of its October 12, 1995, meeting. In Water District 108, however, the plaintiffs sought a tape of a BRB meeting which was neither the public hearing nor the Board's adoption of its decision. 87 Wn.2d at 538,542. Here, however, Mr. Kaufman addressed the BRB concerning his representation of annexation proponents at the very meeting when the BRB adopted its Decision. Since the Court must review the "record" of the BRB's decision (RCW 36.93.160), a tape of the October 12, 1995, meeting was required. OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -38 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX 21846 SEATTlE,WA 98111·3846 PH:~206)292·1t44 • , letters submitted to the BRB. R. 00505-06 (October 3, 1995, letter from Peter J. Eglick t 2 BRB); R. 00509-08 (October 9, 1995, letter from Eglick to BRB). Mr. Kaufman's ongoin 3 representation of annexation proponents tainted his representation of the Board in the 4 5 matter, as well as the Board's impartiality, particularly because the record reveals that i 6 was Mr. Kaufman, and not the Board, who made the decision that the Board would no 7 consider the legal sufficiency of the annexation petition containing the School District's 8 signature. R. 00250-49 (September 6, 1995, letter to Peter J. Eglick from Robert C. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kaufman); Tr. Vol. I at 10-12 (remarks of Board Chairman Richard Schoon and BRBI attorney Robert Kaufman). Mr. Kaufman's ex parte communication with proponents of the annexation violated RCW 42.36.060, since members of the public attending the annexation hearing were not apprised of r-.fr. Kaufman's representation and/or conflict, and had no opportunity to request that the Board independently consider the issue or obtain independent counsel concerning it. In addition, the transcript of the annexation hearing reveals that the Board Chai1 engaged in ex parte communications with the King County Health Department's Sid Forman, who also spoke in favor of the annexation. Tr. Vol. I at 73-74, 83-86. During a recess, Board Chair Richard Schoon asked Mr. Forman to come forward and talk with the Board. Tr. Vol. 1 at 73-74. Shortly following the recess, Mr. Forman was called to testify. Tr. Vol. 1 at 83-86. He spoke in favor of the annexation on the sewer issue, and his testimony was later relied upon by the BRB as one of the grounds necessitating speedy provision of sewer service. R. 00529, 524 (Decision at 5, 10). OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -39 HELSELL FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEAnlE,WA 98111·3840 PH:(206)292-1144 .. ... . ,-, • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 These procedural errors taint the Board's decision, violated appellants' rights to du process, and violated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, RCW 42.36. The Board' Decision must therefore be reversed. IV. CONCLUSION For all the reasons stated above, appellants respectfully request that the Court reverse the King County Boundary Review Board's October 12, 1996 Resolution and Hearing Decision, and deny the City of Renton's proposed annexation. sr~ DATED this L day of 1996. g:\lulharnblinlopenbrf OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS -40 HELSELL FETTERMAN LLP ~-c-:~, Attorneys for Appellants King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green HElSEll FETTERMAN 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WA 98111·3846 PH: 1206) 292·1144 ':'. NEWSOF,RECORD tfound someb9dy'and were taking care of her son until th the ignition try-,. he stole their Porsche, 196 model Chevro-',. The thief's mother promised to bout $150 damage. return the car undamaged if the own- . er promised not to press charges n without .. against the boy. But the owner 7 /1 7 b6 Valley Daily News SOUTH KING COUNTY decline!1.her .offer and immediately en called police to report the extortion '::. . . :eattle man called attempt. },CIty appeals Bumstead annexation· ': .... . .ftemoon after dis-..' .. :: ::'The city has appealed a court'i:lecision thai pushed the controversial )dy had stolen his Driver flagged to stop Bumstead annexation back into unincorporated King County. while it was parked by girlfriend's ex ,. .. :: . City Attorney Larry War~e~.said the ~ity file~~n.otice with the state orne in the 13800· MA'PLE VALL'EY' ._.' An 1'8-} Court of.Appeals.MondaYi . .': v': , ." ··.·c. '::: ,','.,' ;t 282nd Street. In May, a King County' Superior Court judge ruled th~t state law' hieves must have year-old Black Diamond man iold barred the Renton School District from signing the annexation petition lay, since it didn't' polhi~e that ahPasMsinglmovtorllist wBali~ekd t,: . as a property .owntir, : leaving t~e petitions wi~hout eno~gh . signatures 1e rna t Id pol' at 1m on t e ap e a ey-ac o;-;for:the annexation.·to".tilke·placi:: .. ,:, .::' -:: '< t.' ,~. h,.t/, .. : j:' .... · . n 0 Ice. Diamond Highway early, Monda'y :, tThe' annexation would have iricludid 403 ticies/~treti:itirig'e8stfrom eth lab . ': morning; so he followed the driver ' the city limits, between Southeast 128th Street 'and 156th Avenue in va'n .~. toHa ~edarby home"h d'· .. b" . Southeast. " ,. '" .. .-.. ,c' , e never seen t e rIVer elo~e,·· ·:·.:''',TO be valid, annexation petitions must have signaiitres·.from the" 109 County' poii':e· } bitt ,upon arriving at th~ 'home, he . ",'owners qf 60 percent of the .. ~sses~ed.,prop~rty value in..the area .. o check on a man .~'reahzed the passenger In the other· Opponents claimed the annexation would cut the heart out of the IO in a front yari! (tica , was' his :girlfriend's' ex-boy-, ',comniiiiiity' and destroy Kiriii County Water'Distdct 90's sewer fran: . nday un.c9yer~~~~~ff:~ep~, pl~nning t? beat him up:: ~ I":~':~ ,::·;'~~,!~r~.t~~:tl ~:~;;,~::'!~.:";:" ~, '" .. : .~,~'.t:'~::~;~,',:~~.'~':',~~::~~I:~~; ,~:-;';;':',:~r:i ~::"'~;,~'.~~,' ~ , IphetamlOe lab. ,~:a~.~c..,c .. 9r~lOg to K!ng.Coun~y polIce ':.... ~f .. ~. ,,\I.~-, r'l 0: :'f,:!di. , I, ,"'(: 'I .-r,,,.r :~t,~ .... _. I, ~~J., ""'(" }"";"' ":,,,:_ .' C,, ' olice"repd~ts;iih~;,ll'C?~rJ.s~~~he 18~year.old qUickly got t ,rill 1 Ii ':!:~ ':""~:J ~~ .... {ii !~;f'-~~§HI'i!Ti'\~;~"'1.n\d_1J: kIf :1; ::1~1+~'~:~?:iot'~ t the~h0rtle:in')he",t)~!~t~ h~~ p,ar and made a hasty retreat h ,J,m u, h1l!"1 J, ": if,:. ':;\"';:~:;:~.k! 1U ,,"i-~z:.,S:fi. ~j'!,,;,hL'iU 'f.!.b.'J~':' t,,":s ,:;~,~S/. 7th Aveiilie·SoUiIi:f~~,a~.~the,'t'Y0 men .attempted to catcq)1 .; '. ,. .' . . ". . ." ";<, ,c,"",;.,:, .... ' 'L, lr the van.flCd,~ii:.,;~~~.:.,'r~t: c'.·; :i', .' ,,'., .,q;, ,School ~~rlct sel~ land f~r.;c9~ntypark: cer approachei!, "i'.'''':'''''0'1,~ , ... . . .',; • . Twenty acres. of property next to Gracie Hansen .Park 'are beIng police discovered· ., '1 " ) purchaSe<! by.KIng County f,?r.d.ev.elop~ent of. sPOrts fields and pa~l with an unidenti-Fire," " . '''.' ·Iand. The Tahoma School DiStrIct, which purchased the property In ed to be metham-199i"for'a 'poteintial elem'entilry school site, has agreed to sell the property to"the county for$435,OOO. . . , . The school district will use' the revenue for futtire capital projects. The' proPerty alr~ady . includes a baseball'and soccer field, which have been maintained by the King County parks.department. .... . " '-,. : :."", . ",' . "~' ' , '." ." ,,!" ,,. ""I. _ :"': " ',I .,~··',i.::,,~Cigar~tte suspected in nother.t.ne.~i;~ilU~i!lg roadside f!re :harges . . KENT -Fire investigators sus-./-. . ':'F; 'l't·l;r::~h''-: ',,::. 'p~ct a careless smoker was respo' nsi· " -, , Irs I' IS,) .. _,-- " Then, the thiers' 'bldor ~ small fire that charred grass '. i ., ,., .. ; . Id threatened to .'. and 'brush along the northbound., ' '" ..... . " ., KING COUNTY ~d in the Hill Top· lanes of.the Valley Freeway about, . He~rlng: Muckleshoots request to run track , .. ' acoma if the own-,II :30. a.m. Tues~ay,.. . .... , '1t The Washington Horse Racing Commission will'hold two hearings essing auto theft Firefighters q~lckly extInguished ' ... ;. on the application by the Muckleshoot Tribe to run thoroughbred :r son, according .'" the flames,. which burned ~"-.area:. :.' rticing at Playfair Park in Spokane, ,; .. ' " ..... , ,; ... , . . oolice.report filed "about 75 reet by 75 feet next to the The first will be held 10 a:m. Tuesday in Spokane allhe race track .. · " . freeway, near the South I 80th Street .. ':.The second is scheduled for Aug. 6 in the Seattle area, with the time' old police that he ·'interchange. . . ., '. and location to be announced later .. i:· " 'een Jriends with ".".f\ :smol~eri~g ~igarette" toss~d :'.;: 1t:'"The ,heatings are an effort .jJy Jhe c~mmis~ion to gather public ther for 15 yearsJr?,~.a .y,ehl£l~ I~ a hkel~ cause, said... hcomment on the tribe's July I application for racing dates. , . '·FIre.Department Lt.-Mike DeHart.l'i, ,"".' .. ' ."'.' " .... , ~: :'~~ ~: :;,::':-':':~:. '~.\~~ c+' • ~ ~ ,:,,~ ': ... : :' ~~'~~~~,< ::I.~:.)~~~: '~(tCoh-8Ction i~' , ':;~ :,:, ~~~~.~:f:~;~1 !~:) "r~~~~;; .',. ::_:'~ ,f',~ .. ' ,~ .. ~ ,",;'.: '," ' ,e enjoyed garden:' '~:'rIi"'i9s'7"and a"ended Grays Harbor :' ,,·;c.';Ou.e' to er~oneous inf,?rrn~ti~nJrom.·the Pierce C?unty Sheriff's, (etball. '. ., .... :., ... ,' (Community College until 1958 when she ''':' .~ Department, a J'!ly 10 article mco'!ectly n:ported the Circumstances of oy a son, Michael ",bogan working In the banking Industiy.'.,~:,ot.h.e July ~.dro",nmg of ,a19.:morth:;oI!I.ll!'Y .I~ La~~ .Tapps. Cody Merna ville:: a .daughter,"':; cHer.mo~\ rec~nl empioymenl ~~s.as a J: ,.:<>wa~ Iasts~eQ: playing 'with his siblings ~.n,,\he,gated rea~ dec~ of the. Sea«le: two broth'., .. "stateme.nt specialist with,Systems Arial-,., " .. family;"homebefore he wandered away ... · 'I,' '1: . 'I· .. ;. . . n of Stamps:~:Ark:th"<ysls~lric':"'She-rwas ·striio'mber"ofSt.JSaiYl L:t~! .... y ,:·,.t-~r':v--:"_~''''''~''. ,.-:-"",:,<l·"!--::·!""'''':'t~ .... ,'':~J~ i,,:",j ... t/l,..:: '",-. ':. 't.".,t :-' I, If Wisn'er; 'La.;"tWo ~1~"b8ra'B 'Catholic -Church ,in Black Oja:t~f; , te-"'· 41 .. ,-._ ... .f~ ..... ,,\,.J' A_,f, f."-~._I._, I:. f ... j , ,," .- Ite.p..grandC.hlldren.: r,,:~.mond, i1~~ ': '?,i'f;'~1 :,.~tj~!::;\J.~n.~~:~ '1~1 (jo~""n-',' e::<'·'IIu.w ': .' f,!, ,,:tfp.tim~/;ft,J:J t-'-.!H'·,-o; ~111:w:~' ~\~() ,t· ;I! lndchlldren,,; ,'1 ,.' .t!'I1It.S:he)~ survtv~~d .py ~erJ~I:I~t?alld .. Rpb:.{h ilOL ., t~ ~t"i . . ·.ai:' ~: :~":;"~'\'" I', ' " " "om noon to 7 p.m., ert Ross lAllen of Kent; a son, "Robert ,';" -=-'-' -'-"'---"~_~_"':-__ -'-____ --,:"':"' __ "':-__ _ • Mortuary In Ren-Ray Allen of New Yor~, N.Y.: Ihree ..' , - -Th,,~ ....... ,.... rlQ,.n" ... rc lin"'" I!.II"'n.r.::p,,~h .. nf .... _-- y ., June 28, 1996 CiTy 0;: 11>:>'ITON II ,;.' 2 0 1("',',,-, '. "'. 0 ~hlJ ;~::t...'·ti\'t:O ':) T':' \~!..r::R;\:'S OFFICE To: Mayor Jesse Tanner CoUncil Member Toni Nelson Council Member Kathy Koelker-Wheeler Council Member Dan Clausen - Council Member Randy Connan Council Member King Parker Council Membcr Bob Edwards Council Member Tim Schlitzer City Clerk We'aSk that this letter be read during the City Council meeting on Monday, July 1, 1996. Neighbors united for Representation understands the desire of the Renton City Council to improve the infrastructure of the East Renton Plateau (ERP). We share the Council's recognition that the ERP is the eastern doorway to the City of Renton and affects the City in several critical ways. We also share your concern that as Mr. Bumstead and others continue with the inevitable growth and development of their property , civic improvements must be responsibly planned and adequately funded. We hope that, as your neighbors now and possibly, fellow Renton citizens in the future, vie can work together and not as adversaries. To that end, we ,ask that the City forgo any appeal of the Superior Court decision on the Bumstead annexation. If an appeal is filed, the case could drag out well into 1998. This would serve no one's interest. It would only delay a process that everyone wants to occur in a timely and orderly fashion. In the few days since the court decision was filed, landowners in the area have already begun pursuing alternate solutions to their infrastructure requirements. To them, timeliness is as important as cost and, (with due respect), more important than jurisdiction. As we speak, Water District #90 is beginning the preliminary process of sewer installation. The Water District is working to identify ULID boundaries and is putting the finishing touches on the update of its Comprehensive Plan. By this time next year, Water District #90 will be well along in meeting the expressed and future needs of residents and property owners on the East Renton Plateau. It has been publicly stated that the reason Renton was pursuing the annexation was not simply to enlarge the city limits but to provide needed utility services which would preserve the quality of our neighborhoods. Indeed, since the cost of providing city services to residential neighborhoods can be more than the revenue provide, annexation is not always the preferred solution. As a result of Renton's annexation pressure, Water District #90 is now moving forward with infrastructure improvements. So at this time, the City of Renton is relieved of the larger financial burden of providing the other services normally associated with new annexed areas. Like any other interested party, the City would be free to monitor and comment with regard to the design and installation ofWD 90's sewer plan. 1-/< The Bumstead annexation was initiated during the previous administration. Since this process began, the City Council has heard many voices, some in favor, some in opposition. However, pursuing this case to the bitter end by filing an appeal will only continue an adversarial relationship and raise controversy that can only diminish the goodwill between neighbors. Your attorneys have likely briefed you on the issues that could justify an appeal. But these issues are the livelihood of lawyers, not issues that bring neighbors and constituents together. Sitting opposite each other in Court doesn~t help build community relationships. There is time, after the September vote on the Maplewood annexation and the Briarwood incorporation study, to discuss options dealing with the entire East Renton Plateau. We would welcome discussions with the City. So, we ask you, with respect and neighborliness, to drop any consideration of an appeal. It is time to put an end to this quarrel. We look forward to your response regarding this mater. Thank you. Sincerely, Norman W. Green Neighbors United for Representation . ... ~ : 255·9600 .... KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 15606 Southaa8l128th Stra81 Ranton, Washington 98059 June 28, 1996 NOTICE TO CUSTOMERS OF KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 SEWER COSTS BY CITY OF RENTON The Board of Commissioners for King County Water District No. 90 has received many inquiries from customers and residents within District No. 90 about the City of Renton's recent Notice of Potential Assessment for the East Renton Sanitary Sewer Interceptor. King County Water District No. 90 has a franchise from King County for sewer service within this area and the District is currently taking steps necessary to provide sewer service to this area. Property owners should use caution before determining to pay any assessment monies to the City of Renton. Water District No. 90 has no interlocal agreement with the City of Renton with regard to any payments. Any monies paid to the city of Renton would not be applicable to facilities installed and service provided by King County Water District No. 90 and may not be refundable from the City of Renton once paid. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 Commissioner meetings are held the first and third Tuesday of each month at 6:30 at the District office. King County Water District No. 90 15606 SE 128 St. Renton, WA 98059 .FIRE DISTRICT #25 211 MILL AVE S RENTON WA 98055 .,. BULK RATE US POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 11 RENTON WASHINGTON 98058 ,j ~'.-.... ', ,~, .. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Honorable 1lary W. Brucker IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY .. Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KIr-.:G COUNTY, a state agency; and THE CITY OF REl'.'TON, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondents. NO. 95-2-27556-7 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF lAW AND JUDGl'vfENT REVERSING BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION (Clerk's Action Re6uired) THIS 1L-\ TTER came before the Court on appellants King County Water District Ko. 90's; and Nomlan and Cynthia Green's Notice of Appeal pursuant to RCv\' 36.93.160(5). The Court considered the record certified to the Court by the Boundary Review Board, the oversize exhibits that are part of that record but are labeled Respondents' E.xhibits 1-4, the transcripts of the public hearings before the Board on September 21 and 26, 1995, and the transcript of the Board's deliberations on September 26, 1995. The Court also considered the Opening Brief and I Reply Brief of the appellants, the City of Renton's Brief on the Merits, and the Trial Brief of FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT -1 HELSELL FETTERMAN ISCO puGH sauNO PLAZ,l. P.O BOX 218.:6 SE~rnE,W~ 98111·JSJ6 PH.!20Sl292·11U '"'" , . I [the] Washington State Boundary Review Board. On May 20,1996, the Court heard oral 2 argument from Peter J. Eglick and Bob C. Sterbank of Helsell Fetterman llP, for appellants 3 King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green; Lawrence J. Warren of 4 5 Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S., for the City of Renton; and Robert C. Kaufman of 6 Hermann, Recor , Kaufman & Simmerly, for the Washington State Boundary Review Board for 7 King County. The Court considered the pleadings and files in this matter and, being fully 8 advised in the premises, hereby enters the following: 9 I. FINDINGS OF FACT 10 1.1 The annexation at issue in this case came before the Renton City Council on a 11 12 petition by owners of property within a 400-acre section of the East Renton Plateau 13 community. The petition requested annexation to the City of Renton. The petition bore the· 14 signature. among others. of a representative of the Renton School District, which is the owner. 15 of the Maplewood Heights Elementary School located within the annexation area. Not· 16 counting the value of the Renton School District's Maplewood Heights Elementary School 17 property. the petition contained the signatures of the owners of no more than 58% of the 18 19 assessed value of all property within the annexation area. .20 1.2 The City of Renton City Council held a public hearing pursuant to RCW 35A.14.1 21 on April 10, 1995, to consider the annexation petition. 22 23 24 25 1.3 At the conclusion of that hearing, the City Council passed an oral motion: accepting the annexation petition and authorizing the City of Renton administration to prepare: a notice of intention package concerning the annexation for submission to the Washington. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT - 2 HELSELL FETTER.MAN I~ill jllJGH sour.O PLAl.\ po, sox 218':6 SE;.:7l:. w), 58111·38.:'; PH: 12ea) l'lZ·l !JJ .. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 State.Boundary Review Board for King County. The City Council did not pass an ordinance at, or after that hearing to adopt or otherwise effect the annexation, 1.4 I The Boundary Review Board received the City of Renton's Notice of Intention to: , , annex on May 8,1995. 1.5 Although raised by the Greens and others through the group Neighbors United, , I i for Representation, the Boundary Review Board declined to consider the issue of whether it: lacked jurisdiction to approve the annexation because it was not supported by a petition containing the signatures of owners of at least 60% of the assessed value of property \vithin the: , I 'annexation area. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court hereby makes the following: II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2.1 The Court's decision is based on a question of law; i.e., whether the Washington' State Boundary Review Board for King County lacked jurisdiction to approve the proposed' annexation bes:ause the annexation was not supported by a valid petition containing the signatures of mmers of property constituting at least 60% of the total assessed 'value of property within the annexation area. 2.2 School districts, like the Boundary RE:iview Board and the City of Renton, are creatures of statute. Accordingly, their authority is limited to that granted by the Legislature in applicable statutes. FINDINGS OF FACf, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT· 3 HELSELL FETTERMAN .1/",,,/0,11 ... ,1'01.,,1',"1<,,";"" 15~O pUGEr SOUND PLAZA P,O. BOX ZlS.l6 SE),!TLE,Wj, 9~1t1·Je~s PH.12C61292·1IJJ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --------------------------- . ,-. . " , , I 2.3' RCW 28A.335.110 authorizes school districts to participate in petitioning for an! . I annexation only when: (1) the school property constitutes the whole of the annexation; and (2) ; ! the school district petitions for annexation under RCW 35.13. I , 2.4 Because the Renton School District's Maplewood Heights Elementary School I property did not constitute the whole of the annexation, and because the City of Renton's! I annexation was proposed under RCW 35A.14, not RCW 35.13, the Renton School District was I not entitled to sign the annexation petition in this case. i I 2.5 RCW 35A.14.120 requires that, to be valid, an annexation petition contain the i , s1gnatures of the owners of at least 60% of the total assessed valuation of the annexation area. i , 2.6 Because the Renton School District's signature could not be counted toward the! I 60% requirement, the petition did not contain the signatures of the owners of at least 60% ofi the assessed value of the annexation area, as required, and was therefore legally insufficient. , , I 2.7 The April 10, 1996, oral motion by the Renton City Council sending the proposed! , annexation to the Boundary Review Board did not constitute an action by ordinance as: required by RCW 35A.14.140, nor did it constitute an act requiring initiation of judicial review. prior to action by the Boundary Review Board. 2.8 Here, where the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County did not choose to resolve or did not believe it could resolve questions relating to its own I jurisdiction, it is appropriate that, as part of the Court's review of the Board's decision, the issue I i of law pertaining to the Boundary Review Board's jurisdiction be resolved by the Court. I FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT -4 HELSELL FETTERMAN ~ I ".",. ,/1 ",!o,: -'. /'.,. '", • ,;"" r5CO PUGET SOU~1O PU.ZA PO. 80:< 2ra.1~ SEA-mE,W)" 98111·32.16 PH:(2C6)292·11.1~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2.9' In light of these conclusions, it is unnecessary for the Court to reach the merits of the Greens' and King County Water District No. 90's challenges, that the annexation did not comply with the criteria in RCW 36.93.180, and that the Boundary Review Board violated due process and the Appearance of Fairness doctrine. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court hereby enters the following: III. JUDGMENT 3.1 Pursuant to RCW 36.93.160(6), the October 12, 1995, Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County.shall be and hereby is REVERSED and the proposed annexation disapproved. DONE IN OPEN COURT this a day of June, 1996. Presented by: HELSEU FE I'I ERMAN UP By: Peter J. Eglick, WSBA No. 8809 Bob C. Sterbank, WSBA No. 19514 Attorneys for Appellants F1NDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND JUDGMENT· 5 kJ MARY BRUCKER HONORABLE ~IARY 'vY. BRUCKER HELSELL FETTERMAN .1/"".10-./1,,,1·,/,,,,".,,·,,,°':',1' !SCO PUGET SOUND P~ZA P.O BOX 218~6 SE).TTlE.W:" S3111·JB.l5 PH,12~61Z9'!·".t.j 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Approved as to Form; Notice of Presentation Waived: WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN & FONTES, P.S. By: 73Jt C. ~ IlIA ~~ '-Ir>: Lawrence J. Warren, WSBANo. 5853 Attorneys for Respondent City of Renton Approved as to Form; Notice of Presentation Waived: HERMAN, RECOR, KAUF1vlAN & SIlYfMERL Y By: ~c...~rtv-.~~~" Robert C. Kaufman, WSBA No. 12543 Attorneys for Respondent Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County F1NDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LA W AND JUDGMENT - 6 .. HELSELL FETTERMAt--: \j, .. "".i/",j.,,'m/'''''·'''''''f' 15CO PUGEr SDU.'JO PL.J,Z~ Fa BQX m"6 SE.lTTLE. W:" 9811 !·JSJo PH me, 2'12.\ IJ~ . ~ . ; : : I-- Du' ~ I-- Proposea MaRlewood Annexation Exhllolt 1 Vlclnit\l Mop 1= :T Lf 1"'11 hi DIJ o I I- Sf 1.: I lIT I.l. - 1,000 2,000 I I~~~I 1:12;000 _____ Proposed Maplewood Annexation Planning and Technical Service, PIGlnlnsVBuildinGIPubIic: Work. R. Mac:Onie, o. Dennison 26 March 1996 328'3112 June 12, 1996 Honorable Jesse Tanner Mayor, City of Renton City Hall--200 Mill Avenue South Renton W A 98055 Dear Mayor Tanner: JSTOLOFF Thank you for meeting with Mr. Bumstead and me last week about annexation options. I want you to know how much the Burnsteads appreciate the attention your office, council members and city staff have focused on this annexation. I feel Larry Warren did an excellent job in Superior Court and the staff members present at our meeting have been knowledgeable and helpful throughollt this process. We hope the city will pursue its option to appeal at the earliest opportunity, so that we may have a successful conclusion to this annexation in time for next year's building season. In the meantime, we are in contact with Water District 90, appropriate King County agencies and coundl members, the school district and community residents. I remain confident that reason and good public policy will ' prevail and that the Burnstead property will soon be part of Renton and provide houses for residents who will support the improved qUlllity of life in the city which your administration is building. cc. Fred Burnstead Susan Carlson Greg Zimmerman Mike Katter"1ann PAGE 01 Judith S[oioff Associates Planning & Public Process 2019 Fairview East Slip B Seattle WA 98102 Phone (206) 322 8252 FAX 3289112 ....... Valley Daily News Algona. Auburn. Black Diamond. Covington. Enumclaw. FaiN :Burnstead annexation axed Judge rules Renton School Board petition ;signatures are void; must be property owner , , 'By Irene Svete Valley Dally News RENTON -King County Superior-Court Judge Mary Brucker severed the new Burnstead annexa- tion from the city Monday. ~. The judge ruled that state law barred the Renton School Board from signing the annexation petition as a property owner, leaving the petition Without enough signatures to com- plete the annexation. Norman and Cynthia Green, who filed the lawsuit, called the decision a relicf, but said they believe the nction is only the beginning of the fight to keep the area out of Renton. "We have to be a firm community and stand together," Norman Green said. Green, an organizer of Neighbors United for Representation, said he would be opposed to the annexation even if there were no plans for a proposed city in the area. King County Water District 90 also joined in the suit, claiming the annexation would destroy its sewer franchise for the area. City Attorney Larry Warren said city officials already have indicated a willingness to appeal, but the final decision rests with the Renton City Council. The annexation would have taken in 403 acres, roughly stretching from the east city limits out on either side of Southeast l28th Street to 156th Avenue Southeast. The Burnstead Construction Co. launched the annexation bid in 1994 to secure city sewer service so it could build 64 homes on its property in the area. Renton school officials later joined the petition after learning the county would not allow them to rebuild Maple Heights Elementary School without a sewer line. The existing school hasa septic system. The state Boundary Review Board approved the annexation in October, citing the school system's sewer needs as one of the main reasons to allow the area to become part of Renton. To be valid, annexation petitions must have signatures from the own- ers of 60 percent of the assessed prop- erty value in the area. -The Greens' attomey, Peter Eglick, maintained that state lawmakers feared school districts, by the sheer amount of their property holdings, could "run roughshod over the process" and barred them from signing annexation petitions unless they were the only property owner involved. The city attomey argued that it was up to the city to decide whether the signatures on the annexation peti- tion were sufficient. Any legal chal- The state Boundary' Review Board approved the annexation in October, citing the school system s sewer needs as one of the main reasons to allow the area to become part of Renton. lenge should have been filed then, he said, and not after the review board's decision. However, Brucker said the City Council did not pass a resolution or an ordinance, which would have sig- naled to opponents that they needed to file their appeal at that point. "Only now at the conclusion ofthe Boundary Review Board's action can this be resolved," she said. Warren had also argued a near- emergency existed because of the sewer problem. The city is the only entity ready and able to provide sewer service to the new school, he said. He acknowledged that a temponary fran- chise to hook sewers to the school has been approved by King County, though not signed by the city. Councilman King Parker said he was disappointed by the decision. "I feel there are a lot of people out there who see the value of belonging to the city," he said. Opponents claimed the annexation -would cut the heart out of the com- munity and possibly doom !iileinpts to create a separate city of Briarwood.- ~row So , ~ I memorial day -BriaiVood city'back~s win one court battle By Irene Svete ~.IS-9t, Valley Daily News RENTON -A King County Superior Court judge Friday let stand legal challenges to the Burnstead annexation, which threatens to sink plans for a new city on the east Renton plateau. Judge Mary Brucker rejected motions from Renton city attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit or at least bar King County Water District 90 from taking part in the lawsuit. Resident Norman Green, who filed the initial lawsuit, said he and his wife, Cynthia, were looking forward to going to trial May 20. "It was obvious the judge wanted it to be heard on its merits," he said Friday. "We're going to try to get as many of our neighbors as possible to show their support." In their lawsuit, the Greens and the water district claim the 403-acre annexation destroys area residents' attempts at cityhood, as well as District 90' s sewer franchise. The future of the east Renton plateau has grown increasingly frag- mented since the Burnstead Construction Company launched the original annexation drive in 1994 to secure city sewer service so it could build 64 homes on its property. Right now, the Bumstead annexa- tion is locked in a court fight. A petition to create a separate city called Briarwood was validated by King County. City organizers are now wait- ing for the county to fund a feasibil- ity study for their plan. In the meantime, two groups have launched efforts to pull away more parts of the proposed city and fold them into Renton. The Maplewood annexation -a heavily populated community south of the Bumstead area -was accepted by Renton City Council last month and goes to the voters Sept. 17. It would remove 526 acres from the proposed city. On Friday, organizers for the 21- acre Boston annexation submitted a petition representing signatures from the owners of 60 percent ofthe prop- erty in the area. , Despite the activity, city organiz-' ers say they expect the two new annexations to fail and believe the court action Friday helped clear the: new would-be city's path. "This was a major hurdle," said Rod Dembowski, chairman of the Briarwood Incorporation Committee.: "We're happy to be moving forward." The state's growth management plan calls for residents in urbanized areas to eventually annex to nearby. cities or form their own city. The idea is cities can best provide services such as police, fire and sewers. The Renton School District sup· ported the petition because it needs Renton's sewer service to rebuBc' Maplewood Heights Elementar) this year. The state Boundary Revie\l Board also cited the school's sewe needs as its main reason for approv ing the annexation last October. • lilt:: DOYI made a remarkable ,C' recovery , '" don know anything about .' Father Damien, but' know my fam- 'ily was blessed by a mirade," said ,. Stevens, who is not a Catholic but : considers herself' 'very religious." ,;' "Whether it was Father Damien, ",'we'li take it." 7i Benjamin, whose father is a U.S. ,Navy officer, was diagnosed with :Ji leukemia in Hawaii in 1993 by doc- '(.tors at Tripier Army Medical Cen- ~ ter. The family was transferred to :' Washington state last fall, where Benjamin completed 2';' years of .• chemotherapy at Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma. He then suffered a relapse in Janu- " ary. and faced the prospect of a bone ; marrow tra,nsplant. which is when "Stevens saId she asked people to ~ pray for her son, ~ Friends from Hawaii. Mark and -, Manha Lind of.Iroquois Point. were ,'among those who prayed. asking ,'Damien to intercede on the boy's ~:behalf, ;' A biopsy done on the boy in Feb- •. ruary showed no sign of the cancer, 'Stevens said, Blood tests since then "also have failed to find any cancer, ; , ••• _ ••• ..:n 1""'" \i:I.ler cnemothera~ • py) is always critical.,-'we have so much faith that we're ~ieally wor- ried about it comin :k." she said during a telephone ""erview Satur- day. "The doctors feel they can , keep this in long-term remission, I· We're ali very happy and very ~ than~flJl. ':'-0 .... c Father Damien; who minislered to Hansen's disease patients on Molo- kai in the late 19th century. was beatified last year in his nalive Bel- gium by Pope John Paul". Beatification is one step below sainthood, which under church rules will require proof that a second mir· , ade can be credited to Damien, Church officials in Hawaii have requested medical records from the Stevens boy, but no decision has been made about whether to submit the matter to the Vatican for consid- eration. "There have been numerous indi- viduals bringing forth proposals of mirades," said the Very Rev, Joseph Bukoski III, Hawaii province head of the Fathers and Brothers of the Sacred Heans, "We're still very hopeful. .. . ------~-----~-< ~~ .j A3 Valley Daily News Algona. Auburn. Black Diamond. Covington. EnumclaWTfairwood. Kent. Maple Valley. Newcastle. Pacific. Renton. Tukwila Monday, May 13, 1991) _. --',-, Sewer line agreement clears way for replacement schooi! . , . By Irene Svete Valley Daily News RENTON -While annexation battles grind on, it appears Maplewood Heights Elementary will get the sewer line needed to build a replacement schooL County, city and school district officials have hammered out a tem- porary agreement for Renton to pro- vide sewer service to the school while King County Superior Court sorts out challenges to the city's annexation of the area .. "The bottom line is the children's needs," said Richard Stracke, direc- tor of facilities and operations for the Renton School District. • "I think all the players i ' ed want to take the childreo and get them a new school." The King County Council is expected to approve the agreement today. School district officials had feared the elementary school's needs would be lost in the fight over. the contro- versial Bumstead annexation. King County Water District 90 has Challen~he annexation in court, claimin uld·prevent creation of the city 0 riarwood and destroy the district's sewer franchise. in the area. The proposed franchise agreement acknowledges the lawsuit, but notes the district is not able to provide a sewer hookup at this time. It grants the city of Renton a franchise to oper- ate a.sewer line to the school until a permanept provider is named. Under the agreement, no one else will be allowed to tie into the line. The elementary school at 13430 144th Ave.S.E. is the only Renton school still tJing a septic ~em. The King County sewage review board has rejected any attempt 10 hook the new building to such a system. A solution to the school's problem stumbled last week when the water district introduced negotiating docu- ments into the Bumstead litigation. However, Jay Covington, Mayor Jesse Tanner's executive assistant, said that issue has been taken off the table. School officials have said delays on the Maplewood project would cre- ate a domino effect, bogging down replacement of. Talbot Hill , Elementary. • Under the district's plan, students from Maplewood Heights are to be bused to the old Honeydew Elementary until their new building opens for the 1997 school year. T afoot Hill students will then move inro Honeydew while their school is com- pleted. The budget for replacing Maplewood Heights school is $5 mil- lion to $6 million . ,- 1'4. Monday, May 13, 1996 NEWS OF RECORD r som KING coum · II A hot catch Compiled by Valley IJa1Iy News statt .. mill' Airport to be the happiest place on earth Alaska Airline employees who have been mentors to at-risk students " at Madroita Elementary School in SeaTac have cooked up a party for '~ today that will be attended by Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy -and Pluto. Disney flew the characters up from Disneyland to meet the 50 selected students. The party will be held in an Alaska Airlines hanger at Seattle-Tacoma international Airport. . A three-story-tall inflatable Sorcerer's Apprentice will be there, as will a 737-200c with giant mouse ears and nose. The party is being held • , in' conjunction with an announcement of a new marketing alliance . between Disney and the airline. ~ " Educators given awards for excellence : Several South King County sehool officials are among those who -were awarded 1996 Excellence in Education awards by the state . ...n.....,.~ ... f" ...... A ....... + n.; ..... hl.~ ;ne ...... ,~nn , .~ c:.:....:~~.J : "'1,.' 't~ • • ",~ ro • ~. • Valley Daily News l' "(j: f < \ • ,,.,.'!"(,\:,, .,). '-{~. . 'f <:- •.... ~ ... ~'~ ~-·_L1t ......... ..}'"-~ #' ~~ "'----~ .1 (I ~ Annexation issue stirs community Interest . The"J"llstead Annexation to the city of Ren,vll has stirred up many people to take a greater interest in their communi- ty. Several people have assumed a lead- ership role. Among these are Brian Der- dowski, Ray Griffin, Rod Dembowski and Norm Green. There are many others whose names I am not sure of. We may· not agree with all these people have to say, but we should recognize their sin- cerity and dedication. Due to their efforts, our knowledge has been greatly expanded. On the other hand, I am saddened by the actions of the city of Renton, which has public funds at its disposal and uti- lize public employees to the fullest extent. Ironically, the opponents to the annexation, if it succeeds, will be expec- ted to assume a share in any debts the city may have. This is democracy on the. bottom level. I propose that the ."Bum- stead Annexation" would more appro- priately be named the "Dennison Annexation. I', . I F_V. Recktenwald I S~'l-'(, Renton I ! OATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM April IS, 1996 Larry warren:~L Mike Kattermann (277-6190)\~ SUBJECT: Burnstead Annexation Brief I have researched the question of whether the East Renton Plateau is a Census Oesignated Place (COP) as claimed in the appellants' brief of April I, 1996 (p. 23, line 7). According to the 1990 Census, the East Renton Highlands is a COP (see attached map), consisting of approximately 10.3 square miles and 13,218 people. However, the appellants may be placing much more significance in the designation than intended by the Census Bureau. . According to the Census Bureau, a COP is defined as follows: "Census designated places (COP's) are delineated for the decennial census as the statistical counterparts of incorporated places. COP's comprise densely settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name, but are not legally incorporated places. Their boundaries, which usually coincide with visible features or the boundary of an adjacent incorporated place, have no legal status, nor do these places have officials elected to serve traditional municipal functions. COP boundaries may change with changes in the settlement pattern; a COP with the same name as in previous censuses does not necessarily have the same boundaries." To qualify as a COP for the 1990 census, an unincorporated community must have met a particular size criterion. In the case of the East Renton Plateau COP, the applicable criterion is 2,500 or more persons inside an urban area in the 1980 census. As you can see, the requirement for COP status is not that demanding. Some observations that mayor may not be helpful to you in preparing the brief. One of the arguments we heard against sewers and annexation was that the area was rural in character and wanted to stay that way. Since theY are claiming the COP status gives them a distinct community identity, it is also worth noting that by the COP definition, then, they are a "densely settled concentration of population." Also, it is likely, though I don't have the historical documentation, that the Census Bureau created the COP based on local and regional plans and studies that recognized this area as urban, though not necessarily as a separate community. On another issue, the brief talks about the BRB rejection of the City of Vashon Island incorporation proposal (p. 16, line 10). In this case, the appellants' brief cites the BRB's rejection based on the insufficiency. It is also possible that the BRB relied on the fact that Vashon Island is designated as Larry W8ITen April 15, 1996 Page 2 rural in the King County Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, under Countywide Planning Policies, ineligible for incorporation or annexation. That may have been the reason the BRB attorney stated that it was "legally impossible to incorporate Vashon Island under existing law." I hope this information is helpful to you. Please give me or Owen a call if you need additional information. cc: Gregg Zimmerman Owen Dennison Documcntl! .. _; ".,. 247.98 250.98 '-- 252.00 ....... L __ .... 256.00 257.00 I 258.011 258.02 --. __ ._{ \ .,.' .... ..... _ ... _-_.-.._ ..... " ... ' ... ---.... .-•..... "j 293.ot 250.02 .••.• 25100 , I -----' , , 256.00 I J5.03 I -" Rd 35.OJ 319.05 ____ ,_ .... , ... _ .. _. ___ ... _-,-J I ' ! J18.oo \ , \ East Renton Highlands CDP 32101 ""--,. 35.04 Rd -, 319.04 .\ Place Boundary -""""'''''''''.,,.., Shoreline State Highway 1990 Census Tract ~ I CIT"\' OF RENTON f','· "', ~ : !.'.", '. ",.,' ... , . -;". , .. , .. '.' '. -, .~ " ,,' ... '" .. ":' ...... ' .;,'" March 19, 1996 Dear Property Owner: As the new mayor of the City of Renton, I am taking this opportunity to extend my greetings. I appreciate your patience in this long, sometimes difficult annexation process. However, the end may be in sight. We hope to see. a resolution of the appeal of the BoundaryReview Board's approval by the end of May. Finalization of the annexation would closely follow a favorable decision. ~ As Mayor and as a citizen of Renton, I look forward to welcoming you into the City. I am. ~ b proud of what Renton provides our citizens; a highly accredited Police Department, ~ ", .\t: infrastructure that i~ well maintaine.d,a dedica:e~ City. staff;. an ~I'en and ill~lusive political: ~\tt:.. ... 'if"" .),f. process and responsive elected officlals."Renton's 26-park system IS already the envy of many/ \~ ~ cities. The forty-acre park that we have planned for your area will be a significant addition to . X\ . ~ \J our park system and to your neighborhood. Renton offers the benefits of an established city ~~~" ~ with the character and sense of community more typical ofa small town. V"'( .. ~~ ,\:~ "'~ _ ,cI' J'v I am equally proud of the direction that the City has charted for the next twenty years. My \ -\l'}J'Ai,~ administration is committed to the preservation and enhancement of Renton's many and ._~l/ \ V'.,tV diverse neighborhoods. I hope you can join me soon in making our vision a reality. \"" '~ 'f' . . ~ Sincerely, . '. . \} 9~S~ Jesse Tanner Mayor. .;' ... ,,-, 'r: " ''''\ 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 I FAX(206)235-2532 r. i 0/, r r. fA r" I .0 !:of March 19, 1996 Dear Property Owner: CIT'~ OF RENTON Mayor Jesse Tanner As the new mayor of the City of Renton, I am taking this opportunity to extend my greetings. I appreciate your patience in this long, sometimes difficult annexation process.' However, the end may be in sight. We hope to see a resolution of the appeal of the Boundary Review Board's approval by the end of May. Finalization of the annexation would closely follow a favorable decision. As Mayor and as a citizen of Renton, I look forward to welcoming you into the City. I am proud of what Renton provides our citizens; a highly accredited Police Department, infrastructure that is well maintained, a dedicated City staff, an open and inclusive political process and responsive elected officials. Renton's 26-park system is already the envy of many cities. The forty-acre park that we have planned for your area will be a significant addition to our park system and to your neighborhood. Renton offers the benefits of an established city with the character and sense of community more typical of a small town. I am equally proud of the direction that the City has charted for the next twenty years. My administration is committed to the preservation and enhancement of Renton's many and diverse neighborhoods. I hope you can join me soon in making our vision a reality. Sincerely, 9~-:Y~ Jesse Tanner Mayor 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 I FAX(206)235-2532 IIJ\ .,.. .. :~ ~~~A' AA_'~:_~ ",..,0'_ .",", ... ,,, .... ~_'M:'" .,,,0' __ " .. , "'" .. ,," """" CONCURRENCE DATE ~L1 L'l6 NAME .. - INITIAL/DATE O.r&.SN""~O~ CQ 3.LZ 1/'"1011: . I/4K )~ r {;, . ~ r"I" 1!IU'I!lll/ C:c "3/.2 March 7, 1996 Dear Property Owner: As the new mayor of the City of Renton, I am taking this opportunity to extend my greetings. I appreciate your patience in this long, sometimes difficult, annexation process. However, the end may be in sight. We hope to see a resolution of the appeal of the Boundary Review Board's approval by the end of May. Finalization of the annexation would closely follow a favorable decision. As Mayor and as a citizen of Renton, I look forward to welcoming you into the city. I am proud of what Renton provides our citizens, a highly accredited Police Department, infrastructure that is well maintained, a dedicated city staff, an open and inclusive political process and responsive elected officials. Renton has a park system that is already the envy of many cities. The forty acre park that we have planned for your area will be a significant addition to our park system and to your neighborhood. Renton offers the benefits of an established city with the character and sense of community more typical of a small town. I am equally proud of the direction that the City has charted for the next twenty years. My Administration is committed to the preservation and enhancement of Renton's many and diverse neighborhoods. I hope you can join me soon in making our vision a reality. Sincerely, Jesse Tanner Mayor MAYORLTR.DOC/ 00II. Jesse Tann"er, Mayor February 22, 1996 Me. Joseph Tarantola 23326 SE 254TH Street Maple Valley, WA 98038 SUBJECT: Dear Me. Tarantola: "CIT1c ~F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P,E" Administrator Please find the minutes of the October 23, 1995, City Council public hearing on zoning for the proposed Bumstead Annexation. Based on my recollection of the discussion at the hearing, my review of the minutes, and infom131 follow-up with the Council, I have directed staff to process a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for only the commercial area at S.E. 128th Street and 144th Avenue S.E. at this time. The stated intent of the Council was to '\naintain residential zoning (no apartments) over the vast majority of the area while accommodating the existing commercial uses." The current land use designations provide for single family residential zoning but are inconsistent with the existing commercial uses. I understand this as a direction to correct the inconsistency. When we receive Council direction to reopen discussion ofland use designations for the residential areas within the Burristead Annexation, we will proceed accordingly. You have several options apart from making an individual Comprehensive Plan amendment application. You can submit a collective application for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment with owners of adjacent properties. This would allow you to split the fee. Please understand that application is no guarantee of Council approval of your request. A second option is to submit a letter to the City Council noting your participation in the public hearing and your understanding of their direction to the Administration. You can include a request for clarification of whether the Council's intent was also to reconsider the land use designations for the non-commercial areas. The Council may, at their discretion, initiate an amendment for the area at no cost to the applicants. If you have additional questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Sincerely, 1 ~ ~ /} nlr -I!!':.:::=~~-::::.-'-' t?2{~ {f01'.~. Michael D. Kattemmnn, ATCP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ® This paper contains 50~/o rccyclod malarial, 25% p031 consumer -' October 23 1995 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PRESS APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL PRESENTATION Police: Castle Rock Restaurant & Lounge PUBLIC HEARING Annexation: Burnstead, SE 128th St to 156th Ave SE RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 'MINUTES Council Chambers Municipal Building Mayor Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. TIMOTHY SCHLITZER, Council President; RANDY CORMAN; BOB EDWARDS; TONI NELSON; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER; RICHARD STREDICKE; JESSE TANNER. EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the Mayor; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator; VICTORIA RUNKLE, Finance & Information Services Administrator; MICHAEL KA TTERMANN, Planning & Technical Services Director; NEIL WATTS, Plan Review Supervisor; MARK PYWELL, Senior Planner; OWEN DENNISON, Assistant Planner; CHIEF ALAN L. WALLIS, Police Department; COMMANDER JOE PEACH, Police Department. Irene Svete, VaUey Daily News Danny Westneat, Seaule Times Charmaine Adsero, Renton Reporter MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1995, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman provided a brief update on the Castle Rock Restaurant & Lounge situation, reporting that three noise complaints were received last weekend. Also, the 3D-day period in which the owners of Castle Rock were to respond to the City regarding their illegal vegetation removal will soon elapse, after which staff will follow up on this and report back. Adding that the draft report submitted by the City's noise consultants will be finalized before its official release, Mr. Zimmerman concluded that discussions with the Liquor Control Board are continuing about certain activities of this business. Responding to Councilman Stredicke, Mr. Zimmerman estimated that the final noise report should be available within the next seven to ten days. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public hearing to consider the zoning designation for the Burnstead Annexation area to residential zones R-5 (five units' per acre), R-8 (eight units per acre) and R-IO (ten units per acre); the annexation area is comprised of approximately 403 aCres located east of the city limits and north and south of SE 128th Street. Councilmember Corman excused himself from participating in this matter due to the potential for the appearance of conflict of interest. He exited the room at 7:38 p.m. Michael Kattermann, Planning & Technical Services Director, emphasized that the only purpose of tonight's hearing is to take comments on the proposed zoning for the annexation area. Adding that a formal appeal opposing the annexation was filed last week in King County Superior Court, he explained October 23. 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 399 that Council cannot implement the annexation and zoning ordinances until all appeals have been resolved. Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, briefly reviewed the history of the annexation, which was initiated last year with the submission of the 10% petition. Earlier this yea~, proponents submitted signatures representing approximately 62% of the' assessed valuation for the proposed area. In April 1995, Council accepted the annexation as proposed by certifying the 60% petition, and staff was authorized to prepare a notice of intention package for submission to the King County Boundary Review Board, The Boundary Review Board formally approved the proposal on 10/12/95. Continuing, Mr. Dennison described the Comprehensive Plan and recommended zoning designations for the annexation area, all of which are residential (R-5, R-8 and'R-IO). He noted that King County has recently purchased park property along SE 138th St. which, after annexation by Renton, will be turned over to the City. Responding to Councilman ~dwards, City Attorney Warren said the existing commercial uses at 144th Ave. SE and SE 128th St. would become legal non- conforming under the recommended residential zoning for these three properties. Mr. Warren added that proposed changes to City Code would allow such uses to rebuild in the event of a catastrophic fire or other disaster (currently, this type of rebuild is allowed only with a Class 'A' Nonconforming Use permit). Mr. Kattermann clarified that under the revised regulations, businesses could apply for a conditional use rebuild either before or after a loss of property was incurred. Audience comment was invited. , Cleo Forgaard, 678 Sunset' Blvd. NE, Renton, 98056, owner of property at SE 128th St. and 144th Ave. SE with several retail businesses, opposed a zoning change from commercial to residential for her property. Saying that Cemetery Road (formally, NE 4th St./SE 128th St.) is a major four-lane corridor, she said it would be more logical for property fronting this street to retain its commercial zoning than be changed to low density single family. Fearing that residential zoning would devalue her property, Mrs. Forgaard said had she known of the potential zoning change, she would have opposed this annexation from the beginning. Mr. Kattermann responded that the conditional approval permit explained earlier would require DO fee and would not have to be sought on an annual basis. Such permits will probably be valid for at least ten years. He agreed that another option open to the Forgaards would be to apply for a Comprehensive Plan designation change that would accommodate commercial zoning. These applications are accepted only between January and March of each year. Mr. Kattermann explained that currently, Mrs. Forgaard's property has a Comprehensive Plan ,designation that restricts its zoning to residential only. Responding to Councilman Tanner, Mr. Kattermann added that a Comprehensive Plan designation change can also be initiated by the Council should it see the need for one; but again, this cannot be done until the beginning of the year. ' Councilman Tanner commented on his opposition to creating non-conforming uses via zoning decisions. ,Councilman Stredicke added that he did not agree with downzoning properties without a compell ing reason" October 23. 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 400 Laurie Tarantola, 14606 SE 136th, Renton, 98059, asked that her property and that of her neighbors be zoned R-8 rather than R-5, since the property to the south of them will be used for a park rather than for housing. John McTighe, 24929 -267th SE, Ravensdale, WA 98051, inquired how long it will take to get the appeal that was filed on the annexation resolved. City Attorney Warren replied this is unknowable since it depends, in part, on whether or not the hearings are expedited and whether the court's decision is itself appealed. Chris Holstrom, 1441 Queen Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, the owner of property at 15344 SE 128th St., clarified that residents of the annexation area do not want any additional commercial or multi-family development along SE 128th St. Rather, the residents want assurance that no density higher than single family will be allowed (excepting the existing commercial businesses). Bill Wofford, 13323 -146th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, reiterated Ms. Tarantola's request that the properties between SE 132nd and 136th Streets north of the proposed park.area be zoned R-8 rather than R-5. Fred Burnstead, 1215 -120th Ave. NE, Bellevue, 98004, expressed pleasure at the Boundary Review Board's decision to approve this annexation, and reiterated his support for the proposed zoning of his property. Recognizing the constraints imposed by the appeal process, Mr. Burnstead said he would like to begin construction on his planned single family home development as soon as possible. Rod Dembowski, 14010 SE 134th St., Renton, 98059, was concerned with the two requests made of Council this evening for upzones, and was also concerned with the higher density zoning proposed for some properties in the annexation area. Mr. Dembowski asked that the City meet with residents to )ointly develop a plan for zoning this area. Mike Snow, 14100 SE 132nd St., Renton, 98059, explained that for tax reasons, he has less than two years to begin building his personal residence on property owned by him in the annexation area. Mr. Snow inquired how the timing of the annexation process, particularly given the appeal filed last week, will affect his plans. Mr. Warren replied that the City cooperates with King County on the processing of building permits, and it has traditionally accepted permits that were issued in the County when affected properties were subsequently annexed by Renton. Responding to another question posed by Mr. Snow, Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Kattermann said the R-8 zone has no minimum density requirement unless platting is involved. Therefore, Mr. Snow could proceed with building just one residence on his acre property. Norman Green, 14128 SE 132nd St., Renton, 98059, was concerned that while the existing County zoning for the annexation area is almost wholly R-4, except for the small amount of commercial property, the proposed zoning under the City would be of a higher residential density with no accommodation for the existing businesses.Mr. Green questioned the necessity for R-8 zoning as well as why certain properties, inCluding his own, are proposed for this density. Saying that Renton's proposed zoning directly conflicts with existing County zoning and does not support the residential character of the area, he said using the R-8 zone as a buffer is inappropriate and will result in high density urban sprawl. Mr. Green concluded by October 23. I 995 Renton City Co~ncil Minutes Page 401 suggesting that the entire annexation area, with the exception of the existing commercial property, be ,zoned R-S. Brian D. Smith, 14805 SE 139th Ct., Renton, 98059, urged the Council to afford some protection to the Hop In grocery, as he felt this business was an institution in this area. Mr. Smith was concerned about the proposed R-8 zoning for the park area, saying that the zoning in the County to the south of the park is R-4 and thus: the park should be zoned no higher than R-5. He also felt that the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning process was inherently inefficient, and suggested that the City wait until January of 1996 to adopt the zoning for the annexation area. Sydney Cheung, S766 -1'46th Ave. NE, Bellevue, 98007, owner of property at 148th Ave. SE and SE 12'8th St., said the proposed wning for the annexation area is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Noting that some residents oppose the R-8 'zoning, he suggested that the entire area be zoned R-6 as a compromise to satisfy everyone. Mr. Cheung concluded by thanking Owen Dennison for his hard work and excellent service on the annexation project. Alan Wallace, 701 -Sth Ave., Seattle, 98104, representing Jack and Mardell Morrison, owners of property north of SE 128th St., supported the proposal to zone this area R-5, which he felt was the minimum density necessary to ensure the economic feasibility of extending sewers into this area. Mr. Wallace added that the Boundary Review Board's decision approving this annexation was in his view well-reasoned, and he expected it to be upheld in court. Diana Ribera, 14829 SE 128th St., Renton, 98059, stated her support for the annexation and its proposed wning. Correspondence was read from Gary L. Weisser, 12236 -ISSth Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, expressing pleasure with the Boundary Review Board's approval of the annexation, and providing several recommendations regarding this matter; and from La~rence Blake, 750 Royal Crest Circle #45S, Las Vegas, NV, 89109, stating. his support for the annexation. Receipt of a phone call from Danny Hill, 12S26 -142nd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, was also noted, in which Mr. Hill requested that the zoning density for the area to the south of his property be reduced from R-IO. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. I Suggesting that the matter of zoning for this area be referred to a Council committee, Councilman Stredicke said Mrs. Forgaard's request for commercial zoning as described earlier this evening shOUld be granted. Councilman Tanner and Council Presid'ent Schlitzer agreed that since the annexation cannot be finalized until the appeal process is concluded, Council has time to consider the various issues'surrounding the zoning of all the affected properties. Mr. Tanner noted that while he saw no reason to downzone the Forgaards' commercial property, neither did he support the requests made tonight for upzones. ' MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY TANNER, COUNCIL REFER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION AREA TO THE ADMINISTRATION TO RECONSIDER BASED ON TESTIMONY RECEIVED THIS EVENING; THE INTENT IS TO MAINTAIN ". , October 23. 1995 RECESS CONSENT AGENDA Annexation: Burnstead, SE 128th St to 156th Ave SE Vacation: SW 12th St/Grady Way SW Alley, Snyder/Sound Ford (VAC-95-003) CAG: 95-, Metro Trunk Line Easements @ Cedar River Park (SR-169) CAG: 95-054, Houser Way/Williams Ave Bridges Seismic Retrofit, Diamaco Public Works: PWTF Loans for Corrosion Con'trol & Rolling Hills Reservoir OLD BUSINESS Utilities Committee Public Works: Vactor Decant/Debris Storage Facility, King County Renton City Council Minutes Page 402 RESIDENTIAL ZONING (NO APARTMENTS) OVER THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AREA WHILE ACCOMMODATING THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES, CARRIED. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL PLACE THE ORDINANCE FORMALLY APPROVING THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION AREA ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR FIRST READING. CARRIED. (See page 406 for ordinance.) Councilman Corman returned to the Chambers at 9:00 p.m. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:08 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilniembers present. Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. City Clerk submitted letter from the King County Boundary Review Board transmitting the BRB's resolution and hearing decision formally approving the Burnstead Annexation as of October 12, 1995. Information. City Clerk submitted petition to vacate a portion of the alley between SW 12th St. and Grady Way SW west of Rainier Ave. S,; petition submitted by Rich Snyder representing Sound Ford, V AC-95-003. Refer to Board of Public Works: set public hearing on I 1/20/95 to consider the petition. Council concur. (See page 406 for resolution setting the public hearing.) Community Services Department recommended granting Metro a temporary construction easement aod a permanent utility easement 00 Cedar River Park property for the new Metro trunk line along the northeast side (SR-169)of the park. Refer to Community Services Committee. Transportation Systems Division submitted CAG-95-054, Seismic Retrofit of the Houser Way and Williams Ave. bridges; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final pay estimate in the amount of S950.00, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of SI,995.00 to Diamaco, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. Utility Systems Division requested authorization to apply for Public Works Trust Fund pre-construction activities loans for corrosion control treatment facilities (SI73,400) and the Rolling Hills reservoir ($154,400). Council concur. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Chair Corman presented a report recommending concurrence with the staff recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with King County for the construction and joint operation of a vactor decant and temporary debris storage/sorting facility in the vicinity of Monroe Ave. NE and NE 2nd Street. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption., MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 406 for resolution.) ~ JAN-09-1996 17:47 . ;,....' FROM KC DOES DIRECTORS OFFICE TO 92352541 P. 01 I()-'l(" . .. , Kln!lCoun~ Department of Uevelopmmt and Environmental SCM'lces ~FiC.IO -1lGth l'klC't SuuthC';(~t Bo:lIC1!lIP.t W.,~hil'~ll)u ~180O(i..HOO January 9, 1996 Mr. Gregg A. Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 ~: -m~)::; ...//l.tJ7I OJ : ,t7~ ,f' . -.--- RE: pevelopment Review Within the Bumstead Annexation Area Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for your letter of November 28, 1995, to Mr_ Robert Derrick, which initiates a discussion regarding future development review of projects proposed within the Burnstead Annexation area. Mr. Derrick has requested that I respond on his behalf. This letter is a follow up on our earlier telephone conversation in which we agreed to meet and explore ways in which we can give proper deference to the legal status of the annexation effort as well as to the customer's desire to proceed. ',", We understand your specific proposal to be that, while the legal challenge to the Boundary Review Board's approval of the annexation remains outstanding, . King County and the City of Renton agree to designate the City of Renton and its land use· policies as the governing authority in the annexation area. Such an agreement would become effective upon final resolution of the annexation appeal. Staff has reviewed this proposal and has raised some substantive issues where we could benefit from a more comprehensive discussion, including some critical land use policy issues associated with the development activity contemplated for the annexation area. The proposal appears to be outside existing models for annexation agreements. While it does reflect the basic tenets of King County policy regarding pre-annexation agreements, such an instrument is not in place at this time. JAN-09-1996 17:48 FROM KC DOES DIRECTORS OFFICE TO 92352541 P. 02 _. page 2 I and other County staff who are most knowledgeable about the properties within the Burnstead annexation area and pre- annexation agreements policy are, scheduled to meet with you and Mike Katterman at 8:30 am, on Friday, January 12, 1996, at Renton· , City Hall. If you have any questions or desire to share any information prior to that meeting, don't hesitate to contact me at (206) 296- 6702. cc: Nancy Laswell, Coordinator, Regional Affairs Section, Department of Natural 'Resources Paul Reitenbach, Office of Budget and Strategic Planning Robert S. Derrick, Director Gregory Kipp, Deputy Director '. . .-:-.' f. Recommend capital improvements, the means and schedule for providing them and amendments to functional plans to support planned land uses; g. Identify new issues that need resolution at a countywide level, and h. Identify all necessary implementing measures needed to carry out the plan. A subarea plan could follow historic community planning boundaries or address a smaller geographic area. This type of planning will address the full range of issues for a healthy community, such as public safety, health and human services, as well as land use and infrastructure. Additional types of subarea planning include: 1. Potential Annexation Area Plans Potential Annexation Area plans will become the most prominent examples of subarea planning. These plans, which will include interlocal agreements between King County and each city, will have the following components: • The city's Potential Annexation Area boundary, which includes the area the city is expected to annex within the next 20 years. • The regional issues and services which King County will be responsible for after annexation. • The local issues and services which the city will be responsible for upon annexation, and possibly before annexation. • Strategies for the transition of responsibility for local issues and services from the County to the city. • A funding strategy for local and regional services. • The revision of relevant community plans, policies and area zoning to comply with the County and city's comprehensive plans and to provide the basis for land use, developinent and other decisions by both jurisdictions. 1-210 Following designation of Potential Annexation Areas, King County shall work with cities to establish agreements on future annexations. The County and cities should jointly develop land use policies and consistent public improvement standards. The Potential Annexation Area Plan shall be an element of the Comprehensive Plan. This process shall include participation by tribes, governmental agencies, special purpose districts, other service providers, landowners and residents. The planning process may address, but is not limited to: a. Determining responsibility for upgrading facilities in Potential Annexation Areas where present facilities have been identified as insufficient, and estab- lishing a financing partnership between the County, city and other service providers to address payment of costs to build new and improve existing infra- structure; -223 - b. c. d. e. f .. g. h. i. j. Providing reciprocal notification of development proposals in the Potential Annexation Areas and opportunities to propose mitigation for adverse impacts on County, city and other service provider's facilities; Giving cities, to the extent possible, the opportunity to be the designated sewer or water provider within the Potential Annexation Area, where this can be done without harm to the integrity. of existing systems and without significantly increasing rates; Modifying improvement standards for County roads, parks, building design and other urban standards; Transferring local parks, recreation and open space sites and facilities; Establishing that Potential Annexation Areas are principally for urban uses; Making residential development density consistent with regional goals for pro- moting transit and efficient service delivery; , Continuing equivalent protection of County landmarks and historic resources listed on the King County Historic Resource Inventory; Providing environmental protection for critical areas; and Identifying the major service' deficiencies within Service Planning Areas and establishing a schedule for resolving them. ' The Potential Annexation Area agreements between King County and the cities will implement each jurisdiction's comprehensive plans and policies by identifying the responsibilities of each party. Special purpose districts will be partners within the proc~ss, helping to define how services can be provided most cost effectively. The costs of providing infrastructure and services should be shared to provide the most equitable and efficient services to all residents of King County. Citizens will be equal partners with the County, cities and the special service di~tricts in the Potential Annexation Area process. 1-211 King County and the cities shall collaboratively address level of service standards and costs. King County and the cities may share the costs of needed capital improvement programs and other services. ' Level of service standards inay differ between the County and the cities, Residents of unincorporated urban King County are encouraged to annex to cities to obtain higher levels of service. Cities and special'purpose districts are expected to be the provider of most local services. Different levels of service require different levels of funding. 1-212 If a city desires a level of service higher than King County's service standard, the city should be responsible for paying all of the incremental costs of the higher level of service above what the County would provide. , 2. Service Planning Areas As presented in Chapter Two, Urban Land Use, Full Service Areas and Service Planning Areas desig- nations will help the County concentrate its limited funds by designating higher priority areas for spending, specifically those areas that provide capacity for new growth, Service Planning Areas will -224- CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: December 12, 1995 To: ~ ~ike Kattermann Fro~on Erickson Subject: Potential Annexation Area Interlocal Agreement Got your message from Monday. The only draft interlocal agreement I have is that pertaining to our Potential Annexation Areas which I received in June of this year from Doug Osterman. Generally I find this agreement to be reasonable although there are a couple of changes I would propose for clarification as well as to provide somewhat greater flexibility if a majority of the cosigners concur. These are listed below and shown.on my copy of the attached draft . . III PUBLIC PROCESS C. King County and have reviewed the public comments received at workshops and in writing. These comments were considered in conjunction with other major determinants in designating the PAAs shown in Exhibit A (map). (Explanatorv Note: Comments received at workshops and in writing are only one of many factors that need to be considered when designating the PAAs. Other factors include reasonable service district boundaries, natural boundaries, location of nearest community services including schools, parks, and shopping facilities.) IV. RESPONSIBILITIES The County and the Cities shall cooperate regarding the annexation of land within Potential aAnnexation eAreas. , --, \ A. The Cities will respect the PAA boundaries described in Exhibit A (map and legal description). Cities will not accept petitions to annex areas outside their designated PAAs until subsequent meetings have been held between all parties to this agreement and a majority of the parties concur with the City being petitioned accepting such annexation petition because of its reasonableness if it does not conflict with the PAA of another jurisdiction. (Explanatory Note: Assuming that cities define the PAAs in a way where they do not pull in everything between their city boundaries and the Urban Growth Area boundary, it is conceivable that an area left out might want to be annexed to a nearby city if conditions had changed since the last time the PAAs had be updated. For example, a December 12, 1995 Page 2 large subdivision might find it advisable to bring in a small area contiguous to it but out just outside a designated PAA. If it were within the UGA and not in conflict with the plans of another city it would seem logical to allow it to be annexed into the city where the rest of the subdivision was being annexed into.) I think we should enter into this or a similar agreement but we also need to look at it in terms of the County's proposed policy amendments for annexations/incorporations (U-301, U-302, and U-304). If you have any other questions please let me know. cc: Documcnt2/CoR , , \ ___ -:-._""'-J'I,,[t:!:-Il.G:-'95 TUE 16:33 lD:KING COUNTY peDD TEL ~11J: 206 296 0119 11043 P01 5/95 . ,," ............ .... •• ,' •. _'.~ .• _.~ .... , ~.',-~:; ,=.'.'~:.:"' .. ' _ ......... A"."'" . .. -,.' POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA INTERLoCAL AGREEMENT This interlocal agreement on Potential Annexation Agreements is made and entered into this _-. __ day of~ ____ ~. 19_ by and between King County ("the County") and the City or Cities of ("the cities" or named specifically). L PURPOSE The pmposes of this agreement are to: A B. c. Ii. Comply with and implement the Washington State Growth Management Act and.the Countywide Planning Policies adopted and ratified by the County and the cities, which require the County to designate an urban growth area specific to each of the cities within its tennmy. Ensure that Potential Annexation Areas ("P AAs") do not ovcdap, and that unincorporated urban "islands" are not created or'lcft over between cities. Facilitate orderly 8DJleKation of unincorporated urban areas, and provide a basis for subsequent interlocal agreements addressing public services, development standards, cost- sharing for public capital improvements prior to anncxution,transfer offacilities and· "service responsibilities, and protection of natural and 'culturairesoillces within·p AAs: '.' '" .: RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS This agreement neither modifies:nor supersedes existing laws. In meeting the commitments set forth iJ1 this agreement, all parties will comply with the requirements of Washington State Acts, including but not limited to Annexations, Open Meetings. Growth Management and State Environmental Policy. . .... ;- ... ,l'~ •• f JUN-06-'95 TUE 16:33 ID:KING COUNTY.PCDD TEL NO:206 296 0119 "". '. .... -.. :=:":,,-~----;.-: .•..•.. -..... __ .• _ ..•.. :.; ':.;.-::-.'-~ ............. . : ••••••• _ •• ~ ..... ',_.. _" ,_ :.~.' -:;.:'-:';. 7 .. : '" ...... ' •• _ ". __ ••. _ Potential Annexation Area Interlocal Agreement Page: 2. m. PUBUC PJlOCESS - In making this intcrlocal agreement, tho County and cities adUJowledge they have considered the rights and concerns of area resident&, property owners, th~ 8(.-ncral public, special service districts and neighboring cities. This has been achielled by the following means: A:. (Each city outlines its specific public process. including surveys, workshops, public hearings, mailings, etc.) King County and ___ --,-__________ conducted a public meeting on _----:_---o-.".;-____ .(date) at -:--:-___ --:-_-o--____ --.:(location) B. .. :.: to gather public comment on proposed PAAs. APllloldmately __ persons attended this workshop. C. King County and . . .'. have reviewed the public 'u ~t;il I'): I. ,. I, .. I. V CO~I1U!I~ts received at wor~ops~d_in writing. These comments were considered in O~/J. 0101 . .i"j"' (1<b'II/.,,· L deSlgllatlng the PAAs shown ill Exhi. bit A (map). ~'h . ; IV. JlESPONSmILITIES : . . Iii The County and the Cities shall cooperat~ ~egarding the annexation ofland wnlpotential annexation areas, In addition to the making of this interlocal agreement, subsequCIlt interlocal agreements may address some or all of the following issues: consistency betWeCll comprehensive plans and Coun~dePlanning Policies,development and design standards, land use and density, utility and human services, and cost benefit sharing. County and City responsibilities for this P AA intc::r1ocal agreement include: A The Cities will respect the PM boundaries dellClloed in Exhibit A (map and legal j '. n' -···.n -"~~/~~~J ~~~~h~~~CZ::?t~J~~!~l:~~/!'J~~!~~~t~~iq?'--- B. J{fui eo~{y wffi'i.*,~~e 'Af~und~rsdC''''~ecf~~x61t)itX(lfap ~'fi:i~ f/( z "/FiJ . description). King County will not oppose proposed annexations to cities if the annexing areas are Within the City'sPAA . C. A city which desires to amend it~ P AA shall contact all other parties to this agreement including a variety of affected parties, parucularly area residents and property owners. King County and the affected cities agree to participate in such discussions. Cities are expected to continue to cooperate with other cites ~d to consider impacts on cities and cities PAA,s. ..~ .,:- ... JUN-06-'95 TUE 16:34 ID:KING COUNTY PCDD TEL NO: 206 296 0119 . ;....', -. . • ~'=-::~-.'.: ..•.. " ._-.• : ........... : ..•.. '---_ .. ;:..:_ .• ," .. -, ..••.•.. ==;~.~-: ........ -•... -~ ,-._ .•.•. -•.. 'Potential Annexation Area Interlocal Agreement Page 3. . . . .. D. All parttlers Will be mindful of the timing for PAA work, be realistic and flexible about avllilable resources, and share in the responsibility of completing the work. E. Cities will resolve P AA overlaps ~thin the Urban Growth Area. King County could serve as facilitator or mediator in this process, if requested to do so. The County's role as facilitator will ensure that all interested parties have been iBvolved before a final resolution is made. I . ..~ , F. King County, cities and service pr~viders are equal partners in the successfully developing and implementing the P AA program. ". __ , ___ , "_' __ '_ •• ,," ___ ... __ " ...•.• '." .. ____ ..•. _,._ • ___ H"·_ . ...".. , ... . ;~ :::.. .. -~-.. ~ ...... JUN-06-'95 TUE 16:35 IO:KING COUNTY PCOO _. -. . -,:.-... ,'----',;.. .~-"-..: .. :--:... ; ," . ~;. -:;;:. '" . Potential Annexation Arca Interlocal Agreement Page 3. TEL NO:206 296 0119 11043 P04 This interlocal agreement regarding Potential Annexation ArCBS is made and emtered into this day of • 1995 by and between King County and the [.City or Cities] of and is -'--"- attested to by the following respons.'blep~es: , , ! , Gary Locke, King County Executive , i Date: (Mayor or City Manager) Date: (Mayor or City Manager) , Date: I , (Mayor or City MlIJUIger) ! I Date: i I , I I (Mayor or City Manager) ..... -.. . _ .. ".' .,. -.-._--. ,.,,' .. _'.,._--. .. , .. _._, .. . ... , .. --. _ .... -... , ••....... "~,,' ."--".,.,.~, .. __ .,"'-.. "---,.-........ Date:· " \ , paa\intrlcI2.dDCc--_________ ...,.. _______ -'--__ ... ~ -.-,( ~ft? Earl Clymer, Mayor November 28, 1995 Mr. Bob Derrick Director, King County DDES 3600 136th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 CIT"l :::>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Development review within the Bumstead Annexation area Dear Mr. Derrick: I am proposing, by way of this letter, that King County and the City of Renton enter into an interlocal agreement that would designate Renton as the reviewing authority for all projects within the Bumstead Annexation area. As you probably know, the Boundary Review Board recently approved an annexation to the City of Renton of approximately 400 acres, commonly known as the Bumstead Annexation, on the East Renton Plateau (see attached map). Although the BRB decision has been appealed to Superior Court, several development projects are ready to begin the development review process and are unclear about whether to begin the process in the County, with the possibility that it will be annexed before the project is built, or whether to wait for the court case to be decided. I believe Renton would be the most logical reviewing authority in this area for several reasons: • The area is within the Urban Growth Boundary and Renton's Potential Annexation Area • This interlocal could be the model for subsequent interlocals we are supposed to develop with King County during 1996 . • It would be simpler for all concerned if a development proposal could be processed from start to finish by a single jurisdiction • Renton would prefer to have projects built to City standards since they will ultimately be in the city limits • Renton intends to be the sewer provider for this area I would be glad to discuss this matter with you further at your earliest convenience. If you are agreeable, I believe we can have an interlocal agreement in place within two to three months. Please feel free to contact me directly at 277-6211, or Mike Kattermann, Planning and Technical Services Director, at 277-6190, to set up a meeting or to discuss any questions or comments you may have. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, 9J,(efI! .5111~~ Gregg A. Zimmerman, P.E. Administrator cc: Jay Covington Mike Kattermann !kuno Masterson bee: Jan. Durocher Judy Stoloff 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 (,i) This paper contains SO"'. recycled material, 25% post consumer u L BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION o 1000 2000 Ef ~5ii_E: ~~~I. r---il---I _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundory [I ==::J1 Proposed Annexation LAW OFFrCES OF HERMAN. R.ECOR, KAUFMAN & SIMMERLY STEI'liLN T. I\H..A"I M. C(RALD Hr;R."AN ROII!:RT B, JAC ....... ",ON R0t\[RT C. K ..... ur ... 1AN· Sn;Vl:N r~ RE<':C'R P·\lll. E. SI"'I"r.H.I.\ Bob C. Sterbank, Esq. Helsell, Fetterman, Maltin, Todd & Hokanson 1500 Puget Sound Plaza 1325 FOlllth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 November 27, 1995 900 Cln C[NTUl BU.I.!:vll!: SoO -H..'I8111 ,.\VI:NlJr, NORTllr.AsT BU.U:VIJl:. \\:''':'lliNCTON 9800,,1 F."'CSlo,llI.E: (?OG) .·15HGS~) li:I.!:I'II()NI:: (206).151-1. 10() Re: King COWlty Water District No. 90, et al. v. Washington State BoundalY Review Board, et a1. King Cowlty Cause No. 95-2-27556-7 Dear Mr. Sterbauk: I write to acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 20 with enclosures. Neither the BOWldalY Review Board nor this office received any notification oftlus appeal prior to your letter of November 20 (received on November 21, 1995), Inasmuch as the Board was not served with notice of this appeal within the thirty day time prescIiptions ofRCW 36.93 et seq., your appeal is Wltimely and of no force or effect. Your failnre to selve the Board within the appeal peliod deprives the superior court of jurisdiction and the appeal is Wltimely. Without waiving any defenses, either substantive or jurisdictional, you shonld consider this letter a Noti'ce' of " Appearance on behalf of the Board in the event you intend to pursue any fillther action in the • 'h . supenor COlllt. ' RCKIlsv / I Very truly yours, HERMAN, RECOR,KAOFMAN, & SIMMERL Y /I(i>{/« ./ I cc: AIda H. Wilkinson, Executive Secretary Lawrence], Warren, Esq. -City Attorney for CitY of Renton 11/28/1995 12:08 3289112 JSTDLDFF G , Renton School AI.,.,." u.;(. ... U~ 43.5 Main Avenu4' South, &m1nn,. W4IlaingtDI1 98055.2700 Office oltnr SupmntP.'ndmt 2J5.2J40 , NovCUlb~ 14. 199~ Mr. Bob Denick. Director KilIg County ODES 3600 1361& Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006.1400 RB: Maplewood Heights ElemeGtaty School· A95POOl7 Dear Mr. Derrick: PAGE 01 The Reaton School District L~ ~uccessfuUy Pro,lC.Jlin, witl! tile first phase ot Ollr capital Improvemellts proSf8ll\. We bave completed three Delli school" have twu iJI coDstmr.tion and tile last tiro in des left phlSe, The Maplewood Heigbts project, however, i. experiencin, difficulty due 10 sewer collilleta whiell iIlll beyoncl our control., We have proceeded with the coasrruetion dOcuments for this project, but our most 1llcely purveyor of aeWer service the C':iry nf Renlnn, IIA., been delayed in their annexation effott~. Ac:knowledsmt that tbe ,ewe: issue is lIot yet ",~ulved. we would Hlee t(1 discuSi witb you the conditioDs UDder which we could submit for construction l'Cview thi$ month. [f you could make exception to your intake procedures, upon a commitment 01' board resolution (rom us 'Cgurding your cOllcern3, .. c could be ready to hid in tilt'! spm, as we promised the community. We desire o keep rhis project on schedule to a void th~ risk of adversely impacting futul'C proj~ts. incun1lll1 eost IV@nufte, and jeopardizing voter approval of our next bond js~ue. Please, let U8 .know Q tune when we could tiSClJSS this matter. uperilltendent Rick Stracke 1an Ourwhcr Chris OrlltCI Davo Chrlstollseu :Fred Bumstead Terry Llrulquest -----.-~-'"'--... , RECEIVED lOY 16_ -,.-:.. ________ '-''--'-....w',,' ... ='''','; .. :_~_ Rezone: Highlands . Neighborhood Center, 810 EdmondsA:veNE . Rezone:.Highlands Annex, :Edmondi(Ave'NE'& NE 7th St ' ... ' -,.:J: ;" ':,;-: . ..;,;: ... Rezone: Highlands' ,Elemeniary School, 2727 '. NE 9th St Building: Temporary U:se Permit Process November 6 1995 ADJOURNMENT Recorder: Brenda Fritsvold 11/06/95 CARRIED. J. rdinance was read changing the .zoni. ;Iassification of property located at 810 Edmonds Ave. NE from P-I (Public Use) to.R-8 (Residential - 8 units per acre) (Highlands Neighborhood Center, File No. LUA-95-096). MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11113/95. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the~zoning.classification.,of,property located at northeast corner' of Edmonds Ave .. NE,andNE 7th.St. at 754 Edmonds Ave. NE from P-l (Public. Use) to R-8 (Residential -8 .units per. acre) (Highlands Annex, File No. LUA-95';134). MOVED BY-EDWARDS,SECONDED BY ,NELSON,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11 113/95. CARRIED. An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of property located' at 2727 NE 9th St. from P-l (Public Use) to R-8 (Residential - 8 units per acre) (Highlands Elementary School, File No. LUA-95-098). 'MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE' ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11113/95. CARRIED. An ordinance and summary ordinance were read amending Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations), and amending subsection 5- 5-I.A of Chapter I, Fee Schedule, of Title IV (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code relating to the processing of temporary use permits, . alJowing temporary uses as permitted secondary uses in certain zones, and reducing the amount of the application fee for a temporary use permit. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 1!1!3/95. CARRIED. The folJowing ordinance was presented for second and final reading (Councilmember Corman excused himself from participating in this matter due to the potential for the appearance of conflict of interest): An ordinance was read annexing approximately 403 acres located east of the City limits and north and south of SE 128th Street (Burnstead Annexation; File No. A-94-001). MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL: ALL A YES. CARRIED. The publication of the ordinance will be postponed pending settlement of the relevant lawsuit. ----, ---.-.--~ .. -----. - Renton City Council Minutes MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 9:27 p.m. Page 420 - KCWD 90 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 90 PUBLIC MEETINGS Public meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of every month at the hour of 6:30pm, unless othelWise published in the newspaper andlor at the District office. There will be a public meeting held in Jan, or Feb. to solicit input on our Comprehensive Water System Plan. Watch your newspaper for more information. WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS The second main replacement job has just been completed in the area of 148 Ave. SE. The third construction contract has been awarded and will start soon. Thank you for your patience during construction. District Office Hours Monday -Friday 8:00am -4:30pm District Phone ........ 255-9600 24 Hr Emergency ... 255-9600 Puget Power Street RENTON ANNEXATION The City of Renton Bumstead Annexation has been put on hold pending an appeal to Superior Court. The annexation will prevent Water District 90 from providing sewer service to the 403 acres within it's boundaries for which it has both a Sewer and Water Franchise. The District feels that an annexation is unnecessary and: will be more costly due to a pump system Renton would have to install as opposed to a gravity fed system which could be provided by Water District 90. Future sewer system growth is now needed in other areas as well and could be inhibited or more costly as a result of Renton's plans. Money collected by special Districts such as Water District 90, is intended for utility purposes only and as a ratepayer, you share ownership of the District with our other customers. Money paid to cities becomes part of a general fund and can be used for parks, police and fire departments, surface water or whatever function the city dictates. Inside This Newsletter WINTER 1995/1996 RENTON, WA Abandoned Heating Oil Tanks Fuel oil tanks not used for a year or longer may have special requirements. Upon placing your home for sale, this is one item that needs to be fixed. There are companies that will do the work for you, or you can do it yourself, a permit is required from the Fire Marshall. More information is available at the King County Fire Marshalls office. Also, Water District 90 does have some information upon request. WE HOPE YOU HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!! 1996 COMMISSIONERS Jim Rohrer Mac Lovell Glenn Bressan Chairman Secretary Commissioner Light Repair ....... 1-800-321-4123 *** EPA letter concerning Lead and your drinking water. To comply with EPA regulations, King County Water District #90 is required to distribute the following brochure, While the information on the following pages may cause some concern, please note that this brochure is written in a"mandatory" language prescribed by the EPA, You should also know that as an individual water distribution, Water District #90 meets the stringent new standards prescribed by the EPA. The EPA, Lead, Drinking Water." and Your 'Inc United States Environmental Protection Agency requires us to distribute the infonnation in this brochure under the provisions of the National Primary Drinking Waler Regulations, Control of Lead and Copper. Public Education Requirements (40CFR Part 141.85 Federal Register, V. 56, No. 110, P. 26553 June 7.1991). 1. Introduction The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and King County Water District #90 arc concerned about lead in your drinking water. Although most homes have very low levels of lead in their drinking waler, some homes in the community have lead levels above the USEPA action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams oflead per liter ofwuter (mglL). Under Fedcrallaw we are required to put a program in place to minimize lead in your drinking water. This program includes corrosion control treatment. source water treatment. and puhlic education. The corrosion control treatment portion of this program has been in place since 19&2. We are also required to replace each lead scrvice line that we control if the line contributes lead concentrations of more than 15 ppb after we have completed the comprehensive treatment program. If YOll have any qucstions about how we arc carrying out the requirements of the lead regulation, please give us a call at 255-9600. This brochure explains the simple steps you can take to protect you and your family by reducing your exposure to lead in drinking water. 2. lIealth Itffccts of Lelld Lead is a common, natural and often useful metal found throughout the environment in lead-based paint, air, soil, household dust. food, certain types of pottery porcelain and pewter. and water. Lead can pose a significant risk to your health iftoo much of it enters your body. Lead builds up in the body over many years and can cause damage to the brain, red blood cells and kidneys. The greatest risk is to young children and pregnant women. Amounts of lead that won't hurt adults can slow down normal mental and physical development of growing bodies. In addition, a child nt play often comes into contact with sources of lead contamination--like dirt and dust-- that rarely affect an adult. It is important to wash children's hands and toys often, and to try to make sure they only put food in their mouths. 3. Lead In Drinking Water • Lead in drinking water, although rarely the sole cnuse of lead poisoning, can significantly increase a person's total lead exposure, particularly the exposure of infants who drink baby formulas and concentrated juices that are mixed with water. The EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20 percent or more ofa person's total exposure to lead. • Lead is unusual among drinking water contaminants in that it seldom occurs naturally in water supplies like rivers and lakes. Lead enters drinking water primarily as a a result of the corrosion, or wearing away, of materials containing lead in the water distribution system and household plumbing. These materials include lead-based solder used to join copper pipe, brass and chrome-plated brass faucets, and in some cases, pipes made of lead that connect your house to the water main (service lines). In 1986, Congress banned the usc of lead solder containing greater than 0.2 percent lead, and restricted the lead content of faucets, pipes and other plumbing materials to ~.O percent. When water stands in lead pipes or plumbing systems containing lead for several hours of more, the lead may dissolve into your drinking water. This means the first water drawn from the tap in the morning, or later in the afternoon after returning from work or school, can contain fairly high levels of lead. 4. Steps You Can Take in the Home to Reduce Exposure to Lead in Drinking Water • Despite our best efforts mentioned earlier to control water corrosivity and remove lead from the water supply, lead levels in some homes or buildings can be high. To find out whether you need to take action in your own home. have your drinking water tested to determine if it contains excessive concentrations of lead. Testing the water is essential because you cannot see, taste, or smell lead in drinking water. Some local laboratories that can provide this information arc listed at the end of this booklet. To hear a recorded list of State certified water testing laboratories, call 6&4-7801. • If a water test indicates that the drinking water drawn from a tap in your home contains lead above 15 ppb. then you should take the following precautions: • Let the watcr run from the tap before using it for drinking or cooking any time the Water in a faucet has gone unused for more than six hours. The longer water resides in your home's plumbing the more lead it may contain. Flushing the tap means running the cold water faucet until the water gets noticeably colder. usually about 15-30 seconds. If your house has a lead service line to the Water main, you may have to flush the water for a longer time, perhaps one minute, before drinking. Although toilet flushing or showering flushes water through a portion of your home's plumbing system, you still need to flush the water in each faucet before using it for drinking or cooking. Flushing tap water is a simple and inexpensive measure you can take to protect your family's health. It usually uses less than one or two gallons ofwaler and costs less than $.15 -$.20 per month. To conserve water, fill a couple of bottles for drinking water after flushing the tap, and whenever possible use the first flush water to wash the dishes or water the plants. If you live in a high-rise building, letting the water flow before using it may not work to lessen your risk from lead. The plumbing systems have more, and sometimes larger pipes than smaller buildings. Ask your landlord for help in locating the source of the lead and for advice on reducing the lead level. • Try not to cook with. or drink water from the hot water tap. Hot water can dissolve more lead more quickly than cold water. If you need hot water, draw water from the cold tap and heat it on the stove. • Remove loose lead solder and debris from the plumbing materials installed in newly constructed homes, or homes in which the plumbing has recently been replaced, by removing the faucet strainers from all taps and running the water from 3 to :5 minutes. Thereafter, periodically remove the strainers and flush out any debris that has accumulated over time. • If your copper pipes are joined with lead solder that has been installed illegally since it was banned in King County in 198:5 , notify the plumber who did the work and request that he or she replace the lead solder with lead·free solder. Lead solder looks dull gray, and when scratched with a key looks shiny. In addition. notify your State Health Department or the Seattle· King County Health Department Hazards Line about the violation. • Detennme whether or not the service line that connects your home or apartment to the water main is made of lead. The best way to detennine if your service line is made of lead is by either hiring a licensed plumber to inspect the line or by contacting the plumbing contractor who installed the line. You can identify the plumbing contractor by checking the city's or county's record of building pennits which should be maintained in the files of the King County Department of Develpmental and Environmental Services (building pennit) or Seattle-King County Health Department (plumbing pennit). A licensed plumber can at the same time check to see if your home's plumbing contains lead solder, lead pipes., or pipe fittings that contain lead. The public water system that delivers water to your home should also maintain records of the materials located in the distribution system. . If the service line that connects your dwelling to the water main contributes more than 15 ppb to drinking water after our comprehensive treatment program is in place, we are required to replace the line. If the line is only partially controlled by King County Water District #90, we are required to provide you with information on how to replace your portion of the service line, and offer to replace that portion of the line at your expense and take a follow.up tap water sample within 14 days of the replacement Acceptable replacement alternatives include copper, steel. iron, and plastic pipes. • Have an electrician check your wiring. If grounding wires from the electrical system are attached to your pipes. corrosion may be greater. Check with a licensed electrician or your local electrical code to dctennine if your wiring can be grounded elsewhere. DO NOT attempt to change the wiring yourself because improper grounding ran cause eledrical shock and fire tw.arda. • The steps described above will reduce the lead concentrations in your drinking water. However, if a water test indicates that the drinking water coming from your tap contains lead concentrations in excess of 15 ppb after flushing. or after we have completed our actions to minimize lead levels, then you may want to take the following additional measures: • Purchase or lease a home treatment device. Home treabnent devices are limited in that each unit treats only the water that flows from the faucet to which it is connected, and all of the devices require periodic maintenance and replacement Devices such as reverse osmosis systems or distillers can effectively remove lead from your drinking water. Some activated carbon filters may reduce lead levels at the tap: however, all lead reduction claims should be investigated. Be sure to check the actual perfonnance of a specific home treatment device before and after installing the unit. • Purchase bottled water for drinking water and cooking. You can consult a variety of sources for additional infonnation. Your family doctor or pediabician can perfonn a blood test for lead and provide you with infonnation about the health effects of lead. Federal, state and local govenunent agencies that can be contacted include: United States Environmental Protection Agency Safe Drinking Water Hotline 1-800-426-4791 Washington State Department of Health Safe Drinking Water Hotline 1-800-l21-0323 Seattle-King County Health Department HAZARDS LINE 296-4692 • The Seattle Water Department Water Quality Division can provide you with a recorded list of Puget Sound area State- certified laboratories at 684-7801; and provide general infonnation about your community's water supply at 684·7980; King County Department of Development and Environmental Services at 296..6600 or Seattle-King County Health Department at 2964722 can provide you with infonnation about building and/or plumbing permit records, respectively, that should contain the names of plumbing contractors that plumbed your home; and • The Washington Slate Department of Health ~r the SeaUIe- King County Health Department HAZARDS line at the phone numbers listed above, can provide you with infonnation about the health effects of lead and how you can have your child's blood tested. • The following is a list of some State approved laboratories in your area that you can call to have your water tested for lead: Am Test, Inc. Redmond Aquatic Research Seattle Cascade Analytical Tacoma Laucks Testing Labs Seattle North Creek Analytical Bothell Orion Laboratories Fife Sound Analytical Tacoma WDOH Environmental Svcs. Seattle Water Management Labs Tacoma Weyerhaeuser Federal Way King County Water District #90 Il606 SE 128th St Renton, W A 98019 88l-1664 632-271l 472-6909 767-l060 481-9200 922-9008 922-2310 361-2898 l31-3121 924-6872 * According to Kbtg County Water Diatrid #90 records, there are no lead lineJ In our water ma1ru or distribution system. KIng County Waler DIstrict #90 wI> wllhln the guld.Unes set by the EPA. King County Water District 90 15606 SE 128th St. Renton, W A 98059 J OH N C UNO 20426 SE 127 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 BULK RATE us POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. II RENTON WASHINGTON 98018 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 CITY OF RENTON NOV C 7 1995 RI:~,t:IVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED In king (ounty Supoorior (ourt (l.rIc', Office OCT 2 a 1995 (ashier Se(;i:;n SupJrior {:llf' Clerk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90,a Washington municipal corporation; and NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN, husband and wife; Appellants, v. l05-2-2755 6 -181A ) NO. . ) ) SUMMONS ) ) ) ) WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW ) BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, a state ) agency; and THE CITY OF RENTON, a ) Washington municipal corporation, ) ) Respondents. ) ---------------------------) 16 TO: WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY 17 AND TO: THE CITY OF RENTON 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A lawsuit has been started against you in the above-entitled court by King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and cynthia Green, appellants. Appellants' claim is stated in the written Notice of Appeal, a copy of which is served upon you with this summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the notice by stating your defense in writing, and by serving a copy upon the person signing this summons within 20 days after service of this summons, excluding the day of service (or within 60 days after service of this summons, excluding the day of service, if served outside the State ofWashinqton), or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where appellants are entitled to what they ask for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned person, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. HELSELL, FETTERMAN. MARTIN, TOCD a: HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA 132!1 F'OURTI"! AVENUE PO. 60X C!le46 SEATTL.!. WASHINGTON 98111 (Z06) 292·114.4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You may demand that the appellants file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the person signing this summons. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the appellants must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court civil Rules of the State of Washington. DATED this ~ day of October, 1995. SUMMONS - 2 HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON BY~[l$>R~. 9~/~iCk ,..--WS~ Attorneys for Appellants HELSELL.. FETTERMAN, MARTIN. TOCD a: HOKANSO~ ':500 PUGE:T SOUND PI..AZA 13Z~ FOURTH AVENUe:: PO BOX 21646 SEATTLE. WASHINCTON 98111 (Z06) 292-1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 CITY OF RENTON NOV 0 7 1995 Ri::vclliED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED I. lino ea.nll \uPfliol (oollf (I"k', am" OCT 20 1995 Cashier Seclian S~perior Courf Clerk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90, a Washington municipal corporation; and NORMAN and CYNTHIA GREEN, husband and wife; Appellants, v. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION ,WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW 13 BOARD FOR KING COUNTY, a state agency; and THE CITY OF RENTON, a 14 Washington municipal corporation, 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. INTRODUCTION The King County Water District No. 90 and Norman and Cynthia Green hereby appeal the October 13, 1995 Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County in the matter of the City of Renton Proposed Burnstead Annexation, File No. 1922, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. In support of this appeal, Appellants state and allege as follows: NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION -1 HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN, TODD a: HOKANSON "00 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA 1302' FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 08111 (206) 292·1144 II. PARTIES 2 2.1 King County Water District No. 90 is a Washington municipal 3 corporation and is affected by the Boundary Review Board Resolution 4 and Hearing Decision at issue here. The annexation approved by the 5 Resolution and Hearing Decision will prevent Water District No. 90 6 from providing sewer service to the area that is the subject to the 7 annexation, as well as to areas beyond it, since the annexation will 8 eliminate much of the area necessary to make extension of sewer 9 service to outlying areas cost effective. This will effectively 10 destroy Water District No. 90's sewer franchise from King County thus 1 1 12 prejudicing a substantial right. 13 2.2 Norman and Cynthia Green are husband and wife and own 14 property and reside at 14128 S.E. 132nd St., Renton, Washington 15 98059, within the area sought to be annexed by the City of Renton in 16 this matter. The annexation will prejudice the Greens' substantial 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rights in that, inter alia, the annexation will result in significantly higher taxes for the Greens (payable to the City of Renton rather than to King County) while at the same time reducing the quantity and quality of municipal services provided (police services, surface water management, and road maintenance) and increasing zoning densities. Further, the annexation will prevent the Greens from receiving the most efficient and inexpensive future services, such as sewer service from King County Water District No. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 2 HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN, TOCD a: HOKANSON 1'00 PUG£T SOUND PLAZA 1:12' ~OURTH AVENUE PO. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WASMINGTON 98111 (206) 292·1144 90, because the Greens will be required to receive significantly more 2 expensive sewer service from the City of Renton instead. Finally, 3 the annexation will prevent the Greens from being governed by the 4 local government of their choice; the Greens support the proposed 5 incorporation of, the new City of Briarwood or, in the alternative 6 prefer to remain under the jurisdiction of King County, and do not 7 wish to belong to the City of Renton. 8 2.3 The Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 9 ("Boundary Review Board") is a state agency created by and operating 10 1 1 pursuant tO,RCW 36.93. On October 13, 1995, it issued the Resolution 12 and Hearing Decision ("Decision") at issue, a copy, of which is 13 attached and incorporated as Exhibit A. The mailing address of the 14 Boundary Review Board is: Central Building, Suite 608, 810 Third 15 Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98104. 16 2.4 The City of Renton ("City") is a Washington municipal 17 ciorporation and the proponent of the annexation at issue here, which 18 is known as the "Burnstead Annexation". The mailing address of the 19 City of Renton is: 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, Washington, 98055. 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. APPEAL GROUNDS 3.1 The Boundary Review Board's Decision is in violation of constitutional provisions, in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board, made upon unlawful procedure, affected by other errors of law, unsupported by material NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION -3 HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN, TOCO &: HOKANSON 1500 !=IUGET SOUNO PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE PO. BOX Zl846 SEATTL.E. WASHINGTON aelll (0206) 292-1144 and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, 2 and clearly erroneous, for reasons including but not limited to the 3 following: 4 3.1.1 The Board lacked statutory authority and jurisdiction 5 to consider the proposed. annexation, and its Decision approving the 6 annexation was affected by other errors of law, because the Petition 7 for Annexation relied upon the signature of the Renton School 6 District to achieve the required signatures of the owners of 60% of 9 the assessed value of annexation area. The Renton School District 10 itself lacked statutory authority to sign the annexation petition, 1 1 12 and without its signature, the Petition for Annexation lacked the 13 legally required number of signatures. The Boundary Review Board 14 therefore lacked statutory authority and jurisdiction to consider the 15 annexation. 16 3.1. 2 The Boundary Review Board lacked statutory authority 17 and jurisdiction to consider the annexation, because the City of 16 Renton failed to adopt an ordinance approving the annexation prior to 19 invoking the Board's review. The lack of an ordinance violated RCW 20 3SA.14 .140 and the Board's own rules, and deprived the Boundary 21 22 23 .24 25 Review Board of statutory authority or jurisdiction to consider the annexation. 3.1. 3 The Decision's findings on pages 1-9, concerning factors required to be considered under RCW 36.93.170(2), are NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 4 HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD &: HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUNO PLAZA 1~2" F'OUATH AVENUE PO. BOX 21846 SEATTL.!. WASHINGTON SlBIII (0206) 292·1144 unsupported by material and substantial evidence, affected by errors 2 of law, beyond the Board's statutory authority and jurisdiction, and 3 clearly erroneous, for reasons including but not limi ted to the 4 following: 5 a. The Board erroneously focused on the estimated speed 6 with which the Board believed that Water District No. 90 and the City 7 Renton could provide sewer service. However, RCW 36.93.170 does not 8 authorize the Board to consider the speed with which various services 9 can be provided, but instead focuses upon the prospect of whether the 10 services will be provided at all. 1 1 12 b. The Board erroneously found that delay' in provision of 13 sewer service to the annexation constitutes a health hazard, due to 14 alleged septic system failures. However, many of the "failures H 15 about which the Board was concerned are outside the annexation area 16 and will not be addressed regardless of the annexation. There is no 17 "health problem H to begin with and septic system failures will not be 18 remedied by City of Renton annexation. 19 c. The Decision erroneously implies that Water District 20 No. 90 will be unable to supply needed sewer service to the Maplewood 21 Heights Elementary School, and states that the Renton School District 22 23 24 25 approached Water District No. 90 about sewer service but did not recei ve speci fic information concerning actual construction. The actual record reflects, however, that the School District contacted NOTICE Of APPEAL Of BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 5 HELSELL.. FET·TERMAN, MARTIN. TOCO a: HOKANSON I~OO PUCiET SOUNO PlJ,ZA 13Z5 F'OURTH AVENUE SEATTl.E, WASHINGTON g8111 (ZO06) Z9Z·II044 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 Water District No. 90 only after the water District began opposing the annexation, and that the School District never requested specific information concerning sewer construction. Meanwhile, the record also reflects that only Water District No. 90 (and not the City of Renton) has prepared actual construction cost estimate and construction plans for extension of sewer to the school and the annexation area in general. Further, the Water District's estimated completion of construction (two years) co'incides with the proposed completion of the school's remodel in the fall of 1997. d. The Board erroneously disregarded the only competent evidence in the record concerning the length, of time it would take the Water District to extend sewer service to the annexation area and, without any record evidence to support it, erroneously found 15 that there is no guarantee that the Water District No. 90 would be 16 able to deliver sewer service in the future. 17 e. There is no guarantee that the City of Renton will be 18 able to provide sewer service to the annexation area or the areas 19 beyond it. As the Decision admits, the City does not currently have 20 21 22 23 24 25 a Comprehensive Sewer System Plan approved by King County to serve the area. As the Decision also admits, the City also has not completed its sewer study for areas east of the annexation area to determine whether the City or some other enti ty (such as Water District No. 90) is the appropriate sewer provided for those areas. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 6 HELSEl-L. P'ETT~RMAN. MARTIN. TODD &: HOKANSON I~OO PUCtT SOUNO PLAZA 132!1 F'OuRTH AVENUE PO BOX 21e4~ se .... TTLE. WAS)04INGTON iSl11 (206) 292-114.4 f. The Decision erroneously concludes that the City could 2 provide sewer service to 80 to 90 percent of the annexation area via 3 a gravity flow sewer system, when the City's own documents in the 4 record indicate that the vast majority of any sewer system extended 5 by the City of Renton would require expensive pumping. Meanwhile, 6 Water District No. 90's existing sewer plan calls for a 100% gravity 7 flow system to serve the annexation area. 8 3.1. 4 The Decision is unsupported by material and 9 substantial evidence, is clearly erroneous, and is affected by errors 10 1 1 of law in that it fails to accomplish the objectives set forth in RCW 12 36.93.180, for the following reasons: 13 a. The annexation results in abnormally irregular 14 boundaries, as the Decision admits, by creating a peninsula or 15 "flagpole" annexation that is contiguous with the existing City 16 boundary for "only a rather short distance." The Board's rationale, 17 that the City will ultimately annex additional areas within the Urban 18 Growth Area boundary to "fill in" remaining areas surrounding this 19 annexation peninsula, guts the legislative intent behind the 20 statutory requirement in RCW 36.93.180(4) that the Board prevent 21 22 23 24 25 abnormally irregular boundaries in the first place. b. The annexation fails to employ physical boundaries as required by RCW 36.93.180(2), but relies instead upon lot lines for two thirds of its boundaries, as admitted by the Decision. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 7 HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODO 6: HOKANSON I~OO PUGET saUNO PLAZA 13Z!!I F'OURTH AVENUE PO BOX 21646 SEATTI.E, WASHINGTON tUlll (20e) 292-1144 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 c. The annexation fails to preserve the natural East Renton Plateau community, as required by RCW 36.93.180(1), in'light of the extensive testimony that residents have little in common with the City of Renton and work and shop in Bellevue and Issaquah instead. d. The annexation fails to create or preserve logical service areas as required by RCW, 36.93.180 (3) . By approving the "flagpole" annexation, it severs Water District No. 90' s potential sewer service area. The Boundary Review Board's stated justification for doing so public· health is misplaced, because of the purported failing septic systems are not within the annexation area and would not be addressed by sewer service whether provided by the Water District or the City of Renton. The annexation area's 15 . "flagpole" shape also creates illogical and confusing service areas 16 for police service, requiring King County police to repeatedly cross 17 jurisdictional boundaries, and utilize two different, confusing 18 address systems, while responding to calls in the vicinity of the 19 peninsula annexation area. 20 21 22 23 24 25 e. As the Decision acknowledges, the proposed annexation splits the proposed City of Briarwood incorporation area. As originally proposed, the Briarwood incorporation would include an estimated 8,500 people and would exceed 10,000 people when development proposed within the incorporation area is completed. By NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 8 HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD 6: HOKANSON t!!lOO puGET SOUNO PLAZA 132' F"QURTH AVENUE PO, BOX 218415 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111 (2015) 292-1144 splitting the proposed City of Briarwood, the annexation fails to 2 encourage incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand 3 population, as required by RCW 36.93.180(5). And, because it leaves ·4 the propOsed incorporation area much smaller, the annexation fails to 5 discourage the incorporation of smaller cities of less than 7,500 6 population, also as required by RCW 36.93.180(5). 7 f. The Decision fails to adjust impractical boundaries, 8 as required by RCW 36.93.180(7), in that it does nothing to 9 compensate for the abnormally irregular annexation area boundaries. 10 Although the Board added limited territory to the annexation, in the 1 1 12 form of four half-street rights of way, the Decision does nothing to 13 adjust the impractical boundaries along lot lines which form two- 14 thirds of the annexation area's boundaries, and does nothing to 15 adjust the existing impractical City of Renton boundaries. Further, 16 testimony on the record demonstrates that in order to meet the 17 objective in RCW 36.93.180(7) the Board would be required to make 18 major adjustments that are adamantly opposed by residents and 19 property owners of the lands that would have to be included. 20 21 22 23 24 25 3.1. 5 The Board failed to maintain. a complete record of its proceedings relating to the annexation. 3.1. 6 The Board's entire decision-making process was made upo~ unlawful procedure, lacked due process and fundamental fairriess, and, particularly, violated the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, RCW NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION - 9 HELSEL\... FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD a HOKANSON 1500 PUOET SOUND PLAZA 1:325 F'OUATH AVENUE po, BOX 21846 SEATTL.E. WASHINGTON 9Blll (Z06) ZS.HI44 42.36. For example, the Board's Special Assistant Attorney General 2 Robert C. Kaufman failed to disclose until after the Board's decision 3 his legal representation of proponents of the annexation in other 4 matters even while he advised the Board on matters affecting his 5 clients' interests in the annexation. 6 IV. RELIEF REQUESTED 7 4.1 Appellants respectfully request that the Court grant the 8 following relief: 9 4.1.1 Entry of order reversing the October 13, 1995 10 1 1 Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Boundary Review Board and 12 denying the annexation; 13 4.1. 2 In the alt~rnative, entry of an order remanding 14 this matter to the Boundary Review Board for further proceedings 15 consistent with the law and the decision of the Court. 16 4.1. 3 Award of appellants' costs and disbursements in 17 this matter; and 18 4.1. 4 Award of such further relief as this Court deems 19 just and equitable. 20 21 22 23 24 25 -v::,cfl-DATED this ~ day of __ @:=:.,( =e;C-,(..~_'--,--__ , 1994. Respectfully submitted, HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON . By: . ~-E, =<ft~ NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DECISION -10 Peter J. Eglick, Bar No. 8809 Bob C. Sterbank, Bar No. 19514 Attorneys for Appellants HEL.SELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD A HOKANSON 1500 PUOET SOUNO PLAZA 13025 FOURTH AVENUe:: PO. BOX Z!S46 SEATTLE" WASHINGTON gB1I1 (Z061 292·1144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ,.e .v 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 "5 _6 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 INRE: [D)[§(f;[§OW @ PROCEEDINGS OF THE UU . D WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD OCT 14 lnQto FOR KING COUNTY :7. :1 CITY OF RENTON Proposed Annexation (Bumstead) King County, Washington . HElSEll. FETTERMAN M FILE NO. 19mD & HOKANSON RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION The Notice of Intention filed in Boundary Review Board File No. 1922 proposed the annexation of certain territory known as "Bumsteadw by the City of Renton, King County, Washington. , After notice duly given, a hearing was held September 21, 1995, and continued to September 26, 1995,'before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board at Maplewood Heights Elementary School, 13430 144th Avenue S.E., Renton, Washington. On the basis of the testimony, evidence and exhibits presented at said hearing, and the matters on flle in said File No. 1922, it is the decision of the Board that the action proposed in said Notice of Intention be, and the same is, hereby approved as modified by the addition of territory. The legal description of the modified anne'ation area is attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit A", together with a map showing the boundaries of the area as modified herein =ked as "Exhibit B". FACTORS AFFECTING THIS PROPOSAL In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the many factors prescribed in RCW 36.93.170. The follOwing have been selected for particular attention: Land Area The proposed Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton is 402.9 acres in area. The annexation area is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the existing City of Renton on the East Renton, Plateau. The annexation area is contiguous to the Renton corporate boundary along a relatively short segment of 140th Avenue S.E. between approximately S.E. 126th and 129th Streets. A major street, S.E. 12~th Street, bisects the annexation area from west to east. The proposed annexation would expand the City of Renton to the east along S.E. 128th Street from the current eastern boundary line at 140th Avenue S.E. to a new eastern boundary line at IS6th Avenue S.E. The annexation includes territory on both the north and south sides of S.E. 128th Street, extending to S.E. 120th Street on the north and to S.E. 138th Street on the south. The proposed annexation would create peninsulas of unincorporated territory, surrounded by the City of Renton on three sides, both to the north and to the southwest of the proposed annexation area. The peninsula to the southwest would be more irregular in configuration, while the peninsula to the north would be more rectangular and wider from west to east. PAGE ONE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) OCT 1 4 199~ EXu.-mSrr fA I The entire annexation area is located within an area proposed for incorporation as the new City 2 of Briarwood. Proponents of the Briarwood incorporation have flIed a copy of the proposed 3 petition with King County and are in the process of circulating petitions for signarure. 4 Incorporation petitions have not been flIed. The proposed Briarwood incorporation area includes 5 the entire Urban Growth Area (UGA), designated by King County under the Growth Management 6 Act (GMA), located on the East Renton Plateau to the east of the existing City of Renton. The 7 annexation would split the proposed Briarwood incorporation, dividing a relatively small portion 8 of the UGA to the north from the major portion of the proposed incorporation to the south and 9 southeast. 10 11 The proposed annexation is modified to add adjacent segments of street right-of-way not included 12 in the annexation as originally proposed. There" are four segments of street right-of-way added 13 to the annexation: 1) S.E. 128th Street between 154th and 156th Avenues S.E., 2) 144th Avenue 14 S.E. between S.E. 136th and 138th Streets, 3) 152nd Avenue S.E. between S.E. 132nd and 138th 15 Streets, and 4) 150th Avenue S.E. between S.E. 124th and approximately 126th Streets. 16 17 Population and Population Density 18 19 The estimated population of the proposed annexation area is 473 residents. Based on an area of 20 approximately 403 acres, population density is approximatel~' 1.2 residents per acre. 21 22 Land Uses 23 24 Existing land use within the proposed Bumstead annexation area consists of single family 25 residential, local retail, a public elementary school, pasture and vacant land. The school, 26 Maplewood Heights Elementary School, is located toward the southern end of the annexation 27 area. The southernmost 40 acres of the annexation area is undeveloped park property owned by 28 King County. " 29 30 Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Zoning 31 32 King County 33 34 King County land use designations and zoning classifications for the annexation area provide for 35 single family residential development at a density of four dwelling units per gross acre, multiple 36 family residential development at densities of 12 to 18 dwelling units per acre, and 37 commercial/retail development. The major portion of the annexation area is zoned single family 38 residential, with small areas of multiple family residential located to the north and south of S.E. 39 128th Street adjacent to the current City of Renton boundary line. There are small areas with 40 community and neighborhood business classifications located on S.E. 128th Street toward the 41 western end of the annexation in the vicinity of the current City of Renton. Current zoning 42 generally reflects current land use. 43 44 45 46 PAGE TWO -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) · 1 City of Renton 2 , The proposed annexation area is covered by the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, adopted February 20, 1995, in response to the Growth Management Act (GMA). The Bumstead 5 annexation area is entirely within the Potential Annexation Area (p AA) designated by the City 6 . of Renton under GMA. According to the City of Renton, the comprehensive planning process 7 included input from residents of the area. 8 9 Proposed City of Renton zoning for the annexation area includes single family residential at 10 densities of five and eight dwelling units per acre, along with a higher density residential 11 classification allowing ten dwelling units per acre. Within the higher density classification, half 12 of the units must be single family detached, while the other half may be attached up to a 13 maximum of fourplexes. Proposed City of Renton zoning for the area does not provide for any 14 commercial or retail uses. The major portion of the annexation area would be residential at a 15 density of five units per net acre, which is comparable to the current King County zoning of 16 residential at four units per gross acre. Higher density single family residential zoning is located 17 in the most southerly and westerly portions of the annexation site. The highest density residential 18 classification, allowing up to ten units per acre, is located along S.E. 128th Street in the most 19 westerly portion of the annexation adjacent to the current City of Renton boundary line. 20 21 Growth Management Act (CMA) 22 23 The proposed Bumstead annexation area is entirely within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) 24 boundary line established by King County under GMA. The annexation extends to the UGA ~'i boundary at 156th Avenue S.E. to the north of S.E. 128th Street. The King County Department .oJ of Development and Environmental Services submitted a written statement that the annexation 27 is "generally consistent with the direction in the Washington State Growth Management Act .. 28 . and the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan." 29 30 The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, adopted to comply with GMA, includes the 31 annexation site within the Service Planning Area, as well as the Urban Growth Area. Under the 32 Growth Management Act, as specified in RCW 36.70A.110 (3), cities are the appropriate 33 providers of urban government services. The Countywide Planning Policies, adopted under 34 GMA, confirm in framework policy FW-13 that cities are the appropriate urban service providers. 35 nus statement is reinforced in the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan as policy V-307, 36 which states that "it is the intention of the County and cities that the cities will assume primary 37 responsibility for coordinating the provision of local services delivery •.. .- 38 39 The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan makes a clear statement of preference for annexation 40 to existing cities over the incorporation of new cities. Policy U-302 of the plan states that "King 41 County s.'uill favor annexation over incorporation within the Urban Growth Area, N and that 42 . "Incorporations should be supported only when annexation is not appropriate and when the 43 formation of new cities is necessary to assure adequate facilities and services .... " 44 45 46 PAGE TIiREE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 The UGA to the east of the City of Renton extends to 156th Avenue S.E. to the nonh of S.E. 2 128th Street, to 184th Avenue S.E. to the south of S.E. 128th Street, and to the top of the bluff over the Cedar River Valley to the south. The City of Renton includes all of this area in the City 4 Potential Annexation Area (PAA) for future annexation. The City of Renton PAA is established 5 in the City Comprehensive Plan adopted February 20, 1995, to comply with GMA. 6 7 Per Capita Assessed Valuation 8 9 Assessed valuation of the Bumstead annexation area is $27,373,850. Based on a population of 10 473 residents, per capita assessed valuation is $57,873. 11 12 Topograpby. Natural Boundaries and Drainage Basins 13 14 The Bumstead annexation site slopes gradually downward from the nonheast to the southwest. 15 All except the nonheastem comer of the annexation site is within the East Maplewood Subbasin 16 of the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin and drains to the southwest toward the Cedar River. 17 The most nonheasterly comer of the annexation site is in the May Creek Drainage Basin and 18 drains to the nonheast toward May Creek. There are no physical features which create barriers 19 to the provision of services or eli vide neighborhoods within the area. 20 21 Approximately 38 percent, or slightly more than one third, of the anneXation area boundaries are 22 defmed by streets. The boundaries south of S.E. 128th Street tend to follow existing streets or 23 extensions of streets. Streets which define the boundaries in this area include 140th Avenue S.E., 24 S.E. 132nd Street, 144th Avenue S.E., and 152nd Avenue S.E. The boundaries io the nonh of S.E. 128th Street tend to follow lot lines . .l6 27 Likelihood of Significant Growth in the Area During the Next Ten Years 28 29 The proposed annexation site is located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) designated by 30 King County under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Several owners of large tracts up to 31 40 acres in size testified that they desire to develop their properties in the near future. The City 32 of Renton estimated that the annexation area would accommodate approximately 1,465 residential 33 units under current King County zoning. 34 35 Need for Municipal Services 36 37 The primary reason for the proposed annexation is a need for sewer service. Owners of vacant 38 property, including both development tracts and single residential lots, seek annexation in order 39 to obtain the sewer service necessary for residential development. Mr. Bumstead, the property 40 owner and developer who initiated the annexation, testified that he purchased his property within 41 the annexation area 15 years ago in the expectation that King County Water District No. 90 42 would be providing sewer to the area. However, the Water District has not proceeded with plans 43 to construct a sewer system for the area. 44 45 46 PAGE FOUR -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) At the same time, sewer is also needed to replace failing septic systems serving eXlstmg 2 residential development. A representative of the Seattle, King County Department of Public 1 Health testified that there are significant septic system failure rates in the area of the proposed • Bumstead annexation. The rate of septic system malfunctions in the White Fence Ranch 5 development, an established single family residential neighborhood in the northeast comer of the 6 annexation area, has been eleven to twelve percent. It was explained that the area was developed 7 in 1975 or earlier and that the Health Department allowed the utilization of septic systetns under 8 the assumption that they would be only temporary until sewer became available. According to 9 the Health Department official, the area in the vicinity of the annexation site experiences a \0 significant number of malfunctions due to the generally high water table. There have been 11 malfunctions in the area of Maplewood Heights Elementary School and the King County park 12 property, both located at the southern end of the Bumstead annexation. 13 , 14 The most immediate need for sewer is to allow a major upgrading of Maplewood Heights 15 Elementary School. Representatives of the Renton School District testified that the school is in 16 need of major structural, mechanical and electrical repairs. Tne project is scheduled to begin in 17 1996 and needs to be completed for reopening of the school in the fall of 1997. School District 18 officials testified that the District applied for permission to upgrade with a septic system and was 19 tumed down by the Health Department. The Health Department official confirmed that 20 remodeling of the elementary school cannot be approved without sewer. 21 22 The School District reports that it met with King County Water District No. 90 months ago, and 23 at that time the Water District said that it could provide sewer service to the school. However, 24 the School District has not received further information from the Water District concerning actual "i construction of sewer. The School District seeks annexation to the City of Renton as a _6 prerequisite to receipt of City of Renton sewer service. The only alternative identified by the 27 School District is construction of a private force main 4,400 feet in length, with an estimated cost 28 of $400,000. This force main would be abandoned at the time sewer is extended to the area, 29 which means that the expenditure would be for temporary service only until such time as sewer 30 service becomes available. 31 32 Prospects of Governmental Services from Other Sources 33 34 King County Water District No. 90 testified that it has the capability of providing sewer service, 35 by installation of a gravity flow system, to the basin including the Bumstead annexation area and 36 a major portion of the Urban Gro\Vth Area (UGA) located to the eas!and southeast of the 37 annexation. Water District No. 90 has held a franchise from King County for the construction 38 of sewer for the last twenty years. The District previously prepared a plan for construction of 39 the sewer system to serve the basin area. However, residents and property owners in the area 40 have repeatedly turned down proposals to construct the sewer. Water District officials report that 41 the District has worked with all property owners requesting sewer, including Renton and Issaquah 42 School Districts, on specific plans for sewer construction, but that all plans have ultimately been 43 turned down as too expensive. 44 45 46 PAGE FIVE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 According to Water District No. 90, the District plan for a gravity flow system would provide 2 the most cost effective sewer to the annexation area and the remainder of the basin to the east. 3 The District cautioned that extension of City of Renton sewer to the Bumstead annexation 4 probably would preclude future Water District No. 90 provision of sewer to area to the east. The 5 District believes that if the Bumstead annexation area is removed from the Water District No. 6 90 sewer system, construction of the system would become so costly for property owners in the 7 remaining area that it would be turned down. 8 9 The District confirmed that the gravity flow system plan would not provide service all the way 10 to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary line. The District stated that future plans would be 11 developed for sewer service to the UGA outside the basin system at such time as property owners 12 approach the District for service. 13 14 King County Water District No. 90 presented a time schedule of two years to the point of sewer 15 availability to the Bumstead annexation area. A representative of the District testified that 16 preparation for actual construction would take two years, during which time the District would 17 accomplish updating of the District comprehensive plan, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 18 review of the project, permitting and design. Written testimony submitted by the District gives 19 a time estimate of nine months for comprehensive plan preparation and approval, which would 20 be financed with an existing District sewer fund. The District would accomplish Jesign for the 21 required Orton Road :nterceptor and Cedar River crossing concurrently with the comprehensive 22 planning process. The time estimate for permitting is four to six mo~ths, based on the 23 assumption tlmt an Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) would not be: required. The District 24 assurnes that a mitigated SEP A checklist would be sufficient, because an El5 was previously 25 prepared on the original design for the system. The District estimates that the construction phase 26 would take four to six months. 27 :8 The City of Renton presented an estimated time line of four years anJ three months for Water 29 District No. 90 sewer availability. The process includes District voter approval of the project, 30 which remains a potential impediment to Water District No. 90 provision of sewer. Area 31 residents have consistently turned down Water District No. 90 sewer for the past twenty years, 32 and the District is unable to provide assurance of approval in the future. The City testified that 33 failure of Water District No. 90 to provide sewer over the last twenty years has resulted in 34 property owner pressure on the City of Renton to extend sewer. The City stated this is one of 35 the reasons the City initiated the study for the East Renton interceptor. The City testified that 36 King County franchises are not exclusive and that the Water District No. 90 franchise for sewer 37 does not exclude the City from providing sewer to the area. 38 39 It is the fmding of the Boundary Review Board that even the City of Renton time estimate of 40 four years and three months to Water District No. 90 sewer availability is optimistic. In fact, 41 t.'lere is no gwirantee that Water District No. 90 would be able to deliver sewer service to the 42 Bumstead annexation site and surrounding area in the future. At the same time, any delay in the 43 provision of sewer to the area constitutes a health hazard, due to septic systein failures. 44 45 46 PAGE SIX -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 Probable Effect of Proposal on Adequacy of Services 2 '1 Sewer -i 5 The City of Renton has recently completed construction of the East Renton sewer interceptor, 6 which extends to a point in S.E. 128th Street (N.E. 4th Street) immediately to the west of the 7 proposed Bumstead annexation and provides adequate capacity to serve the annexation site and 8 surrounding areas. The City of Renton initiated the project with creation of the East Renton 9 Interceptor Study Area, which extended beyond the eastern boundary line of the City to 156th 10 Avenue S.E. City of Renton officials explained that at the time the study was initiated, 156th 11 Avenue S.E. was the urban/rural boundary line. The City of Renton published a Draft 12 Environmental Impact Statement (DElS) for the project in June 1991, which studied three 13 alternatives for an interceptor sized to serve the study area, including the Bumstead annexation 14 site. Mr. Bumstead reported that as an area property owner, he participated in the ElS process. IS The City reports that it has no record of receiving formal comment from Water District No. 90, 16 which was on the DElS distribution list. 17 18 In 1992, the City of Renton adopted a Comprehensive Sewer System Plan which placed a high 19 priority on the East Renton sewer interceptor project. The City Comprehensive Sewer System 20 Plan was :ubmitted to the King County Utilities Technical Review Committee (UTRC) to initiate 21 the County approval process, but the City subsequently withdrew the plan for resolution of 22 several boundary issues with adjacent sewer districts. The City states that these issues have been 23 resolved and that it plans to submit an updated plan for King County approval in 1996. 24 '5 The City of Renton has recently established a second sewer study area, the East Maplewood _6 Collection Study Area, to address the sewer needs of the extended Urban Growth Area (UGA), 27 which coincides with the City Potential Annexation Area (PAA), located to the east of the 28 annexation site between 156th and Us4th Avenue S.E. The City of Renton states that the City 29 has the capability of providing sewer to the area and would do so if the study concludes that the 30 City is the appropriate provider. The study will also address the option of sewer provision by 31 another provider. 32 33 The City of Renton is prepared at this time to provide sewer service to the Bumstead annexation 34 area immediately upon annexation. The City states that it would serve 80 to 90 percent of the 35 annexation site by gravity flow, with only the most southerly portion of the annexation area 36 requiring pumping. The City would be able to meet time schedules for the Maplewood 37 Elementary School improvement project and planned residential development. 38 39 Water 40 41 Annexation to the City of Re."lton would not affect water service to the proposed annexation area. 42 The annexation site is within King County Water District No. 90 and currently receives Water 43 District No. 90 water service. Water District No. 90 would continue the same service to the area . 44 following annexation. 45 46 PAGE SEVEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) Fire Protection 2 J The major portion of the annexation area would experience no change in fire protection service 4 as a result of annexation. All of the. annexation site except a small area in the northeastern 5 comer is within King County Fire Protection District No. 25, which already contracts with the 6 City of Renton to provide fue protection service to the area. Following annexation, the City of 7 Renton would provide the same service directly. A small portion of the annexation area currently 8 is within King County Fire Protection District No. 10. Fire protection service for this area would 9 transfer to the City of Renton following annexation. 10 11 Police Protection 12 13 At the time of annexation, the City of Renton would assume responsibility for police protection 14 service, currently provided by King County. One of the reasons given by residents and propeny 15 owners for seeking annexation was the desire for improved police protection. There was 16 testimony that residents and propeny owners are dissatisfied with King County police service and 17 anticipate improved police service from the City of Renton. 18 19 Surface Water Management 20 21 There was testimony that the annexation site and surrounding areas experience surface water 22 drainage and flooding problems. Residents expressed concern that annexation, followed by 23 funher development, would increase these problems. . . 24 5 The City of Renton testified that it has adopted the King County standards for surface water 26 management The 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual is adopted reference in the 27 City Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC 4-22), and strict requirements for the 28 containment of runoff would be aptllied to new development within the annexation area. 29 30 Parks 31 32 King County currently owns 40 acres of undeveloped park propeny located at. the southerly end 33 of the proposed Bumstead annexation area. The City of Renton testified that the City and King 34 County have reached agreement in principle for transfer of the park to the City at the time of 35 annexation. King County confirmed that it is County policy, as well as general practice, to 36 convey park properties to cities at the time of annexation. The City of Renton would assume 37 responsibility for development of the park. 38 39 Cost of Services 40 41 There was testimony that City of Renton sewer rates are among the highest in King County. A 42 comparison chart of monthly sewer charges within the County places Renton near the highest at 43 $30 per month. The highest charges are attributed to the City of Mercer Island at $35 per month. 44 Soes Creek Water and Sewer District has separate rates for gravity and lift service, with gravity 45 service charges at $27.95 per month and lift service charges at $32 per month. These rates 46 PAGE EIGHT -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) compare with City of Seattle charges at $22.95 Per inonth, City of Kent at S23.05 per month, and 2 City of Bellevue at $26.18 per month. 3 4 One of the reasons suggested for high City of Renton sewer rates was aging infrastructure and 5 the costs involved in upgrading that infrastructure. The City of Renton sewer utility official 6 confirmed that the City of Renton has some utility facilities which have been in the grolUld 40 7 to 50 years and that the City of Renton has an active replacement program for these facilities. 8 9 Effect on the Finances. Debt Structure. and Contractual Obligations of Affected 10 Governmental Units 11 12 City of Renton 13 14 City or Renton revenue and cost projections for the annexation indicate that expenditures would 15 exceed revenues at the current level of development, However, at full development, the City 16 would realize a net revenue gain from the annexation area. At the current level of development, 17 estimated revenues from the annexation area are $131,901, compared to estimated costs of 18 $164,484 to provide services to the area. The net cost to the City would be $32,584 per year. 19 At full development, estimated revenues are $1,125,685, compared to estimated expenditures of 20 $1,019,624, for a net annual surplus of $106,061. 21 22 Special Districts 23 24 The proposed annexation would have minimal impact on special districts providing services to 15 the area. The only district impacted fmancially would be King COlUlty Fire District No. 10, 26 which would lose the small amount of $452.69 in annual revenue. King County Fire Protection 27 District No. 25 utilizes current revenue from the area to contract for City of Renton service, :18 which means that the change to direct City service would not have a fmancial impact on the 29 District. King COlUlty Water District No. 90 would continue direct water service, and there 30 would be no fmancial impact resulting from the annexation. 31 32 OBJECTTVES 33 34 TIlis decision of the Washington State BOlUldary Review Board tends to accomplish the 35 pertinent objectives specified in RCW 36.93.180. 36 37 Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities 38 39 Annexation area residents and property owners gave conflicting testimony concerning community 40 identification. A number of residents testified that the East Renton Plateau is a separate and 41 distinct community with its own identity. They stated that they have little in common with the 42 City of Renton and would prefer the option of incorporating as a new city. Others stated that 43 they are affiliated with the City of Renton, that they work in Renton, travel to Renton for 44 services, and have Renton addresses. The City of Renton testified that it has always considered 45 the East Renton Plateau to be a part of the Renton community. It is the fmding of the Boundary 46 Review Board that the proposed annexation would cause no disruption of the greater community. PAGE NINE -RENTON{8URNSTEAD (APV/MOD) I nus decisian to. apprave the praposed Bumstead annexatian is nat incansistent with the abjective 2 specified in RCW 36.93.80 (1). . 3 4 Use of physical boundaries. including but not limited to bodies of water. highwavs. and land 5 contours 6 7 Appraximately ane third af the new City af Rentan boundaries created by the proposed 8 annexatian wauld be defmed by streets, which wauld farm visible physical boundary lines far 9 the City. The remaining twa thirds af the boundaries fallaw lat lines, which are nat physical 10 boundaries. There are no. physical features which divide the annexatian area ar separate it fram 11 the City af Rentan to. the west. 12 13 nus decisian to. approve the praposed Bumstead annexatian partially supports the abjective 14 specified in RCW 36.93.180 (2). 15 16. Creation and preservation of logical service areas 17 18 The prapased Bumstead annexatian wauld preserve currently established lagical service areas far 19 the delivery af water and fire pratectian service. The area is within King County Water District 20 No.. 90, which ",urrently pravide.~ water service to. the area, and the Water District wauld cantinue 21 the same service fallawing ann:lxatian. All except a very small portian af the annexatian area 22 is already within the City af Rentan service area far firepratectian. Mast af the annexatian site 23 is cluently within Kin~ County FlIe Protectian District No.. 25, which already contracts with th~ 7.4 City af Rentan far fire pratectian service. Fallawing annexatian, the City af Rentan wauld 5 cantinue the same flIe pratectian service direct! y. 26 27 Sewer service is the crucial issue in the case af the praposed Bumstead annexatian. The need 28 far sewer was the primary reasan far initiatian af the annexatian by annexatian area prape.ty 29 awners. Owners af develapment tracts within the area seek sewer service required far residential 30 develapment. At the same time, sewer is needed to. eliminate the health hazard caused by a high 31 incidence af septic system failures. The mast immediate need is that af Rentan School District, 32 which has scheduled majar impravements to. Maplewood Heights Elementary School and is 33 unable to. proceed with the needed impravements withaut sewer. 34 35 Althaugh King County Water District No.. 90 testified to. ability and willingness to. pravide sewer 36 to. the area, the District has ahistary af failure to. deliver sewer. Water Disuict No.. 90 has been 37 in possessian af a sewer franchise far twenty years and has prepared plans far a gravity flaw 38 sewer system cavering the annexatian site and surraunding territary. Hawever, praposals far 39 actual canstructian have been turned dawn repeatedly by vaters who. do. nat want sewer and 40 potential users who. decide it is too expensive. It is the fmding af the Baundary Review Board 41 that the Di::trict time estimate af twa years to. sewer availability is extremely aptimistic and that, 42 in fact, there is no. guarantee that the Disuict wauld be able to. provide sewer in the future. At 43 . the same time, the need far sewer is immediate. 44 45 ~6 PAGE TEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 2· 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20 21 22 23 24 -" • oJ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The City of Renton has sewer service available to the aruiexation area at this time. The City has completed the East Renton interceptor, which extends to a point immediately to the west of the annexation site and is sized to serve the site. The annexation area is within the sewer service area covered by the adopted City of Renton Comprehensive Sewer Plan. In addition, the City of Renton has initiated a study for provision of sewer to the remainder of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to the east of the site. The City of Renton is the only provider of sewer service needed within the annexation area at this time. The City of Renton has planned and implemented the logical extension of the City sewer service area into the area including the Bumstead annexation site. The City of Renton is the logical provider of sewer in the long term, as well as the short term. The City of Renton is also the preferred provider of service under the Growth Management ·Act (GMA), the Countywide Planning Policies, and the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, all of which state that cities are the appropriate providers of urban services. Modification of the annexation area boundaries to include adjacent segments of street right-of- way facilitates the logical provision of transportation service to the area. The additions include segments of S.E. 128th Street and 144th Avenue S.E. According to the King County Public Works Department, these additions "will allow field crews to more easily identify jurisdictional boundaries, provide for more consistent maintenance scheduling and better service delivery to citizens, and give the city appropriate control of capital :mprovement planning for roadways which form the city's boundary." The additions also include two adjacent half right-of-ways for undeveloped streets. It is assumed that the remaining half right-of-ways required to complete the streets would b<. dedicated at the time of development of adjacent properties within the annexation area. Inclusion of the half right-of-ways at the time of annexation would avoid splitting of the future streets between two jurisdictions . Th.is decision to approve the annexation with the modification of boundaries to add adjacent segments of street right-of-way tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (3). Prevention or abnormally irregular boundaries The boundaries of the proposed Bumstead annexation are irregular in configuration. The annexation creates unincorporated peninsulas of territory to the north and to the southwest of the annexation site. The annexation is contiguous to the existing City boundary for only a rather short distance along the eastern boundary of the City and the western boundary of the annexation site. It is assumed that the new City of Renton boundaries created by the annexation would not remain the City boundaries in the long term. The adopted Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundaries for the City, which coincide with the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries designated by King County under the Growth Management Act (GMA), are the anticipated ultimate City boundaries. The current annexation extends the City to the PAA boundary line at 156th Avenue S.E., but this is the only portion of the new boundary line expected to remain as an ultimate City boundary line. PAGE ELEVEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 2 " 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ·13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ~ It is expected that the ultimate City boundary lines at the PAA and UGA boundary lines would be achieved incrementally over time. The current annexation constitutes one step toward eventual achievement of regular boundary lines coinciding with the urban/rural boundary line. It is the fmding of the Boundary Review Board that although the new City boundary lines created by the annexation are irregular in configuration, they are not necessarily "abnormally irregular" when viewed as one step in the process of achieving ultimate City boundary lines. Although this decision to approve the annexation does not support the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (4) in the short term, it constitutes a step toward eventual accomplishment of the objective in the long term. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess often thousand population in heavily populated urban areas The proposed Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton splits the proposed City of Briarwood incorporation area, separating a small northerly portion of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) from the larger UGA to the southeast of the annexation area. The incorporation originally proposed for the circulation of petitions had an estimated population of 8,500. The armexation would def1llitely discourage continuation of the incorporation effort. At the same time, it would leave a smaller area for potential incorporation. The decision favoring armexation to the City of Renton, and possibly discouraging future incorporation of a new City of Briarwood, supports the 1994 King County Coinprehensive Plan policy favoring annexation over incorporation. ,,6 This decision tends to discourage the proposed ,incorporation in support of the objective specified 27 in RCW 36.93.180 (5), but has limited potential for resulting in a smaller city incorporation. 28 29 Annexation of unincorporated areas which are urban in character 30 31 The proposed annexation area is within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) designated by King 32 County under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Annexation is appropriate for urban density 33 development and the extension of urban services. . 34 35 This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (8). 36 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE 38 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, the 39 action proposed in the Notice of Intention contained in said File No. 1922 be, and the same is, 40 hereby approved as modified by the addition of territory as described in Exhibits A and B 41 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 42 43 ADOPTED BY SAID WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR 44 KING COUNTY by a vote of 10 . in favor and 0 against this 12th day of 45 October 1995, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said date. 46 PAGE TWELVE -RENTON{BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 2S 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 4S 46 FILED BY ME this 13th day of October, 1995. ALDA H.Wll.KINSON, Executive Secretary WASHINGTI STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY PAGE THIRTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) ExmBIT A Burnstead Annexation Legal Description .-, Those portions of Sections 10, II, 14, and 15, in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quaner corner of said Section 10, said south q:Iarter corner being a point of intersection of the existing City limits of Renton as aMexed by Ordinance #4470, and the centerline of SE 128th Street; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and along said City limits, to an intersection with the northerly Right-of-Way line of SE 128th Street, and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence continuing northerly along said west line and said City Limits to the northwest comer ofthe south half ofthe southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, crossing 142nd Avenue SE to the northeast comer thereof, said northe-ast corner also being the northwest comer of the south half of the southeast quarter of the s;jutheast quarter of said section; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of said subdivision to the northeast comer thereof, said northeast corner also being a point of intersection with the centerline of 148th Avenue SE; Thence easterly, along the n~rth line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section II, to the northeast comer of said subdivision, said northeast corner also being the southwest comer ofthe northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the southeast comer of the Plat of Gerber's Addition to Renton according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 98, records of King County, Washington; Thence westerly along the scuth line of said plat to an intersection with the west Right-of- . Way line of lS0th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said Right-of-Way line and its northerly extension to an intersection with the north Rig!!t-of-Way line of SE 124th Street; Thence easterly along said Right-of-Way line to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line to the northwest corner of said subdivision; PAGE FOURTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to a point on the easterly Right-of-Way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said Right-of-Way line a distance of IS feet to an intersection with a line being IS feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said' section; Thence northerly along said west line of said subdivision to an intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast comer thereof; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter, and along the east line of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, crossing SE 128th Street, to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south Right-of-Way line of SE 128th Street in said section; Thence westerly along said Right-Of-Way, line to an int!rsection with a line 866.01 feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of the northwest quarter of said section; , Thence southerly along said parallel line, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of s~d section; Thence westerly along said line to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line, to the northwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, a distance of30.00 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the northerly extension of the easterly Right-of-Way line of 1S2nd Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said Right-of-Way line, crossing SE 132nd Street and SE 136th Street, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line, crossing IS2nd Avenue SE,to the southwest comer of said subdivision, said comer also being the southeast comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; , PAGE FIFTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) Thence continuing westerly along said south line to the southwest comer of said subdivision, said comer also being the southeast comer of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 15; . Thence continuing westerly along the south line of said subdivision and its. westerly extension, crossing 144th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the westerly Right-of-Way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said westerly Right-of-Way line, crossing SE 136th Street, to an intersection with the southerly Right-of-Way line ofSE 132nd Street; Thence westerly along said southerly Right-of-Way line, crossing 142nd Avenue SE and a portion of 140th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line, crossing SE 132nd Street, to the southwest comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, also being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470; , Then.:e continuing northerly along said west line, and said City limits,. crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section IS, also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. PAGE SIXTEEN -RENTON{BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) • EXHIBIT B BURNSTEAO' ANNEXATION' . H II IIlr UI I I WrIT ,....,.., IT ~ I f-t--' t::!JJ11 !'. . ~ IJoj IT , I II + ~ + O. I)eMilon e· PLANNNGIBUIlllINGIPUBUC WORKS ~ . R. Mac:OMt, D. Visnoakj 5 Odob ... 1995 o 1000 2000 ! ~-l~' I . t-----I...J- SE 13:~chtl I ~ I3:l I m I 11111- . _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary , i Proposed Annexation PAGE SEVENTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASIllNGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING KING COUNTYUWATER DIST. NO. 90, et al., vs, Petitioner(s), N1t6-2-2 '1556 -7 SU WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, Respondent(s). ORDER SETIING CASE SCHEDULE (Administrative Appeal) 1. ORDER The King County Superior Court issues an Order Setting Case Schedule (Administrative Appeai) when a decision of. an administrative agency or appeal board is appealed to the King County Superior Court. It is ORDERED that all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed below and that failure to meet these event dates will result in the dismissal of the appeal. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the'party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Case Schedule (Administrative Appeal) on all other parties .. '. . 'Q/i<:::7 DATED: 10/20195' _ . .' . -""'-'''-C---'_,~ JUDGE " :'J II. CASE SCHEDULE -.. ' 0"'" ;;p~~~i~Y~m;l;'it!i!!~l;';:tli:i!:'K_t;)\;::}iL;l;;':;;;i;~;i ;':l;(;;;;';;,:j;;,)'::ij;Ji!:t:;;;l::;l;;il~:!I;;ip~:W~J~g;~~i.~Y¥;;1?~~E ~~:~::_<:f_~!e::~!~~0:>.?.!~:_~:~~:~_!:.i~:'.!_~~_~:~~~~:}~~~.::9 ___________________________ ._:..~.:~_1_~:_0!?.?_ ./ Affidavit of Service or Confirmation of Service Fri 11117/95 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ./ Filing of Notice' of Appearance '(if ~pplicable) .:. ,-, -, : -' -,.. ;,L ,-Fri 11/17/95 r----------_--c-------~--------------7------~---~---~--------------------~----------------------------- .:_~!~3!:>L~~_~!~~~E~!~_::!~:~:L~.:_c_O!~ _________ 7-------________________________________ ~.:~_J..2!:_2!?.?_ .:_~~~~_~!~~~~=~~~_Q!_~e~:~~]=2 ____________________________________________________ !:~ __ ~}_2!~~_ ./ Filing of Petitioner's Trial Brief Mon 4/01196 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ./ Filing of Respondent's Trial Brief Mon 4/22/96 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Review Hearing or Trial Date [8:45 a.m., Room E-942, Courthouse) -, Mon 5/20196 .I Indicalos " document Ih~1 must be filed with Ihe Superior Courl Clerk's Office [Rm. E-609] by Ihe dale show,,:", "I understand tluJt I am required to give_a copy of this document to.all parties in this case. " Print Name Sign Name, ... - rev: 2/27/95 'Docket Code: 'ORSCS \~ .................................... .. -.. CASE ...... 'HEDUlE -ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL m. NOTICES TIlE PERSON APPEAI.lNG A DECISIQN OF i\ .. lI.! ADMINISTI>..A.'P.VE AGENCY/APPEAL BOARD MUST: " , -, A File a Notice of Appeal with the adrillnistrativ~ agency/app~al board within the time frames as instructed by applicable statutes. B. Serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal and this Order Setting Case Schedule (Administrative Appeal) (Schedule) (including these Notices) on all other parties to this action. You, as the person who started this appeal, must make sure the other person and/or agency is notified of your action and gets a copy of the ,Schedule. You may choose certified mail, personal delivery by someon'e other than you, or a "process serving service" (see telephone directory). Your signature must appear on the other side of this form showing that you understand that you must make sure the other person and/or agency gets a copy of this form. e. Pay the statutory filing fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court in which the Notice of Appeal is filed, unless ,the party filing the Notice first secures an "Order of In Forma Pauperis" from the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or is exempt from paying fees by statute. D. On the date of your Review Hearing or Trial (as shown on the Schedule), you must appear -at 8:45 am. in the Presiding Department,-Room E-942, ,King ,County ,Courthouse, unless _.' ,:: , your appeal' has already been" assignecj to a. ,partjcular judge or the appeal has been , , previously dismissed. ," , ,',.. " -, , - NOTICE TQ ALL P AR}'IPS: , T· .,! " , All attorneys and parti~s should make themselves familiar with the 'rules of the court --especially' those'ri:feri:ed to in:this Schedule. In order to comply with the SchecfuJe~~it will be ~ecessarY for ' attorneys and P!lrties to pursue their appeals vigorously from the day they are filed. All events must , occur promptly. If they are late, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by the King County SLiperior " Corin Local Rules to schedule the appeal for ,a dismissal hearing. ' , PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE TIlE CASE: When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all claims is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office [Rm. E-609j, all pending due dates' are automatically cancelled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to file such dispositive documents within 45 days of resolution of the case. ' ' .. ' TIlE CASE MAY BE DISMISSED BY TIrE COURT'IF: . ' A dispositive document is NOT filed: If Ii document tha't completes'the case, :such as a judgment, decree, final order, or settlement, is not filed by 45 days after the case is resolved, the case may be disIrussed Without prejiidice. '~ . Scheduled Heari~i ~r' Trial Date is missed:-The S'uperior Court Clerk is authorized by King County Local Rule 41 (b) (2) (A) to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Hearing or Trial Date. rev.: 2/27/95 ···lUm page over to read Order S~tring Case SCMdu/e--- " AUachment to Klng County Ca,. Indellng Cover Sheet RECEIVED In King "'Unly 5up<ri" (OU~ (Ierl<'! Olli" CASE ASSIGNMENT DESIGNATION OCT 20 1995 .. (oshier Seclion I CERTIFY THAT THIS CASE meets the case assignment criteria, d ~cribed in;ijtnl¥e.~rk LR 82(e) for the: D Seattle Area, defined as '. lit 5-2-2 7'55 6 -7' SII . All of King County north of Interstate 90 and including all of the Interstate 90 right-of-way; all of the cities of Seattle, Mercer Island, Bellevue, Issaquah and . North Bend; and all of Vashon and Maury Islands. Kent Area, defined as All of King County south of Interstate 90 except those areas included in the Seattle Case Assignment Area. . Signature of PetitionerlPlaintilT Date or lain tilT 8809 WSBANumber King County Attachment To Case Indexing Cover Sheet KCLR 82(e), Eff. 9/1/95 Page 1 of 1 Date KINt ':OUNTY SUPERIOR 1URT CIVIL CASE INFORMATION COVER SHEET Us. Other Side for Domestic/Other Cuos Please complete this ·Case Indexing Sheet-to categorize the cause of actIon of your new filing. This categOrization does not affect the legal status of your case, but provides an accurate classificatIon to improve the admlntstratlon of cases. This form can only be processed at the time of filing, CASE TITLE: K.,..lj..lnlJg"-.J.C"'o"--'w .... aut:..e~r:....LDujws:u:t,----"gu0.l-.J.s<", _..tB:lJR"""B,-_CASE , : ___________________ _ ATTORNEY: , WSBA ,'_-"S"Su.OJ..:'l"-___ --, ______ _ PQtar 1 igllCk . ---- Place and"X in front of the one C8t8g0~ that best describes the nature of the action filed. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW . -AX. Review of rulings mede bv .tate administrative agencies. ~ublic official or government units. lALR) COMMERCIAL/COLLECTION Monetary contract disJ:)utes where damages mayor may not be the issue. Collection (COL) No contrecl dispute: Only Money. Includes mechanics/other liens. (6 mo. schedule) Commercial (COM) Contract is disputed. (18 mo. schedule) PROPERTY RIGHTS Involves land and items attached to land. TORT Condemnation (CONI Governmental taking of private properly with payment. but not necassarily with Consent. Foraclosur. (FOR) Termination 01 ownersnip rignts when the ownerShip is not in Question. Quiet Title (Orll Ownership. use. or disposition of land or real estate other than foreclosure. Unlewful Oelainer IUNOI Un/uslifiable retenllon of lands or attachments to land. Including water and minerai rights. Injury to anOther person or damage to another's property that does nOI involve 8 contract. Asbello. IPINI Action allegIng damages from asbestos exposure. Medical Malpractice {MEOi Resulting hom plolesslonal meolcsl Ileatmeni. Other Malpractice IMA\..) InIUI" fesulllnq h"m Oln~/ Inan profeSSional medical !reatm.,nt. OTHER P.r.onellnjury (PIN) Physical injury not resulting from professional medical traatment. Property aamage (PRP) To real or personal property 8xcludlnQ motor vehicle. Tort Motor Venicle ITMV) Damages resulting from an InCident involVing a motor vehicle. Wrongful D.atn (WOE) Resulting hom non.medical causes. Tort-Otner (TTOI Not specified by orner categories. PI •••• check h.,.. if thi. C4.e COlUllr. of 4 highly tlflibl. public i&.u. g.".,.11y invol.",·ng m.n\>, common d.f.nd.ntl.). Emancipation 01 Minor IEOMI Petition by minor who is 16 or otder and resident 01 tnis state lor a Oaclaration of Emancipation. Malicioua Har ... ment (MHA) SUit involVing damages resulting ftom maliCIOUS harassment. Injunction (lNJI ReqUiring a. person to do or raf,ain Irom dOing a particular thing. Minor Settlementa (MSTI Award 10 a minor wnen no letters of guardianship ate required lamount usually less tnan S10,OOOI. Actio" 10 Compel/Confirm Private Bindln; Arbitra1ion IMSCI I.e .. Uninsured Motoris!' Subpoena' (MSCI PelniOn whlcrl sole purpOSe is lor the Clerk 10 Issue a Subpoene. Oepo.iI/Oi,pule Re: Fund. tMSCI OeooslllForleliureJSellure 01 funds Of Items. Seizure 01 Per.onal Propeny {SPCl Seizure of personal property from commission of crime. Seizure of Rul Property (SPR) Seizure of property resulting from a Crime. Interpleader (MSC) Petition for the deposit of disputed earnest money from reel estata/other transactions. Other Miacallany IMSC) -"_...,,... ______ 1 MSCI (Describe) JUDGMENTS~AX WARRANTS Abatract of Judgment (AB..J) Tranacript of Judgment (TRJ) Tax War'ant (TAX) LOWER COURT APPEALS From courts of limited jurisdiction to superior court. includes RALJ and de novo appeals. WRITS Civil ILCA) Civil appeal except for treHic infraction or criminal mattars. Inlractions {Len For a trattic jnltaclion matter. Habeas Corpui IWHC) To bring a patty before the Court. Mlindamul IWRM) Commanding Inc performance of a particular act or duty. Otner Writl IWMWI Not specified. e.g" wril 01 replevin, writ of possession. wril of Inquiry. elC:. "THIS IS A MANAGED CASE, FILING PARTY WILL BE GIVEN AN APPROPRIATE CASE SCHEDULE (Revised 61271951 , '.~ , ' '."' :~ '. tt~ :".1~7,~r~·· . ';-~~~~r .h AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATIQN: '.' ;'T·. -t~· ~ . ..·;~~~l,.; t·!..~ < -le"ss! ca Po' ker'ts <~t., bei_ng'ifi'rst duly"sworn on oath s.t?ie~th.at.h,f!/She is the Legi'!l;¢lerko.f the . ~~; .' ~:?,;,; ~.r ~. -_ "~/' . _ .:.. ~ ,,--:: " .~_" ,:: V j~tLEY DAILY NEWS ,il~ ¥c :. '~0""-ic 600 S"-r'!!!!hingt.on Kent, WA;981.'~2~(, '9~ a;,daily.,n~wspaper publishedi~ix:.(6):,times week. Said newspaper is a legal n;~~sPllperof general circ~i.~4.~?l~,9,~is now and 'ha,sp'e~Q~}9/! more than. six months'pnor to the date of 'publication referred to, prmted-and{pubhshed m the ,~i'igilsh'I,ari9'uage continually~ii!l:',rdaily newspaper in fKeht;il<WigfCounty, Wash, ington. ,I~e Valley Daily News' tia~.,been approved as a'iegal .neyv~paper by order ojtheSiiperior Court of the"State' of Washington for King C(iiinty. ~T.h!\notic~)n the exact form"attached, was publist)ed.in),h'~"Xailey Daily News (a(l9 :;,ot'Jn':supplement form) which was regularly distribiJted;.to'the subscribers dt1iing,'t,he~~low stated pe~;'o,~:\rfi,e:~rmexed notice: 11" "~~r~fcJ rr "-;'" ;b,: ~~'}~rf-~~.A~· ~> .' \~1-:~ ~·;':~.;--~·~io""fe9 of P~ii~9·,;B8a~J.A9 ,·':·r<;.:,> .. :,:.f::ffii , ,. -. -. :r~~~·~··:··~~f~I4 ~~~~~--------- f; :_":". , -····~·L ~~<~--.',~;t was~published on 10 ... 17'-95'--. c,', ,,,','i."", ~-'--", t: ~~ fi~,~ --iI t'" , i~"-~ '. ' .. " " ;t·i.' ~.:.~ '.' ;:t. " ~, :> \.--: ~ ..... : .. ~r·:·.> ~t~·-~ (i;:"':";' .C> " .. '<j. .,-, '.;:,i .. t;,;·;~i ~~1~~~: .,,',~ ~~tt;;··~: *~i!::·.:o '-1'"" ",J ,'" 'i~ ;;.-'-i'\ _,'" i. ,-;.~:. ,,~:';;;,...J, ' .. 1~::~' ~::,~:: :;"-0~~t, .... -.,_".t"_ . ~~~~¥'_):~'~ ' ... ' ,-:,.~".,>~~ ~:T~e fu;i ari),ount of the feFh~'~9~d i~r said fOregOm;~ ub~~~l::'n is the ~um r .. .,-. "'42 76 .~ :, .... '';', r, "W ,',,<.1<. NOTlCEOFPUBUCHEARING $~'". ~{;:"'~~,~~~ ... 'fJ' ''1 '" , RENTON arv COUNaL po.: .. ,'~.~~"'" __ '. ;:;:i-\'li~:"':~:' :. k ---, ~ ,'-; -: -"f t. '/ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the CORREcnON NTV nF RENTON ~,r. .'" .. • !!...1-. ,,:::~ __ '-::, -.: .. ':, ':r-.. .' " . ' ",,', ". ' . Renton City CooneR has fixed QcIober 23, ,Ct' ".___," . i""" ,-:' ,,,A. e al . ':t!~ y~\?aiIY News /' 1995, at 7:30 p.m, as 1he dale and 1ime for ~,~~~..,.~~!. .. _ .. "-.~ •• ~ :~~ .. c>:·~-;, ,.~::. ":' ~;~2~~~ -= ~~-;;:~-':":"i';"'':''''.~>'~~:' Subscribed and sworn before me this ..........:...7 _ ii'''" :::', :0>""~''''''''''::~ e -"".~. ' .. _t"'''''.~:t ':.' "' .• fv-," .. '."~!'!.r-\"'. -•.... ' ,., •• .t.-:,,;, ~._'~.f.t."'! ... ' ~ .,2 ~., ',' ':; ',3" ;':' "".' .' ~.~ fP.-/ -:~/ ~;;.>' '~;'~~~~~~i{Jg~ :?'Notary Public,'ciiihe' ~!~iOf Washington "'-"";' ___ "'~~~\S 0", e;=-::?,~~', .: "'" residing'at,Augurn L:'! ' /<>'" 0 T ~\ l·" King County,,:~~shington .. ') it>'>. " AL>,-"' •• ~, ' ., ~ "c' .. ,'¢! '. r. ",'0 ' FT ... __ ',..-, l ~"o , ., -:-,.,_''''w~'_;'~-~ ~ ;~~: -l~./ ~ /) ---' . !.;:'.ll :;:-. ~". /. >"."!~:'!-~' ~ VON 11164rr~..1/92" c :¥r:l-' .~~< , :D:.',/I~f$~,:~~~!.\:~~l~.I r" ;1~:~:~]1 . \\\!/AS\-l~_~" .. ,' .. ",;C " "' ... " ...... -t : "~\:''; ;.. J~t "~1 ~·t 'i ~; ;;.-: {{f, Z{)·~, .,~ ::'~~::, ,.,:.~j: -:Ii.. ~.., ~;-~A:'~ ",'- ,-.-, . .:-'::.--.::~~-';.-. '" :.~Si~ .~. ~ ,.:-' .. # ,-: " "j.: " ~ ',-;~; '~;;-.. " "'~~~, r~:" "', , _'r"';~"'::- :,' :~ 1tiA~ ~ i~--_':";l -", "" :{ ,', ft~; ~~f:~~' ::, ~:.~ );:.,..-:-~ ... -, -"';< ~" ~,~~;·~}:-r~~ .--' . . .: . : ~";:;~'l'-' ~;~i;6J a public hearing 10 be held In 1he """""" "". ,-' .- floor, ~unci.1 ~hambers of the Renton " {~jf,~\-" MunICIpal BUIlding, 200 Mill A""nue Sou1h, ~"" "" Renton 98055, 10 consider 1he following: /,,~ . Second of two requinld public hearings 6--' ;:3 10 consider proposed zoning for 1he Bum-c' "' .. stead Annexation to residential zonas R-5 ti7,;;Lr::: (fIVe units per acre), R.a (eight units per {,Y;\,'J1., acre), ,and R-10 )10 units per acre) for ,;;~)i~ approximately 403 acres _ eas1 of 1he !l1'"~,,., ~imits, and north and souIh of SE 1281h kr~"t~:" All· interested persons are invited to ::~.':";f:'" attend 1he hearing and present oral or wri1-;" ,;' ten comments in support or opposition to -~-:.- the proposal. The Municipal Building is fully "'-- accessible, and in1erpretlve seIVices for 1he hearing impaired will be provided upon prior no1ice. Please call 236-2501 for additiCnaI intormalion or 277-4453 roo, .~, _"r.. Marilyn J.'Pete"'"", CMC . ltg, iJif~~ City CIerI< Published in the Valley daily News 0cto-~~-r: ber 17, 1995. 778 , '. : ;:'fi ~Ik ;<:;;~7;;;t,~~ . '-~':~~:; ~R%l: , ·~;l·~:',;;;:'" :~:~#.' ,~-~ ,:,- :,'._~ ····'.~·:;~~-1~;,:· .... ,:~.\,. .• ;::~~; ':":~ig~ i' i I i , I, 36.93.160 Title 36 RCW: Counties proposed to be annexed. fonned, incorporated, disincorporat· . ed, dissolved or consolidated, or within the boundaries of a special district whose assets and facilities are proposed to be assumed by a city or town, and to the governing body of each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the area and to the proponent of the change. Notice shall also be given by publication in any newspaper of general circula- tion in the area of the proposed boundary change at least three times, the last publication of which shall be not less than five days prior to the date set for the public hearing. Notice shall also be posted in ten public places in the area affected for five days when the area is ten acres or more. When the area affected is less than ten' acres, five notices shall be posted in five public places for five days. Notice as provided in this subsection shall include any territory which the board has detennined to consider adding in accordance with RCW 36.93.150(2). (2) A verbatim record shall be made of all testimony presented at the hearing and upon request and payment of the reasonable costs thereof, a copy of the transcript of the testimony shall be provided to any person or governmental unit. (3) The chainnan upon majority vote of the board or a panel may direct the chief clerk of the boundary review board to issue subpoenas to any public officer to testify, and to compel the 'production by him of any records, books, documents, public records or public papers. (4) Within forty days after the conclusion of the final hearing on the proposal, the board shall file its written decision, setting forth the reasons therefor, with the board of county cc;:>mmissioners and the clerk of each governmental unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate whether the proposed change is approved, rejected or modified and, if modified, the terms of the modification. The written decision need not include specific data on every factor required to be considered by the board, but shall indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissent- ing members of the board shall have the right to have their written dissents included as part of the decision. (5) Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a decision of a majority of the members of the board shall constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appeal- able to the whole board. Any other decision shall be appealable to the entire board within ten days. Appeals shall be on the record, which shall be furnished by the appellant, but the board may, in its sole discretion, pennit the introduc-. tion of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. The filing of the notice of appeal within the time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board. (6) The superior court may affirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been ITitle 36 RCW-page 2261 prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are; (a) In violation of constitutional provisions, or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or (d) Affected by other error of law, or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or (f) Clearly erroneous. An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. [1994 c 216 § 16; 1988 c 202 § 40; 1987 c 477 § 8; 1971 c 81 § 97; 1969 ex.s. c III § 9; 1967 c 189 § 16.J Effective dale-1994 c 216: See note following RCW 35.02.015. Severablllty-1988 c 202: See nole following RCW 2.24.050. Genual corporate powus-Towns. restrictions as to area: RCW 35.21.010. 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board- Incorporation proceedings exempt from state environ- mental policy act. In ieaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (I) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning, as adopted under chapter 35.63, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincor- porated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects ~f governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on the finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW. State Environ- mental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84 § 5; 1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § I; 1967 c 189 § 17.J SeverabilitY-1982 c 220: See note following RCW 36.93.100. Incorporation proceedings exempl from .flale endmnmental policy act: RCW 43.2/C.220. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: (1994 Ed.) Earl Clymer. Mayor To: From: Date: Subject: . Mayor Earl Clymer Renton City Council MEMORANDUM . Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney November 1, 1995 Bumstead Annexation "'--, _ .. _- Office of the City Attorney La"Tence J. Warren ." ... At the City Council meeting on October 23, 1995, the Bumstead annexation was discussed. During that meeting I indicated that the statute allowing review of the Boundary Review Board decision stayed the effective date of the decision of the Board until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. I believed that this language meant that the appeal had to be fully adjudicated including all appeals court opinions. Further research has shown me that the adjudication only has to be through the superior court level. The case of Richland v. Franklin County Boundary Review Board, 100 Wn. 2d 864 (1984) construed the language as applying only to review by the superior court and that the intent of the legislation was to limit the stay so that it did not include resolution of all appeals. The coUrt held that a more extended stay would contravene the objectives of the statute by prolonging the problems which adversely affect the quality, quantity and cost of municipal services furnished as well as the fuianciaJ integrity of certain municipalities .. Nevertheless; the appellate courts· still have authority to grant injunctive or other relief However, such reliefis infrequently granted against a governmental agency. I will therefore attempt to get an expedited hearing so that we can bring this matter to a close as soon as possible. Even with an expedited hearing I do not imagine that the case will be decided at the superior court level until some time in March or April of 1996. UW:as. cc: Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman ¥ike Kattermann vOwen Dennison Sue Carlson A8:1l8.26. POST Office Box fl26· Ion S 2nd STreeT· RenTon. Washin~Ton 9g057· 12061255-8678 A3 Valley Daily News Algona -Aubum -Black Diamond -Covington -Enumclaw -FairWood -Kent -Maple Valley -Newcastle -Pacific -Renton -Thkwila' , Tuesday, October 24, 1995 Renton council formalizes annexation , ~ IREN.E SVETE and Vegetable Matkei would have become , porting the annexation. ,,", ~ clustered from the existing ci~~;mits.'to' two businesses, said· it -~ been zoned for ,ley Daily News nonconforming uses. The properties ate ,The state Boundary Review Boatd voted Southeast 144th Street and along pat! of business for more than 40 years. AENTON ~ Despite pending litigation, zoned as businesses by the county. 9-1 eatlier this month to approve'the annex-Southeast 136th Street, across from the pro-' Forgaatd said downzoning the comer to the City Council Monday night formally City Attorney Larry Watren said neither ation. The approval was given, in part, posed patk. , single family and requiring a conditional use accepted the ,controv.ersial annexation of the annexation nor the zon!ng, once because. of argu~ents that the. city could "We have young cbil.m:n g~~g up.and permit was not logical giv~n the. high vol- 403 acres east of the CIty. approved, could take effect until after the most qUlcidy proVIde sewer servIce. , we need affordable housmg, s81d DIana ume of traffic on the comer and the longevi-. However, council members voted 5-1 to lawsuit filed last week is seuled. Watren said the city had not yet been for-Ribera, who has two married sons. "If ty of the businesses .. send the atea'S proposed zoning hack to city King County Water District 90 and atea malJy served with the lawsuit, but had been you're young, it's very hard to get into the PI . D' t' , M' h I Katte __ a mat . . < th Eas R' thia G ha 'ded 'th H·!ret .. annmg Irec or IC ae rman ...... , to e proVISIOns ,or e t enton resIdents Norman and Cyn reen ve proVl WI a courtesy copy. e estunat-mat • said an m ve to add business zonin would Plateau's small business comer. asked King County Superior Court to set ed it could be Match before the Superior Although three property owners request . y han . the . 's com retensive "There is I?o reason we s~ould go ahead', aside the annexation, claiming it w!ll ~plit: Court ~ the ~ ~ !11"'ther six months hi.gh~r zon.ing for the!-r bloc,k, the ~iggest ~rre: c ulfe ::: be:;n . th~ rin and take action on somethmg that's not communities and destroy the waterdistrJct's to ayeapfthat declSlon IS appealed .. , . snckingpomt was zomng fur the busmesses, p an ,co 0 y em sp g. going to take effect anyway," said CounciI-sewer option. '.' Most of those at the public heating Mon~· at the comer of Southeast 128th and l44th Burnstead Construction Company man JeSse Tanner. They also maintain the city erred in coun-day spoke in favor of the proposed zoning, Avenue Southeast. -launched the original petition drive in 1994 Under the proposed zoning, the Hop In ling the Renton School District among the which is predominantly detached, single Hop In Grocery Owner Cleo Forgaard, to secure city sewer service so it could build Grocery, Chuck's Donuts and Trudy's Fruit property owners who signed petitions sup-famiIy hollSing. Two ateas of denser zoning who also owns the property under the other 64 homes on its property 'easfof Renton. ,SpOrtS"medicine:,'No' insults, jl.lstl~jllri~ i:," . " , . • .. -. . '. _ '. '. ,. '. ',:: . . ~.; .:~ . ':.. ;::' r-I_. __ ....,." .. ,...., Jesuit volunteer group packS 'itS .... bags for Montana By JOHN KAISER ' Valley Daily News AUBURN -For seven yeats, Auburn was a beacon for idealistic volunteers seeking to make a differ- ence, but the light no longer burns. Citing poor local bus service, the Jesuit Volunteer Corps shut the doors at its Auburn house 10 move to bicycle-friendly Missoula, Mont. "We nrefer that the yolunteers Under the catholic-lnsplred program, six volunteers worked for different social service agencies and Iwed toaether under · I /O-;X3-crS ' , ' ,." _8~' J~.! d _ .o!,/?cL(/p~ .;j~ ;{)J.f_~ ~Ilha. , - . ___ ,+=-'3Clvd~!fe--=-~_Mt'I'-is~~k-'}b r-V!w-~ :a~1~ __ __ ~'E1~. ~,!J;~' ~~ '~f'M_-.'1&:: ~ --. ___ I-Irr~~&c -~o_tea&~Y:o~~~~_~.-tl. ~iy-n------~d;-iJ!.Lt w_~-~~ ~&z~& -- __ *-JirtW~-c~~_Zh,rbg)_~_t ZaJC@ ~~I~_ -----l---~cLt~~------------ ----I..j-------~--~-----.,-------~----·-- ----1..\---.-----------------__________ __ --'------.-~~,-.----------------:-----:---- ----------~---~----~..........,--. ~-.----.- -~------------·c-·-'-' -------r,---,~..;...- ---I·I-------------~----~---'--- ------I-I--~------------~,--.- ----~------~----------------~.-,~~ . ----1--1---_~~_-.,............._~__________'_. __ --_-------- ____ w ___________ ~-________ _ ---I----~-·----------·---·--------- ------1-1---------------_-----------. -~.' . ''"'''-- . ...• : 1~~:~~:fF,T > ~ , -'. • .......... First, let me confirm that Mr. ,Kaufman has had a long-,standing" appointment as a Special Assistant Attorney'General for purposes of representation of the King 'county Boundary Review Board. Given the unique nature., of Bounda:i:y-'Review Board legal. work, this office granted the request of -the King County Board for such services some time ago; <.' , . ' " ' ' '-" i:ti,-,-t-h", ,::"Boundary }:':-Re~iew~'Board ... ::'- :~h!,~;t-~~~~J'J; ~-~.~ , -, ,', - Mr. a -~ 'or, 'spec'ial_,assistants; ,-While.I·: appreciate:,·that 'Mr;-~Kaufman s --. representation 'of individuals coming before the Board, may, have o -.. ,..,.. , ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHING~TON Mr. 'Peter J. Eglick October 23, 1995 Page 2 WARREN, KELLOGG. BI\RBER DEAN & FONTES, P S raised a -concern :about acorihict, .the ::real .questicincis~wh~~her:~. Mr. Kaufman's representation of .. one. client was materi!l-lly.limited . ~ by 'his 'respolisibili ties ·-to :-the'-::'other::-:_-;:Even ~.then;-::-the-::::lawyer !;s-:;::' reasonable beliefs 'and disclosure to. the .clientare·key quest.i,Clns.-·~-:· ... -.. :. _. _. .. ~_ ' ,.: ',,':-__ . ' .. :.. ... _ .:. ...... ~..:. _..:.!'.l:.: ..... :.., _'_::'::. __ ...-_::'_'::~ _',. :,_:,:,,~ .. ' _~.: •. : .. ::,::._ .. ,,;. __ ._ ,_~.:.:.::~~ ..:... . ...:::.::.::::.:::.·_::::.-,.-c:... .~ .. ~:.: .~~ __ :_,._.~I ~uriderstand ~·.tha:t Mi:;KaiI£iiiari7and":n1Sr:cneilt:":~had::a::-dH!cussion= .... __ ...... subsequent .to .. the .anriexation ,hearing cabout_the_circumstances,~of"his:_.; .. :~:"-:-:::-'::'i;:epte!!~!:I~a1;Jg!}~~2~.!1<!~_y':id}l~.l".£~_tlg:.;:.t!!~ti~Jed"'i?~e~~!:~~~!le-::B~~<.i ::!~..? -':::--. '.'~--:"f a vor 'of --the -annexation ;-,,'The c' Chair ;'of '. the :Board :'indica tes :that :.the :::. - -.. ",;," ':~"Board ,"wa~ :." fUliy":',s'atisf f~(F'7 fi th ~""'Mi: :-;-:~Y:f~~~:iis~~~[sc-:io~Uie-:::a,nd:' :-:,::;~-: ,exp laI1:etion,: .:::,;;tlEii,ther:::-~he::~C.h~!..r::_'of • .,.the .. :Bo~rQ"':':;li~r ~-;:.~;-;;:.l\a,~~m~n~~ . . " ... '" ·believed·that -the-limited' advice o:Mr: ··Kaufman"gave-the 'Boardon'a .<. ' .. ::~:';;;: .;crites.t,ion·-~~re,latei:i i2.:r:o.:,::-the::;~ri~e~ati?n~::~jls .;:~~ff~C:,~Efd,:~~ bY:::;~::~A~,:;;oo.- . representation of the other clients 'in another completely unrelated. ",_ ~d_~_~~~~.<~ !!r:;'!;': .. ':;~~ v" --~~-,~~-~~.~~. ~~ :. --:-~;-~ .~~-~. ~~~.--::: -~._~~~~~;.~, ,~!~ ~~?~ ~-,'.~ ~. -~,~ ~.~~~~~~ ~~~~~~';~~~7~~~-"{~;;~' .. . ,~; :;:::'c';':';-:+::;"-:'~;'Th;is ;~~ i~" c'i~' ;~·f i~d ":',n'o ~. ba'ii·:l.s-;;:l'O,,;qu-est:Lbn,-the "'a9·dc;n;;-:;oi~~the., .. ~.~ .--··~->·Sp~c1al-:.ASSistant/':iloi;':'€o""';~ii·s)t~-tor·'ai::tioi1S:;Y9~rem~Y~th~~~'~\,i~t:19n.~~·.· -.",;-.... .,~'.~kODviously;-'thi·s-:~rEff le'cts "":'cinly"""our, ~inte:rlial"""conclus~on':-i:ln~.:;::the ,~"",, .. ",~ •. c,' .... ·conduct ,of"'the;l?pec.ia:I'~As;;..istan.!: ;",,:,,YO\1::..al,wa'ys. "hav!!,,:~he ;:oP~Jo_I}:,gf'';.:-:: .' .'" 're'tarrIng -your comp liiiht C to -'tne'Washingtori""'sta te-Ba:r ~ASsciciat'iOrf'-' ... '." should, you .wish ·.~to,have '.another ... agency :re:v.iew.:.the~"issue; .. , -:-: ":;-,-;:":-;;,.:-"':': . -'. .' ~ . - . ~ "~'~<.-, . '~:~. c.,~. -"""."-" -,::--".: ".: --;~~ .: · __ 'i':~·''''_,~"'~''~., ~ ·:;·'\":~'''~~,'~'~':~t:---~ .. .,,:~~:::-~~~~ .. .. I am. also unable to'. conclude ,that ... this, office"'can -or~~should.:=, take any steps with respect to-your cl-aiili '-of"unfa:irriess'~ln'~'tlle"-' proceedings. 'As I ani sure you are' aware; the appearance' o~ fairness' doctrine is directed at the, evil of a biased,. or potentially interested judge or 'quasi-judicial decision maker, not the prosecutor or advising lawyer. carrick 'v. Locke, 125 Wn.2d 129, 143, n.8, 882 P.2d 173 (1994). The question you present to us on this issue raises questions of SUbstantive law which, at best, could be argued on appeal. I trust this responds to your inquiry and complaint . .... Vl .... ' -Board Lawrence Warren; Clty" Attorney;' Renton DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM October 23, 1995 Council President Timothy Schlitzer, and Members, Renton City Council Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk Public Hearing on Zonirig for Burnstead Annexation Area Mr. Danny Hill, 12526 142nd Avenue SE, Renton 98059, called on October 20, 1995, to provide the following comment for the Burnstead public hearing since he will be unable to attend: . ·The area to the south of Mr. Hill is proposed for R-IO zoning. Mr. Hill requests that the density be reduced. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer t-1ike Kattermann, Planning Director DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: ISSUE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 23, 1995 Timothy J. Schlitzer, President City Council Members 1~v Mayor Earl Clymer ~ Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator r; %! Michael Kattermann (ext. 6190) Proposed Burnstead Annexation: Second Zoning Public Hearing Adoption of Annexation and Zoning Ordinances Zoning for properties within the propo&ed Bumstead Annexation. RECOMMEND A TION: • Council adopt an ordinance assigning R-5, R-8 and R-10 Zoning to the properties affected by the annexation, consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map • Council adopt an ordinance annexing the properties for which a Petition to Annex was submitted, certified and accepted BACKGROUND SUMMARY: On April 10, 1995, the City Council 'accepted a Petition to Annex for about 403 acres of land on the East Renton Plateau. (Exhibit 1) As a~thorized by the Council, the Administration submitted a Notice of Intention package to the Boundary Review Board for King County. The Board's review was requested and a public hearing was held on September 21, 1995, and continued on September 26. The Board formally approved the annexation on October 12, 1995. As a condition of approval, the Board has required the City to include several adjacent rights-of-way. The changes are insignificant and are reflected on Exhibit 1. The Board's approval releases the Council to conclude the annexation process. The City'S last statutory requirement in the annexation and zoning process, prior to adoption of ordinances, is to hold a second and final public hearing on zoning. Since the Council has already held a public hearing on the 60 % Petition, testimony at this hearing should be exclusively directed October 5, 1995 Page 2 toward zoning for the subject parcels. Following the hearing, the Council can adopt the appropriate ordinances. At the first public hearing on zoning for the annexation, R-5, R-8 and R-10 Zones were proposed. (Exhibit 2) The zones are consistent with the three Comprehensive Plan land use designations, Residential Rural, Residential Single Family and Residential Options, adopted for the area on the Land Use Map. (Exhibit 3) .. Alter#ative zoning strategies are also possible under the existing land use designations. The folloyZing chart displays the potential zoning under the land use designations adopted for the area. Land Use Designation Potential Zones Residential Rural (RR): Resource Conservation (RC) - 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres Residential - 1 dwelling unit per acre (R-1) Residential - 5 dwelling units per net acre (R-5)* Residential Single Family (RS): Residential - 5 dwelling units per net acre (R-5) Residential - 8 dwelling units per net acre (R-8)* Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Options (RO): Residential -10 dwelling units per acre (R-IO)* Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) *Proposed zones Residential Rural. According to Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-26, areas designated RR with significant environmental constraints· including steep slopes, erosion hazards, floodplains, and wetlands should be limited to R-1 Zoning. Although wetlands are present north of S.E. 128th Street, they do not appear to constitute a "significant constraint". The RC Zone is typically reserved for areas where open space, sensitive areas or agricultural or other resource areas are intended for conservation. Since the area is not subject to significant environmental constraints and is not intended for long-term conservation at low density, R-S Zoning is appropriate. The R-S Zone has no minimum density requirement and would allow residential development on larger lots. This would contribute to the city-wide mixture of housing opportunities. Residential Single Family. In RS designated areas, the R-5. Zone is intended for application to properties within one half mile of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Several propertieS proposed for R-8 Zoning are partially, but not entirely, within the one half mile zone. R-8 is proposed for two portions of the annexation area. R-8 Zoning on areas near the existing city limits would provide a transition between the area proposed for R-10 and the lower density areas to the east. The other area proposed for R-8 is the southern portion of the Bumstead property. Only. part of the eastern parcel would be eligible for the R-S Zoning, given the proximity of the parcels to the UGB. October 5, 1995 Page 3 Residential Options. R-IO is proposed in the RO designated areas to serve as a transition between the mixed use center and the lower density RR designated areas. 50% of the units in an R-I0 development could be in duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes with the remainder single family detached units. R-I0 developments are expected to maintain a single family character and thus a continuity with the surrounding single family neighborhoods. Nonconrorming uses. Three properties on S.B. 128th Street in the. vicinity of 144th Avenue S. currently have commercial uses. Since the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map includes only residential designations for this area, the businesses cannot be zoned according to the existing use. However, activities that are legally existing at the time that the zoning changes will be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses. CONCLUSION: At Council'~ direction, further consideration of the adopted land use designations can be addressed in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan amendment process. ISSUBFNL u · --_ .. _-------EXHIBIT 1 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION ~ t:= l= ffi I~ b h ! _ L.. c.;;: .... ~ ~ f-I -1---1 i.LIY1-l-lIT hh-r---+------i H--l I S 1~ h S ., i f----.--l R I I r\7, I I~t' p~~~ ~ PLANNINGIBlJlDNGlPUBlIC WORKS + ~ + O. Dennison di :! R. MacOnie, D. Visneski If 5 Odobe. 1995. . o I 1000 ".4 2000 I ~ II~il~~1 I~ rH _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urbon Growth Boundory [. ==:::J' Proposed Annexation , ,,1, ,~ .. L . o ) EXHIBIT 2 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Proposed City of Renton Zoning PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS O. Dennison R. MacOnie, D. Visne ski 6 October 1995 1000 ! 2000 _____ Renton City Limits _._._._Urban Growth Boundary I"::::,: :::" .. 1 Residential 5 dulac r,,:;;:;::;::>:;>;:;>::;:;,:;:;:1 Res ide n t i a I -8 d u I a c !:::::::::::::::::j Residential -10 du lac ___ Proposed Boundary EXHIBIT 3 BU .. ~STEAD ANNEX; -ION I::: ·:·,,1 Residential Rural 1:::::,,:;:;:;:::j:;::::1 Residential Single Family I::::::::::j Residential Options Comprehensive Plan Map ~ Residentiol Planned Neighborhood 1:::::"..::1 Residentiol Multi-Family Infill 1:::::::::;1 Center Suburban Proposed Annexation Area ----Renton City Limits ... ... . .. o 1000 2000· ~I~~!§~~~I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON Pl.tlOONC/BUIIJIlN<:/pUBUC WORD O.Dennison R.W.cODie, D.Visn.sld 16 October 1 QQS DATE: TO: " .: ",,'!"'I ,}, ,~.~ IOi , CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 23, 1995 CONCURRENCE DATE iobl~'; Timothy I. Schlitzer, President City Council Members NAME INITIAL/DATE VIA: Mayor Earl ,Clymer O. D£N~l::'Qr;,l Of) /0/[:. FROM: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator I r'I. 'M'" (fh.t< /0 '13 , STAFF CONTACT: Michael Kattermann (ext. 6190) ~.~tlt=jt~~" r; ~ ~(!)/17 ,. SUBJECT: ISSUE: Proposed Bumstead Annexation: " Second Zoning Public Hearing Adoption of Annexation and Zoning Ordinances Zoning for properties within the proposed Burnstead Annexation. RECOMMENDATION: • Council adopt an ordinance assigning R-5, R-8 and R-I0 Zoning to the properties affected by the annexation, consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map • Council adopt an ordinance annexing the properties for which a Petition to Annex was submitted, certified and accepted BACKGROUND SUMMARY: On April 10, 1995, the City Council accepted a Petition to Annex for about 403 acres of land on the East Renton Plateau. (Exhibit 1) As authorized by the Council, the Administration submitted a Notice of Intention package to the Boundary Review Board for King County. The Board's review was requested and a public hearing was held on September 21, 1995, and continued on September 26. The Board formally approved the annexation on October 12, 1995. As a condition of approval, the Board has required the City to include several adjacent rights-of-way. The changes are insignificant and are reflected on Exhibit 1. The Board's approval releases the Council to conclude the annexation process. The City's last statutory requirement in the annexation and zoning process, prior to adoption of ordinances, is to hold a second and final public hearing on zoning. Since the Council has already held a public hearing on the 60% Petition, testimony at this hearing should be exclusively directed October 22, 1995 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Gary L. Weisser 12236 155th SE Renton, Washington 98059-6311 . (206) 228-5851 RE: Zoning Q[the BurnsteadAnnexatjon Area Dear Renton Planning Dept.: CITY OF RENTON OCT 2 3 1995 REvt;p/ED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I have been a landowner and resident of the White Fence Ranch for 24 years. I am very pleased with the Boundary Review Board's decision to approve the Bumstead Annexation, which includes the White Fence Ranch area, to Renton. I will be attending the Renton zoning meeting of Monday, October 23, 1995, however, I wanted to express my recommendations in writing. I SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING: o A voice for all home and land owners from the affected Bumstead and White Fence Ranch areas; o The present proposed zoning ofR-5 (clustering allowed) around the White Fence Ranch area (155th SE and 156th SE area); • No townhouses, apartments, or condos; o 20 foot rear setbacks to existing property lines in the area; • No strip malls east on S.E. 128th and l42nd S.E.; o The possibility of sewers within the next 5 years at a reasonable cost. o Notification to home and land owners of all public meetings regarding zoning or other service issues that would affect their quality of life or property values; ," 0 Letters explaining the facts around the planning process for zoning to dispel incorrect rumors; and, o Public hearings that listened to both sides of any zoning and planning issues for the area. T"ank you (or listening to our concerns and requests. We are proud to be part Q[tl!e Cj(y Q.(Renton. Gary L. Weisser Homeowner, White Fence Ranch leslee/rtn I 095 ~: Norman & Cynthia Green 14128 SE 132nd Street Renton, Wa. 98059 October 19, 1995 Marilyn J. Petersen Renton City Clerk Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: Zoning Designation for Bumstead Annexation Area C:ITY OF REmON OCT 2 31995 REGiOJvED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE This letter is intended to register our position with regard to the proposed zoning designations for the Bumstead annexation area in general and our property in particular. The existing County zoning for the annexation area provides for several zoning designations, including zoning for existing small businesses in the area. The vast majority of the property, over 96 percent, is designated as R4. In contrast, the proposed comparable City zoning designation of R5 accounts for only 62 percent of the property and does not provide for the existing businesses in the area. In addition, the existing County zoning locates those properties with higher densities along the existing Renton City limits. In contrast, the City' s p~oposed zoning places the majority of the higher R8 zoning in the middle of lower density property. It is interesting that this island of R8 zoning, located within Bumstead's property, is within the Renton School District while the other half of Bumstead's property zoned R5 is within the Issaquah School District. Issaquah School's charge a development impact fee while Renton does not. Will Bumstead petition to change the School District boundaries and then request increased zoning for the balance of his property? With regard to my specific property, already developed at an equivalent Rl, the City is proposing a zoning of R8. My property is not alone in this regard. Additional areas, already fully developed at the existing County zoning designations have been rezoned to R8. The City's planning department recommends the R8 in this area to serve as a buffer between the higher proposed RIO and R5 zoning. If this is the case, what is the justification of the large R8 island within the Bumstead's property. / j The City has accepted a number of R5 zoning amendments which provide for even greater flexibility for development standards. Among these are reduction of development standards to R8 zone for parcels one acre or smaller, lot widths of 50 feet, and clustering resulting in lot sizes of as little as 4,500 square feet. What other considerations will be proposed to increase densities by non-residential developers for the purpose of making another dollar. The City's proposed zoning is in direct conflict with the existing County zoning and does not support the residential character of the plateau area. The use ofR8 as a buffer area is inappropriate and provides for continual high density urban sprawl which is characteristic of previous City development. If the City Council is as concerned with preserving the character and quality of the plateau as they have so often testified, then I propose the Council "walk your talk" and modify the City's proposed zoning to R5 for the entire annexation area with appropriate exemptions for existing business. Your consideration in this regard is appreciated. Norman W. Green --------- .It .~.,. ttt ~"d:,~" ..u: i'~, -', "Q Earl Clymer. Mayor October 18, 1995 Mr .. Jim Hendrickson SeattlelKing County Health Department 200 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 , CIT"\.' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: PROVISION OF SEWER SERVICE FOR MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403, SCHOOL ADDRESS 13430 144TH AVE; SE. Dear Mr. Hendrickson: I have been requested by the Renton School District No, 403 to provide you with information relevant to the provision of sewer service by the City of Renton to the Maplewood Heights Elementary School. In discussing this item, three issues must be addressed: capacity and availability of the Renton system, developer extension, and timing . . Capacity and availability of Renton sewer system The City of Renton has completed. construction of the East Renton Interceptor, which terminates at the intersection of NE 4th Street and Duvall Avenue NE (See attached 'Exhibit I'). This interceptor was' designed and constructed to accept the full build out basin capacity of the Burnstead Annexation area (depicted in 'Exhibit I' and including the Maplewood Heights Elementary School) and surrounding areas as well. As you are probably aware, the subject school is within the boundaries of the City of Renton's Burnstead Annexation, which was approved by the King County Boundary Review Board on October 12, 1995. 'Exhibit 2' shows the Special Assessment District Boundary of the East Renton Interceptor, which . coincides with the planned service area for this interceptor. As this exhibit makes clear, capacity and availability of the Renton sewer system to serve the school currently exist. . Developer Extension A developer extension of a sewer collector line would be needed to convey sewage from the school to the interceptor, since the Bumstead Annexation area is currently unsewered. It is the City's intention to establish an effective date of January I, 1996 for the Burnstead Annexation. Therefore sewer service by Renton would be available to the school by means of developer extension and without the need for a King County sewer franchise after January 1. There is a possibility that the January I, 1996 effective date of the Bumstead Annexation could be delayed, should a party of standing appeal the annexation to King County Superior Court. Such an appeal would need to be filed with the Court by November 12, 1995, However, even in the 200 Mi)l Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 Page 2 October 19, 1995 event that an appeal to Superior Court should delay the effective date of the annexation, the Renton City Council has authorized the City to provide sewer service to the Maplewood Heights I;:lementary School (see attached City of Renton correspondence, dated September 15, 1994, and marked 'Exhibit 3 '). In this case, a sewer franchise from King County would need to be obtained by the City of Renton in order' to install the sewer line within King County right-Of-way. Obtaining this franchise might complicate things a bit, but it is certainly doable. Upon obtaining a King County sewer franchise, sewer service to the school by Renton would be available by means of a developer extension. , A developer . extension' of a sewer collector line between the school and the East Renton Interceptor terminus point at NE 4th St. and Duvall Avenue NE could be installed and funded by the School District, development interests within the annexation area, alocal improvement district (LID) established by the local property owners and· facilitated by the City, or a combination of these interests. The City has been communicating with 'both the Renton School District and development interests for some time regarding this proposed collector line. The City stands ready and willing to accept sewage flow from the Maplewood 'Heights Elementary School. TIming Upon finaliZation of the Bumstead Annexation, sewer service to the school will be able to be provided as soon as financing for construction of' the line is established among the interested parties and design plans for the line are approved by the City. Should legal issues delay finalization .of the Bumstead Annexation, a .sewer franchise would have to be obtained from King County. I wouldn't expect this requirement to greatly delay the time frame for providing sewer service to the school. . Although issues such as financing the sewer line and potential legal ch3llenges to the annexation are beyond the City's control, I can foresee no reason why sewers would not be available within two or three years given the level of interest we have seen. Hopefully this leiter provides information that is useful to you. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue, I may be reached at phone no. 277-621 L Thank you. Sincerely, ~~~(ler2/:t~~~ Planning/Building/Public Works Department cc: lay Covington / Sue Carlson Mike Kattermann Ron Olscn Dave Christensen Jan Durocher, Renton School District No, 403 II -W9 ~ C?"J! NE I 10th S t I 1 tx NE 6th PI ';1 NE 5th St , ,.--, NE 4th St --- <>:: ~ co ,.,.., w Z ill > « o > => o NE 10TH St w if) SE 118th ------, r--- ill > <t: -0 Q; c;:: 121st St w if) ill > <>:: -0 co N V 1--·11~16~~*~f'~~ W U-) Q' > « ,- C> -;- ," w en ill > « D r ~ %!U <>:: :5 <0 V SE 1.39th PI SE 1)4th St ~ th St w if) ill > <>:: :5 C> <0 >I) ...•.....•...•.•.•. w if) ill > <>:: :5 OJ V I-~\\. .' SF I,qlh PI SE 116th St SE 132nd 51. PORTION OF BURN STEAD ANNEXA TION THAT CAN BE SERVED BY GRAVITY BY EXISTING EAST RENTON INTERCEPTOR SE 134th SI. Ii ;, w en Q> > « .c '" :<0 .j; ~ LEGEND 1£N1OH arr U&l1S -----_--- ~TON tJR8AN CROW1H 9OUNOARY .,.,.,.,.,.,.,. f{l!HStrAD NOlO" lION EAST ROtION IHTERC[PTOR SE 120th St ------ ,. .......• • SEll UltiLELJ uJ I I~-----=-==--=--:::. r -l. . ': Liberty t E;UF1t!~UEA.]:i ... Ar~I~E)(ATION > ---,' lu 'T 1.38111 PI.: Lone I Eli3tLRE 2 "'1 \ ~ W ) -------------~ L"-' l , , P. ~; 1.---EX il i 01 T 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~1~' C't,- "'<-: ' ~ c,~" NOT TO SCALE I--;===;;;;;:;~:==:;--'~--:;E~ LEGEND _,....""'.""'~lt>'$TJII(' '5tij2'f4f -Ii -=,,1 .j\ 0 ~ _""! ' • . Illi HUH .c:il '5'1 ""'II w o ~II NE 4TH ST GREENWOOD CEMETERY "lIiu ", . --~ 1·--~="'~"lIoOrs I I \.', . ----~\~\~\\=~~~~~----~~ EAST RENTON INTERCEPTOR Special Assessment District Boundary --------------------~ ttJ<1-I181T 2..) Iii ~ •. ;llhlrli "" :r; ~ <0 ... 5E 128lH 5T u w-en w > "" I·" >- <D U') ; .' ~ Earl Clymer, Mayor September 15, 1994 Jan Durocher Capital Projects Office Renton School District 403 1220 North 4th Street Renton, W A 98055 CITY OF RENTON City Clerk 'Marilyn J. Petersen It\ ~"f?1?~\'?~\ffi \I ,)!) ~-~ .... V {,!.:J@ St.P 151994 CITY OF RENTON £. ngineering Dept. Re: Sewer Connection Request -Maplewood Heights Elementary School Dear Ms. Durocher: At the regular meeting of September 12, 1994, the Renton City Council concurred in the staff recommendation to approve the referenced request. Approval was granted subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The school district will engineer and construct the sewer extension so that it may service the entire area that this extension would logically' serve. ' 2. 'The school district will pay all engineeringandconstr~ction costs, 3. The sil;iver'system will be built to meet ~uirent Citystandards atthe time of construction. . ... .. . 4. The school district will pay non-resident sewer rates; . ' 5. The school district shall pay for all permits and fees, City and other agencies, required for the sewer extension. 6. At the time of application for permit, the school district executes and records a covenant agreeing to support any annexation that includes the Maplewood eights Elementary School parcel (if the City Attorney determines that such an agreement is valid and appropriate for a school district. property.) , Inaddition,-preliminary sewer design plans shall be submitted to the City Council for review to ensure that the proposal meets the long-range plans envisioned by the Council for the area. If additional information or assistance is desired, please do not hestitate 10 call. Sincerely, dn~. '-~ Manlyn City Clerk cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Council President Richard Stredicke David Christensen, Utility Systems Division , .:. . ",' . :', : ~. :.: ~ .:, ; .. ' ',. " , " ..... "" October 17, 1995 CITY .. )F RENTON City Clerk Marilyn J. Petersen SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING DESIGNATION FOR, BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION AREA -RENTON CITY COUNCIL, OCTOBER 23, 1995' , ' . ~ .. Dear Resident: .. . ' ,: . , , , .' Th~' notice ~egarding the s~bjeci publi~'h~aring sent to'yo~laStwe'~k h~s been ~o~~~ct~d. " ,'The annexation is NOT the subject of'the public 'hearing 'scheduled for October 23, ',;, :, .. '1995. The annexatio'n haS ,received 'finafapprovat' by 'both the Renton City Council arii:! , " the 'Kin'g County Boundary Review Board. :In' accordance'~ith State law;: the Renton'.' ' " CitY Council' must now,conduct a s'econd public hearing to consider the zoning -::'" " , . ..' , , ',' desigmitio'n" for the annexed prope'rty. "'The 'recoinmendation is to rezone the subjeci site ',~ ! '" ,". . .. . .. .... . . to residential zones R-5 (five 'unitspetacre), R-8 ,(eight ,units per acre) imd R, 10 (ten" .. '", ,'units,petacre)., '" "',,,' ':.. :,,' ': ,';,:""" ',',', ','" ,:,: ' "." >' ,., " " Ag~in,~he arin~~aiio~ :i:'N6t~~e' sUbj~~t' ~f the ;u6{ic h~ari~~o~ 'Oct~be~ 23,'1~95::, ," ' "Testimony at the public hearing 'will be limited to'consideration of the appropriate .. zoning for ,the site .. The, hearing will be held at'7:30 p.m. in the second f10pr Cou'ncil ,Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South .. Renton "98055 . .- " ,Speakers must sign up prior to, the meeting. Signup'sheets are 'available in the' biolCk .of , " the Chambers.' , " ,,' If I can provide.'additional information on this matter, please' feel free to call at 235- '2502. ' ' , "', Sincerely, ' ... ' . -. ( ", . " ";' : .. "", ," . ". I " . " . '. :;" , ... ..; . ",': .:,.; - -',:', .... , '. \.; , .... .' < • '.' , . " . ", . "" , ' " . ' '200 Mill Avenue Soutli -Rimion, Washington 98055 ~ (206)235-2501 . * this paper cOntains 50% recycled material, :;!5% post cons,umer '. -. ~ '.: . •... " , J October 16, 1995 Marilyn J. Petersen, City Clerk City of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, Wa. 98055 RE: Burnstead Annexation Dear Ms. Petersen, '1Jwp~ r/I,e./ {J~e Ik~J 1f}-:;'5, '7~ CITY OF RENTON OCT 1 8 1995 "I:CEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Once again please accept my written comment in favor of the proposed Burnstead Annexation. Very truly yours, L~2'~~ ~~rence E. Blake . 750 Royal Crest Circle #455 Las Vegas, Nv. 89109 ACCOUNT NO. 0847100041 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 23rd day of October, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the second floor Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building, 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton, 98055, to consider the following: The Bumstead 60% Annexation petition and concurrent zoning to residential zones R-5 (five units per acre), R-8 (eight units/acre) and R-I0 (10 units/acre). The annexation area is comprised of approximately 403 acres located east of the city limits, and north and south of SE 128th Street. All interested parties are invited to attend and present written andlor oral comments. Interpretive services and translation services are available upon request. For further information, call the City Clerk's office at 235-2501 (TDD 277-4404). Published: Valley Daily News October 13, 1995 Acct. #50640. o L BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Proposed City of Renton Zoning PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS O. Dennison R. MacOnie, D. Visneski 6 October 1995 1000 ! 2000 _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary {pi Resident'lal 5 dulac """""""",;,;;":,;,,,! Res ide n t i a I -8 d u I a c I:::::::::::::::::! Residential -10 dulac ___ Proposed· Boundary ,- Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 October 13, 1995 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION FILE NO, 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear Sir or Madam: The Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County on the above-referenced file is enclosed for filing as prescribed by RCW 36.93.160(4). In order for the proposed action to be finalized, it is now necessary that you complete the other statutory requirements or procedures specified in your Notice of Intention, Where required, you must file with King County a certified copy of your final ordinance or resolution accomplishing this action, together with a copy of this letter. with the Council Administration, 402 King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington 98104, ATIN: Ms, Kathy Nelson, If this proposal has been denied, you need to do nothing further. AIda H. Wilkinson Executive Secretary Enc: Resolution and Hearing Decision CC: Ms. Kathy Nelson, Council Administration Ms, Ikuno Masterson, Environmental Division Ms. Diane Murdock, King County Department of Assessments Mr. William S, Vlcek, King County Department of Public Works Mr. Bob Bruce, Elections Superintendent, King County Division of Records and Election Ms, Mary Behm, King County Emergency Medical Services King County E-911 Program Fonn Letter HE 8, October 13, 1995, Cant. Page Two Districts: King County Fire Protection District No. 10 King County Fire Protection District No. 25 King County Water District No. 90 Cedar River Water and Sewer District Renton School District No. 403 Issaquah School District No. 411 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 INRE: PROCEEDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY CITY OF RENTON Proposed Annexation (Bumstead) King County, Wasbington FILE NO. 1922 RESOLUTION AND BEARING DECISION The Notice of Intention filed in Boundary Review Board File No. 1922 proposed the annexation of certain territory known as "BumsteadN by the City of Renton, King County, Washington. After notice duly given, a hearing was held September 21, 1995, and continued to September 26, 1995, before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board at Maplewood Heights Elementary School, 13430 144th Avenue S.E., Renton, Washington. On the basis of the testimony, evidence and exhibits presented at said hearing, and the matters on file in said File No. 1922, it is the decision of the Board that the action proposed in said Notice of Intention be, and the same is, hereby approved as modified by the addition of territory. The legal description of the modified annexation area is attached hereto and marked as "Exhibit AU, together with a map showing the boundaries of the area as modified herein marked as "Exhibit BU. FACTORS AFFECTING THIS PROPOSAL In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the many factors prescribed in RCW 36.93.170. The following have been selected for particular attention: Land Area The proposed Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton is 402.9 acres in area. The annexation area is located adjacent to the eastem boundary of the existing City of Renton on the East Renton Plateau. The annexation area is contiguous to the Renton corporate boundary along a relatively short segment of 140th Avenue SoB. between approximately S.E. 126th and 129th Streets. A major street, S.E. 128th Street, bisects the annexation area from west to east. The proposed annexation would expand the City of Renton to the east along S.E. 128th Street from the current eastem boundary line at 140th Avenue S.E. to a new eastern boundary line at 156th Avenue S.E. The annexation includes territory on both the north and south sides of S.E .. 128th Street, extending to S.E. 120th Street on the north and to S.E. 138th Street on the south. The proposed annexation would create peninsulas of unincorporated territory , surrounded by the City of Renton on three sides, both to the north and to the southwest of the proposed annexation area. The peninsula to the southwest would be more irregUlar in configuration, while the peninsula to the north would be more rectangular and wider from west to east. PAGE ONE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) .. . ... --.. ----_.'.-._-.----.-------._ .. _--. __ ._. ,---"--" -.-.-".----..... _ .... ---,._-_.--. _._---------.. _ .. --. 1 The entire annexation area is located within an area proposed for incorporation as the new City 2 of Briarwood. Proponents of the Briarwood incorporation have filed a copy of the proposed 3 petition with King County and are in the process of circulating petitions for signature. 4 Incorporation petitions have not been filed. The proposed Briarwood incorporation area includes 5 the entire Urban Growth Area (UGA), designated by King County under the Growth Management 6 Act (GMA), located on the East Renton Plateau to the east of the existing City of Renton. The 7 annexation would split the proposed Briarwood incorporation, dividing a relatively small portion 8 of the UGA to the north from the major portion of the proposed incorporation to the south and 9 southeast. 10 II The proposed annexation is modified to add adjacent segments of street right-of-way not included 12 in the annexation as originally proposed. There are four segments of street right-of-way added 13 to the annexation: 1) S.E. 128th Street between 154th and 156th Avenues S.E., 2) 144th Avenue 14 S.E. between S.E. 136th and 138th Streets, 3) 152nd Avenue S.E. between S.E. 132nd and 138th 15 Streets, and 4) 150th Avenue S.E. between S.E. 124th and approximately 126th Streets. 16 17 Population and Population Density 18 19 The estimated population of the proposed annexation area is 473 residents. Based on an area of 20 approximately 403 acres, population de:lSity is approximately 1.2 residents per acre. 21 22 Land Uses 23 24 Existing land use within the proposed Bumstead annexation area consists of single family 25 residential, local retail, a public elementary school, pasture and vacant land. The school, 26 Maplewood Heights Elementary School, is located toward the southern end of the annexation 27 area. The southernmost 40 acres of the annexation area is undeveloped park property owned by 28 King County. 29 30 Comprehensive Land Use Plans and Zoning 31 32 King County 33 34 King County land use designations and zoning classifications for the annexation area provide for 35 . -single family residential development at a density of four dwelling units per gross acre, multiple 36 family residential development at densities of 12 to 18 dwelling units per acre, and 37 commercial/retail development. The major portion of the annexation area is zoned single family 38 residential, with small areas of multiple family residential located to the north and south of S.E. 39 128th Street adjacent to the current City of Renton boundary line. There are small areas with 40 community and neighborhood business classifications located on S.E. 128th Street toward the 41 western end of the annexation in the vicinity of the current City of Renton. Current zoning 42 generally reflects current land use. 43 44 45 46 PAGE TWO -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 City of Renton 2 3 The proposed annexation area is covered by the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan, adopted 4 February 20, 1995, in response to the Growth Management Act CGMA). The Bumstead 5 annexation area is entirely within the Potential Annexation Area (p AA) designated by the City 6 of Renton under GMA. According to the City of Renton, the comprehensive planning process 7 included input from residents of the area. 8 9 Proposed City of Renton zoning for the annexation area includes single family residential at 10 densities of five and eight dwelling units per acre, along with a higher density residential, 11 classification allowing ten dwelling units per acre. Within the higher density classification, half 12 of the units must be single family detached, while the other half may be attached up to a 13 maximum of fourplexes. Proposed City of Renton zoning for the area does not provide for any 14 commercial or retail uses. The major portion of the annexation area would be residential at a 15 density of five units per net acre, which is comparable to the current King County zoning of 16 residential at four units per gross acre. Higher density singie family residential zoning is located 17 in the most southerly and westerly portions of the annexation site. The highest density residential 18 classification, allowing up to ten units per acre, is located along S.E. 128th Street in the most 19 westerly portion of the annexation adjacent to the current City of Renton boundary line. 20 21 Growth Management Act CGMA) 22 23 The proposed Bumstead annexation area h; entirely within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) 24 boundary line established by King County under GMA. The aruiexation extends to the UGA 25 boundary at 156th Avenue S.E. to the north of S.E. 128th Street. The King County Department 26 of Development and Environmental Services submitted a written statement that the annexation 27 is "generally consistent with the direction in the Washington State Growth Management Act .. 28 . and the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan." 29 30 The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, adopted to comply with GMA, includes the 31 annexation site within the Service Planning Area; as well as the Urban Growth Area. Under the 32 Growth Management Act, as .specified in RCW 36.70A.110 (3), cities are the appropriate 33 providers of urban government services. The Countywide Planning Policies, adopted under 34 GMA, confum in framework policy FW-13 that cities are the appropriate urban service providers. 35 This statement is reinforced in the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan as policyV-307, 36 which states that "it is the intention of the County and cities that the cities will assume primary 37 responsibility for coordinating the provision of local services delivery .... " 38 39 The 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan makes a clear statement of preference for annexation 40 to existing cities over the incorporation of new cities. Policy U-302 of the plan states that "King 41 County s.'uill favor annexation over incorporation within the Urban Growth Area," and that 42 "Incorporations should be supported onI y when annexation is not appropriate and when the 43 formation of new cities is necessary to assure adequate facilities and services .... " 44 45 46 PAGE THREE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD CAPV/MOD) . ----.--.. -... ".-_. _____ .·._0. __ •. _ . ____ ._._._ .. __ ... _ ••• ~. ___ M ___ .'_ ... _ .. _. ___ ,. ___ .• ___ ._. ___ ., .. ____ ._ •.. __ • __ ~ ____ ._ ..•. ___ .. __ .. ___ .... _ •.. ____ .. _ ••. ____ .• _ •• ___ . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35' • 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The UGA to the east of the City of Renton extends to 156th Avenue S.E. to the north of S.E. 128th Street, to 184th Avenue S.E. to the south of S.E. 128th Street, and to the top of the bluff over the Cedar River Valley to the south. The City of Renton includes all of this area in the City Potential Annexation Area (PAA) for future annexation. The City of Renton PAA is established in the City Comprehensive Plan adopted February 20, 1995, to comply with GMA. Per Capita Assessed Valuation Assessed valuation of the Bumstead annexation area is $27,373,850. Based on a population of 473 residents, per capita assessed valuation is $57,873. Topography. Natural Boundaries and Drainage Basins The Bumstead annexation site slopes gradually downward from the northeast to the southwest. All except the northeastern comer of the annexation site is within the East Maplewood Subbasin of the Lower Cedar River Drainage Basin and drains to the southwest toward the Cedar River. The most northeasterly comer of the annexation site is in the May Creek Drainage Basin and drains to the northeast toward May Creek. There are no physical features which create barriers to the 'provision of services or divide neighborhoods within the area. Approximately 38 percent, or slightly more than one third, of the annexation area boundaries are defmed by streets. The boundaries south of S.E. 128th Street tend to follow existing streets or extensions of streets. Streets which defme the boundaries in this area include 140th Avenue S.E., S.E, 132nd Street, 144th Avenue S.E., and 152nd Avenue S.E. The boundaries to the north of S.E. 128th Street tend to follow lot lines. Likelihood of Significant Growth in the Area During the Next Ten Years The proposed annexation site is located within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) designated by King County under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Several owners of large tracts up to 40 acres in size testified that they desire to develop their properties in the near future. The City of Renton estimated that the annexation area would accommodate approximately 1,465 residential units under current King County zoning. Need for Municipal Services The primary reason for the proposed annexation is a need for sewer service. Owners of vacant property, including both development tracts and single residential lots, seek annexation in order to obtain the sewer service necessary for residential development. Mr. Bumstead, the property owner and developer who initiated the annexation, testified that he purchased his property within the annexation area 15 years ago in the expectation that King County Water District No. 90 would be providing sewer to the area. However, the Water District has not proceeded with plans to construct a sewer system for the area. PAGE FOUR -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 At the same time, sewer is also needed to replace failing septic systems serving existing residential development, A representative of the Seattle King County Department of Public Health testified that there are significant septic system failure rates in the area of the proposed Bumstead annexation. The rate of septic system malfunctions in the White Fence Ranch development, an established single family residential neighborhood in the northeast comer of the annexation area, has been eleven to twelve percent. It was explained that the area was developed in 1975 or earlier and that the Health Department allowed the utilization of septic systems under the assumption that they would be only temporary until sewer became available. According to the Health Department official, the area in the vicinity of the annexation site experiences a significant number of malfunctions due to the generally high water table. There have been rnalfunctions in the area of Maplewood Heights Elementary School and the King County park property, both located at the southern end of the Bumstead annexation. The most immediate need for sewer is to allow a major upgrading of Maplewood Heights Elementary School. Representatives of the Renton School District testified that the school is in need of major structural, mechartical and electrical repairs. The project is scheduled to begin in 1996 and needs to be completed for reopening of the school in the fall of 1997. School District officials testified that the District applied for permission to upgrade with a septic system and was . tumed down by the Health Department. The Health Department official confmned that remodeling of the ele.llentary school cannot be approved without sewer. The School District reports that it met with King County Water District No. 90 months ago, and at that time .. the Water District said that it could provide sewer service to the school. However, the School District has not received further information from the Water District concerning actual construction" of sewer. The School District seeks annexation to the City of Renton as a prerequisite to receipt of Oty of Renton sewer service. The only alternative identified by the School District is construction of a private force main 4,400 feet in length, with an estimated cost of $400,000. This force main would be abandoned at the time sewer is extended to the area, which means that the expenditure would be for temporary service only until such time as sewer service becomes available. Prospects of Governmental Services from Other Sources King County Water District No. 90 testified that it has the capability of providing sewer service, by installation of a gravity flow system, to the basin including the Bumstead annexation area and a rnajor portion of the Urban Growth Area (VGA) located to the east and southeast of the annexation. Water District No. 90 has held a franchise from Kirig County for the construction . . of sewer for the last twenty years. The District previously prepared a plan for construction of the sewer system to serve the basin area. However, residents and property owners in the area have repeatedly turned down proposals to construct the sewer. Water District officials report that the District has worked with all property owners requesting sewer, including Renton and Issaquah School Districts, on specific plans for sewer construction, but that all plans have ultimately been turned down as too expensive. PAGE FIVE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 "-15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 • 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 According to Water District No. 90, the District plan for a gravity flow system would provide the most cost effective sewer to the annexation area and the remainder of the basin to the east. The District cautioned that extension of City of Renton sewer to the Bumstead annexation· probably would preclude future Water District No. 90 provision of sewer to area to the east. The District believes that if the Bumstead annexation area is removed from the Water District No. 90 sewer system, construction of the system would become so costly for property owners in the remaining area that it would be turned down. The District conf11llled that the gravity flow system plan would not provide service all the way to the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary line. The District stated that future plans would be developed for sewer service to the UGA outside the basin system at such time as property owners approach the District for service. King County Water District No. 90 presented a time schedule of two years to the point of sewer availability to the Bumstead annexation area. A representative of the District testified that preparation for actual construction would take two years, during which time the District would accomplish updating of the District comprehensive plan, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review of the project, permitting and design. Written testimony submitted by the District gives a time estimate of nine months for comprehensive plan preparation and approval, which would be financed with an existing District sewer fund. The Distlict would accomplish design for the required Orton Road :nterceptor and Cedar River crossing concurrently with the comprehensive planning process. The time estimate for permitting is four to six months, based on the assumption tlult an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would not be required. The District assumes that a mitigated SEPA checklist would be sufficient, because an EIS was previously prepared on the original design for the system. The District estimates that the construction phase would take four to six months. The City of Renton presented an estimated tim.: line of four years and three months for Water District No. 90 sewer availability. The process includes District voter approval of the project, which remains a potential impediment to Water District No. 90 provision of sewer. Area residents have consistently turned down Water District No. 90 sewer for the past twenty years, and the District is unable to provide assurance of approval in the future. The City testified that failure of Water District No. 90 to provide sewer over the last twenty years has resulted in property owner pressure on the City of Renton to extend sewer. The City stated this is one of the reasons the City initiated the study for the East Renton interceptor. The City testified that King County franchises are not exclusive and that the Water District No. 90 franchise for sewer does not exclude the City from providing sewer to the area. It is the rmding of the Boundary Review Board that even the City of Renton time estimate of four years and three months to Water District No. 90 sewer availability is optimistic. In fact, L\ere is no guarantee that Water District No. 90 would be able to deliver sewer service to the Bumstead annexation site and surrounding area in the future. At the same time, any delay in the provision of sewer to the area constitutes a health hazard, due to septic system failures. PAGE SIX -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 Probable Effect of Proposal on Adequacy of Services 2 3 Sewer 4 5 The City of Renton has recently completed construction of the East Renton sewer interceptor, 6 which extends to a point in S.E. 128th Street (N.E. 4th Street) immediately to the west of the 7 proposed Bumstead armexation and provides adequate capacity to serve the armexation site and 8 surrounding areas. The City of Renton initiated the project with creation of the East Renton 9 Interceptor Study Area, which extended beyond the eastern boundary line of the City to 156th 10 Avenue S.E. City of Renton officials explained that at the time the study was initiated, 156th 11 Avenue S.E. was the urban/rural boundary line. The City of Renton published a Draft 12 Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) for the project in June 1991, which studied three 13 alternatives for an interceptor sized to serve the study area, including the Bumstead armexation 14 site. Mr. Bumstead reported that as an area prope~y owner, he participated in the EIS process. 15 The City reports that it has no record of receiving formal comment from Water District No. 90, 16 which was on the DEIS distribution list. 17 18 In 1992, the City of Renton adopted a Comprehensive Sewer System Plan which placed a high 19 priority on the East Renton sewer interceptor project. The City Comprehensive Sewer System 20 Plan was submitted to the King County Utilities Technical Review Committee (UTRC) to initiate 21 the County approval process, but the City subsequently withdrew the plan for resolution of 22 several boundary issues with adjacent sewer districts. The City states that these issues have been 23 resolved and that it plans to submit an updated plan for King Colillty approval in 1996. 24 25 The City of Renton has recently established a second sewer study area, the East Maplewood 26 Collection Study Area, to address the sewer needs of the extended Urban Growth Area (UGA), 27 which coincides with the City Potential Annexation Area (PAA), located to the east· of the 28 annexation site between 156th and 1 !14th Avenue S.E. The City of Renton states that the City 29 has the capability of providing sewer to the area and would do so if the study concludes that the 30 City is the appropriate provider. The study will also address the option of sewer provision by 31 another provider. 32 33 The City of Renton is prepared at this time to provide sewer service to the Bumstead armexation 34 area immediately upon annexation. The City states that it would serve 80 to 90 percent of the 35 annexation site by gravity flow, with only the most southerly portion of the annexation area 36 requiring pumping. The City would be able to meet time schedules for the Maplewood 37 Elementary School improvement project and plarmed residential development. 38 39 Water 40 41 Annexation to the City of Renton would not affect water service to the proposed armexation area. 42 The armexation site is within King County Water District No. 90 and currently receives Water 43 District No. 90 water service. Water District No. 90 would continue the same service to the area 44 following armexation. 45 46 PAGE SEVEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) -.. , -." ... ------•.. _ .. --.~----, .. _---, --------_ .. -_. ... _ .. -.. -.---.... 1 Fire Protection 2 3 The major portion of the annexation area would experience no change in fue protection service 4 as a result of annexation. All of the annexation site except a small area in the northeastern 5 comer is within King County Fire Protection District No. 25, which already contracts with the 6 City of Renton to provide fue protection service to the area. Following annexation, the City of 7 Renton would provide the same service directly. A small portion of the annexation area currently 8 is within King County Fire Protection District No. 10. Fire protection service for this area would 9 transfer to the City of Renton following annexation. 10 11 Police Protection 12 13 At the time of annexation, the City of Renton would assume responsibility for police protection 14 service, currently provided by King County. One of the reasons given by residents and property 15 owners for seeking annexation was the desire for improved police protection. There was 16 testimony that residents and property owners are dissatisfied with King County police service and 17 anticipate improved police service from the City of Renton. 18 19 Surface Water Management 20 21 There was testimony that the annexation site and surrounding areas experience surface water 22 drainage and flooding problems. Residents expressed concern that annexation, followed by 23 further developuent, would increase these problems. 24 25 The City of Renton testified that it has adopted the King County standards for surface water 26 management The 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual is adopted reference in the 27 City Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC 4-22), and strict requirements for the 28 containment of runoff would be applied to new development within the annexation area. 29 30 Parks 31 32 King County currently owns 40 acres of undeveloped park property located at the southerly end 33 of the proposed Bumstead annexation area. The City of Renton testified that the City and King 34 County have reached agreement in principle for transfer of the park to the City at the time of 35 -. annexation. King County confumed that it is County policy, as well as general practice, to 36 convey park properties to cities at the time of annexation. The City of Renton would assume 37 responsibility for development of the park. 38 39 Cost of Services 40 41 There was testimony that City of Renton sewer rates are among the highest in King County. A 42 comparison chart of monthly sewer charges within the County places Renton near the highest at 43 $30 per month. The highest charges are attributed to the City of Mercer Island at $35 per month. 44 Soes Creek Water and Sewer District has separate rates for gravity and lift service, with gravity 45 service charges at $27.95 per month and lift service charges at $32 per month. These rates 46 PAGE EIGHT -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 compare with City of Seattle charges at $22.95 per month, City of Kent at $23.05 per month, and 2 City of Bellevue at $26.18 per month. 3 4 One of the reasons suggested for high City of Renton sewer rates was aging infrastructure and 5 the costs involved in upgrading that infrastructure. The City of Renton sewer utility official 6 confrrrned that the City of Renton has some utility facilities which have been in the ground 40 7 to 50 years and that the City of Renton has an active replacement program for these facilities. 8 9 Effect on the Finances. Debt Structure. and Contractual Obligations of Affected \0 Governmental Units 11 12 City of Renton 13 14 City or Renton revenue and cost projections for the annexation indicate that expenditures would 15 exceed revenues at the current level of development, However,. at full development, the City 16 would realize a net revenue gain from the annexation area. At the current level of development, 17 estimated revenues from the annexation area are $131,901, compared to estimated costs of 18 $164,484 to provide services to the area. The net cost to the City would be $32,584 per year. 19 At full development, estimated revenues are $1,125,685, compared to estimated expenditures of 20 $1,019,624, for a net annual surplus of $1:16,061. 21 22 Special Districts 23 24 The proposed annexation woule have minimal impact on special districts providing services to 25 the area. The only district impacted fmancially would be King County Fire District No. 10, 26 which would lose the small amount of $452.69 in annual revenue. King County Fire Protection 27 District No. 25 utilizes current revenue from the area to contract for City of Renton service, Z8 which means that the change to direct City service would not have a fmancial impact on the 29 District. King County Water District No. 90 would continue direct water service, and there 30 would be no fmancial impact resulting from the annexation. 31 32 OBJECTIVES 33 34 This decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board tends to accomplish the 35 pertinent objectives specified in RCW 36.93.180. 36 37 Preservation of natural neighborhoods. and communities 38 39 Annexation area residents and property owners gave conflicting testimony concerning community 40 identification. A number of residents testified that the East Renton Plateau is a separate and 41 distinct community with its own identity. They stated that they have little in common with the 42 City of Renton and would prefer the option of incorporating as a new city. Others stated that 43 they are affiliated with the City of Renton, that they work in Renton, travel to Renton for 44 services, and have Renton addresses. The City of Renton testified that it has always considered 45 the East Renton Plateau to be a part of the Renton community. It is the fmding of the Boundary 46 Review Board that the proposed annexation would cause no disruption of the greater community. PAGE NINE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) I TItis decision to approve the proposed Bumstead annexation is, not inconsistent with the objective 2 specified in RCW 36.93.80 (1). 3 4 Use of physical boundaries. including but not limited to bodies of water. highways. and land 5 contours 6 7 Approximately one third of the new City of Renton boundaries created by the proposed 8 annexation would be defmed by streets, which would form visible physical boundary lines for 9 the City. The remaining two thirds of the boundaries follow lot lines, which are not physical 10 boundaries. There are no physical features which divide the annexation area or separate it from II the City of Renton to the west. 12 13 TItis decision to approve the proposed Bumstead annexation partially supports the objective 14 specified in RCW 36.93.180 (2). 15 16 Creation and preservation of logical service areas 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 The proposed Bumstead annexation would preserve currently established logical service areas for the delivery of water and fire protection service. The area is within King County Water, District No. 90, which currently provides water service to the area, and the Water District would continue the same service following annexation. All except a very small portion of the annexation area is already within the City of Renton service area for fire protection. Most of the annexation site is currently within Kine County Fire Protection District No. 25, which already contracts with the City of Renton for fire protection service. Following annexation, the City of Renton would continue the same fue protection service directly. Sewer service is the crucial issue in the case of the proposed Bumstead annexation. The need for sewer was the primary reason for initiation of the annexation by annexation area property owriers. Owners of development tracts within the area seek sewer service required for residential development. At the same time, sewer is needed to eliminate the health hazard caused by a high incidence of septic system failures. The most immediate need is that of Renton School District, which has scheduled major improvements to Maplewood Heights Elementary School and is unable to proceed with the needed improvements without sewer. 35 4 Although King County Water District No. 90 testified to ability and willingness to provide sewer 36 to the ,area, the District has a history of failure to deliver sewer. Water District No. 90 has been 37 in possession of a sewer franchise for twenty years and has prepared plans for a gravity flow 38 sewer system covering the annexation site and surroimding territory. However, proposals for 39 actual construction have been tumed down repeatedly by voters who do not want sewer and 40 potential users who decide it is too expensive. It is the fmding of the Boundary Review Board 41 that the District time estimate of two years to sewer availability is extremely optimistic and that, 42 in fact, there is no guarantee that the District would be able to provide sewer in the future. At 43 the same time, the need for sewer is immediate. 44 45 46 PAGE TEN -RENTON/BURN STEAD (APV/MOD) 1 The City of Renton has sewer service available to the annexation area at this time. The City has 2 completed the East Renton interceptor, which extends to a point immediately to the west of the. 3 annexation site and is sized to serve the site. The annexation area is within the sewer service 4 area covered by the adopted City of Renton Comprehensive Sewer Plan. In addition, the City 5 of Renton has initiated a study for provision of sewer to the remainder of the Urban Growth Area 6 CUGA) to the east of the site. 7 8 The City of Renton is the only provider of sewer service needed within the annexation area at 9 this time. The City of Renton has planned and implemented the logical extension of the City 10 sewer service area into the area including the Bumstead annexation site. The City of Renton is 11 the logical provider of sewer in the long term, as well as the short term. The City of Renton is 12 also the preferred provider of service under the Growth Management Act CGMA), the 13 Countywide Planning Policies, and the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan, all of which state 14 that cities are the appropriate providers of urban services. 15 16 Modification of the annexation area boundaries to include adjacent segments of street right-of- 17 way facilitates the logical provision of transportation service to the area. The additions include 18 segments of S.E. 128th Street and 144th Avenue S.E. According to the King County Public 19 Works Department, these additions "will allow field crews to more easily identify jurisdictional 20 bounda:.ies, provide for more consistent maintenance scheduling and better service delivery to 21 citizens, and give the city appropriate control of capital improvement planning for roadways 22 which form the city's boundary." The additions also include two adjacent half right-of-ways for 23 undeveloped streets. It is assumed that the remaining half right-of-ways required to c0mplete 24 the streets would be dedicated at the'time of development of adjacent properties within the 25 annexation area. Inclusion of the half right-of-ways at the time of annexation would avoid 26 splitting of the future streets between two jurisdictions. 27 28 TIlls decision to approve the annexation with the modification of boundaries to add adjacent 29 segments of street right-of-way tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 30 (3). 31 32 Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries 33 34 The boundaries of the proposed Bumstead annexation are irregular in configuration. The 35 annexation creates unincorporated peninsulas of territory to the north and to the southwest of the 36 annexation site. The annexation is contiguous to the existing City boundary for only a ro,ther 37 short distance along the eastern boundary of the City and the western boundary of the annexation 38 site. 39 40 It is assumed that the new City of Renton boundaries created by the annexation would not remain 41 the City boundaries in the long term. The adopted Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundaries 42 for the City, which coincide with the Urban Growth Area CUGA) boundaries designated by King 43 County under the Growth Management Act CGMA), are the anticipated ultimate City boundaries. 44 The current annexation extends the City to the PAA boundary line at 156th Avenue S.E., but this 45 is the only portion of the new boundary line expected to remain as an ultimate City boundary 46 line. PAGE ELEVEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) , , '._-_ ••• _ ••• _.-••• -.-. -•• -. -•••• _____ ••••••••• ___ ••• '" ",. ___ ._" •• __ •••• _____ • __ ., •• ___ •• ___ • __ • ___ 0. ___ ••• w •• Wo _______ , •• _ ,'_' __________ • ___ • ________ _ 1 It is expected that the ultimate City boundary lines at the PAA and UGA boundary lines would 2 be achieved incrementally over time. The current annexation constitutes one step toward eventual 3 achievement of regular boundary lines coinciding with the urban/rural boundary line. It is the 4 fmding of the Boundary Review Board that although the new City boundary lines created by the 5 annexation are irregular in configuration, they are not necessarily "abnonnaJIy irregular" when 6 viewed as one step in the process of achieving ultimate City boundary lines. 7 8 Although this decision to approve the annexation does not support the objective specified in 9 RCW 36.93.180 (4) in the short tenn, it constitutes a step toward eventual accomplishment of 10 the objective in the 'long term. 11 12 Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of 13 incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand popu lation in heavily populated urban areas 14 15 The proposed Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton splits the proposed City of Briarwood 16 incorporation area, separating a small nonherly portion of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) from 17 the larger UGA to the southeast of the annexation area. The incorporation originally proposed 18 for the circulation of petitions had an estimated population of 8,500. The annexation would 19 defmitely discourage continuation of the incorporation effort. At the same time, it would leave 20 a smaller area for potential incorporation. 21 22 The decision favoring annexation to the City of Renton, and possibly discouraging future 23 incorporation of a new City of Briarv. ood, supports the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan 24 policy favoring annexation over inco:poration. 25 26 TItis decision tends to discourage the proposed . incorporation in support of the objective specified 27 in RCW 36.93.180 (5), but has limited potential for resulting in a smaller city incorporation. 28 29 Annexation of unincorporated areas which are urban in character 30 31 The proposed annexation area is within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) designated by King 32 County under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Annexation is appropriate for urban density 33 development and the extension of urban services. 34 35 TItis decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (8). 36 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE 38 BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, the 39 action proposed in the Notice of Intention contained in said File No. 1922 be, and the same is, 40 hereby approved as modified by the addition of territory as described in Exhibits A and B 41 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 42 43 ADOPTED BY SAID WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR 44 KING COUNTY by a vote of 10 in favor and 0 against this 12th day of 45 October 1995, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said date. 46 PAGE TWELVE -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 FILED BY ME this 13th day of October, 1995. ALDA H. WILKINSON, Executive Secretary WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY ruCHARDSCHOON,Omll PAGE THIRTEEN -RENTON/BURN STEAD CAPV/MOD) ExmBIT A Burnstead Annexation Legal Description Those portions of Sections 10, 11, 14, and IS, in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter corner of said Section 10, said south q:Jarter corner being a point of intersection of the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, and the centerline of SE 128th Street; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and along said City limits, to an intersection with the northerly Right-of-Way line of SE 128th Street, and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence continuing northerly along said west. line and said City Limits to the northwest comer of the south half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, crossing 142nd Avenue SE to the northelst comer thereof, said northeast corner also being the northwest comer of the south half of the scutheast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of said subdivision to the northeast comer thereof, said northeast corner also being a point of intersection with the centerline of 148th Avenue SE; Thence easterly, along the n'Jrth line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section II, to the northeast comer of said subdivision, said northeast comer also being the southwest comer of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the southeast comer of the Plat of Gerber's Addition to Renton according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 98, records of King County, Washington; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat to an intersection with the west Right-of- Way line of 150th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said Right-of-Way line and its northerly extension to an intersection with the north Right-of-Way line of SE 124th Street; Thence easterly along said Right-of-Way line to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line to the northwest corner of said subdivision; PAGE FOURTEEN -RENTON{BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to a point on the easterly Right-of-Way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said Right-of-Way line a distance of IS feet to an intersection with a line being IS feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line of said subdivision to an intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast corner thereof; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter, and along the east line of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, crossing SE 128th Street, to an intersection with the ea.lteriy,!xtension of the south Right-of-Way line of SE 128th Street in said section; Thence westerly along said Right-of-Way line to an int~rsection with a line 866.01 feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said parallel line, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line, to the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, a distance of30.00 feet, more or less, to an intersection wit:l the northerly extension of the easterly Right-of-Way line of 152nd Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said Right-of-Way line, crossing SE 132nd Street and SE 136th Street, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter ofthe southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line, crossing 152nd Avenue SE, to the southwest corner of said subdivision, said corner also being the southeast corner of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; PAGE FIFTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV{MOD) Thence continuing westerly along said south line to the southwest comer of said subdivision, said comer also being the southeast comer of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 15; Thence continuing westerly along the south line of said subdivision and its westerly extension, crossing 144th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the westerly Right-of-Way line of 144th Av~nue SE; Thence northerly along said westerly Right-of-Way line, crossing SE 136th Street, to an intersection with the southerly Right-of-Way line of SE 132nd Street; Thence westerly along said southerly Right-of-Way line, crossing 142nd Avenue SE and a portion of 140th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the west line of the northeast quarter of . --., said section; Thence northerly along said west line, crossing SE 132nd Street, to the southwest comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, also being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as aMexed by Ordinance #4470; Then.:e continuing northerly along said west line, and said City limits, crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section 15, also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. PAGE SIXTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) .... " . EXIDBIT B BURNSTEADANNEXATION e PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS + Am + O. Dennilon ~ R. MacOnle. D. Vimelki 5 Odober 1995 o 1000 2000 I ; I _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary , I Proposed Annexation PAGE SEVENTEEN -RENTON/BURNSTEAD (APV/MOD) -_ ..... -. -..• -.,' ... ' -.. . -~ ....... . -... --.-..... _. -....• - CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: October 13, 1995 Gregg Zimmennan Larry Warren Sue Carlson Jim Hanson ~_ Mike Kattenna~\6190) Jay Covington Lee Wheeler Ron Olsen Marilyn Petersen SUBJECT: BRB DECISION ON BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION At its regular meeting on October 12, 1995, the Boundary Review Board unanimously approved the attached "Resolution and Hearing Decision," on the Bumstead Annexation. The lone dissenting vote at the hearing did not attend this meeting. The City Council public hearing on the zoning for the annexation area is scheduled for October 23, 1995, and the effective date will be January 1, 1996, barring any appeals. If you have any questions about the next stages, please feel free to contact me or Owen Dennison (ext. 2475). c: Owen Dennison h:\division.s\p&ts\planning\anncx\brnstd\brbdecis.doc THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. Thursday, October 12, 1995 HEARING ROOM #1 3600 -136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA AGENDA T. CALL TO ORDER -7:30 P.M. Richard Schoon, Chair 1I. ROLL CALL Ethel Hanls, Vice Chair Lydia Aldredge Lloyd Baker AJ. Culver Loren Dunn Jim Hawkins Clair Inghram John Janson Susan Neiman Ben Werner AGENDA, October 12, 1995, Cont. Page Two Ill. MINUTES . A. Regular Meeting, September 19, 1995 B. Special Meeting/Public Hearing. September 21. 1995 C. Special Meeting/Continuation Hearing, September 26, 1995 IV. CURRENT BUSINESS: FILE NO. 1922· CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION, Resolution and Hearing Decision V. ADMINISTRATION A. Chair's Report B. Committee Reports C. Executive Secretary's Report D. Correspondence (Goldenrod) I I 't AGENDA, October 12, 1995, Cont. Page Three 1. Open Files: a. FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION, Correspondence from City of Renton, Attorney Lawrence Warren, dated October 5, 1995 Correspondence from Law Offices of Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson, dated October 3, 1995 b. FILE NO. 1939 -PROPOSED CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY INCORPORATION, correspondence from King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, dated September 25, 1995 2. Miscellaneous: a. Correspondence from Kenyon Sullivan P.S., Attorney at Law, dated August 25, 1995 b, Correspondence from the City of Shoreline, dated September 19, 1995 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. New Notices of Intention AGENDA, October 12, 1995, Cont. Page Four 1. FILE NO. 1941 -PROPOSED CITY OF COVINGTON INCORPORATION 2. FILE NO. 1942 -CITY OF REDMOND -EASTVIEW 94-001 ANNEXATION B. Masterlist C. Upcoming Actions VII. ADJOURNMENT 00II. -Earl Clymer, Mayor October 10, 1995 Dennis Gorley Senior Engineer King County Roads and Engineering Division Yesler Building 400 Yesler Way, Room 400 Seattle, WA 98104-2637 CITY OF RENTON PlanninglBuilolllglPublic Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P,E., Administrator SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON'S BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION (B.R.B. FILE 1922) Dear Mr. Gorley: King County staff has requested that the boundary of the proposed Bumstead Annexation be amended to include cenain adjacent rights-of-way. The letter from Mark Isaacson to the Boundary Review Board directing these changes is enclosed. Please find the revised map and legal description enclosed for your review. We would like to present the annexation ordinance to the City Council for adoption on October 23, 1995. We would appreciate your comments or approval by October 18, if this is feasible. Thank you for your attention. -If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Sincerely, Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ® This paper contains 50% recyclad matorlal, 25% post consumer r CI, , OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENOaLL I AI#: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: 19~ 5 DepUDIv/Board ............... Planning and Technical Services October 9 CONCURRENCE StaffContsc!.. ................ Michael D. Kattermann, Director, Agenda Statuo IQL':J.L9~ Owen Dennison, Long Range Planning DATE 1---Consent ................... , r'olAr1l1E I'· .. • .. • . .rE 11.:.1.. . Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION public Heartng ......... , Q. Q2!r! leoN ..aI2..!E/.=. Correspondence ...... -Bumstead Annexation -Second Public Hearing on Zoning Bumstead Annexation -Zoning Ordinance Ordinance ................ ~.KA~"'" 111~ lo~, Bumstead Annexation -Annexation Ordinance Resolution ................ ('..;z /,,/ Old Buoln ... , .... , .... , ~'k:H!31:::l,-:&t:!~ ~ EXhlbRo: New Business .......... ! r • Maps Siudy Se .. lono ........ Information ............... Recommended Action: Approvalo: • Council concur with October 23, 1995, date for second Legal Dept ......... X zoning public hearing Finance Dept .... . • Subsequent to the public hearing, Council adopt .()ther ................ . ordinances annexirie; and zonine; the subiect properties Fiscal Impact: A fiscal impact analysis was prepared and presented to the Council with the 60 % Petition Issue Tranofer/Amendment , .. , .. , .. , .... , Paper. Revenuo Generated .... , ............ . ExpendRure Required .......... . Amount Budgeted ................ . Summary of Action: On AprillO, 1995, the City Council accepted a 60% Petition to Annex for approximately 403 acres ...h located east of the city limits and north and south of S.E. 128th Street. The first of two public hearin ~ on zoning for the properties was held concurrently with the public hearing on the Petition. Washington State law requires that two public hearings be held prior to adoption of zoning for annexing properties. A public hearing scheduled for October 23, 1995, would provide an opportunity for additional public comment before Council's review and decision. Following the public hearing, the Council can adopt an ordinance imposing City zoning on the subject properties. At the public hearing on the proposed Bumstead Annexation, the Boundary Review Board for King County voted 9 to 1 to approve the proposal. Formal approval will occur at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting on October 12. Formal approval will release authority to the Council to adopt an ordinance effecting the annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that Council set a public hearing for October 23, 1995, to take public comments on the zoning of the proposed Bumstead Annexation. Following the public hearing, the administration recommends that Council adopt ordinances assigning zoning and effecting the annexation. AGNBLFNL.DOC it' I •. ~~'._ ~~r+'~ CITY ltl'&~~. ,.. 000II. ~ . ...,~ -~ ~ Earl Clymer. Mayor October 9, 1995 Christine Gregoire Attorney General for the State of Washington 905 Plum Street P.O. Box 40100 Olympia, Washington 98504-0100 Oftice of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Re: Special Assistant to the King County Boundary Review Board Dear Attorney General Gregoire: By letter dated October 3, 1995 you were contacted by Peter J. Eglick, an attorney representing certain parties opposing an annexation pending before the King County Boundary Review Board. In his letter he asked you to respond to certain allegations his office made about the Special Assistant Attorney General assigned to the King County Boundary Review Board. While such an inquiry may be appropriate, some caution needs to be exercised. A spokesperson .for Mr. Eglick's client has indicated that the Boundary Review Board decision will be appealed to the courts. Mr. Kaufman's involvement in this Boundary Review Board matter was quite limited. He did speak about the powers of the Boundary Review Board and the fact that a legal issue raised by Mr. Eglick's office was not appropriately the concern of the Boundary Review Board. He also indicated that his statement was based upon prior precedent of the Board. Mr. Eglick's letter and his letter to the Boundary Review Board seems to imply that Mr. Kaufman's statement of the Boundary Review Board's position was motivated by bias or conflict of interest, and not by the prior precedent of the Board. That certainly was' not my impression of the basis of the decision by the Boundary Review Board. The purpose of my letter is not to influence you one way or the other about your internal handling of this matter. It rather is Post Offke Bo.\ 626 -100 S 2nd Strw -Renton. Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 @ Tnis paD!}f cc:nl~lns 50'. rec'lcled mal~rial, 2S~" po,t ~onSi.Jm03r ' Christine Gregoire October 9, 1995 Page 2 to caution you that Mr. Eglick' s correspondence is apparently intended to create an issue on appeal where none presently exists. I think it entirely inappropriate for your office to respond to Mr. Eglick's request to inform him of what actions will be taken to remedy the "problems" expressed in his letters. What was expressed in his letter is a possibility of a problem which needed to be raised before the Boundary Review Board itself, in a timely manner, and not withheld until after the Board's preliminary vote to approve this annexation. It would also appear that if there is a conflict or actual bias that there has been no showing that it influenced the Board's decision in any fashion. Finally, it would appear that this personal attack on the Assistant Attorney General should be handled internally and should not involve some sort of dialogue with an outside attorney having a vested interest in the proceedings before the Boundary Review Board. My client's rights are also involved in this matter. I want the matter decided on the merits under the statutory scheme provided by the Legislature and not by a series of personal attacks by an attorney involved opposing this annexation. There is no need to personalize this dispute. You should not accept the invitation by this attorney to involve yourself in the Boundary Review Board matter at all, or involve that attorney in your internal processes. LJW:as. Encl. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Renton City Council Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman Mike Kattermann AB.117.65. Ver truly yours, . ~ CV,/\.h...i!A-Uj~· r~ . / Lawrence J. Warren LAW O~~ICES OF' HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD & HOKANSON 1500 FlUGET SOUNO PLAZA 1.325 F'OURTH AVE .... UE SEATTLoE. WAS~ING7~N 98101·2509 .. ' :' ...... ' .. .' .... ' . ," . ''''. P.O. BOX 21946 SEATTI.E. WASHINGTON 98111-3846 12061 292-1144 F'AX (zoe) ~\40-0902 PETER ..J. EGLICK October 3, 1995 Christine Gregoire Attorney General for the State DfWashington 905 Plum Street P. O. Box 40100 Olympia, Washington 98504-0100 Re: Special Assistant to the King County Boundary Review Board -. Dear Attorney General Gregoire: The enclosed letter describes a serious issue concerning actions taken by your Special Assistant to the King County Boundary Review Board. We would appreciate your review of this matter and a response on whether your office was aware of this situation, whether it is consistent with your policies, and what actions will be taken to remedy it. PJE:aeg encs cc: Neighbors United for Representation Lawrence 1. Warren Robert Kaufman G:ILAND _us EIDA T AIHA.\IBLlNlGREGOIRE. L TR Sincerely, HELSELL, FETTERl"fAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON • .. --- · , > , · 't ;. · ' . DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 6, 1995 Larry Warren Michael Kattermann~ SUBJECT: Zoning and Annexation Ordinances ror the Bumstead Annexation . October 23, 1995, has been requested for the second zoning public hearing for the Bums't!'lld Annexation, after which the Council can adopt the ordinances. Therefore, we would appreciate it if the annexation and zoning ordinances could be available for review prior to going into the packets on October 19. The organization required for the OFM annexation census would be difficult to accomplish with a five day effective date typical of an annexation ordinance. An effective date of January I, 1996, would provide sufficient time to prepare for the process. Kent's ordinance for the Meridian Annexation is attached for your review, as they also opted to postpone the effective date. Annexation information: Consent agenda date for scheduling 10% Notice of Intent public meeting: October 24, 1994 60% public hearing date: April 10, 1995 Anticipated formal BRB decision (next regularly scheduled meeting): October 12, 1995 Proposed zoning: R-5 (Residential -5 Dwelling Units/Acre) R-8 (Residential - 8 Dwelling Units/Acre) R -10 (Residential -10 Dwelling Units/Acre) First zoning public hearing date: April 10, 1995 Second zoning public hearing date: October 23, 1995 The legal description and site and zoning maps are attached, revised according to the conditions of BRB approval. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Thank you. Attachments LEGALl • u L o t'" BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION 1000 t." . ., d 2000 oj _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary 1:' ==::::11 Proposed Annexation L BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION City of ~enton Zoning + ~ + O. DeMison e PlANNlNGlBUIlDiNG/PtWC WORKS ~ R. MacOnie, D. Visneskl .f 6 October 1995 _____ Renton City Limits _.-.-.-Urban Growth Boundary Iqqq·1 Residential 5 dulac (:'!::::":;"''''*;+'''1'1 Res ide n t i a I - 8 d u I a c I"",:::::::"",; Residential -10 du lac o I 1000 ; 2000 I ___ Proposed Boundary EXHmIT A' Burnstead Annexation Legal Description Those portions of Sections 10, II, 14, and IS, in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter comer of said Section 10, said south quarter comer being a point of intersection of the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by 'Ordinance #4470, and the centerline of SE 128th Street; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and along said City limits, to an intersection with the northerly Right-of-Way line of SE 128th Street, and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence continuing northerly along said west line and said City Limits to the northwest comer of the south half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, crossing 142nd Avenue SE to the northeast comer thereof, said northeast comer also being the northwest comer of the south half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of said subdivision to the northeast comer thereof, said northeast corner also being a point of intersection with the centerline of 148th Avenue SE; Thence easterly, along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section II, to the northeast comer of said subdivision, said northeast comer also being the southwest comer of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along the west line of said subdivision, to the southeast comer of the Plat of Gerber's Addition to Renton according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 98, records of King County, Washington; Thence westerly along the south line of said plat to an intersection with the west Right-of- Way line of 150th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said Right-of-Way line and its northerly extension to an intersection with the north Right-of-Way line of SE 124th Street; Thence easterly along said Right-of-Way line to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line to the northwest corner of said subdivision; 1 Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to a point on the easterly Right-of-Way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said Right-of-Way line a distance of 15 feet to an intersection with a line being 15 feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line of said subdivision to an intersection with the north line , of said southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast comer thereof; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter, and along the east line of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, crossing SE 128th Street, to an intersection with the easterly extension of the south Right-of-Way line of SE 128th Street in said section; . Thence westerly along said Right-of-Way line to an intersection with a line 866.01 feet westerly of and parallel with the east line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said parallel line, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line to an intersection with the east line of the west half of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line, to the northwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said subdivision, a distance of30.00 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the northerly extension of the easterly Right-of-Way line of 152nd Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said Right-of-Way line, crossing SE 132nd Street and SE 136th Street, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line, crossing 152nd Avenue SE, to the southwest comer of said subdivision, said comer also being the southeast comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; 2 Thence continuing westerly along said south line to the southwest comer of said subdivision, said comer also being the southeast comer of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 15; Thence continuing westerly along the south line of said subdivision and its westerly extension, crossing 144th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the westerly Right-of-Way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said westerly Right-of-Way line, crossing SE 136th Street, to an intersection with the southerly Right-of-Way line of SE 132nd Street; Thence westerly along said southerly Right-of-Way line, crossing 142nd Avenue SE and a portion of 140th Avenue SE, to an intersection with the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line, crossing SE 132nd Street, to the southwest comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, also being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470; Thence continuing northerly along said west line, and said City limits, crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section IS, also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. C:lLegallBRNSTDUgb(revlO·5·95) 3 .' SEP 1 81995 ORDINANCE NO. _1d.. L.f / PLANNING DIVISION CITY nr.I'l>=~ITn~., OCT 2 1995 RECEIVED AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, annexing to the City certain' contiguous lands, comprising approximately 5.27 square miies, generally bounded on the \'lest by the City's existing corporate limits, on the north by S.E. 24Dth Street, on the east by Soos Creek and SR 18 and on the south by S.E. 288th Street, all generally referred to as the Meridian-" - Annexation. WHEREAS,' in accordance with Chapter 3SA.14 RCW, the owners of not less than 60 percent of the assessed valuation for general taxation of certain real property, the "Meridian Annexation" area, which is'more particularly described in Exhibit A to this ordinance (map attached as Exhibit B), have petitioned the Kent City Council to annex the Meridian Annexation Area to the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City has determined the Meridian Annexation area annexation petition to be sufficient in all respects; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 3SA.14 RCW various proceedings were had; and """ .' z '" '. , . WHEREAS, the City filed a Notice of Intention document with the ,Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County ( "BRB "); and WHEREAS, on July 20, 1995 the BRB held a public hearing on the proposed annexa.tion and, at the close of that hearing, tentatively approved the annexation proposal; and WHEREAS';' on August: 10, 1995, the BRB unanimously approved the proposed Meridian Annexation to the City of Kent, as modified at the July 20 hearing according to the request of the City of Kent; and WHEREAS, the City has published and posted notice of a public hearing on the proposed Meridian Annexation in accordance with RCW 35A.14.130 so that interested persons could voice their approval or disapproval of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kent held a public hearing on the Meridian Annexation in the City Council Chambers'at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Kent City Council at 7:00 p.m. on August 15, 1995; and WHEREAS, it appears to the City of Kent that the Meridian Annexation meets all requirements specified by law, that 2 the land to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Kent, and that the annexation area has not heretofore been incorporated in or as a city or town; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated by this reference and made· a part hereof .. _-- Section 2. Effective January 1, 1996, there shall be annexed to the City of Kent, Washington, certair. property situated in King County, Washington, commonly known as the "Meridian Annexation" area, which property is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, and having the boundaries indicated in the map attached hereto as Exhibit B, which is incorporated by this reference. Section 3. In accordance with the Meridian Annexation property owner's petition, the property hereby annexed shall be subject to its proportionate share of the City's existing indebtedness and shall be assessed and taxed at the. same rate and on the same basis that.other property within the City of Kent is assessed and taxed to pay for any outstanding general indebtedness of the City if that indebtedness has been approved 3 \ '-. by the voters, contracted for, or incurred prior to, or existing at the effective date of this annexation. Section 4. Until the City completes its final zoning determination for the annexation area, the Meridian Annexation area shall be subject.to the interim zoning regulations for newly annexed areas established in Title 15 of the Kent City Code, as now enacted or hereafter amended. Section 5. This annexation will become effective January 1, 1996, and on that date, the annexation area shall become a part of the City of Kent, subject to all the laws and ordinances of the City except as otherwise provided by law. Section-6. Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of this annexation as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Kent shall, under the direction of the Mayor of the City of Kent, determine the resident population of the annexed territory, which population determination shall consist of an actual enumeration of the population that shall be made in accordance with the practices and policies and subject to approval of the State of Washington's Office of Financial Management and which population shall be determined as of the effective date of this annexation as specified in this ordinance. 4 Section 7. The City Clerk of the City of Kent, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.700, shall prepare a certificate signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk in such form and containing such information as shall be prescribed by the State Office of Financial Management, and the City Clerk shall thereafter submit that certificate in triplicate to the Office of Financial Management together with the population determination of the annexed territory. Section 8. Upon passage of this annexation ordinance, the City Clerk of the City of Kent, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.140, shall send to the Office of the Clerk of the County Council a certified copy of this ordinance together with a copy of a letter from the BRB's Executive Secretary of the King County Boundary Review Board that declares the BRB's decision relating to this annexation. Section 9. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. 5 \ '. ';' Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after the date of passage and publication of this ordinance. ATTEST: BRENDA CLERK , APPROVED AS TO FORM: ......." A:r:relW::> 6 " , PASSED IS-ci-day of tl;;g/~ , 1995. APPROVED /10 -rA.. day of rk~ , 1995. PUBLISHED /t"tI..-day of ~ , 1995. . I hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. ,,3?I'I1 ,passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. BRENDA JACOB MERIDANX.ord 7 \ , '" \'. Those portions of sections 20, 2~, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35 all in Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King County, Washington; including any recorded plats and unrecorded plats and any rights-of-way lying therein; described as follows: The East 30.00 feet of section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, AND ALSO ·the Northwest quarter of section 2~, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within S.E. 240th street; AND ALSO the Northeast quarter of said Section 2~, EXCEPT the East half thereof, AND EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within S.E. 240th Street; AND ALSO the South 30.00 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of said section 2~; AND ALSO all of the Southwest quarter of said section 2~, AND ALSO all of the Southeast quarter of said Section 2~, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in ~32nd Avenue S.E.; AND ALSO the Northwest quarter of section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT those portions lying within Kent City Limits !;!stablished . under Ordinances ~874 and 3~7~; AND ALSO all of the Northeast quarter of said Section 28; AND ALSO all of the Southwest quarter of said section 28, EXCEPT that portion lying within Kent City .Limits est;ablished under Ordinance 3~7~; AND ALSO all of the Southeast quarter of said Section 28; AND -ALSO the" Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of section 32, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT that portion lying within Kent city Limits established under Ordinance 3~7~; AND ALSO the South half of the Northeast quarter of said section 32; AND ALSO the Northwest quarter AND the Northeast quarter of section 33, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; AND ALSO the North half of the North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of _ said Section 33; AND ALSO the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said section 33, EXCEPT the West ~65.00 feet of the South half of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said section 33; AND ALSO the North half of the North half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 33, together with S.E. 282nd Street lying adjacent thereto; AND ALSO the North 30 feet of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said section 33; AND ALSO the East 30.00 feet of the Southeast quarter of said section 33; AND ALSO all of section 27, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in S.E. 256th street; AND ALSO all of Section 34, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington lying Northwesterly of SR ~8, together with that portion of ~32nd Avenue S.E. lying adjacent thereto, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in S.E. 288th Street; AND ALSO all public right-of-way (~48th Avenue S.E. and Soos Creek Drive S.E.) lying within the West half of the West half of the Northwest quarter of section 26, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; AND ALSO that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section 26, described as follows: That portion of Lot 1, Block 4, MA Page 1 of3 EXHIBIT ".' .. l '},jf"," .. , .. q', \,-"",., .,.,"" ·,'t;\,1 Terrace Park 10-Acre Tracts, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 56, records of King County, Washington lying Westerly of Soos Creek Drive S.E., together with Soos Creek Drive S.E. lying adjacent thereto; AND ALSO Lots 1, 2 and 3 of King County Short Plat No. 880080, recorded under King County Recording No. 8110140550, said short plat being a portion of Tract 4, Block 4, Terrace Park 10-Acre Tracts, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 56, records of King County, Washington, together with Soos Creek Drive S.E. lying adjacent thereto; AND ALSO the Southwest quarter of Section 26, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,in King County, Washington, together with S.E. 264th Street lying adj acent . thereto, EXCEPT the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 26; AND ALSO that portion of the North half of the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26, lying Westerly of the centerline of Soos Creek; AND ALSO the'South half of the Northwest quarter .of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said section 26; AND ALSO the North half of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26; AND ALSO the South half of the South half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26; EXCEPT that portion lying. within 156th Place. S.E.; AND ALSO the South 30.00 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 26; AND ALSO all of the Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King • County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in Primary State Highway No. 2 (SR 18); AND ALSO that portion of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the. Northeast quarter of said Section 35, lying Westerly of the centerline of Soos Creek; TOGETHER WITH that portion of S.E. 272nd Street lying East of Soos Creek in ·the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 35; AND ALSO Lots 1 and 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1184001, recorded under King County Recording No. 8605080993, records of King County, Washington, said short plat being a portion .of the South half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 88?126, recorded under King County Recording No. 8405231102, records of King county, Washington, being a portion of the North half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO the East 234 feet of the West 254 feet of the South 275.46 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35, lying Northwesterly of Primary State Highway No.2 (SR 18); AND ALSO the West half of the Southwest quarter of said section 35, lying Northwesterly of Primary State Highway No. 2 (SR 18), AND EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in S.E. 288th Street; AND ALSO that portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 35, lying Northwesterly of Primary State Highway No. 2 (SR 18). MA Page 2 of3 \ " SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON EXAMINATION OF RECORD TITLE. Page 3 of3 . I • 'ii, --.-- :---" EXH I B IT--:8~·· ---_'--' \ .::=!-------=-'f--:::-.=---=-- ~ ---- I ~ , I !If.;~ .iI<;t I W:;"· I ~1'~~ ~ m '" ~ .-. .-. ~ :::: Ul " :: > > z ~ , ""'i' -< ~ z > '-Z ~ Z ,. I"'" .-. il '-Ji..-- x OJ I :r. ~ z <: -- ,.-.. '--.-.... L .'-.. .... L L --. >: .-.... ~ '- L ~Ft? Earl Clymer, Mayor October 6, 1995 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County Central Building, Suite 608 810 third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1693 CITVPF RENTON PlanninglBuih ... dg/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: FILE. NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON ~ BURNSI'EAD ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: Thank you for your favorable consideration of the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton. City staff understand that the Board's approval is conditioned on some small modifications to the annexation boundary to include adjacent rights-of-way, as directed by the enclosed letter from Mr. Mark Isaacson of King County. The amendments to the annexation boundaries have been made and are reflected on the enclosed map. Additionally, the modified legal description has been sent to King County Engineering Services to confirm the accuracy of the changes. Sincerely, Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services enclosures cc: Mark Isaacson, King County Department of Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper contains 50% rocycIod material, 25% post consumer ~/95 Tl1E 10:15 FAX 206 296 3749 KI1'G CO pun WKS ~oo l ----------- --"-,- post-ie'Fax Note 7671 0'" 1-U~<lt.~~ FrO"' ~. \~ML~"'~ King County To t"i\ '(.~ IL ........... ,.,.! CO Dep:artrnent Df PubliC' WOl"k,. ColO.". 1A{,-~;q'1 pncno I YeAlf!r Building Phone' 400 Ve!ller Way, Room '00 Se",trlr, W" 9Bl().t-Z637 Fa •• ~ 11-l\I1.S) FU' (;l06) 296-6500 @ '~':.~ .. " September 26, ) 995 Alda Wilkinson Executive SecretaJy Boundary Review Board for King County Ccn1Ial Building, Suite 608 810 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1693 RE: Bumstead Annexation Dear Ms, Wilkinson: The annexation boundary for the proposed Bumstead Annexation should include all adjacent rights-oC-' way. ' This will allow field crews to morc easily identify jurisdictional boundaries, provide for more consistent maintenance sc""'tuling and bener sClVice delivery to citizens, and give the city appropriate control of capital improvement planniog Cor roadways which form the city's boundary. We therefore recommend including the entire adjacent rOadway sections of SE 128th Street and 144th Avenue SE into the proposed annexation territory. The adjacent portions of 152nd Avenue SE and 150th Avenue SE should also be included in thC proposed annexation. These undeveloped streelS include only one-half of the right-of-way -it is reasonable to ."Poet thaI adcqllBte eirculation for future development could include the full right-of-way. Including the entire rights-of-way in the city will ensure that the future roadway will not split dowo the middle betwccn two jurisdictionS and possibly C"Jl8nd site planning opportunities for future development. Please do not hesitate to call me at 296-4349 if you have any questions. cc: Sandy Adams, Roads Division, Department of Public Works Tom Fitzpatrielc, Department ofDcvelopment and Environmental Services Mike Kanerrnan. Ciry of Renton Nancy Laswell, Special Projects Manager, Department ofPubJic Works j " BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION u HJ ~ I- ~ ~ l f.LC SI PH-h : I n-~ H +!.m + O. Dennison e PlANNlNG/BUIDNG/pUBLIC WORKS ~ R. MocOnie, D. Visneski 5 October 1995 o 1000 2000 I R """ I l::It I~!!' ~ IIIIIII 1:.t11J91 ~ r Hili ~ _____ Renton City Limits _._._._ Urban Growth Boundary I I Proposed Annexation DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBillLDINGIPUBLIC WORKS > MEMORANDUM. September 29, 1995 Jack Crumley Gregg Zimmerman G b King County Overlay Plan, 1996-1998 Attached is the 1996-1998 King County Street Overlay Plan. King County is asking us if we want to join in with them in a joint project. Let me know what you think. I have checked their overlay program against the Burnstead Annexation area, and it looks to me like the only area within the annexation that is in their overlay plans is a short stretch of SE 132nd Street between 142nd Ave. SE and 146th Ave SE. Some surrounding streets are scheduled for overlay. Interesting information. cc(w/o enc.): Jay Covington Mel Wilson 4fik4.Kaucrriiim. 1 ~ 1 " .:,. '. .. '.~~: . Bwv-SN P:'Ce- . " ¥futiiRenton seritllntntmay affect city's growth i .. ,.. .... .... . .. .. ....... .... " ,__ "....._ ............................. c ..... '\" •.... /. ,Is'Rij(r?f t THE' CITf~O't'~ ,-~~to~~~~~~ '~~;V~~li~~;~~:"~en~~~~;=~~:jh?~e :~~ide~~~." , N~~~~:~j~~~:=:~ti:04\;;~;' . /Alants to Jom'"lI seems so Wr""" t . decades. .. '. . . . .."', .... , ' .. ton have, b.1<x:ked annexatIOns. At the same" T~KentandBellevueall.havecomplet .. 'co1iies'to tinneXatUms . .' ~i. ' .. " ~,' To: many onlookers, the strikingldifferc'; time, neighlxiriI)i cities have expanded. J' '-ed major annexations. Ul'i¥t:yearsA(! .. I .",'J' ;, \),~~ .. : .;. ",,,,j. ..' "ence in these two a'nnexations is caused by ", In '1990, RentOn officials Considered, an-.' Renton's image liveS'~ 'iUta'dies .-,:!' with1 • . .. /!y DANNY ~T' '.: Renton's image, which one ~e.sident ~ed an .. nexing "Jl8-s~e-mile ~ eastof the city its,' industriaIized~, ~<!, s,: trugg, ling,' ',dO, wn, town"" SeattkT!me:' ~ . . "aro~" and ~ven some OVIC offio:us .':",n-·.~but w~stynued "'(p~ reSId~ts ga~~ed .. S31!iBob EdwariJ;i",a;~ty:~.~~,.~.,,,~; .' I .. ()nJ1¥',~l! .the:,,!ty of K;ent ~ .expand Its cede IS, ?n the surfaa;, !~ than glitterm~.· ,,,·3,100 ~tures opposmgthe .,dea.' .'>". :J,,::Peoplesee !~:,,!!, :~eYj,!f5.iv~l"y;OJ! .. tIi~ .,' bOIindaIies to the.east,.boosting Its popula-: "We JUSt don't fit 10 WIth Rentou," S31d Two years ago, 7,800 resIdents to the . freeway, and what!tliey'Seeare old,homes . tion by'20,000 PeOPle. Besides being vast by Rod Dembowski, who is beading a drive to .. north voted to form the city of Newcastle, in .. ' and an industrial;bl!1e-coIIai area," Edwards local standards, this anneXation is notable for .incorporate a 8,500-resident city east of'.' part b'e6iuse they feared being annexed by'::" said.: ''When people'think of Bellevue, they ~C?!I,!# J#~nt~lmosf no one)s compJain:.5Renton calle.JBriarw?O<i·.. . <~:' . '(' Ren~!),1: '.. . . .. ' .\'3vi'a 'niOre 'up~fimJiie'~f ~~wldings '10 :" ,,"." .. , ..... ~ '" .. c. . ".':'~··"Renton'san'oldety,andItsmnercoreIS·. A commumty group m' the Fairwood orBeIIevue·Square;".J,,~, "",.., ., -"'; I ~.~~t .i1{~e~ton. aplari.;.t?:~ex a s~.::~fruinbling.A11 theSe' citieS,fro~ ~e Eastside'nei~ood to the east, ~en by the 199(\:!n;:"~~l?n'~ may:~~~CIY."'er:, said ~ple: community· of 473 people . east of the ety:!.to the south, seem-to be f1ounshing •. but for. annexation proposal, continues to meet quar-. :'who·;live. m. more")-ura)"settings "oJliX1Se touChed off a ~es'nf heat~ J!uIilic hearingsl:Some reason Renton .is Iiot . .," .~ terJy. to,'1D0nitoqvhetIi~ the city inay trY ~ '::a#eJiation riot ~!!#..they di~e' R,~~on . " <'lid IaSt>~_lc~,~up 'fl[ ~dents sued. tot 1" "P~le out here JUst don't want to be a'. str~tcl{lts bOrders ~. . . '. ' .. -",';: but1:leciiuse thert!e:u )t ;.~u1d brmg apart-' . block the' move;··,: ." "'." :. .. ~ part of It"" .' . " . "Renton has opposItIOn on all Its flanks: .~. ments and downrowlFstyle'development to " AlDong other:~gs, the'~eii!hbors argut .••. Recent history suggests this anti-Renton said Walter Canter nf the Fairwood. group;' ~tli~ neighborhdilaS . .-'·'''·'· . ',!, ' .. c. ." . . .. . f ~;;-.. -z~t;t:· ... ';' .. :'" '.:'" '::':' .t: ";'~. -r'_ -.:_;~~:~\, ·.';-:,:'-i~:,·~ !:.;~ ~L:ci:1:~:"'1"!·.~.~n;':~"i:·'~·::·~· • ' • -: --:.: .. ;;:j "', :~-: TO: KinK County n(~I.Hrhu("nl (.f' I·uhll(' SHr.·ty J.mU"n E, M0I1IWIII1(')'Y, .f\/trnJrIJ;rrc/(J/' WIlli Kin,; (:uuul," (:'IIII'lhutl~l' !df.; Thinl j\\','llu,"' SNlltil', Wllllhiny,luli ~Jlunh!~il:! September 26. 1995 206 277 4455 Pc LANNING DIVISION ,ITY OJ: ql=NTON ,NOV 21995 RECeIVED Washington State Roundary Review Board for King County 810 nlin! Avenue, Room 608 ScatUe, WA <)8104 NOU 2, 1995 10:15AM "219 P.02 . .J RECEIVED OCT 2 1995 .1 nellie.,., t8te !lou1,u3rV WAS d F r Kln\l Co, 80" D WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY R£VIEW BOARD fOR KING COUNTY 1'7~ FII.fH EXHIIIIT: 13/3 RE: Proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Rcpton, File #1922 Dear Soan! Members: As the Commander of King Coumy Police Precinct 413 in Maple VaHey, I am responsible for pruviding police service~ to the an:a in and around the pnlposed Bumstead annexation, I've been infouned that the CUI1\l/ll pruposal leaves 811 isolated peninsula of utlincorporated King coumy which would be accessible only via Renton city streets. As 811 emergency service pruvider, I have several concem~. Past' ,'annexatillns have also created islands and small pockets of utlincorporated ftlCa.~ surrounded by municipalities. As II result, the police depal1ment has experienced staffing, logistical and operational problems. Of more sigrlificClllce is the jurisdictional confUSion experienced by residents in thesc areas, as well as the respective police departments. In this instance, Renton's diffeJ1:nt street numbering and addressing protocol could make it more difficult for King County office!); 10 respond 10 emelRencies, and also provide mutine patrul 10 the peninsulas north'lUld south of the proposed annexation, Emetgency service coon!ination during a major incident would be more difficult. Past annexatic.ns by Renton, Kent, Bellevue and other cities have created incgular boundaries that make police service delivery difficult. MlU1Y have remained in effect for years and have not been mil ended thruugh follow-up annexations, which should reasonably occur. I urge the BOllndary Review Doan! to consider only an annexation proposal With logical boundary lines that preclude the foun lIIion ofisnlated iSlilllds and peninsulas ofunincorpordted cili7ens. E..pccially th(lSC that can he accessed only via city streets. Thank you for your consideration in this mailer. If I can be of further assistance or answer any questions, please contact me at 296-3883. Sincerely, JAMES E. MONTGOMERY, SHERIFF-DIRECTOR ~~-.~ W~ G~ZS' MClj 7·J~ Commillldcr, S(lulh s\ Pn:cinct S~<.er<O Z-oN IN '-PUl\[..I"-~ I\R. OM ZeN IN"- ~,,I<l< ,,-rt!J"JO ""'N~ I" N 9353301110 ADKISSON W DUNCAN +LODAHL 12249 155TH A VB RENTON W A 98059 1072030460 AMIRASAMV 14715 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 1523059025 98059 ANDERSON ROBERT E+THERESA M 13322 SE 77TH COURT RENTON WA 98059 0847100050 ASBELL REBECCA J + CARROLL F 18101 S. RAMSBY RD MOLALLA OR 97038-9613 6928000050 ' BALDWiN DA V1D D 14103 SE 132ND RENTONWA 1523059019 BANASKY HOWARD 1401 N 26TH ST 98056 RENTON W A 98056 0847100053 BAREl LOUIS 614 S 18TH RENTONWA 1523059113 98055 BELALA R J & SUMMERS E A 14224 SE 129TH ST RENTON W A 98055 0847100106 BENTLEY MICHAEL J 13209 144TH SE RENTON WA 98059 ;', ;0638100255 ,', BETCHERRlCHARDC+GAlLL 11900 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1023059161 ALLAN ROBERT D & MAURENB 12617 142ND AVB SE RENTON WA 98056 , 1523059174 AMUNDSON ROBERT R 14313 SE 138TH ST RENTON W A 98056 6928000160 ARCHER LOLA L 14004 SE 133RD ST RENTONWA 9353300330 AZZOLA LARRY D 12020 156TH SB RENTONWA 1423059065 BALES GEORGE H 13427 156TH A VB SE 98056 98056 RENTON WA 98055 1523059045 BANASKY RUTH 1100 HARRINGTON A VB NB #106 RENTON WA 98056 6928000030 BATSON JUANITA M 14017 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059048 BELTRAN RICARDO Q 2108 BLAlNB SB RENTON W A 98055 1080300150 BERGAMIN ANTON 13827 146TH PL SB RENTONWA 1523059126 98055 BEVAN CHRIS T & SUSAN R 13805 SE 246TH KENT W A 98042 9353301010 AU..JSON ARTHUR D 12212 155TH SE RENTON WA 98055 1123059065 ANDERSON ROBERT & GALE 33085 NE 42ND PL CARNATIONWA 98014 1023059290 ARUNDELLWT 12525 142ND A VB SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300290 BABCOCK DOUGLAS S 12411 156TH A VB SE RENTON WA 98056 6928000130 BAMFORD ROBERT E+NANCY J 14024 SE 133RD RENTON WA 98056 0847100069 BANES DENNIS 14415 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 1523059032 98056 BB4 BB5 BB7 KENT HWY COMM MILITARY RD HWY COMM 10900 NE 8TH ST SUITE #900 BBLLEVUE WA 98004 0847100140 BENTLEY CLARENCE L JR 13605 144TH A VB SB RENTON W A 98056 1072030230 BBSLOW ED J +JODY L 14913 SB 138TH PL RENTONWA 98056 2739200080 BIELKA RONALD G 18419 SE 122ND ISSAQUAHWA 98027 1463400021 BILL GEORGE & RUTH 13818 152ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98056 0847100041 BLAKE LAWRENCE E 750 ROYAL CREST ClR #455 LAS VEGAS NY 89109 9353300690 BONSON WALTER 12452 155TH SE RENTONWA 0847100073 BRENDEN ROGER 13224 144TH SE 98055 RENTON WA 98056 1023059219. BRITTS EDWARD G 12615 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300070 BURCHETI RICHARD 14644 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98055 1523059082 BUSCH FREDERICK L & JUDY R 13843 SE 132ND ST RENTON W A 98056 9353300150 BUTLER IT FREDERICK LOOMIS 15608 SE 128TH ST RENTON W A 98059 9353300450 CAMPBELL ARTHUR D+TRACY D 12258 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 0847100006 CARR RICHARD & JUDY 3604 NE 8TH ST RENTON W A 98056 9353300710 BILODEAU MARCELLENA M 12618 15STH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1023059160 BLAYLOCK IDA 3204 S 292ND ST AUBURNWA 98001 9353300740 BOWERSRONALDS+DORlSJ 12638 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1023059040 BRIERE GERALD J 23205 SE 192ND MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 1080300230 BRUCE GERALD D 14635 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 98055 9353301000 BURNS BRIAN B 412 S 325TH PL S-l FEDERAL WY W A 98003 1023059291 BUSH LYLE L+SUSm A 14030 SE 126TH ST RENTON W A 98059 1023059103 BYERSDORFER DEBORAH PHELPS BYERSDORFER GREGORY A 22651 SE 56TH ST ISSAQUAHWA 98027 1523059154 CAMPBELL CHRISTOPHER D CAMPBELL KELLY D 14205 SE 129TH PL RENTON W A 98059 3664500315 CARY PATRICK H 15609 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 98056 9353301060 BISHOP NOMI A 12252 15STH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 1442600030 BLOOD DURWOOD E 1202 N 37TH ST RENTON WA 98055 1523059130 BRANNAN SCOTT A+DIANNAL 14217 SE 129TH PL RENTON WA 98055 084710002S BRIGHTON THEODORE 12832 144TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98055 1023059169 BUNKER MARGARET M 4377 STONEBRlDGE #8 WYOMING MI 49509 9353300350 BURNSIDE REBECCA L 10025 NE 127TH PL KIRKLAND WA 98034 1523059173 BUSWELL SCOTT R+LORI A 14305 SE 138TH ST RENTON WA 98059 1072030470 CAMP BARNEY & MARGARET 13825 148TH PL SE RENTON W A 98055 9353300120 CARLSON ALVIN E 125A EVANS RD SEQUIMWA 1072030410 98382 CERENZIA DAVID R+MARY G 14906 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98056 , - 1072030330 CHAN ERIC CHI-TAK+ASHLI YIM 15118 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 98056 9353300550 CHERRY STREET INVESTMENTS CAPEK KENNETH J 6045 BOULEVARD LOOP SE OLYMPIA WA 98501 9353300140 CHRISTENSEN WILLIAM L 12654 156TH SE RENTON W A 98056 0847100076 CLARK J ERNEST 7029 RIPLEY LN N RENTONWA 0847100077 COCANOWER BILLY L PO BOX 2264 98056 RENTON W A 98055 1423059047 COLONY HOMES INC 1215 120TH AVE NE #201 BELLEVUE W A 98005 6928000120 COSTELLO MARK F + GAIL MILLER 850 CAMAS AVE NE RENTONWA 98056 9353300760 CUMMINGS WILLIAM R 12652 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 9353300870 DEMOPOUS CHRIS 7013UNDENN SEATTLEWA 1123059072 DICKSONCM 15630 SE 124TH RENTONWA 98103 98056 9353300620 PROPERTY O~~, ,. , ,J"'~ ;,;I~ ,. 12003 156TH A VESE RENTONWA 98059 1423059016 CHEUNG SYDNEY & CONNIE 5766 -146TH AVE N E BELLEVUE WA 98007 9353300810 CHRISTIANSON KENNETH & UND 12643 155TH SE RENTON W A 98055 1523059041 CLAUSEN GUY 13835 144TH SE RENTONWA 1423059007 98056 COLASURDO DOMINIC J 15440 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98056 6928000150 COOKFRANKJ 14012 SE 133RD RENTONWA 1023059177 98059 CRAFT JOHN J +KATHRYN M 12515 142ND AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1023059345 DAUGHERTY GREG W +J'NON 12201 148TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 9353300600 DENNISON DAVID C+JlLL A 12019 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100022 DO QUANG T+CHUNG PHUNG K 14419 SE 128TH ST RENTON W A 98059 6928000040 CHEBOT EARL B & WILMA P 14023 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 1072030270 CHRISTENSEN SCOTI+DIANE L 15019 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98059 0847100014 CHUCK'S DONUT SHOP 14413 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98056 1123059019 COALFIELD 5 STAR ATHLETIC PO BOX 2833 RENTON WA 98056 1523059101 COLLIN JEFFREY W 14232 SE 129TH PL RENTONWA 98056 9353301050 COSTELLO JOHN TERRANCE+ LORI AILEEN 12244 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1523059120 CRAMER WILLIAM G 1423 MARUN DR SE PORT ORCHARD WA 6928000100 98366 DAY KENNETH MARTIN & TERRI 8152NDAVE SEATTLEWA 98104 9353300850 DESHAW RUTH E 1261115STHAVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300460 DODGEELMER+GWEN 12264 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1123059094 DOELLEFELD RALPH & BEVERLY 12003 160TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1023059070 DYKEMAN ROBERT E 14029 SE 124TH ST RENTON WA 98059 1123059091 ELLIS STANLEY E PO BOX 2442 RENTON W A 98055 1444500020 FALLIS GARY DEAN 14612 SE 132ND RENTONWA 98056 1023059013 FlFERRUTHL 14325 SE 125TH ST RENTONWA 2739200120 98059 FLATTUM PATRICIA LEE 12422 148TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1444500060 FORREST RICHARD J MAINQUIST JILL M 14646 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98059 9353300100 GARR BOBBY LEE & MARY H 15607 129TH PL SE RENTON W A 98058 1023059341 GILBERT KEITH C+CATHERINE C 12609 148TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300700 GOONAN MARTIN J 12610 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300370 DOLAN LARRY E 13525 181ST AVE SE RENTONWA 1080300100 98059 EARL S & EVVELYN L ROBINSON 14626 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98059 1080300090 ENZMINGER DAVID P 14632 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98059 9353300430 FARNSWORTH PEARL 12244 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1423059017 FINER HOMES INC 1215 120TH AVE NE #201 BELLEVUE W A 98005 1080300050 FLEURY VERNE K+JACQUI L 14708 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98059 9353300580 FRYE ORAN W & BETTY 12035 156 AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300160 GIBEAULT RAYMOND 3634 NE 6TH ST RENTON W A 98056 1123059037 GODDARD ELIZABETH A 15624 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98059 1523059116 GRAY JACKIE G 13015 144TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 9353300300 DUFUR GLEN J+VICKIE L 12409 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98027 1023059316 EBBERT DAVID M 12613 148TH SE RENTONWA 1523059092 98055 - FALKENSTEIN WILLIAM L+RHINE 14240 SE 129TH PL RENTON WA 98056 1463400015 FATTORE ROBERT L & DEBORAH 13810 152ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1023059384 FLANDERS PATRICIA ANN 12435 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100014 FORGAARD CLEO J 678 SUNSET BLVD NE RENTON WA 98056 05934ooo~0 FUNKLEY RICHARD & SHIRLEY 13648 143RD SE RENTON WA 98059 1072030210 GIDNER RICHARD V & GRITA L 14825 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98056 1080300030 GOODMAN ONICA A 13830 147TH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 1523059219 GREEN NORMAN W & CYNTHlA A 14128 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98056 9353300980 GURCHAK JOHN H JR 14919 TIGER MT RD SE ISSAQUAH WA 98027 1072030300 HALLGRIMSON KEVIN E+ KAREN R 15117 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98059 1080300220 HARR JEFFREY K+ LESUE A 14629 SE 138TH PLACE RENTON WA 98056 0847100049 HARSCH FRANKLIN DELANO 7804 129TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1523059175 HATCHIRISN 14321 SE 138TH RENTONWA 1023059036 HERTEL MICHAEL J 14012 SE 126TH ST 98056 RENTONWA 98055 9353300860 ffiLLSTEAD ROBERT W 9145 7TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98108 1023059192 HOAGUE ROBERT L 12629 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 1423059062 HONG JOSAPHAT+ ASSUMPTA 15409 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98056 1072030260 ISAACSON DONALD + YVONNE 15011 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98059 2739200190 HALFHILL DAVID K & SUSAN L 12428 149TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353301220 HAMER REBECCA J 12017155THAVESE RENTON W A 98059 9353300180 HARRISON UNDA C 12643 156TH SE RENTON W A 98056 1523059109 HASEGAWA ROBERT A & MEUNDA 312116THAVES SEATTLE WA 98144 0593400030 HEIDE ROBERT L 13628 143RD AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1523059167 HESS JAMES A 968 ANACORTES CT NE RENTON W A 98056 6928000060 ffiMESBRUCEW 14111 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 1123059087 HOLMQUIST ALAN D 12050 148TH SE 98056 RENTON W A 98055 2739200071 HOSTAS VLADIMIR+RUZENA 12438 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300010 ISGRIGG DAVID 4110 CLERF RD ELLENSBURG W A 98926 , 9353300030 HALGREN S WILUAM 2230 151ST PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98007 0847100070 HARDING EDWARD D 13207 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300220 HARRISON THOMAS+MAYEKAWA,CH 11025 SE 218TH ST KENT W A 98031 . 0847100108 HASTINGS GARY CHUDY H PO BOX 2092 RENTON WA 98056 9353300260 HENKE WILUAM & UV POBOX 1088 KINGSTON WA 98346 1023059258 mLLDANNYL 12526 142ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 0847100062 ffiSER WILUAM J 921 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 9353300920 HOLSTROM JOHN CHRISTEN 1441 QUEEN AVENE RENTON W A 98056 1072030440 HOWARD EDWARD W 13741 148TH PL SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300020 ISGRIGG DAVID 12410 156TH SE RENTONWA 98055 0638100213 ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DIST #411 565NWHOLLY ISSAQUAH W A 98027 9353300060 JANDERS KYLE S+PAMELAJ 12450 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 9.8059 1423059020 JOHNSON DANIEL S 15051 SE 128TH ST RENTON W A 98055 6928000020 JONES DOUGLAS H + SHARON R 14011 SE 132ND ST RENTON W A 98059 -1072030430 KAMPERSCHROER JOHN D 14824 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98059 1023059162 KEYES CHARLES 12607 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98056 1423059072 KING COUNTY REAL PROPERTY 500 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE WA 98104 1023059038 KOCH JOHN E+PATRICIA D 12605 148TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 2739200140 KRISTOFERSON RICHARD M + KRISTOFERSON ,ALFRED E 12406 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1123059030 LACKEY CHARLES PO BOX 2198 RENTONWA 98056 1123059001 J W MORRISON INC BOX 407 KENMOREWA 1123059010 JARVIS JERRY D 12204 148TH SE RENTONWA . 9353301090 JOHNSON DON 78 HOHPL LACONNERWA 1072030340 98028 98055 98257 JONES GEORGE R&SANDRA R 15110 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98059 9353300990 KANAYA DOUGLAS M 16757 154TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 1123059028 KING COUNTY WATER DIST 90 15606 SE 128TH ST RENTON W A 98059 1080300140 KIRCHNER JAMES F + WENDY 0 13819 146TH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 6928000090 KOLER LOUIS A+JOYCE R 13217 142ND AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 0847100048 KUNA DONALD J 13048 144TH SE RENTONWA 1444500030 98059 LAMBERT MARSHALL E+ ELSA M 8836 123RD AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1072030350 JAMES CHRISTOPHER M 15102 sa 138TH PL RENTON WA 98056 3664500319 JAY PROPERTIES 91212THAVE SBATTLEWA 1023059254 98122 JONAK LORAN R+ VICfORIA A 12502 142ND AVE sa RENTONWA 98059 1080300240 JORGENSON MARTY A+DEBORAH L 13823 147TH PL sa RENTON W A 98056 0593400060 KELLER WILUAM 0 13652 143RD AVE sa RENTON WA 98056 1423059063 KING COUNTY 502 SECOND AVE SUITE 1621 SEATTLE WA 98104 9353300440 KLENNERT CHARLES G 12250 IS6TH AVE S a RENTON WA 98056 1523059106 KRIEG JOHN C JR 13617 144TH AVE sa RENTON WA 98055 0638100170 L&GCO BAUGHLM 4000 W LAKE SAMMAMISH RD S BELLEVUE WA 98008 9353301030 LAMBIRTH JOHN F+PFANKUCHE LRENEE 12228 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1442600040 LAMBRO THOMAS H + ROSS ,LORENE 15235 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 6928000010 LEAIVYLT 7443 NE 123RD PL KIRKLANDWA .9353300830 98059 98034 LEE JOSHUA C+BRUMMETT CARR! 12627 155TH AVENUE SE RENTON W A 98059 1423059064 LEIFER IRVIN T 15223 SE 128TH RENTONWA 1523059033 LEVY ROBERT E 307 LYON BUILDING 6073RDAVE 98055 SEATTLE WA 98104 1072030370 liNDSAY RICHARD A 15012 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 98056 1523059018 LUCAS DONALD E 13216 138TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 6928000080 LYTLE RICHARD A & LAURIE J 13205 142ND AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1072030250 MACPHERSON RICHARD LINCOLN 15003 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98055 1072030420 MAHLER WILLIAM C & SUSAN C 14830 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98055 1523059065 LANDON CRAIG 10520 169TH AVE SE RENTONWA 0847100063 LEE CHARLES T 12855 144TH SB RENTONWA 9353300660 LEEROBERTC 12432 155TH AVE SE 98059 98055 RENTON W A 98059 1423059070 LEIFER RANDALL D+ROSEMARY M 5127 S FOUNTAIN ST SEATTLE WA 98178 9353301190 _ LINCECUM CHRISTOPHER L+ REBE 12041 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 9353300320 LOCKRIDGE PATRICK H 12012 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98057 1080300250 LUCHINI MARK D 13831 147TH PLACE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353301180 MACDONELL TERESA E 12049 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300090 MADDOCKS DENNIS 12612 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1072030450 MARCOE EDWARD JOHN 14714 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98059 2739200060 LARSON JAMES M 12430 148TH SE RENTONWA 1072030290 LEE JOHN PAUL 15109 SB 138TH PL RENTONWA 1523059099 98059 98055 ' LEE ROBERT W & MABEL 14200 SE 129TH PL RENTON WA 98056 1072030320 LENT HOWARD L+BBTTY 15126 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98056 1523059205 liNDBERG PAUL A 13836 SE 131ST RENTONWA 1444500010 LOTH CORWIN B 14604 SB 132ND RENTONWA 9353300340 98056 98055 LUKAS PAUL W & JUDITH 12028 156TH A VB SB RENTON WA 98059 1123059040 MACEWEN CHRISTOPHER R 15057 SB 120TH RENTON WA 98056 9353300730 MAGGARD DONALD S+JOLENE R 16023 SE 13STH ST RENTON WA 98056 9353300270 MARTIN DARRELL & ANN 12429 156TH A VB SE RENTON W A 98056 1023059383 MARTIN KENNETH A 12439 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300130 MAYTUM DONALD E 13811 146TH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300750 MCDERMOTI GEORGE F + LILLIAN 12646 15STH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1523059156 MECHTOLD WILUAM A+CATHY L 13815 144TH AVE S E RENTON WA 98056 1023059034 .. __ MERLINO GARY +DON 9125 10TH AVE SO SEATILE WA 98108 0847100080 MILLS MARGARET S 1609 DAVIS AVE SO RENTON W A 98055 1523059112 MONTGOMERY lAMES D+PAULA D 13837 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98056 1463400005 MORGAN HENRY C 13615 154TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1072030200 MOYE_MARVlN C+SARAH I PEROT 13900 149TH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 1523059139 MULVIHILL MICHAEL D 14243 SE 129TH PL RENTON W A 98059 0847100081 MARUI SIDGEKI 624 MOTOMACID-DORI 4 CHOME CHUO-K KOBEIAPAN 0 1523059062 MCCLlNCY TRACY L 13011144TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1023059167 MCTIGHE JOHN R ET AL 24929 267TH SE RAVENSDALE W A 98051 1523059061 MEDDAUGH DANIEL F& ELAINE M 14013 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 98056 0847100054 MEYERPHYLLISB 14454 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 1523059002 98059 MINKLER ROBERT & PAMELLA 5 LUMMI KEY BELLEVUE W A 98006 9353301150 MOONEY FRANKP.+TERESA 12217155 AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 9353301230 MORRISON DOUGLAS D PO BOX 407 KENMORE WA 98028 1123059021 MULLENBERG DEAN I 12622 148TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 0847100071 NELSON DAWN 13217 146TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1080300080 MASS WILLIAM R 14638 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 9353300420 MCCOY lAMES 4300 NE 39TH AVE VANCOUVER WA 1023059125 MEAD HENRY L 12424 142ND AVE SE 98059 98661 RENTON WA 98059 1072030380 MEDVED JERRY B 15004 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA .9353301080_ 98056 MILLER CARMEN M (Ey)+DALE L 12266 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1123059077 MITCHELL ARKELL PO BOX 2374 RENTON WA 98055 0847100024 PROPERTY OWNER 14415 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 1523059064 MOSIER LAUREN W 13025 144TH AVE SE 98059 RENTON WA 98059 1123059018 MULLINS CECIL 18631 120TH SE RENTONWA 9353300780 98058 NELSON EMIL + ROSE 7219 S 128TH PO BOX 78526 SEATILE WA 98178 1023059281 NELSON WILLIAM L+CAROL J 12516 142ND AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1072030390 NOBLE G scon & TERRY S 22908 SE 139111 cr ISSAQUAH WA 98027 1072030310 OBERG DUANE C+PATRICIA L 15125 SE 138111 PL RENTONWA 98059 1123059017 OLOING TERRY L 12614148111 AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 . 9353300670 PACKEREC 12440 155TI1 AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300630 PARKER CRAIG & EVELYN 12404 155111 AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1080300060 PENNER WARRICK V + LINDA KAIS 14702 SE 138111 PLACE RENTON W A 98059 1123059007 PORTEOUS JAMES D POLLACK LEONA 15632 SE 128111 ST RENTON W A 98059 1423059106 PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT C PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE W A 98009 0847100066 QUESNEL MAURICE 13218 144111 S E RENTON W A 98055 ';.{, 1123059049 NEWHART MANFRED+MARTA 15041 SE 120111 RENTON W A 98056 0638100165 NONIS JERRY L+CONNIE L 15512 SE 120TI1 RENTON WA 98056 1523059042 OBERMEIER DENNIS(fRUSTEE) 14408 SE MAY VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98056 9353300680 OLIVER JOYCE & SCHMIDT CAROL 433 BRONSON WY NE RENTON W A 98056 __ 9353301160 PALMER GARY TIMSON SHIRLEY 285 MT RAINIER PL NW ISSAQUAHWA 98027 1023059206 PEABODY ERIN M +MICHAEL A+DI 14640 SE 128111 ST RENTON W A 98059 0847100060 PETERSEN ROBERT A 14639 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98055 1023059259 POWERS JACK M+DENISE T 12207 148TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 0847100061 PUGSLEY BRAD + CYNTIIIA 14607 SE 132ND RENTONWA 98056 0593400010 RATHER ROBERT J + SUSAN R 14241 SE 136111 RENTONWA 98056 , 9353300610 NIBLOCK JOHN F 12011 156111 AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1123059023 NORMILE DAVID R & JENNIFER 12210 NE 143RD PL KIRKLANDWA 98034 9353300210 OCHOA BARBARA R 8054 S 116111 ST SEAITLE WA 98178 9353301210 OLSON CHARLES D+CLARICEJ 12025 155TI1 SE RENTONWA 98059 0847100068 _ PALMER ROBERT L+ DANA L 13205 146111 AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1523059108 PELLETIER STEVE L+ LINDA L 14212 SE 129111 PL RENTONWA 98059 1023059025 PIELE LEONARD L 14309 SE 125TI1 ST RENTONWA 98055 1523059164 PROULX PAUL 12821 144111 SE RENTONWA 98055 9353300200 PURDY ELiZABE11I C 12627 156111 AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 0847100045 RECKTENWALD F V 13016 144111 AVE SE RENTONWA 98056 10230S9320 REED LAWRENCE A 12611 148TH SE RENTON W A 980SS 0847100090 RENTON SCHOOL DIST 403 43S MAiN AVE S RENTON W A 980SS 0847100051 REYNOLDS LYNN E 28202 193RD AVE SE KENTWA 98042 0847100074 1444500070 RICHARDSON WAYNE R PO BOX S8603 RENTON W A 980S8 14230S9OO3 ROGERS MARK C+LYNNETTE M 1S24O SE 132ND ST RENTON W A 980S6 3664SOO313 RUSSELL CARRIE J 15615 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 0847100064 SADARFRANK 14419 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 9353300790 SAWYER ERNET C 12657 ISSTH AVE SE 980S9 980S9 RENTON W A 98055 1080300200 SCHEUFFELE A DEAN 13832 146TH PL SE RENTON W A 980SS 1072030220 REICH EDWIN D+KAREN M 14901 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98059 2739200180 REPENN ROGER L 12422 149TH AVE SE RENTON WA 980SS 93S3301240 RHOADES ROBERT E 12001 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 11230S9079 RICE DANlAL & JACQUELINE 1S629 SE 124TH RENTON W A 980S9 6928000140 RIGORAB 14018 SE 133RD RENTON W A 980S5 10230S9176 ROSALES KARIN PO BOX 96 SELAHWA 93S3300280 RUSSELL JOHN T POBOX 120S GRAHAMWA 14230S9118 98942 98338 SAITO MICHAEL & ARLENE 7630 S llSTH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 0638100250 SCHALL EVELYN DONLAN 9924 11STH SW TACOMA WA 98498 9353301130 SCHNEIDER KEN V 12237 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 10230S9041 REID BENNIE J + BARBARA J 14412 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98056 6928000070 REPETOWSKI PETE & KATHERINE 14117 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 980S9 1023059016 RIBERA-BALKO ENTERPRISES 13740 SE 246TH KENT WA 98042 . 1023059069 RICHARDS DONALD E+LILYCE E. 17410 SE MAPLE VLY HWY #106 RENTON WA 980S8 2739200170 RILEY JOHN L 12414 149m AVE SE RENTON WA 9805S 1523059020 RUDOLPH BERTRAM A JR PO BOX 2302 CARMEL CA 93921 0593400020 RUTHERFORD FRANK YI 13620 143RD SE RENTON WA 98059 1444500040 SANCHEZ VICTORIA M 14630 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 11230S9093 SCHEDA DOUGLAS ARTHUR - 17015 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 980S9 1S230S9117 SCHULKE SHANE D PO BOX 491 SUMNER WA 9839().()Q90 1123059031 SCOTI SHARON ELIZABETH 12610 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300840 SEGARAN CHANDRA + RANDI C 12619 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100065 SHAW EDMUND A 14413 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 1123059095 SHIMMEL MICHAEL J 12004 156TH SE 98059 RENTON WA 98055 2739200100 _ SIPILA JEFFREY A 12435 149TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 0847100115 SMITH JOSEPH A + KATHY L PO BOX 24792 SEATILE WA 98124 0847100040 SPOON GARY E 16701 SE MAY VALLEY ROAD RENTON W A 98059 9353300530 STUECKLE JAMES T 12220 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 0847100052 TALLEY ALBERT 29112ND AVE SEATILE WA 98121 1023059355 THOMAS SAMUEL A + SHIRLEY A 12601148TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1523059127 SCOTI WILLIAM E 14233 SE 129TH PL RENTONWA 2739200200 SHARKEY DOUGLAS V 12436 149TH AVE SE RENTONWA 3664500318 SHEFFER SUNNY M 15225 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 0847100105 SHOOKJOHNR 13205 144TH SE RENTONWA 9353301170 SMELTZER JACK L 12205 155TH AVE SE 98059 '." 98059 98059 98055 RENTON W A 98055 6928000110 SMITH PATRICIA A 14112 SE 133RD ST RENTONWA 9353300240 98055 STEW ART DONALD & MILDRED A 12457 156TH SE RENTON W A 98055 3664500316 SUKERT EVELYN L 14909 57TH AVE S TUKWILAWA 1123059083 TAMLUISW 9420 16TH AVE SW SEATTLEWA 9353300130 98168 98106 THOMPSON ALAN L+ANN EVITA 12644 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1080300120 SCUDDER JAMES L 13803 146TH PL SE RENTONWA 0593400040 SHARP LAURA L 98059 13636 143RD AVENUE SOUTHEAST RENTON WA 98057 1523059222 SHEWCHUK ALLAN S 13844 SE 131ST RENTON WA 98056 1523059118 SIMONSON JAMES D+SANDRA K 14239 SE 129TH PL RENTONWA 98059 _ 9353300640 SMITH JOHN L PO BOX 2670 RENTONWA 9353300070 98056 SMITH STEVEN WESLEY HEGGEN-SMITH SUSAN 12458 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300820 STOCK WALTER L+KEIKO 12635 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1123059002 SWEET EMMA M 12206 148TH SE RENTON WA 98055 0847100100 TARANTOLA JOSEPH 23326 SE 254TH ST MAPLE VALLEY W A 98038 1023059032 TIBBOTI DEAN W & ANNE 0 17003 NE 28TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98008 9353300770 UNITED MORTGAGE CORP 25028 100TH AVE SE KENT WA 98031 1072030400 WADE CRAIG G & CECILUA E 14914 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 98056 1080300040 WALSH THOMAS W + LYNN K . 13822 147TH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 2739200110 WAYNE ROBERT L 906 SUNSET BLV NE RENTON W A 98056 9353300040 WELCH JAMES L 19801 95TH AVE EAST BOTHELL WA 98011 9353300190 WHITFIELD RICHARD W + LOIS B 12635 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1080300110 WILUAMS DAVID O+CHRISTINE 13804 146TH PL SE RENTON W A 98056 9353301070 WITTCARLM 12260 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1072030360 WOLFORD DOUGLAS A + UZ M 15020 SE 138TH PL RENTON W A 98059 9353300470 WRIGHTMJR 12265 156TH SE RENTONWA 98055 9353300800 VAN DITTO SCOTT A 12651155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300720 W ALIMAKI JUDITH M 19037 SE JONES RD RENTONWA 98058 9353300480 WALTERS GORDON J 12257 156TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98056 1023059021 WEGNER BRETT + MARY K 12211 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1523059001._ _ WEST COAST INVESTMENTS INC+ HUNG,SHIRLEY + HUNG,CLAUDIA 4502 177TH AVE SE ISSAQUAHWA 98027 1023059193 WHITLOCKT 12637 148TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300250 WILUAMSON JOE L 12439 156TH S E RENTON WA 98056 0847100075 WOFFORD WILLIAM E 13323 146TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 1523059097 WOODS WILUAM D 13633 144TH AVE SE' RENTON W A 98059 1523059217 YAHNCLYDE 14100 SE 132ND RENTONWA 98056 1523059105 VERV AIR UNDA A 14325 SE 136TH ST RENTON WA .• ' 98052 1123059067 _ .. " WALKER DWAYNE M +KIRI;NE D 12232 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1123059063 WATERDIST90 15606 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 9353300490 WEISSER GARY L 12236 15STH SE 98059 RENTON WA 98059 0847100042 WEYER CLARENCE W 14602 SE 132ND RENTON WA 98056 0593400070 WlESTOSCAR 13660 143RD SE RENTONWA 1523059218 98056 YORN CLYDE W & MARY 14100 SE 132ND RENTON WA 98056 9353300080 WOLF PATRICIA ANN (50%) 12604 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98050-6325 1442600010 WRIGHT BARBARA PETTINGER 15203 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 1072030280 Y AMAGUCm FREDERICK A 15101 SE 138TH PL RENTON WA 98055 Absentee Ballot Request • Mail To: ABSENTEE BALLOT Room 553, King County Administration Building, 500 4th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT THIS APPLICATION IS FOR THE FOLLOWING: I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM A REGISTERED VOTER PLEASE PRINT IN INK Primary Election Sept. __ 19 __ _ Registered Name ____________________ _ General Election Nov. __ 19 __ Street Address ___________ -'='ZiR'----___ -'#'-___ _ City _____________ _ Special Election Only ----19-- Telephone: (Day) ------_____ (Evening) _____ _ For identification purposes only: (Optional) IF KNOWN: Birth Date _______ _ Social Security No. ________ _ Registration No. KI __ " ___ " ___ _ Date ________ _ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Signat'uu:re~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~ ~-- Street Address . ..,...-."..'------'-'---:------:-''------'''''''m~..:.·· :--:-.-:-. _ I 1 ,. , , . ." ~ 1 ': ~' '" '! :., ' City \ I 1 < ')' \ 'Zip,' : I ;, I State __ ~ ____ -~--______ ~_~ ___ _ I. I Country'~·_.---,·---_--________ -2.. ____ .':", __ ~ew Regi$tiation:YeSO N~ 0 . ' IF DIFFERENT, SEND MY BALLOT TO: Form E-36 \ ANNEX: 1 r 'It seems like a I logical extension' Continued from page AI than Water District 90 and the area's designation as lying within urban ,. growth boundaries were among the main reasons board members cited in granting the annexation. "The water district's concept works, but from a political view- point, Ijustcan't see it being done," said board member AJ. Culver. Culver added that he thinks it would take 10 years, not the projected four years, for the district to install sew- ers. "I think the board was driven by a time line and that's' not part of their objectives," said Norman Green of opponent group Neighbors United for Representation. "They boiled it down to a sewage issue. There was \00 testimony that there were imme- diate health hazards in the annex- ation area. '.'I'm disappointed but undaunted. We wi11 prevail. " The annexation drive was launched in August 1994 by Bum- stead Construction Company to secure city sewer service so it could build homes on 64 acres it owns just east of Kenton. Owner Fred Burnstead was pleased with Tuesday's decision. "It seems like a logical extension of Renton's boundaries. It's the first step.in a long process," he said, but added, "It's always nice to get something positive going. " Those who favor incorporation have ar~ued' that the annexation would dIvide the area proposed as the city of Briarwood -stretching east from the Renton city limits at 138th Avenue Southeast to l84th Avenue Southeast near Lake Kath- leen -making incorporation impos- sible. Dembowski had wanted an incorporation study before annex- ation was approved. But Boundary Review Board members said it was the annexation issue before them, not the incorpo- ration proposal. "We must encourage annexation because this is recognized as an urban area," said board member Lydia Aldredge. "Over the next 20 years, it wi11 be annexed or incorpo- . rated. II But Loren Dunn, the sole opposi- tion vote on the board, said he was "deeply troubled by the creation of islands" by the annexation propos- al. The next step for the annexation is a public hearing before the Renton City Council to determine zoning for the area. ~--.'-.--------------~ f.~~!2~~e~?~.~~J~~~":~.~J . I Valley Daily News. . '. plateau instead, said they will appeal confident we will win." . l \ A controversial proposal to aimex.· the decision. Any appeal would first be filed in 403 acres of the East Renton Plateau"We'U see them in court," said King County Superior Court. . . into Renton was approved 9-\ by the Rod Dembowski, chairman of the The city of Renton's ability to 1\ Boundary Review Board Tuesday. Briarwood Incorporation Commit-provide sewer service more quickly ( night. . . tee. "We came into this expecting Opponents, including those who this decision,· but we nave a See ANNEX. A 10 J r , , .--~------------------------------~--------------~--~--------------------~~ ~.~ 09/26/95 TUE 10:15 FAX 206 296 3749 ® King County Department of Public Wor-klll Ye,der Building 400 'Ve!ller Way, ROOm '00 ~i:l.ttle. W" 98104-.a6J7 ()!OO) 290"500 Scptomber 26. 1995 AIda Wilkinson Executive SecretJUy Boundluy RtMow Board fOf King County CcnIral Building. Suite 608 810 Third Avenuo Seattl~ WA 98104-1693 RE: BumS1ead Annexation Dear Ms. Wilkinson: KING CO PUB WKS -------- -- pQat_j\-Fax Note 7671 0.'0 1~u..oilS"\~~ TO 1"\\ t~ IL ..-...,.,..\ .".",.J.. \ l"hAL!o "'~ Co, CoJOepi 1A,,-~;qt1 phone • Phone .. Fa.' t 11-1.\1.\:'» F"". The annexation boundluy for the proposed Bumstead Annexation should include all adjacent rights-of- way. This will allow field crewS!O more easily identify jurisdictional boundaries, provide for more consiS1ent maintenance scheduling and better service delivery to citi~ns. and give the city appropriate control of capital improvement planning for roadways which form the city's boundluy. We therefore recommend including the entire adjacent roadway sections of SE 128th Street and 144th Avenue SE into the proposed annexation territOI}'. The adjacent portions of 152ru! AVCIlUe SE and IS0th Avenue SE should also be included in the proposed annexation. These undeveloped streets include only one-hill of the right-of-way -it is reasonable to expect that adequate circulation fOf furore development could include the full right-of-way. Including the entire rights-of-way in the city will el\$UXC that the furore roadway will not split down the middle between two jurisdictionS and possibly expand site planning opportunities for fulut'e development, Please do not hesitate to call me at 296-4349 if you have any queS1ions. Isaacson, AICP Reg! nal Affairs Analyst Depanntent of Public Works cc: Sandy Adams, Roads Division, Dcpanntent of Public Works @ .... : ......... Tom Fitzpatrick, Department of Development and Environmental Services Mike Katterman, City of Renton Nancy Laswell, Special Projects Managef, Department of Public Works 1ti00l • '-•. j', -, DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: , ' , ·1 ,',' '}, _ .'. CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBillLDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM September 25, 1995 lay Covington Sue Carlson ~ 'Mike Kattermann Ron Olsen Dave Christensen Owen Denison Gregg Zimmerman G-~ , ; ',J,':r.. '~'\ " . '-.' t, '~;:'. ' •. .. ,f." ' " Boundary Review Board Hearing, Burnstead Annexation, Approach on Sewer Issues for 9/26/95 Hearing Continuation Well, part 1 of the Boundary Review Board Hearing for the Bumstead Annexation is over, with part 2 coming on Tuesday evening (tomorrow). My impressions of part 1 is that we fared well on the substantive issues, even though the Neighbors United for Representation filled the hearing room with opponents of the annexation, mostly from outside the annexation boundaries. Nine speakers spoke for the annexation and 14 spoke against it (not counting Derdowski who could be considered an anti, or Sid Foremail from the SeattlelKing County Health Department, whose concerns about failing septic systems in the area could be counted as a pro annexation comment, in my mind). However, counting comments from those who live within the annexation area, I got 7 for, 7 against. ' . The Boundary Review Boai'd had several specific questions they wished to have addressed on Tuesday, and determined to let the three parties (Renton and the two appellants) speak for 10 minutes each before entering again into public testimony. These questions are, as I recall: 1. What will be the fates of the two "peninsulas": Le. will the annexation create negative impacts on the areas immediately north and south of the annexation area, particularly in regard to public safety and provision of sewers? 2. Water District 90 was requested to provide cost and time estimates on how long it would take them to provide sewers to the annexation area. 3. We were asked to look at the boundaries and consider making them more regular in terms of roadways that go in and out of the annexation area. In answer to these and other questions that were raised at the hearing, our approach on sewer issues should be as follows: September 25, 1995 Page 2 -------------- A. Turn the "what will happen to the peninsulas" questiQn frQm a negative tQ a PQsitive by stating that prQvisiQn .of sewer service tQ the annexatiQn area will prQvide mQre rather than less QptiQns fQr sewer service. The "peninsula" to the nQrth .of the annexatiQn area could PQtentially be served by the RentQn system either by annexatiQn and sewer extensiQn, .or by negQtiating an interlQcal agreement between WD 90 and Renton fQr connectiQn .of sewers. frQm this area, to the Renton system. The" peninsula" to the SQuth .of the annexatiQn area could still be served by an interceptQr running SQuth tQ the Cedar River Trunk line (JQnes RQad alignment), whether that line were to be installed by WD 90 .or by Renton (uPQn future annexatiQn .of this area). The Bumstead AnnexatiQn dQes nQt limit QptiQns here, but rather adds mQre QPtiQns. The argument abQut the annexatiQn reducing accessibility fQr emergency vehicles tQ the "peninsulas" is a speciQus argument. The' roads will still be there available fQr use; annexatiQn will nQt blQck .off rQadways. B. On the subject .of hQW IQng itwQuld take fQr Water District 90 to start installing sewer, we are preparing .overheads shQwing .our estimates (6 mQnths fQr Renton, 4 tQ 5 years fQr WD 90). C. Regarding bQundary irregularities (roads gQing in and .out .of the annexatiQn area), I think we shQuld vQlunteer to accept all rQadways cQntiguQus tQ the annexatiQn area. True, we WQuld pick up additiQnal maintenance resPQnsibilities, but this WQuld be mQre than .offset by the plus .of acquiring additiQnal utility corridQrs within the subject roadways. D. There is still SQme mis-infQrmatiQn that we are trying tQ take .over WD 90's water service area within the annexatiQn area. We shQuld state .once mQre that WD 90 will continue to be the water service' prQvider here. E. We shQuld use Sid FQrman's concerns abQut failing septic services tQ .our advantage. The Bumstead AnnexatiQn could prQvide much quicker relief by prQviding sewer service tQ prQperties within the annexatiQn area. AlsQ, City PQlicy allQWS City CQuncil to consider and apprQve c.onnectiQn .of sewers from .outside the corpQrate City limits withQut the requirement fQr annexatiQn in the case .of declared health emergencies. Our CQuncil has a track recQrd .of being very resPQnsive to health emergencies .outside the City limits. F. There is still SQme cQnfusiQn abQut whQ WQuld have tQ hQQk up t.o sewer after annexatiQn. We need tQ clearly restate City PQlicies in this regard. G. Ray Griffin made a big issue during his testimQny ab.out surface water runQff problems caused by develQpment, particularly taking the City tQ task fQr what has happened in MaplewQ.od Creek. We CQuld resPQnd by saying that mQst .of the MaplewQQd Creek drainage basin is in unincorpQrated King CQunty, and that develQpment is g.oing to happen in urban grQwth areas at rQughly the same density with .or withQut annexatiQn, SQ that' urbap. runQff is an equal challenge either way. I think instead we shQuld just leave this .one a1Qne rather than addressing it. By addressing it we give credence tQ it as an issue. H. Water District 90 made an issue that the City never cQntacted them regarding prQviding sewer service tQ this area. I have already made the PQint that the City has fQrmally cQntacted them fQr years by distributing sewer plans. Either restate, .or leave a1Qne. • 1. BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION BRB PUBLIC HEARING (cont'd) REBUTTAL --9/26/95 ZONINGILAND USE Kjpg C;P\illty Zo.ni!llt v. City of Renton Zoning J(.-Jv If? ~~F • LOGICAL BOUNDARIES 16(70 "t1t ~\~ 7d'pe ~1. . TOI?9W')lphy not a barrier to providing service ~~ ~mence Ranch added by GMPC due to need for sewers J'N!.f e.c. (~~~White Fence Ranch properties that extend beyond UGB --Can't go beyond 4'0/ Splitting neighborhoods --physical on a map, emotional sense harder}o_ ~ ~,,i.,'cJk Ot't/l' ~ define, but at least 60% want to be part of Renton 5oc( a I~ t ~ ")'---.a7 • PROVISION OF SERVICES ~ ~,~~ \~~ O~~C. ofl~Emergency response --does not affect ability to respond, dial 911, 4-digit v. 10\\ 0'J ,;t'.l\ 5 digit addrrf"sJ.~~lifies response, reciprocal agreements fl t ~ Fire DistricfroW es --neutral for protection, $ going directl~to~ n . ,p/ f!Jf, rather than through district ~ _ ufJJ'; W -Ad'C""-I .1 Water --unchanged ~uJ LJ~..ptrL "".~~.:~~:%IOgi'~ d,.. ~ '10 '_'k·,\7~ro" CONCarr.~N" Iht \.S\l~O ~ __ ::::~~-'-- I. General agreement that area is designated urban and developing as urban General agreement that sewers are needed --King County Health Dept., failing septic systems, Maplewood Heights Elementary w/4ears 3. d pr 'sio fur' p e C, om an, ity en Comp an ~. ~ Renton is a full service city --we have the willingness to serve this area, we ~(P::r have the ability to serve this area, and we have the capacity to serve this area ~tt1~~~.7 upon annexation. BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION BRB PUBLIC HEARING FOLLOW-UP PRESENTATION 9/26/95 • Boundary Changes 1. King County provided letter ~cluding ·some rights-of-way f'tt~f '7~. - 2. City has no objections to including rights-of-way 3. Pipestem on north side • ParkLand 1. Details are being worked out with King County 2. Agreement in principle King County will transfer to City to develop park • Long Term Plans for remainder of Area 1. Peninsula is within P AA, ultim~tely could be part of Renton fi/vJ.p if 2. Renton has ability to serve area with sewers and other city services .~ ~s I~ CJJ c1 /7- Publb 6 ~ozS5 ~~ -p~th k j)(l ""'=-~ uJD 'eJ C<J"'f'y~ w/~/l by~~)8 $~u ~ ~ .(JA"-b&t'-. ~ /~ ~--.--------------------~~ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Renton Municipal Bldg. 1055 South Grady Way Renton. WA 98055 • o o ~ (') -C tn _. o ~ • -tn tn C CD tn • '0 g < ..... CD CD -& (') ~. ~ CD ~ :e tn a l> ~ ~ CD >< a _. o ~ Overview of Annexation . + Initiated in 1994 by Burnstead for sewer service (64 acres) + Council accepted 100/0 petition, Nov. '94, for 600 acre area + Scaled back to 403 acres based on 600/0 petition, Apr. '95 Overview of Annexation • 403 Acres on East Renton Plateau • Approximately 475 residents • Contiguous to Renton at 140th Ave. SE along SE 128th · Objective # 1 Preserve Neighborhoods & Communities + Included or excluded in entirety + Natural Extension of Renton »Commercial/Employment base . »City Services (transportation, fire, parks) »Renton Address & Identity »Renton School District Objective # 2 . Physical Boundaries • Natural Features do not readily apply • Streets & extensions of streets south of 128th .• Lot lines north of 128th due to lack of streets .., ERROR: timeout OFFENDING COMMAND: timeout STACK: Objective # 3 Logical Service Areas • City will assume all but water & garbage on day 1 • Already providing fire service . • Police coverage --R-9 Patrol Zone • 40 ac. park to be developed by City • Capacity to provide sewers '.- "'t," -~ Objective # 4 ·Abnormally Irregular Boundaries • Contiguous to city limits • Originally larger area " • "Squared-off" to maintain 6'00/0 & logical service areas Objective # 5 Discourage Multiple Incorporations • Countywide Planning Policy (LU- 34) --Cities provide urban services • Renton already providing· urban level services & prepared to provide additional ;'. , ERROR: timeout OFFENDING COMMAND: timeout STACK: -----------. Objectives # 6 & 7 . Dissolution of Special Districts • No dissolution of districts "proposed • Would provide sewer service Adjust Impractical Boundaries • Existing & proposed boundaries are practical for service provision I '" , Objectives # 8 & 9, Urban Character , • Area designated' as urban , • Already contains p.latted properties & more proposed ' • County Planning Policy (LU-33) -- annex when development proposed . .. Protection of Agricultural Lands • None designated by King County Plan ERROR: timeout OFFENDING COMMAND: timeout STACK: Annexation Issues Land Use • King County »Single family (4 dwellings/gross acre) »Multi-family (12-18 dwellings/acre) , . »Commercial/Retail • City of Renton »Single family (5 & 8 dwellings/net acre) »Residential Options (10 dwellings/net acre, maximum 4-plex) " »No Commercial --------- Annexation Issues Land Use • Within Renton's Urban Growth Boundary & Potential Annexation - Area • Supported by GMA, Countywide . Planning Policies & Renton's Comprehensive Plan ., Annexation Issues Process • Complied with State Law & Boundary Review Board Rules • Public Open House (9/94) .100/0 Public Meeting (11/94) • Community Meetings/Mailings .600/0 Public Hearing (4/95) • Public Open House (9/12) ", ',,": ; .:i"~I_ •. ' ' , ~ "',' ;':~<, ." Annexation Issues School Property • School District is a property owner • City Attorney provided a brief • Case law supports inclusion of school property King County Zoning • single familv, townhouse, ant townhouse, apt Standards R-4 R~12 R-tS NB* CB* , Base density: 4 12 18 8 18 dwelling units/gross acre dulac dulac dulac dulac dulac Maximum density··: 6 18 27 12 24 dwelling units/gross acre dulac dulac dulac dulac dulac Minimum density: 3.4 9.6 13.5 none none dwelling units I gross acre dulac dulac dulac Minimum lot area none nonc none NA NA ~ .num lot width 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft NA NA . Minimum lot depth none nonc none none none Minimum street setback 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft Minimum interior setback: 5ft 5ft 5ft 20 ft 20 ft Base height 35 ft 60 ft 60ft 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft··· 60 ft··· Max. building coverage 35% 60% 60% NA Max. impervious surface 45% 85% 85% 85% • •• ••• I Residential in mixed use development only With density incentives (affordable housing, open spacelparlt dedications, historic preservation, energy conservation) and transfer of density credits Allowed only for mixed use developments NA 85% City of Renton Zoning single family detached onlv un t04-nlex Standards R-S R-S R-8 R-tO , Clustered Base density NA NA NA NA (see maximum density) Maximum density: 5 5 8 10 dwelling units/net acre dulac dulac dulac dulac Minimum density: none none 5 7 dwelling units/net acre dulac dulac Minimum lot area 7,200 sq ft 4,500 sq ft 4,500 sq ft 4,500 sqft Minimum lot width SO ft· 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft (interior lots) 60 ft.· Minimum lot width 60 ft· 60 ft 60ft 60ft (corner lots) 70 ft·· i Minimum lot depth 6S ft· 65 ft 65 ft 65 ft , 70ft·· Minimum street setback 15 ft· IS ft 15 ft 15 ft of a primary structure 20 ft·· (new street)··· Minimum street setback Average of 20 ftor avg. 20 ft or avg. 20 ft or avg. of a primary structure abutting of abutting of abutting of abutting (existing street) development development development development I Min. rear yard setback 20 ft· 25 ft·· Maximum height 30 ft Max. building coverage 35%···· Max. impervious none surface For lots of one acre or less For lots greater than one acre 20 ft 20 ft 5ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 35%···· 35%···· 50% none none none. • •• ••• The front setback of the primary structure may be reduced to 10' if all parltiog is provided in the rear yard. •••• 50% for lots 5,000 square feet or less ! L -. ~-. _0-_-"'.-. -=-------", BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION e ~/8l.UlIIIG1PUIUC WORKS + am + 0. Donnban .~ R. MoxOmo, D. V"......Id . II SQla,_ 1995 o I 2500 ; 5000 I ===== Renton City Limits =.=.=.= Urban Growth Boundary I I Proposed Burnstead Annexation L..-_---li Proposed Brierwood Incorporation ----~--~-+ ---- I-- L o I , BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION 1000 ; 2000 I h ! 1r'C ===== Renton City Limits =.=.=.= Urban Growth Boundary ___ Proposed Annexation Boundary "--_---'I Signed Annexation Petition J R-4 R-12 R-18 C8 NB BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING - II II Proposed Annexation Area ~==~ Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 ~I~~~!~~~I mY Of RB4fON e P\.AIoNIIG/IIULDIIIG/PUIUC WORKS + SR • O.D.rison ~ R. MacOnio, D. VIsnosId 18 Sop! ... 1995 • o BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Proposed Annexation Area Renton City Limits 1000 2000 CITY OF RENTON l'IAIUQHG/BUlUIING/P1lBUC 1RIIIIis OJlerm! ..... B.IWoOD1e, D.Ylm ..... 18 September 1I11III : .' L BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Proposed City of Renton Zoning e """"""1BWlING1I'U!UC WOIIKS + am + o. Dennison ~ R. MacOnie, D. Visneski 11 September 1995 o I 1000 ; 2000 I ===== Renton City Limits =.=.=.= Urban Growth Boundary i.· •..••.•. __ : Residential 5 dulac In t.i.l!!iltlM Residential - 8 dulac I Residential -10 dulac === Proposed Boundary , -------------------------------- blObozsq 'fuusxaflou -----------2nppaZ!U 8 onu qal[sz 8aZ!U 8 onu qal[sz -=~=-~SUfOU C!f~ r!W!f Z bVljK lill VV1A HICHfVV1D2 20nlH HICHfVV1D2 V10ljlH o o o ~ ------~---~-------------- ~I -~~i~iiiiiiiIiIi!~1 0-SOOO 'f000 TO 2 Ghf"mpGL T 882 S"JIIB'CQD1SI n"A..JBD68JQ O"D61JDl8 0D bI"fWIDIc\BllII'Ilmc\hOOI1C llOl!K2 CI.LA O~ HEJ.1J.OJ,1. ,~ V\lVA C~EEK 2aU!fal~ 2SMSl COIISCf!OU 8a2!U2 Bn~~21EVD V~~EXVIIO~ BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Sanitary Sewer Collection Basins HONEY Jr="iJ CREEK o..=.JJ II'> (j"..o NORTH HIGHLANDS SOUTH HIGHLANDS TIFFANY PARK Renton City Limits Basin Boundaries Subbasin Boundaries Proposed Annexation o Ii'"=i) n, o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 ~ ~,J ~ o o \ i ! MAY CREEK o I .. ~ CITY OF RENTON . PIANNlNG/BUILDING/pUBUC WORKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie, D.VisneBlri 18 SepteD1ber 1995 2000 I 4000 I a 1000 sooo === blObo26q BonuqalA S:;::~I ~62!q6Uf!al -JO qn\ac s,".·' I ~62!q6Uf!al -\3 qn\ac _ ........... ~62!q6Uf!OI -;2 qn\ac =.=.=.= nlpau ClOMHJ BonuqolA ===== ~6ufoU elf A flWlf2 , I "" I na~~ f' ~ 'lllIILU ~ I j;;jF 11l1ljJJ',J t:::I I I I blOb02Gq elf}, O~ ~GUfOU SOUIUa Bn~~21EVD V~~EXV110~ = * . " ,. , '.' ,. \ L .---~-------- BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Proposed City of Renton 40ning Be Parl< e .......... IILUNGJftIIIIC wcu.s + *III + 0. 0.," Ii ~ R.~.D.V"""" 11 5 , 'WMr 1995 o , 1000 ; 2000 I ===== Renton City Limits =0=0=0= Urban Growth Boundary ..... , Residential 5 dulac t, iiii! Residential - 8 dulac ,==~I Residential -10 dulac t: I Park === Proposed. Boundary i ! \ L BURNSTEADANNEXATION , I , _Currently Proposed Annexation '1 L I , : . I I L 8 D D.u o o B~c::::::.~q o o o o o o o , ~Expanded Proposal ;1 I J , '--__ ·-Jllnitially Proposed Annexation , .. ------.-~--~ ---, ----.--.-' ---------" -~~~ -. -, ~-----.:--'-- -.--'~---'--- ~~-.---.-. _____ .~..r.. __ --___ • ____ ......::......._.1-_..,-___ -__ ._ .-------.~.~-~ i _.~ . ....::-.,---___ ,.,...,.._-'-~ _____ ~I -------- . .. • . '. ---_. __ .. . ' -. , ~ ______ -4-_____ . ______ ,....~ ____ ...... ...:.._ .~ __ '_ _____ ~ ______ ...;. .• ~~ ___ :... -' . .... ~ J. I , -. . _. _____________ , __ ,~,....:..~·"'~:...'Li -:-+--'-'---:-":.--+'':-'-',-;..;.-... ' ... '-'':.·'-:..·---'-+: .... '---~-~.~-11-------.--;:.-- . \ . \ ". " . .'" .. ---------------------_._-------:-.-.--.:...~'''.~-,'---- ".::; .-.. . , _"h .' '. ,"': ~: -", ........ ";' ·'.---'---___ '·.;I __ ._-'_....,,~~.----j I.~ _____ _ ~ ~ .... : '"':; , i . . : " .' ATTACHMENT 2 Factors to be considered by the Board (RCW 36.93.170) (I) Population and territory population density land area and land uses; ~ comprehensive plans and zoning; per capita assessed valuation; -7 topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and ..., unincorporated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; ~ need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, ~ regulations and resolutions on existing uses; -'> present cost and adequacy of governmental . services and controls in area; "'7 prospects of governmental services form other sources; "7 probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on "? cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on finances, debt structure, and "7 contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governm...ental structure of the county. Objectives or the Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. -" Ccrr res p~Ct2.--tef1~ t4i Uq et/.' rqt...c.es -TiM. j.fq fJ~t ~Jd...e:5e.-B-j tk + ..... <-ts o/-c?~ee.J-/.es 1 0 City of Renton Bumstead Annexation File # 1922 • Overview of Annexation • Objectives • Issues • 'Conclusion 2 0 Overview of Annexation • Initiated in 1994 by Bumstead for sewer service (64 acres) • Council accepted 10% petition, NOV!~94, for 600 acre area • Scaled back to 403 acres based on 60% petition, Apr:995 3 Ll Overview of Annexation • 403 Acres on East Renton Plateau • Approximately 475 residents • Contiguous to Renton at 140th Ave. SE along SE 128th 4 Ll Objective # 1 Preserve Neighborhoods & Communities • Included or excluded in entirety • Natural Extension of Renton » Commercial/Employment base rOll as' . » City Services (transportation, fir,('parks) nl.1 _ /' . tJ.., /. -I \ » Renton Address & Identity C€:. ~ rta~ (..AVI;,! ~( .J » Renton School District 5 Ll Objective # 2 7 Phvslcal Boundaries • Natural Features do not readily apply • Streets & extensions of streets south of 128th ~/ • Lot lines north of 128th due to lack of streets 6 0 Objective # 3 Logical Service Areas • City will assume lill but water & garbage on day 1 • Already providing fire service • Police coverage -R-9 Patrol Zone • 40 ac. park to be developed by City • Capacity to provide sewers Page 1 -.- 7 0 Objective # 4 Abnormally Irregular Boundaries • Contiguous to city limits • Originally larger area • "Squared-off" to maintain 60% & logical service areas 8 Cl Objective # 5 Discourage Multiple Incorporations • Countywide Planning Policy (LU-34) -Cities provide urban services • Renton already providing urban level services & prepared to provide additional 9 0 Objectives # 6 & 7 Dissolution of Special Districts • No dissolution of districts proposed • Would provide sewer service Adjust Impractical Boundaries • Existing & proposed boundaries are practical for service provision 10 0 Objectives # 8 & 9 Urban Character • Area designated as urban • Already contains platted properties & more proposed • County Planning Policy (LU-33) -annex when ~eveloJlment proposed U.~/q>I,f I <w:l~ ll-J .. (..Jo c~y ~Ib Protection of Agricultural Lands ~~~ a lttl..e-k. ;05 ~"f'o~ io • None designated by King County Plan ~ 90(-5VC'3>~ • King County » Single family (4 dwellings/gross acre) » Multi-family (12-18 dwellings/acre) » Commercial/Retail • City of Renton » Single family (5 & 8 dwellings/net acre) " Residential Options (10 dwellings/net acre, maximum 4-plex) » No Commercial 12 Cl Annexation Issues Page 2 Land Use • Within Renton's Urban Growth Boundary & Potential Annexation Area • Supported by GMA, Countywide Planning Policies & Renton's Comprehensive Plan 1 El Annexation Issues Process • Complied with State Law & Boundary Review Board Rules • Public Open House (9/94) • 10% Public Meeting (11194) • Community MeetingslMailings • 60% Public Hearing (4/95) in ~t7 • Public Open House (9/12) A ,,/J/J c:::t 14 tSI Annexation Issu,d V' -;::; J School propertY! . • 'sch~ Distrlc(is a property owner • C:;';~d'd' , ... • qar.~-~upports Inclusion of school property Page 3 1- BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION 2000 ,;;J b ! I-- t-----1 J SE13:W Ir=~ I I 111 IIIF h- ~ 1-----\~31 f-~r-l ~ SE136th $t. h R SE i.l7thlPl. 1-1--- _____ Renton City Limits _~_._._ Urban Growth Boundary t' ==:::1' Proposed Annexation r' ~"\M. ,,,, .. ' ------. ~,.'-:--.-----: ·.a"" .', /4< ~ttt ,= -,,~ ."P7"-'. ~enton ·al1n~xatlon:'hlts snag , -. 1 _ .. sOundary Heview' soard wants more information. 'By IRENE SVETE 9-,;1:1-9.5 Valley Daily News P"'I{!0N -Faced with deciding wti.Jr to approve annexation of 225 acres into the city of Renton, the state Boundary Review Board ran out of agendas, chairs, and fmally time Thursday night. The board scheduled a second public hearing at 7 p.m, Tuesday in the same place after m"re than 300 people crowded into Maplewood Heights Elementary School for the first hearing. Chairman Richard Schoon requested that the city of Renton and King County present more detailed information next week on their zon- ing and land use for the Bumstead annexation area. of the Bumstead annexation may block the proposed city of Briarwood King County Councilman Brian Derdowski had urged-the bOard to request supplemental reports from the city, the county and the water district_ The county bad not submit- ted any information, despite an ear~ lier request from the board_' I Derdowski blamed the lack of I response on a reorganization in the I county's land use office, saying, "\ i don't think they have their act 1 together. " . Schoon also asked supporters of i the proposed city of Briarwood, .. which overlaps the annexation area, to. offer more specifics on their pro- pose<:I use of the land directly_ adjoin- ing that area. On Thursday night, proposal opponents had begged for .time to study incorporation and develop sewers through the local water dis- trict, while.!~~ponents talk~ of giv- See ANNEX, All -----I • ~e~er service so it _ ~<?uld ~uild dents would not be required to hook A~NEX. homes on 64 acres it owns in the up to sewers as a condition of cam- Process resumes i on Tuesday Continued from page A 1 area_ ing into the city _ . Fred Bumstead told the board that But opponents and sUpporters of he approached the city for sewers the proposed city of Briarwood based on its comprehensive plan and maintain incorporation would give his experience with Water District local residents more control over_ 90 on other projects. services and zoning. ing up hope of getting the services "We plan to build a high-quality, Mary Ellen Hamblin of the East th9'4.eed through any entity other single family subdivision on this Renton Plateau Community Council Ih\ .enton. . _ property, " he said, adding he hopes said the residents have little in com- --,iis proposal divides and sepa-to begin construction next spring. mon with the city, and disapprove of - rates a unique and prosperous com-"Our only prospect of doing this we its tax levels and past patterns of munity," said Norman Green, trea-believe is through the city." development. surer for Neighbors United for Renton already has a sewer inter-She and Green argued that Renton Representation. "The proposal ceptor in place near the city limits, underestimated the increase in prop- clearly creates incorporated and said Gregg Zimmerman, planning erty and utility taxes for the annex- -unincorporated peninsulas. " and public works administrator. ation area. They also maintain that , But John McTighe, whose family About 90 percent of the annexation Water District 90 can provide moved to the area during World area could be served with a gravity-cheaper sewer service to the area War n, said he and his family don't flow system like the one proposed with a brand new gravity-flow sys- believe they Can get sewers except by the water district, he said. • tern. mm Renton and strongly oppose a ZinImerman also noted that Ren-Approving the annexation, said n"N city.' ton had considered-running a line Water Commissioner Mack Lovell, - '''I have yet to see an incidence down to the Metro sewer feed at the cuts the heart out of the urban· wlere more government costs Cedar River, but abandoned the plan growth area. 1~" he said. x af'ter..residenlS..in.the.areaobiec1erl -"ILvou_t~llcp_thg,t_!low!:t.v_th~_a.rp.Q , ALAN L. WALLACE Owen Dennison City of Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 LAW OFFICES CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 7(}rH FLOOR, COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 FIFTIi AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7016 (206) 587·0700 September 22, 1995 Re: Bumstead Annexation Dear Owen: TELEX: 493-8803 F.~x: (206) 587-2308 I enclose a copy of the letter that I delivered to the Boundary Review Board at last night's public hearing. Call me should you have any questions or comments. ALW:msd Enclosure ~~ Alan L. Wallace LAW OFFICES CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ;Ono FLOOR. COLUMBIA CEl'. TER. ;01 RFTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104.;016 (206) 58i·\JjOO ALAN L. WALLACE September 21, 1995 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County 810 Third Avenue, Suite 608 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: City of Renton (Bumstead) Annexation Dear Board Members: Tm:x: 49J.88O) FAX: (206) 587·Z3C8 On behalf of Jack and Mardell Morrison, we respectfully request the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County (the "Board") to approve the Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton. The Morrisons own approximately 40 acres within the annexation area, and have signed the annexation petition. The Board should approve this annexation because it achieves the statutory objectives of both the Boundary Review Board Act CRCW Ch. 36.93) and the Growth Management Act (,'GMA"; RCW 36.70A). Principally, the annexation makes sense because of the strong need for the City of Renton to protect its water supply. We know from extensive investigation that septic tanks in this area are failing and are polluting bmh surface and ground waters. (5« Exhibit I, accompanying letter and attachments.) The only answer is to provide sanitary sewer service to this area. The City of Renton has already completed the hard, time-consuming and expensive work to do exactly that. The East Renton Sewer Interceptor, which will serve the annexation area, has already undergone the rigorous review of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). We understand this sewer line is now under construction in the SE l28th Street corridor, which runs through the heart of the Bumstead Annexation. Conversely, the water district serving this area has wholly failed over the past twenty years to take any steps towards providing sanitary sewer service. We understand that the water district's 20-year franchise to provide sewer service expires this Fall. After 20 years of inaction, any claim that the water district will now step up to the plate to provide sanitary service is wholly lacking credibility. The many years of planning and study and substantial expense required for such an undertaking provides no assurance that sanitary sewer service will ever be provided, whether under the authority of the water district and/or a potential City of Briarwood. In the King County Boundary Review Board September 21, 1995 Page 2 meantime, the City's water supply and even surface waters would continue to be threatened by failing septic tanks. The Board must approve the Bumstead annexation to permit the City to protect its water supply and public health. STATUTORY FACTORS Chapter 36.93 of RCW provides certain factors for the Board to consider in its determination of whether to approve an annexation proposal. Chapter 36.93 additionally requires the decisions of the Board to be consistent with the GMA. &a: RCW 36.93.157. Specifically, the Board's decision must be consistent with RCW 36.70A.020 (GMA Planning Goals), 36.70A.lI0 (Designation of Urban Growth Areas) and 36.70A.210 (Countywide Planning Policies). The Annexation Proposal before the Board is entirely within Renton's permanent Urban Growth Area as designated by the King County Comprehensive Plan ("KCCP"). The GMA, Countywide Planning Policies ("CPP") and the KCCP encourage annexation of areas within a city's designated urban growth area. Annexation is encouraged, in part, because under the GMA cities are the preferred providers of urban services within their designated urban growth areas. Therefore, annexation of this area is both appropriate and expected pursuant to the GMA. The question of whether the proposed annexation area should accommodate urban growth is no longer relevant. The annexation proposal before the Board only includes territory within Renton's UGA. Therefore, any argument raised concerning whether or not this area is appropriate for or can support urban growth should be dismissed. That issue was affirmatively decided pursuant to a separate and thorough public process which designated the UGA and Potential AnnexatioIi Area ("PAA") for the City of Renton. The UGA boundary decision may not be revisited at the countywide level for a 10-year period. Concerns may also be raised regarding the adequacy and availability of urban services to the annexation area. This argument is also of little significance. The Renton Comprehensive Plan has numerous policies in place, as required by the GMA, to ensure that growth in the City of Renton will be consistent with and concurrent with the availability of urban services. Moreover, the adequacy of Renton's concurrency requirements and policies have been sufficiently analyzed pursuant to the GMA mandated comprehensive plan adoption and SEP A review processes. The SEP A review performed with respect to this annexation proposal resulted in a Determination of Non-Significance, which was not appealed. Due to the comprehensive and rigorous nature of the GMA requirements imposed on planning jurisdictions, many of the factors the Board is to consider have already been considered at an earlier stage in the planning process. Nevertheless, a review of the applicable factors and an analysis of how the proposed annexation is consistent with and achieves these objectives is King County Boundary Review Board September 21, 1995 Page 3 appropriate. There are nine objectives that the Board shall attempt to achieve with its decision. ~ RCW 36.93.180. The Board's decision need not achieve all or even most of the objectives, but it must advance some. See Spokane County Fire Protection District No.9 y. Spokane County Boundary Reyiew Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 926, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982). The annexation proposal before the Board furthers the following statutory objectives: 1. Preservation of Natural Neighborhoods and Communities. The proposed annexation boundary respects the natural neighborhood that falls largely within the East Maplewood Creek drainage basin, which is centered on SE 128th. (See map attached as Exhibit 2.). Several established subdivisions are either entirely within the annexation boundary or are entirely excluded. For example, White Fence Ranch subdivision, which is located north of SE 128th Street between 155th Avenue SE and 156th Avenue SE, is entirely within the proposed annexation boundary. 2. Use of Physical Boundaries. The proposed annexation boundary follows existing roads and legal lot lines and falls largely within the East Maplewood drainage basin. 3. Logical Service Areas. The proposed annexation falls within Renton's P AA and within its UGA. Consequently, by definition, this annexation area is within Renton's logical service area. Under the GMA, cities are the preferred providers of urban services, so not only is Renton the logical choice, it is the preferred choice under the GMA. Moreover, the East Renton sewer interceptor is being constructed within the SE 128th Street right-of-way, which will be available to serve and will be in part financed by development in the eastern portion of the proposed annexation area. Access to this sewer system is needed to protect the quality of Renton's water supply, which relies on wells located downgradient from the annexation area .... A study of the septic fields in the area surrounding the Morrison's property shows that many of the septic fields are failing and degrading water quality. Annexation of these troubled areas will prevent further degradation of the water quality by providing access to the City's sewer system. The East Renton sewer interceptor has been sized to serve the entirety of the East Maplewood basin, which the annexation largely falls within. 4. Abnormally Irregular Boundaries. The proposed boundary logically follows roads and legal lot lines, is contiguous to the Renton City limits and therefore is not abnormally irregular in size or shape. Moreover, as the area is within the UGA for Renton, any perceived irregularity will ultimately be corrected as the City gradually annexes the balance of its designated UGA; 5. Discouragement of Multiple Incorporations. Potential Annexation Areas were established for each city encompassing the urban growth areas designated by King County for each of its cities precisely to discourage this practice. As mentioned, the annexation proposed by King County Boundary Review Board September 21, 1995 Page 4 the City of Renton falls within its P AA. Denial or substantial modification of the annexation is likely to result in multiple incorporations, e.g. the proposed City of Briarwood; 6. Dissolution of Inactive Special Purpose Districts. Not relevant to the proposed annexation; 7. Adjustment of Impractical Boundaries. Not relevant to this annexation; 8. Incorporation of Areas Which Are Urban in Character.' This objective of the Board is substantially less relevant after the adoption of the GMA and the 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to the GMA, King County designated certain areas to accommodate urban growth. Designation of urban growth areas was in part based on whether the area is or is adjacent to land characterized by urban growth. The proposed annexation area is wholly within the UGA, as designated by King County, and there was no appeal of this decision by any party. As a result, the area has been determined to be urban in character; and 9. Protection of Agricultural and Rural Lands. Not relevant to the proposed annexation. Additional factors to be considered by the Board are listed at RCW 36.93.170. The first factor is Population and Territory. Again, the comprehensive and rigorous nature of the GMA renders much of the Board's analysis of this factor duplicative. The subfactor regarding "anticipated growth in the unincorporated area during the next 10 years" has been thoroughly analyzed through the GMA Comprehensive Plan adoption process. The proposed annexation area is within Renton's UGA arid 'PAA: Also, the proposed annexation area reflects, to the extent feasible, natural boundaries. The annexation predominantly falls within the East Maplewood Basin, which will be served by the East Renton sewer interceptor. The second factor, including its subfactors, focuses on the availability of municipal services. Again, to a large extent, this analysis has already been performed through the GMA Comprehensive Plan adoption process and the designation of UGAs. The proposed annexation area falls within Renton's UGA and, therefore, has been determined appropriate for future w:ban growth. Urban services to a large degree, are already present or are planned for future availability. Southeast 128th is a four-lane, concrete, urban arterial road and METRO Transit service is available on SE 1 28th. Sanitary sewer service is nearby and has been oversized to accommodate future expansion to service much of the proposed annexation area. Moreover, numerous policies are in place to ensure concurrency of urban services with development in this area, as mandated by the GMA. King County Boundary Review Board September 21, 1995 PageS The third factor requires a review of the impacts of the annexation on adjacent areas and on the local governmental structure of the county. The KCCP and CPPs planned for and anticipated the annexation of this area by the City of Renton. Any adverse impacts of this annexation on adjacent areas has already been analyzed and mitigated to the-extent appropriate. Finally, annexation of this area by the City of Renton is consistent with the GMA policy favoring cities as the providers of urban services in preference to counties. Therefore, any impacts associated with the annexation are expected and/or present by design: Again, for these reasons, the Board should approve of the annexation as proposed by the City of Renton. The proposed annexation is consistent with the GMA, the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. The annexation also achieves most, if not all, of the Board's statutory objectives. The annexation is necessary for timely protection of Renton's water supply and public health. Therefore, the annexation promotes the public interest and welfare and should be approved. Thank you for considering our comments in support of the annexation proposal submitted by the City of Renton. ALW:SSJ:msd 207921.083 cc: Jack and MardeIl Morrison Gordon Morrison Alan L. Wallace 1 • CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN A I'klI'£SSIOoW. S1!IMCI! CORfORATICN 70." fI.OOR. COlUMBIA CENlCR. 701 FIFI'H AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 96104·7016 1206) 587-0700 JOHN W. HEMPl!LMANN T....,., 49J.aeoJ F.., a06) 187·2Ja! May 6,1994 The Honorable Gary Locke Chair, Growth Management Planning Council 400 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 9S104 Councilmember Bob Edwards City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 9S0SS Re: . R-3 Technical Review Area Dear County Executive Locke and Councilmember Edwards: We request on behalf of Jack and Mardell Morrison that the Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC") retain the urban designation of the south one-third of the R-3 Technical Review Area. The reasons for the Morrison' s request' are several: • • • • The existing substantial development in this ISS-acre area cannot be sustained on-septic tanks without continuing to degrade the environment, contrary to Countywide Planning Policy ("CPP") LU-S. New information documents a substantial and continuing problem of septic tank failure. Fecal coliforms are present in roadside ditches and in an outflowing stream that enters a nearby County park and playfield. All urban services are present, or are planned for future availability, making urban designation consistent with CPP LU-14. This includes urban roads (SE 12Sth is a four-lane, concrete, urban arterial road), METRO transit service on SE 12Sth, and existing services provided by water, fire and school districts. Sanitary sewer service is nearby, and has been over-sized to accommodate its future extension to this area. The south third of the R-3 area falls within the drainage basin for the East Renton sewer interceptor. Retaining this area' s urban designation is consistent EXJ+,OIT I The Honorable Gary Locke CounciImember Bob Edwards May 6,1994 Page 2 with CPP LU-14's mandate to respect this natural boundary and topographic feature. This small, ISS-acre area does not meaningfully add to or subtract from King County's capacity for urban growth. Rather, the principal issues are environmental, and the proper application of CPP's LU-S, LU~lO and LU-14 that guide the designation of urban and rura1 areas. This area's substantial 1960-era subdivision development is not capable of being sustained on septic tanks without continuing to degrade local water quality and pose a public health concern. The enclosed GeoEngineers report, "Drainage and Water Quality Evaluation," and letter from Goldsmith and Associates, Inc., document this conclusion. Accordingly, the preliminary proposal to redesignate all of the R-3 area to rural is contrary to CPP LU-S. This policy requires that rural areas must have "low densities which can be sustained by minimal infrastructure improvements, such as septic systems and rural roads, without degrading the environment or creating the necessity for urban level of services." Urban level sanitary sewer service is both necessary and available for extension to serve the south portion of the R-3 area. Retaining the urban designation of the south one-third of the R-3 area is consistent with the criteria of CPP LU-14: a. Include all lands within existing cities, including cities in the rural area and their designated expansion areas; . b.···· The GMPC recognizes that the Bear Creek Master Plan Developments (MPDs) are subject to an ongoing review process under the adopted Bear Creek Community Plan and recognizes these properties as urban under these Countywide Planning Policies. If the applications necessary to implement the ~tPDs are denied by King County or not pursued by the application(s), than the property subject to the MPD shall be designated rural pursuant to the Bear Creek Community Plan. Nothing in these Planning Policies shall limit the continued review and implementation through existing applications, capital improvements appropriations or other approvals of those two MPDs as new communities under the Growth Management Act. c. Not include rural land or unincorporated agricultural, or forestry lands designated through th~ Countywide Planning Policies plan process; Comment: There are no designated agricultural or forestry lands in the R-3 area. The Honorable Gary Locke Councilmember Bob Edwards May 6,1994 Page 3 d. Include only areas already characterized by urban development which can be efficiently and cost effectively served by roads, water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage, schools and other urban services within the next 20 years. Comment: The south end of the R-3 area already has urban-level roads, public transit, water, fire and schools services. The south end of the R-3 area abuts SE I28th Street, a four lane, concrete arterial road. METRO Transit Route No. I II runs along SE I28th and provides service to Downtown Seattle. Sanitary sewer service can be efficiently and cost effectively provided by the planned extension of the East Renton sewer interceptor, with funding largely provided by developer contributions and hook-up fees. The existing land use pattern of adjacent land uses to both the east and west along SE I28th Street is suburban in character. e. Do not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, which impede provision of urban services. Comment: The north boundary of the East Renton sewer interceptor's service basin is the appropriate north boundary of that portion of the R-3 area that should retain its urban designation. This sewer service boundary is determined by topography, and the capability for gravity flow of sewage to the SE I28th sewer main corridor. . f. Respect topographical features which form a natural edge such as rivers and ridge lines. Comment: The south R-3 area, although not forming a sharp ridge line, does approximate the topographic northeast crest of the East Maplewood Creek sewer service subbasin, as determined in the East Renton sewer interceptor EIS. Properties in the north two-thirds of the R-3 area generally slope down to the north and northeast to May Creek valley, and are outside the sewer service basin. g. Include only areas which are sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban growth without major environmental impacts unless such areas are designated as an urban separator by interlocal agreement between jurisdictions. Comment: Additional urban development in the R-3 area would not cause significant environmental degradation. Both King County's and the City of The Honorable Gary Locke Councilmember Bob Edwards May 6,1994 Page 4 Renton's development regulation and critical area ordinances will protect any environmentally sensitive areas that may be present. Retaining the existing urban designation of the south R-3area is also consistent with LU-IO, which establishes criteria for designating additional rura\ areas: a. Opportunities exist for small scale farming and forestry which do not qualify for resource land designation. Comment: The south R-3 area's thin topsoils underlain by nearly impermeable glacial till renders resource use as well as continued septic tank use impracticable. b. The rural designation serves as a buffer for designated resource lands or sensitive areas. Comment: There are no such designated lands or areas nearby to require such substantial buffiring. c. Significant environmental constraints make the area generally unsuitable for intensive urban development. Comment: The south R-3 area is relatively jlat, with few streams, wetlands or other sensitive areas. d. Major physical barriers exist to providing urban services at reasonable cost. Comment: The northern sewer service basin boundary defines the area where sanitary sewer serVice can be efficiently provided in future years. All other urban services are already present. e. The area is contiguous to other designated rural areas, resource areas or sensitive areas; Comment: The south R-3 area is surrounded by areas designated urban in King County's Comprehensive Plan and Newcastle Community Plan. King County's interim urban growth boundary designates adjoining property to the west and south as urban. f. The area has outstanding scenic, historic, and/or aesthetic value that can best be protected by rural land uses and densities; and The Honorable Gary Locke CounciImember Bob Edwards May 6,1994 Page 5 Comment: The south R-3 area is a mix of I960-era subdivision and short-plat development and some open fields. This area cannot fairly be said to have outstanding scenic, historic or aesthetic value. g. The area has limited public services, extension of full services is not planned, . and infill at higher densities is not feasible or necessary to meet regional goals. Comment: The south R-3 area already has all public services ·typical to suburban development, with the sole exception of sanitary sewer service. The East Renton sewer interceptor is being constructed within the SE I28th Street right-ofway (NE 4th within the City of Renton) to the east City limits. This sewer main has been oversized to allow for its eastward extension along the SE I28th Street corridor. thus infill urban development in the south R-3 area is feasible in the next 20 years. The small. I55-acre area that is proposed to retain its urban designation does not meaningfolly add to or subtract from the ability to meet regional housing goals. In summary, retaining the urban designation of the south one-third of the R-3 area answers the mandate of Countywide Planning Policies LU-8, 10 and 14. New information documents that this area's existing development cannot be sustained on septic tanks without continuing to degrade the environment. Urban services are already present, or in the case of sanitary sewers, are already planned to accommodate future' service to this area. Thank. you for considering the Morrison's request. JWH:msd Enclosures 36302.D08 ?£,' """ '"""'t4H~'" . r : John W. Hempeimann cc: Mayor Earl Clymer, City of Renton Jack and Mardell Morrison' Jim Goldsmith Hugh G. Golclsrnitll & i~ssociates. Inc. Honorable Gary Locke. Chair Growth Management Planning Council 400 King County Courthouse Seattle WA 98104 Council Member Bob Edwards City of Renton 200 Mill A venue Renton W A 98055 Gentlemen: May 4.1994 Re: King County GMA Planning Technical Review Area R-3 1~2 6.-:101 I..'"n: .. : Land L'w Plan \990 En\;''IInmo:::: A ..... ard We strongly urge King County to retain the urban designation of the southerlv one-third of the R-3 Technical Review Area. The substantial existing development within this area cannot be sustained on its minimal septic system and storm drainage infrastructure without continuing to degrade the environment. A relatively shon extension of the East Renton sewer interceptor ensures that sanitaty sewer service can be effiCiently provided to this area to protect public health. Other urban services are already in place in this area. The south border of the R-3 area is S.E. 128 111 Street. which isa four-lane County urban arterial road. S.E. 128111 Streetis served by a METRO bus route. S.E .. 128111 Street is also .the planned corridor for extending the East Renton sewer interceptor to serve the East Maplewood basin. The south third of the R-3 area and a large part of the R-l Technical Review Area are within this sewer service basin. The north boundary of the East Maplewood basin is the proper boundary berween the north rwo-thirds of the R-3 area that is more appropriately. redesignated rural. and the south one-third that should retain its urban deSignation. Anachment A is a map that illustrates our request to retain the urban designation of this 155 acre portion of the 446 acre R-3 area. We enclose rwo technical reports that document our conclusion that the southerly R-3 area cannot be sustained on its minimal septic' systems and storm drainage infrastructure without degrading the environment. The first report. prepared by GeoEngineers. documents the substantial and continuing failure of septic systems within the 124-lot White Fence Ranch subdivision. The relatively small lots within this 1960-era subdivision, and the thin to almost non-existent topsoils underlain by nearly impermeable glacial till. create great difficulties for continuing the use of on-site septic systems. The GeoEmlineers report documents the presence of fecal coliforms in this subdivision's ditches and culverts. which indicates the continuinl! failure of on-site septic systems. This surface water pollution has a downstream impact. These ditches and culverts form the headwaters of a stream that flows into King County's nearby Coalfield Parle. via May Creek tributary 0291A, which in tum flows into May Creek a short distance to the north. (See Attachment B, GeoEngineers Report.) L91060jl.:SS Pale I of 1 -'j" ., ..... : ·t" \ ::' "') . '., '. Honorable Gary Locke, Chair Council Member Bob Edwards May 4,1994 { The second report. prepared by R. W. Beck for King County Surface Water Management Division, documents a continuing flooding problem within White Fence Ranch subdivision. 11lis flooding periodically inundates roads, homes and septic system drainfields before leaving the site by the above- mentioned stream. The R.W. Beck repa" establishes that the southerly panion of the R-3 area cannot be sustained bv its existing minimal storm drainage improvements without degrading the environment The recommended solution to the flooding problem requires the cooperation of our clients, Jack and Mardell Morrison, in constructing a large retention pond upon their adjoining 4O-acre parcel. Their financial ability to assist in remedying the flooding problems depends entirely upon retaining their propeny's urban designation. (See Attachment C, draft R. W. Beck Report) A' third report the EIS prepared for the East Renton sewer interceptor, establishes that the southerly R-3 area can be served by a gravity flow sewer line extension. 11lis E1S includes three-quaners of the southerly R-3 area in the East Maplewood sewer service basin. (See Attachment D, East Renton sewer service basin map.) The EIS focuses on the fact that existine septic svstems in the srudv area "are a threat to the City's water supplv." and that the sewer interceptor will help to reduce this threat (See Attachment E, excerpts from City's EIS.) On March 8, 1993 the Renton City Council chose to build the East Renton sewer interceptor in the S.E. 128'" Street right-of-way (N.E. 4'" Street inside Renton). The sewer interceptor will extend eastward in the right-of-way for this four-lane, urban arterial road to the City's current east boundary, at 138'" Avenue S.E. Renton is oveISizing the sewer interceptor in antiCipation of funher extension of this line along S.E. 128'" to serve the East Maplewood basin. The south portion of this basin includes most of the R-1 Technical Review Area. King County has recommended that the urban designation be retained on 78 percent of the R-J area. which calls for the future extension of sewer service along S.E. 128'". Renton expects to start construction of this sewer line in June. 1994. Again. the south one-third of the R-3 area directly abuts this sewer line corridor and falls below the nonh boundary of the East Maplewood sewer service basin. 11lis nonh boundarY provides an appropriate line between the south partion of the . ... .... _ .. -. R-3 area that should retain its urban desienation and the nonh two-thirds of the R-3 area that is more--. appropriately redesignated to rural. To conclude, we urge King County to retain the urban designation of the south one-third of the R-3 area. Doing so makes environmental and engineering sense. The substantial and continuing record of septic system failure and the presence of fecal coliforms in roadside ditches and outflowing streams establishes that existing development in the area cannot be sustained on septic systems without continuing to degrade the envi ronment Enclosures L93060jl.:S8 Paae 1 or :: Very truly YOUIS, HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES. INC. ~A~' ~ v,~ D. Goldsmith. ASSOCiate .-\ _ ~.) '1, .,_.:~ ~ I '. i:f ~!~ ; .... !~, -' . '.... '." f.'.: ....... . --;_.) - if R[NTON ANI) ISSAQUAII HCIINICAl R[VI[WAR[AS AS O[5ICHAIIO BY 1111 KING COUNTY GROWTlI MANAG£M£Nr PlANNING COUNCil 'JRBAN GUPC CUll enlly Designoled Urbon !echnicol Review Arus: IIC-l, R-2, R-l,HC-1 o IKlricd ItM "to o c .. nIy.ide lin*,! , .... tJ;A Ine I I " •. NrON: (',;;'1 nbm SoporaiCil Plum G-~-'--r~r"~-4q -.JI __ Urbel" 1111111 ~Mohiom (,..., ......... 1"'''''' Ii .. , (lilli, 'COD ''',fI,.ic 1.,., •• 11 •• Spit. lIa, 11. ,n, ~: k'.,'" ,~~:~I::. 'I: ~::'"!.~~J:"::.::!1 .•• ~to. ~:'::'~""_:'I .... :..~!~ ........ , .. I , .... ., .11 ""-'" .-•• ..,a , ........... '.'tlil. ' .... I ,I", .. u. h •• 1 .hl" tllllllllXl_-I"'"OJ=-=- "" I , .-, , 1111- !.Ij ,I"I .. I.J QUIB C> r--:---,... .A·'-i»(Jhment A I Report Drainage and Water Quality Evaluation May Creek Tributary Renton. Washington May 3. 1994 For Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates Fila No. l266-QOt .. il:,S ( Geo~Engineers Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates 1215 -114th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. James D. Goldsmith ( May 3, 1994 GeotedlniCll. GeoenvlronmenlllJ and Geologic Services We are submitting two copies of our "Re[lort of Drainage and Water Quality Evaluation, May Creek Tributary, Renton, Washington, for Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates. We appreciate the opportunity to provide services to Hugh G.Goldsmith & Associates. Please call if you have questions regarding this report, or if we can provide additional services. IHC:DWT""d Doeum ... OJ: 3266001.R3 GeoEnglneers.lnc. 8410 I; .. th .~venue ~.E. Redmond. WA qao;: Tei~one t~ObI8bI'(lIltlll Yours very trul y, GeoEogineers, Inc. ~&:/?f' Donald W. Tubbs Associate l ( CONTENTS page Ng. INTRODUCTION • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 1 SUMMARY •.•.••...•••..••••••••••••••.•.••••••••....•••••.•••• 1 SCOPE .•..••••..•.........••••••.••.••.•••••••...•..•••..•.•.. , STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION •......•..••••••••.•..•••...••.•••..•.... 2 LOCAL SEPTIC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ••••••••...•••.••••••••..••.•••• 3 LOCAL WATER QUALITY ••....••••.••.••...•••...•••.•.•••.•••••••. 3 , DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS • • • • • . • • • • • . • • . . • . • • . . . . • • • • • • • . . . • .• 4 LIMITATIONS .••••...•••••••••••..•••••.••••••••••••••••.••••••• 4 TABLES Surface Water Quality Data FIGURES Vicinity Mao Locations ot Septic System Failures . Locations ot Suriace Wilter Samples Table No. , Figure No. , 2 3 File :-roo 3266-OO1-a:,s ( REPORT· DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY EVALUATION MAY CREEK TRIBUTARY RENTON. WASHINGTON FOR HUGH G. GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES INTRODUCTION This repon summarizes the results of our evaluation of drainage conditions, surface water quality and septic system performance immediately downstream of the Morrison propeny, which is located nonh of Southeast 128th Street and west of 155th Avenue Southeast in Renton, Washington. Our site-specific hydrogeologic evaluation of the Morrison propeny indicated drainage and subsurface geologic conditions that warranted additional, downstream hydrogeologic evaluation. SUMMARY • There is a subsWltial and continuing record of septic system failure within the White Fence Ranch subdivision. • Water quality testing establishes that fecal coliform bacteria are present in ditches and culvens located within the White Fence Ranch subdivision • The White Fence Ranch ditches and culvens constitute a ponien of the headwaters of a stream that flows into May Creek Tributary 0291A. Fecal coliform bacteria are also . present in the upper reach of the stream. • These conditions suppon our conclusion that there is an existing problem of effectively disposing of sewage via on-site systems within the subdivision. • The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in the surface water is a public health concern and has an impact on downstream water quality in May Creek . . . , • The White Fence Ranch subdivision does not appear to be sustainable on septic systems without degrading water quality. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to evaluate existing drainage conditions, surface water quality and septic system performance in portions of the May Creek basin downstream of the Morrison propeny. Our evaluation includes the following specific scope of services. 1. Review available information regarding septic system performance in the vicinity of the site based on King County Deparrment of He:tith records. 1 Fii~ So. 3266.oot·R.:510S0J9 4 2. Obtain two sets of surface water samples from drainageways downstream of the Morrison property, where possible. 3. Submit surface water samples to AmTest Inc. for analysis of fecal coliform, nitrate, nitrite, and chloride. 4. Prepare a wrinen report summarizing our evaluation of drainage conditions and surface water quality in the srudy area. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The study area is adjacent to the east boundary of the Morrison property and includes the headwater area of a small tributary to May Creek Tributary 0291A. The Morrison site and the approximate location of the tributary are shown in Figure 1. Land use within the study area includes undeveloped properties, the White Fence Ranch single family subdivision, several other single-family residences and several hobby farms with livestock. The Morrison site and adjoining White Fence Ranch development are situated on a gendy undulating upland glacial drift plain. The land surface further east includes developed and undeveloped land that slopes moderately down to May Creek north and east of the Morrison property. Coalfield Park is located in a small valley west of 164th Avenue Southeast, about 1,000 feet north of Southeast 128th Street. We excavated 14 test pits on the Morrison property in August 1993 to evaluate shallow subsurface soil and ground water conditions. The site is manded with about 2 to 6 feet of glacial ablation drift, a medium dense deposit consisting of silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles deposited by the melting ice as the last glacier to occupy this area retreated. Underlying this drift is a layer of very dense Vashon glacial till, a nonsorted mixture of sand, silt and gravel direcdy deposited by the glacial ice. Shallow ground water is commonly perched on top of the glacial till during the wet season. Slow ground water seepage was encountered in one test pit at 3.7 feet below ground surface. This general sequence of glacial till overlain locally by ablation drift probably --_ ...... -. . ... -..... -. - also occurs in adjacent upland areas, including the White Fence Ranch development and portions of the slopes further east. May Creek occupies a former glacial meltwater channel and the May Creek Valley and lower portions of the moderately steep slopes north and east of the Morrison property are likely to include substamial amounts of glacial recessional outwash. Surface water from the White Fence Ranch subdivision and a portion of the Morrison property is conveyed via a ditch and culvert system to a drainage east of 156th Avenue Southeast. The drainage begins at a wetland near the road and enters a steep-sided channel approximately 5 to 12 feet high roughly 500 feet dO'Oo'nstream of 156th Avenue Southeast. The stream joins flow from the south about 1100 feet downstream of 156th Avenue Southeast and drains to Tributary 0291A, which flows through Coalfield Park in a broad swale with moderately steep slopes and drains generally north to a confluence' with May Creek west of 164th Avenue Southeast. 0.0£'_ .. te:'s Fiie ."c. ]:oci..:>ol-R:5iOSO::; .. LOCAL SEPTIC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE We reviewed King County Department of Health records to evaluate existing septic system performance in the study area. Sixteen septic system failures have been recorded at residences in the Wbite Fence Ranch development east of the Morrison property. The locations of these failures are shown on Figure 2. Ten of these failures have occurred since 1986 and all are within 700 feet of the Morrison property. One residence ne31" the intersection of Southeast 124th Street and 155th Avenue Southeast has experienced two separate failures and now employs a mounded septic system. Other failures may have occurred or may now be occurring but have not been recorded. The history of septic system failures within the White Fence Ranch subdivision is almost certainly related to the same hydrogeologic conditions as observed within the Morrison property, specifiCally the shallow ground water perched on the glacial till. These conditions are likely to result in additional septic systems failures in the furure. LOCAL WATER QUALITY We visited the site on September 13, 1993 to obtain water quality samples from surface water east (down gradient) of the site. We observed no surface water in any of the ditches along 155th and 156th Avenues Southeast between Southeast 128th and 120th Streets or along Southeast 124th Street. We conducted a second water sampling visit on September 28, 1993, and obtained four surface water samples (SW-l through SW-4) from a drainage that begins at a culvert under 156th Avenue Southeast, about 550 feet east of the site. Samples were collected from standing or slowly moving water in the channel at distances of approximately 450 to 985 feet east of 156th Avenue Southeast. The surface water sample locations are shown on Figure 3. Samples were collected with a clean dipper and transported in a cooled container following chain""f-\:ustody .. procedures. We obtained a second set of surface water samples (SW-S through SW-ll) during an additional site visit on March 29, 1994. Sampling locations included the ditch located along the eastern boundary of the Morrison site, ditches bordering residential areas within the White Fence Ranch development, and a pool located ne31" the head of the drainage exiting the White Fence Ranch development, as shown on Figure 3. We collected these samples with a disposable nylon kitchen baster or with a glass laboratory jar rinsed with distilled water between each use and transported them in a cooled container. The samples were submined to AmTest Laboratory for analysis of nitrite, nitrate, fecal coliform, and chloride. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 1. KCSWM (King county Surface Water Management) staff reported existing water quality concerns in th~ srudy area based on limited chemi~al analysis, shallow till depths and associated contamination from septic systems. and the presence of several hobby farms with livestock. Water quality results on the upland area tend to be high in analytes typical of septic system and hobby farm contamination. especially fecal coliforms. G ; .) 1! n .. l" ; r i 1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS We obtained surface water samples from the ditch along the eastern Morrison property boundary, the dit~hes within the White Fence Ranch, and the drainage east of 156th Avenue Southeast. Surface water samples SW-l through SW-4 and SW-6 through SW-ll exceed primary MCLs (maximum contaminant levels) for fecal coliforms as established in the Washington State Board of Health Drinking Water Regulations. Other analytes detected do not exceed primary or secondary MCLs for drinking water. Potential sources of fecal coliform contamination in the study area include septic systems within the White Fence Ranch subdivision, and livestock. Surface water east of the Morrison property drains via ditches and culvertS to the small tributary east of 156th Avenue Southeast. This tributary joins May Creek Tributary 0291A near Coalfield Park and the combined flow enters May Creek slightly west of 164th Avenue Southeast. Surface water contamination from the upland area ,is likely to impact downstream water quality. Traditional septic systems on the upland portions of the study area have a high potential for introducing contamination to surface water and shallow ground water. The low permeability of the ablation drift coupled with the presence of dense glacial till at shallow depths significantly reduces the efficiency 'and effec:iveness of on-site sewage disposal systems, which rely on infiltration. King County Health Department records and water quality testing indicate that septic systems east of the Morrison property have a high failure rate and are like! y contributors to the existing high fecal coliform levels in downstream surface water. Sanitary sewers should be considered for future use within the Morrison property and to replace on-site septic systems within the adjoining White Fence Ranch subdivision. Implementation of sanitary sewers will reduce the potential for additional contamination of surface water and shallow ground water, which the water quaiity analyses indicates presently existS in the study area. Also. use of sanitary sewers would reduce the influx of water into the basin by eliminating water importation and subsequent effluent infiltration associatedwith~eptic sYStelllS. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Hugh G. Goldsmith & Associates relative to planning and site development within the study area. This report, and our findings and conclusions are based on limited surface observations and limited subsurface explorations. and should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. which are variable and may change with time. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been accomplished in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions. express or implied, should be understood. ( . We trust that this report meetS your current needs. If you have any questions regarding this report or if you require additional information, please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers. Inc. ;~QvU7:f :,.;ranet H. Curran Staff Engineering Geologist Do~~?f Associate JHC:OW!:wd Oocum .... ID: 3266001J1J Copyright C 1994 by GooEngin ..... In ••• All righu ....... ed 5 Fiio ~o. 3266.QOI-R.:..S/OS0394 ( TABLE 1 SURFACE WATER QUAUIY DATA Fecal Collform Chloride Nitrate + Nitrite I Nitrite Nitrogen Samcle (CFU/100 mO (mq/O (mc/ll (mgJ\\ SW·l 17 <1 <0.01 0.001 sw·z 770 5.3 <0.01 0.013 SW.J 4 3.0 0.59 0.012 SWoJ, 81 4.2 1.1 0.010 SW-S <1 8.2 4.7 0.002 SW~ 92 18 1.4 0.060 SW·1 1 9 1.8 0.019 sw.a 'Zl 8.3 0.78 0.006 sw·g 8 17 0.~1 0.0'Zl SW·l0 2 7.9 1.1 0.004 SW·l1 310 1.8 0.024 0.007 eo.u ..... 10: 32S801T1.WK1 o EXPLANATION: 2000 SCALE IN FE!: I -"'-APPROXIMATE CRE:K LOCATION 40:0 Reference: USGS 7.5' tOPOgraphic Quadrangle maps ·Issaquah. Wash.: 'MaPie Valley. Wash.: "Mercer Island. Wash: and ·Renton. Wash.: all photorevised 1973. -1tt",. Geo ~~ Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" '\t ~ <:> -.J) '" N 1"\ "I -------~~, --------., MORRISON PROPERTY Kroll Mao f!IJ&N. Geo Engineers .-t-. '--1 .-t-. '--1 .+-. .-/ I .~ . . -t-. . -t-. .-t-. I .~. I . ....., .-1 ~ N j 0 390 600 ! SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: rrf9~2 . LOT wrn"t SEPTlC /.4,(j SYSTEM !;\ILURE BASED ON KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT RECORDS; YEAR INDICATES DATE OF FAILURE r LOCA110NS OF SEPl1C SYSTEM FAILURES FIGURE 2 r---_ ----r==~S~.E~.~'~20~TH~S~TR~E~ET~===, t .-t--. ·l ·1 .-t--.J ·l -·-t-·l .-.-t-. 1 . ·1 .-t-. .-j .-1 .-.J , I ., I ., I ., ....., ·1 .-t-. ·1 .-+-. .-1 ·-1 .-t-. .-:-i .-.-t-. SW-8; N o L Sex) SCALE IN FE:;- . J . i . j.. SW-3 . 1 T ] ., U~~·· Stream WlH I T8F N C·Ei SW-1 Y SW-11 ·-tli SW-9+-..-1 \ [ R .A..N C --.J .. ·l .-,-. . I ASW-4 M 0 R R ISO N 1·1 .---1-..--J '-........ SW-,6 , .. PRO PER T Y ~."" s.e.124TH j STREET . LIB EXPLANAnON: "t" I .. -r-:.. ..--/...., ASW-1 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE OBTAINED 1 i .SW-7 09/28/93 .-._. .--j SW-10 I .: • SW-5 SURFACE WATER . -I" ;:; . -,-. ;:; . --1 SAMPLE OBTAINED 'w 03/29/94 ·l~" .--r-. ~ .-1 '-w ---'--UJ ' . I~ . I . ~ ., ·l~ "+. ~.--1 ·-11l) .-t-. ll) ._' --, ·-1 .+. ....., ., • SW~5 . J .-1 ·1 .:.J .--j ., .~. .--1 ·1 .+. .-\ I_~_____ -.J .-t-. .-1 -=s:-::.e=-. ":":'2~BTH STREET I rl--------~~~~~~----____ ~ r Reference: KroU f!/:SoN. Geo LOCAllONS OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLES FIGURE 3 NDON O[W loS. o. '--, ----, I El 'nlE! ~[ 3rd PL " 'I I r" o • I ABANDON I UNION 600 L 5 I I. --.., I I I I I EAST RENTON INTERCEPTOR FIGURE 3 Alternative 1 East Maplewood Interce tor I -------'--·-ir---~----"".'r ~~j. . EAST MAPLEWOOD BASIN I! " ., I, , I I ) j ___ .J~ " " / ~21 I I I " I I ~--------~-----~ . -. '..,.', ,. '. ...L. : , I .. ..J / / / ~ NEWS OF RECORD f-nt-VS" City to answer annexation questions at meeting RENTON -Residents of the Bumstead area east of the city will get one more chance to throw their annexation questions at the Renton city staff tonight. The meeting, which comes just a little more than a week before the state Boundary Review holds its public hearing on the annexation, is scheduled for 7 p.m. at Maplewood Heights Elementary, 13430 144th Ave. S.E. So far, 60 percent of the residents within the 403-acre area have agreed to the annexation. Tonight, city staff members will be on hand to answer questions ·about everything from property tax- es and zoning to library and garbage service. Property taxes on a $150,000 home, for example will increase $21 a year if the annexatio~ is approved. However, property owners would not be automatically required to connect to the city sewer system. One of the often-asked questions has been whether school district boundaries will remain the same, said Owen Dennison, an assistant city planner. Those residents within the Issaquab School District will remain in that district; Renton Dis- trict residents will remai~' . the Renton district. I " The state Boundary Revie om- mittee will conduct a public hearing on the annexation petition Sept. 2 I . r ".;. -. ':,.:.-' Valley Daily News Algona • Auburn • Black Diamond. Covington. Enumclaw. Fairwood • Kent. Maple ValIey • Newcastle • Casino hopes arrests show sec 'J~ . By MIKE ARCHBOLD Valley Daily News ","TI""'I£T .... ~UI'V'\T Dli'Iii:14'DV 4._ ling establishment. The six, none of them Native A JTlPrir~n~ nr MlIrldeshnot tribal ny Bargala. "We have developed, with the cooperation of the (casino) opera- amount of money involved in the thefts, but said it was "a material amount." Gloves oHaver growth. Meeting about Renton annexation may be heated By IRENE SVETE . 1'-9.5 Valley Daily News '1-/ RENTON -How the East Renton Plateau grows and who controls that growth will be detennined in large part by a public hearing Thursday night. The Washington State Boundary Review Board's hearing on whether to ap' ·e Renton's annexation of about j acres is expected to be both crowded and heated. The board already has reserved a second night for testimony if neces- sary, said Aida Wilkinson, the board's executive secretary . Controversy over the Bumstead of the Bumstead anitexalion may block the proposed city of BriaJwood annexation has spiraled during the past few months.' There is now a separate move to incorporate the area and several neighboring COm- munities into a proposed city of Briarwood. ,iI don't know if(a new city) is the answer. _ but I want an incorporation Review board's objectives The Boundary Review Board hearing on whether to approve the Bumstead· annexation is slated 7 p.m.. Thursday at Maplewood. • Heights Elementary School, 13430. 144th Ave. S.E. . Under sllite law, the board's deci- sion must achi~ve nine objectives: • Preserve natural neighborhoods and communities. • Use physical boundaries, such as highways and land contours. • Create and preserve logical service areas. • Prevent abnormally irregular study before we annex," said Rod Dembowski, head of the Briarwood Incorporation Committee. Briarwood proponents believe the boundaries. • Discourage-multiple incorporations of small cities and encourage incorporation of cities with a population of more than 10,000 in heavily populated urban areas. • • '\ ': • Dissolve inactive speCia! pu;.pase districts. • Adjust impractical boundaries. • In urban unincorporated areas, incorporate as as city or annex to other cities. • Protect agricultural and rural lands, as designated for long-term productive use by the county's comprehensive plan. area has a distinctive character and residents would retain more control See ANNEX, AS AIr POllUtIon Inaex Moderate -56, particulates. For recorded update on burning restrictions, call 1-800-595-4341. For updated recording on air pollution index information only. call toll-free 1-800-433-2215. . Monday, Sept. 18 Accu-Weather-forecast for conditions and CANADA v ~--* ~;racomaI69° l-(f ~ • I Vakima I 840 I ORE. ~ N __ •• ~. _ .... U' •. _ .. ~ ..... ~ ........... u"U we will have careers beyond this," he said .• 'But when a series starts getting into things like a hit record and a music video and mugs and T-shins ... well, I don't wantto be known as Ross when I'm 60 ... • Don't look for Camilla Parker Bowles at the Queen Mother's digs anytime soon. Prince Charles' grandmother has TWice refused his requests to bring his reported lover to official functions at her residences. according to Sunday Express, which quoted an unidentified senior royal adviser. The Queen Mother doesn't object to Parker Bowles personally but wants to prevent Charles from divorcing Princess Diana while he is heir to the throne, the newspaper said. Charles reportedly wants to ease Parker Bowles, who's divorced, into public life and eventually marry her. "The British people would never accept a divorced king and queen. It would divide the country, " the adviser quoted the 95-year-<>ld Queen Mother as saying. • The Duchess of York still how Helmsley will fill the extra time. EL, .---J ~. ~-;-.-~. '~- ~ :"', . " ; '-, Helmsley was convicted of tax Helmsl. evasion in 1989. She paid back nearly $\.7 million in taxes and was released from her 3D-month sentence at a federal prison nine months early because of her husband's poor health. To fulftll the remainder of a required 750 hours of community service, she was asked to stuff enveIOpe~foi'charity and wrap gives for hospital patients. A Daily News story in June quoted unidentified domestic workers as saying Helmsley instructed them to do some of those chores. "It's difficult for a celebrity to do the normal things most of us are able to do." Griesa said . • Radio talk-show host Barbara Carlson has embarrassed her ex-husband, Gov. Arne Carlson, before by talking about their failed marriage on the air. Now she's planning a tell-all 1..~~1,,-I I ....".~ .... r;~ u, .. ~; ...... 'ANNEX.: 'ThE '(isting ... zoning is not good' Continued from page A 1 over services and land use through incorporation. "The only reason the city wants us is for the taxes." said N onnan Green of Neighbors United for Rep- resentation. But annexation supporter Chris Holstrom says residents are better off with the certainty of an existing city like Renton, particularly when it comes to zoning. ! "The existing county zoning is not good. The Briarwood concept is an unY 'n," he said. "We know what n. .ty of Renton offers." The Burnstead Construction Company launched the annexation drive in August 1994, to secure sew- er service so it can build homes on 64 acres it owns in the area. Much of the controversy over the annexation has concerned sewers and. zomng. Renton city officials say property owners will not be required to hook up to sewers automatically upon annexation. They could be required to connect to the sewer if their prop- erty is within 330 feet of an existing main and either their septic system has failed, they are building a new home or the property is involved in a utility local improvement district. Zoning, city officials say, would remain single-family in 95 percent of the area. The remaining 5 percent adjacent to the existing city limits would allow single-family, duplex, triplex or fourplex homes. "The current King County zoning allows densities of up to six units per acre," Holstrom said. ·"It also allows townhouses, apartment structures, even lots as small as 2,500 square feet." A comparison of county and city zoning maps shows, under county zoning, apartment development is confined primarily to the area west of 144th Avenue Southeast. Holstrom, who owns property in the White Fence Ranch subdivision, said his own plans to build a house .are on hold because.of septic prob- lems in the area. He estimated that 20 percent of the .septic systems in the development have failed and standing rain water is a continuing problem. The proposed city of Briarwood, with a population of 8,500, would stretch east from the Renton city limits at 138th Avenue Southeast to 184th A venue Southeast near Lake Kathleen. If the Burnstead annex- ation is Gapproved. it would cleave the proposed city in two, making incorporation impossible, Dem- bowski said. City boosters question whether Renton has the financial wherewith- al to deliver on the services prom- ised and say even if a new city is not feasible, the fight may give residents the leverage they need to cut a better annexation deal later. "We might be able to negotiate local control on zoning or possibly not take on any of the existing city debt," Dembowski said. Annexation foes also claim King County Water District 90 can offer them a cheaper alternative for sewer. service.using a gravity flow syst~m. W::tter District Commissioner Mac Lovell said the district could initiate construction within a year, provided the majority of land own- ers approve a local improvement district to pay for sewers. In 1972, district voters defeated a sewer bond issue. If the annexation is approved, it would effectively cut the financial legs out from under any sewer plans, LovelIsaid. The annexation, if approved, will most likely end up in court, said Dembowski and Green. Both com- munity groups maintain the city of Renton erred in counting Maple- wood Heights Elementary among the land owners supporting annex- ation. For some residents, such as Albert Talley, the best choice would be "none of the above. " "The King County police pass the house constantly," he said, taking a break at a meeting sponsored by tlte city of Renton last week. "Either way the taxes are going to go up and what are we going to get?". -I Senate to set aside $8 billion for child care for single mothers on wel- fare who would be required to work and to establish a $1 billion emer- gency grant fund for states. The House-passed version would put a family cap on benefits, ban them entirely for mothers younger than 18 with children born out of wedlock and cut spending by $122 billion. Clinton's remarks aligned him with Dole against another GOP presidential rival, Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gramm, accusing Dole of repre- senting "business as usual in Wash- ington, ., said the compromise bill must cut money to welfare mothers who have more children. "I'm going to win on this provision, " he predicted. Calling his bill "a radical change in welfare," Dole said it turns aid programs over to the states and lets governors deal with the tough politi- cal issues -like a family cap and cutting aid to young mothers. ' "They are not going to let teen- age moms go without food or go without health care," Dole said on tm'. (L The hurricane, the fourth to hit the Caribbean in as many weeks, tore through the Virgin Islands and east- ern Puerto Rico on Saturday, blow- ing apart homes, tossing parked air- planes into the air and killing as many as nine people. Looters take goods from a mall in St. Thomas Sun--gave-permlsslo day. Looting started when a supermarket managet sto... ,d it spr' Six people were killed on SI. Thomas, home to 51,000 people. On St. Croix, the most populous of the Virgin Islands with 55,000 peo- ple, two people died. One person was killed in Puerto Rico. President Clinton declared the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico disaster areas, making them eligible for federal emergency aid .. Seven military transport planes landed Sunday on St. Thomas with the first relief supplies for island residents -plastic sheeting, water, Defense likely to attack telephone equipment, emergency medical supplies. In St. Thomas, many buildings lost their facades, gaping open like dolls' houses. FEMA at first said half the island's houses were destroyed, but later said a quarter were destroyed and another 75 per- Cloggedse unsavorytc police, FBI in big finish CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) By UNDA DEUTSCH one of the case's thorniest issues. _ A clogged shuttle s r had AssOCiated Press Vannatter reportedly told a Endeavour's astronauts' ... orkmg LOS ANGELES -With the witness .in another case that when like dogs" Sunday as their trouble- prosecution's last scheduled wit-authontles went to the estate on filled mission drew to a smelly nessonthestand,O.J.Simpson's June 13,1994, hours after the close. defense is looking for a big fin-murders, they already conSIdered Instead of relaxing and taking ish, something to knock the jury SImpson a suspect. . their time packing for today's trip on its heels and erase the impact Sou.rces close to the case. said home. the astronauts found them- I J • u"tnecc ' ~ __ .c............-of a strong p~lJtJOn le ........ ~ . -. -'" . September 1995 • Renton Reporter· 11 '. ' .. " " . . -. i " East Renton Plateau area prOIGSe. annexaUonto tbe cnv pagB2 ~NTON REPORT Arequest for annexation to the City of Renton by area residents of 400 acres of . the East Renton Plateau will be consid- ered by the Boundary Review Board for . King County at a public hearing on Sep- tember 21, 1995, at Maplewood Heights Elementary School,.at 7:00 p.m. The pur- pose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the proposed Bumstead Annexation. Also to be considered is a proposal for incorporating the Plateau into a new city. Anyone with an opinion on these propos-' als is urged to attend. What will annexation cost residents of the B umstead Annex- ation area? Taxes would increase by 14 cents per thousand of assessed valuation. For a $150,000 home, this would be an additional range of City services, including Renton's nationally-accredited J>olice Department (complete with animal control s~rvicesl block watch and other commuruty out. reach programs). Additionally, Renton'$ Parks Division is now designing forty acres of park to provide recreational op- portunities for the residents of the Plateau. However, the City cannot proceed with development of the park without annex- ation. Another benefit is that the mainte- mince of lower-density residential hous- ing development on the Pliiteau can be balanced against the multi-family housing already existing elsewhere in Renton. SE 128th Street $21 Per year. The City also has a 6% utility tax, but this is offset by lower surface water, solid SE 132nd Street waste and animal li- cense fees. What are the benefits . to" be' gained from an- nexation to the City of Renton? New residents of the annexed area would receive a full ., .. 0 Maplewood ~ Heights :i Elementary ! School ~aIIoiUoliU.iiii Fu/JHB site at a new City paJ/( H anneiratiDII is lIP- prrwed by resitfBI/JS oIlhB fast Renton PIaJeau area. II~R;PO~ED PARK A proposal which residents of the East YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT . Renton Plateau are also being asked to . 200 Mill Av.nu. South • R.nton, WA 98055 • consider is incorporation of a larger area, . General Inlonnallon ................. , ... 235-2500 the entire Urban designated portion of the : MA YOR Plateau, as the City of Briarwood. One I "a~Ctymer ....................................... 235-2580 " thing is certain, growth in the area will ':1' ~o~~N, ~,i;::~;, .. p·re .. ·~~;;t .... · .. · 235-2588 1 occur, with or without annexation or in-... , ~ Randy Connan Bob Edwards ' corporation. If a new city is formed, a i J .... Tann.r Toni Nelson I comprehensive plan must be drafted ac-1 Kathy Koolker-Wheel.r Rlohard Siredicke i cording to Slate and County requirements, SCHEDULED CITY MEETINGS ; and King County Countywide Planning 'j CtTYCOUNCILMEETINGS I Policies require that every city plan for i Mondays, 7:30 p.m .......................... 235-2501 1 affordable housing for each economic seg~ J COMMrrTEEOFTHFWHOLE • Mondays, 8:30 p:m .......................... 235-2501 ' ment of society and for a share of the , COMMUNtTYSERVlCESCOMMrrTEE . County's growth projections. i 2nd & 4th Tuesday, 3:30 p.m .......... 235-2501 0 How the new City' 1 RNANCECOMMITTEE of Briarwood would 'Vouoher Mondays, 6:00 p.m ........... 235·2501 '0 " PlANNING&DEVEUlPMENTCOMMrrTEE . supply basic urban I 2nd & 4th Wedn.sday, 3:30 p.m .... 235-2501 . services is not known, : PUBUCSAFETYCOMMrrTEE ,0 but most likely these I.' & 3rd Wednesday, 3:00 p.m ..... 235-2501 r.l would be purchased J TRANSPORTATIONIAVIATIONCOMMrrTEE· i til : 1St & 3rd Tu.sday, 3:30 p.m ........... 235-2501 ' ~ from other jurisdic-, U11UT1ESCOMMITTEE < tions, probably King I., & 3rd Tuesday, 4:30 p.m ........... 235-2501 , iii County or the City of BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT !:! Renton. It is notlikely 4th Wednesday, 7:30 p.m ............... 235-2563 ;:.; BOARDOFPUBUCWORKS that contracting for Wedn.sdays, 8:30 a.m ................... 235-2569 services will offer a ,ClVI~SERVICECOMMISSION ' SE 136th Street cost savings over the ' R::=~p·m ..... ,' .............. 235;2556' existing costs. No one 501 31d Tu.sday, 4:00 p.m: : .................. 235-2 knows what taxes HUMANRIGHTSCOMMISSION' would be under incor-2nd Monday, 6:30 p.m ..................... 235-2558 poration. The City of LEOFFBOARD. .' , Newcastle is now 2nd Wednesday, 7:30 a.m .............. 235-2580 LlBRARYBOARD' only 1 112% behind 2nd Wedn.sday, 10:00 a.m ............ 235-2610 Renton's base levy MUNICIPALARTSCOMMISSION and has not yet completed its first budget 1st Wedn.sday, 8:00 a.m ............... 23~-2580 , PARK BOARD ., . cycle. Unfortunately, the area proposed 88 2ndTuasday, 4:30 p.m ................... 235-25 for the City of Briarwood does not have a PLANNING COMMISSION . strong retail business tax base at this time, . I., & 31d Wedn.sday; 7:00 p.m .. : .. 235-2552 therefore, property taxes would have to -SENIORCmzeNSADVISORYBOARD bear more of the burden for provision of. I.' & 31d Monday, 10:00 a.m .......... 235-2535 city services to the residents. . ABOUT THE REPORT: Th. R.nlon R.port Is an If you are to. be affected by. the annexo. official City 01 Renlon publicatIOn, Inl.nded 10 estab-. -. . d .. IIsh and enhanos oommunlcatlon batween city goil-atlOn.or mcorporalton ecIS10!'S,You owe '.mmen! and tha Renton resldantial and business ,·it to ~O\i~elft,o ~ il]fqnned and'to atte!],f ,oommunity.Ourbaslcll'1aJlslolnfonny"uploulT8l1t the hearing and :make your thoughts and " Issues, answ.r questiOns posed by the oommunlty, . concerns known on September 21st at and provIda a forum wh.re citizens can ba recog- 7:00 p.m. at Maplewood Heights Elemen-n\zed for outstanding seNlce . . EDITOR, Sandy ChasIBln .................. 235-2587 tary School. PRODucnON. Julie Brewsr ............ 235-2580 12 • Renton Reporter· September 1995 --~---.---...... - Sat. 11 - 3 pm Pepsi Hot Dog Wagon & Root Beer Floats . (to benefit Easter Seals) Food Demonstrations Giant Outdoor Sale " (courtesy of Safeway) . FREE Balloons FREE Gift Magnets/Stickers (courtesy of jillian's Card Shoppe) FREE Popcorn Sidewalk Sale .' , . ------+I-~------~-------------. .~-------- ----I·I----'------------------'-'-,--~-----~---.·. , , '. ' --~.---.. , ", --I ,. -;f . , ... ·...."..,.: . . ." , . , ',,' --'------1-1---::---" ---~__::__----'-----'-'~--~---,-- ---:.......:..' --''-'--'' -HI----~--.. ----........:-,-~---· -~. -.. ---~ -~----~ -.. ," . . . , . -.-.. , -, « j~ • .---." '[ o· • . . ' .. ~ .. .. .' . , ',' ..... .. . . .. I . ' ... ' .. . '. . . ~I?~ ' . . . &e-I ~ it &I .. '. -f e' 1'(9 -. -j,,'-(}_A~:.vL·IrE:.~fJr~9-'- : ~C{.!!.,~()~. '. ~f/~_· w._~v:f~:d0tl--E:. ~ -1'~Kt$-,~::.::wi~ttG .~f~~h. .;kc~ ___ · -k¥l_ea'l~L~/,:,VJ£a:t: . " , .' .. . . . --'-,'----t-...... --'-:---'-. ---, ,---~---,--~G'0~~L~f'<t); Y·-%=?8;.; .... ." .~ '0 -~rfk Gf.~6Jb~. · -'. CL\;'£p-4·&C£L~_rb '. ~~.W/~r~5fs.~, .. ··. '. ge~~ ........ . · · . ~C&N!.pjlr:P_W/-6trl/}-_~~. -~tZf_ft f!/)"1~/-~~ 'L_L'&~~~ ~~~~~-.-. ~- -fU;~~y-Rs~!!y~·J)./~lCL._· - ~ " .. '. -e~l~[~~_~ .Ju"'e . G~L~t. -~~,Q£. )~~=-J.._,---< ,~ . ~ . --7L:ldQ. EElA.!.> ,~ · .. ~_~~w6vll'~L . -'~t_i£ S~0~~' · lY/aboud !!~_'f....~ · ~ &lLCfJ-~cc-"LV1y7-&a~ - ~ Gtco5iS~b~_€I.4J_ · , f:-~~ f' · . -"/J~5_~-.' f , -0l ~ 1*S~O~ I~N5 t::tr-_. ~~--·Ea'~ _. j t!pfLai'~lrtif;s~ )~ Wky ~ "~ C$' · ~( -:..--,' _ _ _~ K: _ .. _t ' . · qo -.·/(J,v:.~£.d_Jo.l<A\.;.c.7IvJOr~~ · 'do_~_k~ ·1 . . . " " . _ .. -t:. , . . , , . . ~ .. . ' ., " '. - ,', • , , - '. . '- .' . -.., , , Q. ~ I beth· fJId ?di' ~I: fJp , ~1·dZ_ _ _. , ~ _ ' -=~:~~-:-~ . _.' . ' ' . .,.-SCWl{a...CQ w~t 'X k -t --. &~. ~~'I-. ~ . _, ~ :)_ aeo.~: __ ... t.f2. _pecp~. '_~ .. " ... uSe. --;-.. ,. -," - ,'.' ." , ' .. ~W: ". . . . &'1t.ew_ .. ,-:~_w~,i~_~~_ ,~ .~~ .. W' L k . ',~', ..... '. ,.' . . '-,' '---J---,-~-~--, --M-{J-. 7-~-. -, .. " . . , '~ p~ .-. . ~ .' · ~:.. _ ,~'{Y\_!f:lJ~:6....,..0.~_CJ.. . .: '. _ '. . . ,.' .. . ()-· . ,~ . d ,,, . . ,r . . . . It~ £.~~ --LV.L~_~~_~§ztc.~lv~_L£!fw!ct~ . ,.' '. · -' saLLdi&:~)_~'cQJ)~J-LouL~~t;a~_dO:-Aj=, . -----~ jL~~~IIfe;~~_'~ ~~~ -:--" .-.~' ' .. ' ' . . . , . . , .-· '("-+ J J r<' .It<' .'. -. , . : ., . , -,I] ~ I Q{~ t .. . ' . .-. .:. ' ._ ,'~' _ ._N'~_a-:~n.... '. " ,- , .I' 1l~4-U6::6)_t2pp-a-i6~ ~fJ.~tL.ct~l~ " -~ L';sk~lc~ * t, " _.-~ --.---_l . -..!-.. -~r-. &1:V' <'to ~~I1.e.K('~. · , ,00 ~ ,~_v vJ ~Y:1ti.~' .\ '.: . '. "', . , ' ~ ~ ~LJJ t~b."bl W'O' hJO ('5/ · " . '-_-e.'f::.S_ . ---~ -' . _L ' -_. ___ LL. -l--"-~ . bkk-1r>. ~L ','" . , . 0_2. ,,-.' . -. L_ -• J~_c;L~ o/~~ ,'. . , . ->'\.IPf &. ~ \, tr .,' . "05; , '/ • , , " ~ Ir~~ b~7'= .. 'n;-. --, "-', '---. '.' ." . -=-=t=0m,Y ~S ·~SS~ " . --,' --' -. . --I .'~" ," . ',' ,'" . , rtf J'l'€Jt1.~Y-., ' ,.' t-·· . ~ ~L~~£U6_~_,{J~~i:La~'~ ~ta.jl f~J : " '. -\J~ be-,1 ~. b" -~ · ,.b~-~-~-~ -", __ U2t-_~_,sY..cs.. . ~ . . _ " .: 1: g~,&c(Z. W4-~_~~_~Yb~:..Ls£,!c~J.b/ N6\~", ' " ',', c' " '. ., -~~~_l25.L%Jl(b_~~(rLQe;Ji~~~', .. ·~k~~#' , . , " · , _._-1 _'_ " .,.., '-' , ,-[.~N'_L[_@]A.b_~f'C~)~G)~~9:n,-:~ '.' ~ .. · '. ~~ 9k-~u· /'-.", . · '.~ --. . --~ ,-,-. -'--" '".' ." -' . .- , . .. , ,. • '. . -" /, .- .- ---_. ----. . • -.. • . . -.. , . , -, . . . . ..,. . ,=~k_CL~_~VI'Jes_h'rY2-_~k;25I'/CcL ~J4_ . r-W ~L 1Y-e l~~ V!2 ~ vb f-oo-v,~~. .,,' .. '~ --. --1---. --, '-. ,...".;..-::----~~'-.--~-~~-. , ~~ ". ",'. . -~. . . .. ,. , .. ,' , . r:_Mt?_Cpe-~kL~_U))WrJqa·' , '., ,', .,' , ,,' , ... , -~"~~~~I?an:{",,,$-~,,¥/~-'Ic{k . f.JMS/~c.u'ji .. __ ' ,_ ~Wb!5l~_*-~bsJces -;-'& ~ .c!!' l 'L cdk. . , .. ' j~ -r 0v-, 8-1J:;4.·-l,)Y~,O_V.L-, ' ,-, ,AO:V:£,c __ ", __ .~...:,..._._, __ ~ ___ , .. __ -,--' _-,-":"._ --~ F!Jl:1:fuJM~~~ 4{j~ ~ '--f&Lc_~----~ ': " . ~~by_)bgk~ .' ' , . \ ' , . ~~ ed::. ' ". .' .' -E~~-W!h~~~i_~~~v, et ~+~ . __ ~eoo,y_w,LL~ ~~y:'<l>cc . l-Q ~e{1~~-"6)_£., -_f-aLla2-_Va" $ef;:Y:f';;-;;::qJJQc/Ot~ at:3~ . -&aJ"'-'l6 'i'"ct."4ILA I~_~<b 5~~ . . ,. "' -f . , . ,'u~)~i_O_Cdc~.s7-, . -,,_C:u--_b.c2l.M,-J~!f::.:s, . ~f}t<ikJ-'£)P."'~L~Y'C:4L .. . .' --~-~/:s~-i!'rtt;/:~w)!Ls£tWrtt~ . ·~~c:~-~-·-. -~ ... -. , -, ' .~ , . " .. . .. , .. .. , , . '. , , .~ . , . , . ";;. , . ' .. , . -, , ;- -----'..----...... " , .~ ,. r I; --, , .:?~?~ l1li. . -<0- Jr-;;;r-~~ CITY .IF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Earl Clymer, Mayor .I----~~~~--~------------------------------------------------------- September 19, 1995 Mr. Robert C. Kaufman Herman, Recor, Kaufman & Simmerly 900 City.Center 500-108th Avenue, N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Re: File No. 1922 -City of Renton/Bumstead Annexation Dear Mr. Kaufman: This letter is a short response to the Sterbank to you dated September 18, 1995. make the following points: letter from Bob C. The City wishes to 1. The Boundary Review Board need not determine the sufficiency of the sixty percent (60%) petition. It has traditionally not done so and left that decision to the local government body, the City of Renton in this instance. That being the case, the Board has met its Rule l.B.1 and need not go further. 2. The City of Renton, through its City Council, voted to annex the property in question. It did not formally adopt the annexation ordinance. It has been the practice of the City, with the concurrence of the Boundary Review Board, over more than twenty years, to allow the Boundary Review Board process to proceed to its completion before formally adopting the annexation ordinance. The· vote of· the City Council has been held sufficient by the Board over those many years. 3. Despite the statement contained in Mr. Sterbank I s letter that there is a legal prohibition against the school district signature on an annexation petition, the law is hardly so clear cut. The City acknowledges that RCW. 28A. 335 .110 exists and that it permits a school district petition under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.l3.l30for annexation of school property if such ·school property constitutes t~e whole of such property in any annexation petition. However, that statute does not answer the question of what authority exists when the annexation is to a non-charter code City such as the City of Renton, governed by RCW 35A.14.120. Therefore, a legal question is presented as to the authority of the school district under statutory and case authority, Post Office Box 626 -100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 nns PAPER COI'ITAINS ~ RECYCLED MA'ffiRlAL, 1~ POST COl'l5UMER Mr. Robert C. Kauf, September 19, 1995 Page 2 as detailed in the City of Renton's brief. The City resolved that question with primary reliance on RCW 35A.14.120, Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722,577 P.2d 164 (1978) and in Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960). Such decision by the City should be final. If the Board gives any consideration to this issue, outside of determining that the City held that the sixty percent (60%) .. petition was adequate, then the Board must give great deference to the City's determination. 4. The issue presented is a legal issue involving the interpretation of various statutes, and if considered at all under the Rules of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, Rule 11.0 should be referred to the King County Prosecuting Attorney or the Attorney General for the State of Washington for opinion. However, that 'step is unnecessary, as argued above, since the City of Renton has made a decision as to the sufficiency of the petition. The Boundary Review Board does not normally inquire into this area, and to do so in the manner requested would be outside the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. As a final matter, I note that Mr. Sterbank indicates that he will be available at the Board's meeting of September 19th to answer questions by the Board. Since this matter is scheduled for public hearing on September 21, 1995, and because the letter from Mr. Sterbank dated September 18, 1995 was not received by my office until just before the close of business on that date, it would be unfair, inappropriate and most likely illegal for Mr. Sterbank and the Board to conduct any dialogue about his issues. LJW:as. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington Bob C. Sterbank King County Boundary Review Board A8 .117.22. CIT,\: 00II. -, .", OF RENTON Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J, Warren Earl Clymer, Mayor September 19, 1995 King County Boundary Review Board Central Building, Suite 608 810 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Legal Counsel Re: Bumstead Annexation No. 1922 by the City of Renton Dear Members of the Boundary Review Board: By letter dated September 18, 1995 Bob Sterbank, on behalf of Neighbors United For Representation (the Neighbors), responded to the City of Renton's brief concerning the Burnsteadannexation, I'm not sure that you wish to hear further discussion by either party, but believe some of the statements made in that letter merit response. I will use Mr. Sterbank's numbering system, but shorten the titles and discussion wherever possible. 1. The City's Brief Icrnored that the City Failed to Adopt an Annexation Ordinance. The City has utilized the process of approving the annexation by Council voice vote and then adopting the formal ordinance only after Boundary Review Board review" The City has utilized this process for the undersigned's length of service with the City, now twenty-one years, and undoubtedly before that. The Boundary Review Board has approved this process before and there is no reason to ch~nge now. . 2. The City's Brief Icrnores the Fact that the City Publicly Admitted that the Renton School District Lacks Authority to Sicrn the Annexation Petition. , The word "admission" is a very strong, but incorrect word for what the City previously stated. A statement ,was contained in an annexation information bulletin in 1994 that the school district properties must constitute the entirety of the annexation or be excluded from the proposal, This was an incorrect statement of the law. The City has since carefully researched this issue and come to a determination that the school district property could be included. There Post Office Box 626 -100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 TIllS PAPER CONTAINS 50% RECYCLED MAl'ERJAL, I~ POST CONSIlMER King County Boundar. Review Board September 19, 1995 Page 2 is no claim that any prejudice was suffered by any party. Rather, the Neighbors choose in the rest of their argument to impune the City's integrity and to question its motives. Such an attack does nothing to further the process and should be ignored by the Board for that reason. The fact remains that t~e City reviewed the sixty percent (60%) petition and found it to be sufficient. All attacks on the City for its integrity or motives do not change that fact. The Board must deal with the facts, not with attacks. 3. This Board Has Already Concluded that School Districts Are Prohibited from Signing Annexation Petitions. It is a fundamental statement of the law that if an issue is not considered in an opinion, no precedent can be set. And yet, the Board is again cited to In Re City of Belleuve Proposed Annexation for Newport Hills. File No. 1773. While the Neighbors' letter accuses the City of citing the Board's opinion out of context, that is hardly the case. The school district properties were excluded from the annexation before it was sent to the Boundary Review Board. The statement in the Neighbors' brief from the decision is as follows: "The school district properties were eliminated from the original proposal due to a prohibition in state law against school district properties joining together with other properties to petition for annexation." That quote characterizes eliminated school district opinion the Board stated: why the properties. original proposal Earlier in its "The school district properties were excluded from the annexation due to the provisions in state law, RCW 28A.58.044, which may be interpreted to prohibit school district properties from joining in annexations involving additional properties not owned by the school board." In neither statement does the Boundary Review Board "conclude that school districts are prohibited from signing annexation petitions" as stated by the Neighbors. Since the signature by the school district was never an issue in the Newport Hills annexation, the Board could have never decided the issue. Therefore, that decision does not stand as precedent. i King County BoundaL. Review Board· September 19, 1995 Page 3 4. RCW 28A. 335.110 Applies and Governs Here. Not RCW 35A.14.120. Surely this must be a misstatement. RCW 35A.14.120 is the statute upon which the City of Renton derives its annexation authority. To state that it does not govern here denies the very statutory basis upon which the City of Renton is proceeding. The premise that RCW 28A.335.110 should somehow control the power of the school district to sign the petition to annex ignores the fact that the statute refers to RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130, neither of which apply to the City of Renton. '. 5. School Districts Do Not Possess Implied Authority to Sign Annexation Petitions Simply Because They Own Property. The argument made here is that the cases cited by the City of Renton are stale authority. That is a value judgment for which there is no support offered. The two cases cited are the only cases that exist interpreting this area of the law. These cases st~nd for the simple proposition that municipal bodies, authorized to own land, are owners of land for the purpose of signing annexation petitions. The statutory section cited by the Neighbors in opposition to that statement is RCW 28A.335.110, which, as earlier stated, does not even cite to the annexation statute relied upon by the City of Renton. . 6. The Mill Creek Decision Does Not Apply Here. The City did not intend to imply that the Mill Creek decision was binding precedent on this Board. The fact that another Boundary Review Board considered this issue, raised in the same way as it is raised in this proceeding, and apparently ignored the issue or inferentially decided it in the City's favor, simply shows how another similarly situated body addressed this issue. It is nothing more than guidance for the Board on how to address the issue. CONCLUSION The City of Renton argues that the Boundary Review Board has not previously and need not now address this issue" This issue is not within the objectives of the Boundary Review Board detailed in RCW 36.93.180· nor in the factors to be considered in RCW 36.93.170. Simply put, this issue is outside the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. I f the Boundary Review Board does believe it is within its jurisdiction, according to its own King County BoundaL. Review Board September 19, 1995 Page 4 Rules, Rule II.D, the issue, being a legal issue, would be referred to the King County Prosecuting Attorney Attorney General for the State of Washington for opinion. have to or the Please excuse this late response and the vOlume of correspondence generated on this issue. However, the City is very interested in this annexation and did not believe that the statements contained in the September IS, 1995 letter from Counsel for Neighbors United for Representation should go unanswered. LJW:as. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington Bob C. Sterbank Robert C. Kaufman AS.1l7.23. ;, _.,: c ",< ,,~;; • '.";' , phoIo by DUANE IlAMAUUAA,: lera and a feputatJon 10'. ~ lover, But manager Don ' ,See BU8jness,1!1 •• ~:.:.,-:', ,," , ' i eIoF -,' -P "aFT EZH,l "O'Wt"·M';r,~(,~"';j:'!'i~'i,Ht.,~0-::I~Uh,i..Il_t;·\1C:::»J :'>'UJ~~;:~~~: " .' :< '.~:" "j' '~.' _,.: ._; ic C~Jl:;~~',-:,t~;;~~{tUci'_l~'':~~.1,!.':-t.;:" .... ~~~~~;i_~*,,~~·y~}>,~t~~-~:"'::;-,~;_:--9,&<;·r.!!;lli''\)j;~;~ SPORtS' D1;'~ <'f~~:;C~5~ll~!"/(:,.f;Jtj ~1,-;11'':;. ';:~;i,~Jt,:F . ;'.' " . ;: ,~: "1 ' . ',' ., • I ~/":"'-}'~' :l:~'; .. ", I' . . ':. " • , r " ews " .> ; . .!~ ':; '., ':: '.~'!' . ',: ~ :'. 35¢ , Volume 107 • No. 224 ", 1995 Valley Daily News Gloves offo~~( groV\l1:I'l r=~=1 Review board's objectives Meeting about Renton annexation may be heated By IRENE SVETE vaney Daily News RENTON -How the East Renton' , , Plateau grows imd who controls that ' growth will be detennined in large pan by a public hearing Thursday night. The Washington State Boundary Review Board's hearing on whether to approve Renton's annexation of about 225 acres is expected to be both crowded and heated. The board already has reserved a second night for testimony if neces- sary, said Aida Wilkinson, the, board's executive secretary, ''', ", " Controversy over the Bum~tead Th B d 'R . w Board boundarie •. , ,e, oun ary eVle • Discourage multiple Incorporations heanng on whether. to ~pprove the of .mall cUie. and encourage BUmstead annexatIon IS slated 7 Incorporation ofcftle. with a popiJiatlon of p.m., .Thursday at Maplewood.: .. mara than 10.000 In heavily populated , • lIe.ightS,. Elementary School, 13430 \ ,:,"man area., ,', , , ,.; .', ,.).( , l44th'Ave:S;E; .. , , " " . ," J'_ DIssOlve l(18ctJve speelalpurpose ,Under Sttlte 1a\v~' the board's deci-districts. ' siOli musi,achieve nine objectives: _ Adjust Impractical boundaries. _ Preserve natural neighborhoods and corrimunllles. _ Usa physical boundaries, such as highways and land contours. , _ Create and preserve logical seMca areas, . annexation has spiraled during the past few months.' There is now a separate move to incorporate the area and several neighboring com-. _ Prevent abnormally Irregular ,munities into a proposed. city of study before we annex," said Rod Bri;UWood.,. " ,:' ,,' ,Dembowski, head of the Briarwood "I don't know'if(a new city) is the Incorporation Committee. answer"but I want an inCorporation, Briarwood proponents believe the _ In urban unincorporated areas. incorporate as as city or annex to other cities. _ Protect agrieuliuraJ and ruraJ lands. as designated for long-term productive use by the county's comprehensive plan. area has a distinctive character and residents would retain more control , See ANNEX, AS ..car 'crash on Valley Fre~way Simple yearly cileckuDcan l."~U"'i "'p ur OU~k pam;unc1 ~l urination o~ ejacuJalion. 777-3035 tor more informa[ion. Washington D.C.-baSed·oiiic;·;~~~ -----, -'0---.--_· ..... ···6 ........ 0'V-1.11 of Medicare spending is the only 10 area studies involving pros- :ancer research are looking for dpants. Research panicipants ANNEX: ======:::J, I 'The existing ... Renton city officials\~y propeny lems in the area. He estimated that owners will not be required to hook 20 percent of the .septic systems in up to sewers automatically. upon the development have failed and annexation. They could be required standing rain water is a continuing to connect to the sewer if their prop-problem. . Ir tho:.e who are ilctively looking ~ inrOf!Jl;ation I?~ fr.mchising. .. in a prospective franchisee'! choice for you! in a business in the coming year. ~rvations today! I zoning is not good' . Continued from page Al eny is within 330 feet of an existing The proposed city of Briarwood, main and either their septic system with a population of 8,500. would has failed, they are building a new stretch east from the Renton city home or the propeny is involved in a limits at 138th Avenue Southeast to over services and land use through utility local improvement district. 184th Avenue Southeast near Lake incorporation. . Zoning, city officials say, would Kathleen. If the Bumstead annex- "The only reason the Ctty wants remain single-family in 95 percent ation i'approved. it would cleave us is for the taxes," said Norman of the area. The remaining 5 percent the proposed city in two, making Green of Neighbors United for Rep-adjacent to the existing city limits incorporation impossible, Dem- resentation. . .. would allow single-family. duplex, bowski said. But annexatIon supporter Chns triplex or fourplex homes. . . Holstrom says residents are better "The current King County zoning CIty boosters que~tlon whet~er ff ·th h . f .. . . f . .. Renton has the finanCIal wherewlth-o WI t e certatnty 0 an eXlsttng allows densIties 0 up to Stx uruts per . ltd r th·. city like Renton, particularly when : acre," Holstrom said. ·"It also . ~o ~ Iver on .;. servlc':"ty~rom; it comes to zoning.. I . _. "." allows townhouses. apartment . J ;an ,say even I a ne.w Cl ,JS no "The existing county zoning is. . structUres, . even lots· as . s1!1al1. as ,feasIble, the fight may gIve resIdents not good~ The Briarwood concept is .. ··2,500 square feet.;'·· . .the leve!"ge they need to cut a better an unknown," he said. "We know : .. A comparison· of county and city . annexatlondeallater . what the city of Renton offers.",: .. :.:. :Zoning maps shows, under county .: "We might be able to negotiate . The Burnstead Construction .. , : zoning, apartment· developmenris . local control on zoning or possibly Company launched the annexation' . cOnfined primarily to the area.west not take on any of the existing city drive in August 1994, to secure sew-. of l44th Avenue Southeast. . debt." Dembowski said. er service so it can build homes on Holstrom, who Owns propeny in Annexation foes also claim King 64 acres it owns in the area. Much of the White Fence Ranch subdivision, County Water District 90 can offer the controversy over the annexation said his own plans to build a house them a cheaper alternative for sewer has concerned sewers and zontng. are on hold because of seplic prob-service using a gravity flow system. t -. UU\ JUM puur ,)Cop":. l\ W\\\ a\\ec\. middle-class people, too." ,Water DistriCt Commissioner Mac Lovell said the district could initiate construction within a year, provided the majority of land own- ers approve a local improvement districI to pay for sewers. In 1972, district voters defeated a sewer bond issue. If the annexation is approved, it would effectively cut the financial legs out from under any sewer plans, Lovell.said. The annexation, if approved, will most likely end up in court, said Dembowski and Green. Both com- munity groups maintain the city of Renton erred in ::counting : Maple- wood Heights Elementtiiy':among the land owners. supporting··annex-.. ation. ".~' ";", ':', "::\ .. ,~:~,;;:;-:, Fpr sOlite: residentsi such as· Alben Talleyithe best choice would be "none of the above. ,. "The King County police pass the house constantly," he said, taking a break at a meeting sponsored by Ihe city of Renton lasl week. "Either way the taxes are going to go up and what are we i •. , I ! \ .. . I I I : , :-1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM September 19, 1995 File Owen Dennison ({iiiJ Surficiency or Boundary Review Board Notice or Intention Package The City has received a copy of the letter dated August 25, 1995, to the Boundary Review Board from Peter Eglick and Bob Sterbank, attorneys for Neighbors United for Representation. The letter requests the'Board return the Notice of Intention file to the City without action, due to two alleged insufficiencies. First, they assert that the Petition to Annex is inadequate because it includes Renton School District properties. Larry Warren has responded to this charge. Second, Messrs. Sterbank and Eglick contend that the Notice is incomplete with regard to the format . • .. . Because the City Failed to Include a Copy of an Ordinance or Resolution Formalizing Its Intent to Annex, the City'S Notice of Intent Must Be Returned Without Action.· The letter cites the case of the proposed incorporation of Vashon Island for which the Notice of Intent was returned without action. I spoke with Aida Wilkinson, Executive Secretary to the Board, on the sufficiency of the Notice with regard to the format. She stated that she considered the minute recording of the City Council motion to accept the Notice of Intent and Petition to Annex to be sufficient with respect to the format requirements. She noted that cities have different conventions for the annexation process. She suggested that the City submit certified copies of the minutes for the Board's file. Certified copies weremailedonSeptember5.1995.Ms. Wilkinson stated that the Notice of Intent was forwarded to the Board and a public hearing on the proposed Bumstead Annexation was scheduled because the Notice of Intention was deemed sufficient. Ms. Wilkinson also noted that the Vashon case was unique and entirely irrelevant to the current situation. cc: Michael Kattermann Larry Warren T().FILE.DOC ,Ii "l' ; I.' ,'l i: I, ,.' .. I , " , I ' , , i " " " '" '.< , 'II I " 1'1', .,j, " ,I' , 'I 'I , f I I :1 " 'I ", '>~ " I , LL __ 11 II , 1 " Ii ";'l~ ' .. I ' ','1' •. ~:.. .. I l' i I ) :-~', .~,_"~"L' h.".:i,~_, __ • __ ~ t \ ,~, ' I 'I ! " " ij I, 11 11 " i1 I' I! II 'I I, " I " :1 Ii 11 " " Ii Ii II It I' I' II Ii 11 " Ii Ii 'I " I, I] II ,I II ! i ! ~--~ .',1 , ____ -1-_______ ~~_ ,<> • " ,I i !" V " I J'I , TI I " r II ,,,.. I ~'~ 14 Also, the board decision will still be accorded all of the usual forms of judicial deference to agenpy expertise. See, e.g., St. Francis Extended Health Care v. Department of Social & Health Servs., » 115 Wn.2d 690 «, 695, 801 P.2d 212 (1990); Department of Ecology v. Ballard Elks Lodge 827, » 84 Wn.2d 551 «, 556, 527 P.2d 1121 (1974). 676 KING COUNTY v. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Nov. 1993 122 wn.2d 648, 860 P·.2d 1024 the record to convince a rational person that overall the objectives would be furthered. The record reveals that two of the statutory objectives, RCW» 36.93.180 «(3) and RCW» 36.93.180 «(1), would be significantly furthered by the proposed annexations. There is ample evidence to support the Board's findings that the proposed annexations would further the third statutory objective, creation and preservation of logical service areas. See Board's decision; Clerk's Papers, at 1228-29. The record shows the proposed annexations are within Black Diamond's water service area, Clerk's Papers, at 154-55, 160, and fire service area, Clerk's Papers, at 157, 284-85. The record also supports the conclusion that extension of Black Diamond's sewer services would assist in the creation of a logical sewer service district. The Board received testimony that development of the area on septic tanks could endanger the Rock Creek Drainage Basin and Lake Sawyer, Clerk's Papers, at 135-36, 137-.44, 148-50, and that Black Diamond had "plenty" of sewer capacity available for whatever development occurred in the '. annexations, Clerk's papers, at 156. Finally, there is evidence in the record that police response time from Black Diamond would be superior to the response time presently available from King County. Clerk's papers, at 157, 160. The Board's findings that this objective would be furthered are thus well supported in the record. [15] The record also supports the conclusion that the first objective, preservation of natural neighborhoods, would be furthered by the proposed annexations. In Spokane Cy. Fire Protec. Dist. 9 v. Spokane Cy. Boundary Review Bd., » 97 Wn.2d 922 «, 926, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982), we construed" 'natural neighborhoods'" to mean neither distinct geographical areas or socially and locationally distinct groups of residents." » 97 Wn.2d at 927 «n.2. The record supports the Board's conclusion that the areas are geographically part of the Black Diamond community. See Board's decision; Clerk'S Papers, at 1227. For the most part, the annexations are contained within the Rock Creek Drainage Basin. Also, the testimony before the Board indicated that the Basin corresponds with a plateau which Nov. 1993 KING COUNTY v. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 677 gently slopes down to the north toward Lake Sawyer, and the annexations are on this plateau. Testimony of Gerald Harkleroad; Clerk's Papers, at-377. The objective would therefore be furthered by the proposed annexations. /15 [16] The record does not support the Board's conclusions that three of the other statutory objectives, RCW ,." » 36.93.180 «(2), RCW» 36.93.180 «(4), and RCW» 36.93.180 «(8), would be furthered by the proposed annexations. First, there is no decisionmaking i~ the long run. The case law construing RCW» 36.93 «also does not support Black Diamond's stringent "one objec~ivell approach .. In the principal case on point, Spokane Cy., this court analyzed several of the statutory. objectives and concluded: "We cannot say, however, that this harm is significant enough to offset the other advantages the Board concluded were present. II » 97 Wn.2d at 927 «-28. This holding indicates an application comprehensive approach to the effects of the Board's decision on the statutory objectives. The majority of the other cases involving substantial evidence review of boundary review board decisions included discussion of all of the objectives which were relevant of a in that particular case. See, e.g., Richland, » 100 Wn.2d at 871 «i Snohomish, » 61 Wn. App. at 381 «-82. The lone .exception, / Wenatchee v. Boundary Review Bd., » 39 Wn. App. 249 «, 255, 693 P.2d 135 (1984), did not apply:;oa "one objective" approach, but rather engaged in review so cursory as to be uninstructive. Black Diamond cites to statements in the Spokane and Richland cases for the proposition that a boundary review board decision which fails to achieve any objectives is reversible. The principle that a board decision which furthers no objectives is reversible, however, does not imply that a decision which furthers any objectives is not reversible. At no Nov. 1993 KING COUNTY v. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 675 point did either the Spokane or Richland court (or any other court) indicate that only those decisions which failed to achieve any objectives are reversible. The application of a comprehensive approach to the objectives in RCW» 36.93.180 «will not result in the replacement of the decision of a boundary review board with that of a reviewing court, since the standard for review is still that of substantial evidence. The question on review is not whether the objectives were advanced or hindered, but rather whether substantial evidence in the record supports a board's decision regarding the achievement of the objectives. Review for support by substantial evidence is an extremely limited form of judicial review. Ancheta v. Daly, » 77 Wn.2d 255 «, 260, 461 P.2d 531 (1969). /14 We therefore consider each of the statutory objectives to determine whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that th~ objectives of RCW» 36.93.180 «were furthered by the Board's decision to approve the proposed annexations. C . [14] A decision is supported by substantial evidence if "the record contains evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the qeclared premise." World Wide Video, Inc. v. Tukwila, :7 » 117 Wn.2d 382 «, 387, 816 P.2d 18 (1991) (quoting Bering v. Share~ » 106 Wn.2d 212 «, 220, 721 P.2d 918 (1986), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050, 93 L. Ed. 2d 990, 107 S. Ct. 940 (1987)), cert. denied, U.S. 118 L. Ed. 2d 391, 112 S. Ct. 1672 (1992). Accord, Olmstead v. Department of Health, Med. Section, » 61 Wn. App. 888 «, 893, 812 P.2d 527 (1991). Applying this standard, we conclude that, while there is evidence that one of the objectives of RCW» 36.93.180 «would be detrimentally affected by the proposed annexations, there is sufficient evidence in (N!J' " j'J) eN ('"' 0 8 ~ '" C ~ "Z --I ~ r ";) 70 ~\ J> -\ c C \I o II -, i , " evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the second statutory objective, use of physical boundaries, would be furthered by the proposed annexations. See Board's decision; Clerk's Papers, at 1228. In Spokane, we held that II [1]e9a1 boundaries are not . . . 'physical . . .' II for purposes of this objective.» 97 Wn.2d at 927 «n.l. See also Snohomish Cy. v. Hinds, » 61 Wn. App. 371 «, 381, 810 P.2d 84 (1991) ("As legal boundaries, lot lines are excluded from the definition of 'physical boundaries'"). As is clear from the record, the proposed annexations in this case are based *entirely* upon legal boundaries created by lot lines. The proposed annexations therefore would not further the second statutory objective. Second, there is also no evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that the proposed annexations wo~ld support the fourth statutory objective, prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. The City's boundaries as they presently stand are POesonably compact, and any irregularity which exists would not be remedied by the addition of the proposed annexations. (17] The Board found the proposed annexations furthered this objective because the annexation boundaries followed existing boundary and lot lines. See Board's decision; Clerk's 15 There is no evidence in the record, however, to support the Board's finding that the areas are socially within Black Diamond's natural community. See Board's decision; Clerk's Papers, at 1227. The present population of the 783 acres involved is only 10 persons. Clerk's Papers, at 64. There is thus no socially or locationally distinct group of residents at all, much less one naturally associated with Black Diamond. The Board's decision rests on the belief that future residents will feel an association with Black Diamond. The purpose of the first statutory objective is "preservation", however, not "creation" of communities and we reject the Board's finding in this respect. 678 KING COUNTY v, BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d'1024 Nov. 1993 Papers, at 1229. The focus of this objective, however, is not on whether the annexation boundaries are straight or crooked, but rather whether a proposed annexation causes or prevents unnatural projections or odd, impractical shapes. See, e.g., Snohomish Cy, v. Hinds, » 61 Wn, App. 371 «, 810 P.2d 84 (1991) (Board decision rejecting a proposed annexation which would have added an odd "inverted T" to the south end of Everett) . We also note that construing this objective to favor the use of straight boundary lines would subv~t the application of the second objective, which mandates the use of physical boundaries. The mere fact that the annexation boundaries are straight therefore does not support the Board's finding that the proposed annexations prevent "irregular boundaries", /16 Lastly,. the record does not support the Board's finding that the proposed annexations would further the eighth statutory objective, annexation of urban areas, since there is no evidence that the proposed annexations "are urban in character". As noted above, the present population of the annexation properties is 10 persons. Further, there are no business establishments in the area other than timber operations and ,. I, -------------------~-----c_------------------------- ',- no roadways which would suggest an urban character. (18] The sole reason the Board found this objective furthered was its conclusion that "(t]he proposed annexation site is in the process of transition from rural to urban use. II See Boardls decisionj Clerkls Papers, at 1229. However. the notion that boundary review boards may rely on future urbanization was specifically rejected in Spokane. There, we held: The Board also concluded that [sic] area to be annexed would soon become urban in character; however, we attach little weight to this finding. The urban character focused upon by 16 King County argues this objective would be "set back" by proposed annexations. This argument is not persuasive. While the proposed annexations will not correct any impractical boundari~ they do not rise to the level of "abnormally irregular". The boundaries which would result from the proposed annexations are not equivalent to the "inverted Til at issue in Snohomish or the lIisland" annexation proposed in Richland. Instead, this annexation falls within the rubric of the decision in Spokane. where "(t]he boundaries of the proposed annexation, while somewhat irregular, [were] not abnormally so. II » 97 Wn.2d at 927 «. Nov. 1993 KING COUNTY v. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 122 Wn.2d 646, 660 P.2d 1024 679 RCW» 36.93.180 «(8) above is *present* urban character. Future urbanization is of little relevance . II » 97 Wn.2d at 927 «. The holding in Spokane Cy. Fire Protec. Dist. 9 v. Spokane Cy. Boundary Review Bd., » 97 Wn.2d 922 «, 652 P.2d 1356 (1982) is consistent with the language of the objective, which addresses areas which II are II urban in character, not those which are IIbecoming" urban in character. RCW» 36.93.180 «(8). Under Spokane, the Board's reliance on the transitional status of the propos~d annexations' was incorrect. The Board's findings that the second, fourth, and eighth statutory objectives would -be furthered are thus not supported by the record. Against the positive impact of the proposed annexations on the first and third statutory objectives must be weighed the negative impact which the annexations would have ,on the last".' statutory objective, protection of lands designated as agricultural and rural. The record reveals that at the time of the Board'S decision, the proposed annexations were then deSignated as rural by the King County Comprehensive Plan and for forestry use by the area plan developed under the county comprehensive plan, the Tahoma/Raven Heights ~ Communities Plan. See Boardls decision; Clerk's Papers, at i220; see also testimony of Miriam Greenbaumj Clerkls Papers, at 17374. The areas in question were therefore "rural lands li which had been "designated for long term productive ag~icultural and resource use ll by a Tlcomprehensive plan". [19] Appellants correctly point out that in determining the significance of the harm to this objective, however, the actual usefulness of the land for long-term agricultural and resource use is relevant. In Spokane, we held that a proposed annexation of rural land did not seriously impede this objective where the land in question may have been of "maz:ginal " ... .-- . •. agricultural value".» 97 Wn.2d at 927 «. There is substantial evidence in the record that the land involved here is unsuitable for long-term forestry use. See, e.g., testimony of Michael Stevens, land use planning manager for Plum Creek; Clerk'a Papers, at 253-54; testimony of Lyn Keenan, Black Diamond 680 KING COUNTY v. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD Nov. 1993 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 planning consultant; Clerk's Papers, at 404. Given the evidence on this score, this objective is not significantly harmed by the proposed annexations. To summarize, two of the applicable statutory objectives would be significantly furthered, three would neither be furthered nor hindered, and one would be somewhat set back by the proposed annexations. While substantial evidence review of boundary review board decisions is not merely an exercise in counting objectives, our review of the record and the statutory objectives convinces us there is sufficient evidence to convince a fair-minded person that overall the objectives of RCW» 36.93.180 «would be furthered rather than hindered by approval of the proposed annexations. The decision of the Board was therefore supported by substantial evidence. V King County also challenges the Board's decision to approve the proposed annexations as "arbitrary or capricious'" under RCW» 36.93.160 «(6) (f). King County chiefly relies upon the Board's alleged failure to consider the effect of the GMA and the urban growth planning process in making its decision. [20] The test for determining whether agency action is arbitrary or capricious is well established in Washington. This court recently stated that arbitrary or capricious action is: "[W]illful and unreasoning action, taken without regard to or consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the action. Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous." Kendall v. Douglas, Grant, Lincoln & Okanogan Cys.:Pub. Hosp. Dist. 6, » 118 Wn.2d 1 «, 14, 820 P.2d 497 (1991) (quoting Abbenhaus v. Yakima, » 89 Wn.2d 855 «, 858-59, 576 P.2d 888 (1978)). Accord, Schrempp v. Munro, » 116 Wn.2d 929 «, ·.938, 809 P.2d 1381 (1991) . The basis for King County's argument is its claim that the Board's decision to approve these annexations subverted the Nov. 1993 KING COUNTY v. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 urban growth area designation process under ~e GMA. As described in more detail above, the GMA mandates that urban growth areas will be designated by the counties in consultation with the municipalities. Former RCW 681 » 36.70A.110 «. Once these areas are designated, annexations like the one in this case will be prohibited. See RCW 35A. 14.005. If the annexations are accomplished prior to the designation of the urban growth areas, then by law they will become part of the Black Diamond urban growth area. Former RCW » 36.70A «. 110(1). [21] King County is understandably concerned that these annexations will essentially allow Black Diamond to " CITY JFRENTON September '15, '1995 SUBJECT:, ANNEXATION RUMORS ' Dear Property Owner: " ' Mayor" Earl Clymer < Th~ Renton City Council has accepted ,a petition to annex for, the area of the East Renton Plateau shown shaded on the enclo~edmap:' Despite the pty's efforts to provide clear information' regarding, the extent of the Burnstead Annexation boundaries, some confusion persists. Pleas'e be advised that your property is l!ll1 included in the proposed annexation. ' I would also,like to clarify the City'S role 'with regard to annexations in general. The City Council has the ability to initiate, election annexations of areas contiguous 'to, the city limits. ' Currently, 'the City' has no plans to initiate an aimexationin' your area. Aside from this' option", annexation is initiated by you, the residents and property owners in the Urban desiguated portion of King County'-' " , It is true that your property is witIiin Renton's potential 'aruiexation area; However, this only 'means that your neighborhood ~ annex. 'County planning under the State's Growth Management , Act defined areas for urban groWth with the assumption thai these areas would eventually wish to annex. There, is no deadline .and certainly no requirement ·for annexation., Apnexation ,and , incorporation are options, but not ·your only options. Until your' neighborhood, repreSented by' voters or property owners, decides to change the current situation, the area will remain' in unincorporated King County. " , Should you and your neighbors eventually decide that annexation is your best alternative, Renton would welcoineyour request.' . If you have any further questions regard ing annexation or the Burnstead Annexation in particular , , please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. 'Thank you. r~\......)Vv..rV\l\O'A ;Earl Clymer , Mayor,' " .... , . 200 Mill Avenue South'-' Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 TIllS PAPER CONTAINS 50% RECYCLED MATERlAL, 10% POSfCONSUMER -".--..-' • ·1 , " ') . ; , ,! , I '. : " " . '.' " " I" ',' " " , ' 1 > " " " , ,'!. : .. ',' " (. -, , , , ,,' .:'. " ~, .' ,," " , ' -,' , BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Annexation Area ____ Renton City Limits Proposed Annexation Area ~ PLANNlNq/BUlLDING/pUBUC WORKS e CITY OF RENTON ~ R,HacOnie. D,Vlone.k:i + ~ + O.Dennison O~I ~~1~01~00~~2~0100 1: 12000 l!' 31 March 1995 CONCURRENCE DATE f..-/$-9S NAME INITIAL/DATE 6l-....~8 U~ q!./~ ~-, i(~ ... w 41l~ ,t'~(3 .L. -, ___ r...z o/J- v September 13, 1995 SUBJECT: ANNEXATION RUMORS Dear Property Owner: The Renton City Council has accepted a petition to annex for the area of the East Renton Plateau shown shaded on the enclosed map. Despite the City's efforts to provide clear information regarding the extent of the Burnstead Annexation boundaries, some confusion persists. Please be advised that your property is llQ1 included in the proposed annexation. I would also like to clarify the City'S role with regard to annexations in general .. The City Council has the ability to initiate election annexations of areas contiguous to the city limits. The decision of whether to accept annexation remains with the voters. The City currently has no plans to initiate an annexation in your area. Aside from this option, annexation is initiated by you, the residents and property owners in the Urban designated portion of King County. It is true that your property is within Renton's potential annexation area. However, this only means that your neighborhood J<lI!l annex. County planning under the State's Growth Management Act defined areas for urban growth with the assumption that these areas. would eventually wish to annex. There is no deadline and certainly no requirement for annexation. Annexation and incorporation are options)but not~ur only options. Until your neighborhood, represented by voters or property owners, deci e" change the current situation, the area will remain in unincorporated King County. ~ Should you and your neighbors eventually decide that annexation is your best alternative, Renton would welcome your request. If you have any further questions regarding annexation or the Burnstead Annexation in particular, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, Earl Clymer Mayor BRIARWD/od <, " ~ 'D593500(1l0 LUQUETIE ROYL 14309 SE 140TH RENTON WA 98059 0593500040 BULPIN NORMAN E 14028 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0593500070 RANDOLPH ROBERT E+F NANCY 14011143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1072000020 HARRIS ROGERL+TRACY L 14213 148THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072000050 SCHMEICHEL WILLIS H+CHARLEN 14311148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000080 COXROBERTE 14332 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 1072000110 KESSLER JULIE F 14302 148THPL SE RENTONWA 1072000140 MORRIS JOHN W 14204 148THPL SE RENTON WA 1072000170 98059 98059 98059 MILLER GARY A+ET AL 14217 149THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000200 RERECICH GERALD M+BONNIE L 14235 149THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 0593500020 JASLOWSKI DELORES PO BOX 2095 RENTONWA 98055 0593500050 GARNES DATON A 14300 SE 141ST RENTONWA 0593500080 98059 MOQUIN JAMES J+MELANlE A 14021143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000030 SANCHEZ JOSEPH H+SHARON I 14223 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000060 FISCHER PETER A+SUSAN LOUIS 14321 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000090 ASKILSRUD ODD G 14322 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000120 JOHNSON LAURENCE A+DEBRA C 14224 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000150 CRUMBAKER WILLIAMH 14201 149TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000180 MCNAMEE STEPHEN M+SHEII:.A A 14225 149TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072000210 JONES JERRYD+KATHRYNL 14901 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98059 0593500030 NEECE DAVID L+JOANNE L 14022143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0593500060 WILLIAMSON DONALD W+LILLIAN 14007 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1072000010 DOST ROBERT W+PAMELA J 14203 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000040 GILLESPIE DAVID C & NANCY L 14301148TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072000070 PROULX MICHAEL P+STEPHANIE 14331148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000100 WOODEN GILBERT L 14312148THPLSE RENTONWA 98059 1072000130 KROETSCHING W G 14214 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000160 AYERS RANDALL S+LORRAINE 14209 149THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000190 NEEDHAM THOMAS A+JANlS M 14231149THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072000220 MCCORMICK JOHN T 14907 SE 143RD PL RENTON W A 98059 1072000230 ROLLER RICHARD L 14915 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98059 1072000260 CHAMBERS WILLIAM T III 15011 SE 143RD PL RENTON WA 98059 1072000290 BROWNGARYL 14306 15 1ST PL SE RENTONWA 1072000320 PARSONS JOHN I 15026 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 1072000350 DASOVICK ROBERT M 14236 150THPL SE 98059 98059 RENTONWA 98059 1072000380 FROHREICH DOUGLAS R 14235 150TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000410 HAFNER lAMES G 14226 149TH PL SE RENTONWA 1072000440 WHITE ALTON S 1R 14202 149THPL SE 98059 RENTONWA 98059 1072010010 PREDICIEDWARD+STEFANIAKMAR 15132 SE 140THPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1072010040 STITES HOWARD F 19512 NE 144TH PL WOODINVILLE WA 98072 1072000240 GRIMM HERMAN & BARBARA 14923 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98059 1072000270 STROUP RICHARD L+SARAL YN E 15019 SE 143RD PL RENTON WA 98059 1072000300 COMER I A 14302 151ST PL SE RENTONWA 1072000330 98059 LEWIS JOHN A & ARLENE K 15020 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98059 1072000360 KEENE ROBERT V+SHARON A 14232 150TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072000390 CULVERDONALD+JOANNER 14918 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98059 1072000420 BONG TIMOTHYM+CATHY G 14218 149THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900180 SIMPSON SHANE W L+CARLINE B 14201144THAVESE RENTONWA 98059 1072010020 CARLSON CHRISTOPHER 15124 SE 140TH PL RENTONWA 98059 1072010050 ANDERSON lAMES E+NANCYL 15109 SE 140THPL RENTONWA 98059 1072000250 DECERCEGB&EE 15003 SE 143RD PL RENTON WA 98059 1072000280 GARRISON BILL I 14303 151ST PL SE RENTONWA 1072000310 98059 MlNNITI RICHARD R+DEE ANN 15030 S E 143RD PL RENTON WA 98059 1072000340 MORASCHDA VID W+LlNDA L 15006 SE 143RD PL RENTON WA 98059 1072000370 DEVINE JUDY 14231150THPL SE RENTONWA 1072000400 . 98059 DUVALL DEAN D+EDITHH 14904 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98059 1072000430 KOVACICH MICHAEL R+CORALINN 14210 149THPLACE SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900170 SIMMONS THOMAS E 116426THSW SEATTLE WA 98146 1072010030 BROWN ROBERT S+ELLS MONA S 15116 SE 140THPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1072010060 JOHNSTON ROBERT M+LlNDA I 15115 SE 140THPL RENTON WA 98059 I 1072010070 KELLER RICHARD R 15123 SE 140TIiPL RENTONWA 98059 1072010100 MCCALLUM LARRY E 15122 SE 141STPL RENTONWA 98059 1072010130 ALLWlNE HOBERT S 15107 SE 141ST PL RENTON WA 98059 1072010160 CRUMP GEORGE W JR+LESLlE E 15129 SE 141ST PL RENTONWA 98059 1072010190 WEBB FRANCIS & MARGARET 14126 150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010220 BARTON DALE A 14108 150TIiPL S RENTONWA 1072010250 CARTERJONC 14107 150TIi PL SE RENTONWA 1072010280 WALTERS ALFRED J 14125 150TIi PL SE 98059 98059 RENTONWA 98059 1072010310 CRAIG TIiOMAS R+TIiERESA L 14132 149TIi PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010340 SANDS MICHAEL R & MARY A 14102 149TIiPLACE SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010080 SPEARS DONALD E+BEVERL Y A 14243 SE 129TIiPL RENTONWA 98059 1072010110 MCCALLUM LARRY E 15122 SE 141STPL RENTONWA 98059 1072010140 GUTHRIE RONALD J 15113 SE 141ST PL RENTON WA 98059 1072010170 ANGLIN BARBARA LYNN 14138 150TIi PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010200 ELLIS MARK E+GAlL R 14120 150TIi PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010230 PECK ANDREW J+JO ANN 14104 150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010260 MOORING ROGER W 14113 150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010290 KONO ARTHURM 14131150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 1072010320 PAHMElERMAX C 14122 149TIi PL SE RENTONWA 1072010350 98059 98055 PORTER JAMES C+DOLORES J 14024 149TIi PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010090 PINKLEY RODGER W+KAREN 15130 SE 141ST PL RENTONWA 98059 1072010120 LITTLEJOHN JAMES H+SHIRLEY J 15108 SE 141ST PL RENTONWA 98059 1072010150 SULLNAN LINDA M 15121 SE 141ST PL RENTON WA 98059 1072010180 MILES JOHN A+COLGAN,TERESA 14132 150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010210 HALL DOUGLAS K+JOANK 14114 150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010240 LOWE MICHAEL S 14103 150TIi PL SE RENTONWA 1072010270 BEALS ELDON G 14119 150TIi PL SE RENTONWA 1072010300 98059 98059 LEWIS AARON D+DIANNA 14137 150TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010330 ZECHA NANCY J 14112 149TIiPL SE RENTONWA 1072010360 98059 MOWER ARDYCE L+PETRY,JUDY A 14014 149TIiPL SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900150 CURTIS A & NANCY E BARBER 14218 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010400 CHATHAM EDWARD L & EARLENE 14025 149TH SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010430 MOREY TERRY GEORGE+SHARON L 14121 149TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010460 WlLSON ANDREW M & KERRY K 14130 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010490 COOKS lAMES V 14112 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010520 THORSON DAVID M & MARGARET 14101148THPLACE SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010550 WALLSCGARY 14117 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010580 TAYLOR TIMOTHY I 14135 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020030 KELLY DONALD I 14417 151ST PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020060 YU YONG SO+IUNG IA 15015 SE 145THPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1072010380 CHAN NANCY 555 RENTON VlLLAGE PL #280 RENTONWA 98055 1072010410 GARLAND BARRY+PATRICIA 14101 149TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010440 DENNlS ROBERT E & MARY E 14131149THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010470 THOMPSON THOMAS A 14124 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010500 MCLEAN SCOT I 14106 148TH PLACE SW RENTONWA 98059 1072010530 BROWNTEDR 14105 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010560 BAXTER RICHARD F 14123 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020010 CARRIGAN SHARON L 14401151STPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020040 BERGQUIST GREG A 14425 151STPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020070 JACKSON SHARONL 15023 SE 145THPL RENTONWA 98059 1072010390 DffiTZ ELVERA M 14015 149THPL SE RENTONWA 1072010420 98059 LEE WlLLIAMH+VICKIL 14111149THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010450 BARRY PATRICK I+SHIRLEY A 14136 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010480 RESETARMlCHAEL C 14118148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010510 KmSLER ALLAN J JR 14102 148TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072010540 OBERG STEPHEN G+DONNA I NOR 14111148THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072010570 ELLISON THOMAS JR+KARLA S 14129 148THPLACE SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020020 MERCER ROLYNN G+CYNDI M 14409 151ST PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072020050 POETKER JOHNR 15020 SE 145THPL RENTON WA 98059 1072020080 SICKEL GEORGE+KARENM 15107 SE 145TH PL RENTONWA 98059 1072020090 FOLEY MICHAEL JOSEPH 14004 149TII PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072020120 ZANDELL CHARLES 14426 151ST PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072020150 AUNGST JACK L 14402 151ST PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072030030 COMBS RICHARD EDWARD 15007 SE 139TII PL RENTONWA 98059 1072030060 SPANGLERDOUGLASE+SHERRY A SPANGLER,ROYE+WYLAM m05 SE 139TIIPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1072030090 OLERUD GARY A 15129 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 1072030120 98059 WONG ClllNG+SUE YAMAGUCHI 15112 SE 139TIIPL RENTON WA 98059 1072030150 FARRELL MASON G JR+LINDA H 15014 SE 139TIIPL RENTON WA 98059 1072030180 TAYLOR KENNETII L+CHERI L 14920 SE 139TIIPL RENTON WA 98059 1072030210 GIDNERRICHARD V & GRITAL 14825 SE 138TII PL RENTONWA 98059 1072020100 BOGE QISTEEN+CHERYLE JETT-B 14438151STPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072020130 DUNN ROBERT K+BEVERL YD 14418 151ST PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072030010 S~TGARYA+DIANE PO BOX 337 RENTON W A . 98057 1072030040 BRESHEARS ALBERT & SHIRLEY 15015 SE 139TII PL RENTONWA 98059 1072030070 SANDO DONALD W+LINDA J 15113 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030100 KRITSONIS GEORGE 13817152NDAVESE RENTON WA 98059 1072030130 DANIELS JAMES & DIANE 15104 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030160 CARPENTER TIIOMAS D 15006 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030190 SERA LARRY M 13912 149TII PL SE RENTONWA 1072030220 98059 REICH EDWIND+KAREN M 14901 SE 138TII PL RENTONWA 98059 1072020110 ROLLOLAZO ANDRE 14432 151ST PL E RENTON WA 98059 1072020140 AKERS LARRY J+MICKI LORI 14410 151STPLACE SOUTHEAST RENTON WA 98059 1072030020 OPOLKA HELMIJT G+GAYLE Y 14929 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030050 KALBERG ARTIIURB 15023 SE 139TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030080 MORAN MICHAEL D 15121 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030110 DILLINGHAM STEPHEN C 15120 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030140 NAKAMOTO ALLEN & JUNE 44-3 Y AGUCHI DAI NAKA-KUYOKOHAMAJAPAN 0 1072030170 CA VIT STEPHEN T 14928 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 1072030200 98059 MOYE_MARVIN C+SARAH JPEROT 13 900 149TII PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072030230 BESLOW ED J+JODY L 14913 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA ·98059 i072030240 BESLOW EDWARD J+JODYL 14913 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030270 CHRISTENSEN SCOTT+DlANE L 15019 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030300 HAlLGRIMSON KEVINE+KAREN R 15117 SE 138TII PL RENTONWA 98059 1072030330 CHAN ERIC CHI-TAK+ASHLI YIM 15118 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030360 WOLFORD DOUGLAS A+LIZ M 15020 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030390 NOBLE G SCOTT & TERRY S 22908 SE 139TII CT ISSAQUAH W A 98027 1072030420 MAHLER WlLLlAM C & SUSAN C 14830 SE 138TIIPL RENTON WA 98059 1072030450 MARCOE EDWARD JOHN 14714 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030480 RICHARDSON GARRY+DONNA 14810 SE 139TII CT RENTON WA 98059 1072030510 HEINZ ERNEST J 14801 SE 139TII CT RENTONWA 98059 1072030250 MACPHERSON RICHARD LINCOLN 15003 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030280 Y AMAGUCm FREDERICK A 15101 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030310 OBERG DUANE C+PATRICIA L 15125 SE 138TII PL RENTONWA 98059 1072030340 JONES GEORGE R&SANDRA R 15110 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030370 LINDSAY RICHARD A 15012 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030400 WADE CRAIG G & CECILLIA E 14914 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030430 KAMPERSCHROER JOHN 0 14824 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030460 AMlRASAMV 14715 SE 138TII PL RENTONWA 1072030490 98059 RUGGIERO FRANK T+NICHOLAS C 14806 SE 13 9TII CT RENTONWA 98059 1072030520 SMITII BRIAN D+LINDA L 14805 SE 139TII COURT RENTONWA 98059 1072030260 ISAACSON DONALD+YVONNE 15011 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030290 LEE JOHN PAUL 15109 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 1072030320 98059 LENT HOWARD L+BETTY 15126 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030350 JAMES CHRISTOPHERM 15102 SE 138TIIPL RENTONWA 98059 1072030380 MEDVED JERRY B 15004 SE 138TII PL RENTONWA 1072030410 98059 CERENZIA DA VlD R+MARY G 14906 SE 138TII PL RENTON WA 98059 1072030440 . HOWARDEDWARDW 13741148TIIPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1072030470 CAMP BARNEY & MARGARET 13825 148TII PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1072030500 LARSEN K1ME & SANDRA R 14802 SE 139TII CT RENTONWA 98059 1072030530 GAETZKE GARYL 13907 149TII PL SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900160 TJONNELAND ELLING+HAZEL K 17409 SE 240lH KENTWA 98042 1079450030 MARZALEK MARIAN 14726 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450060 BELLS BEACH INC 13535 SE 189lH PL RENTONWA 1079450090 98058 BANG BRIAN I & TERI A 14709 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 98059 1079450120 JOHNSON K ROBERT 14727 SE 145lH PL RENTON WA 98059 1079450150 YOROZUKENNElH T+lEANNE S 14807 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450180 BURSTEIN PAUL+GARDENlER MON 14825 SE 145lHPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1079450210 GRAHAM TERRY A+BONNlElEAN 15001 SE 145lHPL RENTON WA 98059 9347900190 MAGNUSON lAMES C+KlM R 14125 144lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450270 YOUNG WlLLIAMR 14422 150lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450010 GORDEN JAMES M+KATIllE S 14409 148lH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1079450040 CONLEY ROBERT M+DORIS A 14720 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 98059 1079450070 YOSHIDA BRYAN R+JUDY R 14702 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450100 STROHSCHEIN DONALD & JULIE 14715 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450130 SMl1HGRANT 14733 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 1079450160 BOSSI RICHARD 14813 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 1079450190 98059 98059 CLARK ROBERT R+ADELE 14905 SE 145lH PL RENTON WA 98059 1079450220 SMl1H RICHARD STEPHEN 15003 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 98059 1079450250 RICHARDSON MACHEL 15006 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 98059 1079450280 COOK DENNIS I 14416 150lH SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450020 DUNN ALLENH+NANCYB 14732 SE 145lHPL RENTON W A 98059 1079450050 KAMPHAUS HENRYB+DIANE L 14714 SE 145lHPL RENTON WA 98059 1079450080 GOUK RITCHm W 14703 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 1079450110 98059 HECT BRADLEY+KELLYRENA L 14721 SE 145lH PL RENTONWA 98059 1079450140 OLEARY LARRY P 14801 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 1079450170 98059 CONLIN lAMES M+SUSAN S 14819 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450200 BUECHLER DANE J+MARIAN C 14911 SE 145lHPL RENTON WA 98059 1079450230 STROH HERBERT W+MARY E 15005 SE 145lHPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450260 BOTCH JEFFERY I 14428 150lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450290 SWORD WILLIAM A+MARGARET A 14412 150lH A VB SE RENTON WA 98059 i079450300 BECKELMAN LINDA L 14408150THAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450330 AKERS JOSEPH & KELLI 14411150THAVESE RENTONWA 98059 1079450360 . MILLER GERALD E 14908 SE 145TH PL RENTONWA 1079450390 COURTNEY RICHARD L 14407 149TH PL SE 98059 RENTONWA 98059 1079450420 BARILLEAUX RAY C+MARJORY M 14816 SOUTHEAST 145THPLACE RENTON WA 98059 1079450450 FRISBIE DONALD C 14406 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300010 JONES ROBERT C+HOLL Y H 13920 147TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300040 WALSH THOMAS W+LYNN K 13822 147THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300070 BURCHETT RICHARD 14644 SE 138THPL RENTON WA 98059 1080300100 EARL S & EVVEL YN L ROBINSON 14626 SE 138THPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450310 SATTERLEE JOHN F 14404 150TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450340 BERNHARDT SHARON H 14419150THAVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1079450370 SIEGER BRUCE 1+DJANE M 14414 149TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1079450400 AHEARN JOHN V JR 14413 149THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450430 TOOKE ANDREW T+CONNIE J 14806 SE 145TH PL RENTONWA 98059 9347900210 HARWICK LEINR+MARY P 14113144THAVESE RENTONWA 98059 1080300020 JOHNSON STEVEN L 13910 147TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300050 FLEURY VERNE K+JACQUI L 14708 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 98059 1080300080 MASS WILLIAM R 14638 SE 138TH PL RENTONWA 1080300110 98059 WILLIAMS DAVID O+CHRISTINE 13804 146THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450320 BELL LARRY D+DEL YNN S 14405 150TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450350 MCINTOSH RANDY H+DEWANNA F 14427 150TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1079450380 BYE ARTHUR & BARBARA 14408 149TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 1079450410 BEN ISAAC S P TAMMYR 14824 SE 145THPL RENTONWA 98059 1079450440 LE TONY+PHYLICIA H NGUYEN 14412 148THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900200 HOWE LARRY 13636 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300030 GOODMAN ONICA A 13830 147THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300060 PENNER WARRICK V+LINDA KAIS 14702 SE 138THPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1080300090 ENZMINGER DAVID P 14632 SE 138THPL RENTONWA 98059 1080300120 SCUDDER JAMES L 13803 146THPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300130 MAYrUMDONALD E 138111461HPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300160 MEYERRW 13835 1461H PL SE RENTONWA 1080300190 98059 STANFlLL KENNE1H J+MARY E 13836 1461H PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300220 HARR JEFFREY K +LESLlE A 14629 SE 1381HPLACE RENTONWA 98059 1080300250 LUCHlNl MARK D 138311471HPLACE SE RENTONWA 98059 1523059010 DARDEN GARY R & AMYANN I 140221441HAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1523059068 REGAL BRUCE H+MARY L 14002 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059114 TOMPKINS DENNIS L 324 SUMNER AVE SUMNER WA 98390 1523059128 PARSONS GORDON R+SANDRA D 140431441HAVESE RENTON WA 98059 1523059151 KLlNKERNESTE 140041441HAVESE RENTON WA 98059 1080300140 KiRCHNER lAMES F+WENDY 0 13819 1461H PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300170 1HOMPSON DANR 13839 1461HPL SE RENTONWA 1080300200 SCHEUFFELE A DEAN 13832 1461HPL SE 98059 RENTON WA 98059 1080300230 BRUCE GERALD D 14635 SE 1381H PL RENTONWA 1080300260 98059 HODGES MARK G+ALMA L 13909 1471H PL SE RENTONWA 98059 1523059052 HEINTZ JEFF 14404 SE 1391HPL RENTONWA 1523059069 98059 TRAVERS ROY A+EDlE R 14015 1441HAVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1523059119 WEISE DALE M+ JOHNSON,LAURIE T 14023 1441H AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1523059138 BREES HAROLD F 14318 141ST CT SE RENTONWA 1523059155 98059 ELLIS THEODORE A+CONNIE R 14014 1441H AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300150 BERGAMIN ANTON 13827 1461HPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300180 MARSHALL DALE C 13840 1461HPL SE RENTON WA 98059 1080300210 . HASTINGS GARY C PO BOX 2092 RENTON WA 98059 1080300240 JORGENSON MARTY A+DEBORAHL 13823 1471HPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1080300270 HAMBLIN RANDALL E+HEIDI G 13919 1471HPL SE RENTONWA 98059 1523059063 SHEWAMOTIC 155 GARDENIA ST CLEARWATER BEACH FL 1523059074 GROSSO KEIrn & ANDRESSA 983 N ANTELOPE DR STRASBURG CO 80136 1523059125 FRASERDANlEL E 140071441HAVESE RENTONWA 98059 1523059147 34630 QUINTINSKlE MARK E+KELLEY I 14403 SE 1391HPL RENTONWA 98059 1523059159 MARTINEZ MARIO E+DOROTHY H 14048 1441H AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 i523059160 BEITO ROGER G 21908 234TII AVE SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 1523059182 OBERMILLER LOLA E 14004 SE 141ST ST 98038 RENTONWA 98059 1523059190 HOPPE LARRY W 23312 FRIAR TUCK LN EDMONDS WA 98020 1523059200 MCCALL PAULYNE 1916 PIKE PLACE #1234 SEATTLE WA 98101 1523059204 WASHBURN MICHAEL J+LEIGH M 14036 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 2155500020 BRUCKERSW 13844 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 2155500050 98059 HEIKKlNEN ELMER C & VIOLA J 13921 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 2155500080 BLACKWELL JOHN H 13920 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 2195900010 RAMSEUR RICHARD W+MARL YS 14003 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 2195900040 NIEMIDJANB 14020 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059163 KROMDIANE 14042 144TII AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900220 HUNT DANIEL C 14107144TIIAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 1523059198 STENSLIE JOHN L IT & PAMELA 14012 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059202 . HAGEN GARY & DEBBIE 14029 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059224 FRANK RONN J+SUSAN M 14037 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 2155500030 SYLVESTER JAMES R+NANCY G 13905 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 2155500060 DICKSON STEADMAN F JR 13929 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 2155500090 CARLSON MARY A 13912 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 2195900020 BACCUS DONALD E 14011 SE 141ST ST 98059 RENTON WA 98059 2216100010 BARBUS PETER P JR 14003 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059180 NIEMI GEORGE H+GRACIE B 14012 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059189 EADESKEVlN 14418 SE 139TIIPL RENTONWA 1523059199 98059 SMlTII L D C & CRAJG S L 14018 SE 142ND RENTON WA 98059 1523059203 CORWJN PERRY P 14030 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 2155500010 PlllLMLEE VELMA L 13850 SE 142ND RENTONWA 98059 2155500040 MANSFORD EUGENE N 13913 SOUTIIEAST 141ST RENTONWA 98059 2155500070 FUJIMURA YOSHIO 13928 SE 141ST RENTON WA 98059 2155500100 CHERMACK ROSEMARY 13904 SE 141ST RENTON WA 98059 2195900030 KEILSUSANE 14020 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 2216100020 SCHILLER RANDALL L 14011 SE 142ND ST 98059 RENTON WA 98059 2216100030 BOURGARD LOIS F 14017 SE 142ND RENTONWA 2216100060 98059 JACKDA VID M & ffiANNE M 14109 SE 142ND ST RENTON WA 98059 2216100090 HORVA1HDAVIDL 14211142ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 2216100120 EATON LARRY E 14235 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100150 AMENTBRIAN 14259 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100180 DAWSONDAVIDR 14322 141ST cr SE RENTONWA 2216100210 98059 MARQUART DAVID A+MELISSA C 14300 141ST COURT SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100240 HALL JAMES A , 14313 141ST cr SE RENTONWA 2216100270 98059 WELSHEIMER WILLIAM P JR 14100 1441H ST SE RENTON WA 98059 2223059001 MAGGARD ELTON 14415 SE 1441H RENTON WA 98059 2216100040 LEWIS AUTRY M 14025 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 2216100070 BALLARD JAMES A 14115 SE 142ND ST 98059 RENTONWA 98059 2216100100 PRICE PHILLIP & KA'IHLEEN 14217 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100130 MCMILLEN GARY J 14243 142ND AVE SE SEATTLE WA 98059 2216100160 HANKSBILLYJ 14122 S E 1441H ST RENTONWA 98059 2216100190 HOLDER ROBERT W & JENNIFER 14312 141ST cr SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100220 JANDERS KATHERINE A 14305 141ST cr SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100250 TANDBERG ARNOLD E 14319 141ST cr SE RENTON WA 98059 2216100280 LANSING DONNL 18026 31ST AVENE ARLINGTON WA 2223059051 98223 ffiWETT EVERETT P+ANN E 14404 1461H PL SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100050 GOGUEN JANET A+GILLIAM GARY 14101 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 2216100080 DOYEA RICK L+LORI ANN 14203 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100110 SCHAFER ALLEN D+DIANA J 14227 142ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 2216100140 BIRDJ 14251142ND AVE, SE RENTON WA 98059 2216100170 HOLMSTROM H R 14116 SE 1441H RENTON WA 98059 2216100200 LEICKDALEG 14306 141ST cr SE RENTONWA 2216100230 98059 CENTKOWSKI KRZYSZTOF 14309 141ST cr SE RENTONWA 98059 2216100260 LOPATADONALDR 14106 SE 1441H ST RENTONWA 98059 2216100290 WIGHT MITCHELL S+SANDRA A 14008 SE 1441H ST RENTONWA 98059 4169900010 TORGRAMSEN AR 14413 SE 1391HPL RENTON WA 98059 4169900020 4169900030 4169900040 LOGAN ROBERT A AGUILAR JESSE PHILLIPS W CLARK +DANA D 139S114STHAVESE 1394S 145TH SE 14001 145TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 980S9 4169900050 4169900060 4169900070 BARNES RONALD L & RE COTTON FRANKLlN J BROWN SCOTT THOMAS+LAURALY 12404 SE 26TH PL 14017145THAVE SE 140lS 14STHAVE SE BELLEVUEWA 98005 RENTONWA 980S9 RENTONWA 980S9 4169900080 4169900090 4169900100 SCHRAMM LYLE RAY YOUNG CLAUDE THURMAN JACK M 14033 145TH SE 14041 145TH AVE SE 140S1145THAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 980S9 5104200010 5104200020 5104200030 BATES JULIA J LENTSCHL BATTSON ELISABETH 14708 SE 142ND 14700 S E 142ND ST 14642 SE 142ND RENTONWA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5104200040 5104200050 5104200060 KOCH HERBERT+CONNIE STEVENSON DONALD W KlNG ROBERT M+PATSY J 14636 SE 142ND ST 14628 SE 142ND 14620 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 S104200070 S104200080 S104200090 SHEPARD THOMAS M CRAWFORD DENNIS L DITLEFSEN W E JR & SHIRLEY 14612 SE 142ND ST 14604 SE 142ND ST 14040 146TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 S104200100 S104200110 S104200120 KENDALL SUSAN ANN JACKSONMR WHITMORE RICK+PAMELA J 14611 SE 140THPL 14619 SE 140TH PL 14627 SE 140THPL RENTONWA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5104200130 S104200140 S1042001S0 GRIFFITH GARY L+DOLL Y M BECKELMAN MARC D MCMAHON BERNARD J 1463S SE 140THPL 1464S SE 140THPL 146S1 SE 140TH PL RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 S104200160 S104200170 S104200180 DIXONLJ TULIP DAVID G PLATH DONALD E+DENISE A 14028 147TH PL SE 14024 147TH PL SE 14016 147TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 980S9 RENTONWA 980S9 S104200190 S104200200 S104200210 TRIPLETTMO ROETHLE KENNETH W STRAUB SANDRA K+EMERSONROB 14008 147 PL S E 14000 147TH PL SE 14035169THAVESE RENTON WA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5104200220 BIRCHERCW 13938 147 PL S E RENTON WA 98059 5104200250 CRAIN MAXINE 13937 147TH PL SE RENTONWA 5104200280 98059 NGUYEN TONY HOANG MANH 14009 147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200310 WILLIAMS OWEN 14628 SE 140THPL RENTON WA 5104200340 ROSSNAGEL LAURIE B 14604 SE 140TH PL 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5104200370 WlLEYLOIS PO BOX 613 RENTONWA 5104200400 MAUCHER JAMES R 14631 SE 140TH ST 98057 RENTONWA 98059 5104200430 SANTI LARRY D 5045 NE 23RD ST RENTONWA 5104200460 98056 PIETERS WESSEL H+FREDA J 13932146THAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200490 NEEDHAMRK POBOX 2516 RENTONWA 98056 5104200230 VANCE DENNIS J 13930 147TH PL SE RENTONWA 5104200260 98059 MORRISON BARBARA 1+WARREN L 3322 99TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 5104200290 RAULJ 14019 147TH PL S E RENTON WA 98059 5104200320 CHANDLER RONALD L 14620 SE 140TH PL RENTONWA 98059 5104200350 RANDALL JACQUELINE S 14603 SE 140TH RENTONWA 98059 5104200380 JOINER AL YIN & SHIRLEY 18203 140TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98058 5104200410 BACON SHEILA M 14635 SE 140TH ST RENTONWA 5104200440 98059 FULFER ANTHONY A+BARBARA E 12232148THAVESE RENTONWA 98059 5104200470 KASEBURG SCOTT L & KATHRYN 14515 SE 139THPL RENTONWA 98059 5104200500 SOTOJR 14003146THAVESE RENTONWA 98059 5104200240 PETERSLB 13929 147THPL S E RENTON W A 98059 5104200270 NGUYEN PHILIP 19408 134TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 5104200300 LUSHERWF 14636 SE 140THPL RENTON WA 98059 5104200330 . BURNETT DENNIS & CAROL 14612 140THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200360 PAULK CHARLOTTE V 14611 SE 140TH ST RENTON WA 98059 5104200390 JOUPER IEFREY A&CHERYL R 14627 SOUTHEAST 140TH STREET RENTON WA 98059 5104200420 RASMUSSEN THOMAS E 14634 SE 140TH ST RENTONWA 98059 5104200450 VANDER VELDEN KARL M+LISA 13944 146THAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200480 STEWART 1R DAIVD BRUCE+TERE 13943 146THAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200510 PASICH NICK 1R+ROBERTA 14011146THAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200520 IAEGER JOAN D 14019 146lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200550 SMITII NORMAN S+CHERYL 14043146lHAVBSE RENTONWA 98059 5104200580 RHODESB 14044 145lH S E RENTON WA 98059 5104200610 TIEU HARRY H K +VIVIAN B 14020 145lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200640 FISHERFR 13950 145lH A VB S E RENTON WA 98059 9347900230 GUNDERSON ROSEMARY I 14319 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5104220030 LOMA INVESTORS GROUP 23515 SE 137TH ISSAQUAHWA 98027 5104220060 TAKI GARYY+SUSAN GILLILAND 14239 147TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220090 OUANORODNEYRKAlHLEEN A POBOX 2156 RENTONWA 98059 5104220120 BENNETT PRISCILLA 14246 147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200530 BALL WESLEYL 14027 146lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200560 JACOBSON MICHAEL R 14518 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 5104200590 NEWSCHWANDER BARRY J 2641 36lH A VB W SEATTLE WA 98199 5104200620 TRIMBLE ROBERT F 14012145lHAVBSE RENTONWA 98059 5104200650 POTHIER ALAN REYNOLDS LORI 61811lHAVB KIRKLANDWA 5104220010 IMOTOT 14637 S E 142ND ST 98033 RENTON WA 98059 5104220040 STEFANIAK BARBARA & ROBERT 22607 PETER GRUBB RD SE RENTONWA 98058 5104220070 BODEAUBRADLEY J+LORI A 14247 147TH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220100 ULRICH MARTIN D+KIMBERL Y D 5254 147lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220130 BRAIS JERROLD R+ JEANIE L 14238 147lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200540 HARRISDEBORAHJ 14035146lHAVBSE RENTONWA 98059 5104200570 WANNEMACHER WILBERT 14506 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 98059 5104200600 KNIGHT DAVID H+ALLENE B 102888lHNE BELLEVUE WA 98004 5104200630 REESE BRADLEYR & P H 14004 145lH A VB SE RENTONWA 98059 5104200660 GlRARDTK 13934 145lH S E RENTON WA 98059 5104220020 BUCY JOHN+BARBIE 14211 147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220050 PATEEVANW+BRENDAM 14231147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220080 OLSEN SHEILA J 14251147THPLSE RENTON WA 98059 5104220110 MINERKAlHLEEN 14250 14lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220140 HAGEN RANDALL T+DIANALEE 14230 147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5104220150 MORENRJ 14224 147TII PL S E RENTON WA 5104220180 SHEEKLEY CARY D 14705 SE 142ND ST 98059 RENTON WA 98059 5127000030 PARHANIEMI ROBERT N 13821 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000060 ELLIS·MENZEL ELIZABETH J 13803 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000090 CHIKUSA JEFF A+LAURIE A 13713 SE 144TH ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000120 CARRDONALDR+RITAL 13609 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000150 PESCHEK DENNIS M 13451 SE 141ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000180 DEHA VILAND ALFRED ALAN 13433 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000210 YAMAMOTO DAVID M 13420 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000240 TIBBETTS SUSAN 13440 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5104220160 WELLS RALPH T JR+PATRlClA J 14216 147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127000010 FREDERICK T E 13911 SE 144TH RENTON WA 98059 5127000040 PARDlKE THEODORE H 51 RUSKlNRD EAST AURORA NY 14052 5127000070 JOHNSON JAMES A 13725 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000100 MAGNUSON JAMES C+KIM R 14125 144TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 5127000130 BARNES LARRY A+INMAN JERRIE 13601 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000160 BABCOCK DAVID E+RHODA A 13445 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000190 DEHA VILAND ALFRED ALAN 13433 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000220 PAYNE RANDALL D+ET AL . 13434 SE 141ST ST RENTON W A 98059 5127000250 SCHRUDER MICHAEL E+MARYL 13448 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5104220170 ISAAC BRIAN ROBERT+KATHELEE 14210 147THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127000020 BARTEL RAY H 13901 SE 144TH RENTONWA 5127000050 COFFIELD FRED D 13809 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 5127000080 JOHNSON JAMES A 13725 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 5127000110 BENNETT DARLA D 13617 141ST ST RENTONWA 5127000140 EGGE ROBERT D 13457 SE 141ST RENTONWA 5127000170 98059 98059 98059 98059 98059 MONKOWSKI GENEVIEVE L 13439 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000200 VICKERS LAWRENCE 13419 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000230 PAYNERANDALLD+ET AL 13434 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000260 . MERCER ROLYNN G 13454 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 .5127000270 BALCOM MONTY 0 13460 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000300 FLOOD DOUGLAS C+FONGEMlE,JO 13618 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000330 LEIN CLINTON E 13720 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 5127000370 98059 OLSON JERRY R+MARL YNNE 13802 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000400 DEWEY WlLLIAM J+BARBARA C 13820 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000430 BARNETT mOMAS P & MARNA L 231 DISCOVERY WAY SEQUIMWA 98382 5127000460 BYRNEPC 13729 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 5127000490 98059 COVEY FREDERICK A+PATRICIA 13821 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000520 WOSTER DANIEL K 13832 SE 142ND ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000550 EVERETTE HENRY D 13814 SE 142ND RENTONWA 98059 5127000280 ZETTERBERG JON W & BETTY J 13602 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000310 HELIN WlLLIAM 1 13702 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 5127000350 COTTRILL DAVID C 13726 SE 141ST ST 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000380 JOHNSEN RICHARD L 13808 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000410 BAKER PHIL 13826 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000440 CHRISTIAN CAROLINE 1 13719 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000470 WALTHER mOMAS E 13801 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000500 LANG V lANE 13825 SE 141ST RENTONWA 5127000530 WILBURN CAL YIN L 13826 SE 142ND 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000560 HILL PERCIE L 7239 SE24m MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 5127000290 YORK ERIK D+MAUREEN K 13610 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000320 DONCKERS WlLLIAML 13708 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000360 MERBACHMARY E 13732 SE 141ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000390 BATZELLE LARRY JR+KATIIY L 17301122ND LANE SOUTHEAST #Q102 RENTON WA 98058 5127000420 CAYTONKATIILEENK+BRIANR 13704 SE 144m ST RENTONWA 98059 5127000450 CHRISTENSEN WALLACE M 13723 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000480 KNECHT DAVID C+NANCYL 13809 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 5127000510 MIELE FRANK J 13838 S 142ST RENTON WA 5127000540 CRAWFORDRL 13820 S.E. 142ND ST 98059 RENTON WA 98059 5127000570 KENDALLMT 13714 SE 144m RENTONWA 98059 ~127000580 5127000590 5127000600 ROULEAU ROGERE+&HmLEY I MC FARLAND ROBERT D ANDERSON DAVID G 13806 SE 144TH ST 13811 SE 142ND 13817 SE 142ND RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000610 5127000620 5127000630 MATSUZAKIKATHLEEN GUTHRlE RONALD I JR+LISA A HOXlE WILLIAM F 13823 SE 142ND ST 13833 SE 142ND ST 13837 SE 142ND RENTONWA 98055 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000640 5127000650 5127000660 SEmOLD GEORGE C JR & GAYLE MCCLUSKEY ALVIN I RlCE HERMAN C 14205 140THAVE SE 14211 140TH AVE SE 14219 140TH SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000670 5127000680 5127000690 SHARPE GEORGE+AILEEN(fRS1) WORKMAN RONALD GENE+JOY THOMPSON RlCHARD LEE 14227 140TH AVE SE COL PO BOX 66011 RENTONWA 98059 14235140THAVESE SEATTLEWA 98168 RENTONWA 98059 5127000700 5127000710 5127000720 . TATMAN JR JOSEPH W ROBBECKE DEREK W+NATALlE A MARCHl LOUlS A 13914 SE 144TH ST 13908 SE 144TH ST 14308 139THPL SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000730 5127000740 5127000750 EDGECOMBE EDWlN & VIDA SHERWOOD CAROL S+CHARLES L CONNOT R COLLEEN 14304 139THPL SE 14305 139TH PL 13818 SE 144TH RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTON WASH 98059 5127000760 5127000770 5127000780 WELCH CURTIS L+ JOANN V RlGTRUP PETER R+SUSAN I WRlGLEY STEVENK 14204 140TH AVE SE 14212 140TH AVE SE 14220 140TH SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000790 5127000800 5127000810 HALE TAMARA L ARTHURWH BUSCHDA VID L 14228 140TH AVE SE 14236140THAVESE PO BOX 2184 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98056 5127000820 5127000830 5127000840 ANFlNSON SCOTT E ANDERSON IAYH HRUBY MITCHELL I SEARLEC 14404 143RD PL SE 14412 143RD PL SE 14004 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000850 5127000860 5127000870 TALBERT lAMES D SMALLBG POAGE IOHNR 14420 143RD PL SE 14428 143RD PL SE 14436 143RD PL SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000880 5127000890 5127000900 HALLADAY BEVERLY A KITELEY ROBERT E HARDING CAROLE Z 14444 143RD PL SE 14452 143RD PL SE 14243 SE 146TH ST RENTONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127000910 5127000930 5127000940 BROWN SCOTT H & JACKlE HOLMAN JERRl L G~SLAWRENCEL 14235 SE 146TH ST 14223 SE 14TH ST 14217 SE 146TH ST RENTONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 5127000950 5127000960 5127000970 NlCHOLSRAYB TOKIT A PETER G SIMEWAYNER 14211 SE 146TH ST 14205 SE 146TH ST 14610 142ND AVE SE RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 5127000980 5127000990 5127001000 MCFARLAND ROBERT C HATELEY JAMES EPPSDL 14616 142ND AVE SE 14619 142ND AVE SE 14615 142ND AVE SE RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 512700lO10 512700lO20 5127001030 DAVIS KElTH K +CONNlE R HlLLMR SWARTZ ROBERT 910 EDMONDS AVE NE 14435 141ST PL SE 14431141STPL SE RENfONWA 98056 RENfON, WA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 512700lO40 5127001050 5127001060 WHELANKEVIN+KlMBERLY RUSHING RODNEY WYLJELOISA 14423 141STPLACE SOUTHEAST 14415 141ST PL SE 14115 SE 144TH ST RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 5127001070 512700lO80 9347900240 BLODGETT LEONARD D & COCHRAN DANIEL W SAMORA STELLA L MARGARETM 14412 141ST AVE SE 14313 SE 141ST ST 14lO5 SE 144TH ST RENfONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 5127001110 5127001120 5127001130 MCCREADY DONALD G BJESOLD OSCAR E BILLET DIANE 14434141ST AVE SE 14444 141ST AVE SE 14409141ST AVE SE RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 5127001140 5127001150 5127001160 PARDO DAVID E+MARJE E DOUGHTERY KENNETH G AKESSON RICHARD B 14405 143RD PLACE SE 14301 SE 144TH ST 14225 SE 144TH ST RENTONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127001170 5127001180 5127001190 WEBER JOHN A+RUTHANN AAKREMD GORDON MILES DUANE 14217 SE 144TH ST 14209 SE 144TH ST 14201 SE 144TH RENTONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 RENfONWA 98059 5127001200 MCBRIDE STEVEN J 14159 SE 144TII RENTONWA 98059 5127001230 LAMB DAVID P & SHARRONK 14434 141ST PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001260 KUBOTA JULIE YUMI 14421 142ND PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001290 PETERSON JUDITH ANN+COLASUR DOMINIC J+ANNA M 14204 SE 146TII ST RENTONWA 98059 5127001320 JUGGlNSRL 14431143RD PL SE RENTONWA 5127001350 98059 SEDBERRY JAMES M+SANDRA A 14205 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 5127001380 MITCHELL DAVID T 14229 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001410 PICINI RONALD A+CARLA D 14247 143RD SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001440 cmSSUSJOE 14252 142ND SE RENTONWA 5127001470 98059 EMORY DON W+CYNTIllA B 14228 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001210 HOWARD ROBERT N 14408 141ST PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001240 BAKER MARION L 14202 SE 146TII RENTONWA 5127001270 98059 GUMMERE KEVIN R+CYNTIllA A 14420 142ND PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001300 SCHMITT ADAM J 14220 SE 146TII ST RENTONWA 5127001330 MOTTERN SHEILA W 14425 143RD PL SE 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127001360 SCOTT JAMES R 14213 143RD AVE S E RENTONWA 98059 5127001390 FAlNR W 14235 143RD SE RENTON WA 5127001420 98059 JAHN ROBERT P+D YVONNE 14253 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001450 CARVER CYNTJUA 14244 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001480 FOX LEROY J+MARGARET M 14220 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001220 . GRAHAM HAROLD M 14426 141ST PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001250 CROZIER IiuGH W+CAROL A 14427 142ND PLACE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001280 CRAMERKENNETIIM 14426 142ND PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001310 FATTOREROBERTL+DEBORAHA 14232 150TIIPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001340 MCKENZIE JAMES L 14417 143RD PL SE RENTON WA 98059 5127001370 HELMERRW 14221 143RD SE RENTONWA 5127001400 GREGOR LEW A 14241 143RD SE RENTONWA 5127001430 BECKLUND BRUCE J 14204 SE 144TII ST 98059 98059 RENTONWA 98059 5127001460 WICKLElNLELAND A 14236 142ND SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001490 KLUGE ARTIIUR+EMILIE 14212 142ND AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001500 JOHNSONLH 14204 142ND SE RENTONWA 5127001530 MCCARTIN ELLI 14244 143RD S E RENTONWA 5127001560 98059 98059 MASA YUKI ROYAL KAJI 14320 SE 144lH ST RENTONWA 98059 5127001590 CAMPBELLCC 14215 144lH SE RENTONWA 5127001620 98059 VANHOUTEN VERNON R & CONNIE 14410 SE 142ND PL RENTONWA 98059 5127001650 NEHRING WILLIAM E+PAULA I 14409 SE 142ND PL RENTONWA 98059 5127001680 YADON ORDELL L+ERMA JEAN 14224144lHAVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001710 HAGEL RANDY+MORRISON,SHEILA 14415 SE 143RD PL RENTON WA 98056 5127001740 GRlFFINRAYMOND A 14306 144lH SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100020 lHOMPSON MICHAEL R+CONSTANC 14213 145lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001510 lHOMPSON SHARON R 14230 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 5127001540 BIRKLANDLH 14304 SE 144lH ST RENTONWA 5127001570 LUKOWSKI ANDREW I 14231144lHAVESE RENTONWA 5127001600 PERSSON DONALD R 14110 144lH AVE SE RENTONWA 5127001630 MAELRE 14416 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 5127001660 THROM SAMUEL 14405 SE 142ND PL RENTONWA 5127001690 JOHNS PAUL W 3240 S 1981H ST SEATACWA 5127001720 98059 98059 98059 98059 98059 98059 98188 MILLS lAMES M & LYNDA 14409 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 98055 5127001760 MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS MNTN CO PO BOX 2201 RENTON WA 98056 5127100030 SLOAT JR HAROLD F 14221 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98055 5127001520 WERNER V ALAN 14238 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 5127001550 YOUNG RICKYB & SONIAP 14312 SE 144lH ST RENTONWA 98059 5127001580 PESCHEK ROBERT A 14223 144lH AVENUE SE RENTON WA 98059 5127001610 GRIGGSEL 14120 144lH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 5127001640 AGNEW PAUL E+CORRIE L 14415 SE 142ND PL RENTON WA 98059 5127001670 . EDWARDSELVINT 14218 144lH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 5127001700 OLDENJOHNW 14416 SE 143RD PL RENTONWA 5127001730 98059 BANNISTER RODERICK F 14312144lHAVESE RENTONWA 98059 5127100010 WARREN LORRAINE I 14205 145lHPL SE RENTON WA 98059 5127100040 OLSON STEVEN A+LAURI I 14229 145lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100050 ROMEO JIM J+THEARY 14237145lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100080 WATKINS HARLAN K 14261145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100110 CHARLES STEVEN D & JANlCE J 14260 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100140 GlON ALBERT ROBERT 14236 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100170 ROWLAND JAMES E+SUSAN E 14212 145lHPL SE RENTOIqWA 98059 5127100200 ANTOINE AUGUSTA W 14211146lHPL SE RENTON WA 98059 5127100230 OIRISTIANSON GLORlA J 14231146lHPL SE RENTON WA 98059 5127100260 CLARK CHARLES R 14251146lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100290 SWANSON KAREN L+MARK T 14250 146lHPL SE REENTONWA 98059 5127100320 CORKlNS LARRY D & KAREN J 30551 58lHAVE S AUBURN WA 98001 5127100060 ZEYLMAKER CHARLES A+SUSAN J 14245 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100090 MURPHYBRlAN T & COLLEEN G 14269 145lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100120 KNUDSON MARK A+GLENDA Y 14252 145lH SE RENTON WA 98059 5127100150 YOUNG PAUL C+WlNGA T 14228 145lH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 5127100180 GUARiNO ANTHHONY T JR 14204 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100210 DIAMOND L CONSTRUCTION INC 1500 SE 38lH #101·793 BELLEVUE W A 98006 5127100240 MCCULLOUGH DANlAL M+MAXON,D 14237 146lH PL SE RENTON W A 98059 5127100270 HERZOG STEVENL+KlME 14259 146lH PL SE RENTON 98059 5127100300 WHITMAN SHELDONL+REBECCA L 14244 146lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100330 LIENESCH LYNNE MARiE 14224 146lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100070 YAGUCm EDWARD+JEWELL K 14253 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100100 VAUGHAN WiLLIAM C 14268145lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100130 JEFFRIES FRANCIS C 14244 145lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100160 BECKER BARNEY J+ SHETH, VANDANA K 14220 145lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100190 SCHAAF MARK W 14521 SE 142ND AVE RENTONWA 98059 5127100220 . KELLY BYROND+PAULAM 14225 146lH PL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100250 HOPPERBRUCE A+TERESA V 14245 146lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100280 WHITEGAILL 14258 146lHPL SE RENTONWA 5127100310 98059 MELCIDOR JEANETTE LYNNE 14236 146lHPL SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100340 FURUKAWA HIROYUKI+HIROMI 2440 JASMINE ST HONLULUm 96816 5127100350 RIGTRUP TRACYR 14210 146TIIPL SE RENTON WA 98059 5128700020 SCHILLINGER MICHAEL A SCHILLINGER SHARON A 14110 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 5128700050 FOYJOHN 14103 141ST CT SE RENTONWA 5128700080 98059 NlCHOLSON CLIFFORD P+PAMELA 14118 141ST COURT SE RENTONWA 98059 5128700110 OLSEN DONALD J 14119 SE 141ST RENTONWA 5128700140 DONOHUE J NORRIS 14114 SE 142ND 98059 RENTON WA 98059 9347900020 MAHMOOD ARSlllD+LAUREL L POBOX6407 KENTWA 98064 9347900060 DEANGELO SHAWN C+JULI T POBOX 91 MOFFETT FiELD CA 94035 9347900090 MACDONALD MICHAEL J+JEANETT 14113 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900120 ALLENNElLR 14120 143RD SE RENTONWA 98059 5127100360 SHEAR VERNONW JR 14202 146TII PL SE RENTON W A 98059 5128700030 DRAGSETII STEFFENE+OLGA 14100 SE 141ST RENTON WA 98059 5128700060 MORRIS CHESTER D S 14109 141ST CT SE RENTONWA 98059 5128700090 SULLIVAN SCOTT A+DANA M 14112 141ST COURT SE RENTONWA 98059 5128700120 LEE FREDERICK V 14130 SE 142ND ST RENTONWA 9347900250 SOLISRF 14305 SE 141ST RENTONWA 9347900030 DESANTlSMC 14116 142ND AVE SE 98059 98059 RENTONWA 98059 9347900070 MELBERG JOHN S+MELBERG,LERO ANNEJ 14219 SE 141ST ST RENTONWA 98059 9347900100 PALMER GARY 2507 PARK PL N RENTONWA 9347900130 98056 ZITO JOHN PETER STEPHEN ill 14206 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA ' 98059 5128700010 BUTLER RICHARD A+LINDA JO 14120 SE 141ST ST RENTON W A 98059 5128700040 GENTLEMAN JiMMY D 14042 SE 141ST ST RENTON WA 98059 5128700070 SEITZ CHARLES A 14113 141ST CT SE ·RENTONWA 5128700100 98059 GOSS JAMES E+KRISTEN M 14106 141ST CT SE RENTON WA 98059 5128700130 GODDARD SCOTT B+ELAINE M 14122 SE 142ND ST RENTON WA 98059 9347900010 VELASQUEZ W R 14134 142ND SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900050 POOKSTEWARTT+CATIILEENL 14205 S.E. 141ST STREET RENTONWA 98059 9347900080 SMITII DA VED JOE 14105 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900110 SAVOYTR 14116 143RD AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 9347900140 COWMAN BRETT A+DEBBlE L 14212 143RD AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 ( •• J, .... , THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Thursday, September 21, 1995 Maplewood Heights Elementary School 13430 -144th Avenue S.E. Renton, WA AGENDA I. WITNESS SIGN-IN -6:30 P.M. It is from this list that witnesses are called to testify. II. CALL TO ORDER -7:00 P.M. Richard Schoon, Chair III. ROLL CALL Ethel Hanls, Vice Chair Lydia Aldredge Lloyd Baker AJ. Culver Loren Dunn Jim Hawkins Clair Inghram John Janson Susan Neiman Ben Werner AGENDA, September 21, 1995, Cont. Page Two IV. PUBliC HEARING -FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION 6:30 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. ·7:30 P.M. 8:10 P.M. Introduction of Exhibits ; Swearing in of Witnesses Proponent: Presentation by City of Renton (30 minutes) Opponents: King County Water District No. 90 (20 minutes) Neighbors United for Representation (20 minutes) General Testimony: Groups are limited to 10 minutes and individuals have 3 minutes . Rebuttal: City of Renton (10 minutes) V. FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION -DirectioJ) to the staff on Resolution and Hearing DeCision VI. ADJOURNMENT .. ,. ." ( ( ..... (' l. AGENDA, September 21, 1995, Cont. Page Three BACKGROUND STATEMENT The Boundary Review Board The Boundary Review Board was created in 1967 by the legislature in part to " ... provide a method of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities ... " (RCW 36.93.010). There are twenty-one such boards in the State of Washington. The Board is a quasi-judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisions on such issues as incorporations, annexations, mergers, disincorporations, etc., by cities, towns and sewer, water and fire districts. It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. Its decisions are final unless appealed to the King County Superior Court. When that occurs, the appeal is on the record. That is, the Court reviews the file, exhibits, transcript and the board decision, rather than conducting a new hearing. Board members are residents of the County and serve for four year terms. They are not allowed to hold other local government elected offices or jobs. Their compensation is $25 per day for work on Board business. Members may not properly discuss proposals under their consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications). , Appearance or Fairness Doctrine In general, decision-makers such as Board m:mbers must not only be fair in their actions (Le., have no conflicts of interest), but must also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. However, the State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision-maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. AGENDA,. September 21, 1995, Cont. Page Four SUMMARY OF HEARING PROCEDURES Sign-In to Speak A roster will be found on the table at the entrance to the hearing facility. Those who wish to testify must sign in before witnesses are sworn. All speakers will be called from this list. If you sign in once, it is not necessary to do so at any continuation of the hearing'. Exhibits , Please submit exhibits to staff for marking before the Call to Order. The Board must retain all exhibits until a decision is flied and the appeal period ends (30 days), or until all court proceedings are completed in the case of an appeal. Speakerj I Please state your name and address for the benefit of the court reporter prior to testifying. When referring to an exhibit, please state the exhibit letter. , \ Time Limits The time limit for individual speakers shall be three (3) minutes. 'Representatives of governmentil uilits or organized groups shall be allowed ten (10) minutes. in order to qualify for ten minutes, a group should be prepared to document an, established and recogn~ed membership. It is assumed that the group representative will speak on behalf of the group members and that individual members will not speak separately in addition to the group time. Testimony The Boundary Review Board Act requires the consideration of certain factors (see RCW 36.93.170) and specifies objectives the Board must seek to accomplish (see RCW 36.93.180). Testimony and evidence related to these factors and objectives will be the most effective. --,,' - c ( ( AGENDA, September 21, 1995, Cont. Page Five Cross Examination Witne~ses may not question other witnesses or the Board. According to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, only Board Members may examine witnesses. Rebuttal The rebuttal shall be limited to 10 minutes. Rebuttal must be prefaced by a citation of the disputed testimony. Rebuttal may not include closing statements, a summary, or any additional information; unless such information is in answer to questions and issues raised in previous testimony. 36.93.170 Fa-. 10 ... II H ttl b. boa"' II>- CDI1*'8a-PIa "I' ftl'llqlt fro. IUle tihia_uuata' policy acL In reaching a decision on a proposal or an al· ternative. the board shall consider the ractors arrectinR such proposal. which shall include. but not be limited to tbe rollowing: ( I) Population and territory: pOpul:lIion density: land area and land uses: comprehensive plans and zoning. as adopted under chapter 3S.63. 3SA.63. or 36.70 RCW: per capita assessed valuation: lopography. natural boundaries and drainage basins. proximity 10 other pop- uIatcd areas: the existence and preservation or prime ag- ricultural soils and productive agricultural uses: the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adja- CCIII incorporated and uninco'1lorated are:tS during the IICU ten years: location and most desirable ruture loea- ticxI or community racilities: (2) Municipal services: nced for municip:ll services: dfCCl or ordinances.. governmental codes. regulations ud resolutions on existing uses: present cost and ade- q1IIC)' or governmental services and controls in area: jicapc:cts or governmental services rrom other sources: probable future needs .ror such services and controls: probable efrect of proposal or alternative on cost and adcqucy or services and controls in area and adjacent area: !be drect1lll·tbeunances. debt SU'IICIure; ami con- 1lII:UIaI obligations and rights or all effected govern· mental units: and (3) The efrect or the proposal or alternative on adja- CCIII areas.. 011 muma1 economic and social iDterests. and. 01\ the local goveromental StnlClure or the COIIJIty. The provisions or cltaptcr 43.21 C RCW. Stase Envi- roamcntal Policy. sball not apply to incorporation pro- ceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. (1989 c 84 § 5: 1986 c 234! 33: 1981 c 120,2; 1979 eu. c 142 § I: 1967 c 189 § 17.\ s-. .... _I9IZ c llD: See n .. e loUowin, RCW 36.93.100. lllClClf"Pdt1 ... " ' ...... ,ram mw ~u, D04ICY ;iI,"I, RCW"J,11c..::o. 36.93.180 Objeams or boundary "",-1Ioud.. The decisions of the boWldary review board sball attempt to achieve the rollowing Objectives: (I) Preservation or natural neighborhoocls and communities: (1) Use or physical boundaries. including but not lirr ised to bodies or water. highways. and land contours: (3) Creation and preservation or logical service :lrcas: (4) Prevention or abnormally irregular boundaries: (5) Discouragement or multiple incorporations or small cities and encouragement or incorporation of cities in excess or ten thousand population in hea.ily populated urban are:ts: (6) Dissolution or inactive special purpose districts: (7) Adjustment or impractiCllI boundaries: (g) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns or unincorporated areas which are urban in 'cbaracter: and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which aro clesignated ror long term productive agiii:ii1tural and resource use by a comprehensive pia adopted by the county legislative authority. [1989 c 84 I 6: 1981 c 332 110: 1979 cu. c 141 § 1; 1967 c 189 S 18.\ SSc ..... ~WllIiI·IitI"'! -1911 c JJZ: See no •• (oIiDWin, RCW 3S.11.16S. 36.93.185 Objeai'" or bound-ry reriIw boanIni_- Water. sewer district p".,."dOllS. macu. ~erritD" _ adjaceallo cIIstrIes. The proposal by a water distriel- 01' _ distriel UI IUIJICX territory tbat is._ adj_t UI . tIIe.dlsuiCl shall not be cleaned to beftolatmt of the objecti'ICs of a bcmndary rmew boanI:soIeIy clue to the ract tbat the territory is not adjacent to the water dis- triel or sewer district. The proposed CODIIIiidation merg., oi two or more Wlter districts or two or mo. sewer districu that are not adjacent to each other shall not be deemed to be violative of the objecUves or a bounci:1rv review board solelv due to tile ract tbat the distriCtS 'are not adiacenL r 1989 c J08 , 13.\ . .. ,.- AGENDA, September 21. 1995. Cont. Page Six BU,-NSTEAD A,NNEL' tION -. . VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT E RECEIVED MAY 0 -1995 ( . PETITION Tu ANNEX TO THE CIT y OF RENTON UNDER RCW"35A.14.120 (60% Petition -Bumstead Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent (60%) in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, or real property located contiguous to the City of Renton, We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 35A14.120 et seq. ' The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton, A map (Exhibit I) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition, In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention" to commence annexation proceedings, the City Council of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A14,120 on November 14,1994, The City Council then determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation, Further, pursuant to RCW 35AI4.120, the undersigned petitioners agree to: . (1) Submit the 10% Notice ofIntent Petition as an intent to annex; (2) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regul~ions for the . subject property ( proposed as Low Density Single Family, Single Family, Mixed Residential -Exhibit 3); (3) Accept the City's Comprehensive Plan designations as they affect the subject property; and (4) Assume their proportional share of the pre-existing City bonded indebtedness. . . all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing &bout such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapprOVal of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. Page 10f2 Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services, I This two page fonn page is one ofa number of identical fonns which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing ~dditional signatures, WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with ony OtAn "'on his true namt!, or who knowingly'signs more "'on one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking fur election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shaU be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition, ' I (Names 0/ petitioners should be in identical/orm as Ihe same Ihit appeQl' on r.oord in Ihe chain o/tille 10 Ihe real eslal .. ) 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. -, Page2of2 (See ovcr) "EXHffiIT 1 ANNEXATION AREA BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION ---- e CITY OF RENTON • ~. PLA.NNING/BUILlJING/PUBUC WORD !l! O.DellDl8OIl R.KacOn1e, D.Vlmeodd 17 N<m!mber 1!lIK 1:12000 2000 I I· .... · .. · ... ~ ............ ............ Renton City Limits Covenants to' Annex Proposed by Applicant Expanded Annexation Area EXHIBIT 2 Burnstead Annexation Legal Description That portion of Sections 10, 11, 14, and 15, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter comer of said Section 10, said south quarter comer being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, said south quarter corner also being a point on the centerline of SE 128th Street (NE 4th Street); Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to the northerly right-of-way line of SE l28th Street (NE 4th Street), ad the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to an intersection with the north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said north line of the south half of the northwest quarter' of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to the east line of said subdivision; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the south .half of the northwest quarter of . the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to an intersection with a line 50 feet west of and parallel with the east line of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line a distance of 16.00 feet; Thence easterly along a line 16 feet south of and parallel with the north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the east line of said subdivision; Thence continuing easterly along a line 16 leet south of and parallel with the north line of the south half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said· section to a point of intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly extension of the south line of Gerber's Addition to Renton as recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 98, records of King County, Washington; Thence easterly along said westerly extension of the south line of said plat, crossing 148th Avenue SE, and along the south line of said plat to the southeast comer thereof, said southeast comer also being a point on the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section II; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, said east line also being the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast corner thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of the southea'st quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northoast corner thereof; Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter, to an intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said right-of-way line a distance of IS feet to an intersection with a line IS feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; , Thence northerly along said west line of the east half of the southwest quarter, to an intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast comer thereof; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter to an intersection with the northerly right~of-way line of SE 128th Street; Thence westerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 30 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the northerly extension of the westerly right-of-way line of IS6th Avenue SE' ' , Thence southerly along said northerly extension, a distance of 109 feet more or less, to a point on the southerly right of way line of SE 128th Street in the northwest quarter of said Section 14; , Thence continuing southerly along the westerly right-of-way line of IS6th Avenue SE, crossing SE 132nd Street, to an intersection with the northerly right-oC-way line of SE 136th Street; Thence westerly along said northerly right-oC-way,line, crossing IS2nd Avenue SE, to an intersection with the westerly right-oC-way line oC IS2nd Avenue SE; 2 Thence southerly along said westerly right-or-way iine to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section to an intersection with the east line of said Section 15; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section 15 to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line crossing SE 136th Street to the southwest comer of Lot 15, Black Loam Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, records of King County, Washington, said southwest comer also being a point on the northerly right-of-way line of SE 136th Street; Thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line, crossing 144th Avenue SE, 142nd Avenue SE, 140th Avenue SE, and 139th Place SE, to a point of tangency with a curve to the right, having a radius of 30 feet, at an intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of 138th Avenue SE; Thence southwesterly across 138th Avenue SE, to the southeast comer of Lot 14 of the plat of Gae's Place as recorded in Volume 85 of Plats, pages 12 and 13, records of King County, Washington; said southeast comer also being a point on the westerly right-of-way line of said "' 138th Avenue SE, "and also being a point on the south line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said south line of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the south line of said plat, a distance of 8 feet, more or less, to a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3143; Thence continuing westerly along said south line of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the south line of said plat, and along the existing City limits of Renton to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of 137th Avenue SE as it intersects with the easterly extension of the centerline ofSE 136th Street; Thence continuing westerly along said centerline of SE 136th Street, and along said south line of the northwest quarter, and along said existing City limits, to the southeast comer of the plat of Fernwood East as recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, pages 68 and 69, records of King County, Washington, said southeast comer also being the southwest corner of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3163, to the northeast comer of said plat; 3 ., Thence continuing northerly along the east line of Fernwood North, as recorded in Volume 128 of Plats, pages 100 and 101, records of King County, Washington, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3570 to the northeast comer of said plat; Thence westerly along the north line of said Plat, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; , Thence northerly along said west line, and along said existing City limits, to the northwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3946, to the northeast comer of said subdivision; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, crossing 136th Avenue SE (Bremerton Avenue NE) and 138th Avenue SE (Duvall Avenue NE) to an intersection with the east line of the west 20 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, said east line also being the easterly right-of-way line of 138th Avenue SE (Duvall Avenue NE); Thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the south line of the north 186.15 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; I Thence easterly along said south line of the north 1'86.1 S feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said s~ction, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the east line of the west 234 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said sclction; Thence northerly along said east line of the west 234 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the nerthwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, and along said existing City limits, to the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line, and along said existing City limits, crossing a portion ofSE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section 15, said north quarter comer also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. 4 .... , . ""' -, 1:::,:::::1 Single Family Low Density 1::::::::::1 Single Family 1__ Mixed Residential EXHIBIT 3 PROPOSED ZONING BURNSTEAD TlON ® CITY' OF RENTON . iID PLUIlmIG/lltllUlDiG/PUBUc YORD • ~ • O.DeJualHD -lUlacODl., D. vt.n.Ui 10 H'""ID ..... lIN o 1000 2000 ~I ~I":~I~~~I 1:12000 ~~.~.' CITYJF RENTON 00II.'. . -.::: . ...,~ September 14, 1995 SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear Citizens: Mayor Earl Clymer I am sending you this letter because you signed a petition in favor of the Bumstead Annexation, Although it is nearly completed, the process has reached a critical juncture, Your continued involvement is necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion. On September 21, the King County Boundary Review Board will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at Maplewood Heights Elementary SchooL The Board can accept, reject or modify the annexation. Testimony provided by residents and property owners will be weighed in the Board's decision, so your voice is very important. This annexation may be important to you for.a number of reasons. You may have a current or future need for access to the City'S sewer system. Sewer connection would not be mandatory, of course, but it's comforting to know that the service would be available in the future if you want or need it. You may want the security of Renton's nationally accredited Police Department patrolling your streets. In Renton, emergency services are just minutes away. You may want the convenience and effectiveness of local representation. Decisions that affect your life should be decided close to home and with your input. The Renton City Council meets on Monday evenings at the Renton Municipal Building, where the thoughts and concerns of all Renton citizens are welcome. You may recognize the need for the park that the City will develop on forty acres in your neighborhood if annexation occurs. The Plateau is currently lacking enough facilities for sports activities and other developed recreational amenities. Annexation will get the ball rolling. Of interest to all the residents of the area are the land use controls that Renton can offer. The Renton City Council and the City Administration are committed to maintaining single family character in the neighborhoods of the East Renton Plateau. No apartments, no strip malls, no other commercial development are permitted in the annexation area under the City's 20-year Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to attend the September 21st public hearing. This is an opportunity for you to participate in the annexation process. The Boundary Review Board wants to hear what you have to say. If you have any questions about the annexation or the public hearing, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. . Sincerely, ~ ~Q. ~~"-VL Earl Clymer ~. Mayor 200 Mill Avenue South· Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 THIS PAPER COl-oiAINS SO% RECYCLED MATERlAL,lO% POST CONSUMER · . • CONCURRENCE DATE 1. L'3L~i" - NAME INITIAL/","'TE c> DC1VN'''''N (}() '1 ~3 , (1. lV\ i[r::T'PIItrJ ih~ ?-/ tj , September 13, 1995 6. ·2 1M" l:.\tf\'\!l!:: C;e-~ SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear Citizens: I am sending you this letter because you signed a petition in favor of the Bumstead Annexation. Although it is nearly completed, the process has reached a critical juncture. Your continued involvement is necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion. On September 21, the King County Boundary Review Board will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at Maplewood Heights Elementary School. The Board can accept, reject or modify the annexation. Testimony provided by residents and property owners will be weighed in the Board's decision, so your voice is very important. This annexation may be important to you for a number of reasons. You may have a current or future need for access to the City's sewer system. Sewer connection would not be mandatory, of course, but it's comforting to know that the service would be available in the future if you want or need it. You may want the security of Renton's nationally accredited Police Department patrolling your streets. In Renton, emergency services are just minutes away. You may want the convenience and effectiveness of local representation. Decisions that affect your life should be decided close to home and with your input. The Renton City Council meets on Monday evenings at the Renton Municipal Building, where the thoughts and concems of all Renton citizens are welcome. You may recognize the need for the park that the City will develop on forty acres in your neighborhood if annexation occurs. The Plateau is currently lacking enough facilities for sports activities and other developed recreational amenities. Annexation will get the ball rolling. Of interest to all the residents of the area are the land use controls that Renton can offer. The Renton City Council and the City Administration are committed to maintaining single family character in the neighborhoods of the East Renton Plateau. No apartments, no strip malls, no other commercial development are permitted in the annexation area under the City'S 20-year Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to attend the September 21st public hearing. This is an opportunity for you to participate in the annexation process. The Boundary Review Board wants to hear what you have to say. If you have any questions about the annexation or the public hearing, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, Earl Clymer Mayor · 9353301110 1423059094 9353301010 ADKISSON DUNCAN + LODAHL MA BALESGH ALUSON ARTHUR D 12249 155m AVE 13427 156TH AVE SE 12212 155m SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98056 RENTONWA 98055 1023059040 1523059048 9353300330 BRIERE GERALD 1 BELTRAN RICARDO Q AZZOLA LARRY D 23205 SE 192ND 2108 BLAINE SE 12020 156TH SE MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 RENTONWA 98055 RENTONWA 98056 9353300350 9353300150 0847100041 BURNSIDE REBECCA L BUTLER II FREDERICK LOOMIS BLAKE LAWRENCE E 10025 NE 127TH PL 15608 SE 128TH ST 750 ROYAL CREST CIR #455 KIRKLANDWA 98034 RENTONWA 98059 LAS VEGAS NV 89109 1423059016 9353300620 9353300740 CHEUNG SYDNEY & CONNm CHANCE GERALD BOWERSRONALDS+DORISJ 5766 -146TH AVE N E DANffiL+ MARIAN 12638 155TH AVE SE BELLEVUE WA 98007 12003 156TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98059 1523059055 9353300370 1023059103 COLASURDO DOMINIC J DOLAN LARRY E BYERSDORFER DEBORAH PHELPS 15440 SE MAY VALLEY RD 13525 181ST AVE SE BYERSDORFER GREGORY A RENTONWA 98056 RENTONWA 98059 22651 SE 56TH ST ISSAQUAHWA 98027 9353300760 9353300430 9353300120 CUMMINGS WILLIAM R FARNSWORTH PEARL CARLSON ALVIN E 12652 155TH AVE SE 12244 156TH AVE SE 125A EVANS RD RENTONWA 98056 RENTONWA 98059 SEQUIMWA 98382 9353300460 0847100014 9353300810 DODGE ELMER+GWEN FORGAARD CLEO 1 CHRISTIANSON KENNETH & LIND 12264 156TH AVE SE 678 SUNSET BLVD NE 12643 155TH SE RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98056 RENTONWA 98055 9353300180 9353300110 9353300600 HARRISON LINDA C GARRBOBBYL DENNISON DAVID CHILL A 12643 156TH SE 15607 129TH PL SE 12019 156TH A VB SE RENTONWA 98056 RENTONWA 98058 RENTONWA 98056 9353300010 9353300030 9353300300 ISGRIGG DA V1D HALGREN S WILLIAM DUFUR GLEN J + VICKm L 4110 CLERF RD 2230 151ST PL SE 12409 156TH AVE SE ELLENSBURG WA 98926 BELLEVUEWA 98007 RENTONWA 98027 9353300340 9353300020 1444500060 . LUKAS PAUL W & JUDITH ISGRIGG DAVID FORREST RICHARD J 12028 156TH AVE SE 12410 156TH SE MAINQUIST 1ILL M RENTONWA 98059 RENTONWA 98055 14646 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98059 ., . 9353300730 MAGGARD DONALD S+JOLENE R 16023 SE 135TH ST RENTON W A 98056 1523059062 MCCUNCY TRACY L 13011144TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1023059167 MCTIGHE JOHN R ET AL 24929 267TH SE RAVENSDALE WA 98051 9353300680 OUVER JOYCE & SCHMIDT CAROL 433 BRONSON WY NE RENTON WA 98056 1023059041 REID BENNIE I + BARBARA I 14412 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98056 9353300640 SMITH JOHN L POBOX 2670 RENTONWA 9353300530 STUECKLE lAMES T 12220 155TH AVE SE 98056 RENTON WA 98055 9353300040 WELCH lAMES L 1980195TH AVE EAST BOTHELL W A 98011 9353300190 WHITFIELD RICHARD W + LOIS B 12635 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 9353301070 WITTCARLM 12260 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353301030 LAMBIRTH JOHN F + PFANKUCHE LRENEE 12228 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300830 LEE JOSHUA C+BRUMMETT CARRI 12627 155TH A VENUESE RENTON WA 98059 1423059070 LEIFER RANDALL D+ ROSEMARY M 5127 S FOUNTAIN ST SEATTLE WA 98178 0847100080 MILLS MARGARET S 1609 DAVIS AVE SO RENTON W A 98055 1123059018 MULUNS CECIL 18631120TH SE RENTONWA 1023059016 98058 RIBERA·BALKO ENTERPRISES FA LP 13740 SE 246TH KENT W A 98042 9353301130 SCHNEIDER KEN V 12237 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 9353300840 SEGARAN CHANDRA + RAND! C 12619 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 9353300480 WALTERS GORDON I 12257 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1523059001 WEST COAST INVESTMENTS INC+ HUNG,SHIRLEY + HUNG,CLAUDIA 4502 177TH AVE sa ISSAQUAH WA 98027 9353300700 GOONAN MARTIN I 12610 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300860 HILLSTEAD ROBERT W 9145 7TH AVE S SEATTLE W A 98108 9353300920 HOLSTROM IOHN CHRISTEN 1441 QUEEN AVE NE RENTON W A 98056 1123059001 I W MORRISON INC BOX 407 KENMOREWA 9353301090 JOHNSON DON 78 HOHPL LACONNERWA 1523059065 LANDON CRAIG 10520 169TH AVE SE 98028 98257 RENTON W A 98059 9353301150 MOONEY FRANKP. +TERESA 12217 155 AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300610 NIBLOCK JOHN F 12011156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300630 PARKER CRAIG & EVELYN 12404 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100060 PETERSEN ROBERT A 14639 SE 132ND ST RENTON W A 98055 · .... - 9353300470 WRIGHTMJR 12265 156TH SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300800 VAN DlTIO SCOrf A 12651 15STH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300490 WEISSER GARY L 12236 15STH SE RENTONWA 98059 0847100075 WOFFORD WlLUAM E 13323 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100042 WEYER CLARENCE W 14602 SE 132ND RENTON W A 98056 9353300200 PURDY EUZABETH C . 12627 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300790 SAWYER ERNBT C 12657 15STH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 9353301170 SMELTZER JACK L 12205 15STH AVE SE RENT.ON WA 98055 0847100040 SPOONGARYE 16701 SE MAY VALLEY ROAD RENTON W A 98059 0847100100 TARANTOLA JOSEPH 23326 SE 254TH ST MAPLE VALLEY W A 98038 CONCURRENCE DATE ~ L'3L'1 ,- NAME INITIAL/DATE 0. DOVNI So:t:!· CQ :L t3 , n \'CI'lT'''l2I'1~ tfiS. 'l ~ / 'L September 13, 1995 c.. . Z. M'" b'(/..(>l~ C;e-~ SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION· Dear Citizens: I am sending you this letter because you signed a petition in favor of the Bumstead Annexation. Although it is nearly completed, the process has reached a critical juncture. Your continued involvement is necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion. On September 21, the King County Boundary Review Board will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. at Maplewood Heights Elementary School. The Board can accept, reject or modify the annexation. Testimony provided by residents and property owners will be weighed in the Board's decision, so your voice is very important. This annexation may be important to you for a number of reasons. You may have a current or future need for access to the City'S sewer system. Sewer connection would not be mandatory, of course, but it's comforting to know that the service would be available in the future if you want or need it. You may want the security of Renton's nationally accredited Police Department patrolling your streets. In Renton, emergency services are just minutes away . You may want the convenience and effectiveness of local representation. Decisions that affect your life should be decided close to home and with your input. The Renton City Council meets on Monday evenings at the Renton Municipal Building, where the thoughts and concerns of all Renton citizens are welcome. You may recognize the need for the park that the City will develop on forty acres in your neighborhood if annexation occurs. The Plateau is currently lacking enough facilities for sports activities and other developed recreational amenities. Annexation will get the ball rolling. Of interest to all the residents of the area are the land use controls that Renton can offer. The Renton City Council and the City Administration are committed to maintaining single family character in the neighborhoods of the East Renton Plateau. No apartments, no strip malls, no other commercial development are permitted in the annexation area under the City's 20-year Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to attend the September 21st public hearing. This is an opportunity for you to participate in the annexation process. The Boundary Review Board wants to hear what you have to say. If you have any questions about the annexation or the public hearing, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, Earl Clymer Mayor ... --':. Bumstead Annexation Build-out Projections The expanded annexation area is divided into seven subareas, A through G. (see map) A. This is the Bumstead proposal. The Colasurdo property (southernmost A lots) may be developed as park space. Therefore, the worksheet includes scenarios with and without residential development of these lots. B.... A large portion of the property owners in the southern tier of properties, those abutting SE 128th St., have indicated an interest in joining the annexation. Although they are within the expanded annexation, the properties over 600 feet north ofSE 128th St., in the "upper tier", have generally declined to be included. Perhaps these properties should be excluded from the analysis. h The C Area is composed of the White Fence Ranch subdivision and properties to the west. The two areas are acting independently in their respective pursuits of 60%. At the risk of over-fractionizing the area, can these be treated separately? D, E, F. Nothing noteworthy. Q.. School District property (Maplewood Heights Elementary). Assumptions used in the projections: 1) Properties in area C will be designated Single Family Low Density (LDSF). 2) Zoning will follow Comprehensive Plan land use designations and densities will be adopted as follows: LDSF ............. Single Family Low Density (up to 5 units per acre) SF .................. Single Family (5 to 8 units per acre) SF/4 ............... Mixed Residential (7 to 10 units per acre, excluding density bonuses) 3) Allowing for deductions from gross acreage (rights-of-way, environmentally sensitive areas and a portion otherwise unavailable for development), 49% of the gross area is assumed likely for development. 4) Parcels less than one acre are assumed to average one unit. (Vacant and Dev. identify parcels less than one acre.) 5) Build-out is calculated to be the products of net area of all parcels of one acre or . more, aggregated by land use designation, times the appropriate density, plus one unit per parcel less than one acre. [(LDSF * .49 * 5 units per acre) +(SF area * .49 * 8 units per acre) + (SF/4 area * .49 * 10 units per acre) + (# of parcels under one acre)] Population estimates: Census Tract 258.02 covers an area of generally suburban development on Renton's urban periphery. This is probably a reasonable demographic surrogate for the population of the annexation area post development. The average household size for Tract 258.02 is 2.78 people. BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Annexation .d"eas & Existing Coveuants to Annex e CITY OF RENTON ~ PLANNlNG/BUILDING/pUBUC YORD • ... • O.Dermlaoll -R.lfacOnle, D.VImellld 17 November 181M o I 1:12000 2000 I EXHIBIT 1 ---- I .......... ··j ............ ............ Renton City Limits Covenants to Annex Proposed by Applicant Expanded Annexation Area BUILDOUT.XLS I Net acreage x Area Net Area and Small Lots density Build-out Build-out w/out with park Ipark Existing units A LDSF 45.9 ae 229.5 units 517.5 674.3 63 units SF 25 ae 200 units SF4 3.1 ae 31 units Vae. Lots 11 Dey. Lots 46 Colasurdo Park o ae Park option: 0 SF 19.6 ae SF option: 156.8 Build-out Build-out both B Lower Tier Upper Tier lower tier tiers Existing units LDSF 7.9 ae 2.5 ae 39.5 units/12.5 units 117.1 177.2 Lower: 17 SF 2.2 ae 4.2 ae 17.6 units/33.6 units Both: 35 SF4 3.4 ae 34 units/O - Vacant 14 1 Dey. 12 13 Morrisonl Wh Fence Morrisonl Wh Fence C Ribera Ranch Ribera Rance Existing units LDSF 38.1 ae 190.5 units/O 192.5 units 124 units Mor/Rib: 8 Vae. Lots 0 45 WFR: 79 Dey. Lots 2 79 Build-out Existing units D LDSF 24.3 ae 121.5 units 184.3 units 31 SF 4.4 ae 35.3 units Vae. Lots 7 Dey. Lots 21 E Pug Col Other Build-out Existing units LDSF 7.7 ae 38.6 units 105.6 units 49 Vae. Lots 19 1 Dey. Lots 45 2 F Build-out Existing units SF 18.6 ae 148.6 units 193.6 units 54 Vae. Lots 3 Dey. Lots 42 Page 1 .. " .. Total AV Area A 10669500 Area B (Lower Tier) 2834949 Area C (except WFR) 1375232 White Fence Ranch 9402769 Area D 618400 Area G 2473000 otal of A, B, C, D, G: Signatures for A-D & G: Percent: Signed 4851000 1684249 925650 6409169 618400 2473000 27373850 16961468 61.96% Unsigned 5818500 45.47% 1150700 59.41% 449582 67.31 % 2993600 68.16% 0 100.00% 0 100.00% 61.08%without Area D AVs $536.527.46 excess AV 26755450 16343068 .' East Renton Plateau Annexation Proposal A request for annexation to the City of Renton by area residents of 400 acres of the East Renton Plateau will be considered by the Boundary Review Board for King County at a public hearing on September 21, 1995, at Maplewood Heights Elementary School, at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the proposed Bumstead Annexation. Also to be considered is a proposal for incorporating the Plateau into a new city. Anyone with an opinion on these proposals is urged to attend. What will annexation cost residents of the Bumstead Annexation area? Taxes would increase by 14 cents per thousand ofassessed valuation. For a $150,000 home, this would be an additional $21 per year. The City also has a 6% utility tax, but this is offset by lower surface water, solid waste and animal license fees. What are the benefits to be gained from annexation to the City of Renton? New residents of the annexed area would receive a full range of City services, including Renton's nationally-accredited Police Department (complete with animal control services, block watch and other community outreach programs). Additionally, Renton's Parks Division is now designing forty acres of park to provide recreational opportunities for the residents of the Plateau, however, the City cannot proceed with development of the park without annexation. Another benefit is that the maintenance oflower-density residential housing development on the Plateau can be balanced against the multi-family housing already existing elsewhere in Renton. A proposal which residents of the East Renton Plateau are also being asked to consider is incorporation of a larger area, the entire Urban designated portion of the Plateau, as the City ofBriarwood. One thing is certain, growth in the area will occur, with or without annexation or incorporation. If a new city is formed, a comprehensive plan must be drafted according to State and County requirements, and King County Countywide Planning Policies require that every city plan for affordable housing for each economic segment of society and for a share of the County's growth projections. How the new City of Briarwood would supply basic urban services is not known, but most likely these would be purchased from other jurisdictions, probably King County or the City of Renton. It is not likely that contracting for services will offer a cost savings over the existing costs. No one knows what taxes would be under incorporation. The City of Newcastle is now only 1 112% behind Renton's base levy and has not yet completed its first budget cycle. Unfortunately, the area proposed for the City ofBriarwood does not have a strong retail business tax base at this time, therefore, property taxes would have to bear more of the burden for provision of city services to the residents. If you are to be affected by the annexation or incorporation decisions, you owe it to yourself to be informed and to attend the hearing and make your thoughts and concerns known on September 21st at 7:00 p.m. at Maplewood Heights Elementary School. file: annex Bumstead Neighborhood Meeting -Maplewood Heights Elementary School-September 12, 1995 ~-'f:f,f ~;~ocus of Presentations 1) Sewers Circumstances requiring connection. Possible routes. Costs. How quickly could connection be made? 2) Police:~nE8B1g= SCCItPi.,) Accreditation L ., Officers in the area the first day) ft'L7W1f ~ Map of the service district Various services 3) Plannin0~Mfdh~bM.'~~ Proposed zoning' Existing County zoning Annexation -processes AnirnaI Ordinance Planning requirements with incorporation Orchard's materials Issues board Q/ A continuous slide show 4) Fire -primarily presence 5) Utilities Continuation of WD 90 water service Display of relative service rates (with other jurisdictions) Solid waste services and explanation of 5 year interval before service Surface water services 6) Transportation (?) Street maintenance services Street lights e~l~ '(1 I i ,.,..' J Jib a J "",<:-7) Counci station? With Renton success photos 8) Parks I g) - Everything we can pull together on the Colasurdo property Potential site plan Sheet for people to register preferences for specific facilities Photos of parks 9) Chamber of Commerce 10)BICINUR Invitation newsletter Card updates As.many positive visual images as we can pull together Bumstead Neighborhood Meeting -Maplewood Heights ElementaIy School-September 12, 1995, 7- 9:00p.m. We are envisioning 5 minute presentations on the quarter-hour with 10 minutes for questions. Possible focus of presentations (Where possible, include "On the first day ... to) ~astewaterUtil}tP i{)CI-... I"'~l !h.tJz /.:-",.. 8 Circumstances requiring connection. (~ Possible routes. Costs. How quickly could connection be made? 2) Police (emphasize neighborhood security) Accreditation Officers in the area the first day. Map of the service district Various services 3) Long Range Planning <PfOjloseil zoninj0 Existing County zoning Annexation -processes . Planning requirements with incorporation Issues board QI A continuous slide show Transportation questions 4) Development Services ~<7"' Orchards display Animal Ordinance (permitted use chart) Development in the proposed zones (R-5, R-8, R-IO) Building permit process 5) Fire -primarily presence 6) Utilities (other than Wastewater) Continuation of WD 90 water service Display of service rates compared with other jurisdictions Solid waste services and explanation of 5 year interval before service Surface water services 7) Council station? With Renton success photos - ~ . ~g we can pull together on the Colasurdo property Potential site plan Sheet for people to register preferences for specific facilities Photos of parks 9) Chamber of Commerce 10) Briarwood Incorporation Committee I Neighbors United for Representation ll) Finance -Taxation spreadsheet 12) Bumstead As many positive visual images as we can pull together THE BURN STEAD ANNEXATION The Burnstead Annexation is not a "Done Deal", in spite of what some people would have you .think. Consider these circumstances: 1. In an attempt to make the ~roposal more logical and palatable to The Boundary Review Board,tha annexation area has been greatly expanded. .. 2. Annexation does not guarantee sewer service or a time table for the installation of that service or any other utility. 3. Those with small tracts, wishing to subdivld~ , will be forced to wait until major landowner ~evelopers are taken care of. 4. Sewer service to some areas of Renton may' riot·be available for years. The new interceptor will NOT extend beyond·13Bth Ave. SE. (It took over ten years to extend sewers to Sierra Heights after they annexed to the city of Renton.). 5. Assessments for property on sewer lineswl.l! be approximately $166 per front foot and carry a 7. \0 !O% interest rate. 6. Refusing to sign a petition favoring annexation will in no way affect your rights as a property owner. 7. Annexation means yOU must assume a share in havi~g to repay al I of the ci ty indebtedness. \ B. Annexation means yOU WILL see an increase In all of your monthly utility and cable bills. 9. Annexation will in no way reduce restrictions on wetland development since Renton has adupted King Counties' Wetland Design Mariual as their standa=d. . . 10.Once the annexation is finalized, there is no turning back. We are your neighbors who appreciate our present ~nvlronment and \~ould 1 ike to retain It as long as possible, we ask that you to join us in OPPOSing this develope~ initiated ann~xation proposal by signing the attached petition and returning it to any of tl",e parties listed below. - - . Ray Griffin 14306 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 Maurice Quesnel 1321B 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 Franc Rectenwald 13016 144th Ave. SE Re~~on, .98059 PLEASE NOTE ! Any registered voter living either in or within 1/4 mile of I.he proposed annexation boundaries may sign this petition. Please turn in by Jan. l~ lYY4: City of Renton Community Services Parks Administration MEMORANDUM DATE: September 26,1995 TO: Mike Kattermann, Planning and Technical Services Director FROM: Glenn Kost, Resource Coordinator ~ SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with King County for the Colasurdo Property Sam Chastain asked that I forward to you the latest information on the City's negotiations with King County regarding the transfer of the 40 acre "Colasurdo" park property, which is as follows: 1. Initial draft ofan Interlocal Agreement prepared by King County, dated 7/26/95, together with my proposed handwritten changes and cover letter dated 9111195; 2. A second review letter to the County, dated 9/22/95, that incorporates Attorney Warren's review, and also revises the proposed Program Plan (Exhibit 3 to the Agreement). If you have any questions, or would like additional information, feel free to give me a call at X-5522. 95-317mb 4,'-... ~ •• ,.:.-. ~\'7. ~~'~~;'!: :!I CITY F RENTON Co=unity Services Sam Cbastaln, Administrator Earl Clymer, Mayor September 11, 1995 Mr. Joe Wilson Property Management Coordinator King County Parks 2040 -84th Avenue S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Subject: Interlocal Agreement for the Colasurdo Property Dear Joe: Thanks for sending me a draft of the above referenced Agreement. Though the document is generally consistent with the prior discussions between the City and King County, I have recommended several changes for your further review. These changes are identified below and noted on the attached copy of the Agreement. Paragraph 2 & 6 (Recitals & Acquisition of Property) -The County and Renton have actually identified the full 40 acres as property suited for active park and trail purposes. It should be clarified (either in this paragraph or in a separate "Recital" paragraph) that the County has already purchased a 1.15 acre portion of Parcel A for trail purposes. paragraph 7 (Conveyance of Parcel A) -Lines 1 & 2: Substitute "annexation of Parcel A to Renton" for "execution of this Agreement". paragraph 8 (Conveyance of parcel B) -Line 2: Substitute "annexation of Parcel B to Renton, or upon conveyance of Parcel A to Renton, whichever is sooner," for "execution of this Agreement". 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 THIS PAPER CONTA1NS SO% RECYCLED MATmUAJ...I~ POST CONSUMER <: . . '. ,.:", : ;." .. ,: . , , . ", ", :';., :., ... -. Mr. Joe Wilson King County Parks September 11, 1995 Page 2 of 3 Paragraph 9 (Site Plan) ------------ -Several unresolved access issues make the development of a reliable Site Plan at this time very difficult. Therefore, we suggest substituting "Program Plan" for "Site Plan" throughout the Agreement, and have prepared the attached Program Plan so that it may be incorporated into the Agreement as Exhibit 3. Paragraph 9 will need to be revised accordingly, and we· suggest wording that incorporates the approval of the Program Plan as part of the Agreement rather than as a separate action in the future. paragraph 10 (Trail Connection) -Rather than obligating the parties to create a trail easement in the future, we suggest developing language that simply requires Renton to construct a Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail connector through Parcels A and B. paragraph 12.2 (Development Iirnefrarne) -Line 2: Substitute "Program Plan" for "Site Plan". -Lines 2 & 3: Substitute "conveyance of title to Parcel A" for "date of this Agreement". paragraph 12,3 (Development Tirnefrarne) -Proposed New Paragraph: Construct the trail connection within two years of the completion of the trail to both the north side of Parcel A and south side of Parcel B, and make the trail available for public use. paragraph 13.1 (Transfer conditions) -To our knowledge, the provisions of Forward Thrust and lAC. only pertain to Parcel B (Maplewood Park). Please verify this and revise the language so that these provisions are speCific to Parcel B only ~ ..... . , , '. '. :,';'.: . ." ... .. . ",: ... ' ," Mr. Joe Wilson King County Parks September 11, 1995 Page 3 of 3 Paragraph 13.2 (Transfer conditions) -Lines 12 -14: Delete "so long as the fees ... and non-City residents." This phrase is confusing, subject to multiple interpretations, and difficult to enforce. Signature Line: -The signature line for Renton should include space for the Mayor (Earl Clymer), City Clerk (Marilyn Petersen), and City Attomey (for Approval as to fonm). I will send a copy of this Agreement to our City Attorney for further review, and will forward his comments to you when I receive them. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at (206) 277-5522. Glenn Kost . Resource Coordinator Attachments: Interlocal Agreement (marked up) Proposed Exhibit 3 (Program Plan) 95-297mb PROGRAM PLAN MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY PARK I. General purpose EXHIBIT 3 The property is intended to satisfy the communitY parks needs of the eastern portion of the City, including portions of unincorporated King County east of the Renton City limits. Active sports fields are intended to be the central focus of the park, though a variety of passive recreation and open space opportunities will be available for individual, family and small group activities. II. Joint planning The plan for the park will consider the existing and planned activities at the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood park and Maplewood Heights Elementary School. III. Access Vehicle access is intended to come from 144th Avenue S.E. or S.E. 136th Street to the west, with possibly a second vehicle access from a new residential development northeast of the property. Pedestrian access points include existing street ends at 146th Place S.E., 148th Place S.E., and 152nd Avenue S.E., Maplewood Park to the south, and Maplewood Heights Elementary School to the north. IV. Facilities These are considered the minimum facilities to be accommodated at the site. Additional active and passive facilities may be considered as the needs warrant. A. Athletic fields -two (2) baseball/softball fields and two (2) soccer/football fields with dimensions to accommodate adult and youth leagues; B. Trail -accommodate a paved trail connection that will be part of King County's Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail; C. Support facilities -off street parking to accommodate the planned park uses. 95·298mb (Ry. 9/8/95) " " ... ; . KING COUNlY & CllY OF RENTON COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PARK ACQUISITION & TRANSFER THIS COVENANT AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made on this day of 1995, by and between CllY OF RENTON f'Renton"] and KING COUNlY ["County"] collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Parties". RECITALS 1. The County and Renton have mutually determined that additional facilities are needed to serve the active recreational needs of the residents of the City of Renton and unincorporated King County. 0£d 2. The Cou ty and Renton have identified certain vacant real property, approximately . acres in size, that is ideally suited for a park that would satisfy the active recreational needs described above, and could also include the County's Lake Sammamish to Cedar River Regional Trail. _ at +k -40 QC).> F,"'1.r; o~ I zi. !rL CovrJ, 1..0.5 f>r'<"IOUS/y pur-d..cu.,c1 aFPro~;~d..11 /.('-:, J..&.N1.S (« 1-rl l.'( 3. The site is currently within the boundaries of unincorporated King County, -P"''''''- but it is also within the urban growth boundaries of Renton. f" 4. The County and Renton have mutually determined that the public's interest would be best served with the least expenditure of public funds, by a two party agreement providing for the acquisition, development and management of said site as an active public park which would serve both City and County residents, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 5. AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the following Washington statute: RCW 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act). This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Parties to this Agreement. _ . (1 oW. I I n J~ ,-.eYlta.IY")I~ ~o+-I .... ~ 1(./ c:lCJ.e. 6. ACQUISITION OF PROPERlY.i The County agree to purchase, at its sole cost and expense, the 8fa~eii :!ltiClieEl 38.85 acr property which,.Mt eSR'lI3Fieed of tue "areel: Ii" 81 IIfS ei'(jese l3y 8 tJrliFa ,",eo: i!G:J ~QF8el Ci~r.p'ilRlly GIIN::1ge SS 806\ It; i/RieR will. when combine comprise one undivided lot I"Parcel A'] which is more fully described in Ie a c i tion in Exhibit 0 1 and at ached hereto. ..L..JJ. . I' '-'~ IIC" ~ 1,1./ it WI! "-l~ 01"" .... ""'1"'P • ;) ()G~ Fore I I KING COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -1 17/26/95 ---------------- ann~oYI '* /t..,.." .. / A -b ~. 7. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE OF PARCEL A. Upon BJlIOlolli@i1 uf t1~is i ~i§r88~8~t, County shall convey the whole of Parcel A by deed, at no cost, to Renton subject to the terms of this Agreement. Renton alone shall have all right, title and interest in Parcel A and any improvements thereto, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE OF PARCEL B I MAPLEWOOD PARK KING COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON· COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT· 2 17/26/95 11. DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT COSTS. Upon the conveyance of Parcel A & B to Renton by deed, Renton shall be wholly responsible for all costs of development, maintenance, management and scheduling of use thereon. 12. DEVELOPMENT TIMEFRAME. Upon the conveyance of Parcel A to Renton by deed, Renton agrees to: 12.1 Make the property immediately available to the public and to manage){ it as a public park, and shall also identify the property as a public park. 12.2 Complete the development, set forth in phase 1 of the ?pp-e 5 ea Ftoj~ Plan, at Renton's sole cost, within five (5) years of lAC elEl~ :f I=ia COMetj~'- o gr 3 t and to make the improvements available for public use. +;fle -to &-,;.', 13. TRANSFER CONDITIONS & COVENANT FOR PUBliC USE. :b 13.1 Renton agrees to abide by, and enforce all terms conditions, eD1f5(f1"rt reservations and covenants of title, including all applicable Forward ?£4!-. ~i1 ....... Thrust Bond covenants, the Washington State Interagency Committee tJ'i~1 6 t!f\ Deed of Right to Use Land for Public Recreational Purposes and the II~ ~ .t , o-P terms and conditions of this Agreement. 7(>1f~ ~-5~11 ~~ 13.2 . Renton, its' officers, agents, employees, grantees and assigns, covenant that the Parcel A & B described above, shall be maintained by Renton in perpetuity, in a manner that allows and provides the opportunity for public use of the property as a park, by residents of unincorporated King County and Renton. Renton further covenants that it shall not limit access to Parcel A or B or the park facilities thereon, or any and all future improvements, so as to restrict usage by non-city residents. Renton agrees that any user access fees, including charges made by any lessee, concessionaire, or other assignee shall be at the same rate for non-city residents as for residents of Renton, except that Renton may charge non- resident's differential fees for programs offered by the City of Renton that are subsidized by the city taxpayers. as leng lis tI,s fees pFe"ide fer s~\;jilll: Ie 5 5 'flriGlSlisRS b~ Inc FesieisRts of the city Qf ReRlsR aRa lAS RQC- -eitJ ,ddsl ItS. This Covenant & Interlocal Agreement shall run with the land. KING COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT _ 3 17/26/95 14. DEFAULT. 14.1 In the event that Renton violates any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, including any of the covenants herein, County shall be entitled to specific performance of this Agreement. 14.2 In the event that County violates any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, including any of the covenants herein, Renton shall be entitled to specific performance of this Agreement. 14.3 Unless otherwise provided herein, in the event that either Party should commence legal action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, each Party shall be responsible for all of its costs and expenses incurred in connection with such proceedings;, iI Islloleil IS-ettOI i ie!i4 fi8S. 14.4 Nothing herein shall limit, waive or extinguish any right or remedy provided by this Agreement, or law that either Party may have in the event that the obligations, terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are breached by the other Party. 15. HOLD HARMLESS. ~ 15.1 The co-:~ ~~~ to hold harmless, indemnify and defend at its own expense . and its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, judgments, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of or in any way resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the County, its officers, employees andior agents that occur prior to the effective date of the transfer of title to Parcel A or B to Renton pursuant to the terms of this Agreement 15.2 Renton agrees to hold harmless indemnify and defend at its own expense the County and its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, judgments, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of or in any way resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of Renton, its officers, employees andior agents, that occur on or after the effective date of the transfer of title to Parcel A or B to Renton pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15.3 If any claim, judgment, action, suit, liability, loss, cost, expense, or damage arises out of or result from the joint negligent acts or omissions of both the County and Renton, each party shall be responsible for its own share of any resulting liability, KING COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - 4 17/26/95 ~ ... 15.4 Renton's and County's indemnification in this section shall survive this Agreement. 16. ASSIGNMENT. Neither Party shall assign its rights or responsibilities under this Agreement without the written authorization of the other Party. Written authorization shall not be withheld unreasonably. 17. SEVERABILITY. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall not be affected but continue in full force. 18. NON-WAIVER. Failure of either Party to insist upon the strict performance of any term of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any Party's right to thereafter enforce such term. 19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If either Party claims that the other Party has breached any term of this Agreement, the following procedures shall be followed if and when informal communications, such as telephone conversations, fail to satisfy the claiming Party: 19.1 The claiming Party's representative shall provide a written notice to the other Party's representative of the alleged breach. The notice shall identify the act or omission at issue and the specific term(s) of the Agreement which the complaining Party alleges was violated. 19.2 The responding Party representative shall respond to the notice in writing within seven (7) working days. The response shall state that Party's position as well as what, if any, corrective action the responding Party agrees to take. 19.3 The claiming Party shall reply in writing, indicating either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the response. If satisfied, any corrective action shall be taken within 14 days of receipt of the responding Party's reply. If dissatisfied, the complaining Party shall call an in-person meeting. The meeting shall occur within a reasonable period of time and shall be attended by the designated representatives of each Party, and such others as they individually invite. 19.4 If the claiming Party remains dissatisfied with the results of the meeting, it may sue to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The Parties also may agree to an alternate dispute resolution process. KING COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -5 17/26/95 20. INTEGRATION. This writing contains all terms of this Agreement. It replaces all prior and contemporaneous negotiations and agreements. Modifications shall be in writing and be signed by each Party's representative. 21. FILING & RECORDATION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be filed pursuant to RCW 39.34.040 with the King County Records and Election Division. DATED this day of KING COUNTY Gary Locke, King County Executive APPROVED AS TO FORM: , Prosecuting Attorney KING COUNTY & CITY OF RENTON ,1995. CITY OF RENTO _ APPROVED AS TO ENTRY: Craig Larsen, Director Parks, Cultural & Resources Resources Department COVENANT & INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT· 6 17/26/95 ,. September 22, 1995 Mr. Joe Wilson Property Management Coordinator King County Parks 2040 -84th Avenue S.E. Mercer Island, WA 98040 CITY 'F RENTON Co=unity Services Sam Chastain, Administrator Subject: Interlocal Agreement for the Colasurdo Property Dear Joe: Following up my 9/11/95 letter, the City's attorney has reviewed the agreement and suggests two additional minor modifications in addition to those I suggested earlier: Paragraph 14.3 (Pefaylt) -Line 4: delete "including attorneys fees" paragraph 15.1 (Hold Harmless) -Line 2: Substitute "Renton" for "the District" I have also revised Exhibit 3 (Program Plan) to reflect the need to identify Phase 1 development as required in Paragraph 12.3 of the draft agreement. This completes our review of the current draft document. Please forward a copy of the revised document to me once you've had a chance to incorporate these changes. If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call at (206) 277-5522. Sincerely, ~W Glenn Kost Resource Coordinator Enclosure 95-309mb '-. .. s,...-. .. f}CI.-:···~ . 20()OMili Avenue SO!lth ~ Renton;Washirigton98055 nm PAl'ERCOm-A1NS~ RECYctED MATER1AL.l~POSTCONSUMER . "' .. , . ',.: ," .·c .... ·· ,." ------------~ pROGRAM PLAN MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY PARK I. General purpose EXHIBIT 3 The property is intended to satisfy the community parks needs of the eastern portion of the City, including portions of unincorporated King County east of the Renton City limits. Active sports fields are intended to be the central focus of the park, though a variety of passive recreation and open space opportunities will be available for individual, family and small group activities. II. Joint planning The plan for the park will consider the existing and planned activities at the adjacent Maplewood neighborhood park and Maplewood Heights Elementary School. III. . Access Vehicle access is intended to come from 144th Avenue S.E. or S.E. 136th Street to the west, with possibly a second vehicle access from a new residential development northeast of the property and/or from 152nd Avenue S.E. Pedestrian access points include existing street ends at 146th Place S.E., 148th Place S.E., and 152nd Avenue S.E., Maplewood Park to the south, and Maplewood Heights Elementary School to the north. IV. Facilities These are considered the minimum facilities to be accommodated at the site. Additional active and passive facilities may be considered as the needs warrant. A. Phase 1 Development 1. Picnic areas --open turf areas managed for picnicking and unstructured games. 2. Support facilities --off street parking to accommodate the planned uses. B. Phase 2 Development 1. Athletic fields -two (2) baseball/softball fields and two (2) soccer/football fields with dimensions to accommodate adult and youth leagues; 2. Trail --accommodate a paved trail connection that will be part of King County's Cedar River to Lake Sammamish Trail; 3. Support facilities -additional off street parking to accommodate the Phase 2 park uses. 9S-298mb (Rv. 9122195) .~ "LANNING DIVISION r,I~" r,f"" '""1r:"~ITnN SEP 1 31995 ,', .. - '" 'EIVED L'\W OFFICES OF Vr,;":.j,\,,"(.;~; ~;·:ii.-;!;:: -. .. : ~," MCG HER-ViAN. R.ECOR.. KAUFMAN & SIMMER.L-9t.J\il 60 r01~;~.;" "',, ',' STEf'I-tEN T AR.",,"" .\.1. CER.. .... LD HER..',.,,-.N RoSER T S. JAC.,;,soN R.OBER T C. K.. ... UF"-'1"'~· STEVEN r. RecoR. P"UL E. SIMMERL 'f THC''lAAS O. ,V1ILLOTT. Lf'9 • "l'oO '""", rr.D , .. "'t ... If.,,",,-' Peter J. Eglick, Esq. Bob C. Sterbank, Esq. September 6, 1995 Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson P.O. Box 21846 Seattle, WA 98111-3846 RE: File No. 1922 -City of Renton -Bumstead Annexation Dear Messrs. Eglick and Sterbank: 900 CITY CENTER. BEl.LEVUE 500 -lOaTH ."VENUE NORTHEAST BELLEvlIE. WASHINCTON 9800...l F .... C51MILE.: (20G) ~51'IG89 Ti:L.fI"HONE: (206) ..151-1400 I represent the Washington State Bouiidaty Review Board for King County, and write in response to your letter of August 25, 1995 received by the Board on August 29, 1995. Your letter requests "a response in advance of the hearing now set for September 21, 1995. ". Unfortunately, the ne,,1 regular meeting of the Board will not occur until September 19, 1995. As a consequence, it ",ill be impossible for me to re'view either your letter or the City of Renton's response Vvith the Board prior to that date. As a matter of courtesy, however, I am writing you to ad'vise you in advance of the Board's policy concerning challenges to the sufficiency of annexation petitions. In 'virtually every matter coming before the Board wherein a petition is involved, the sufficiency of such petition is determined by other government entities. Typically, petitions are certified by either the municipality affected by the proposal or the County of King. It is the policy of the Board to accept the certification of a petition by either of these entities, and the Board has ,. yet to conduct hearings or entertain argument concerning the legal sufficiency of a petition. In this matter, the City of Renton has certified the sufficiency of the petition. I do not anticipate that the Board will deviate from the consistent policy it has applied in the past and consider such argument in the instant matter. September 6, 1995 Page -2 ----------------- I will discuss your letter and tbe City of Renton's response tbereto witb tbe Board at its regular meeting on September 19 and contact you tbereafter. Very truly yours, -'"' ~. RE .... COR, KAUFMAN, & SIMMERL Y , . , RCKIlsv cc: Lawrence 1. Warren, Esq. Aida R Wilkinson, Executive Secretary R-~ ~ R-12 r~ R-18 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON ZONING & PARK G:!:J CB c:::::J NB ~ Propaood Ann....tJan _ __ R_ton CIty linfb HF'i I II ililil _tJaI -5 wi"" 12~~J RaldentJal 8 dulac 1~W"...:e;o! Residential -10 dulac = .... e PI.AIoNNGIllUllDlNGIP\JBIJC WOIUCS • • O.D' BIt "_,0._ ' . 7 .......... 199. King County Zoning sinfde familv. townhouse, alit Standards R-4 R-ll R-18 Base density: 4 12 18 dwelling units/gross acre dulac dulac dulac Maximum density": 6 18 27 dwelling units/gross acre dulac dulac dulac Minimum density: 3.4 9.6 13.5 dwelling units I gross acre dulac dulac dulac Minimum lot area none none none rr mum lot width 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft Minimum lot depth none none none Minimum street setback 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft Minimum interior setback 5ft 5ft 5ft tsase height 35 ft 60 ft 60ft " Max. building coverage 35% 60% 60% Max. impervious swface 45% 85% 85% I • •• Residential in mixed use development only townhouse, apt NB· CB· 8 18 I i dulac dulac ! 12 24 ! dulac .dulac ! none none NA NA NA NA I none none 10 ft 10 ft 20 ft 20ft 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft··· 60ft'" NA NA ·85% 85% ..... With density incentives (affordable housing, open space/palt dedications, historic preservation, energy conservation) and transfer of density CRldits Allowed only for mixed use developments - ., City of Renton Zoning sinl!le familv detached onlY Standards R-5 Base density NA (see maximum density) Maximum density: 5 dwelling units/net acre dulac Minimum density: none dwelling units/net acre Minimum lot area 7,200 sq ft Minimum lot width 50 ft· (interior lots) 60 ft" Minimum lot width 60ft· (comer lots) 70 ft" Minimum lot depth 65 ft' 70ft" Minimum street setback 15 ft· of a primary structure 20ft" (new street)'" Minimum street setback Average of of a primary structure abutting (existing street) development Min. rear yard setback 20ft· 25 ft" Maximum height 30 ft Max. building COYCrage 35%···· Max. impervious none surface For lots of one acre or less For lots greater than one acre R-5 R-3 Clustered NA NA 5 8 dulac dulac none 5 dulac 4,500 sqft 4,500 sqft 50 ft 50 ft 60 ft 60ft 65 ft 65 ft 15 ft 15 ft 20 ft or avg. 20 ft or avg. of abutting of abutting development development 20 ft 20ft ~ 30 ft 30 ft 35%···· 35%···· none none oD to 4-1llex R-IO NA 10 dulac 7 dulac 4,500 sq ft 50ft 60ft 65 ft 15 ft 20 ft or avg. of abutting development 5ft 30 ft 50% none -- • •• ••• The front setback of the primary structure may be reduced to 10' if all parking is provided in the rear yard. •••• 50% for lots 5,000 square feet or less , APARTMENTS Permitted in R-4, R-12, R-18 zones with various lot sizes and units per , acre. Permitted in R-4, R-12, , R-18, NB, CB zones with various lot sizes and units per acre, Permitted in R-4, R-12, 'R-18, NB, CB zOnes . with various lot sizes and units per acre~ " Throughout the annexation, King County base density allows a similar number of units as Renton's zoning. As shown here, housing type can vary more in King County. RENTON SINGLEFAMII..Y -DETACHED '. FOURPLEX or DUPLEX Permitted in R-5, R-8, R-IO zones with various lot sizes and units per acre. Permitted in R-lO zone with various lot sizes and units per acre. No more than 50% of units in a development can be in fOUIplexes, triplexes and duplexes. .. n o .~ ~ r.n o Z~ rJ; -~ '~ji ='" 0: C:t, r:n~ Z ~ ~ ) • ~' - \, I ~_.' • Comparison of King County gross density calculation to City of Renton net density calculations. City of Renton: R-5 Zone 1 acre parcel (gross area) King County: R-4 Zone 1 acre parcel (gross area) Roadway deducted from initial parcel area (.8 acres remain -net area) 4 units/acre X 1 acre = 4 units 5 units/acre X .8 acres = 4 units Roadway deducted from lot areas Residential density, as it is used in zoning regulations, is the number of homes or multifamily units that can be built on a given amount ofland, usually an acre. King County and the City of Renton express residential zones according to a density figure. For example, the County's R-4 Zone and the City's R-5 Zone are residential zones that allow development at four units per acre and five units per acre respectively. However, the County and City densities described in the zone names do not correspond. This is because the densities are calculated differently. The County uses a gross density calculation, where the City uses net density. As described above, gross density gives a figure for the number of units that can be placed on the whole parcel. Only after the number of lots is calculated, the gross density times the total area, are the roadways deducted. In deriving net density, the City subtracts areas that cannot be built on, such as roads and sensitive areas, from the total area. Then the density is mUltiplied by the remaining lot area. As the figure above shows, if20% of the area ofa parcel are used for roads, the County's R-4 Zone and the City's R-5 Zone would each allow the same four units to be built. ! 09. 14. 95 02 14 PM POl - 255·11800 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 September 8, 1995 Dear Resident, 1 seOll Sauth ••• t1Zlth 8tr.,t R,nton, W .. hlnllion "068 The City of Renton has intentions of annexing several properties that are presently within King County Water District 90's water and sewer service area. Apparently, this action was initiated by developers, property owners and the Renton School District to obtain the availability of sewers. KCWD #90 is the authorized franchise holder to serve both water and sewer within our service area. This franchise has been in place for several decades. The District's plans and designs for a main sewer line (gravity flow) to allow sewer service to the western half of your District has been in place since 1980. We feel the economics and efficiencies of a gravity flow sewer system to be the most beneficial to the residents in this area. Due to the importance of this issue, the District Commissioners have requested a hearing with the Boundary Review Board to discuss these issues and protect the interest of the District's customers. This hearing is set for Thursday, September 21, 1995 7:00 PM at Maplewood Heights Elementary school. Unfortunately, the District was not approached for sewer service until after the annexation process had begun. With the sewer interest of developers, the Issaquah and Renton School Districts, and the White Fence Ranch area. sewer service could be more economically served by KCWD #90. Not only would the installation factor be more economical, the ongoing electrical and maintenance costs of a gravity flow system would be considerably less expensive than Renton's proposed pumped system. These factors greatly impact sewer rates. The Board of Commissioners believes there are other advantages inherent in having KCWD #90 provide the sewer service in this area. Service by the District would allow the residents to maintain and control their own system through the elected Board of Commissioners. If served by Renton, there are no local controls. Undoubtedly, you would also participate in Renton's cost for maintenance. operations, pumping and upgrading of a much older system. With a totally new gravity system installed by your District. initial costs and monthly sewer rates will be considerably less expensive. The Commissioners at KCWD #90 are taking the necessary steps to preserve our fi'anchise for this area and its ability to serve the residents needs. Sincerely, King County Water District #90 · .- Earl Clymer, Mayor April 3, 1995 Commissioners Water District 90 15606 SE 128th Street Renton, W A 98059 CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION District Commissioners: The City of Renton is processing a request to annex 399.3 acres of the East Renton Plateau to the City of Renton. The area lies within the boundaries of Water District 90. (See enclosed maps) This letter is to apprise you of the proposal and to request certain information that the City must forward to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. Water District 90 has declared both the desire and the ability to continue to provide water service to the area. The City recognizes the District's franchise and does not wish to encroach upon the District's sen:ice area, However, with any proposed annexation, the Boundary Review Board requires an analysis of the sources for all primary urban services. The proposed City zoning allows comparable densities to those permitted under the existing King County zoning. The City projects 954 residences and a population of 2676 at build-out. Are these figures consistent with the District's source capacity? Additionally, the Boundary Review Board has requested the following information for inclusion in the report on the Bumstead Annexation proposal: 1) The location and capacity of storage facilities to serve the area; 2) Existing water sources aside from the Seattle Water Department; 3) Pressure station location and measured flow for the area; 4) Any additional or upgraded mains within the area that are not represented on the Water District's 1993 facilities map; and, 5) A brief evaluation of the present adequacy, cost and rates of service to the area and how you see future needs and costs Increasing. I assume that we can fmd Items I, 2 and 3 in your Comprehensive Plan, if you have an available copy to send us. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 TIllS P rf:R CONTAINS 50% RECYCLED MATER tAL 10% POST CONSUMER I I We would appreciate a response by Apri119, so that we can make a timely submittal to the Boundary Review Board. If you have any questions, please contact Owen Dennison at 277- 2475. Thank you. S~IJ<KdiL--?f Michael D. Kattermann; AICP . Director, Planning and Technical Services . cc: Gregg Zimmerman Sue Carlson Ron Olsen Lys Hornsby • • • ." • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • T • • •• ST. • * • • • • ······~~ .. ~J;l~~~~1rl~~~111 ....... , • • • " , , ~C PRY 2 ~ v ~ .. ~ is ~ S.E.136th sr. --.. _ ... ------BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION PRO .. .JSED CITY OF RENTOl, ZONING " I •.. I Residential -5 dulac 1::::::::::1 Residential 8 dulac 1:::::;::;;1 Residential -10 dulac ,-----,I Proposed Annexatian Area ____ Renton City Limits o I 1000 2000 ~! I 1 :12000 OTY Of R81{TON e ~/!lI.DN31'1'W.JC W~ + AID + 0.1) ....... ~ I. MacOo-Ao. D. V1or..Mf 7Mcf'cft 199~ -" BUPNSTEAD ANNEXATION KING t'dUNTY ZONINlr (.,,: .",,1 R-4 lii\\jjji\\~m\~nJ R -12 R-18 CB NB I I Proposed Annexation Area ____ Renton City Limits o I 1000 2000 I! I 1:12000 OTY Of RENTON e ~/BI,.I.DNG/PUII.JC wORK! + AlII • O,Dwrioan ~ .. MacONo, 0. VIIr..Id 21 M<rdI 1995 . LAW OF"F"ICES RICH"RD S. WHITE GAR V F". LINDEN JOHN E. EDERER f>HILLIf> D. NOBLE: HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD Be HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA O"VID F". JURC" LISH WHITSON JOHN G. BERCiM"NN R. BROH LANDSM"N DANF"ERD W. HENKE KAREN J. V"NDERL""N f>AULINE V. $METKA DAVID CiROSS BRUCE H. BENSON R"G"N L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSH"W ANDRE'W J. KINSTLER F"REDRICK D. HUEBNER M"RK F". RISINCi KEVIN L. STOCK M"RK C. DE'AN LLEWELYN G. f>RITCH"RD C • .JAMES F"RUSH JERRY E. THDNN ROBE'FH N. GELLATLY DIRK ". BARTRAM DEBORAH L. MARTIN WATSON B. BL"IR LIND" D. W"L TON GEORGE A. NICOUD III P"TRICI" E. "NOERSON SCOTT E. COLLINS 'IAIoI AOIolI ... 15TAA10A JACOUELINE K. BOETTCHER Boundary Review Board 3600 -136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attention: Legal Counsel 1329 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101·2509 P.O. BOX 2.1846 SEATTLE. WASHINC;;TON 98111·3846 (2.06) 292·1144 FAX (206) 340·0902 E·MAILhfmthOhelsell.com CITY OF RENTON me 29 1995 Rlvc,IIED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE August 25, 1995 POLLY K. BECKER SCOTT W. CAMPBELL KELLY M. CANNON B. JEFFREY CARL JENNIFER S. DIVINE JACKI L. KIRKLIN YANA D. KOUBOURLIS JONATH"N P. MEIER DEBRA A. MORALES LAURA F. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON ERIK D. PRICE PETER G. RAMELS BRADLEY S. SHANNON RICHARD E. SPOONEMORE CINNAMON STEPHENS BOB C. STERBANK ~"'NO US[ ANALVST .JANE S. KIKEA 0' COUNS£~ LIND" J. COCHR"N ROCiER L. DECKER CRAIG R. OOOEL PETER J. EGLICK WILLIAM A. HELSELL RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER HAROLD R. AOOKS LARRY SETCHELL LYNN B. SOUIRES A£TIA[O PAUL FETTERMAN THOMAS TODD Re: File No. 1922 --City of Renton --Burnstead Annexation; Request for Prehearing Return of Matter to City of Renton ._ Dear Boundary Review Board: This letter is written on behalf of the Neighbors United For Representation, concerning the above-referenced annexation proposal for which a hearing is currently scheduled on September 21, 1995. We write to request that the Board take up prior to the annexation hearing our request that it return the City of Renton's Notice of Intent to Annex, without action, because it is legally impossible for the City of Renton to annex the property encompassed by the Burnstead Annexation. We make this request to avoid what otherwise would be a fruitless public hearing and a waste of the Board's time and resources. The bases for our request are set out below. I. The 60% Petition Violates The Prohibition In State Law Against School District Properties Joining With Other Properties To Petition for Annexation. The City of Renton's Notice ofIntent claims to be supported by valid signatures of owners of 60% of the total assessed valuation of the area to be annexed. The City's Notice of Intent, dated May 3,1995, states as follows: U-: This annexation is proposed under the 60% petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW. The petition contains ~~~ Boundary Review Board August 25, 1995 Page 2 signatures representing about 62.4% of the total 1995 assessed valuation within the proposed annexation area. See May 3, 1995 cover letter enclosing Notice of Intention. What the letter does not disclose, however, is that the claimed 62.4% relies upon the signature of the Renton School District purporting to authorize inclusion of the Maplewood Heights Elementary School property within the annexation area. The School District property comprises more than 4% of the claimed 62.4% of total assessed value. See Petition To Annex To The City Of Renton under RCW 35A.14.120 (60% Petition -Bumstead Annexation), at 2,1; Without the School District's property the total percentage falls to 58%. See Spreadsheet showing percentage of valuation represented by Maplewood Heights Elementary. The Renton School District, however, lacks any legal authority to sign the annexation petition. Washington law is clear. School districts are creatures of state law and therefore have only the authority granted them by the Legislature. As the Supreme Court explained in Noe v. Edmonds School Disl., 83 Wn.2d 97, 103, SIS P.2d 977 (1973): [School districts] are created by the legislature and can exercise only such powers as the legislature has granted in expressed words, or those necessary or fairly implied in, or incident to, powers expressly granted or those essential to the declared objects and purposes of such district. 83 Wn.2d at 103. While the Legislature has expressly granted school districts some authority to sign a petition for annexation, that authority can only be exercised in very limited circumstances set out in RCW 28A.335.110: In addition to other powers and duties as provided by law, every Board of Directors, if seeking to have school property annexed to a city or town and if such school property constitutes the whole of such property in the annexation petition. shall be allowed to petition therefor under RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130. (Emphasis added.) Thus, a school district may petition for annexation in only two circumstances: (I) when it petitions under RCW 35.13; and (2) when the school property the district seeks to have annexed constitutes the whole of the property to be annexed. Id. Here, the proposed annexation meets neither of the two criteria set forth in RCW 28A.335.110. First, because Renton is a code city operating under the Optional Municipal Code, The attached petition is signed by Gary F. Kohlwes. the Superintendent of the Renton School District, and lists the tax lot number for Maplewood Heights Elementary School. Boundary Review Board August 25, 1995 Page 3 RCW Title 35A, the annexation is proposed under RCW 35A.14, not RCW 35.13. Yet, it is only under Title 35 --not Title 35A--that RCW 28A.335.IIO grants school districts power to seek to have school property annexed. In short, pursuant to the first requirement in RCW 28A.335.IIO, governing school districts, district directors do not have authority to sign petitions for annexation under RCW 35A.14.120, nor do petitioning cities operating under RCW Title 35A have authority to include school districts on their petitions. The second requirement ofRCW 28A.335.110, which once again is the Legislature's only grant oflimited authority to school directors to file annexation petitions, is also not met here. The Maple'wood Heights Elementary School property owned by the Renton School District does not comprise the whole of the property being annexed as required under RCW 28A.335.110. Rather, as noted above, it constitutes only approximately 4% of it. Accordingly, the Renton School District director's signature is invalid and unlawful. The Boundary Review Board itself has recognized the prohibition against school districts' participation in general annexations. In its Resolution and Hearing Decision concerning the Newport Hills annexation, the Board acknowledged the exclusion of three Bellevue Schooi District properties from the annexation because ofRCW 28.335.110's prohibition: The school district properties were eliminated from the original proposal due to a prohibition in state law against school district properties joining together with other properties to petition for annexation. Resolution and Hearing Decision, dated December II, 1992, in In Re City of Bellevue Proposed Annexation [for] Newport Hills, King County Boundary Review Board File No. 1773, at 7 (emphasis added) (copy attached). Likewise, the City of Renton here has also recognized that the Renton School District cannot legally sign a general annexation petition like the Bumstead annexation petition at issue here. Early in the annexation process, in the summer of 1994, the City of Renton published an Annexation Information bulletin, stating: Since Washington State law requires that school district properties constitute the entirety of annexations Maplewood Heights Elementary has been excluded from this proposal. Seel Annexation Information bulletin (emphasis added)( copy attached). Apparently, when the City later realized that annexation proponents would not be able to obtain sufficient signatures to support annexation, the City changed its mind and, contrary to its public pronouncements --and the law--allowed the School District to sign the petition. Boundary Review Board August 25, 1995 Page 4 ~ ,: ----B~;;-~0h~ AMe~atlOrlpeiitiOfCIs-i.:;egally-I nsufficient-and-Because' tile tity'-Has _ __ Failed-to Include a -Copy of an Ordinance or Resohition-F6rmalizing-Its IfitentiOn , __ to Annex. the Ci!v'SNotice ofintent Must Be Returned-Without-Action-, --, _.,.. -------------.-- As demonstrated above, the Notice of Intent and Annexation Petition on which it is based are legally defective because they rely on School District property in a circumstance where tlie Legislature has not granted authority for recognition of School District property as part of an Annexation Petition. -This Board has not hesitated in analogous circumstances to return such defective Notices of Intent without action because of legal impossibility. For example, in The Maller oj the Proposed Incorporation oj the City oj Vashon Is/and, the Board, through its counsel, advised the submitter of a Notice of Intent to Incorporate that the Board could not proceed to take action on the incorporation proposal for Vashon Island because "the Board is required to exclude the entirety of Vashon Island from the proposed incorporation." The Board's counsel therefore stated that he had: ... advised the Board (and the Board has accepted my opinion) that it is legally impossible to incorporate Vashon Island under existing law. Accordingly, the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is returning your Notice of Intent without action. Letter dated August 22, 1994, from Special Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Kaufinan to Carol R. Campbell (copy attached). The legal impossibility inherent in the City of Renton's Notice ofIntent is no less palpable: it has submitted a Petition which blatantly relies on School District property when such reliance, as the Board has acknowledged in earlier decisions is illegal. In addition to this fundamental flaw, Renton's submission also fails to comply with the requirement of the Boundary Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure concerning Notices ofIntention to Annex. Rule l.B.I requires that: All Notices of Intention shall be submitted following the appropriate format, which shall be furnished by the Executive Secretary upon request. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the Notice of Intention format currently in use. The Board's current format requires that a Notice ofintention include: A signed and certified copy of the resolution/ordinance accepting the proposal as officially passed. Notice of Intention Format a.t 1.2. This is required so that the Board can assure itself that the municipality has actually approved of the annexation based upon a valid petition, since a municipal legislative body is required to adopt an ordinance if it "determines to effect the annexation." Boundary Review Board August 25, 1995 Page 5 RCW 35A.14.140. Attaching the ordinance (which must incorporate by reference the required Petition) allows the Board to review the Notice in light, inter alia, of the RCW Chapter 35A.14 requirement that a local government determine that the petition contains the requisite percentage of signatures before proceeding. When the Board determines, after review, that a Notice of Intention is defective, the Board must deem the Notice void and return it to the initiating pany. Rules 8 and 9 states as follows: 8. Review The Board shall review as provided in RCW 36.93.100, all Notices ofIntention as filed in accordance with RCW 36.93.090 and the Rules of Practice and Procedure, (I.B.5 Notices of Intention: Filing Date), on the basis of the legal description contained in said Notice ofIntention [as required by RCW 36.93.130(3)] on the date the filing is assigned as provided in these Rules of Practice and Procedure (I.B.6. Notices of Intention: Notice to the Board). 9. Declaration as Void All Notices ofIntention not in condition for official filing within six months following the date of receipt, due to legal insufficiency, shall be deemed void and the Executive Secretary will, following the end of the sixth month, return to the initiator all materials therein submitted by the initiator. Rules I.B.8 and 9. As the Board stated (through its counsel) in the Vashon Island case cited above: In order for a Notice of Intent of a proposed incorporation to be legally sufficient, the notice must comply with Board rules. In the case of incorporations, the rules require very specific financial and other data for the Board's determination of the feasibility of a new city. In lieu of providing specific information, proponents of an incorporation may provide the Board with assurances that a study will be conducted and made pan of the Notice of Intent. As of this writing, no study has been conducted, the information required by the Board's Notice ofIntention format has not been submitted, and the Board does not have a legally sufficient filing in this matter. The Board therefore returned the Vashon Island Notice ofIntent without action. It should follow the same procedure here, paniculariy where it is legally impossible to proceed based on a Petition relying on School District propeny. Boundary Review Board August 25, 1995 Page 6 3. Conclusion In light of the insufficiency of the City of Renton Notice ofIntent, and the impossibility of proceeding on a legally valid basis, a Board hearing would be fruitless and a waste of resources. The Board should return the Notice of Intent without action. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. We would appreciate a response in advance of the hearing now set for September 21,1995. PJElBCS:rp encs cc: City of Renton Neighbors United for Representation O:ILAND _ USEIDATAIHA/'IDLINIRTRNANNX.L TR Very truly yours, HELSELL,FETTE~,~TIN TODD & HOKANSON :.. _ ,-, ~RCM' WSERB FOR KING CO. 2063402524 JUL 11, 1995 2'49PM ~lS5 P.02 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 51 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3S 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 INRE: PROCEEDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARV REVlEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY CITY OF BELLEVUE PROPOSED ANNEXATION (Newport mils) King County, Washlng1Dn FILE NO. 1773 RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION The Notice oflntention filed in Boundary RevIew Board File No. 1773 proposed the annexation of certain territory known as "Newpon HUls" by the City of Bellevue, King County, WashingtOn. After notice duly given, a hearing was held July 28, 1992, and continued 10 July 29 and July 30, 1992. before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board at Tyee Middle Scbool. 13630 S.B. Allen Road. Bellevue. Washington. and continued to August 13. October 8, and November 12. 1992, before a quorum oflbe Boundary Review Board In Hearing Room II, 3600 136th Place S.E .• Bellevue, WashingtOn. On the basis of the testimony, evidence and exhibits pre$ented at said bearing, and the matters on file in sald File No. 1773. It Is the decision of the Board that the action proposed In sald Notice of Intention be, and the same is. hereby approved as modified by the addition of territory. The legal description of the modified ~ation area 1& al1<lchcd hereto and marked as "Exhibit A' • together with a map showing the boundaries of the area as modified herein marked as 'Exhibit B". FACTORS AFFECTING THIS PROposAL In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the many facton prescribed In RCW 36.93.170. The following have been selected for partlcular attention: Land Am The proposed Newport Hills annexation to the City of Bellevue Is 781.31 acres In size. located to the south of approximately the S.E. 4Sth block and generally between Interstate 405 (140S) and Coal Creek Parkway. The western boundary of the annexation area 1& I-40~, whIch Corresponds to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Bellevue. The eastern boundary of the annexallon area is Coal Creek Parkway and the existing City of Bellevue corporate boundary line. The eastern boundary follows Coal Creek Parkway at the northern end. continues along Coal Creek Parkway as the Parkway becol1lel the City corporate boundary. then moves 10 the east 10 follow the City corporate boundary where It Is located to the east of the Parlcway, and finally follows Coal Creek Parkway agaln toward the southern end. The nonhero boundary of the annexation area follows property 1lne$ between S.E. 48th and 49th Streets at the western end. travels northerly along property lloes 10 the east of 119th AvenueS.B .• and then follows propeny linea easterly at approximately the S .E. 45th block. The southern boundary of the proposed annexation area follows S.E. 60th Street at the western end, exteada southerly at l20th Avenue S.E., travels easterly allain at S.B. 64th Street, then follows property IIoes between 123rd and 125th Avenues S.E. back to S.B. 60th Street. At approximately 128th Avenue S.E., the southern boundary extends southerly to S.E. 69th Place, and then travels easterly again to Coal Creek Parkway along property lines dividing residential propenies from the commercial area to the south. The originally proposed Newport Hills annexation area 1& modified to Include three school sites excluded from the annex8Ilon as submitted by the City of Bellevue. The three school sites, owned by the Bellevue Public School District. include Newport Hills Elementary School, Lake Heights Middle Schooi, and PAGE ONE -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) FROM:WSBRB FOR KING :0. TO: 2063402524 JUL 11, 1995 ,2:50PM 11155 p.,b.~ I Eastside Catholic High School. The school sites leave two unincorporated islands within tbe proposed 2 annexation area, along wltb one unincorporated peninsula on the oorth side of S.B. 60th Street. 'Jbc 3 school district properties were excluded from the annexation due to a provision In state statute. RCW 4 28A.58.044, which may be Intelpretcd \0 prohibit school district properties from joining In annexations 5 Involving additional properties not owned by the school district. Bellevue School District No. 40S 6 submitted a letter requesting that school district properties be included In any annexation of surrounding 7 properties, expressing the position that It Is appropriate for school alles to be Included in the surrounding 8 community. 9 10 The proposed Newport Hills annexation area is contiguous to existing City of Bellevue corporate II boundaries along both the western and eastern boundaries of the site. The annexation constitutes the 12 major ponion of 8 peninsula of unincorporated territory surrounded by the City of Bellevue to the wcst, 13 north and east. This peninsula of un!ncolpOrated territory encompasses the Factorla business and 14 commercial area, along with a number of established rcsldentlal areas. the largest of which is the Newport IS Hills neighborhood. A southwcsterly extension of the City of Bellevue, between 1-405 and Lake 16 WashingtOn. forms the western boundary of the peninsula of ulUncorporated territory, as well as the 17 wClitern boundary of the annexation, A southeasterly extension of the City of Bellevue, connected to the 18 City by a relatively narrow strip of the City between Factoriil and Eastgate, forms the eastern boundary . 19 of the peninsula of unincorporated territory, as well as the eastern boundary of the annexation. 20 21 The unincorporated peninsUla, including the proposed Newport Hills annexation site. is Included within 22 the proposed City of Newport HUls incorporation area. In addhlon 10 the Newport Hills annexation, a 23 number of other single family rcsldentlal neIghborhoods within this unincorporated peninsula are currently 24 proposing annexatlon to the City of Bellevue. State statute providcs in RCW 35A.14.230 that after the 25 filing of any petition for annexation with the Boundary Review Board, pending Ita final disposition under 26 Chapter 3SA.14, no petition for incorporation which embraces any of the territory Included In the 27 annexation shall be acted upon by any public official or body that might otherwise be empowered to 28 receive or act upon the petition. 29 30 Population Bnd Population Density 31 32 Estimated population of the proposed Newport Hills annexatiou area is 4.700 residents. Based on the land 33 area of 781.13 acrcs, population density Is six residents per acre. 34 35 Land llBe 36 37 The proposed annexation area Is fully developed with 1,400 single family homes, approximately 250 38 multiple family residential units, a commercial center located on 119Ih Avenue S.E., and park property 39 along Coal Creek. 40 41 Comprehensive Land Use "Ians and Zoning 42 43 KIng County 44 45 The proposed annexation area is class ifled as Urban in the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan. Land 46 use designations in the King County Community Plan for the area, the Newcastle Community Plan, 47 include office, busincss. and both single family and multIple family residential. King County zoning 48 classifications include Neighborhood Busincss (BN) and residential. wIth a wide range of decaltics. TIle 49 single famlly residential classifications within the area are Suburban E&tate (SE), with a minimum lot size SO of approximately one acre, and Single Pam1Iy Dwelling (RS) 15,000. 9600 aDd 7200, which require PAGE TWO -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) _ FROM:WSERE FOR.KING CO. TO: 2063402524 JUL 11, 1995 2:50PM ~155 P.04 I minimum lots sizes of IS,OOO, 9,60() and 7,200 square feet. The multiple family residential classifications 2 Include: Multiple: Family Dwelling (RM) 1800. which requires 1,800 square feet of lot area per unit, and 3 RM 900, which requires 900 square feet of lot area per unit, with the alternative option of office lI8O. 4 S City of Bellevue 6 7 The proposed annexation is within the City of Bellevue sphere of Influence, as delineated In agreements 8 concluded with the Cities of Renton and Issaquah In 1979. The Bellevue sphere of influence extend, to 9 the south to Include all of the unincorporated peninsula of territory surrounded by Bellevue on the west, 10 north and cast. City of Bellevue compre:hensive planning hal inel uded this area for eventual annelation II and provision of services. 12 13 The proposed annexation is Included In the: Annexation Element ofthc: City of Bellevue Comprehensive: 14 Plan. Following annexation. the City of Bellevue would initiate subarea planning with the participation IS of residents of the newly annexed area. Proposed City r.oning is comparable to turrent King County 16 roning and reflects ellsting land use. City ronlng classifications would include Professional Offices (PO) 17 and Neighborhood Businees (NB), along wilh a range of residential classifications. Single family 18 residentialronlng classifications Include: R.-I, which allows one unit per acre. R·2.S. which allows 2.S 19 uniL. per acn: with a minimum lot size of 13,SOO square: feet. R-3.S. which allows 3.S units per acre with 20 a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, R-4, which allows four units per acre with a minimum lot size 21 of 8,500 square feet. and R-S, which allows five units per acre with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square 22 feet. The multiple family residential classifications arc R-20, which allows up to 20 units per acre, and 23 R-30, which allows up to 30 units per acre. 24 2S Growth Management 26 27 The Growth Management Act promotes the Inclusion of urbanized areas within cIties. The proposed 28 annexation area Is a fully developed urban area appropriate for annexation. 29 30 Topography 31 32 The proposed annexation area Includes some steep slopes In excess of 40 percent along the western and 33 eastern boundaries of the area. Steep slopes along the western boundary of the site are along the ]-405 34 right-of-way. Steep slopes along the eastern boundary of the site are alODg Coal Creek Parkway. 35 36 Natural Boundaries 37 38 It is not anticipated that Newport Hills annexation area boundaries will form new corporate boundaries 39 for the City of Bellevue In the long term. The wcstern and eastern boundaries of the site follow already 40 existing City of Bellevue corporate boundarlcs. The northern boundaries of the site follow the southern 41 boundaries of the proposed Lake Heights annexation, which Is in process collcurrently with the Newport 42 Hills anne~ation. The southern boundaries of the site do not extend to the City of Bellevue sphere of 43 influence line, except at the southe:astern comer. The City of Bellevue anticipates annexation of the 44 Garden of Eden neighborhood. whIch would extend the City to the sphere of influence line at S.B. 64th 45 Street west of 120th Avenue S.E. The Bellevue sphere of Influence extends to S.E. 69th Street to the east 46 of 120th Avenue S.B .• encompassing remaining residential neighborhoods within the Newport HUll 47 community. A number ofresidents north of S.B. 69th Street not il1Cluded III the Newport Hills annexation 48 submitted letters and petitions testifying that they are part of Newport Hills and would appropriately be 49 Included In any annexation ofNcwport Hills to Bellevue. The eventual City boundary line would be S.E. SO 69th Street, which Is a major roadway. PAGE THREE -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) FROM:WS8RS FOR KING CO. TO: 2063<:02524 JUL 11. 1995:,2:51PM 11155 P.0:;.- 1 2 Per Caplla AsSessed Valuation 3 4 Assessed valuation of the annexation area Is $243,672,440. Based on a population of 4.700 residents, 5 per capita assessed valuation is $5 [,84S. 6 7 Probable Elred or Proposal on Cost and Adequacy of Serrlcea 8 9 PoUee Protectlon 10 11 Poliee protection service to the annexation area. currendy provided by Kin& County, would be provided 12 by the CIty of Bellevue following annexation. The City of Bellevue states that it would be able to provide 13 the annexation area with service comparable to the service currendy provided to the existing City of 14 Bellevue. IS 16 The City of Bellevue has eight police districts. of which six are geographic districts artd two arc roving 17 districts. The district closest to the annexation area Is District No.6, which serves Eastgate and Somerset 18 to the south of Interstate 00 (1-00). There are one. two or three officers on duty In each district at all 19 times, depending on the level of activity. Beginning in 1991, the City of Bellevue received c:rlmlnal 20 justice funds utilized to add police personnel, which would provide the manpower required to serve the 21 annexation area Initially. ]n the long run, the City would hire additional police personnel to serve the 22 Newport Hill, anneution arca. along with additional annexation areas In the vicinity. The City 23 anticlpatefi adding a seventh geographical police district to serve Newport Sbores, Lake Heights and 24 Newport HUis. With the creation of the additional district, Bellowe would havc two complete patrol 25 dl&trlcts to the south of 1-00. 26 27 F1re Protection 28 29 Following annexation. the City of Bellewe would assume responsibility for fue protection service to the 30 proposed annexation area. A smali ponion of the art!lexation site. the northeastern corner of the site, Is 3 I within King County Fire Protection District No. 14. which contracts with the City of Bellevue to provide 32 scrvice. Therefore, this small area already receives City of Bellevue fire protection service. A District . 33 No. 14 fire station located at the southern end of the Factorla business district 1& manned by the City of 34 Bellcwc fire department. The major portion of the annexation site Is currently within King County Fire 35 Protection District No. 2S and Is served from District Fire Station No. 72. looated at the southern end 36 of the Newport Hills residential area. 37 38 The City of Bellevue would continue to utilize the current Fire District No. 2S Fire Station No. 72 to 39 provide service to the Newport Hills aMcxation area. A new City of Bellcvue fire statiop, City Station 40 No. 35, is planned for construction artd would provide good service to the annexation areas south ofl-90. 41 42 The City of Bellevue fire Insurartce rating is Class 2. which compares favorably with the Fire District No. 43 25 rating of Class 5. The improved lnaurartce rating would significantly lower Insurartce rates for 44 commercial properties, but would have a less significant Impact on Insurance costs for the te$ldentlai 45 properties which constitute the majority of the properties In Newport HlIIs. 46 47 48 49 so PAGE FOUR -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APY/MOD) ~ FROM:WSBRB FOR KING CO. TO: 20634~2S24 JUL 11, 1995 2:52PM ~155 P.05 1 2 Water and Sewer Service 3 4 The proposed annexation would not affect water and sewer service 10 the annexation area. 11Ic area S currently recclvell water service from King County Water and Sewer District No. 107, and most of the 6 area reccivell sewer service from District No. 107. A small area In the northeastern part of the annCxatlon 7 Is within the Bastgatc Sewer District. The same districts would continue to provide the same service 8 following annexation. 9 10 Street MaIntenance II 12 Pollowlng annexation, the City of Bcllevue would provide the annellation area with road maintenance and 13 transponation capltallmptovement& equal 10 or better than those currently provided by King County. City 14 of Bellevue transportation employees are already worting In ponioDJI of Bellevue within the Immediate 15 vicinity of the annexation area and are capable of providing service 10 the annexation site. 16 17 Parks, Recreation. Social and Health Services 18 19 Residents of the annexation area submitted considerable testimony that they are impressed with the 20 eltcellent paries, recreation programs, and social and health programs offered by the City of Bellevue. 21 22 Cost of Servleea 23 24 Combined taxes and fees In the City of Bellevue are comparable 10, or slightly lower than, combined taxell 25 and fees 10 unincorporated King County. Property taxes arc lower in the City of Bellevue than In King 26 County. In additlon, King County requires that residents pay for street lights, and the City of Bellevue 27 dOC& not have a streelllght payment. 011 the other hand, the City of Bellevue charges a ulility tax on 2g natural gas, cable television and telepbone services. In addition to the utlllty tax, the City of Bellevue 29 Slonn and Surface Water Utility fee, which is based on lot size, Is higher for an average sized lot than 30 the flat fee charged by the Count)' for surface water management. 31 32 As an example, the City of Bellevue provided figures for a single family home on an average 12,000 33 square foot lot with an assessed value of $175,000. For purposes of comparison, it Is wumed that the 34 home Is 011 a lighted street, that the household uses $200 in utilitles per llIOnth, that the bouse Is within 35 King County fire Protection District No. 25, and that the location is In the Bellevue Scbool District. The 36 total 1 m property talIeS and fees would be $2,165 .69 In King County. The toW 1992 property taxes 37 and fees would be $2,099.82 In the City of Bellevue. The property owner In this example would 38 experience a reduction In tales and fees of approximately $66 per year 18 a mult of annexation to the 39 City of Bellevue. This means that thc property owner would receive equal or Improved servicea at equal 40 or less cost. 41 42 Errect on the FInances. Debt Skuttu", and Contractual Obligations o( Atfcc:tes! Governmental Unllf 43 44 Cit)' of Belle,.ue 45 46 The City of Bellevue projected potential revenues and service provision costs for the proposed Newport 47 Hills annclIatlon, combined with additional annexations anticipated within the vicinity of Factoria and. 48 Newport Hills. Based on projections for the total area, the City of Bellevue detennined that revenues 49 resulting from the anJ1CxatJODJI would allow the City to provide the area with services comparable to those SO currentl)· provided to the eltisting City of Bellevue. PAGE FIVE -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) FROM:WSBRB FOR KING CO. TO: 2063402524 1 2 King County Flre Protection District No. 25 3 4 The proposed Newpon Hills annexation iU'Q constitutes 11.36 percent of the geographical area of King S County Fire Protection District No. 25. As a result of the proposed Newport Hills annexation. the 6 District would lose $243.672,440 In assessed valuation. which is approximately 19.8 percent of the total 7 District assessed valuation. Annual revenue loss Is calculated at $365.509. 8 9 Fire District No. 2S testifies that loss ofrevenue due to the proposed Newport Hills anne1l8tion. combined 10 with other anticipated annexations to the City of Bellevue in the area. would have a negative Impact on II the ability of the District to continue to provide the same level of service to the remainder of the District. 12 It would still be necessary to equip and man the two District fire stations. and this would have to be 13 accomplished with substantially reduced funding. The District contends that loss of revenues and assets 14 would reduce staffing. maintenance of equipment. training progrllIl1l. abUity to provide mutual aid. and 15 ability to procure equipment and perform contracts. 16 17 One 'option available to Fire District No. 2S for dealing with the potential lOllS of revenue Is contracting 18 with the Cities of Bellevue and Renton to provide service to remaining District area. The need to explore 19 contracting options Is recognized In a 1990 letter from the District Fire Chief to the Bellevue and Renton 20 city fire departments. ' Discussion was Initiated at that tIme. but 110 diSCWIslon is taking place currently. 21 Contracting remains an option. and the City of Bellevue states willingness to resume dlscullSions. 22 23 24 OBJECTIVES 25 26 This decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board tends to accomplish the pertinent 27 objectives spedfied In RCW 36.93.180. The particularly significant objectives in this proposal are as 28 follows: 29 30 Prl'llervatlon or natural neighborhood!! and eommunltlM 31 32 Residents of the proposed Newport HUis anneullon to the City of Bellevue identify with the City of ., 33 Bellevue. Residents of the annexation area testified that they already view thcDlliClves as living in 34 Bellevue and have always felt that they were part of Bellevue. Residenta further testified that they view 35 Bellevue as a well run city with excellent facilities and that they are proud to be a part of Bellevue. In 36 addition, Newport Hills rcsidellt$ have Bellevue mailing addresses. their cblldren attend Bellevue schools. 37 and they have social and business ties to Bellevue. Newport HUis resldenta shop in Bellevue. some work 38 in Bellevue. they go to Bellevue for recreation and entertainment. they see doctors and dentists In 39 Bellevue. and they attend Bellevue churches. Newport Hills residents see their community as similar In 40 character to the City of Bellevue and express affInlty with the City of Bellevue. 41 42 This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (I). 43 44 Creation Bnd preservation or logical senlce '!'ClIS 45 46 The proposed annexation elltends City of Bellevue service areai in a logical manner within the Bellevue 47 sphere of inlluence. established by agreement with the neighboring CIties of Renton and Issaquah. The 48 City of Bellevue has planned for eventual provision of services to all areas within the Believue sphere ot 49 influence. PAGE SIX -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) ,,;,' .' -, FROM:WS8R8 FOR KING CO. iO: 2063402524 JUL 11. 1995 2:53PM 11155 P.03 1 2 The proposed anllCltation site constitutes the major portion of a peninsula of territory already surrounded 3 on three sides, to the west, north and east, by the: existing City of Bellevue. The City already has 4 personnel and eQUipment In the vicinity of the annelation site and has the capability of extending services 5 to the annexation area. 6 7 This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (3). 8 9 Prevention of abnormally lrugular boundaries 10 11 12 The originally proposed annexation boundatlca are modified to eliminate two Islands and ODe peninsula 13 of unincorporated territory, created by exclusion of three school district propertica from the anncxation 14 as proposed. The school district properties were cllmlnated from the original proposal due to a 15 prohibition In state law against schooi district properties joining together with other properties to petition 16 for annexation. The City of Bellevue and the Bellevue School District support Inclusion of the properties, 17 and Inclusion ofthc school sites prevents abnormally Irregular boundaries creating unincorporated Islands. 18 19 The proposed annexation eliminates a major portion of a peninsula ofunlncorporilted territory surrounded 20 on three sides, to the west, north and east, by tile existing City of Bellevue. It Is recognized that In the 21 short term, the Newport Hills anneltatlon, In combination with the Lake Heights lIIlDCltatlonilnlDedlllely 22 to the north, would leave an island of unincorporated territory Including the Factorla business district and 23 the Greenwich Crest and Mockingbird Hill residential neighborhoods. It is wumed that these areas 24 would eventually annex to the City of Bellevue. The southern boundary of the Newport Hilla aDneution 2S area Is recognized as appropriate for the short term only, and It Is anticipated that area residents will 26 clarify the boundaries of the Newport Hills· conununlty and the City of Bellevue through future 27 . annexations. 28 29 ThIs decision to approve the annexation as modified by the addition of territory tends to accomplish the 30 objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (4). 31 32 Annexation or unincorporated areas wblch arc urban In character 33 34 The annelatlon site Is a fully developed rcaldcntlal community, including a neighborhood coll1lIlCrcial 3S center, which Is urban in character. The area is recognized 81 urbsn In character In both King County 36 and City of BeJlcvue comprehensive plans and lOning codes, which desigD8le the area for urban density 37 residential and commercial land uscs. 3S 39 This decision tends to accomplish the objective spcclDed In RCW 36.Sl3. 180 (8). 40 41 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASillNGTON STATE BOUNDARY 42 REVIEW BOARD FOR K1NG COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, tile action proposed 10 the 43 Notice of Intention contained In said Pile No. 1773 be, and the same Is, hereby approved 81 modified by 44 the addition of territory 81 deacribed In Exhibits A and B attached hereto and Incorporated herein by 45 reference. 46 47 48 49 PAGE SEVEN -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 -_ .•..• _----- FROM:WSBRB FOR KING CO. TO: 2063402524 JUL 11, 1995,.J 2:54PM ~lS5 P,"0g'!'-," ADOPTED BY SAID WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 agalM! this 10th day of DeCember 1992, and signed by me In authentication of Its said adoption on said date. FILED BY ME this 11th day of December, 1992 ALDA H. WILKINSON, Executive Secrewy WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY I (I i, , . . .' .. , • .' l . ,(,,\,,: ,. i /' ,'l"\,'(' ' .. 1_--, !., j. ...... ' " . PAUL I,IMALLARY, Chait ! PAGE EIGHT -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) " ., ., FROM: WSilRB FOR KING CO .. TO: 2063402524 JUL 11. 1995 2:54PM ~155 P.10 \MJtIII IJ, Newport Hills Annexation Description That portion of sections 16, 20, 21, 27 and 28, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of the Southwest quarter of said Section 16; thence Easterly along the South line thereof to the Southeast corner of Lake Heights No.2, as recorded in Volume 49 of Plats, Page 91; thence Northerly along the Easterly line thereof to the North line of the South half of the Southwest quarter of said section 16; thence Easterly along said North line to the Northwest corner of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said section 161 thence Easterly along the North line thereof to the East line of the West 75.00 feet of said subdivision I thence Southerly along said East line to a line Which bears South 85'46'22" West from a point on the North line of said subdivision, 396.13 feet Easterly from the Northwest corner thereof; thence North 85'46'22" East to said pointr thence Easterly alonl] said North line to the Easterly margin of Coal Creek Parkway S.E.; thence southerly along said Easterly margin to the North line of the· Northeast quarter of said section 21; thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly margin of Coal Creek Parkway S.E, to the intersection of the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly margin of Forest Drive· S.E. and the Northerly most corner of that certain tract deeded to King County under Recording No. 85100809061 thence southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said tract and the Southwesterly margin of Forest Dive S.E. to the East line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 2l; thence Southerly along said East line to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of said Section 21; thence Southerly along the East line thereof to the NorthWest corner of the Northwest quarter of said section 27; thence southerly along the west line thereof to the Easterly margin of Coal Creek Parkway S, E I thence Southerly along said Easterly margin to the East line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 28; thence continuing southerly along said Easterly margin to the South line of the North half of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 281 thence Westerly along said south line to the Northeasterly margin on S.E. 69th Street; thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly margin to the Easterly margin of the City of Mercer Island Pipe Line Right of way(ordinanoe 84393); thence Northerly along said Easterly margin to the South line of the Southeast quarter of said section 21; thence continuing Northerly along said Easterly margin to the Southerly margin of S.E. 60th Streetl thence Westerly along said southerly margin to the East line of the Southwest quarte"r of said Section 21; thence Southerly along said East line to the southeast corner thereof; thence Westerly along the South line of said sUbdivision to the. southerly extension of the Easterly margin of 120th Avenue S.E,I thence "Northerly along said Southerly extension and Easterly ~argin to the Southerly margin SHEET 1 OF 2 PAGE NINE -BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) FROM:WSBRB FOR KING CO. TO: 2063402524 JUL 11. 1995 2:55PM la55 P.l!"'·· ~ .. Of S.E. 60th street; thence Westerly along said South margin to the Centerline of Right of Way, 8S shown on the S.R. 405, Kennydale North, sheets 3A ana 4A of 4, dated July 17, 19511 thence Northerly along said Centerline of Right of Way to the North line of the Northeast quarter of said Section 20; thence BaBterly along said North line to the point of Beginning. SHEET 2 OF 2 PAGE TEN· BELLEVUE/NEWPORT HILLS (APV/MOD) Annex(ltti~on Information :.: PROPOSED EAST RENTON PLATEAU A1V1VEXATION AREA BOUNDARY The boundary shown on the back defines the area for which an annexation has been initiated. The current boundary is subject to revision by the Renton City Coun- cil and then by the Boundary Review Board. The proposed East Renton Plateau Annexation is gener- a'lIy between of SE 128th Street and a line one lot north ofSE 138th Street. The area is bounded by 140th Avenue exiended and 152nd Avenue SE, north of SE 132nd Street. South of I32nd Street, the area is between 144th and l52nd Avenues SE. Since Washington State law requires that school district properties constitute the entirety of annexations, Maplewood Heights Elementary has been excluded from this proposal. "'-~ u.:.. _ _ u ..... • .:.J"_',-' I I ,~,-_,-,."" "\-'-'" , _ .... r., ,_'- F' ~SIMILE TRANSMITTAL FORM MILLE}., .~ASH. WIENER, HAGER & CAL---SEN . A P8rtJlership Includlng Pfofesslonal Corpor.,lonl 4400 TWO UNION SQUARE 601 UNION STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101·2352 TELEPHONE: (206) 622-8484 FAX: (206) 622·7485 TO: Bob C. Sterbank COMPANY: Helsell Fetterman Martin Todli & Hokanson FAX NUMBER: 340·0972 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 292·1144 FROM: David J. W. Hackett DATE: August 1, 1995 TIME: Total pages sent Including this page: 3 OUR REFERENCE: 99999·7002 If you do not receive all pages, or If there Is alll question, please c:al1 Rosanna, 1r 1206) 622-8484. ext. 459. You U will Iil will not receive a mailed confirmation copy of this fax. I hope you find this helpful. During oral argument at the Supreme Court, one of the justices (maybe Alexander) remarked about the dubious nature of the BRB returning a notice of intent to incorporate "without action." COllFlDENTlALfTY NOnr;E: Tlil$ I'AC$JMILE TRANSMISSION M4 YCONTAIN CONFIDENT/A' AND PRIVIleGED INFORMA nON. Tlil INIORMATION CONTAINED IN Tlfl$ TRANSMISSION IS INTENPIl1IQR THE ADORESSEE ON' Y. II' you ARE NO T THE Al1l1RlflSII OF Tlflfl FACSIMIU, Pl.EASE DO NOT RIiVIIW, DlflCLOSE, COpy, OR DISTRIBUTe n, IF YOU HA V, REC8lVED THIS TRAN8MIt;S/ON BY MISTAKE. PLIAU TELEPHONE us IMMIDIAT.L Y. THAN/( YOII, PETITION T(; ANNEX TO THE CIT~F RENTON UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (60% PetitiOD· Bumstead AMexation) TO: THE CITY COUNClL OF THE CITY OF BENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 The undersign~ are owners ofnot less than sixty perc:em (60"10) In value accordin,s to the lIS$esse<l valuation for general taxation, or real property located contiguous to the City ofR.e!iton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City ofRentoJ1 under the proviSioll5 of RCW 3,sA.14.120 et seq. The tcnitory proposed to be lIIIJleXIld is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City o£'Renton. A map (Exhibit I) and legal description (ExhIbit 2) are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly fiI~ and considered "Notico of Intention" to commence annexation proceedings, the City Council of the City of Renton met with the iIlitiating parties under ~CW 3SA 14.120 OD November 14, 1994. The City Council then determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further. pursuant to RCW 3SA.14.l20. the undersigned petitioners agree to: (1) Submit the 10% Notice of Intent Petition as an intent to annex; (2) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations for the subject property ( proposed as Low Density Single Family. Single Family, Mixed Residential ·Exhibit 3); (3) Accept the City's Comprehensive Plan designations as they affect the subject property; and (4) Assume their proportional share of'the pre-existing City bonded indebtedness. all as noted In the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE. the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date Cor a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place oC such hearing, and inviting all persons who are Interested to appear at the bearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That £'allowing such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become pan of tho City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. P"gc loU (Sec over) .::.." vv .. .. '. ... ....... , -.-..... - This two page fonn page is one of a number of identical forms which compose one petition seeking the annexation oCthe described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated. and ma.y be filed with other pages containing addltiooal signatures. WARNlNG: Evoy jMnlm .,.,110 sips this petiIiIm with tilly uth., thM IUs tnt" II~ Dr who /au7WIIIrglJ A,pu I,IIJU than olU! oftluu ~ or sip$ II pttIitiD .. MeJiJrg lilt eIst:tion wIi ... /u & _ II l4gal votEr. iN's1gn.t II pditImr wIuJc lu~ 16 odc~,,,1t 'lU4l!fledtD sip, orwfto nurkuh.,eUt tmJIfiJlu.sUttemcnJ, shall beguJlty of" mlstltmuJmor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the 1iI.ing of this petition. (/'1-./ peIJtlo..-oIoDlIl4 b6 '" /4mt1e.J /..". ... 1M IIlIfU t/tlll IIJI_ .,. ,_,,/ill tb eJutbr qf titJ.e to tIu ,ad ~&) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. Page 1 cf2 (Sec over) '. ~vl.."; Percent of Properties Signed for when School is Removed I Total Assessed Valuation:" $ 27,373,850.00 Less School Value I $ 2,473,000.00 New Total Assessed Valuation: $ 24,900,850.00 I Signatures wi School: $ 17,070,968.00 Less School: I $ 2,473,000.00 New Signatures Valuation: $ 14,597,968.00 I Percentage when School Is Removed: 68.62% I I *These are the City of Renton's numbers. They contain errors & omisisons for both the total assessed valuation of the area and for the valuation of pro~erties signed for. I I I I Page 1 Local Governmental Organization-Boundaries-Review Boards 36.93.070 The board by rule may provide for hearings by panels of members consisting of not less than five board members, the number of hearing paneis and members thereof, and for the impanial selection of panel members. A majority of a panel shall constitute a quorum thereof. At the request of the board, the state attorney general, or at the board's option, the county prosecuting attorney, shall provide counsel for the board. The planning depanments of the county, other counties, and any city, and any state or regional planning agency shall furnish such information to the board at its request as may be reasonably necessary for the performance of its duties. Each member of the board shall be compensated from the county current expense fund at the rate of twenty-five dollars per day, Or a major portion thereof, for time actually devoted to the work of the boundary review board. Each board of county commissioners shall provide such funds as shall be necessary to pay the salaries of the members and staff, and such other expenses as shall be reasonably necessary. [1987 c 477 § I; 1967 c 189 § 7.] 36.93.080 Expenditures-Remittance of costs to counties. Expenditures by the board shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 36.40 RCW and other statutes relating to expenditures by counties. The *department of community development shall on a quarterly basis remit to each county one-half of the actual costs incurred by the county for the operation of the boundary review board within individual counties as provided for in this chapter. However, in the event no funds are appropriated to the said agency for this purpose, this shall not in any way affect the operation of the boundary review board. [1985 c 6 § 7; 1969 ex.s. c III § 4; 1967c 189 § 8.] ·Reviscr's note: Powers, duties. and functions of the department of community development nnd the department of trade and economic development were transferred 10 the department of community, trade, and economic development by 1993 c 280. effective July I. 1994. 36.93.090 Filing notice of proposed actions with board. Whenever any of the following described actions are proposed in a county in which a board has been established, the initiators of the action shall file within one hundred eighty days a notice of intention with the board: PROVID- ED, That when the initiatoris the legislative body of a governmental unit, the notice of intention may be filed immediately following the body's first acceptance or approval of the ·action. The board may review any such proposed actions pertaining to: (I) The: (a) Creation, incorporation, or change in the boundary, other than a consolidation, of any city, lown, or special purpose district; (b) consolidation of special purpose districts, but not including consolidation of cities and towns: or (c) dissolution or disincorporation of any city. town, or special purpose district, except that a board may not review the dissolution or disincorporation of a special purpose district which was dissolved or disincorporated pursuant [Q the provisions of chapter 36.96 RCW: PROVIDED, That the change in the boundary of a city or town arising from the annexation of contiguous city or town owned property held for a public purpose shall be exempted from the requirements o(this section; or (1994 Ed) (2) The assumption by any city or town of all or pan of the assets, facilities, or indebtedness of a special purpose district which lies partially within such city or town; Or . (3) The establishment of or change in the boundaries of a mutual water and sewer system or separate sewer system by a water district pursuant to RCW 57.08.065 or chapter 57.40 RCW, as now or hereafter amended; or (4) The establishment of or change in the boundaries of a mutual sewer and water system or separate water system by a sewer district pursuant to RCW 56.20.015 or chapter 56.36 RCW, as now or hereafter amended; or (5) The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city. town. or special purpose district. [1987 c 477 § 2; 1985 c 281 § 28; 1982 c 10 § 7. Prior: 1981 c 332 § 9; 1981 c 45 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 5 § 12; 1971 ex.s. c 127 § I; 1969 ex.s. c III § 5; 1967 c 189 § 9.] Severablllty-198S c 281: Sec RCW 35.10.905. Severability-1982 c 10: See note following RCW 6. \3.080 Severability-1981 c 332: See note following RCW 35.13.165. Legislative declaralio[l-"District" dcnned-Scverabilily-198I c 45: See notes following RCyv' 56.36.060. Severabillty-1979 ex.S. c S: See RCW 36.96.920. Consolidation of cities and ;owlls-Rule of boundary review board: ReW 35.10.450. 36.93.093 Copy of notice of intention by sewer or water district to be sent officials. Whenever a sewer or water district files with the board a notice of intention as required by RCW 36.93.090, the board shall send a copy of such notice of intention to the legislative authority of the county wherein such action is proposed to be taken and one copy to the state department of ecology. [1971 ex.s. c 127 § 2.] 36.93.100 Review of proposed actions by board- Procedure. The board shall review and approve. disap· prove, or modify any of the actions set forth in RCW 36.93.090 when any of the following shall occur within forty-five days of the filing of a notice of intention: (I) Three members of a five-member boundary review board or five members of a boundary review board in a county with a population of one million or more files a request for review: PROVIDED. That the members of the boundary review board shall not be authorized to file a request for review of the following actions: <a) The incorporation of any special district or change in the boundary of any city, town, or special purpose district; (b) The extension of permanent water service outside of its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose 'district if (i) the extension is through the installation of water mains of six inches or less in diameter or (ii) the county legislative authority for the county in which the proposed extension is to be built is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and has by a majority vote waived the authority of the board to initiate review of all other extensions; or (c) The extension of permanent sewer service outside o~ its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or specin' purpose district if (i) rhe extension is through the insr.:tllariol of sewer mains of eight inches or less in diameter or (ii) til, {Title 36 RCW-page 22.1 ORPP -5- , > 9 /I = flo N ...... 00 00 4. BR& P.UI ., of pfU\c:nc.e -t-f1to( -Ou(t€ "(5) Routing district pursuant to RCW 56.20.015 or Chapter 65.36 RCW, as now or hereafter amended; or The extension of permanent water or sewer service outside of Its existing corporate boundaries by a city, town, or special purpose district." Upon receipt of a Notice of Intention, the Executive Secretary w!lI route the Notice to appropriate governmental agencies for checking and comment, including the Board's attorney and appropriate County departments. Departments will be requested to submit comments in writing within ten (\0) working days. 5. Filing Date Upon determination that, according to RCW 36.93 and the Rules of Practice and Procedure adopted by the Board, the Notice of Intention is legally sufficient, the Executive Secretary w!lI cause to have assigned a filing date to be effective as of tbe time a legally sufficient Notice of Intention was actually filed with the Board. 6. 'Notice to the Board Upon receipt of a Notice of Intention, the Executive Secretary shall promptiy forward pertinent portions and attachments of said Notice to each Board member, no later than five (5) days prior to the first Board Meeting at which said Notice is to be considered. All Notices of Intention shall appear on at least two agendas, the second agenda appearance being after said Notice has been aSSigned a filing date in accordance with I.B.5. above. At that time, any and all pertinent comments received by the Executive Secretary shall also be transmitted to all Board members. 7. Notice to Entities Having Jurisdiction Upon receipt of a Notice of Intention, the Executive Secretary shall promptly forward notice thereof, with a map showing the location of the area proposed to be affected thereunder, to the governing body of each governmental unit having jurisdiction in or near the boundaries of said affected area, and w!lI, upon request, provide a full copy of said Notice of Intention, or substance thereof, to any governmental entity having requested such information. 8. Review The Board shall review, as provided in RCW 36.93.100, all Notices of Intention as filed in accordance with RCW 36.93.090 and the Rules of Practice and Procedure, (I.B.5. 'Notices of Intention: Filing Date), on the basis of the legal description contained in said Notice of Intention CONCURRENCE DATE· '? L2. 3. f.c,) tJAME INITIAL/DATE O.IXNrII'lIQ/Il ee. ~G3 August 23, 1995 1'I.l<ArrEl2!"II\OII011 1/o1~ ,?' LJ t ( • ~'J.. I SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION c,. %!,..,I'1€Rn"rJ Dear Citizens: .s. ~1l..c:G.w I am sending you this letter because you signed a petition in favor of the Bumstead Annexation. Although it is nearly completed, the process has reached a critical juncture. Your continued involvement is necessary to bring it to a successful conclusion. On September 21, the King County Boundary Review Board will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. in the cafeteria of Maplewood Heights Elementsry School. The Board can accept, reject or modify the annexation. Approval will likely hinge on the testimony provided by residents and property owners, so your voice is very important. The proposal to incorporate the East Renton Plateau has created a new wrinkle in the annexation effort. We believe that it is merely a tactic to waylay the annexation. Even without the annexation, however, we perceive the proposal to be ill-considered and not in the lorig-term interest of you and your neighbors. Every city in King County is required to create affordable housing opportunities for all income levels and to plan for a share of the County's projected growth. If the aim of the incorporation proponents is to maintain the area as low density single family neighborhoods, this proposal will not live up to its promise. The 00 option for preserving the single family character of the Plateau while achieving local representation is through annexation. Besides the exceptional police services, the forty acre park, the access to s~wers for those who want it, and other services, the City of Renton can offer suburban residential zoning. The Renton City Council planned for this because it is what the residents of the Plateau said they wanted. The opposition has been active. Instead of promoting the merits of incorporation, however, advocates have chosen to malign Renton. Xwl know that annexation will not promote crime and other urban ills, but others may be swayed by such rhetoric. Reasonable voices must be heard above the rumor and misinformation. I urge you to attend the September 21st public hearing. The opponents of the annexation will be in attendance. Unless you want them to speak for you, it is imperative that you speak up as well. The outcome will affect you and I hope you will participate in the public hearing. If you have any questions about the annexation or the public hearing, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, Earl Clymer Mayor , \ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM August 25, 1995 Larry W arren, Ci~ Attorney Mike Kattermann~. 6190) Director, Planning and Technical Services BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION LETTER We have prepared a draft letter from the Mayor to the property owners of the Bumstead annexation that signed'the petition to annex. The purpose of the letter is to encourage those that favor the annexation'to attend the BRB public hearing on 9/21/95 and speak in favor. This is intended to be a strong appeal for participation by those in favor, however, after reviewing the letter, I am concerned that we have "crossed the line" in terms of advocating for the annexation. Gregg Zimmerman has the same concern and we would like your review and opinion on the attached draft letter before we decide whether to send it to the Mayor's office for signature. Please call me at 277-6190 if you have any questions. Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. attachment c: Gregg Zimmerman mk:c:\winword\documentWmcxati\proietr.doc " , " ~' .. :.. Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 August 17, 1995 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 IN RE: NOTICE OF HEARING FILE NO, 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION As you know, the above-referenced proposal was filed by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County effective: May 8, 1995. A copy of a request for review received in the office of the Board has already been transmitted to you. At the meeting of the Board held, this matter was discussed and the date and location for the public hearing were established as specified in the Notice of Hearing enclosed herein, c?&ev fI. JI.~j ALDA H. WILKINSON Executive Secretary AHW/rh Enclosure: Notice of Hearing CC: Address on file label(s) NOTICE OF HEARING FILE NO. 1922 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY will hold a public hearing at the hour of 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 21,1995 at the Maplewood Heights Elementary School, 13430 -144th A venue S. E., Renton, WAin the Gym for the purpose of considering the proposed annexation to the City of Renton of an area known as "Bumstead" all in King County, Washington, and more generally described as: That portion of Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington generally described as follows: The South 114 of the Southeast 114 of said Section 10; also the East 112 of the Southwest 114, of the Southeast 114 of the Northwest 114 of the Southwest, the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 114 and the East 112 of the Southwest 114 of the Southwest 1/4 situated in said Section 11; also the West 112 and the West 345 feet of the Northeast 114 of the Northwest 114, and that portion of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 114 of lying North of the plat of Briar Hills No.4 situated in said Section 14; also that portion lying North of the plat Briarwood Lane and East of the East margin of 144th Avenue Southeast situated in the Southeast 114, and that portion of the Northeast 1/4 lying East of the West margin of 144th Avenue and North of the South margin of Southeast 132nd Street, situated in the Northeast 114 of said Section 15. A COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DATED at Seattle, Washington this 17th day of August, 1995. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY C&aJ JI. JI-.~ ALDA H. WILKINSON, Executive Secretary THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION The Burnst'ead Annexation is not a "Done Deal", in spite of what some people would have you think. Consider these circumstances: 1. In an attempt to make the proposal more logical and' palatable to The Boundary Review Board, the annexation area has been greatly expanded. 2. Annexation does not guarantee sewer service or a time table for the installation of, that service or any other utility. 3. Those with small tracts. wishing to subdivide. will be fotced to wait until major landowner developers are taken care of. 4. Sewer service to some areas of Renton may not be available for ye.rs. The new interceptor will NOT extend beyond 13Bth Ave. SE. (It took over ten years to extend sewers to Sierra Heights after they annexed to the city of Renton.) 5. Assessments for property on sewer lines will, be approxImately $166 per front foot and carry a 7 to 10% interest rate. 6. Refusing to sign a petition favoring annexation will in no way affect your rights as'a,property owner. t. Annexation means you must assumE! a share in having to repay all of the city indebtedness. B. Annexation means yOU WILL see an increase in all of your monthly utility and cable bills. 9. Annexation will in no way reduce restrictions on wetland development since' Renton has adopted King Counties' Wetland Design Manual as their standard. 10.Once the annexation is finalized, there is no turning back. 'We are your neighbors who appreciate our present environment and would like to retain it as 'long as possible. we ask that you t.o join us in opposing this developer initiated annexation proposal by signing the attached petition and returning it to any of the parties listed below. Ray Griffin 14306 144th Ave. SE Renton. 98059 Maurice Quesnel 1321B 144th Ave. SE Renton. 98059 Franc Rectenwald 13016 144th Ave. SE Renton. 98059 PLEASE NOTE ! Any registered voter living ei ther in or wi thin 114 mi Ie of the proposed annexation boundaries may sign thlS petition. Please turn in by J~n. I ', 1 '1'.1,'. • ... _", "t " ANNEXATION ALERT There will be a community meeting on TUESDAY. APRIL 4th at 7.30 PM at Lord of Life Lutheran Church, located at SE 128th & 160th SE. If yOU have any questions about costs to YOU, or what YOU can expect If the annexation proceeds, this is the place to get your answers. The whole. annexation attempt could fail if only some residents of the White Fence Ranch area were to remove their names from the petltton. Annexation means that YOur Taxes will raise by 78¢ per thousand of assessed valuation. $117 on a $150,000 home. --You will have to pay for the bonded indebtedness of the Kinq county Libraries but yoU will not be able to use them. You will pay a 6% surcharae on all utilities, water, phone, gas, electricity. cable. . You will have the highest uti i lty rates in the state. For those who desire sewers, there are alternatives that cost less, remember, "11th sewers, you will pay $32 EACH MONTH just for beinq . connected. You could annex and not get sewers for years! You will finance the Infrastructure for more housing, traffic, gridlock, and growth. which in turn requires more schools. pollCe'j roads. etc ... Bill Stuth an expert appraiser on sewers and septic systems claims that City Sewers will cost the averaae home owner between $22.000 and $30.000. He also states that YOU can update your old system for between $9.000 and $15.000. He also likes what they call a STEP SYSTEM which would only cost the average homeowner about $5000. The whole city of Hoquiam uses thIs system now. WHATEVER YOU SPEND ON SEWERS OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS, IT WI..I.L NOT HAKE YOUR HOME WORTH ANY MORE ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET. Check it out. Who gains if you annex the city? Thi nk about it 1 Distributed by. East Renton Plateau Community Council. For further information. call Ray Griffin at 228-5673. ,'::;j £1 " ,VltilNa ANNEXATION UPDA T -fjJ'ISION MAy "'01'1 ftc 307995 CSIII~ Dear Neighbor: Thank you for your continued interest in protecting our area's quality of life. This letter is to update you 0"9 what's going on now, what's coming up, and what you can do to help defeat the Bumstead Annexation. What's Going on Now: The City of Renton is currently changing proposed zoning for our area should the annexation be approved. In anremo dated May 1, 1995 they proposed to: • Reduce front and back yard building setbacks • Allow lots as small as 4500 square feet • Allow building right up to the side lot line (no side yard setback) Additionally, the King County Finance Department has written us confirming that all of our property taxes will increase if annexed. (A city letter said they would not increase) Additionally, you must: • Continue to pay the King County library debt even though you won't be able to use King County Libraries • Pay a 6% utility tax (the highest in King County) on all utilities • Assume a share of existing Renton Debt even though you didn't vote on it. '~', J.:~:;~.> ... __ ':" ... ..:..... ' ..... '. ~, '.-..... ;~-.:. _ ' '; ": :.~. '''' J. _ .... • "_ •• : .. -.:..'~ :~,:~., ·:~)~/(:-·:~.:(:. -:!~', "/~'!!' . '.:"_'_' _' '~ 'I '" "~ • I ••• ~ "'. /i', ',-'J:~.' . _' .. ~..:._ ' ,:' . At our last meeting (April) we raised over $1500 to hire an attorney to answer some legal questions. The Attorney writes that the law appears to not allow the School District to sign the annexation petition. Ifwe prov< this in court, the annexation is defeated. What's Coming Up: I. We will ask you to sign a petition requesting that the Boundary Review Board (BRB) review the annexation. A date for a public hearing will then be set 2. We will have a meeting (probably in June) before the BRB hearing to let you know how they make decisions and " what we must do to have them reject this annexation. If they reject it, we win. If they approve it, we must decide whether or not to go to court. This is very costly but the Renton School District appears to have broken the law. What You Can Do: I. Sign the Petition requesting BRB Review. 2. Write a S50 Check to Neighbors United for Representation (more if you can afford it, less if you can't) to help cover legal costs and costs to keep you informed. Mail to: The Greens, 14128 SE 132nd, Renton, 98059. 3. Come to our June meeting and the later BRB meeting to tell them no on this annexation. For more information, please call Rod Dembowski at 271-4084. Neighbors United for Representation Dedicated to the Preservation of Property Values & Quality of Life Press Release Neigh/JOTS United [or Representation For Immediate Relo:ase Contact: Norm Green at 218-2151 Neighbors United for Representation., a group of citizens and property owners in the proposed Bumstead Annexation east of the City of Renton., to&yannounced their intention to request that the Boundat)' R.wiew Doard for King County invoke its jurisdiction to review the proposed annexation to the City of Renton. The group announced that they have sufficient petition signatures as required by law to trigger the review. Nonn Green. a long time resident of the area, stated "The City barely gathered enough signatures to certify the petition and they had to count ~ 52.5 million school to do it. They're breaking up my neighborhood, they're raising my taxes and not allowing me the opportunity to vole." Many residenL~ of the 81mexation complained about the tactics used to gain the needed signatures. Cynthia Hussey complained "We were told that signing the petition would allow us to have an active voice in determining important issues in our neighborhO<ld. The Renton City Council ignored u.~ at the public hearing in April and thai's why I'm now fighting to have the Boundary Review Board reject this proposal ... Thc group submitted signatures to the Renton City Council in April representing sufficient property value to stop the petition but were told that the deadline had passed a few days earlier. Residents were angered that the City of Renton gave no notice of the cut-off date to withdraw signatures. A major issue prompting the anncxation is the desire ofBumstcad Construction Company to ohtain sanitary sewer service for a proposed residential development. Residents agree that somc homes need sewer m:rvice however, they assert that the City of Renton is not the only option for obtaining sewers. The)' feel thlSt Water District #90, who has a comprehensive sewer plan on the books ISS well as parts of sewer system already in place could pruvide the scrvice in les~ time and in a more cost eflective manner. Water DisUict #90 cnmmisioners assert thaI the District has the sole franchise for providing sewer service to the area nod are interested in providing the service. Neighbors United for Representation will now file the petition with the Boundary Review Board which must then hold a public hearing on the mntter within 45 days. Tho: group has raised over $2000.00 to date in a dedicated timd'at US Bank to finance the preparation for the Boundary Review Board and a lawsuit in Superior Court should the BRH vote to approve: the annexation. -Rnd-- 6-15-95; 10:57; 206 277 4455;# 31 4 V Need to'Hear Your StOry Neighbors United for Representation, a group of residents 3!1d property oWners residing within and opposing the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton have heard numerous stories about the manner in which signatures for the 60% petition were gathered. We want to hear your story. Please use thisshcet (attach more if necessary) to teU us M·ho fl.\'I,d yo" to sign (for most in the White Fence Ranch Area it was Chris Holstrom), exactly w"at t"q tol" )'0" at the time yOli sigttl!d, if yo"/rlt press,,"" fIr thnatened 10 sig" and if J'OU fell yO" knew what yOli ~ signing. We would also like to know if)'"'' t!I'l!r asked to IImoe your name remow:d and if so, M·ht:IC and if "tty City 0/ RentolS staff colSllU:ted ),011 • . We will present this infonnation to the Boundary Review Board at our appeal hearing. a date for which has not been set yet. We may also use this information for a 'possible court case. Therefore, it js important th~t you be M..1Ietailed as possible and truthful. Thank you for your help. Plea.';e rerum the sheet by Wednesday, June 21st. to Cynthia Hussey at 12604 156th Ave SE (White Fence Ranch neighborhood) or Call Rod Demhowski at 271- 4084 with questions. . . I swear or affirm that the above statement and any parts of the statement attached on separate sheets (please initial & date each sheet) is true and &ccurate. Signed: ____________________ _ Date: _____ _ 1.-:1\.. 'ro"" 'v (.J')-./ v~f ~~I/'<-~;;··L. S IiC. t3-'" .,:c, / ,7..:;-;, "':!r Ai ~.'::2 . . 0'-;t:. rla..h,-u~ '9 Briarwood Incorporation Committee . A( -tz~~ Press Release ~.a ( For immediate Release Contact: Rod Dembowski ' July 13, 1995 271-4084 Residents of the East Renton Plateau today filed with the King County Council notice of intent 1.9-'--, .-:;., incorporate their community as a new city. Until changed by the voters, the new city's name wilThe ~ ";s: Briarwood, Washington. The area proposed to be incorporated includes the entire Urban GrowtlO "" "", Area east of the City of Renton's existing border, including the area within the proposed Bumstea~ c· Annexation. The estimated popUlation of the proposed city is 8,500 people living in an area ofabeuO, I' ~ four square miles. It would be the 17th most populous suburban city out of 34 in King County. ;;\ <J-' Leading the incorporation effort will be the Briarwood Incorporation Committee (BIC) chaired by 20 year resident and community activist Rod Dembowski "I am excited about the possibility for a new city in our area It is the only way for local residents to make local decisions about preserving and enhancing the quality ofHfe that we value in our community." The East Renton Plateau Community is ranked number one out of fifty suburban cities and communities in the Puget Sound area for Community Stability and number three OyeraJJ behind Mercer Island and Newcastle when all six categories of Income, Housing Affordability, Low Crime, Open Space, Education, Commute Time and Stability are considered. Renton ranks 24th in Community Stability and 26th overall. The committee will follow a "Newcastle Model" referring to the new city to its north that has 8,000 citizens within four square miles that incorporated last year and today enjoys local control, sound fiscal budgets and lower taxes than Bellevue, Renton and unincorporated King County. Other jurisdictions, like King County, would compete to offer Police and Fire services leading to higher quality and lower prices. Taxes assessed locally would be spent locally instead of Countywide. Prompting the effort to incorporate was the passage of the King County Comprehensive Plan and its designation of much of the East Renton Plateau as an Urban Growth Area (UGA). UGAs must either be annexed or incorporate under the plan. Under the comprehensive plan, and without incorporation, the area is designated to be annexed to the City of Renton. Norm Green, a leader of the group fighting the proposed Bumstead Annexation said "The cityhood option is a viable alternative to annexation to the City of Renton. Unlike the City's annexation policy that won't let residents vote, this incorporation proposal mandates that residents vote on the issue." "We don't like Renton's high taxes, their history of zoning and neighborhood development, nor their vision for the future. ,Their infrastructure is crumbling, their budgets are underfunded and they want our relatively well-off community to fund their neglected maintenance." Said Ray Griffin, East Renton Plateau Community Council Environmental Affairs Chairman and board member of the BIC. The Boundary Review Board for King County (BRB) will hold a public hearing in the community within thirty days. The BIC must then collect signatures from 10% of the registered voters within the proposed city. After submission of the signatures, the BRB will commission a study to determine the economic feasibility of the proposal and then the issue will be placed before the voters for a final decision. Residents wanting more information may cont~ctRod Dembowski, BIC Chairman at 271-4084. ,i Map Anach"d ### ~. (~~~. OUJej1 (l,nfU,(lhV RECEIVED /.....~ IId'ntl/!1 .4UG 08 1995 MAYORS OFFICE Renton to Annex Our Neighborhoods Dear Neighbor: The City of Renton is moving quickly to ~nnex land east of the existing city limits. The most recent annexation effort is the developer-initiated Bumstead Annexation taking in Maplewood Heights Elementary and moving as far East as 156th Avenue SE (next to Water District 90 Headquarters). Renton intends to annex the entire Urban Growth Area on the East Renton Plateau including your home. Many of us who moved to this area for its quality lifestyle fear the results of annexation to Renton. Large multifamily projects, higher crime, higher property taxes and lower property values come with the City of Renton. Please attend two meetings to learn about our community's options under the new laws. The first is on Wednesday. August 9th at 7:00 PM at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church on the Corner of 128th (Cemetery Road) and 160th Avenue SE. At this meeting we will provide an overview of the proposed Bumstead Annexation and an overview of a proposal to study incorporating our area into our own city ofBriarwood (like the new city of Newcastle just to our North). The second important meeting is scheduled for September 21. 1995 at 7:00 PM, place to be detennined but probably at Maplewood Heights Elementary School on 1 44th Avenue SE. This is a hearing on the proposed Bumstead Annexation requested by local residents. It is your only chance to tell the Boundary Review Board to reject the annexation by the City of Renton. If you would like more information about the Bumstead Annexation, the proposal to study incorporating our area into a new city ofBriarwood or Renton's plans for our community, please call either of the two groups working to save our neighborhoods. Norm Green -Neighbors United for Representation at 228-2151 Rod Dembowski -Briarwood Incorporation Committee at 271-4084. Your involvement now is vital to protect.our community. Change is coming fast as a result of the state Growth Management Act and the new King County Comprehensive Plan. We want local control over that change to make it as good as possible. Only by working together can we save the community that all of us cherish. Only your action now will protect the quality of our community. SENT BY: 8-18-95 8:04 H"TB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;# 11 1 /':I~ -~~A~Nr. .... , 0", :/{J(;' 7 7 -I) Residcnu ofEut Ralton have received permisSion ITom the BoumWy Review BoanlIb" ~pt .to 7995 incorponlle a new City ofMBtWwood.· The Briuwood Inmrpomion Committee '(BIC) is Ij,ij\by~ employee of Kina County Couneilmcmber. Brian DCIlIowoki. This council employee, Rod l)cmbo~'inA , not being straight forward with the infomWloQ that he and BIC ..., usias /0 """"URge this lncorpomian • v attempt. DIC dai ... 1 that tho ~ead Annc:x>Ilion to !he city ofllemon wiU briJl8 IqMItmmts and suipmalls. Fact: Renton's zoning for the area is nt:atly 100% single family. A. smaU area zoned lOr duplex and !"lUlllex homes i. placed next to emting city bordccs. BIlmSIcLd homes wiU be buildiug singlt: fomily horncs in the SJoo,OOO.oo pi ... ransc. FACT: Swc ........ ~uires a new city· to <le\IdOpa comprehensive !VOwth plan. This plan must include 200/. high density, multifiuaily. housing. Thio means that for every 80 single f.omily homes. <Iu:rt: will be 10 apanmcnl unill. This lormula incl" ..... eiliIing homd. Briarwood would be rcquUM to provide zoning to 3CCOI1ll1l~ these apartment buildings. SIC says that this n:quir=etII could be ignon:d. The county plmning depllltmC:nl represeIIt;ahve at the August 10th community..-ring ",ated that DIC is .... ong. FACT: Rattan's zoning wiD nol allow tuJY coll\l1lercial or maiJ devdopman: to oc= 10 die East oftbc elritting city limits. FACT: Allhc Auguat 10th com ..... .uty mccring. RIC choir Rod Dembowski. while! dillCUSling lhe opdons lOr 1M location oftbc _ City Hall. dearly stated IhIt the new city hall could be 10CIIAld in lhe commcrcial development that would occur along SE l28th. (Cc:nICtcry Road). . BIC d.oi ... lhal you mllat either __ ir)lo Ramon or form a now city. FACf: ",..." i. "state mandate tha Counties must have a c;Omprchcnsi"" growth plan. Tho borders of the proposed city Ii .. within an area dcsignaed by King County .. urban. State law also dictales how an annexation oc<:un. EitJua-. 60% "ve ..... evaluarian pc:Iirian; or a 10"1. "'I!istc:nd voter petition. tbllowod by an dCClion is used. If the property owncn, or voters in 3D area cbose 10 ........ it will happen. If not, a city cannot _ the area.. The growth ~ plan has no lIIflC.hanism for l1li)' city to initillte an a.nnc:x:lIliort. DIC daiau tMt _ RCVa1Ue sharing and we <,!",!imino will make tho city ~ fatible. FACT: Every time: thal a new city inc:otJiOi .... or a city ~ man: Ia1lCI. the picoc:a ofthia pic get smaIIc:r and smaller. Tho suz I~ """ nM>Ioe ..,........ ~ during any i!dunI .asion. REALITY: Codb"'i!lcW ond a....u propcrtia pay for "-af the ~ in tuJY ftoan<:iaIIy dlaible city. (Ha .... you driven lbruush r,"II,,·b lady?) FACT: The c:mino C:UWiilUcW base oftbc I'fVIl'*Id new city would ooasi&t ofCbu..b doo'~""" ond tho Hop In grvc;cty. Wbe:a YOII are appmadled by a ale _bel' muI .. ad 10 sign a petiti.oa for maorpcud-. be Yf2'Y rardaI. Y OIl lhoAald be wry.k plical or JtDY iDforallltiou. tbcy p.e Y ..... Poat·it· Fax Note 7611 Da,og!J?I!S' \.,".8'0'· I ", e>w &t f.lb ·So~ F""" C .... ~.> I-Io~s" ... "'- CoJDo,.. Co. Phone I PlIo .... Fax. ~?7-·NsS F ... " .' Briarwood Incorporation Committee Resident Briefing Package August 9, 1995 Change is coming fast. Will it be good change or bad? Who will decide our future? . -." -. "-"" , .' > Questions and Answers about Briarwood Incorporation Prepared by the Briarwood Incorporation Committee August 9, 1995 What happens to the schools? Nothing. They remain in their school districts, and no changes are made to their funding, district borders, etc. If residents wanted sidewalks and other safety improvements near the schools (i.e. Maplewood Heights and 144th Ave SE), Briarwood Elementary, Liberty, etc. we believe this could be done more easily and rapidly in a new city versus the county or Renton because it would be a local priority with strong support. Haw will the various city departments and services be run? We propose a council-manager form of government where a part-time, locally elected city council would set policy and oversee a city manager who would run a small, lean city staff (Newcastle has 14 employees). Low cost, small bureaucracy and contracting out is our vision. Some services would be contracted to other governments or the private sector. Specifically, police contract would be bid on by Renton and King County, each competing to provide the service and each offering higher quality and additional services at lower prices. There is some talk" of perhaps partnering with Newcastle on our own joint department or on other services. Fire service options are plentiful. The city could take over and run the fire department or it could remain as district 25 and contract with Renton as is done now . .It could also merge with another fire district and offer the service. We would" stop the takeover of the District by Renton. Water would c~ntinue to be provided by WD 90 as is done now. Animal control would probably be contracted to King County or maybe Renton, depending on who offered better service at the lower price. Streets, except for county arterials and state highways (SR900/Sunset), would be maintained by the city, most likely again through contracting with the county, another city, or private companies. We feel that significant competitive efficiencies could be gained using competition to drive down prices and " " increase quality. Will Taxes go up? See answer above. The BRB study will determine if a tax increase would be necessary and what amount. Newcastle residents actually got lower taxes after incorporation than they would have by annexing to Renton, Bellevue or remaining unincorporated. We want to replicate that model here. Haw are taxes collected? Property taxes would continue to be collected by King County and distributed. Sales tax would be c911ected and distributed by the state. It's important to remember that, we believe a new city could be created relying upon the existing tax base and future growth. Certainly and new taxes that might be required would not be near those in the City of Renton and we would know what they would be, if any, when the BRB Study is complete. The Boundary Review Board (BRB) pays for the study to determine economic viability and this report is made available to all. We would not support incorporation if the study accurately determined that a new city would not be financially feasible. Newcastle did it without a tax increase and we want to see if we can do the same. Will the new city control gruwth? YES! This is one of our primary motivations. We know growth is coming but we want to ensure that it's good growth -development that is consistent with the existing quality and character of our community. We think that growth that keeps us the number one community out of fifty in the Puget sound area for community stability and number three overall behind only Mercer Island and Newcastle is the only kind to support. Crime, traffic headaches, overcrowded schools and inadequate recreational opportunities are what we want to prevent. We think that this is coming with the City of Renton. We do not feel that anyone can responsibly advocate for no growth and we do not. We do advocate for local control over growth, not Renton or King County control. What about sewer? Some property owners of both developed and undeveloped land do need sewers. We would like our local water district 90 to provide that service, not Renton. We believe, as does the water district, that WD 90 can provide it at lower cost and with more local control. WD 90 can use gravity rather tlian pumps which reduces costs forever. We also feel that they can install sewers at the same or less cost than Renton. Local control will ensure that the concerns about where sewer lines run and who pays for them are addressed fairly. Will the new city annex more properly after it is incorporated? The proposed boundaries of the new city are Renton's boundaries on the West and the Urban Growth Line to the North, South and East. Under state law, cities are not allowed to annex or incorporate area outside of the Urban Growth Line. If the line or the law were to change, the new city, I presume, would welcome annexations where residents wanted to join. Because of the Bumstead experience, we would not force people to annex to the city if they were opposed to it. Will we get a ItUlnicipai court? Most suburban cities use the King County court system though a few of the larger cities have elected to form their own. Renton has their own court and is severely overloaded and underfunded. We would probably continue to use King County's system. Where will city hall be? King County owns about 20 acres surrounding the fire station. King County, under the Parks Plan is proposing to give its land located within or near cities to the cities. We feel that this land, next to the fire station and across from the five star hall and water district headquarters and centrally located within the city limits would make an excellent site for a small city hall and park. Newcastle has leased space in existing retail space in their city. Should a similar retail center be developed along 128th, we would also look at leasing space, rather than new construction. 2 Will the city be zoned to stop development of more apartment complexes? As stated above, zoning is one of our major motivating factors. The short answer is yes. We do not want any more apartment complexes and their associated crime, traffic, environmental and aesthetic impacts. Renton says that they have no land zoned for apartment complexes in our area. Our concern is that Renton has a long history of granting variances and changing zoning at will. There's no stopping this once annexed. We would have to comply with the State Growth Management Act in terms of meeting its growth targets but we believe there are design standards, appropriate locations and density limits that we could employ to make any requirements ofGMA fit in with our community. We would have some time, 2-3 years to develop Qur own comprehensive plan. What citizen committees will be formed? It's hard to say this early on in the process but citizen invol~ement is clearly one our top priorities. At a minimum a Design Commission for land use and design issues would be formed, a Parks and Recreation Commission, and others as desired and needed by our residents. How will the new city be named? After much discussion, we chose our draft name as Briarwood because of the developments with 'Briar" in their name. We debated Briar Hills, Cedar Hills, Cedar Heights, Maple Hills, Maplewood, Coalfield, and others. A permanent name would be voted on by the residents of the new city, just like Newcastle residents chose that name over Newport Hills. What are the next steps? 1. The borders and petition will be finalized and then circulated to residents of the area. We must collect signatures of 10% of the registered voters living within the borders of the proposed City of Briarwood. We need local residents to help collect what we estimate as about 600 signatures. We would like to accomplish this by September 11, 1995. 2. The proposed Bumstead Annexation must be stopped for our proposal to have any chance of success. There is a meeting on September 21, 1995 at 7:00pm, place to be determined, with the Boundary Review Board. Either through legal action or at that meeting, we must stop the proposed Bumstead Annexation. 3. After turning in our signatures, the Boundary Review Board commissions and pays for a financial feasibility study of the incorporation. The study is very thorough and will estimate revenues, . expenses and present any gap that may exist between the two. The study determines if any tax increase would be required and if so, what amount. It' takes three to four months to conduct. . 4. After the study is completed and review by the community, the proposal to incorporate is placed on the ballot. All voters living within the proposed City ofBriarwood will have an opportunity to vote on the idea, having all the facts and options before they make a decision. This is unlike annexation to Renton where you don't get to vote and all the facts are not presented. The vote would take place in early Spring, 1996. 3 Residents must vote on the proposal and if, after the study is done, we feel that is doesn't make fiscal sense, we would either have it removed from the ballot or recommend a no vote. We sincerely want to be responsible in our proposal as it does affect our community and its residents in a very close and personal way. What can 1 do to help? • Please fiU out a courtesy envelope. Your contributions are vital to pay for attorneys to stop the Bumstead Annexation, pay for maps and legal descriptions, information, copies and flyers. If annexed to Renton, your water biU alone wiU be at least $25 more per month or $200 per year. A small investment today will save thousands in the future. • We need help collecting signatures and spreading the word. Please check the areas on the envelope that you can help with. • We are planning a Jazz Concert fUnd raiser at Hagen's Bam or some other local hall. Please attend this event and if you can help call event coordinator Joe Rietti at 228-0650. Summary: These answers are based upon the research the Committee has done reading the law, looking at other incorporations and talking with dozens of people. They are not necessarily definitive and we cannot predict what policy would be determined by a locally elected city council but we think that as local residents we feel similarly about many of the issues affecting our community. Our locally elected city council would reflect the thoughts and sentiments of local residents in their policy decisions. Who can 1 contact to get involved or for more information'! Rod Dembowski, Briarwood Incorporation Committee Norm Green, Neighbors United for Representation Ray Griffin, East Renton Plateau Community Council Joe Rietti, Jazz Concert Coordinator 4 271-4084 228-2151 228-5673 228-0650 Briarwood Incorporation Committee Press Release For immediate Release July 13, 1995 Contact: Rod Dembowski 271-4084 Residents of the East Renton Plateau today filed with the King County Council notice of intent to incorporate their community as a new city. Until changed by the voters, the new city's name will be Briarwood, Washington. The area proposed to be incorporated includes the entire Urban Growth Area east of the City of Renton's existing border, including the area within the proposed Bumstead Annexation. The estimated population of the proposed city is 8,500 people living in an area of about four square miles. It would be the 17th most populous suburban city out of 34 in King County. Leading the incorporation effort will be the Briarwood Incorporation Committee (BIC) chaired by 20 year resident and community activist Rod Dembowski. "I am excited about the possibility for a new city in our area. It is the only way for local residents to make local decisions about preserving and enhancing the quality of life that we value in our community." The East Renton Plateau . Community is ranked number one out of fifty suburban cities and communities in the Puget Sound area for Community Stability and number three Overall behind Mercer Island and Newcastle when all six categories ofIncome, Housing Affordability, Low Crime, Open Space, Education, Commute Time and Stability are considered. Renton ranks 24th in Community Stability and 26th overall. The committee will follow a "Newcastle Model" referring .to the new city to its north that has 8,000 citizens within four square miles that incorporated last year and today enjoys local control, sound fiscal budgets and lower taxes than Bellevue, Renton and unincorporated King County. Other .. jurisdictions, like King County, would compete to offer Police and Fire services leading to high~r . quality and lower prices. Taxes assessed locally would be spell! locally instead of Countywide. Prompting the effort to incorporate was the passage of the King County Comprehensive Plan and its designation of much of the East Renton Plateau as an Urban Growth Area (UGA). UGAs must. either be annexed or incorporate under the plan. Under the comprehensive plan, and without incorporation, the area is designated to be annexed to the City of Renton. Norm Green, a leader of the group fighting the proposed Bumstead Annexation said "The cityhood option is a viable alternative to annexation to the City of Renton. Unlike the City's annexation policy that won't let residents vote, this incorporation 'proposal mandates that residents vote on the issue. " . . "We don't like Renton's high taxes, their history of zoning and neighborhood development, por their vision for the future. Their infrastructure is crumbling, their budgets are underfunded and they want our relatively well-off community to fund their neglected maintenance." Said Ray Griffin, East Renton Plateau Community Council Environmental Affairs Chairman and board member of the BIC. The Boundary Review Board for King County (BRB) will hold a public hearing in the community within thirty days. The BIC must then collect signatures from 10% of the registered voters within the proposed city. After submission of the signatures, the BRB will commission a study to determine the economic feasibility of the proposal and then the issue will be placed before the voters for a final decision. Residents wanting more information may contact Rod Dembowski, BIC Chairman at 271-4084. Map Attached ### Press Release Neighbors United (or Representation For Immediate Release June 12, 1995 Contact: Norm Green at 228-2151 Neighbors United for Representation, a group of citizens and property owners in the proposed Bumstead Annexation east of the City of Renton, today announced their intention to request' that the Boundary Review Board for King County invoke its jurisdiction to review the proposed annexation to the City of Renton. The group announced that they have sufficient petition signatures as required by law to trigger the review. Nonn Green, a long time resident of the area, stated "The City barely gathered enough signatures to certify the petition and they had to count a $2.5 million school to do it. They're breaking up my neighborhood, they're raising my taxes and not allowing me the opportunity to vote." Many residents of the annexation complained about the tactics used to gain the needed signatures. Cynthia Hussey complained "We were told that signing the petition would allow us to have an active voice in detennining important issues in our neighborhood. The Renton City Council ignored us at the public hearing in April and that's why I'm now fighting to have the Boundary Review Board reject this proposal." The group submitted signatures to the Renton City Council in April representing sufficient property value to stop the petition but were told that the deadline had passed a few days earlier. Residents were angered that the City of Renton gave no notice of the cut-off date to withdraw signatures. A major issue prompting the annexation is the desire of Bumstead Construction Company to obtain sanitary sewer service for a proposed residential development. Residents agree that some homes need sewer service however, they assert that the City of Renton is not the only option for obtaining sewers. They feel that Water District #90, who has a comprehensive sewer plan on the books as well as parts of sewer system already in place could provide the service in less time and in a more cost effective manner. Water District #90 commisioners assert that the District has the sole franchise for providing sewer service to the area and are interested in providing the service. . Neighbors United for Representation will now file the petition with the Boundary Review Board which must then hold a public hearing on the matter within 45 days. The group has raised over $2000.00 to date in a dedicated fund at US Bank to finance the preparation for the Boundary Review Board and a lawsuit in Superior Court should the BRB vote to approve the annexation. ---End--- -------------- East Renton Plateau Community Council Resolution Whereas the State of Washington and King County have planned for Growth in the coming years by passing the Growth Management Act and the King County Comprehensive Plan and; Whereas much of the East Renton Plateau Community has been designated an Urban Growth Area (UGA) under the King County Comprehensive Plan, and; Whereas Urban designated areas must receive urban level services under the King County Comprehensive Plan, and; Whereas only cities are designated to provide Urban Level Services to Urban-designated areas, and; Whereas urban designated areas must either annex or incorporate according to the King County Comprehensive Plan, and; Whereas the Urban Growth Area in the East Renton Plateau Community is designated as Renton's Proposed Potential Annexation Area, and; Whereas the residents of the UGA east of Renton have little in common with the City of Renton, dislike and disapprove of its history of community planning and development, tax levels and form of government, and; Whereas the East Renton Plateau Community Council feels that is unfair at best and probably illegal to count school district property toward a 60% annexation petition and finds the tactics employed by the City of Renton and some of the proponents on the Bumstead Annexation to be outrageous and unethical, now, therefore be it resolved that: The East Renton Plateau Community Council formally opposes the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton and further, Be it Resolved that the East Renton Plateau Community Council formally endorses the proposal to study the option of incorporating the Urban Growth Area East of Renton into the City ofBriarwood and supportsthe efforts of the Briarwood Incorporation Committee to pursue this option, and further; Be it resolved that the East Renton Plateau Community Council recommends that voters residing within the proposed City ofBriarwood sign the petitions to be circulated after the August 9th Boundary Review Board meeting and assist in coUecting the required signatures for the Briarwood Incorporation Proposal to move forward. Passed unanimously by the membership on the 1st Day of August, 1995 Compare the City of Briarwood with Renton We are the Number One community out of 50 in the Seattle-Tacoma area for Community Stability and Number Three overall behind Mercer Island and Newcastle. Renton ranks 24th in Community Stability and 26th overall. c omposlte: R k 3/50 S an core 6766 EAST RENTON IDGHLANDS CATEGORY RANK SCORE STATISTIC VALUE RA.NK Economics 7 77.00 Median Household Income $47,135 8 % of Families Above Poverty Level 98.5% 3 Alfordable Housing 38 65.10 Median Home Value SI20,OOO 28 Median Rent S707 47 Crime N/A N/A Violent Crimes ocr 10,000 Population N/A N/A Property Crimes per 10,000 Population N/A N/A Open Spaces 4 83.55 P<>pulation Density (persons/SQ. Mile) 1288 5 Average Rooms per Housing Unit 6.7 6 Educatioo 29 42.75 % High School EnrollmenVCompletion 92.2% 24 0/0 College Graduates 18.8% 36 Commute 39 37.55 Average Work Commute in Minutes 26 32 % Commuting on Public Transportation 2.1% 40 Community Stability I 100.00 0/0 Li ving in Same House as in 1979 46.1% I % Living in Same County as in 1985 '90.50/0 I -.. ~ c omposlte: R k 26/ 50 S an core 5397 RENTON CATEGORY RANK SCORE STATISTIC VALUE RANK Economics 34 40.65 Mediar. Household Income S32,393 35 % of Families Above Poverty Level 94.4% 33 Alfordable Housing 16 85.90 Media., Home Value SI05,800 17 Median Rent $489 14 Crime N/A N/A Violent Crimes ocr 10,000 population 52 N/A Property Crimes ocr 10,000 Population 943 N/A Open Spaces 36 37.20 Population DensityJper.onslSq: Mile) 2566 27 Average Rooms per Housing Unit 4.9 43 Education 20 48.65 % High School EnrollmenVCompletion. 93.3% IS % College Graduates 21.8% 24 Commute 17 63.80 Average Work Commute in Minutes 23 12 % Commuting on Public Transportation 5.2% 20 Community Stability 24 47.60 % Livinl in Same House as in 1979 23.2% 36 % Living in Same COWl!}>as in 1985 78.7% II SCORE 59.3 94.7 81.5 48.7 N/A N/A 94.7 72.4 66.1 19.4 57.1 18.0 100.0 100.0 SCORE 17.7 63.6 87.0 84.8 N/A N/A 64.1 10J 72.1 25.2 78.6 49.0 34.9 60J FRIDAY ValleyJ2f!iJy~ews 35¢ July 14,1995 Volume 107' No. 188 1~% '1011'., r"", ',.::.' LOCAL A3 alley Daily News I ';AJ&ma oAlibumoBlai:kDiamoridoCovingtmo ~bwoF~--;K.,;~PdapIe v.dk~ ~~ oP.;cioc;;~ oThkwila---~~----Frici,;"y~ Julyl4, 1995 .---------_. -------". ._---_ .. _--,.' .------- Some residents favor cityhood By JEAN PARIETTI yaney Daily News RENTON -Trying 10 pul the brakes on an annexation to Renton, a group of residents has started an effon 10 creale a new city of 8,500 on the Easl Renlon Plaleau. "The community we're develop- ing will be a greal place 10 live. Peo- ple can have local voice and con- trol," said Rod Dembowski, chairman of the Briarwood Incorpo- ration Committee. Longtime resident Norm Green said the idea of incorporating was panially sparked by Ihe Burnslead annexation proposal. which encom- passes 403 acres within Briarwood's proposed boundaries. Green is lead- er of Neighbors Uniled for Repre- senlalion, which is fighling Ihe annexation. A bigger reason for in~rporaling is having more say over the area' 5 destiny. the incorporation organiz- ers say. Ray Griffin, a committee member wbo has lived on the plaleau since 1971, said be favors incorporaling because of concerns aboul the way Renton has handled zoning issues in the past. . Dembowski said the group wants residents to know .. they are in Ren- Ion' 5 annexation area and are des- tined to be annexed to Renton unless we incorporate. This is not as much a defensive move as it is a proactive move for our communily," added Dembowski, 23, .... ho haslived on Ihe plateau mosl of his life. But Chris Holstrom, an annex- ation supporter. and develoPer Fred Burnstead say the incorporation effon looks like an allempi to stall the annexation. "To me, Ihis is jusl another smoke screen lhal is being sel up 10 muddy Ihe walers and confuse Ihe issues," said Holslrom, a Highlands residenl who plans 10 build a home in the annexation area. . 'Their whole intent is to stop any (developmenl) aclivily in the area, " he said of Green's organization. Bumstead initiated the annexation to obtain sewer service for the 64- acre parcel where he wanls 10 build single-family homes. Normally, u we wouldn'. care" whelher Ihe property was being annexed or incorpornted. Burnstead said, but "this is suspiciously like a delaying tactic rather than a true incorporation. It seems to be comirig up so lale in the process. " The slale Boundary Review Board is expected to consider the annex- ation at a public hearing next month. Now Ihe board also must schedule a public meeting within a monlh for cityhood organizers to present their proposal 10 affected residenls. The incorporation area, which covers about four square miles, extends easl from the Renton city limils (generally at 138th Avenue Southeast), in one location reaching as far as l84th A venue Soulheasl in Ihe Lake Kalhleen area. Dembowski said the proposed cily boundaries follow Ihe urban-rural growl~ eSlablished by King County. AI the public meeling, proponents will present their incorporntion pro- posal and gather comments from the public, said Aida Wilkinson, execu- tive secretary for Ihe Boundary Review Board. To get Ihe proposal on Ihe hallol, cilyhood backers will have 180 days to collect signatures of 10 percent of the regislered volers living in the incorporation area. --, lONDAY 35~ ~.I"I J "I'I~I Volume 101 • No 188 19~~ Valle~ lJall~ ""e':. LOCAL ----------------------------------- BrialWood cityhood plans to be aired RENTON - A proposal to create yet another new city in South King County will be aired at a public meeting Wednesday night. A citizens group proposes to incorporate the city of Briarwood, taking in about 8,500 residents just east of Renton's city limits. Echoing the themes of city hood campaigns in Covington, Maple Valley and elsewhere, members of the Briarwood Incorporation Com- mittee say the new city would give people "local control" oftheircom- munity. Others see the new city proposal as a means to block annexation of the area by the city of Renton, and to stall .. developer's plans for a new subdivision of single-family homes on 64 acres. . The purpose of the meeting before the King County Boundary Review Board is to allow cityhood advocates to outline their plans, and then field questions and comments from local residents. The meeting begins at 7 p.m Wednesday at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church, 12819 1 60th Ave. S.E. After the meeting, the incorpora- tion committee has six months to collect signatures of 10 percent of registered voters in the proposed city. After review by the Boundary Review Board, a cityhood measure on the ballot would ask voters ifthey want to create a new city. Rod Dembrowski, chairman of the Briarwood Incorporation Group, says incorporation is a "proactive move" to give local residents more say on land-use planning and other issues. The area has some large, undeveloped parcels of land. Chris Holstrom, who wants the area annexed to Renton and plans to build a new home there, calls the new city plan "another smoke screen" to block Renton's annex- ation plan. Land-use plans adopted by Renton and King County designate the area east of the city as a "future growth area" to be annexed to Renton. Farthet east, another citizens group proposes a new city of Maple Valley with about 9,500 residents. Efforts to create a city of Covington foundered in April when backers . failed to get enough Voter signatures for an election, but the Covington group launChed a second city hood campaign. For Renton city staff, the Briar- wood proposal is deja vu. Renton's plans also included annexing neigh- borhoods to the north, but residents there two years ago voted to incor- porate and created the city of New- castle. A3 Monday, August 7. l~ TIIURSDAY 35~ June 22, 1995 Volume 101 • No. 149 1995 VaileV' DiillllV Ne~\I Annexation without representation Residents want to have a say By JEAN PARIETTt Valley Daily News RENTON -Unwilling to risk their neighborhood's rural flavor and fearing expensive, mandatory sewer hook-ups, some East Renton Plateau residents are fight- ing annexation to Renton, . "If they bring (sewers) out and we don't want them, we don't want to have to hook up," said resident Kyle Janders, who lives on 156th Avenue Southeast. "We don't want a little strip mall out here. It's a rural area. We don't want a bunch of apartments out here," he said. "It's not that we're opposed to development," said Norman Green, who lives on Southeast 132nd Street. "We're opposed to the way the city of Renton devel- ops." Although growth is inevitable, said Pat Wolf, another resident of 156th Avenue Southeast, "I think it should be done right and I think ·it should be done with the people's representation" through an annexation elec- tion, she said. But the annexation was initiated by petition by Bum- stead Construction Company, which wants to build a single-family subdivision within the 400-acre annex- ation area. The area, with about 473 residents, lies east of 140th Avenue Southeast and generally is bordered on the north by Southeast 120th Street and on Southeast 138th Place on the south. Janders, Green and Wolf are among residents and land owners who have signed petitions opposing the annexation plan. The petitions were circulated by Neighbors United for Representation, which says it has gathered enough signatures to trigger a state hearing on the proposa\. A hearing is required if citizens collect the signatures of either 5 percent of the annexation area's registered voters or those owning 5 percent of the area's assessed valuation. The group submitted its petitions Friday to the Wash- ington State Boundary Review Board for King County, said Aida Wilkinson, the agency's executive secretary. The petitions contain the names of 63 voters and 69 people who own 48 separate parcels in the area. Thursday. June 22. Ie; Now those names must be validated by King County officials to make sure they meet the minimum require- ments, Wilkinson said. In addition to the citizen challenge, Water District 90 has requested a hearing -which means one is automati- cally scheduled, she said. Mid-August is probably the earliest the hearing can be held. Jack Leininger, District 90's attorney, said the water district holds the franchise to provide sewer service in the annexation area and objects to the city's plan to extend sewer there. The district's commissioners are "just looking at costs, at the request of citizens," Leininger said. "They want to keep that window open" in case it appears the district can provide sewer service at a lower cost. Green said he believes District 90 can provide sewers more cheaply, so the annexation isn't necessary. "I think that the only reason for annexation is (for developers) to be provided that sewer." he said. Mike Katterman, Renton's planning and technical ser- vices director, said the area is pan of the city's urban growth area and its potential annexation area. "If it's urban (designated), it should be provided urban servic- es" under growth management guidelines, he said. , But sewers wouldn't be provided in the area immedi- ately after annexation, and sewer costs wouldn't be as high as some residents have suggested, Katterman said. Besides those concerns, some residents say they were misled when the annexation petition was circulated. "P~ople were given the impression that what they were sig~ing was the ability to vote on the annexation," Green satd. But when about a dozen residents tried to withdraw their names in April, city officials said the deadline for removing names had passed, Green said. "I think the thing that bothered me the most is that the Renton City Council ignored us at the public hearing in April," Wolf said. "There was a lot of opposition there. " , Neighbors United for Representation also is disputing whether it was legal for the city to count Maplewood Heights Elementary when figuring whether enough land owners to the area support annexation. Without the school's assessed valuation included, the annexation couldn't move forward, Green said. -----: -~ ------+----. ----.-.;~---A· I : ,m I Ii: '~~~~ .. _ ... "-' .. >-:'.-.. -.";" ... __ . ··t .LI_, ...... \ .. 1--.,,, , ......... ,/ Valley Daily News Algona. Auburn • Black Diamond. Covington. FJlurncial I Fairwood • Kent • Maple Valley .1\ Briarwood cityhood A3 Thursday, August 10, 1995 right looks tough By BRUCE ROMMEL Valley Daily News RENTON -Residents wanting to create a new City of Briarwood east of here can begin collecting signa- tures to place an incorporation mea- sure on the ballot. But it appears the Briarwood Incorporation Comminee will have 10 do its homework before members hit the streets to educate their neigh- bors about the complexities of zon- ing, municipal budgets and sewer service costs. More than 250 people packed the Lord of Life Lutheran Church Wednesday night to learn more of annexation, fearing it will bring city sewers to their community. in turn bringing higher density hous- ing, more traffic and thousands of dollars in assessments when sewer lines are extended down their streets. Dembowski and others say a new city means more local voice in land use, zoning, landscaping require- ments and parks. Residents liked the idea of local control over development. But oth- ers said thqt might mean linle when state law mandates all cities in King County to zone areas for higher den- sity housing to accommodate future about the comminee's proposal 10 form a city ofS,500 residents in four square miles just east of Renton. "Why can't we just stay the way we are and not be a part of any city?" asked a woman in the audi- ence. Rod Dembowski, a leader of the cityhood campaign, stressed that state law and King County ordi- nance mandate that suburban areas eventually must annex to existing cities, or create new cities. Dembowski displayed charts and graphs to explain how a City of Briarwood -even with no commer- cial or industrial tax base -would growth. Some residents said they want more information before making a decision. But many agreed on one point: They like their community. "Like a lot of people, I hate 10 see more and more development because it means more traffic and problems," said Mel Ball. 'Td like to see it stay the same -at least, for a few more years .. , Wednesday's meeting, held by the state's Boundary Review Board for King County, paved the way for incorporation committee members to begin a petition in favor of the new city. have sufficient revenue to operate because the state channels a share of sales and excise taxes and other funds to small cities. "I don't see how we can start a city from scratch," a man observed after Dembowski's presentation. Sewers were a topic that raised many questions. since most homes in the area are on septic systems. But there were few conclusive answers. The City of Renton plans to annex . areas east of its city limits, including a portion of the incorporation area known as the Burnstead anneKation proposal. Many in the audience were leery The group must collect signatures of least 10 percent of the regi'tered voters in the proposed city's bound- aries, then the state board will com- plete a feasibility study .. If the proposal meets legal requirements. an incorporation measure will go on the ballot. . If approved by voters, Briarwood would be the 17th largest of King County's 35 cities. -- • • , " L AL A3 Valley Daily News Algona. Aubum • Black Diamond. Covington. Enumclaw. Fairwoud • Kent. Maple Valley. Newcastle. Pacific. Renton ·.Tukwila Thursday, August 17, 1995 Annexation plans could plug sewer rights By JEAN PARIETTI I) , Valley Daily News : RENTON -With a big chunk of its terri- tory proposed for annexation to Renton, Water District 90 is battling to hang onto its right as the area's sewer provider. Although the district has a 25-year fran- chise with King County that expires in mid- October, it never has provided on-line sew- er service. Homes in the area have septic systems and a district voters defeated a sew- er bond issue in 1972, Now officials of the 4,800-customer dis- trict east of Renton want to renegotiate a new franchise with the county and build sewers as property Owners request them. But approval of the so-called Bumstead annexation could throw a wrench in the dis- trict's ability to cost-effectively provide sewers to other areas within its boundaries. said Commissioner Mac Lovell. "It would be a distinct disadvantage, because if you look at the Bumstead bound- aries, it goes right up the middle of the dis- trict," Lovell said. ' The state Boundary Review Board for King County meets Sept. 21 to consider the Burnstead annexation, which covers 403 acres in the area of Southeast 128th Street, generally between 140th and 156th Avenues Southeast- The proposal was initiated by Bumstead Construction Co., which wants sewer ser- vice so it can build homes on about 64 acres. The Renton School District also wants sew- er service for its Maplewood Heights Ele- mentary School, which is being renovated next year. And the King County Health Department is strongly recommending sewers be installed in that area because of its high water table and potential groundwater con- tamination. The White Fence Ranch neigh- borhood, near Southeast 155th Street and 128th A venue Southeast, has had numerous septic system failures over the years because of high water, said Sid Forman of the health department- None of the three entities has expressed a preference for whether the city or the water district should build the sewers, "Our position is there are public health concerns we have," Forman said. "We're amenable to either one coming out there. " Lovell said it's a only matter of time before sewers are built throughout the dis- trict, since the county's growth plan desig- nates it as an area for urban-level develop- ment. "People have a choice of going into the city of Renton or accepting the sewers from District 90," Lovell said, "We are of the opinion it would be less expensive and bet- ter benefit to the community" if the water district builds the system, he said. But a Renton official says that assessment is premature. "I don 'I think anyone has numbers on that right now, 1 think a cost analysis would have to be done," said Gregg Zimmerman, administrator of Renton's building, plan- ning and public works department. District 90 is proposing basically a gravity system, feeding downhill to the Cedar River and joining the Metro sewer interceptor near the intersection of Jones Road and Maple Valley Highway, Lovell said. Sew- ers would be financed by utility local improvement districts (UUDs), which require approval from a majority of affected land owners. But the water district's system is only in the planning stages, with at least six months needed to update the district's comprehen- sive sewer plan, he said. Renton already has a sewer main on Northeast Fourth Street that was sized to serve the annexation area, Zimmerman said. However, an expensive pumping sta- lion would be needed. "The sewer capacity is available now at Duvall and Fourth," Zimmerman said, "The (water district's) line down Jones road is speculative." Norman Green, a resident who opPoses annexation and has asked water commis- sioners to move ahead with sewers, said he thinks the district can provide sewer service more cheaply than Renton can, "I think the opportunity to provide that sewer hookup at a cheaper rate would cer- tainly look favorable to not having the area annexed, " Green said. But Chris Holstrom, a property owner who favors annexation, expresses doubt the water district will build sewers. "Water District 90 has had the franchise in that area for ages and has done nothing to provide sewer service," Holstrom said. "Unless we get the people between us and the Cedar River to petition for sewers, we'll never see (sewers) from Water District 90," A4 • Valley Daily News Thursday, August 17, 1995 SOUTH KING COUNTY Compiled by Valley Daily News staff -Teen convicted in Christmas shooting A King County Superior Court jury deliberated two hours before convicting a 19-year-old man of shooting a Kent man to death Christ- mas Eve over a friend's drug debt. - Ramone Depar Echols was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder in the death of Greg Arthur Ferris, 34. Prosecutors claimed Echols went to a house on North Alvord Avenue looking for one of Ferris' friends who had reneged on a $200 deal to provide car repairs for drugs. When the friend took the rock cocaine without performing the repairs, Echols took a 9mm handgun and went looking for him. Prosecutors claimed Echols and Ferris argued. Echols then shot Ferris nine times. Ferris was found dead in the house the day after Christmas. I !III/WIT:] Police department to be remodeled Need to renew a concealed weapons permit or have fingerprints taken? Don't procrastinate. Due to relllodeling, the Tukwila Police Department won't provide either service from Aug. 28 to Sept. 13. Emergency services will continue at normal levels, said Lt. Craig Westby. "They're going be moving everyone out (of the station) at one point or another. Right now, we have some officers over at the Southcenter office," Westby said. _ .... __ = ... .....:._ .... I...~ .. ___ ~11 •• ~ .. ~l'l'~ .1..._ l' ___ • ..I_~l. _l' .1... __ ._.: ___ • £"I{'\(l • • NEWS OF RECORD 1 Register for primary election before it's too late Special to Yalley Daily News There are just 33 more days until the Sept. 19 primary election, sO if you can't find your voter registration card, it' s time to find it or register anew. In order to qualifY for voting at your polling place, you must be registered 30 days prior to the primary, according to state law. If that deadline passes, there's another one - Sept. 4 -fOT hopeless procrastinators, or those new to the area. The catch is, you will have to vote by absentee ballot, which you will be given when you complete the "two-minute" registra- tion proc,ess. Several changes in registration requirements have made it easier for Washington residents to Obituary Police register. The so called motor-voter registration allows residents to register when they renew their vehicle registration annually. It also works when you renew or apply for a driver's license. Another change is mail-in registration. Mail-in registration forms can be picked up at the King County Records and Elections Office, most coun- ty or city offices and through the League of Women Voters. According to Bob Bruce, director of King County Records and Elections, these changes have swelled the voter rolls -adding more than 130,000 voters in the last year alone. King County now has 930,000,registered vot- ers, and Bruce expects the numbers to break the I million mark before the presidential election in 1996. police spokesman. The easy registration won't make cheating eas- ier, Bruce said. ., Any registration that looks suspicious, the computer kicks it out and we investigate," he said. To be eligible to vote, you must be at least 18 years old, a U.S. citizen and a resident of Wash- ington for 30 days before the election. If you have changed your name or address, you must change your voter registration. You can do . this by mailing in a new form, or on a plain piece of paper addressed to: Division of Records and Elections, 500 4th Avenue, Room 553, Seattle 98104. For a change of address only, you may call the elections office at (206) 296-1573. For additional information, call the Secretary of State's Voter Hot Line at (800) 448-4881. Katherine Grace Gagnon Loved ffowers, bingo Compiled from available police reports One man brandishing a shotgun jumped onto the counter, then start- ed removing money, he said. The other man was armed with a pistol. 'The third man then entered and yelled to leave. A woman tenant, who asked not to be identified, said she noticed the black truck parked by the front entrance near the mail boxes. Katherine Grace Gagnon died August 15, 1995, at her home in Graham. She was 45. Mrs. Gagnon was born April 24, 1950, in Friday Harbor. She was a resident of Graham for the past nine years. She was -a fun-loving person who enjoyed family, flowers and playing bingo. She is survived by her husband, Ron; .......... "' ....... '" C::::t",,.., !:lin,", Tr",,,;cc-nf r-r"'h"' ..... · Clues sought in bank robbery KENT -Police are looking for a trio of men who held up the First Interstate Bank on East Hill Wednesday morning. Two armed men wearing masks rushed into the bank at 10625 Kent- Petersen said the men fled in a black truck stolen from Sound Maz- da in Renton. The truck was recov- ered at the Southwood Square Apart- ments on Southeast 264th Street. Police searched the area for about "He was parked in there back- ward and we always have to park forward. It's a rule." she said. The woman said tenants were told to stay inside during the search and the children who normally eat lunch outside were confined to the cabana. The case has been turned over to CITY OF RENTON August 2, 1995 SUBJECf: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear East Renton Plateau Property Owner: Mayor Earl Clymer -As you know, the Renton City Council has accepted a petition to aimex an area that includes your property. The Council cannot proceed -with the annexation until the Boundary Review Board for King County has reviewed the proposal. A public hearing will be held by the· Board on September 21, -1995. The Board has not yet announced a location. Whether you support or oppose the proposed annexation, I encourage you to attend and offer testimony to the Board. . -.. An alternative to annexation has been proposed recently. Some of your neighbors on the Plateau have initiated a campaign to incorporate the Urban Growth Area east of Renton and north of the Cedar River as the City ofBnarwood. The Boundary Review Board will hold a community meeting at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church on August 9, 1995.· At this meeting, you and your neighbors will decide what boundaries will be considered for the new city. . ;::, ~';" '::~;:/J:~ ;";:""'-:', ",;;;"',").": : .. :'.:J'.~'l(;;;:'::".~; ~c<:)i::'~"\:,:: .,U.'i:~,;,' h;,(j,·".:;-!:: :'l.;t .. :;r::"',;~""'.': ':)Il'/ll"l·. ~"" I know that resident~ ofth~ area':have .been ,provide4 \Vit)!..,<oilfli¢rlg iiifOrnlati9i( a~o~rthe e!fect,of,the annexation,on your lives." NO~fyou;~ve th~ad4e4\mcertaintY pfcast~gyour futurewith.a new city. However, it is up "to you to -sort through the various messages and decide whether annexation or incorporation will benefit you more over the long term. My staff is available to answer your questions and concerns and I encourage you to call or meet with them. Their phone numbers are: .. sewers/utilities: David Christensen: parks: Leslie Betlach: - annexation and general: Owen Dennison: 277-6212 277-5549 277-2475 One persistent misunderstanding that requires clarification concerns the City's plans for the Plateau. Contrary· to the statements of some opponents of the Bumstead Annexation, the City has no plans to allow apartment complexes or strip malls to encroach on your area. We envision single-family residences on all but about 5% of the total area. This small area abuts the existing City limits and would allow a portion of any development to include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. The remainder must be single-family homes. County zoning currently allows more dwellings than proposed City zonin~ and some commercial development in this area. The City has proposed exclusively reSidential uses for the entire annexation area. It is difficult to predict what sort of development would occur as a result of incorporation, as the new city will have to develop its own comprehensive plan. Within the ~ext twenty years, residential den~ity will be higher in a new city than it would be if annexation occur~. In planning for future 4~eI9PI11~~t, cities inKing C~!:,nty ,m~~! sh,ow thWthey can:accommodate':a1locatlons of future. residential grovvtb:rTqe Clty--ofRentol! can balance lower, d~nsiiy d.!w.elopmeitt ,in your area,Witn higl).eL densiti~~ ~ls~Wheie:.¥l. ~h~;CiW If the East Renton Plateau incorporates, zoning must provide the capaCity': for allocated ~f' . ' .. .. .~ . 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 nus PAPER CO)\(fAINS 501lIo RECYCLED MATERlAL.l~ POST CONSUMER ' ---------~-------- . August 2, 1995 Page 2 growth within the new city limits. Incorporation would mean more intense developinent, not' a preservation of the ·existing situation. For additioital information, please consult the adopted King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Plateau has already.had a lot of development in recent years and it will continue. The City, the County and your neighbors all recognize this. The issues facing you include: What sort of development can you expect with a new city? Who can provide you with the most services for the least cost? These considerations may help you in forming an opinion on the annexation and incorporation proposals. . Annexation will· give you a voice in what happens around you. City policy and plans are set by. the City Council with input from resi~~ .. Members of the Council are elected by the . CItizens of Renton to represent lIll of the CItizens of Renton. . ~ ~.. ~. . " ' ..' Please rruirk August 9 and September 21, 1995, on your calendar, and let the Boundary Review Board know how you feel. I would be pleased to welcome you into the Renton community. But, however you fee~ I urge you to participate in the upcoming incorporation meeting and annexation hearing. Thank you. ( ;er ..... el.--y'''-''\JYVUU> Earl Clymer Mayor . " .. t.,lt-) CITY OF RENTON !:!I, Planning I Building I Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 r-.-,~~~.·:.; -~ .. ~~~'----~-' '~(.-;-:-"-. r ADUrll." .. _. ~ ~-i /-"" -"i ". Ip"K'J""'" v", _.I I {(ce' \ , Ui_ \1 '~. "I,~ ~-'"'--l= J i f~ ''''''1 i 1523059025 ANDERSON ROBERT E+ THERESA M 13322 SE 77TH COURT RENTON WA ~ , ~059 V '{V1~ ~.~.--. , ' • • • U.S. POSTAGE I: •. 1', ' tRETUQ··j ; J" ~rWl-t'· '-J: '\:':;' " ~ .11. vt:.,lU f'\ ~ , ...... . , .,-.--.~----), ..... ;;,~-~1 lid '" , "\ . I " 'I '''W '\ "\'\\ I' \,.\ IU,,1n1d ,m\; "\;\,,,1; ".111 .. ,I,,, 'Ii il"" h ,. * This paper contains 50% recycled paper, 1~ ~~sumer .-'--~-~----~':'--------'._- , ft ".::,::'-.~-. ~~ .+' ---Earl Clymer, Mayor August 7, 1995 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 -136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, W A 98006 CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P,E., Administrator SUBJECT: CITY OF BRIARWOOD INCORPORATION Dear Board Members: On August 9, 1995, the Board will host a meeting with residents of the East Renton Plateau to determine potential boundaries for the proposed City of Briarwood incorporation. Based on a preliminary analysis of the proposal, the City of Renton does not support the incorporation, Further analysis and comments will be forthcoming at the time a petition is filed and when more information is available. However, since the preliminary actions of the incorporation process are commencing, the City has some concerns about the boundaries that will be recommended for the proposed City of Briarwood. The proponents have described an area circumscribed by the Renton Corporate Boundary and Renton's Urban Growth Boundary, Renton, like other cities, has been formed by the slow accretion of properties and neighborhoods. Incremental expansions of the boundaries have never been expected to form a final or optimal border. Therefore, to use Renton's existing eastern boundary as the common border between Renton and the proposed City of Briarwood would not maximize efficiency in service provision nor would it provide convenient delineation of the communities. Should the incorporation proposal proceed, the City of Renton respectfully requests a role in determining mutually beneficial city boundaries and resolving other issues that may arise. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~ fI~~ 3111?141e1lt(~ Gregg Zimmerman, P.E., Administrator Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Department cc: Mayor Clymer Jay Covington Sue Carlson Mike Kattermann BRBLTRl 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 LU"HL A3 !)j '~C,,,,~ ... ,,_, , Algona -Auburn -Black Diamond -Covington -Enumchw -Fairwood -Kent -Maple Valley-'"S~OavorSt:IlUUI I;") nus, ..,r.-· r -~ -.----______ .. ~ _ • __ ._ .• _, ... :-:.-:-::-.::::::~:=--:-:-~, ___ _ August 7, I Briarwood cityhood plans to be aired RENTON - A proposal to create yet another new city in South King County will be aired at a public meeting Wednesday night. A citizens group proposes to incorporate the city of Briarwood. taking in about 8.500 residents just east of Renton's city limits. Echoing the themes of cityhood campaigns in Covington. Maple Valley and elsewhere. members of the Briarwood Incorporation Com- mittee say the new city would give people "Iocal control" of their com- munity. Others sec the new' city proposal as a means to block annexation of the area by the city of Renton. and to stall a developer's plans for a new subdivision of single-family homes on 64 acres. The purpose of the meeting before the King County Boundary Review Board is to allow cityhood advocates to outline their plans, and then field questions and comments from local residents. The meeting begins at 7 p.m Wednesday at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church, 12819 I 60th Ave. S.E. . After the meeting, the incorpora- tion committee has six months to collect signatures of 10 percent of registered voters in the proposed city. After review by the Boundary Review Board, a cityhood measure on the ballot would ask voters if they want to create a new city. Rod Dembrowski, chairman of the Briarwood Incorporation Group, says incorporation is a "proactive move" to give local residents more say on land-use planning and other issues. The area has sor:ne large, undeveloped parcels of land. Chris Holstrom, who wants the area annexed to Renton and plans to build a new home there, calls the new city plan "another smoke screen" to block Renton's annex- ation plan. Land-use plans adopted by Renton and King County designate the area east of the city as a "future growth area" to be annexed to Renton. Farthel cast. another citizens group proposes a new city of Maple Valley with about 9,500 residents. Effons to create a city of Covington foundered in April when backers failed to get enough voter signatures for an election, but the Covington group launched a second cityhood campaign. For Renton city staff, the Briar- wood proposal is deja vu. Renton's plans also included annexing neigh- borhoods to the north. but residents there two years ago voted to incor- porate and created the city of New- castle. Rain can be a drag ------. ~Rlng trail as kayaking, rafting, bikin nature writing or geolog . begin at youth hostels. i!"~-'t.2fd Popular in Europe and much ... -."~e world, hostels are orohferau: roughout the U.S. : rema mething of a secret. l. __ ~ring be as liltIe as $12 a night, mem'" is not required and hostels , to everyone. a really good idea, but i lot marketed," Schafer said. "It' o r~~l inexpensive way to vi .:sehater will offer women's bac courses Aug. 12-15 a . A course geared to fan scheduled Sept. 23-24. C details. summer trips or11 InternatiOl Back and Kayak, Au four-hour kayak adventt Sound, startinl' "t the Fe Hostel near POI wnsen Relax and Raft, ~"g. 26- Sept. 16-17. Rafting on t ~ooksack and Upper Skagit river. • Geology for Young Peopl . 19. For those ages 7-14, four-mile hike with opo< to collect volcanic ash. Nature Writing from Observ Aug. \1-13. Classroomdiscu field observation and grOl sions. Bike and Hike the Ghost Tov Monte Christo, Aug. 12-1 Kevin Rolfe, 17, of Aldergrove, British Columbia, gets ""xplores remnants of the turn-c wet waiting for his father and brother to pick him up althe-century mmmg post. showers forced cancellation 01 the NHRA Northwest Na Most weekend trips cost betwee Sunday at Seattle International Raceway. Related storie$50 and $85. For more infonnatio '---____________________ 'aIl281-7306. ~~~ -=~' -I "" Earl Clymer, Mayor Boundary Review Board Central Building 810 Third Avenue, Ste. 608 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Legal Counsel CIT1 OF RENTON September 7, 1995 Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J, Warren Re: Bumstead Annexation, No. 1922 Dear Members of the Boundary Review Board: . Last week, I filed a brief for the City of Rentoriresponding to a request to return the pending Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton because the City allowed the Renton School District to sign on a sixty percent petition to annex. By means of this letter! request the Boundary Review Board to dismiss that request as being outside the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board's review of an annexation petition is governed by the objectives of the Boundary Review Board detailed in RCW 36.93.180. Factors to be considered by the Board are detailed in RCW 36.93.170. Neither of those statutes relate in any fashion to the sixty percent petition. Rather, the sixty percent p.etition is detailed, in this matter, in RCW 35A.14.120. RCW 35A.14.J30 simply requires that the petition meet the requirements of the sixty percent petition and is sufficient according to the rules as set forth in RCW 35A.01.040. If that occurs then the legislative body may entertain the petition for annexation. Because of this language it would appear that the decision on whether or not the sixty percent petition is sufficient is left to the local legislative body and is not within the purview of the Boundary Review Board unless that step was totally skipped. In this instance, the City of Renton obtained a petition, reviewed it, made a knowing decision that the School District's signature was appropriate, and proceeded with the annexation. That decision is not challengeable before the Boundary Review Board and is outside the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. Therefore, the City of Renton respectfully requests that the Boundary Review Board dismiss the request to return the petition to the City of Renton as being a matter outside its jurisdiction. LJW:ldm cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Council Members Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman ~ truly yours, . C.v.~/0-(~~ Lawrence J. Warren City Attorney Sue Carlson Mike Kattermann Owen Dennison Lee Wheeler Sam Chastain Victoria Runkle Bob Sterbank Peter EgJick Bob Kaufman Post Office Box 626 -100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 This paper cpn1arns 50~o recycled malenal, 25'1, pcs1 consumer The City of Renton and proponents to the Bumstead Annexation did not want this meeting tonight. This meeting is the result of the efforts of the members of Neighbors United for Representation and Water District 90. Neighbors United for Representation is working for you. We have paid over $3,000 to tight this annexation effort. Most of these expenses are for legal costs and other fees. Contributions by many of you have helped cover some of these costs but your continued support is still very much needed. Your generous contribution of$20.00 or more tonight will help Neighbors United continue representing you in this fight for our community. Thank you for your support. Norman Green Treasurer Neighbors United for Representation 228-2151 ! · ... __ ._-'. t~ + -... September-IS, 1995 CITY JF RENTON t.. 001( Mayor Earl Clymer SUBJECT: ~TIONR~ORS Dear Property Owner: The Renton City Council has accepted a petition to annex for the area of the East Renton Plateau shown shaded on the enclosed map. Despite the City'S efforts to provide clear information regarding the extent of the Burnstead Annexation boundaries, some confusion persists. Please be advised that your property is I!llt included in the proposed annexation. I would also like to clarify the City's role with regard to annexations in general. The City . .. tiguous to the city limits. Currently, the City has no plans to initiate an annexation in your ar Aside from this option, ~m!!!p'!MJ"""'rtm~~"'''.l!'!I!!!ft!!II!!!''I!I'I!'''I'I!~~I\I(!t!."rftre Urban designated portion of King County. It is true that your property is within Renton's potential annexation area. However, this oniy means that your neighborhood gm annex. County planning under the State's Growth Management Act~~~~~ represented by· situation, the area will remaui· Should you and your neighbors eventually decide that annexation is your best alternative, Renton would welcome your request. - If you have any further questions regarding annexation or the Burnstead Annexation in particular, . please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. . ~~ Earl Clymer Mayor 200 Mill Avenue South· Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235·2580 T\ ,I<: ". pr:u I"'",..,,-~r. ,,',. <. .... ~. "", ....... 1"'", T:' .. , •• T\:D'", ,...,.. ",..,eT 1"'""",-"", r. '''D ,- The City has stated facts --but what is the truth? "Currently, the City has no plans to initiate an annexation in your area." BUT • City policy declares that it will pursue an "aggressive annexation" strategy. • The City just installed the sewer interceptor under Cemetery Road to serve this area. Last year you received legal notification of a Special Assessment for $235.62. However, services cannot be provided to homes outside the City limits (except for health emergencies). Clearly, they expect this area to be annexed into the city. • When City Council accepts an annexation petition, it determines the annexation boundaries. It can and has expanded the initial annexation area. "There. is no deadline and certainly no requirement for annexation." BUT "The city of Renton is expected to grow to the Urban Boundary Line by the end of the century. This began in 1994 with the annexation process for the areas know as Stonegate and the East Renton Annexation Area." City of Renton Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, January 5, 1995. "Annexation and incorporation are options, but not your only options. Until your neighborhood, represented by voters or property owners, decides to change the current.· situation, the area will remain in unincorporated King County." BUT The "do nothing" option benefits Renton. That way they can annex the entire area out to the Urban Growth Line, piece by piece. IncOIporation of a new city would prevent them . , from recouping their investment in the sewer interceptor. . When Renton says that they have no plans to annex this area, they are being less than truthful. Honest and forthright answers are all we ask. Neighbors United for Representation Nonn Green 228-2151 , . -" --~ .• . .. ~--.,-- Briarwood Incorporation Committee Neighbors United for Representation C/O Rod Dembowski 14010 SE 134th Street Renton, WA 98059 Place Stamp Here ,..----------_. Name Street Address City State Zip Code HomcPhone Business Phone Fax Yes, I will help save aur community: I have endo,fed a check(s) for: Neighbors United for Representation: _$100 _$75 _S50 _$25 Briarwood Incorporation Committee: _ SIOO _$75 _ S50 _$25 Please: (Check all that apply) _Put me down as Supporting Studying Briarwood Incorporation _Put me down as Opposed to the Bumstead Annexation _Call me to help collect Briarwood Incorporation Petition Signatures _Cat! me about hosting a coffee hour in my home with my neighbors .. -~ ... The City Council bas been involved with this annexation from the beginniiJg, as decision makers and as citizens who have an interest in the future of our community. We have heard sincere arguments for and against the annexation. In the final analysis, the City Council accepted the 60% Petition to Annex because we feel Renton can best provide the services, including zoning and land use controls, and the best local representation. It makes sense for the residents and property owners and it makes sense for the City. We have always viewed the East Renton Plateau as part of the Renton community. The historic association of this area with Renton makes this annexation both logical and appropriate. Our comprehensive planning efforts over the past six years have included the Urban designated portion of the Plateau. The City Council made a clear and conscious decision to promote lower density development in the area, reflecting the resident's and the City'S concerns for preserving the area for single family neighborhoods. As you have heard, the City approved the East Renton Sewer Interceptor to serve this area of the Plateau. The alignment first proposed is the same as is apparently now under consideration by Water District 90. We rejected this route due to the reaction of the residents as well as to environmental concerns. We on the Council have had the opportunity to hear from the residents of the East Renton Plateau informally at neighborhood meetings and during formal public testimony. Over the last year, the City hosted two open houses here at Maplewood Heights Elementary School to express what the City can offer and what citizenship would mean to the residents. It also gave us the opportunity to hear and respond to the specific concerns of the residents. We have made every effort to make communication a two-way street. We are prepared and able to provide the current and future residents of the area with access to sewers, protection by Renton's nationally and State accredited police force, our top quality park system, our libraries and all the other benefits of Renton citizenship. We have no question about the City's ability to serve the annexation or our ability to provide responsible stewardship. On behalf of the Renton City Council, I encourage the members of the Board to approve the Bumstead Annexation. ATTACHMENT 2 Factors to be considered by the Board (RCW 36.93.170) (1) Population and territory population density land area and land uses; ~ comprehensive plans and zoning; per capita assessed valuation; -} topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and ~ unincorporated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; ~ need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, -, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; 4 present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; ~ prospects of governmental services form other sources; . ~ probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on ~ cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; ~ the effect on finances, debt structure, and / contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. Objectives or the Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated' areas which are urban in character; and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. BRB Presentation The annexation was initiated by the Bumstead Company, owner of about 64 acres of land on the East Renton Plateau. The original proposal on the 10% Notice of Intent petition covered 226 acres. (Map # 1) After meeting with the proponents, the City Council expanded the boundaries to about 600 acres, to increase contiguity with the existing city limits and to include property owners in the vicinity who had expressed an interest in joining the annexation. (Map #2) The 60% Petition to Annex was ultimately accepted for a smaller area of about 403 acres with the current boundaries. (Map #3) The contraction of the boundaries resulted from insufficient interest in annexation in some of the areas surrounding the original proposal. Signatures on the Petition to Annex represent about 62% of the assessed value within the proposed boundaries. The Bumstead Company initiated the annexation to receive sewer service from the City of Renton. Sewer service is currently unavailable in this portion of unincorporated King County. Development on many of the remaining partially developed or undeveloped parcels in the proposed Bumstead . Annexation area is constrained by the lack of available sewer service. For achievement of the goals of the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning Policies, sewer service must become available. Over the last _ years, the City of Renton has engaged in the planning and construction of the East Renton Sewer Interceptor to remedy the existing need. At no time in the planning or construction phases of the Interceptor development did the Water District propose an alternative to the City's provision of sewer service. Sid Forman of the SeattJeIKing County Department . of Health is available this evening to answer questions regarding the existing need for sewers in currently developed areas of the proposed Annexation. The City has taken a proactive role in the Bumstead Annexation. Factors the Board Must consider: The 403 acres that comprise the proposed Bumstead Annexation are located on the East Renton Plateau, a geographic extension of the northeastern portion of the City of Renton. The proposed annexation boundaries are contiguous to the eastern boundary of the City of Renton along Field Avenue N.E. (l4Oth Avenue S.E.) if extended. The eastern boundary of the annexation extends to the Urban Growth Boundary, north of S.E. 128th. South of S.E. 128th Street, the annexation boundaries generally follow public streets, although Of the Factors to be considered by the Board in RCW 36.93.170, the City of Renton considers the following factors to be critical to the Board's review of this annexation proposal. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: King County. According to the King County Comprehensive Plan and implementing zoning, future land uses in the area proposed for annexation will be primarily single family at four units per acre. In addition, the Plan includes nodes of higher density multifamily and mixed-use developments at eight to eighteen units per acre. The King County Comprehensive Plan identifies the Urban designated portion of the East Renton Plateau as a Service Planning Area, apparently due to the lack of available sewers now or within six years through extensions included in adopted sewer plans. The (4) (5) Fire service jurisdiction would change from Fire District 25 to the City of Renton Fire Department. However, as the Fire District contracts with the City, the source of service will not change. Annexation would create a logical service area for the provision of sanitary sewers. The City has recently completed the East Renton Sewer Interceptor which terminates at N .E. 4th Street (S.E. 128th Street) and Duvall Avenue N.E. (138th Avenue S.E.) The Interceptor was sized to accommodate the future sanitary sewer needs of the annexation area. Water District 90 claims to represent an alternative sewer service provider. At present, however, the Water District has no certificate of necessity, no current comprehensive sewer plan and no apparent funding source for new infrastructure. Additionally, the Water District has not moved to implement the original sewer plan in the 25 years since its adoption. There are no guarantees that the Water District would follow through with its expressed interest in creating a sewer system if the annexation fails. Policy LU-36 of the King County countywide Planning Policies states that the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County 'should be governed in its decisions by the interim urban growth boundary and the adopted and ratified countywide planning policies" . Framework Policy FW-13 states, "Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services either directly or by contract." The Policy continues, 'Urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed." The clear direction of the Countywide Planning Policies is that the Board cannot (should not) favor sanitary service provision by the Water District. The development proposal for the forty acre park demonstrates that the area is a logical extension of the City'S park services. S .E. 128th provides direct access to the area by City of Renton Police services. Prevention or abnormally irregular boundaries The proposed boundaries are adequately contiguous to the existing Renton corporate boundary and would create a projection of incorporated land. The southern extension is necessary to serve Maplewood Heights Elementary School with sewers and to include the forty acres proposed for City development as a park. The northern extension of the proposed annexation was included to allow sewer service in the White Fence Ranch subdivision where both residents and the SeattielKing County Health Department have stated that a need currently exists. The City approached property owners north, east and west of the proposed annexation boundaries to encourage participation in the annexation. The addition of these properties would have increased contiguity with the current city boundary. Insufficient support existed in these areas to include additional properties in the annexation. Current boundaries are not optimal, but they would not present obstacles to efficient service provision Discouragement or multiple incorporations or small cities and encouragement of . incorporation or cities in excess or ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas · , The East Renton Plateau has been proposed for incorporation as the City of Briarwood. The proposed incorporation would include a population estimated at 8,500 by the Briarwood Incorporation Committee. Annexation would discourage the proposed incorporation. Countywide Planning Policy LU-34 states, 'Unincorporated areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered." The City contends that the annexation is appropriate, therefore incorporation cannot and should not be considered a reasonable alternative. (6) Dissolution or inactive special purpose districts The proposed annexation would not dissolve an inactive special purpose district, but it would allow sanitary sewer service where service is currently not available. (7) Adjustment or impractical boundaries From a service provision standpoint, neither existing nor proposed city boundaries are impractical. (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns or unincorporated areas whlcb are urban in cbaracter The proposed annexation is designated Urban Growth Area in the King County Comprehensive Plan which was amended to include the Joint Planning Area east of 148th Avenue S.E. and north of S.E. 128th Street. Development within the proposed boundaries is divided between those areas where development at urban densities has been possible on septic systems and those areas that where development has been constrained by a lack of sewers. The more intensely developed areas are distributed throughout the proposed annexation. Without annexation, the undeveloped portion may not develop uniformly at urban densities. Countywide Planning Policy LU-33 states, Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. (9) Protection or agricultural and rural lands whicb are designated ror long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority No portion of the area is designated as a Forest Production District, an Agricultural Production District, or a Mineral Resource Site in the King County Comprehensive Plan. U:IBRBPRESI Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 August 17, 1995 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 IN RE: NOTICE OF HEARING FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION As you know, the above-referenced proposal was filed by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County effective: May 8. 1995. A copy, of a request for review received in the office of the Board has already been transmitted to you, At the meeting of the Board held. this matter was discussed and the date and location for the public hearing were established as specified in the Notice of Hearing enclosed herein. U7&m/ AI. )j.~ ALDA H. WILKINSON Executive Secretary AHW/rh Enclosure: Notice of Hearing CC: Address on file label(s) ------------- NOTICE OF HEARiNG FILE NO. 1922 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY will hold a public hearing at the hour of 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, September 21, 1995 at the Maplewood Heights Elementary School, 13430 -144th Avenue S.E., Renton, WA in the Gym for the purpose of considering the proposed annexation to the City of Renton of an area known as "Bumstead" all in King County, Washington, and more gener3I1 y described as: That portion of Sections 10, ll, 14 and 15, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington generally described as follows: The South 114 of the Southeast 114 of said Section 10; also the East 112 of the Southwest 114, of the Southeast 114 of the Northwest 114 of the Southwest, the Southwest 114 of the Southwest of the Southwest 114 of the Southwest 114 and the East 112 of the Southwest 114 of the Southwest 1/4 situated in said Section 11; also the West 112 and the West 345 feet of the Northeast 114 of the Northwest 114, and that portion of the Northwest 114 of the Southwest 114 of lying North of the plat of Briar Hills No.4 situated in said Section 14; also that portion lying North of the plat Briarwood Lane and East of the East margin of :144th Avenue Southeast situated in the Southeast 114, and that portion of the Northeast 114 lying East of the West margin of 144th Avenue and North of the South margin of Southeast 132nd Street, situated in the Northeast 114 of said Section 15.· . A COMPLEJ'E LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ON FILE AND AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD DATED at Seattle, Washington this 17th day of August, 1995. WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY ALDA H. WlLKINSON, Executive Secretary August 9, 1995 Owen Dennison City.of Renton 200 Mill Ave. S. Renton, Wa. 98055 RE: Burnstead Annexation Dear Mr. Dennison: PLANNING DIVISION (:,.,." .. ,~ 'lEN TON AUG 151995 RtCE6VED We live out of the area and are unable to attend the September 21, 1995 meeting of the Boundary Review Board that is mentioned ih'the enclosed letter from Mayor Clymer. Please accept and present to the Boundary Review Board this, our written support, of the proposed annexation to the City of Renton. Our Tax Parcel No. is: 0847100041. Very truly yours, / L-~?k"~ ~ E. Blake & Shirley A. Blake 750 Royal Crest Circle #455 Las Vegas, Nv. 89109 CITY ,,)F RENTON August 2, 1995 SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear East Renton Plateau Property Owner: . Mayor Earl Clymer As you know, the Renton City Council has accepted a petition to annex an area that includes' your property. The Council cannot proceed with the annexation until the Boundary Review' . Board for King County has reviewed the proposal. A public hearing will be held by the . Board on September 21, 1995. The Board hIlS not yet lIIlnounced a location. Whether you .. support or oppose the proposed annexation, I encourage you to attend and offer testimony to··· .. the Board. . .. ,.; An alternative to annexation has been proposed recently. Some of your neighbors on the . Plateau have initiated a campaign to incorporate the Urban Growth Area east of Renton and' north of the Cedar River as the City ofBnarwood. The Boundary Review Board will hold a community meeting at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church on August 9, 1995. At this meeting, you and your neighbors will decide what boundaries will be considered for the new city .. I know that residents of the area have been provided with conflicting information about the " effect of the annexation on your lives. Now you have the added uncertainty of casting your future with a new city. However, it is up to you to sort through the various messages and.' . decide whether annexation or incorporation wiU benefit you more over the long term. My , staff' is available to answer your questions and concerns and I encourage you to call or meet with them. Their phone numbers are: . sewers/utilities: . David Christensen: . parks: Leslie Betlach: annexation and general: Owen Dennison: "'. 277-6212 277-5549 277-2475 One persistent misunderstanding that requires clarification concerns the City's plans for the Plateau. Contrary to the statements of some opponents of the Bumstead Annexation, the City has no plans to allow apartment complexes or strip malls to encroach on your area. We envision single-family residences on aU but about 5% of the total area. This small area abuts the existing City limits and would allow a portion of any development to include duplexes, . triplexes and fourplexes. The remainder must be single-family homes. County zoning currently allows more dwellings than proposed City zonin!:! and some commercial development in this area. The City has proposed exclusively reSidential uses for the entire . annexation area. It is difficult to predict what sort of development would occur as a result of· incorporation, as the new city will have to develop its own comprehensive plan. ' • Within the next twenty years, residential density will be higher in a new city than it would be if annexation occurs. In planning for future development, cities in King County musnhow .. · .. that they can accommodate allocations of future reSidential growth. The City of Renton' can : balance lower density development in your area with higher densities elsewhere in the City: . If the East Renton Plateau incorporates, zoning must pl'ovide the capacity for allocated 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 nilS PAff!R CONTAINS ~ RF.CYCI.ED MAl1!RIAI .. I~ POST CONStlMF..R . , '. ,~ August 2, 1995 .. -Page 2 growth within the new city limits. Incorporation would mean more intense development, not a preservation of the existing situation. For additional information, pl~ consult the adopted King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Plateau has already had a lot of development in recent years and it will continue. The City, the County and your neighbors all recognize this. The issues facing you include: What sort of development can you expect with a new city? Who can provide you with the most services for the least cost? These considerations may help you in forming an opinion on the annexation lind incorporation proposals. Annexation will give you a voice in what hllppen~ around you. City policy and plans lU'e.seL: .. _. by tlie City Council with input from residents. Members of the Council are elected by the . Citizens of Renton to represent ill of the citizens of Renton. ' . ,' ... ' Please mark August 9 and September 21, 1995, on your calendar, and let the Boundary '. Review Board know how you feel. I would be pleased to welcome you into the Renton ' community. But, however you feel, I urge you to participate in the upcoming incorporation meeting and annexation hearing. Thank you. ( :;er,-el-"y,."",V'1Y"""'~ Earl Clymer Mayor ,. ," .. , . " '" . , RENTON SCHOOL OISTRICT No. 403 435 Main Avenue South " , . Rento'n'" Wa~hingt~n 98055 , . L APPLICATION FOR USE·OF St;:HOOL FACILITIES . , ' . . FACILIl'y REQUESTED No: __ -'-__ _ '". " . . .' .chairs, cirfeteriL .E~UIPMENT' coffee yrns. display tabl eS SCHOOL, Mapl ewood HeUlb.tLE.le!llI;lEA' BEGINNING DATE -l!91--.l1,;,:2~9a-5-----. I' DA X (S) OF THE WEEK ..,...+ueeS<5Qllial:\~I-,!:------- _-,-,7",:",0",,0--,---,_ TO 9 : 00* HOURS: FROM ENDING DATE _---:9:1-'-'-Jl..11.2,,-~95~----.:.. *one hour early to set up BASIC RENTAL __ ~"-___ --'_~_ per hour _______ ~ __ ---, QUOTED RATE OF CHARGES, EQUIPMENT , . NO CHARGE fNVOLVED, Gl CUSTODIAL TIME _____ ~----per hour _--,'-_______ _ '( RENTAL FEES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE LATEST ESTABLISHED RENTAL RATES) . ADVANCE PAYM.ENT MADE WITH APPLICATION, $ _,-.,-_....,.......:. __ _ , , AD.oITIONAL CHARGES TO BE BILLED n), " NAME "-__ ~ ____________ _ PHONE (home) (.work) CITY ZIP ADDRESS (street) O'RGANIZATION MAKING REQUEST: plannjngDjvjsjilO, City of Renton-Michael KattennaDn PURPOSE FOR WHICH FACILITY WILL BE USED: Neighborhood meeting re annexation '-_'-______________ APPROXIMATE NUMBER EXPECTED: 200-300 (Open'House) WILL THERE BE AN ADMISSION, COLLECTION OR FUNDS SOLICITED?' ,f yes, for,w~at purpo~~ will proceeds b~ us~d? YES D .. WHAT TYPE OF SUPERVISION WILL BE PROVIDED? -LC..lil.olt".!¥-l--lso;ttiaj,;fl::fl:,._----------.....:.--"--___ _ AGREEMENT: ! The undersigned hereby' makes ap·pli~atio·nio.Renton School District No. 403 io; use of school, ,." facilities described above and certifies that th'e information given in the application is correct. The undersigned further states that he has the authority to make this application for the applicant, and agrees that the applicant will observe all rules and regulations of the Board of Education and of the Principal of the Sc'hool in which the facilities. are requested. The applicant agrees to exercise the utmost care in the use of the school premises and property and to save the Renton School District harmless from all liability resulting from use of said facilities and further agrees to use ONLY those facilities indicated above. Applicant further agrees to read and abide by the Rules and Regulations set forth on the back of this application. If requested, the applicant is required to furnish the Renton,School District with proof of Liability Insurance in amounts of not less than $500,000 each Occu"ence and $1,000,000 Agg'reg'ate Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability and such policy shall acknowledge that the Hold Harmless clause con'tained In this agreement is insured therein. it is further agreed the nton School,District shall be shown as an Additional Insured. . ~.. .~. !Z~' StGNED: ~4-Z~_ _ .' , '. ~ (Building Principal) . ADDRESS: 200 Mi.ll Alienue-S bATE' P'{"-;6 L/-<lS' - CITY: ReRt9R. WI ZIP: . 98Q!is PHONE'~6 277-6190 DATE: 812 2/95 DIS'-RIBUTION AHER COMPLETION: WHITE· Applicant's copy GREEN. Business Office CANARY· Maintenance Dept. PINK· PrincipII's copy GOLDENROD· Confirming FO!lM 2400 • R2/91 .. APPROVED Id<2 DATE ":"; -;7"'/"fX"'~:~~':'::7:1 :::$-':':SS,-;O~f~fl;-:'ce:-:/;;:B-o.;-r-.d:-) -.-. -, .-- ", ... ,,..:,. .......... 'f.?:. .... ~.,. .. , ..... , ........ ,.",.." .. ,,..""., .. TO BE COMPLETED AFTER USE OF FACILITY . Ho.urs of actual use: from to __ _ Custodial hours: from to __ _ ,1. RULES AND REGULATIONS After school use of building and grounds The Board of Directors of Renton School District No: 403 considers school buildings public property which is to be used in the best interests of;the entire community, functions will have priority over community requests in processing applications for and facilities to be However. school school use . ... , ,'.1 • 2. Applications will not be approved for any meeting which may be in any way prejudicial to the best interests of the schools. Satisfactory sponsorship and adequate adult supervision must be provirted by 3. the applicant. This shall include.proper police and fire protection where necessary, " . . ., " j • A paid school district employee must always be in the building during after school use of the facilities requested. (When a building custodian is engaged it is understood by Union contract, that the custodian must be paid a minimum of 3 hrs. overtime which ,includes 30 minutes to .open the building and a minimum of 30 minutes to close and seCure the building,) ." .... ' 4. App1 ieations for use of facil ities must be filed wi th the building principal at least one week, but not more than 45 days, prior to the date of need. 5. If possible, cancellations must be inade one week in advance of rental date or applicant may be responsible for rental fee and other expenses. 6, Smoking is'prcihib"ited, ' 7. Profane language, possession or use of intoxicating liquor, boisterous c~nduct, betting or other forms of gambling shall not be permitted on school premises, B. Decorations or application of material to walls or floors must receive special permission of the building principal, 9. Applicant must' remove at his own expense all materials, equipment, furnishings or rubbish left after use of schoo 1 . fa c il it i es. .T.he. schoo 1 . di s tr.i ct wi 11 .prov i de , onl y ,norma 1. .jan itori a 1 servi ces. in' connection .with ,the use of building or grounds. Custodians are on a regular work schedule in other areas of the building and . are expected to. complete their wQrk"cju~ing ,thejr . .r~gu.l"r, s~.ift. '. '. , . " , 10. Classroom ,use during the ,school··year will" not be .a].lowed: except by special permission of the buil~ing prinCipal. I 11. Facilities used shall be limited to those specified on the application. Additional Or unusual services of the custodian or other district employees must be discussed with the building principal and indicated on the application. Custodians do not have authority to perlnit use of facilities or equipment not indicated on the app1ic~tion. 12. Rentals most be paid in advance of rental date unless other arrangements are made at the time of applica- tion. Other charges shall be paid promptly after billing by the school district. 13. Approved application's for the use of school facilities shall be revocable at the discretion of the build- ing principal or the Board of Directors and shall not be considered as a lease. 14. Tipping o'{ school 'personnel 'is not allowed," O"nly"the school district""shaH"pay'employees"for'services rendered in connection with the rental of school facilities. 15. Funds received from admissions or collections, sha11 be,used to cove.r minimum costs of the meeting and any qalance remaining must be devoted to educational, charitable, cultural, recreational or civic p<lrposes in the Renton School District as approved by the School Board, Applicant shall leave a financial statement of revenue and expenses with the buil'ding principal. '.. \. ,16. Gym shoes are.requir.ed·.in .gymn.asi.ullls for,aJl,activity-type games stich as\basketball, volleyball and badminton. . . . , 17. The applicant must exercise. the utmost car.e in the use of school p_remises and"must save the Renton School District harmless from all liability resulting from the use of requested facilities. • , l ., 18, It s.han. be th.e responsibil ity o'f the renting party to report in writing to the principal any acci.dents or injuries suffered by individua1s"during the use of school district facilities: , •. : "."'.' 19. Any destr.uction of schoo1 .. dis"tr,ict,p~Qp'erty occuring during the use of district facilities"must be reported in 'writing to the principal.'. cs 9/85 CITY', JF,RENTON " Mayor. Earl Clymer August 2, 1995 SUBJECT: ,BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION ' Dear East Renton Platesu Property Owner: , ". , " As 'you know, the Renton, City C.o~ncil hasaccepte,d a petition to ,annex an area that n1cludes , your property: The Council cannot proceed with the ,annexation until the,Boundary Review Board for King ,County has reviewed the proposal, A public hearing ,will be held by the ' Board on September 21, 1995, ,The Board has not yet announced ,a location, Whether you support or oppose the proposed annexation, I encourage you to I!ttend and offer testimony to the Board, ' , , ' An altemativ:e to annexation has been proposed recently,' Some of your neighbors on the, . Plateau have initiated a campaign.to incorporate the Urban Growth Area east, of Renton and north of the Cedar River as the City of Briarwood, , The Boundary ReviewBoard will hold a community meeting at the Lord "of Life Lutheran Church on August 9, 1995:, At this, ' meeting, you and your neighbors will decide what boundaries will be, considered for the new "city, " ' " , ", I know that'residents of the area have been provided with conflicting information' about the 'effect of the annexation on your lives, Now you have the added uncertainty of-casting your' future with a new, city, However, it is up to you 'to sort,through' the 'various rnessages 'and decide whether ,annexation or incorporation ,will benefit you' more over the long term, My ,staff is av~lable JO answer your questions and ,concerns and I encourage you, to c!ill or meet ' with them: Their' phone, numbers are: ' '" " ,', ' ' , .' sewers/utilities: , David Christensen: ' parks: ' Leslie Betlach: annexation and general: Owen Dennison: ' . . . , 277-6212 277"5549 277-2475 , , One persistent misunderstanding that requires clarification concerns the City'~ plaris for the "Plateau, Contrary to ,the statements of som~ opponents of the Bumstead Annexation, the City has no plansto'allow apartment complexes or 'strip malls to encroach on y~)Ur area, We envision singh:-familyresidences on all, but about 5% of the total area:, This small area abuts', the existing City.limits and would allow,a portion of any developmimtto include duplexes, triplexes and f~urplexes, The remainder ,must be singIe~fainily homes, CountY zoning currently allows, more dwellings, than proposed City zoning and sorne· commercial development in this area, Th~ CitY has proposed exclusively, residential uses for the entire ' !lMexatio~ area" It is diffic~It t~ fredici whatsoit ?f development wo~ld occur as,a result of incorporation, as the new CIty wiI, have to develop Its own comprehenSIve plan" " , ' ,', . , . ,. Within the neXt tWenty, years, residential density will be higher in Ii new city, than it would be , if annexation occurs, In planning for future development, cities in King County must show' that,they cari accomrnodateallocations of future reSIdential growth: The City,ofRenton can balance lower density development in your area with higher densities elsewhere in the City, ' If the East Renton Plateau incorporates, zoning must provide the capacity' for allocated , 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, WaShington 98055 -(206)235-2580 THIS PAPER CONTAlN.S 50% RECYCLED MATERIAL, 11)% POST CONSUMER '" ;'-',. , ., .. ,. \;. , , " " .. , " " " . ;, ; . . '" "~".: . " .. ,.' " '" ,,' ', .. ' '" '" ... f. .. " " " ", , \ .~. . , " " ,., ',' ~ , 4. . ~. ':,. " , , " ." ',: . " " .. " • f" • ,; '''''' '.~ " , ., ',-.. -, " .': .' " ,', "', " , ~. " , .' :' . ", ,,' " . , .. ". , , August 2, 1995 " " Page 2 , :. ", ," " " ' .. , .. , ',<' " ' "" <. " " .' ~ , , , , .,.~ ,.' ''"-' , " , I growth ~thin,thenew city limits, incorpor~tion would ineanritore intensedevelopinent, not' , a preservation of the 'existing, 'situation; '.'For, additional 'infoimation,'plellse consult the , ;, adopte,d'King Coimty Countywide Phillliing },olicies:", ' " , ' " " , . '," ': rfhe,Plateau has alreadY)lad, a: lot of developmeiltm recerit years and i! 'Mil contintie:>· The 'City"the Couiltyand your neighbors all r~cogniZe this: The issues facing you include: What' . " " , '. ,-, " sort of develop~ent ciln you expect ~th anew City? 'Who canproVide'yqu ,with, the most, ' ", services 'for. theleast ,cost?, These, considerations may, help you in forming ail opinion on the ' ,,' iumexati,?n arid incorporation proposals," " '; " ,,' " '~ AMexatiori will give you a voice in what happens ~ou~d you, CitY, :policY and plan~ are:set , " '.' by the City ,Council with input from residents, Members of the, Council'iIreelected by the " , .'. Citizens of Renton to represent All of the' citizenS ofReilton: , ' ,,',,' " ' ' ", . ' . • " '.:: -, , :.' ~ , . -" ' :. '! ' )Iease mark AugUst 9 'and September 21,'1995{ on your. caleridar,and)et, th(lBouri~iuy '. ,Review Boardkriow, how, you feel. I would be pleased,to welcome you: into, the' Renton 'cOmmunity: But, howeve~ you.feel, I urge you ta participate intheupcoining incorPoration , , meeting·ilildannexation hearing; Tharik-you, " ' , " , .,' , 'G'Sin~ereIY; , , ' ;.. .,1\ " , \WI. ',-",""".rn"-l!.fL'" ", -. Earl Clymer 'Mayor ' .. , , brbmail2 , ,'- " " " " " . ,'- , , , ." , ' :,.'. - .~' , ... : '. ,'. , . " " , ;, ',' , , { " ' , , .:. . r' " r " " ", ,,' ,,' , 7 " ' , , , ':", ' , . ," , ; " , " '," " . ... ., , , , . I' " " " , "l , ' , , :';,. < " • , " " " ':,' , " ,-'I , , , I, , . ~i: . , ~. , ,---..., \ ' ... / l' I, ') , , ,J " ;.- ' •• 1." , . ~' ': ,',' 1.,.: ',- ,: . i " " -.,.' ,) '. ,- .. ,' CITY JF RENTON August 2, 1995 SUBJEcr: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear East Renton Plateau Prollerty Owner: Mayor Earl Clymer As you know, the Renton City Council has accepted a petition to annex an area that includes your property. The Council cannot proceed with the annexation until the Boundary Review Board for King County has reviewed the proposal. A public hearing will be held by the Board on September 21, 1995. The Board has not yet announced a location. Whether you support or oppose the proposed anneXation, I encourage you to attend and offer testimony to the Board. An alternative to annexation has been proposed recently. Some of your neighbors on the Plateau have initiated a campaign to incorporate the Urban Growth Area east of Renton and north of the Cedar River as the City of Bnarwood. The Boundary Review Board will hold a community meeting at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church on August 9, 1995. At this meeting, you and your neighbors will decide what boundaries will be considered for the new city. . I know that residents of the area have been provided with conflicting information sbout the effect of the annexation on your lives. Now you have the added uncertainty of casting your future with a new city. However, it is up to you to sort through the various messages and decide whether annexation or incorporation will benefit you more over the long term. My staff is available to answer your questions and concerns and I encourage you to call or meet .with them. Their phone numbers are: . sewers/utilities: David Christensen: parks: Leslie Bet1ach: . annexation and general: Owen Dennison: 277-6212 277-5549 277-2475 One persistent misunderstanding that requires clarification concerns the City's plans for the Plateau. Contrary to the statements of some opponents of the Bumstead Annexation, the City has no plans to allow apartment complexes or strip malls to encroach on your area. We envision single-family residences on all but about 5% of the total area. This small area abuts the existing City limits and would allow a portion of any development to include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. The remainder must be single-family homes. County zoning currently' allows more dwellings than proposed City zonin~ and some commercial development in this area. The City has proposed exclusively reSidential uses for the entire annexation area. It is difficult to predict what sort of development would occur as a result of incorporation, as the new city will have to develop its own comprehensive plan. Within the next twenty years, residential density will be higher in a new city than it would be if annexation occurs. In planning for future development, cities in King County must show that they can accommodate allocations of future reSidential growth. The City of Renton can balance lower density development in your area with higher densities elsewhere in the City. If the East Renton Plateau incorporates, zoning must provide the capacity for allocated 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580 nus PAPER CONTAINS SOCI' RECYCLED MATERIAL. IK POST CONSUMER , August 2. 1995 Page 2 growth within the new city limits. Incorporation would mean more intense development, not a preservation of the 'existing situation., For additional information, please' consult the adopted King County Countywide Planning Policies. The Plateau has already had a lot of development in recent years and it will continue. The City. the County and your neighbors all recognize this. The issues facing you include: What sort of development can you expect with a new city? Who can provide you with the most services for the least cost? These considerations'may help you in forming an opinion on the annexation and incorporation proposals. Annexation Ell give you a voice in what happens around you. City policy and plans are set by the City Council with input from residents.' Members of the Council are elected by the citizens of Renton to represent B!l of the citizens of Renton. ' , " , Please mark August 9 and September'21, 1995, on your calendar, and let the'Boundary Review Board know how you feel. I would be pleaSed to welcome you' into the Renton community. But, however you feel. I urge you to participate in the upcoming incorporation meeting and annexation hearing. Thank you. (:;er .... el_ y "'. oM.fYV'U!J1 Earl Clymer Mayor " ". I \ I 935330llW AD)<ISSON W DUNCAN+LODAHL 12249 155TH AVE RENTON WA 98059 1523059025 ANDERSON ROBERT E+THERESA M 13322 SE 77TH COURT RENTON WA 98059 0847100050 ASBELL REBECCA J+CARROLL F 14422 SE 132ND ST RENTON W A 98059 1523059019 BANASKY HOWARD 1401 N 26TH ST RENTON WA 98056 0847100053 BAREl LOUIS 614 S 18TH RENTON WA 98055 1523059113 BELALA R J & SUMMERS E A 14224 SE 129TH ST RENTON W A 98055 023059161 ALLAN ROBERT D & MAURENE 12617 142ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300330 AZZOLA LARRY D 12020 156TH SE RENTONWA 1423059065 BALES GEORGE H 13427 156TH AVE SE 98056 RENTON WA 98055 1523059045 BANASKY RUTH 1100 HARRINGTON AVENE #106 RENTON WA 98056 1523059048 BELTRAN RlCARDO Q 2108 BLAINE SE RENTON W A 98055 r I i 9353301010 ALLISON ARTHUR D 12212 155TH SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300290 BABCOCK DOUGLAS S 12411 156THAVESE RENTON WA 98056 ,"." 0847100069 BANES DENNIS 14415 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98056 ( I 0847100041 BLAKE LAWRENCE E 750 ROYAL CREST CIR #455 LAS VEGAS NV 89109 9353300690 BONSON WALTER 12452 155TH SE RENTONWA 0847100073 BRENDEN ROGER 13224 144TH SE RENTON WA 1023059219 BRlTTS EDWARD G 12615 148TH AVE SE 98055 98056 RENTON WA 98059 9353300150 BUTLER II FREDERlCK LOOMIS 15608 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98059 9353300450 CAMPBELL ARTHUR D+TRACY D 12258 I 56TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 0847100006 CARR RlCHARD & JUDY 3609 NE 8TH ST RENTON W A 98056 '353300710 BILODEAU MARCELLENA M 12618 I 55TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1023059160 BLAYLOCK IDA 3204 S 292ND ST AUBURNWA 9353300740 98001 BOWERS RONALD S+DORlS J 12638 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1023059040 BRlERE GERALD J 23205 SE 192ND MAPLE VALLEY WA :;J -. ~., . 9353301000 BURNS BRlAN B 412 S 325TH PL S-I FEDERAL WY WA 1023059103 98038 98003 BYERSDORFER DEBORAH PHELPS BYERSDORFERGREGORY A 22651 SE 56TH ST ISSAQUAH W A 98027 1523059154 CAMPBELL CHRISTOPHER D CAMPBELL KELLY D 14205 SE I 29TH PL RENTON WA 98059 9353301060 BISHOP NOMI A 12252 155TH AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 1523059130 BRANNAN SCOTT A+DIANNA L 14217 SE 129TH PL RENTON W A 98055 0847100025 BRlGHTON THEODORE 12832 I 44TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 1023059169 BUNKER MARGARET M 4377 STONEBRlDGE #8 WYOMING MI 49509 9353300350 BURNSIDE REBECCA L 10025 NE I 27TH PL KIRKLAND W A 98034 :'.1 9353300120 CARLSON ALVIN E 125A EVANS RD SEQUIM WA 98382 9353300550 CHERRY STREET INVESTMENTS CAPEK KENNETH J 6045 BOULEVARD LOOP SE OLYMPIA WA 98501 9353300140 CHRISTENSEN WILLIAM L 12654 156TH SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100076 CLARK J ERNEST 7029 RJPLEY LN N RENTON WA . 98056 0847100077 COCANOWER BILLY L PO BOX 2264 RENTON WA 98055 9353300760 CUMMINGS WILLIAM R 12652 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300870 DEMOPOLIS CHRJS 7013 LINDENN SEATTLE WA 98103 1123059072 D1CKSONCM 15630 SE 124TH RENTON WA 98056 r I )353300620 CHANCE GERALD DANIEL+MARIAN 12003 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1423059016 CHEUNG SYDNEY & CONNIE 5766 -146TH AVE N E BELLEVUE WA 98007 9353300810 CHRISTIANSON KENNETH & LIND 12643 155TH SE RENTON WA 98055 1423059007 COLASURDO DOMINIC J 15440 SE MA Y VALLEY RD RENTON WA 98056 :',) 9353300600 DENNISON DAVID C+JILL A 12019 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100022 DO QUANG T+CHUNG PHUNG K 14419 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98059. 0847100014 CHUCK'S DONUT SHOP 14413 SE 128TH RENTON WA 98056 1523059101 COLLIN JEFFREY W 14232 SE 129TH PL RENTON WA 98056 9353301050 COSTELLO JOHN TERRANCE+ LORJAILEEN 12244155THAVESE RENTON WA 98059 9353300850 DESHAW RUTH E 1261\ 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300460 DODGE ELMER+GWEN 12264 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 I , ( 1444500020 FALLIS GARY DEAN 14612 SE 132ND RENTONWA 1444500060 FORREST RICHARD J MAINQUIST JILL M 14646 SE 132ND ST 98056 RENTON WA 98059 9353300100 GARR BOBBY LEE & MARY H 15607 129TH PL SE RENTON WA 98058 9353300700 GOONAN MARTIN J 12610 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 ( I ! 1353300370 DOLAN LARRY E 13525 181ST AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 9353300430 FARNSWORTH PEARL 12244 I 56TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98059 .~ .. 9353300580 FRYE ORAN W & BETTY 12035 156 AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300160 GIBEAULT RAYMOND 3634 NE 6TH ST RENTON W A 98056 1523059116 GRA Y JACKIE G 13015 144TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98055 r I I 9353300300 DUFUR GLEN J+VICKIE L 12409 I 56TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98027 1023059316 EBBERT DAVID M 12613 148TH SE RENTONWA 98055 1523059092 FALKENSTEIN WILLIAM L+RHINE 14240 SE 129TH PL RENTONWA .. ~ ... - 0847100014 FORGAARD CLEO J 678 SUNSET BLVD NE 98056 RENTON WA 98056 1523059219 GREEN NORMAN W & CYNTHIA A 14128 SE I32ND ST RENTON W A 98056 ( 9353300980 G{!RCHAK JOHN H JR 14919 TIGER MT RD SE ISSAQUAH WA . 98027 0847100049 HARSCH FRANKLIN DELANO 7804 129TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300860 HILLSTEAD ROBERT W 91457THAVES SEATTLE WA 98108 1023059192 HOAGUE ROBERT L 12629 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 , I I '. i. 9353301220 HAMER REBECCA J 12017155THAVESE RENTONWA 9353300180 HARRISON LINDA C 12643 I 56TH SE RENTONWA 1523059109 98059 98056 HASEGAWA ROBERT A & MELINDA 3121 16TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98144 ". 9353300010 ISGRIGG DAVID 4110 CLERF RD ELLENSBURG WA 98926 9353300030 HALGREN S WILLIAM 2230 151ST PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98007 0847100070 HARDING EDWARD D 13207 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353300220 HARRISON THOMAS+MA YEKA WA,CH 11025 SE 218TH ST KENTWA 98031 9353300260 I HENKE WILLIAM & L1V POBOX 1088 ! . KINGSTON W A 98346 0847100062 HISER WILLIAM J 921 MONROE AVENE RENTON WA 98056 9353300920 HOLSTROM JOHN CHRISTEN 1441 QUEEN AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 9353300020 ISGRIGG DA VID 12410 I 56TH SE RENTONWA I' \ . . '. 98055 / I I I i I l 9353300060 JANDERS KYLE S+PAMELA J 12450 156TH AVE SE RENTONWA 1423059020 JOHNSON DANIEL S 15051 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 1023059162 KEYES CHARLES 12607142NDAVESE RENTONWA 1123059030 LACKEY CHARLES PO BOX 2198 98059 98055 98056 RENTON W A 98056 r I ! I ( 1123059001 J W MORRISON INC BOX 407 KENMOREWA 9353301090 JOHNSON DON 78 HOHPL LACONNERWA 9353300990 KANA YA DOUGLAS M 16757 154TH AVE SE RENTONWA :'.1 0847100048 KUNA DONALD J 13048 144TH SE RENTONWA 1444500030 98028 98257 98055 98059 LAMBERT MARSHALL E+ELSA M 8836 123RD AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 , , I l ( I I 1\ I , I ,~, ""-' . "t -. ,-.. :. Z' ~":I :~' -, ~ .. . •. ,3 9353300440 KLENNERTCHARLESG 12250 156TH AVE S E RENTON W A 98056 9353301030 LAMBIRTH JOHN F+PFANKUCHE LRENEE 12228155THAVESE RENTON W A 98059 '. r ( ! I ( , I I I I , i 9353300830 LEE JOSHUA C+BRUMMETI CARR! 12627155THAVENUESE. RENTON W A 98059 1523059033. LEVY ROBERT E 307 LYON BUILDING 6073RDAVE SEATTLE WA 98104 1523059065 LANDON CRAIG 10520 169TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100063 LEE CHARLES T 12855 144TH SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300660 LEE ROBERTC 12432 I 55TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1423059070 LEIFER RANDALL D+ROSEMARY M 5127 S FOUNTAIN ST SEATTLE WA 98178 . 9353301190 LINCECUM CHRISTOPHER L+REBE 12041 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300320. LOCKRIDGE PATRICK H 12012 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98057 9353301180 MACDONELL TERESA E 12049 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300090 MADDOCKS DENNIS 12612 I 56TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 ( i , I I I I 1523059099 LEE ROBERT W & MABEL 14200 SE I 29TH PL RENTON WA 98056 .,-~~~,~, -' .-':::.. .. ~.~. 1444500010 LOTH CORWIN E 14604 SE 132ND RENTONWA 98055 9353300340 LUKAS PAUL W & JUDITH 12028 I 56TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300730 MAGGARD DONALD S+JOLENE R 16023 SE 135TH ST RENTON W A 98056 9353300270 MARTIN DARRELL & ANN 12429 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 r ( ( ! 9353300750 MCDERMOTT GEORGE F+LILLIAN 12646 I 55TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100080 MILLS MARGARET S 1609 DAVIS AVE SO RENTON W A 98055 1523059139 MULVIHILL MICHAEL D 14243 SE 129TH PL RENTON W A 98059 1523059062 MCCLINCY TRACY L 13011 144TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 1023059167 MCTIGHE JOHN R ET AL 24929 267TH SE RAVENSDALE WA 9805 I 1523059061 MEDDAUGH DANIEL F& ELAINE M 14013 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98056 0847100054 MEYER PHYLLIS B 14454 SE 132ND ST RENTON W A 98059 9353301150 MOONEY FRANKP.+TERESA 12217 155 AVESE RENTON WA 98056 9353301230 MORRISON DOUGLAS D PO BOX 407 KENMORE W A 98028 1123059021 MULLENBERG DEAN J 12622 I 48TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 0847100071 NELSON DAWN 13217 146TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 ( i 9353300420 . MCCOY JAMES 4300 NE 39TH AVE VANCOUVER WA 98661 ~.~~\;::~ ",J :f:~:· . 9353301080 MILLER CARMEN M (EY)+DALE L 12266 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100024 MOREN ROBERT J & DORENE H 14415 SE 128TH ST RENTON W A 98059 1523059064 MOSIER LAUREN W 13025 144TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1123059018 MULLINS CECIL 1863 I I 20TH SE RENTONWA 9353300780 NELSON EMIL + ROSE 98058 7219 S 128TH PO BOX 78526 SEATTLE WA 98178 1123059017 OLDING TERRY L 12614 148TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300670 PACKEREC 12440 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300630 PARKER CRAIG & EVELYN 12404 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 0847100066 QUESNEL MAURlCE 13218144THSE RENTON W A 98055 r I 9353300680 OLIVER JOYCE & SCHMIDT CAROL 433 BRONSON WY NE RENTON WA 98056 9353301160 PALMER GARY TIMSON SHIRLEY 285 MT RAINIER PL NW ISSAQUAH WA 98027 1023059206 PEABODY ERlN M+MICHAEL A+OI 14640 SE 128TH ST RENTON WA 98059 0847100060 PETERSEN ROBERTA 14639 SE I32ND ST . RENTON WA 98055 0847100061 PUGSLEY BRAD+CYNTHIA 14607 SE I32ND RENTON WA 98056 9353300610 NIBLOCK JOHN F 12011 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1123059023 NORMILE DAVID R & JENNIFER 12210 NE 143RD PL KIRKLAND WA 98034 9353300210 OCHOA BARBARA R 8054 S 116TH ST SEATTLE WA98178 9353301210 OLSON CHARLES D+CLARlCE J 12025 155TH SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100068 PALMER ROBERT L+DANA L 13205 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1523059108 PELLETIER STEVE L+LINDA L 14212 SE 129TH PL RENTON W A 98059 1523059164 PROULX PAUL 12821 144TH SE RENTON W A 98055 9353300200 PURDY ELIZABETH C 12627 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100045 RECKTENWALD F V 13016 144TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 ( I .. 1023059320 REED LA WRENCE A 1~611 148111 SE RENTON WA 98055 0847100090 RENTON SCHOOL mST 403 435 MAIN AVE S RENTON WA 98055 0847100051 REYNOLDS LYNNE 28202 193RD AVE SE . KENT WA 98042 0847100074 RICEBYRON 14219 140111 SE RENTONWA 98056 1444500070 RICHARDSON WAYNE R POBOX 58603 RENTON WA 98058 0847100064 SADARFRANK 14419 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98059 :';1 9353300790 SAWYER ERNET C 12657 155111 AVE SE RENTONWA 98055 9353301240 RHOADES ROBERT E 12001 155111 AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 {;.<:'.~; ~/ --".-' ( 9353300280 RUSSELL JOHN T PO BOX 1205 GRAHAMWA 98338 9353301130 SCHNEIDER KEN V 12237 155TH AVE SE RENTONWA 98055 ( I i I l I i 1023059041 REID BENNIE J+BARBARA J 14412 SE 128111 ST RENTON WA 98056 1023059016 RIBERA-BALKO ENTERPRISES 13740 SE 246111 KENT WA 98042 1523059020 RUDOLPH BERTRAM A JR PO BOX 2302 CARMEL CA 93921 1444500040 SANCHEZ VICTORIA M 14630 SE 132ND ST RENTONWA 98059 1123059093 SCHEDA DOUGLAS ARTHUR 17015 SE 128TH ST RENTONWA 98059 1523059117 SCHULKE SHANE D 14225 SE 129TH PLACE RENTONWA 98059 ( I I I I 9353300840 SEGARAN CHANDRA+RANDI C 12619 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 0847100065 SHAW EDMUND A 14413 SE 132ND ST RENTON WA 98059 1123059095 SHIMMEL MICHAEL J 12004 156TH SE RENTON WA 98055 \'." 0847100040 SPOONGARYE .;"; ----"} :;'i~~,'i, 16701 SE MAY VALLEY ROAD RENTON WA 98059 9353300530 STUECKLE JAMES T 12220 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 0847100052 TALLEY ALBERT 29112NDAVE SEATTLEWA 98121 I , ! I I l 1523059127 SCOTT WILLIAM E 14233 SE 129TH PL RENTONWA 98059 .;. . ~,~: .. ~ " 9353301170 SMELTZER JACK L 12205 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300240 r"::::'" STEWART DONALD & MILDRED A 12457 156TH SE RENTON W A 98055 9353300130 THOMPSON ALAN L+ANN EV1TA 12644 156TH AVE,SE RENTON W A 98056 ( t , 1523059118 SIMONSON JAMES D+SANDRA K 14239 SE 129TH PL RENTON WA 98059 9353300640 SMITHJOHNL PO BOX 2670 RENTON W A 98056 9353300070 SMITH STEVEN WESLEY HEGGEN-SMITH SUSAN 12458 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 9353300820 STOCK WALTER L+KE1KO 12635 155TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98059 0847100100 TARANTOLAioSEPH 23326 SE 254TH ST MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 ( 9353300770 UN[TED MORTGAGE CORP 25028 [04TH AVE SE KENT WA 98031 9353300040 WELCH JAMES L 1980195THAVEEAST BOTHELL WA 98011 9353300190 WH[TF[ELD RICHARD W+LOIS B 12635 156TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 9353301070 W[TTCARLM 12260 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300470-- WRIGHTMJR 12265 156TH SE RENTONWA 98055 9353300800 VAN DITTO SCOTT A 12651 155TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 9353300720 WALIMAKI JUD[TH M 19037 SE JONES RD RENTON WA 98058 9353300480 WALTERS GORDON J 12257 156TH AVE SE RENTON W A 98056 1523059001 WEST COAST INVESTMENTS INC+ HUNG,SH[RLEY+HUNG,CLAUD[A 4502 [77TH AVE SE [SSAQUAH WA 98027 1023059193 WH[TLOCKT [2637 [48TH PL SE RENTON WA 98055 9353300250 WILLIAMSON JOE L 12439 156TH S E RENTON WA 98056 0847100075 WOFFORD WILLIAM E 13323 146TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 1523059217 YAHNCLYDE 14100 SE 132ND RENTONWA 98056 I I ( I I 9353300490 WE[SSER GARY L [2236 [55TH SE RENTON WA 98059 0847100042 WEYER CLARENCE W 14602 SE 132ND RENTON WA 98056 9353300080 WOLF PATRIC[A ANN (50%) 500 MONROE AVE NE B-3 RENTON WA 98056 I CONCURRENCE DATE 7 ~2-7/4r;- NAME INITIAL/DATE o.Q.ENNI~!J.1 OD 7hz ~\. tm [[81r11lc:!N M1:l. 1:. -1!. ,,=. ~1r1r1[~M!I'" ~a~ July 27, 1995 SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear East Renton Plateau Property Owner: As you know, the Renton City COllncil has accepted a petition to annex an area that includes your property. The Council cannot proceed with the annexation until the Boundary Review Board for King County has reviewed the proposal. A public hearing will be held by the Board on September 21, 1995. The Board has not announced a location. Whether you support or oppose the proposed annexation, I encourage you to attend and offer testimony to the Board. I know that residents of the area have been provided with conflicting information about the effect of the annexation on your lives. However, it is up to you to sort through the various messages and decide whether annexation will be beneficial over the long-term. My staff is available to answer your questions and concerns and I encourage you to call or meet with them. Their phone numbers are: sewers/utilities : parks: annexation and general: David Christensen at 277-6212 Leslie Betlach at 277-5549 Owen Dennison at 277-2475 One persistent misunderstanding that requires clarification concerns the City's plans for the Plateau. Contrary to the statements of some opponents of the Burnstead Annexation, the City has !lQ plans to allow apartment complexes or strip malls to encroach on your area. We envision single family residences on all but about 5 % of the total area. This small area abuts the existing city limits and would allow a portion of any development to include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, the remainder must be single family homes. County zoning currently allows more dwellings and some commercial development in this area. The City has proposed exclusively residential uses for the entire annexation area. The Plateau has already had a lot of development in recent years and it will continue. The issue facing you is this: who do you want to oversee this critical phase of the development of your neighborhood, the County or the City? Who will be more responsive? Who will understand your concerns? Find out what County zoning will allow and consider the services that the County provides. These considerations will help you in forming an opinion on the proposed annexation. Annexation will give you a voice in what happens around you. City policy and plans are set by the City Council with input from residents. Members of the Council are elected by the citizens of Renton to represent Jill of the citizens of Renton. Council meetings are not held in Seattle, but down the road from you. Please mark September 21, 1995, on your calendar, and let the Boundary tf Board know how you feel. I would be pleased to welcome you into the Renton community By, owever, you feel, I urge you to participate in the upcoming annexation hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Earl Clymer Mayor ~v~ 'I It&++ • A3 Thursday, June 22, 1995 1----------------- Annexation without representation Residents want to have a say By JEAN PARIETTI Valley Daily News RENTON-'Unwilling to risk their neighborhood's rural flavor anti fearing expensive, mandatory sewer hook-ups, some East Renton Plateau residents are fight- . ing annexation to Renton. , "If they bring'(sewers) out and we don't want them, we don't want to have to hook up," said resident Kyle Janders, who lives on l56th Avenue Southeast "We don't want a little strip mall out here. It's a rural area. We don't want a bunch of apartments out here," he said. "/t's not that we're opposed to development," said Norman Green, who lives on Southeast '132nd Street. "We're opposed to the way the city of Renton devel- ops. " Although growth is inevitable, said Pat Wolf, another resident of l56th Avenue Southeast, "I think ii should be done right and I think it should be done with the people's representation" through an annexation elec- tion, she said. , But the annexation was initiated by petition by Bum- stead Construction Company, which wants to build a single-family subdivision within the 400-acre annex- ation area. The area, with about 473 residents, lies east of I 40th Avenue Southeast and generally is,bordered on the north by Southeast l20th Street and on Southeast l38th Place on the south. Janders, Green and Wolf are among residents and land owners who have signed petitions opposing the annexation plan. The petitions were circulated by Neighbors United for Representation, which says it has gathered enough signatures to trigger a state hearing on the proposal. A hearing is required if citizens collect the signatures of either 5 percent of the annexation area's registered voters or those owning 5 percent of the area's assessed valuation. , ." The group submitted its petitions Friday to the Wash- ington State Boundary Review Board for King County, said Aida Wilkinson, the agency's executive secretary.' The petitions contain the names of 63 voters and 69 people who own 48 separate parcels in the area. ~ Now those names must be validated by King County officials to make sure they meet the minimum require- ments, Wilkinson said. In addition to the citizen challenge, Water District 90 has requested a hearing -which means one is automati- cally scheduled,-she said. Mid-August is probably the earliest the hearing can be held: Jack Leininger, District 90's attorney, said the water district holds the franchise to provide sewer service in the annexation area and objects to the city's plan to extend sewer there. The district's commissioners arc' 'just looking at costs, at the request of citizens, t, Leininger.said. "They want to keep that window open" in case it appears the district can provide sewer service at a lower cost. ' Green said he believes District 90 can provide sewers more cheaply; so the annexation isn't necessary. "I think that the only reason for annexation is (for developers) to be provided that sewer," he said. Mike Katterman, Renton's planning and technical ser- vices director, said the area is part of the city's brban growth area and its potential annexation area. "If it's urban (designated), it should be provided urban servic- es" under growth management guidelines, ~e said. But sewers wouldn't be provided in the area immedi- ately after annexation, and sewer costs wouldn't be as high as some residents have suggested, Kimerman said. Besides those concerns, some residents say they were misled when the annexation petition was circulated. "Pe?pl~ were given the impression that what they were slgnmg was the ability to vote on the annexation, " Green said. . But when about a dozen residents tried to withdraw their names in April, city officials said the deadline for removing names had passed, Green said. "I think the thing that bothered me the most is that the Renton City Council ignored us at the public hearing in April," Wolf said. "There was a lot of opposition there .• , Neighbors United for Representation also is disputing whether it was legal for the city to count Maplewood Heights Elementary when figuring whether enough land owners In the area support annexation. Without the school's assessed valuation included, the annexation couldn't move forward, Green said. A4 • Valley Dally News Thursday, June 22, 1995 . SOUTH KING COUNTY Compiled by Val/ey Daily News staff Expect detour for SR 518 ran TUKWILA -The ramp from eastbound State Rou bound 1-5 in Tukwila will be closed from 3 a.m. to according to the Washington State Department of Tn A signed detour using State Route 181. will be maintenance work is completed on the ramp. ' For updated infonnation on this or other projects in the Commuter Information Line at DOT-HIWY (36 free in western Washington at 1-800-695-ROAD (76 1·405 to 1·90 ramps close Fric BELLEVUE -Ramps connecting northbound 1-40 closed from II p.m. Friday until 5 a.m. Saturday so c an overhead sign bridge. . Motorists trying to hook up with eastbound or west have to take a signed detour via Southeast 8th Street , Washington State Department of Transportation. ' For updated information on this pr other state high the Puget Sound Region, call the, Commuter Infor DOT-HIWY (368-4499), or toll free, in western Washi 695-ROAD (7623). Correction A man's name was incorrectly spelled and a wo incorrectly identified in a story that appeared on A I i Valley Daily News. Richard Kirton spoke in favor Evelyn Nichols is not officially an owner of the pro tavern. Lottery One Lotto winner OLYMPIA -There was one jackpot winner for V million Washington state Lotto prize but no winner i Quinto drawing. The Lotto jackpot for Saturday's drawing will be $ _ the Quinto prize climbs to $300,000, said spokesman R There were 41 Lotto tickets that matched five of . Wednesday's drawing. They were worth $647 each. tickets matched four numbers and were worth $24, p, Lotto sales were $1,153,910. In Quinto, there were 24 tickets that matched four 0 • and were worth $1,000. There were 1,091 tickets that matched three cards fc said. Quinto sales were $261,312. Wednesday's Daily Game Wednesday's Keno 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 28, 32 48, 51, 53, 59, 61, 62, 64, 72, 74, 79 Wednesday's Lotto 3·6· Wednesday's Quinto Two of Spade • Hearts, Seven of Diamonds, Five of Clu Clubs Obituaries Edward E. Appleton Enjoyed bowling Kent resident Edward E. Appleton died June 15. 1995, in Puyallup. He was 89. Mr. Appleton was born Sept. 11, 1905, in DuBois. Pa. He had lived In Kent since 1947 and retired in 1970 from Boeing. He married Marian in 1977 and was B member of the Kent Senior Citizen's Bowling League. He was preceded in death by brother, George and sister, Cora Towner. He is survived by his wife, Marian Appleton of Kent; four daughters, Bever- ly Talbot of Manchester, N.H .. Dolores Lipsey of Puyallup, Diane Labrenz of Seattle and Joane Lombardi of Vashon; sister, Ethel Ray of Orting; six grandchil- dren; eight great-grandchildren and two great-greet-grandchildren. A memorial service will be held at a later date. Cremation is under the direc- tion of Marlatt Funeral Home. Howard C. Edwards Decorated veteran Howard C. Edwards, 73, of Auburn, died June 17, 1995. . Mr. Edwards was born Sept. 19, 1921, in Wilkes Barre, Pa. In 1936, at the age of IS, he moved to Oregon. He was a U.S. Army Veteran serving in India and Burma during World War II. He received the American Theater Rib- bon, AP Theater Ribbon with one Bronze Battle Star, a Victory Medal, and was especially proud of receiving a spe- cial commendation from General Hap Arnold. After the service, he returned to the Beaverton, Ore., area where he owned . and operated Tronivislon Electronics. He came to Washington in 1961 and . was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration until his retirement In 1981. He was an avid golfer and a AI her request, th services. Arrangeme son Memorial in Se Elizabeth Jail! Enjoyed gardenin Elizabeth Jasso Enumclaw died Jur Enumclaw Hospital. Mrs. Parkerson 1901, in Electric, moved to Roslyn an She married William ma in 1917 and so Cumberland where years before mavin nursing home. She e and sharing with oth( She was preceded band, William; dauj son, Bill; and grands( la. She is survived b~ Tacoma, Robert of E of Vista and Lee of S, Elizabeth Tost of At Read of Seattle; 21 great-grandchild ren great-grandchildren. Visitation will be Friday, at Weeks' I Home. Funeral Mass Saturday, at Sacre Church in Enumclaw green Memorial Par~ Memorials may t Heart Catholic Chure Borea Elaine F Enjoyed cooking, Renton resident 81 died June 20, 1995. Mrs. Radcliff was in Des Moines, IOWf cook and was a go enjoyed traveling spending time with I She Is survived b Radcliff of Des Moin1 W. Radcliff of Even -1~~~~~:;::,~~_lhem Ihrough firm d nol forgetting )Ie, (ouch), the responsibility of I actions. Don't always be ready for them, but support them for ,'ood choices. I doubt that hard 'er hurt anyone. Sure, I may d-school,but I'm beginning to the old-school thoughts and weren't so far off base. lUng teens who murdered, have ,rtunity to change and to be for- lopefully, we will all try much J prevent some of these horrible ;s by giving our children what lIy need, God and ourselves. ; remember the saying, "Chris- ;n't perfect, just forgiven. "No :here in life we have fallen short, I get us going on the right path if im. As for justice in this world, ld more it seems it will come ,d, not our judicial system. Marsha Gronotte Renton : denigrate ldy's experience lOnse to Mr. Harvey Maas I fail' >w he can equate his experience J War II with Capt. O'Grady's Ice of being alone in a hostile nent and surviving against tre- s odds. I also am a veteran of r and have nearly 69 years of behind me and I probably did, ; any clearly defined faith in an 'eing when I was in the service. ""tely I was never left on my I situation that tested my abil ity ve. There was always a struc· ain of command even in combat linated the need for much indi- litiative for survival. I remcm· g reminded in jump school that mbat jump the ranking NCO e the last to leave the plane and drawn loaded weapon to be sure leserters were to be left alive on e. Not much left to individual ; and not really much need for .ss it was in the shooting ability O. , . Maas" initial letter to the edi- lid that Capt. O'Grady was not a j that he did not give proper the men who put themselves in .' to go in and get him out. I ·he captain's statement that his ;;"vivni to point of rescue was in a good part due to his faith. and he did say that the only heroes were the men who came ,in for him. Eugene Cerino Auburn Annexation article left out information After reading the article that appeared in the Valley Daily News on June 22, 1995, on the Burnstead Annexation, I felt you should hear and present the oth- er side of the story. I am well versed in growth management planning for the area, having attended the King County and City of Renton growth management hearings on future city growth plans and the urban growth boundary. I also attended the hearings at the City of Ren- ton on the Burnstead Annexation. I noticed misinformation given in the article by people involved in the Neigh- bors United for Representation group: If the annexation goes through, people will not have to connect to the sewer system. There are no plans in the city for strip malls. , Renton notices appeared in the paper two weeks prior to meetings. Also, notices were mailed to interested parties. Petitions that were circulated had no mention of elections. but called for 60 percent of assessed value of properlY.' At the City hearing. there were as many people for the annexation as against it among those that voiced their opinions. If feel that this small group of biased members of Neighbors for Representa- tion are overlooking land use in' this area. There has been a moratorium on , building, due to limitations "Of the sewer system. With annexation. the developers can expand its capacity. The 60-plus percent property owners who signed the annexation petition have been paying for their land and paying their tnxes with the expectation that sew- ers would be extended to this area and that they could get a return on their investment. The land is suitable for development with sewers. I have made payments on my property and paid prop- erty taxes for over 19 years. My hope is that some day my return on this invest· ment will supplement my retirement income and keep me above the poverty level when I am on a fixed income. I retire in the very near future. I have a blue collar working class income and made a choice along with others to invest in property in Renton annexation area. The "neighbors" they say they were misled did not understand the issues pre- sented to thertt, or misquoted the issues to their neighbors. In fact, they will be able to continue to enjoy their rural life and be allowed to keep their septic sys- tems. Eventually, the septic systems will fail and will be very costly for them to upgrade. Some are now experiencing problems with their drain fields. I am confident that the Burnstead Construc- tion Company and the City of Renton planners will enhance the area with healthier sanitation policies and will pro- duce an attractive neighborhood. For current and future residents. annexation into Renton will provide bet- ter living conditions. Renton police response time is quicker than King County, due to their higher ratio of police officers and because of the large area the county officers must cover. The author of the article on annexation without representation failed to cover both sides of the annexation issue. We would like to see our side covered. The 6O-plus percent property owners favor- ing annexation would like to see our investment returns, after 20 years for some, along with a well planned com- munity. We are long overdue. Members of the Neighbors United for Representa- tion will still continue to enjoy the rural style of living as long as they choose to. Bill Woffl)rd , Renton Letters welcome Letters should be no more than 250 words and are subject to , editing. They must L."::"' __ -' include your full name, address and daytime phone number so we can verify them. Leners that cannot be,yerified will not be published. Send leners to LETIERS TO THE EDITOR, Valley Daily News, P.O. Box 130, Kent, WA, 98035-0130. Orfax your letter to us at 854-1 006. Our e~mail address is ValleyEdit@aol,com. .. , ... .,. CONCURRENCE DATE 2 L27L5.~ NAME INITIAL/DATE a·Q~""(v/~ION QO 1 L2-z M. t5AT1fBo!'\1\.4 &K i::.-)L· , (LMM~M~ C-ll 1).L July 27, 1995 -SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION t..-/(h Jl'f;"I//~r........, Dear East Renton Plateau Property Owner: ~7 1: ~ "'//-5 7r~ As you know, the Renton City Council has accepted a petition to annex an area that includes your ~. property. The Council cannot proceed with the annexation until the Boundary Review Board for King County has reviewed the proposal. A public hearing will be held by the Board on August 21, 1995. The Board has not yet announced a location, Whether you support or oppose the proposed annexation, I encourage you to attend and offer testimony to the Board. An alternative to annexation has been proposed recently. Some of your neighbors on the Plateau r. :L..f~ have initiated a campaign to incorporate the Urban Growth Area east of Renton and north of the ruf r-vtrL( Cedar River as the City of Briarwood. While I believe that we can provide '8Po'iaes te yB\H' aFea -::lc(e/~f7nr mero effici6udy than a fte.: ailf 9£ tbis lIizIJ, it is msumbeRt apeD yey te J:eiS8 ygur opinjon The J !h I ~ . Boundary Review Board will hold a community meeting at the Lord of Life Lutheran Church on ~i l7/rA August 9, 1995. At this meeting, you and your neighbors will decide what boundaries will be f tll./!; _ considered for the new city. l fUr) IlL I know that residents of the area have been provided with conflicting information about the effect of the annexation on your lives. Now you have the added uncertainty of casting your future with a new city. However, it is up to you to sort through the various messages and decide whether annexation or incorporation will benefit you more over the long-term. My staff is available to answer your questions and concerns and I encourage you to call or meet with them. Their phone numbers are: sewers/utilities: parks: annexation and general: David Christensen at 277 ~212 Leslie Betlach at 277-5549 Owen Dennison at 277-2475 One persistent misunderstanding that requires clarification concerns the City'S plans for the Plateau. Contrary to the statements of some opponents of the Bumstead Annexation, the City has !!Q plans to allow apartment complexes or strip malls to encroach on your area. We envision single family residences on all but about 5% of the total area. This small area abuts the existing. city limits and would allow a portion of any development to include duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. The remainder must be single family homes. County zoning currently allows more dwellings and some commercial development in this area. The City has proposed exclusively residential uses for the entire annexation area. It is difficult to predict what sort of development would occur as a result of incorporation. The Plateau has already had a lot of development in recent years and it will continue. The City, the County and your neighbors all recognize this. The issues facing you are these: What sort of development can you expect with a new city? Who can provide you with the most services for the least cost? These considerations may help you in forming an opinion on the annexation and incorporation proposals. J),l;d~~ ~H!1f?i4 f' ." ... Page 2 July 27, 1995 Annexation will give you a voice in what happens around you. City policy and plans are set by the City Council with input from residents. Members of the Council are elected by the citizens of Renton to represent Ill!. of the citizens of Renton. Please mark August 9 and September 21, 1995, on your calendar, and let the Boundary Review Board know how you feel. I would be pleased to welcome you into the Renton community. But, however you feel, I urge you to participate in the upcoming incorporation meeting and annexation hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Earl Clymer Mayor Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue. Seattle. WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 July 13, 1995 Mr. Bob C. Sterbank Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd and Hokanson P.O. Box 21846 Seattle, WA 98111-3846 RE: File No. 1922 -City of Renton -Bumstead Annexation Dear Mr. Sterbank: Our office has compared signatures on the pri:Jperty owner petition which you submitted on behalf of Neighbors United for Representation (NUR);requesting Boundary. Review Board review of the proposed Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton, against a property listing provided by the King County Department of Assessments for the Bumstead annexation area. We fmd that your petition contains the signatures qf owners of $5,339,470 in assessed valuation within the annexation area. This amount exceeds the required $1,368,692.50 in assessed valuation, which represents five percent of the total assessed valuation for the area, based on a total assessed valuation figure of $27,373,850 . ... 'i.,' .~: e:~·t;;· ~~, Thefufore, we fmd the property owner petition, submitted at the same time as your previouS!; . validated registered voter petition, to be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board on the proposed Bumstead annexation to the City of Renton. SinCerely, Aida Wilkinson Executive Secretary cc: Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, Ciiy of Renton ._,----". ,_ ... ---... ~:'" "-;---:"' ... --:-_ ... ---~~ -_ ...... ,-----"'7'---;-,-";'---~.:.----'-'~--. .,. -'-,~?~,:::_~ r" __ '_'_~ ____ ._-:-~ __ --:-'_-:-._' •••• ;;-:--:- \ \, tXHIt:S11 ~ Bur~STEAD ANNEX! TION 1:::0:;::::1 Residential Rural 1';:::;:'1::+;:::1 Residential Single Family I::::::::::j Residential Options Comprehensive Plan Map ~ Residential Planned Neighborhood 1::::::##1 Residential Multi-Family Infill Ii:m:::::j Center Suburban Proposed Annexation Area Renton City Limits O~I ~~1~01~00~~2~0100 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON I PUlOOHC/lUIUIIHG,l)'llBUC WORD /' O.1leDDlaOD . R.M •• ODle, D.ViaDeald 18 October IDIIS .-. _ .. July 12, 1995 Notes on Bumstead Annexation Prepared by Judith Stoloff Overview; The East Renton (Bumstead) annexation is a 402.9 acre area east of the city. It was initiated by Bumstead Construction for the purpose of securing sewer service for future residential development. The Burnstead property includes approximately 64 acres. Other petitioners also seek urban level services and local governance. The annexation was initiated through the 60% direct petition method under RCW 35A.14.120-150. The City of Renton accepted the 10% notice of intent to annex petition on November 14, 1994. At this stage, the city expanded the area to include property north of 128th st. and additional property at the western city limit. At the April 10, 1995 City Council meeting, the city accepted the 60% petition to annex for a somewhat smaller area than proposed at the 10% stage. The April 10th hearing also included the first public hearing on proposed zoning for the area. Before the end of the 45 day review period at the Boundary Review Board, two groups invoked jurisdiction: Neighbors United for Representation and Water District 90. • Public Involvement The Burnsteads organized a community meeting on the proposed annexation on August 4, 1994. Approximately 50 area residents and property owners attended. City staff provided information about city services and plans. During the fall of 1994, proponents contacted annexation area residents and property owners and informed them about the benefits of annexation. On September 27th, 1994 the City of Renton held a neighborhood meeting at Maplewood School in the annexation area. The purpose of the meeting was to provide information to area residents about city services and programs. Approximately 200 area residents, business and property owners attended. Several city council members, city department heads and staff attended this informal community open house. During the winter and early spring, petitioners and city staff and council members talked to area residents and gathered petition signatures. There was significant local interest among residents of a subdivision at the northeast limit of the annexation area. At the initiation of one property owner, approximately 73% of the owners at White Fence Ranch signed the annexation petition. At both public hearings, the official public involvement for the annexation, attendees presented their viewpoints on annexation. Opinion was mixed at both hearings. The 60% hearing was attended by more people. While nearly equal comments were heard for and against annexation, it is not possible to gauge the opinion of those who did not speak. • The Anti-Annexation Movement Early in January Ray Griffin, who lives south of the annexation area, and two local residents circulated a petition with text listing "circumstances" relative to the annexation. The first two are facts, that the city expanded the area from Bumstead's petition and that annexation does not guarantee sewer service. From there, the paper enters questionable terrain, stating that small owners will have to wait for approvals after large owners, stating sewer costs, declaring that utility and cable bills will rise, and other points. In early spring an "Annexation Alert" was distributed by the East Renton Plateau Community Council, with Ray Griffin's (228-5673) name attached for further information. They evidently held a meeting April 4th, 1995. On April 5th, the City of Renton issued a paper responding to points made in the Griffin paper. The major issues in the Alert involved assertions about increased costs from property taxes, library bonds, utility taxes, and sewer hookups. The city's response corrected most mis-statements in the Alert. In June, residents submitted petitions requesting the Boundary Review Board to invoke jurisdiction and hold a hearing on the annexation. The Valley Daily News published an article on the request, which dealt mainly with the residents' assertions. Following is clarification on some of the issues which have been raised: People will /10 t have to hook up to sewers--unless there is a health or safety reason. This would be the same in the county. The City does not have a plan to extend sewers into the annexation area. That will be done by private parties, using a latecomers agreement or in cooperation with the City using an LID. Annexation does not risk the neighborhood's rural character. Zoning is about the same in the City of Renton and King County. King County has more multi-family and commercial zoning for the area. There would be no place for strip malls in the City's land use plan for the area. According to Chris Holstrom, and others who circulated annexation petitions, people were not misled when signing the petition. People who signed the petition saw that it called for 60% of the assessed value of property. No mention of election was on the petition. The City of Renton did not ignore the people at the hearing. The law governing annexation calls for a delineation of boundaries and holding a public hearing, with two weeks notice. During that period people cannot add or remove their names from the petition or change the boundaries. The Renton council members listened at this hearing and held substantive discussion on the annexation before approving it. • Water District 90 The Water District held a discussion of sewer service in the annexation area at its first meeting in May. The topic was also discussed in at least two subsequent meetings. The District has requested that the BRB exert jurisdiction on the Bumstead Annexation as a way to protect its "franchise" as a sewer purveyor. The district is not in a position to provide sewer service and is trying to protect its possible interest in providing sewers into an unknown future. The Water District is considering providing sewer service, at customer expense, which could be used by schools in the annexation area. A representative of the Renton school district spoke of the need for sewer service to accommodate the rebuilding of Maplewood Elementary School. The district has expressed interest in activating an "approved" sewer line which has been built in part. Whether the line could easily be made operational is in question. Issues to be resolved are: is the existing portion built to operate in the correct direction, are the lines still useable and the right size after 20 years, are slopes are too steep to accommodate the line, passage of the line through sensitive and rural areas, does the line need to cross the Cedar River. According to King County, WD 90 would not be able to provide sewer service until it completed and had approved a comprehensive sewer plan. The timetable for completing such a plan is not clear, but it would be more than one year. And then plans for this particular line would begin. The BRB is not likely to decide against the annexation based on WD 90's request, in part because the district has no plan and does not operate any sewers for the general population. More important, King County policies favor cities providing urban services, such as sewers, and annexing property within the urban growth area to provide urban services. In terms of what happens to sewer provision after annexation, RCW 35.13A.050 clearly states that a city gm take over service within its limits when it annexes property. Typically, the city and any service district would reach agreement about which should provide service. In this case, the City is prepared to provide service and the Water District is not. One role which I understand the BRB is playing is to get special districts to comply with county plans and policies. • Boundary Review Board Action On July 13th the BRB will set a date for a hearing on the Bumstead Annexation. The hearing will be held in the Renton community at least 30 days after July 13. The BRB sets the parameters for the hearing: who speaks and for how long. After the hearing the BRB may ask for additional information and set a second hearing, or within 40 days from the hearing, the board may approve the proposal as submitted, disapprove the proposal, or modify the proposal and approv: as modified.(RCW 36.93.160,150). i,' ~-~.- Judith StolofJ, A.I. c.P. Consultant, Planning'" Public Process ~ Judith Stoloff Associates 2235 Fairview,East Slip 6· Seattle WA 98102 Phone 443'8812' FAX 3289112 ' ~ ~ J; i'-is, 'A I ---------.-I '. BU~NSTEAD ANNEX.\ TrON Annexation Area EXHIBIT 1 e CITY OF RENTON ~ PLANNING/BUILIlING/PUBIJC WORKS + .. + O.DellDiaoD -R.MacOnJe, D.Vlmeak1 14 March 1996 ----Renton City Limits I:H:inn inHU Proposed Annexation Area o I 1000 I 1:12000 2000 I Proposal Summary -Burnstead Annexation ~I;. ---;.J .. The proposal is to annex 399.31 acres of land to the City of Renton. The subject area is located in the vicinity of SE 128th Street, generally between l40th Avenue SE and one lot east of 156th Avenue SE. The City Council approved the circulation of the 60% Petition to Annex on November 14th, 1994. The area approved for circulation of the 60% Petition has been reduced under the current proposal. (see Map 1) General Information Area: 399.3 acres Assessed value $27,373,850 Current dwelling units 170 Existing public use Maplewood Heights Elementary School Existing Commercial 3 businesses with approximately 7,800 total square feet Estimated population 473 Current uses single family residential, commercial, vacant, public school, livestock raising Future uses Primarily single family residential; 21 acres of single family, duplex, triplex, fourplex Estimated total eventual residences: Approximately 954 Estimated total eventual population: Approximately 2676 EnYironmental Review: Annexations of territory to cities were exempted from the provisions of the State Environment Policy Act (SEPA) in 1994. (RCW 43.21C.222) Although connected to the annexation process, the imposition of City zoning on the subject properties requires environmental review under SEPA. The action of zoning these properties is the subject of this environmental review. Impacts resulting from annexation, except as attributable to the proposed zoning, are outside the scope of this review. Environmental impacts of the imposition of City zoning are taken to be the those that result from the difference in development potential between the proposed zoning and the existing King County zoning. The zones proposed for portions of the subject area are R-5, R-8 and R-lO. The R-5 Zone has not been adopted at the date of this writing. The King County zoning designations that would be supplanted by City zoning include R-4, R-12, R-18, NB and CB. The maps attached to the Environmental Checklist show the existing and proposed zoning. Under the proposed zoning, the potential number of dwelling units is about 1523. Potential capacity under the existing King County zoning is 2188 dwelling units, assuming that maximum density is achieved through density incentives and transfer of density credits. Without density incentives and transfer of density credits, potential capacity allowed under King County zoning is about 1468 dwelling units. The foregoing calculations have not deducted sensitive areas or existing development. No restriction of density due to the .. -.. ' availability of sanitary sewers was included. A 20% deduction for rights-of-way was used in calculating net density for City of Renton zoning. The potential capacity figures are intended only for comparison purposes. The proposal might result in significantly fewer dwelling units, but more likely would result in approximately the same, as under King County zoning. The County's NB and CB Zones allow commercial development. The proposed City zoning does not include a commercial component. The process of zoning the area to be annexed requires two (2) public hearings held a minimum of thirty (30) days apart. Neither public hearing is currently scheduled. The first public hearing is anticipated to be held in April, 1995, concurrent to the 60% Petition to Annex public hearing. The second public hearing will be held after the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County retums jurisdiction over the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City. This will probably occur in July, 1995. PROPSUM.DOClod { I .. l , \ \ BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION /1, rO~o~ I. Inclusion of school property -~ 2. WD# 90 providing sewers/cost v. city_~ Ii @t~ [ 3 Validity & adequacy ofprocess ..... ® .4. Sewer to schools-f\O ;5. Fiscal Analysis-, JtJ (J. 'j'f.. 6. Accusation of "Tactics used to obtain signatures and use of city employees -O~ ~. Opposition from outside annexation.'1f' 8. Property Owners that signed both in favor and opposed-o() 9. Basic BRB objectives wlBoundary-00 { " .1. 10. ~/ I~d re-es ~*,"-ff~/~~6""'fi'r!J S~/ h~j..,'~·/c6IlfJ N·(!!:HIOI!<V(~. S~~ 't .~~::,~ ~.l%Ji-,Lt:1:.~ I~"",/ 13. 'r5~",-WaVer "A~.l.-,-s,~ ira egles HI' d'"'" • ." "0, .. 1 . . ~ 'f' I. 2. 3. L W prepare legal response Utilities analyze options for providing sewers--Dist. vs. city Document entire process • Meetings held • Info disseminated 4: Reiterate BRB Objectives and how met 5. CPP's/GMA Reinforce 6. IfBRB denies, City Appeal to Superior Court? 7. City oppose WD 90 sewer franchise ~ . \'-~~ ! \~'tl ~: g~~;t:~nO!~~~~~~:::~~:~e~~~n!:~~.sI1s ~ c>/y v. eli; ,; L&b~ v. ~I 10. Extend sewers w/o annexation II. KC Interloca)~l,4fstandards IJe".. J~. ~ <!>u.t ~fo ~'fs (J ex J) fi'fcrW tuh/tv 'Ij Interesting Points I. 2. 3. WD#90 decision to oppose NOT a public meeting WD#90 sewer franchise expires 10/95 WD#90 Uncooperative in providing info C:\DOC\BURNSTE.DOC ,/' -----------------/ Questions • What is in it for the City to succeed or fail? Financial implication • Do we need to bolster the Council? When? How? Preparation for media questions. • If it fails, whether then? Extend sewers without annexation, KC interlocal for development standards ReviseUGB Let WD 90 provide sewers and pay to use ERS Interceptor Superior Court appeal Appeal to GMHB Laying out strategy 1) Identify and prepare to respond to opposition issues 2) Proactive response to pre-empt issues 3) Potential Issues • Fiscal impact analysis: question of fire costs to the City. • School District Property (Mill Creek precedent) • Petition certification: Length of time for certification; notification for withdrawal of signatures • Property owners were threatened or pressured into signing • WD 90 sewer service area (Sid Forman from KC Health Dept. will testify that sewers are needed in WFR) • BRB Objectives: Preservation of natural neighborhoods Use of physical boundaries Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries Should City appeal a negative decision to Superior Court? WD 90 sewer franchise ends in October. WD 90 will claim that an alternative to City sewer provision exists. We may want initial and long-term cost comparisons for the City and the District. WD 90 has not cooperated in providing requested material and may have made the decision to request review outside ofa public meeting. Judy Stoloff says Bumstead will hire a land use attorney. She has offered to provide any assistance she can. 2 :3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 " designation process the)urisdiction shall establish criteria for the review of development proposals under ( ideration by other jurisdictions in t' 'mpact area. Jo. \ .i. .".. ,0 The 'GMA has Q'pt:Ovlsion gronting counties the discrerion to disband the Bounda~ Review Boards after comprehensive'pltulS and development reguJotions are adopted. The following policy provides direction for considering whether to disband the Boundary Review Boord for King County. LU-«i!4»J6. Upon the adoption and ratification of the Countywide Policies, the King County Council shall convene a meeting with municipal elected officials to determine a process for disbanding the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County and establishing criteria to oversee municipal and special district annexations. mergers. and incorporations in King County. Until the Washington State , Boundary Review Board for King County is disbanded. it should be governed in its decisions by the interim urban growth area boundary and the adopted and ratified countywide planning policies. The criteria shall include. but not be limited to: a. Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies; b. The ability of the annexing jurisdiction to demonstrate a capability to provide urban services at standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and c. Annexations in a manner which discourages unincorporated islands of development. Thl' GMA /'/'qllirl'.1 Ihlll "iIY lind counry comprehensive plans be coordinated and emm.HI'1II 1";11, 0//1' IIIIIIIII/'/', CllII.I'i.l'lellc)I is requirtd "where fhere are common borden 0 1'/'llIlI'd ,,'gllll/l1l 1,1.\/1/'.1' IRC ..... 36. 70A. )00). Joim planning is fundamemal {O all fhe ./il/lII/'I\'/ ,,'I; {'/Iii CI/'.I. LU·«~».n,. All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and with the countywide planning policies. 4. Cities in the Rural Area The' cifies allti unillcnrporafeti {Owns in the rural areas are a significanf pan Of KinK Counry's dil't.'rsiry and herifage. Cities in this cQlegory include: Block Diamond, Camafion, Duvall. Enumclaw, Nonh Bend, Snoqualmie and Skykomish. They have on imponam mil' a.{ Incal fratie and community. centeno These cities and {Owns are lhe 1 j , 'I. 36.93.160 Title 36 RCW: Counties· proposed to be annexed, fonned, incorporated, disincorporat- ed, dissolved or consolidated, or within the boundaries of a special district whose assets and facilities are proposed to be assumed by a city or town, and to the governing body of , each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the area and to the proponent of the change. Notice shall also be given by publication in any newspaper of general circula- tion in the area of the proposed boundary change at least three times, the last publication of which shall be not less than five days prior to the date set for the public hearing. Notice shall also be posted in ten public places in the area affected for five days when the area is ten acres or more. When the area affected is less than tei( acres, five notices shall be posted in five public places for five days. Notice as provided in this subsection shall include any territory which the board has detennined to consider adding in accordance 'withRCW 36.93.150(2). (2) A verbatim record shall be made of all testimony presented at the hearing and upon request and payment of the reasonable costs thereof, a copy of the transcript of the testimony shall be provided to any person or governmental unit (3) The chainnan upon majority vote of the board or a panel may direct the chief clerk of the boundary review board to issue subpoenas to any public officer to testify, and to compel the 'production by him of any records. books, documents, public records or public papers. ' (4) Within forty days after the conclusion of the final hearing on the proposal, the board shall file its written decision, setting forth the reasons therefor, with the board of county ~9mmissioners and the clerk of each governmental unit directly affected. The written decision shall indicate whether the proposed change is approved. rejected or modified and, if modified, the terms of the modification. The written decision need not include specific data on every factor required to be considered by the board, but shall indicate that all standards were given consideration. Dissent- ing members of the board shall have the right to have their written dissents included as part of the decision. (5) Unanimous decisions of the hearing panel or a decision of a majority of the members o'f the board shall constitute the decision of the board and shall not be appeal- able to the whole board. Any other decision shall be appealable to the entire, board within ten days. Appeals shall be on the record, which shall be furnished by the appellant. but the board may, in its sole discretion, pennit the introduc· tion of additional evidence and argument. Decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within thirty days from the date of the action a governmental unit affected by the decision or any person owning real property or residing in the area affected by the decision files in the superior court a notice of appeal. , The filing of the notice of appeal within the time limit shall stay the effective date of the decision of the board until such time as the appeal shall have been adjudicated or withdrawn. On appeal the superior court shall not take any evidence other than that contained in the record of the hearing before the board. (6) The superior court may aflirm the decision of the board or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse the decision if any substantial rights may have been ITllle 36 RCW-page 2l6J prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (a) In violation of'constitutional provisions, or (b) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the board, or (c) Made upon unlawful procedure, or (d) Affected by other error of law, or (e) Unsupported by material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted, or (I) Clearly erroneous. An aggrieved party may seek appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court in the manner provided by law as in other civil cases. [1994 c 216 § 16; 1988 c 202 § 40; 1987 c 477 § 8; 1971 c 81 § 97; 1969 ex.s. c III § 9; 1967 c 189 § 16.] ElI'ectlve date-1994 c 116: Sec note following RCW 35.02.015. Severablllty-1988 c 101: Sec nole following RCW 2.24.050. General corporate powers-Towns, restrictions as to area; RCW 3S.21.010. 36.93.170 Factors to be considered by board- ,Incorporation proceedings exempt Crom state environ- mental policy acL In reaching a decision on a proposal or an alternative, the board shall consider the factors affecting such proposal, which shall include, but not be limited to the following: (I) Population and territory; population density; land area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning, as adopted under chapter 35.63, 35A.63, or 36.70 RCW; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins, proximity to other populated areas; the' existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincor- porated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmental services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on the finances, debt structure. and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county. The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW. State Environ- mental Policy, shall not apply to incorporation proceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84 § 5; 1986 c 234 § 33; 1982 c 220 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 142 § I; 1967 c 189 § 17.] Severablllly-1982 c 220: See nore following RCW 36.93,100. Incorporation procudings exempt from .ftate en\'ironmental policy act: RCW 43.21C.220. 36.93.180 Objectives of boundary review board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following objectives: , (t994Ed.) · '.. -;' .. ' .::~ C '.', ... · !,' ','. · /~:: ) c c Local Governmental Organlzatlon-Boundaries-Review Boards 36.93.180 (1) Preservation of natural neigh, .xxIs and communi· ties: (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnonnally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long tenn productive agricultural and resource . use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legisla· tive authority. [1989c 84 § 6; 1981 c 332 § 10; 197gex.s. c 142 § 2; 1967 c 189 § 18.J . Severabillty-1981 c 332: See note following Rew 35.13.165. 36.93,185 Objectives of boundary review board- Water, sewer district annexations, mergers-Territory not lIdjacent to district. The proposal by a water district or sewer district to annex territory that is not adjacent to the district shall not be deemed to be violative of the objectives of a boundary review board solely due to the fact that the territory is not adjac~nt to the water district or sewer district. The proposed consolidation or merger of two or more water districts or two or more sewer districts that are not adjacent to each other shall not be deemed to be violative of the objectives of a boundary review board solely due to the fact that the districts are not adjacent. [1989 c 308 § 13.J 36,93.190 Decision of board not to affect existing franchises, permits, codes, ordinances, etc., for ten years. For a period of ten years from the date of the final decision. no proceeding. approval. action. or decision on a proposal or an alternative shall be deemed to cancel any franchise or pennit theretofore granted by the authorities governing the territory to be annexed. nor shall it be deemed to supersede the application as to any territory to be annexed. of such construction codes and ordinances (including but not limited to fire. electrical. and plumbing codes and ordinances) as shall have been adopted by the authorities governing the territory to be annexed and in force at the time of the decision. [1967 c·189 § 19.J 36.93.200 Rules and regulations-Adoption proce· dure. Each review board shall adopt rules governing the fonnal and infonnal procedures prescribed or authorized by ihis chapter. Such rules may state the qualifications of persons for practice before the board. Such rules shall also include rules of practice before the board, together with forms and instructions. To assist interested persons dealing with it, each board shall so far as deemed practicable supplement its rules with descriptive statements of its procedures. Prior to the adoption of any rule authorized by law. or the amendment or repeal thereof. the board shall file notice thereof with the clerk of the court of the county in which the (1994 Ed.) ~. board is located. ~ r as practicable, the board shall also publish or otherwise circulate notice of its intended action and afford interested persons opportunity to submit data or views either orally or in writing. Such notice shall include (l) a statement of the time; place: and nature of public rule· making proceedings. (2) reference to the authority under which Ithe rule is proposed. and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. This paragraph shall not apply to interpretative rules, general statements of policy. or rules of internal board organization. procedure or practice. [1967 c 189 § 20.J 36.93.210 Rules and regulatlons-Filing- Permanent register. Each board shall file forthwith with 'the clerk of the court a certified copy of all rules and regulaiions adopted. The clerk shall keep a permanent register of such rules open to public inspection. [1967 c 189 § 21.J 36.93.220 Provisions of prior laws superseded by chapter. Whenever a review board has been created pursuani to the terms of this chapter. the provisions of law relating to city annexation review boards set forth in chapter 35.13 RCW and the powers granted to the boards of county commissioners ~o ~lter boundaries of proposed annexations or incorporations shall not be applicable. [1967 c 189 § 22. J 36.93.230 Power to disband boundary review board. When a county and the cities and towns within the county have adopted a comprehensive plan and consistent development regulations pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.70A RCW. the county may. at the discretion of the county legislative authority. disband the boundary review board in that county. [1991 sp.s. c 32 § 22.J Section headings nollaw-1991.p.s. c J1: See RCW 36.70A.902. 36.93.800 Application of chapter to merged irriga. tlon districts. This chapter does not apply to the merger of irrigation districts authorized 'under RCW 87.03.530(2) and 87.03.845 t/lrough 87.03.855. [1993 c 235 § ID.J 36.93.900 Effective da_1967 c 189. The effective date of this chapter is July I. 1967. [1967 c 189 § 24.J 36.93.910 SeverabUlty-1967 c 189. If any provision of this' act. or its application to any person or circumstance is held~ invalid. the remainder of the act. or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. [1967 c 189 § 23.J Chapter 36.94 SEWERAGE, WATER, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS Sections 36.94,010 Definitions. 36.94.020 Purpose-Powers. . 36.94.030 Adoption of sewerage and/or water general plan as elemenl of comprehensive plan. 36.94.040 Incorporation of provisions of compn:hcnsive plllD in gener- al plan. [TItle 36 RCW-page 1171 -.- ,:.: .'. THE BURN STEAD ANNEXATION The Burnstead Annexation is not a "Done Deal", in spi te of what some people would have you think. Consider these Gircumstancesi 1. In an attempt to make the proposal more logical-and palatabie- to The Boundary Review Board, the annexation area has been greatly expanded. 2. Annexation does not guarantee sewer service or a time table for the installation of that service or any other utility. 3. Those with small tracts. wishing to subdivide. will be forced to wait until major landowner developers are taken care of. 4. Sewer service to some areas of Renton may not be available for years. The new interceptor will NOT extend beyond 13Sth Ave. SE. (It took over ten years to extend sewers-to Sierra Heights after they annexed to the city of Renton.) 5. Assessments for property on sewer lines will be approximately $166 per front foot and carry a 7to 10% interest rate. 6. Refusing to sign a petition favoring annexation wiil in no way, affect your rights as a property owner. - t. Annexation means yOU must assume a share in havil'lg to repay all of the city indebtedness. S. Annexation means yOU WILL see an increase in all of your monthiy utility and cable bills. - 9. Annexation will in no way reduce restrictions on wetland development since-Renton has adopted King Counties' Wetiand Design Manual as their standard. 10.Once the annexation is finalized, there is no turning back. -We are your neighbors who appreciate our present environment and would like to retain it as -long as possible, we ask that you t.o jOin us in opposing this developer initiated annexation proposal by signing the attached petition and returning it to any of the parties listed below. Ray Griffin 14306 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 Maurice Quesnel 1321S 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 Franc Rectenwald 13016 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 PLEASE NOTE ! Any registered voter living ei ther-in or wi thin 1/4 mi Ie of the proposed annexation boundaries may sign thiS petition. Please turn in by J~n. , , ANNEXATION ALERT There will be a community meetIng on TUESDAY. APRIL 4th at 7:30 PM at Lord of Life Luther.an Church'-located at SE 128th lie 160th SE. If YOU have any questions about co~ts to you. or what YOU can expect If the annexation proceeds, thiG is the place to get your answers. The whole. annexation attempt could fall if only some residents of the Whlte Fence Ranch area were to remove their names from the petition. Annexation means that your Taxes will raise by 78¢ per thousand of assessed valuation. $117 on a $150.000 home. --You will have to pay for the bonded indebtedness of the Klng County Libraries but YOU will not be abla to use them. You will pay a 6' surcharoe on all utilities, water, phone, gas. electricity. cable. . You will have the highest utility rates in the state. For those who desire sewers. there are alternatives that cost less. remember. with sewers, yOU will pay $32 EACH MONTH just for beincr connected. You could annex and not get sewers for years! You will finance the infrastructure for more housing. traffic. oridlock. and growth. which in turn requires more schools. pOlice'j roads. etc ... Bi 11 Stuth an expert appraiser on sewers and septic systems claims that City Sewers will cost the averaoe home owner between $22.000 and $30.000. He also states that you can update your old system for between $9.000 and $15.000. He also likes what they call a STEP SYSTEM which would only cost the average homeowner about $5000. The whole city of Hoquiam uses this system now. WHATEVER YOU SPEND ON SEWERS OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS, IT WI.LL NOT MAKE YOUR HOME WORTH ANY HORE ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET. Check it out. Who gains if you annex the city? Think about it! Distributed by. East Renton Plateau Community Council. For further information. call Ray Griffin at 228-5673. /J, .d :-,VV/Na ANNEXA TION UPDK~ -f','j'sION /Y/Ay , rON 11£, 307995 Ci2IV€ Dear Neighbor: Thank you for your continued interest in protecting our area's quality oflife. This letter is to update you it whafs going on now, what's corning up, and what you can do to help defeat the Bumstead Annexation. What's Going on Now: The City of Renton is currently changing proposed zoning for our area should the annexation be approved. In anremo dated May 1, 1995 they proposed to: • Reduce front and back yard building setbacks • Allow lots as small as 4500 square feet • Allow building right up to the side lot line (no side yard setback) Additionally, the King County Finance Department has written us confirming that all of our property taxes will increase if annexed. (A city letter said they would not increase) Additionally, you must: • Continue to pay the King County library debt even though you won't be able to use King County Libraries • Pay a 6% utility tax (the highest in King County) on all utilities • Assume a share of existing Renton Debt even though you didn't vote on it. 'f, 1.'_-" J' ',~:~.:.!!'::,-.. ___ ~ _ .. ~._. _< •• '_ .".'~' .1' .'." _ • ....:. .• ~.I":-" ••..• J ••• _... " ,'., ' •• .:..~~ .'.',?'/ ,.-.,' ..'. .~- ',~~ "(~~~:":.-1~'/':-/~':J' ::.!.._'_' _' 'l.:.!..!' . I' •.. ' . '.""," '.~ ' .. ir'.·,~·· </; __ .' ".-" . ~...::......... " , ... " ,At our last meeting (April) we raised over $1500 to hire an attorney to answer some legal questions. The Attorney writes that the law appears to not a/luw the School District to sign the annexation petition. Ifwe prov, this in court, the annexation is defeated. What's Coming Up: 1. We will ask you to sign a petition requesting that the Boundary Review Board (BRB) review the annexation. A datt for a public hearing will then be set 2. We will have a meeting (probably in June) before the BRB hearing to let you know how they make decisions and ' what we must do to have them reject this annexation. !fthey reject it, we win. If they approve it, we must decide whether or not to go to court. This is very costly but the Renton School District appears to have broken the law. What You Can Do: 1. Sign the Petition requesting BRB Review. 2. Write a $50 Check to Neighbors United for Representation (more if you can afford it, less if you can't) to help cover legal costs and costs to keep you informed. Mail to: The Greens, 14128 SE 132nd, Renton, 98059. 3. Come to our June meeting and the later BRB meeting to tell them no on this annexation. For more information, please call Rod Dembowski at 271-4084. Neighbors United for Representation Dedicated to the Preservation of Properly Values & Quality of Life Press Release Neighhors United tor RepresentaJion For Immediate Release Contact: Norm Green at 11S-11SJ Neighbors United for Representation., a group of citizens and property owners in the proposed Bumstead Annexation east of the City ofRcnton, today announced their intention to request that the Boundary Review I30ard for King County invoke its jurisdiction to review the proposed annexation to the City of Renton. The group announced that they have sufficient petition signatures us required by law to trigger the review. Norm Green, a long time resident of the area, stated "The City barely gathered enough signatures to certify the petition and they IWd to count a $2.5 million school to do it. They're breaking up my neighborhood, they're raising my taxes and not allowing me the opportunity to vole." Many residents of the annexation complained about the tactics used to gain the needed signatures. Cynthia Hussey complained "We were told that signing the petition would ul!ow us to have an active vnice in determining important issues in our neighborhood. The Renton City Council ignored \Ill at the public hearing in April and that's why I'm now fighting to have the Boundary Review Board reject lhis proposal. " The group submitted signatures to the Renton City Council in April representing sufficient property value to stOlp the petition but were told that the deadline had pas£ed a few days earlier. Residents were angered that the City of Renton gave no notice of the cut-off date to withdraw signatures. A major issue prompting the annexatiol' is the desire of Bumstead Construction Company to obtain sanitary sewer service for a proposed residential dcvelopinent. Residents agree that some homes need sewer service however, they ussert that the City of Renton is not the only optiol' for obtaining sewers. They fcel that Water District #90, who has a comprehensive sewer plan on the books us well as parts of sewer system already in place could provide the service in less time and in a more cost effective manner. Waler District #90 cllmmisioncrs assert that the District has the sole' franchise for providing sewer service to the area and are interested in providing the service. Neighbors United for Representation will now file the petition with the Boundary Review Board which must thcn hold a public hearing on the motler within 45 days. The group has ru.ised over $2000.00 to date in a dedicated fimd at US Bank to finance the preparation for the Boundary Rcview Board and a lawsuit in Superior Court should the BRH vote to approve the annexation. --F.nd--- 6-15-95; 10:57; 206 277 4455;# 31 4 "' Need to Hear Your Stor Neighbors United for Representation, a group of residents and property oWners residing Within and opposing the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City ofRcnton have heard numerous stories about the manner in which signatures for the 60% petition were gathered. We want to hear your story. Please use this sheet (attach more if necessary) to teU us M·ltO "ded YON to sigll (for most in the White Fence Ranch Arca it was Chris Holstrom), exaclTy what tltq toM YOII at tlt~ lillie )lOll sig"~tl, if YOII f"" press","" (I' tJrretrt.metl to sigll altd ifJ'ou fe', YOII kllew wltat )1011 1Hre s;g"illg. We would also like to know if J'(lU el'er a .• ked to It""e )Iou, Ittlme remoW!tl alld if SO, ",It.,.,. altd if ""y City of Rentoll staff' cOlltm:t~d you. We will pre~ent this information to the Boundary Review Board at our appeal hcarins. a date for which has not been set yet. We may also use this information for a 'possible court case. Therefore, it is important that you be M..!Ietailed as possible and truthful. Thank you for your help. Piea.<e return the sheet by Wednesday, June 21st. to Cynthia Hussey at 12604 156th Ave SE (White Fence Ranch neighborhood) or Call Rod Demhowski at 271- 4084 with questions. . I swear or affirm that the above statement and any parts orthe statement attached on separate sheets (please initial & date each sheet) is true and accurate. Signcd: _____________________ _ Date: _____ _ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJEC:r: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM July 10, 1995 Mayor Clymer Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator P fBfPW Department Boundary Review Board Hearing on the Burnstead Annexation On July 13, 1995, the Boundary Review Board will schedule a public hearing regarding the Burnstead Annexation. The hearing date will be at least thirty days after that. This will afford us sufficient time to prepare our presentation and to formulate responses to issues that we assume will be raised. Certain issues (Attachment 1) have been identified by City staff or by opponents of the Annexation as critical to approval by the Board. According to the Board's policies, all issues raised before the Board must be limited to the factors and objectives of RCW 36.93. (Attachment 2) Some points we will want to raise, others will require a response. Although Planning and Technical Services can frame strategies and responses on a majority of the issues, the expertise of other departments will be instrumental in some areas. Any additional thoughts on potential issues or strategies are welcomed. cc w/attachmenta: Jay Covington Suc Carl80n AJ Walli, Victoria Runkle Sam Cha.tain laITY Warren _Lee Wheeler Michael Kattcrmann BRBMEMO.DOC/CoR Anticipated issues from opposition I 2. 3. 4. Issues Use of School District Property WD 90 is an alternative sewer provider Validity and adequacy of process Challenge to Fiscal Analysis 5. BRB Objectives A Preservation of natural neighborhoods B Use of physical boundaries C Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries ATTACHMENT 1 Response Mill Creek precedent Inconsistent wiib GMA/Countywide Policies Option voted down in early 1980s by WD residents City surpassed RCW requirements in providing information and public forum Analysis is valid Existing residential subdivisions have been included or excluded in ibeir entirety. Used where available Proposal is shaped by areas wiib development pressure and existing need Strategy Prepare legal response I) Prepare growib management policy response 2) compare costs - WDv. City Resource Nexus (factors to be Considered by BRB) Attorney's Office • per capita assessed valuation I) Long Range PI. • Prospects of governmental services 2) Utilities Div. from oiber sources ~ 't~ Yo ~ "';/uIil'to Prepare chronology Long Range PI. None of meetings, hearing, mailings Additional info . Finance supporting analysis Maps Long Range PI. Maps Long Range PI. Maps Long Range PI. • ibe effect on finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected gov'tal units • BRB Objectives • BRB Objectives • BRB Objectives " Support for the annexation 1. 2. 3. Point Consistency with CPP, KC Comp Plan, City of Renton Comp Plan Need for sewers 1) Schools 2) Existing and future development Increased police presence ~. t<C P tNrr. 5, ~otJJ /l+SJ pro Strategy Document consistency with policies Demonstrate existing and future need Resource Long Range PI. 1) School districts 2) KC Health Dept (Sid Foreman) Comparison of City v. County I Police Department documentation of current inadequacy ewKs Nexus (Factors to be Considered by BRB) • Comprehensive plans and zoning • need for municipal services • present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls • probable future needs for such services and controls • present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area c r , "',.-' t ATTACHMENT 2 Factors to be considered by the Board (RCW 36.93.170) (1) Population and territory population density land area and land uses; comprehensive plans and zoning; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the existence and preservation of prime agricultural soils and productive agricultural uses; the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adjacent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten years; location and most desirable future location of community facilities; (2) Municipal services; need for municipal services; effect of ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmental services form other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls; probable effect of proposal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area; the effect on finances, debt structure, and contractual obligations and rights of all affected governmental units; and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adjacent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and on the local governmental structure of the C\lUnty. Objectives of the Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) (1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; (2) Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation oflogical service areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of mUltiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries; (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. CONCURRENCE ""' DATE l. ---l()-'f S NAME INITIAL/DATE a· Q~d~S~:::!l 00 2-10 '" -kgtje,tM.~ r\J( L -(0 , DATE: TO: FROM: RKS CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WO MEMORANDUM July 10, 1995 Mayor .clymer Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator PfBfPW Department 6 ."to: "'''''HI. C-2 SUBJECT: Boundary Review Board Hearing on the Burnstead Annexation On July 13, 1995, the Boundary Review Board will schedule a public hearing regarding the Bumstead Annexation. The hearing date will be at least thirty days after that. This will afford us sufficient time to prepare our presentation and to formulate responses to issues ~at we assume will be raised. Certain issues (Attachment 1) have been identified by City staff or by opponents of the Annexation as critical to approval by the Board. According to the Board's policies,all issues raised before the Board must be limited to the factors and objectives of RCW 36.93. (Attachment 2) Some points we will want to raise, others will require a response. Although Planning and Technical Services can frame strategies and responses on a majority of the issues, the expertise of other departments will be instrumental in some areas. Any additional thoughts on potential issues or strategies are welcomed. / cc w/atlachmcn~ ~ay covi,;;1on \ ~Suc carlton AI Walii, vi~kx;. Runklo Sa~'Ch .. t.ain /I \, Lirry Warren . I!.o Wh:tcr ., /~ich.cl ~nnann I \~ BRBMEMO.DOC/CoR • zllo , Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County July 6, 1995 Mr. Owen Dennison Assistant Planner City of Renton 200 Mill A venue So. Renton, W A 98055 Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 RE: File No. 1922 -City of Renton -Bumstead Annexation Dear Mr. Dennison: Enclosed in response to your request are complete copies of the two petitions submitted for a Boundary Review Board hearing on the Bumstead annexation, along with the cover letter which accompanied the petitions. Also enclosed is a copy of the validation of the registered voter petition, received from the King County Records and Elections Division. The King County Assessments Department has not yet completed its review of the property owner petition. We hope to have a response concerning validity of the second petition by next week. As you know, scheduling of the requested Board hearing is on the agenda of our regular July 13, 1995, Board meeting. After that meeting, our office will be able to provide you with the date for the hearing. Mailed hearing notices will be sent out once a facility has been located for the hearing. Please feel free to call me at 296-6801 if you have any questions concerning the hearing procedure. I expect to be consulting with you about the City presentation prior to the hearing. Sincerely, Aida Wilkinson Executive Secretary Mr. Owen Dennison July 6, 1995 Page 2 Enclosures: 1. Petition validation letter from King County Records and Elections Division, dated June 29, 1995 2. Cover letter from Attorney for Neighbors United for Representation (NUR), dated June 16, 1995, with copies of two petitions " .'.' , ,(~,~.{~jf\ i '-~\." -'~"':\: J.:c,: "'~~/ King County Records and Elections Division 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 296· t540 (206)296-0109 vrroo June 29, 1995 Aida Wilkinson, Executive Secretary Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County Central Building, Room 608 810 Third Avenue Seattle, W A 98104-1693 WA State Boundary Review _ Board For King Co. RE: validation ofPetition for Hearin~ -City of Renton Bumstead Annexation Boundaxy Reyiew Board File No. 1922 Dear Aida: In response to your letter of June 25,1995, theDivision of Records and Elections has examined the signatures contained on the petition filed in support of a request for a hearing on the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(a). Of the signatures that were compared against those on file with this Division, seventeen were determined to be registered voters of the annexation area. Since that number exceeds the twelve signatures required to certify, it is determined that the petition is sufficient. The certificate of sufficiency is enclosed. Sincerely, Encl: Original Petition Sheets (6) Certificate of Sufficiency Legal Description and Maps form.petl E·4S ... , . ~ ::~:~.~. ~ King County Records and Elections Division 553 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle. washington 98104 (206) 296·1540 (206)296'()109 VrroD PETITION CERTIFICATION Tms IS TO CERTIFY that the petition submitted by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County regarding a request'for a hearing on the proposed Annexation of an area known as Burnstaed to the City of Renton has been examined, the signatures thereon carefully compared with the registration records of the King County Records and Elections Division, and as a result of such exariUnation, found to be sufficient under the provision~ dRCW 36.93.1 OO(3)(a). Dated this 29th day of June, 1995. ~ger form.pct2lBRB !Bumstead E·4S _ ........ CITY OF RENTON FINANCE & INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 23, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor Clymer Jay Covington Mike Katterman Victoria A. Runkle, Administrator East Renton Annexation Area Issues Mike Katterman and I were talking about what the real impacts the East Renton Annexation area would have on the City. The question Mike was asking was that given the additional services needed in the area as measured against the revenues, does the annexation make sense. My issue is that if you measure just the area, then it mayor may not make sense. The larger issue is what impacts does this area (and any annexation) have on the total health of the City. I have attached a spreadsheet and graph to illustrate what occurs with and without the East Renton annexation area AND its associated build out of homes. The spreadsheet shows our base annexation assumptions. It includes the new construction and annexation current values, then adds 2 percent growth on the base. The new construction amounts are assumptions about how the East Renton area will build out AND includes some new construction in other areas. In the years after 2001 the new construction amounts are underestimated. Our Qew construction averages $62 million annually. However, there are clearly years it is higher than that, and we have had some rather lean years. Thus, the fact I have no new construction in the years 2001 and beyond without East Renton is not realistic. The Annexation amounts lag by two years. This is because if annexations are not assigned to the City by March, then it does not become effective until 19 months later. I would be hard pressed to explain the Assessor's timing. That timing is included in the RCW. The annexations then include only Winspur, Stonegate, Marshall and East Renton. The important columns, after the assumptions are clear, are the rate columns. Clearly without the annexations in 1996 we will come extremely close to our legal limit. In fact, the Assessor's office suggests my $3.57 is low, and we will actually have to charge $3.601$1,000. The annexations, with the new associated construction, will bring that amount down to $3.55/$1,000 in 1996. They help maintain this rate until the year 2002. Without the annexations we will reach our maximum amount in 1996, and never go below it. In the year 2002 with the extremely conservative assumptions I have outlined in this scenario, we will again go above our $3.60 limit. This is an issue we will revisit often as we go through the issues of long term financial planning. This scenario clearly articulates the positive impact annexations have on the overall city residents. I think it is a point we need to make with the City Council members. Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance. -j, rate scenarios Chart 2 4.1 Renton -+-Rate \ "Umtt ___ Rate W East Renton ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX RATE Impact of East Renton Annexation 4 1 I I 3.9 I ) ~I d vi I 3.6!. • • • 3.51 / 3.4 I .' 3.3 I f 32 1993 1994 1895 1996 1997 1996 1999 :2IXO 2001 2CXI2 2!XX3 2!X)4 2005 c:data:budget:avlnlo.xis 6/23195 flssvssvd Voluv flssumptlons East Renton East Renton Total WI Total WO Rate W lI~te~O, YMr twl: ~alCl Cf:;mstn,u::l ADD~XS ~~W CaDsl ADDaXs EBslBantQo East BemQn East Benlon Elsf BCOIQD I.imil 1993 3,409,487,114 3.23 . :i;!~ 3.60 1994 3,353,280,771 54,546,512 1,682,348 3,407,827,283 3.48 ~.48 3.60 1995 3,431,652,524 158,966,565 0 3,590,619,089 3.55 3.55 3.60 1996 3,662,431,471 64,425,000 24,630,257 3,751,486,728 3.57 3.57 3.60 --. -"-~- 1997 3,826,516,462 92,205,500 48,184,502 {25,OOO,OOOI (46,645,5021 3,966,906,464 3,895,260,962 3.55 .~:~2 3.60 1998 4,046,244,594 80,915,050 (30,170,550) 4,127,159,644 4,096,989,094 3.55 3.58 3.60 -"'--'-- 1999 4,209,702,837 80,255,825 (45,255,825) 4,289,958,662 4,244,702,837 3.55 3.59 3.60 ~OOO 4,375,757,835 140,596,926 (45,255,825) 4,516,354,761 4,471,098,936 3.55 iS9 3.60 lOOl 4,606,681,856 105,596,926 (105,596,926) 4,712,278,782 4,606,681,856 3.52 ~.60 3.60 2002 4,806,524,358 15,085,275 (15,085,275) 4,821,609,633 4,806,524,358 3.65 3.66 3.60 2003 4,918,041,825 4,918,041,825 4,918,041,825 3.79 3.79 3.60 2004 5,016,402.662 5,016,402,662 5,016,402,662 3.94 3.94 3.60 -----~-------. ------. --------------~---------- 2005 5,116,730,715 ------------------5,116,730,715 ~16,730,715 4.09 4.09 3.60 '\ 6/26/95 c:data:budget:avinfo.xls , ., June 19, 1995 Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Central Building. Suite tfJ8. 810 3rd Avenue. Seattle. WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 RE: REQUEST FOR REVIEW FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Attached is a copy of the request to hold a public hearing on the above-referenced file recently received by the Board. The Board will discuss this matter at its meeting scheduled for July 13. 1995. At that time, a public hearing may be set. If you have any comments to make regarding the proposed hearing date(s), please transmit them to this office prior to the meeting. You will be advised of the date and time of the scheduled public hearing as you have been in the past. AHW/rh Enclosure: Request for Review CC: King County Division of Records and Elections, A TIN: Bob Bruce, Elections Superintendent King County Council Administration, ATIN: Kathy Nelson King County Department of Assessments, ATIN: Diane Murdock King County Department of Public Works, ATIN: William Vlcek Environmental Division, A TIN: Ikuno Masterson REF: 9.89.HEI RICHARD S. WHITE GARY F. UNOEN JOHN E. EDERER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JUReA LISH WHITSON ,JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETK,o, DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN l.. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER MARK F. RISING KEVIN L, STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH JERRY E. THONN ROBERT N. GELLATLY DIRK A. BARTRAM DEBORAH L. MARTIN WATSON B. BLAIR UNDA D. W,o,LTON GEORGE A. NICOUD III PATRICIA E, ANDERSON SCOTT E. COLLINS rlRM ADMINISTRATOR JACQUELINE K. BOETTCHER LAW OFFICES' HELSELL. FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD Be HOKANSO~ 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101-2509 P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111-3846 (206) 292-1144 FAX (206) 340-0902 E-MAIL hfmtnOhelsell.com BEl.LEVUE OFFICE 2233 SKYUNE TOWER 10900 N,E. 4TH STREET BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004·5841 1206) 292-1144 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE June 16, 1995 . King County Boundary Review Board 3600 -136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Board Members: RECEIVED POLLY~YHJR 6 1995 SCOTT W. CAMPBEl.L • KELLY M. CA~iUhdaryReVleW ~~&~":".t(ing CO. ,JACKI D~mIl:\JN- 'lANA D. KOUBOURUS ,JONATHAN P. MEIER TOM MONTGOMERY LAURA 1". PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON ERIK D. PRICE PETER G. RAMEl.S STEVEN J. SAMARia BRADl.EY S. SHANNON RICHARD E. SPOONEMORE BOB C. STER8ANK ~ANO USE ANALYST JANE S. KIKER or COUNSE~ LINDA J. COCHRAN ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DOOEL PETER ,J. EGLICK WILLIAM A. HELSELL RUSSELL V, HOKANSON THOMAS W, HUBER HAROLD R. ROOKS LAPRY SETCI-IFLL LYNN B. SOUIRES RETIRED PAUL FETTERMAN THOMAS TODD This letter is written on behalf of the Neighbors United for Representation ("NUR"), an organization of residents and property owners living in and near an area proposed for the annexation known as the "Bumstead Annexation." On behalf of NUR, please find enclosed two petitions requesting the Boundary 'Review Board review the proposed "Bumstead Annexation" (BRB No. 1922) to the City of Renton. NUR respectfully requests that the Board reject the proposed annexation. The first petition is submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(a), and contains signatures of at least 5% of the registered voters residing within the proposed annexation area. The second petition is submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(b), and contains signatures of the owners of property consisting of at least 5% of the assessed valuation for general taxation within the proposed annexation area. As nearly as the Neighbors United for Representation have been able to determine, the petition submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(a) contains approximately 27% of the registered voters residing within the proposed annexation area, while the petition submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(b) contains signatures of the owners of approximately 19.2% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. . In its case before the Board, NUR will maintain that, among other things, the City of Renton's notice of intent to annex is not properly before the Board, since the petition does not contain sufficient, lawful signatures. We will file a memorandum or statement , King County Boundary Review Board 6/16/95 page 2 explaining the grounds for the petitions in more detail in the near future. In the meantime, please note that, although the petitions refer to the' Board invoking its jurisdiction, Neighbors United for Representation expressly reserves and does not waive any argument concerning the Board's lack of jurisdiction, in light of the insufficiency of valid signatures favoring the annexation and other flaws. So that matters can proceed, we would appreciate it if the Boundary Review Board could set a date for a public hearing on this matter as prescribed by law, provide notice of the hearing also as prescribed by law, and hold the hearinp, at a public facility in or near the proposed annexation area. We can suggest a few possible locations if the Board would like. ' Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If any questions arise, please contact me immediately at 292-1144. BCS:rp encs cc: Norman Green G:ILAND _ USElDATAIHAMBLINIPETmON.ENC '--, Sincerely, HELSELL, FEITERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON Bob C. Sterbank --'. • .Y~~~ Julie A. Christmson, LPO/LA ..Y'.w~ Jack H Leininger 8205 South 259th Strut, #101 Kmt, Washillgton 98031 12 June, 1995 Washington State Boundary Review Board Central Building, Suite 608 810 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98104-1693 Att'n: Ms. Alda H. Wilkinson Executive Secretary Ttl,phon,: (206) 852-2295 Facsimik: (206) 852-3688 RECEIVED JUN 1 61995 WA St:1te Boundary Review BO.lrd For King Cu, RE: File No. 1922 -City of Renton -BlIrnstead Annexation King County Water District No. 90's Request for Review Pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2). Dear Ms. Wilkinson: I am the attorney for King County Water District No. 90.and at the direction of the Board of Commissioners of the District am presenting this letter as a request by King County Water District No. 90 that the King County Boundary Review Board review the above-referenced matter pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2). The Board of Commissioners for King Courity Water District No. 90 are presently reviewing and discussing the feasibility of sewer mains and the school districts within the proposed annexation have expressed an interest in reactivating a s'ewer main which is presently approved and existing within the franchise area of King County Water District No. 90. The propcso.l before the Boundary Review Board would disrupt these boundaries within t.he franchise area for sewer service and is objectionable to the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90. I have enclosed herewith a check in the amount of $200.00 for the administrative fee for a review' by the Boundary Review Board. If you need further or other information or if anything further is necessary to accomplish our intent to have a review pursuant to statute, please advise me immediately. JHL: jac Enclosure Respectfully, , ."7 /" ::...-------,~/~z:-,...., . _--;;:-~_~ , ...... -;C-.. c:.._ .... .-/' -.....J e:.~'C"-./ ~-- Jack H. Leininger cc: King County Water District #90 cc: Hedges &., Roth Engineering,' Inc. ,'. .. ',~-., .... ' ....... ,' '-', .. " .. , ..... -. · \t, '--0. RICHARD S. WHITF; GARY F. LINDEN JOHN E. EOERE:R "'HII..I..IP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JURe" LISH WHITSON JOHN G. BERG""ANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERO W. HENI<E KAREN J. VANDE:RLAAN PAULINE V. 5METKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRAOLE:V 1-1. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. I(INSTL.E:R FREDRICK O. HutBNE:R MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEwtL YN G. pRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH JERRY E. Tf.!ONN ROBERT N. GE:LLATLY DIRK A. BARTR", ... DEBORAH L. MARTIN WATSON 8. BLAIR UNO" D. WALTON GEORGE ". NICDUO III PATRICIA E. ANDERSON SCOTT E. COLLINS FIRM ADMINISTRATOR JACQUELINE K. BOETTCHER LAW OFFICES HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE SEATTL.E. WASHINGTON 98101·2509 P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111·3848 (206) 292·1144 FAX (206) 340-0902 E-MAIL hfmtnOhelsell.com BELLEVUE OFFICE 2233 SKYLINE TOWER 10900 N.E. 4TH STREET BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 9B004·584I 12061292·1144 PLEASE REPLY TO Ba:ATTLK OFFICE June 16, 1995 King County Boundary Review Board 3600 -136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Board Members: RECEIVED POLL Y~~HJR 6 1995 SCOTT W. CAMPBELL • KELLY M. CAf'J.('IQti..dary ReVIew B __ S!atfl""I\~" C J.".,' .. B ......... ~"in9 o. JACKI D~,"k'\.'N- YAN" O. KOUBOURLIS JON"THAN P. MEIER TOM MONTGOMERY LAURA F. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON ERII< D. PRICE PETER G. R"MELS STEVEN J. SAMARIO BR"DLEY S. SHAN NON RICHARD E. SPOONEMORE BOB C. STERB"NI< . LA"IO US[ A"IALYST JANE S. KIKER or COU"IS[1. LINOA J. COCHR"N ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL PETER J. EGLICK WILLIAM ". HELSELL RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER ).;AROLD R. ROOKS LARRY SETC).;ELL LYNN B. SOUIRES II[TIII[D P"UL FETTERMAN T).;OMAS TODO This letter is written on behalf of the Neighbors United for Representation ("NUR"), an organization of residents and property owners living in and near an area proposed for the annexation known as the "Bumstead Annexation." On behalf of NUR, please find enclosed two petitions requesting the Boundary Review Board review the proposed "Bumstead Annexation" (BRB No. 1922) to the City of Renton. NUR respectfully requests that the Board reject the proposed annexation. The first petition is submitted pursuant to RCW 36,93.100(3)(a), and contains signatures of at least 5% of the registered voters residing within the proposed annexation area. The second petition is submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(b), and contains signatures of the owners of property consisting of at least 5% of the assessed valuation for general taxation within the proposed annexation area. As nearly as the Neighbors United for Representation have been able to determine, the petition submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(a) contains approximately 27% of the registered voters residing within the proposed annexation area, while the petition submitted pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(3)(b) contains signatures of the owners of approximately 19,2% of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation area. In its case before the Board, NUR will maintain that, among other things, the City of Renton's notice of intent to annelt is not properly before the Board, since the petition does not contain sufficient, lawful signatures. We will file a memorandum or statement King County Boundary Review Board 6/16/95 page 2 explaining the grounds for the petitions in more detail in the near future. In the meantime, please note that, although the petitions refer to the Board invoking its jurisdiction, Neighbors United for Representation expressly reserves and does not waive any argument concerning the Board's lack of jurisdiction, mlight of the insufficiency of valid signatures favoring the annexation and other flaws. So that matters can proceed, we would appreciate it if the Boundary Review Board could set a date for a public hearing on this matter as prescribed by law, provide notice of the hearing also as prescribed by law, and hold the hearing at a public facility in or near the proposed annexation area. We can suggest a few possible locations if the Board would like. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. If any questions arise, please contact me immediately at 292-1144. BCS:rp encs cc: Norman Green O:\LAND _ U8E\DATA\llAMBLINlPETITION.ENC Sincerely, HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON Bob C. Sterbank :,~. PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 RECEIVED The undersigned petitioners, being property owners within the proposed annexation are!h pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, her.~p~, respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the CitY bltR!~oW95 known as the Bumstead Annexation. WA State Boundary Review Board For King Co. I I Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date 2 3 4 5 -6 7 - 8 9 10 II 12 13 " . ~ -. 14 15 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any otherthan their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. - ~ PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being property owners within the proposed annexation are!!, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date 12..'2-.50-tSb'F-~ .~.E. 2 /lZSo. /~b '4:: ~.J",f_ 3 4 5 6 )'Ll{5B IS{,TH A1K-S'[.. '>'-'U'1r 7 12. V>b 156'T"~ s'[.. <; -2.l.q 8 /,5'c; 77Y /J-VE ~E 9 10 II 12 ~.13 14 15 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. .-'-PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being property owners within the proposed annexation are!!, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. / Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date 2 -3 -4 C~.t:!.LA.5 f.~E 5 w :S:t6 \<.\-2..-:33 2sC Il~;-~ 6 c.5kdl· £" ::5=11 /</>;; ~ 5 SS / »k PI 7 1 L(~"'I. Sf:. /;{t:t.... P£... - 8 14-;;39..$£ l;{tJl ~ 9 t!t p~ 10 s£ /;t.9lJ-IJ II !PPJ., 12 13 -L 14 d V,o.-C-w. )!4h L.J C;-7'~ 15 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. - ,,"~ '- - PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being property owners within the proposed annexation area, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation .. Print Name Here (legibly, please) /l Signature Address Date I L in<mel\J e/ ~~fi/1.5r~ /,;J.d&& /~06 bLi~~ 2 (J/J/V-/-V -,£~.Q<Z& I~A~«~ J 1/2Bv-i ISS /l, ~ H' &~:V~ 3 /j./ 1f'058<,.-E t<~Of~ c;;lL -~ 2 Pi? 4 1~~?,,":f5~A~';i~ <;: b-l,3 -~E --"", -" 4 -, &,e-S L,/jA/&!£-eUMt ~k~ ~ Ikls-6-/:u;«/ /J~kA S.:'.e: 5 f,E::I3E.C-C-A c.. LIA./(LG (!..UIlII ;f.funA ,) C. ~.<! ...... ~ lp.o'f'l -' /:5:r711 At/~ :16 ,R,~A./'ON . cU/i 9So~9 0-/3·9:T 6 V#~ 't . L.A:tt>t( I?DtJ CZ r 11 ' Rl,\ {2v33 (~,AI A(y:. -5~ 6/tJk 7 '---'" U 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty. of a misdemeanor. :- PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being property owners within the proposed annexation are!!, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. . Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address S<Z 1.;2~/y( /.557"-/lJ.-E SE. St 2..2.P5 ;;Jc)3-C;-I shA v, 5. 'Z. -!S2, ''1+J ~ 5C-.. \-20 I t.--(S'..f1... AvI2" ~ /d~S-d '::,TJ L CuvpS'i. ,q;, 0J.r.e ¥6 -. Sif. Date (,-/1-<j~ (p -II-fh-I.-. G,-/(,9S" 0-1/.yS (p-/(-9r' to-I\-tt WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one oftbese petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, sball be guilty of a misdemeanor. .-. PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being property owners within the proposed annexation area, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date I L...r LUrh7 )5 m,,_})/2 fi.Aft ~~://.J-.A ;q hJp Q ~ .).2 ~'Ii-J..5.~ fL-v..{.J-~_ ;-114.>- 2 . ~fDR~~. F. Th <'-j)~MoTI I -Yln!} /1J~2.-;lJ~~· I / ~ bel I~ I ~s:.~a,{J. _-#-b li~ 3 ~a.. xn. () .. AAA ,A u..:c..cz., I ()..I" S-:;" -I.s.-:;'-a..-.. b.t:,. teo' IDA-M. CUMMING'S. '" -/I -9. 4 hr/l-L/,t}flt 12 (Pu ........... ''''''4. /. ,# ",(J ~...,.,. Q V..?/-C) -h~~'" 5,,1;-R. k /.vA. '-C/h/9~ 5 / 7 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 -------------------------- WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their nue name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be gnilty of a misdemeanor. --- -.. .. ' PETITION SEEKING REviEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being registered voters, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Bou~~EIVED Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Arnma,i~1995 Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature ~~7tr UOVt ",iTO l<r Ailf-U~ roiun- Address WA SI .• I~ary $evlew oard For King to. );),6)( )55/~ 1Jjf;<;j;;"-' 16'-J1~ \~ \A1At?CFLh,%ll fJ1, B'db/?EAU ~ke--:m,,~ ~ I~/g /SSJ';t fiv£S€. .,-,. ..... • U-A 9:<i' ",£9" 6'-//-95 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO II 12 13 Wlf-t-r 0 ov~er/ I 1rttPC IJ em----I (VWZIf".>-Av. ~E I G-II-f5" I ... \n If\P i--~. le L-' ,~.y }-It I ,; I \~~ \<:;, ~ Pal". ~'Z:-.. I (" II I \q{ 19L\MEI A().:\l\N~/lllJ;fltVld.eLVI~-lra,.,-ttl-AJe.:9C .. L-'\~5 ~'\\..£ S. ::5P-.N1n~1B , 'KdB J. §" (IjjI ~-/2'15D-156 e AilE SE ~-I/-9:>- '2c-11, L .1}?tfS. IfB!iit'W~~. 1/,;2CJ3~/S-& At/~ .5~. 16-1/-75 .Ad:4~1 t ,_ [-:rA.d..dt -t-h ~Ob£. Ilul-z.-l~ ~~ 1"-11-15 , I ( " . ~~~~ 1;;1;25::2 / ~571 ~te .. s £. 1\/ A1rM I 15/S~ I .11.JZ: C ~ -, (;;>;?5,7/,sr Atf£ S ~ , b //1 Ii lV-t',~, MO-.cl)oM.11 I. --1.tLuJo... ~fJ/f\.11j I t;J,o-/q /51) (11}f '5<C..... ~ -It ~S- ()LJhOHA,T. 1Jo",a.\I" ICL,-ld / ....... )h{L.-~-' I::l-OII-I~ ~ ~ 1~-(/-'1.r I" l5lo ~ "\.>.iiU&W -I¥ \\..,J U I ';IleA to I SSA2d.t. Ira::!) -1 k- lJLJ-)a.h R Nt f!,< _. rt ~/::;",,"6 _j)M~j :U,</,L, L"~ J ,£ '.?-b-9,.-j IS , WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. ':~ PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being registered voters, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date I I Cb&f2@cf ");;;PfR 1vt;\1' gJ) ::}-fit V" " '" ';;1 II J.&; 1J-6 -tSy-J E ~ .7A &-II~ 2 lEt iA J";I ~d) ~ ·1/20o¥ /5h YA Alk 58 fa "/?-9.5 3 Y 4 - 5 ." 6 7 8 9 10 . I I 12 13 14 15 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. ,.-=-PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being registered voters, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date --------- G"I. LE f. m eep, ooo-J t -2-f rt Rog~F-k>hode>? I~~~ I{EI3Ee..e.A t!... L/A.I~GeulV1.. :t: J., d e..A..J (!. ~~~ " nJflno/ I, LIu"'~t!.tC4t /ld. P'-~ ~ J ----~~.cr-. ~G( ~cz,~ 1'----./ v () , /2001 I';~ ~ "S"-t= . ~ ,-, ./c:> '""' '-t-A _ '7 tV ~ 13 '7 / ~o 1'/ ':J :J7"H 19 vE. ~ "- ffeAfTOAlo -.vA ")o80:J9 / ,2-J7f/ t' -/ :>~4v~. ,;5/r Rff-PRJ.,u bJ.4 "YRt')f)? 12fJ}g (tf) A{Jt-~~ -'.3-9..5 !6-8-9(f &'-f3-Q5" ~-/5-S k;:; ·/!/s- WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty ofa misdemeanor. '-. '!: ;!;: ,,= :·,i· ~"J' tjl:, ::j..~. ~2 !;'; •• '.t . "-! 2'_' J~3: . ¥:~\ :.;~r "~ PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being registered voters, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review t.~e Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 110 .II 112 113 t 15 Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature f.... ~w rerJc e. t\. ~£ED l-;ftw~ ~/--fozd'f\ /&P..JJ. V L. f)L{) ;"'t?f r.;:.. { J. (5 aiL .-/ c.,t\E1l~ ANN ~h£1 eA;j ~ .:3h/d~ Moo ~:; ~ .. , , fY) /I /CTo ~ ,. e. :r.Lt) )/,' (Loc/< Address Date \1..'-11 l'fa V\l£, S. e. /?,j,.. 1$"-7-95" ~Z-(,/~ /~g~.~~ ~~ S-7-7S 1~13-1J~fta ~ ~wg J6 Or! fJ Sr:' /'Jor'VID.V7 u..J. Gre.e".-, I. r S~ /s,t.-~ J7 9~-I- ttJ/J1.t/;M~/L0R£EN /t/I.2.ff:iE /3::Zf/J Sf dnlon ~/> /g.-=: /E/L~ J. G£'EE;cJ --I~o._A .. " V,¢/,;t.f,.5£ /3.zaJ-~ UA/741r 1/'//3/1.)- U) /h.hIAAL U; G!?cE/f/ 1~4d/~h7 , / /f'/Alf f4:(f~'JP. a~~r~ ~ "<T WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, -or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. -PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being registered voters, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date tv. i TilKve s;:~ 2 , s 3 4 5 6 7 ~ 8 14:>--33 .;'Sf, /)...9 ..... Pl 9 l'i~'i. ~ 1::Lc\: PI.. 10 /'f-~9 ~ /d.9-f1.-PL. II 12 13 14 15 ZJ. WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a "misdemeanor. " · , :../ PETITION SEEKING REVIEW UNDER RCW 36.93.100 The undersigned petitioners, being registered voters, pursuant to RCW 36.93.100, hereby respectfully request that the Boundary Review Board invoke its jurisdiction and review the Annexation Petition to the City of Renton known as the Bumstead Annexation. Print Name Here (legibly, please) Signature Address Date 15 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than their true name, or who knowingly signs more than one ofthese petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when they are not a legal voter, or signs a petition when they are· otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. ~ SENT BY: 6-21-85 16:42 HNTB BELLEVUE~ MINUTB8 OF A NEBTING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY WATE~ DISTRICT NO. 90 June 6, 1995 206 277 4455;# 2 THE RBGULAR meeting of the· Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90. King County. waBhington. waS held on the 6th day of June. 1995. at the offices of the DiBtrict. 15606 S.E. 128th St:l'.:~~L •. Renton, Washington. Commissioners Rohrer I Br::"eeean and Ltovell were present # together with District Counsel, Jack H. Leininger. Laurie Bickel of Hedges & Roth Engineering. Inc .• and the District Manager, Daniel Selzler. The Chairman of the Board. Commissioner Rohrer. called the meeting to order at the hour of 6: 30 p.m. and aBked for new busineBs. The first matter to be dir:cuBBed waB a ballpark figure calculated by the District enginee:t's on the COBt to provj,rla "aw,," service iHI previously discussed. The various options were discussed aB were the difficulties which could be faced. i. e .• 10-12 permits being required. etc .• and the estimated cost therefore being approximately 5.3 5.4 million dollars for a full Bervice sewer line (traditional gravity) . TIle next option discUBsed was p.I:uvicJIIlg the sewer service only to the Bchools by activating the previously approved (lewe;0'~ main in place and constructing smaller ~s _ An eetimat.ed coat ~. t_o Io".aqu:,h, Bchool was calCUlated. to 1 . ~1. million, dOlla. rs, v·' After reV1eWl.ng a map ::,c the proW':t,~;. . Bl.Cl';et,.,.'Wl.<i'l'~'T by the Boa:t-d to prov1de more e('S~ cost.,...uo~ine Maplewood Heights and Liberty school Bewer mains. MS. Bickel adviBt!d Lhe Board that the Sewer franchise was expiring in October, not the water franchise as previously indicated, and BuggeBt~rl an extension be requested .. The prope~'ty owners present indicated that they were hopeful the Boundary Review Board would deny the boundaries Bet forth in the Burnstead peti tion based on the property oomers not being aware of the ol,her optionB available to them and the fact that t;.he school was included in the total property area calculation_ The final matter di.scllssed regarding sewerS was the cost for Renton to provide Bewers which has been calculated at $187.00 per foot for an B" line, MINUTES June 6. 1995 -1 SENT BY: ". -~ 6-21-95 16:42 HNTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;# 3 commissioner Rollrer expressed that if appropriate, he would be putting together a letter on behalf of the Board to the schools outlining costs and a latecomer's reimbursement. Ms. Bickel thereafter advised that the cost of permitting in the amount. of approlCilMt:P.1y $400,000.00 was not: included in hp.r submitted estimates for Sewer construction. "l·he special meeting of June 1], 1995 was canceled and was rescheduled for Friday, June 23, 1995 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss the Comprehensive Plan with the Department ot Health. Laurie Bickel stat.ed that a ComprehenBive Plan workshop had been scheduled by the Seattle Water Department for Friday, June 9, 1995 from 9:00 -2:00 p.m. The District Manager and Laurie Bickel were authorized to attend. Commissioner Rohrer expressed his displeasure that Hedges ,... Roth Engineering, Inc.. was awarded the 'Comprehensive Plan contract by the Board during hia ,u,$ence after being challenged on thei.. original bid and thereafter reducing the Bame by $40,000.00. A revised scope of work from Robinson ,... Noble was briefly discussed regarding the Second well and ir was determined by the Board to table the matter pending the implementation and cost calculation for the Wojewodzki well. Mr. Selzler was instructed to select a si te approximately 2,000 feet away from t.he curreat well site and make his report back to the Board. A map out.lining the Urban Growth boundaries and District boundaries, etc., was presented for t.he uistrict's use. Mr. Selzler advised that Board that the chlorine count was low at the Maple Hi.) 1 '" t"nk "nil inIUr:"ted that: an injer:tor may be required.. 'rhere was further discussion reqarding a water cover for the tallk. The Board authorized and instructed Mr. Selzler to perform the job interviews to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Russell and Curther authorized payment of Mr. RUBsell-B vacation' time equal to 8-1 hours as provided by the Contract. Mr. Selzl.er indicated that he received a request from Doug Struthers regarding the water consumption for dialysis patients MINUTES June 6, 1995 -2 SENT BY: .. 6-21-95 16:43 HNTB BELLEVlJE~ , 206 277 4455;# 4 as previously addressed by the Board. Mr. Selzler was instructed to advise tllar the Board would cooperate, however, no formal authori ty had been gi veIl. Mr. Lovell indicated that he would contact Mr. Struthers. The water consumption and loss as calculated by District staff was reviewed indicating a loss of 26\. Mr. Selzler advised that the District. has recentiy located and fixed 2 major leaks in a sand and gravel area. Mr. Selzler submitted a deviation in the form of an addition to the vouchor:; submitted for payment-on May 16 ~ 1995, as follows: Voucher No. 1372 in the total amount of $389.84 Vouchers audi ted and certified by the auditing officer as required by kCW 42.24.080 and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the Board. does list AS of this date, JWle 6, 1995, the Board, by unanimous approve for payment those vouchers included in the and further described as follows: vote, above Voucher Numbers 5077 through 5099 in the total amount of $62,129.06 [L-om the Maintenance Fund; Voudher Numbers 1373 through 1377 in the total amount of $2,038.45 from the Construction Fund; Voucher Numbers 445 and 446 in the total amount of $298.51 from the Sewer ConBtruction Fund. The f.inal matter to come before the Board ae a f.inancial statement which the Board indicated they would review and comment upon as necessary. There being no meeting the same was MINUTES June 6, 1995 -3 other Dr further bUS·Fi'.:::.#-o come duly adjourned a '_~~._. before the SENT BY: 6-21-95 HNTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;# 5 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THS BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS OP RING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 May 16. 1995 THE RBGULAR MEETING of the Board of Commissioners of King County Wat~r District No. 90,' King County, Washington, was held OIl the 16th day of May, 1995, at the oft ices of the District, 15606 S.E. 12f3th Street, Renton, WashiuyLOll. Commi:ssionere Rohrer, Breaaan and Lovell were present at the meeting. Also preaent W.:lS uistrict counsel, Jack H. Leininger, JJau:r.:t~ Bickel of Hedges & Rot.h Engineering, Inc., and the District Manager, Daniel Selzler. The Chairman of the Board, Commissioner Rohrer, called the meeting to order at the hour of 6:30 p.m. and asked for the first matter of new business. Mr. Ray Griffin and several property ownerS withi.n County Water nistr.ict No. 90. came forward concerning Burnstead annexation and the Board's thoughts on the matter. King the The B<>ard advised Mr. Griffin and thoBe present that the annexation area is within the water Diatrict's service area for water and sewer but aa far as the anuexal:ion was concerned. the W~Lt::r Dist_rict had not been officially tlotified as yet. Mr. Griffiu commented that the package had been forwarded to the Boundary R"view Board. The Ooard advised all of the property ownera that the District will protest the annexation to the BRB, however, if a majority of the property owners desire the annexation, it is out of the District's control. Thel':e followed a lengthy diac'lIsF;;.i.on regarding the feasibi]j~y of providing sewers to tl~ interested schools and the intent of the District to protest Renton's petition at the BRB level. Discussion al~o waS had regarding the history of sewerS in the District and the probable necessity of reviewing and updating the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. The next matter to be brought before the Board was a discussion regarding " fI"cond well. The Board advised that it was their position that unt;.l the first well was in place and ope;t'ating and the cost thereof was calculated, the process for obtaining water rights, etc., .,as not being aggressively pursued. MINUTES-May 16, 1995 page 1 SENT BY: • 6-21-35 16:44 HNTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;# 6 'i'hereafter, the minutes for April 18, 1995 were reviewed, and upon motion being duly made by Commissioner Bressan and seconded by Commissioner Lovell, the millutes (0'" ApL'il 16, 1995 were approved as presented. Th., minutes of May 2, 1995 were reviewed and upon motion being duly made by Commissioner Lovell and seconded by CommissiOlll"r Rohrer, said minutes of May 2, 1995 were accepted as presented. Resolution 620 Establishing a BaBe Fee in Lieu of Assessment waS presented and upon Inotion being duly made by Commissioner Rohrer and seconded by CommisBioner Lovell. said ResQlution 620 waS unanimously adopted as presented. Resolution 621 Authorizing Temporary Connection to Transmission Id,nes was thereafter presented and upon motion being duly made by Commissioner Bressan and seconded by Commissioner I,ovell, said ReSOlution 621 was unanimously adopted as presented. There followed a discussion regarding the revised Developer Fox""""i,,n Agreement and upon motion being duly made by Commissionex· Bressan and seconded by Commissioner Lovell said Developer Extension Agreement was unanimously adopted as presented. Mr. Leininger discussed the letter from Lau.r:"ie Bickel daled May 16, 1995. regarding additional eugilleering on the Licorice FerI1 project. Mr. Leininger was iJlstT\,lct~d by the Board to prc>C!eed with correspondence to the Developer to collect the additional engineering fees. Ms, Bickel commented that ehe had received a letter which addressed the need to renew the water franchise, however, without the completed COl1lpreh~nsive Plan, an extension would be needed. The Stonegate plat was discussed and it was determined that t.he prnjp.ct. was ready to go to hid. Thereafter, a motion was duly made lJy Commissioner Lovell and aeconded by commissioner Bressan authorizing the commencement of the bid process with final approval being contingent upon the receipt of monies from the Public works 'frUBt Fund and receipt of easements, A special. meeting was arranged for .. Tune 1.3. 1995 at the hour of 6:30 p.m. to meet with Richard Rodri.guF.l!:r. f.:r.Ol1\ t:hF.! Department of Health. MINUTES-May 16, 1995 Page 2 SENT BY: 6-21-95 HNTB BELLEVlJE~ 206 277 4455;# 7 Ms. Bickel advised that a Developer Extension Agreement would be needed for the Maple Wood school fire flow extension. A visit by the Commissioners to the treatment: VIdUl:. sites was scheduled fOI:" June p.m. three potential 15, 1995 at 6: 3 0 A brief discussion then ensued regarding Robinson ,. Noble performing a feasibility study for a second well at the cost of approximately $3,000.00. Ms. Sickel advised that the cost could be reduced if the District picked a property it was interested in which was approximately 2,000 feet away from the current well and provided that information to Robinson ,. Noble. Mr. Selzler was inatructed to look at the area and report back to the Board. Mr. Sel7.ler distributed a copy of the City of Ordinance No. 4510 Stonegate Annexation dated April 24, review by the Board. Renton's 1995 for Thereafter, leak adjustments were presented and upon motion being duly made lly CUlwnisaioner Breasan and seconded by Commissioner Lovell, the following leak adjuBtments were unanimously accepted: Account No. 21-1350 in the amount of $15.80 Account No. 19-2900 in the amount of $31.60 A letter dated May 6, 1995, trom An T. Phung requesting the Water District to pay for her ClLLo..t'ney fees incur~-ed in l,-eviewing an eaeement Wile prc::Jcnted and Mr. Selzler was instructed to advise the property own~r that: K.i.ng County Water District No. 90 could not pay for the attorney's fees as requested. Mr. selzler presented the Public Works Trust Fund Application for signatures by the Board, Legal was instructed to review the documents prior to signing. Robert RUGeell'" resignation all tendered was presented to the Board for thp.'; r r",vi.",w. Mr. Selzler was instructed to commence lOhe advertisinq process to fill Mr. Russell's position. Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080 and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090 have been recorded on a listing which haa been made available to the Board. MINU'l'ES-May 16, 1995 page 3 SENT BY: 6-21-95 16:44 tlNTB BELLEVVE~ 206 277 4455;# 8 does list AS of this date, May 16, 1995, the Board, by unanimous vote, approve for payment: t:ll0se vouchers included in t:he above and further described as follows: Voucher numbers 5046 t.hrough 5076 in the total amount of $32,970.67 from the Maintenance Fund; voucher number 13'/1 in the total amount .of $12,536.49 from the Construction Fund; Voucher IIUmbeL'S 443 and 444 in the total amount of $321.19 from the Sewer Construction Fund. Mr. Selzler, as Auditing Officer of t.hat there were no deviations from the submitted for payment. tile District, last blanket advised voucher Mr. Lovel.l requested a comment from Mr. Leininger regarding t.he need for a buuu to the District when the District entered into the OneComm lease. Mr. Leininger advised that he had reviewed the statute at the t. i.rn~ t:he Bubject lease was requested and, ill his opinion, deemed that it did not .app1y because of the incidental use i.n that particular instance. Mr. situation dialysis. Lovell brought involving the up the need to pl:operty owners further discuss the currently on kidney 'I.'he final mal:t:er to he d.i.sc\u:a::u;!d was regarding the Apollo lift: station maintenance agreement. MI.'. Selzler commented that he had advised the school of the increase to $85.00 per month. Thereafter, upon 1not:ion being duly made by Commissioner Lovell and seconded by Commissioner BresBan, Baid maintenance agreement amount was increased to $85.00 per month commencing immediately. The_re being no other reg.ular meeting. t.h~ ~ame was p.m. MINUTES-May 16, 1995 Page 4 eBB to come before the ed at the hour of 9:30 SENT BY: . 6-21-95 HNTB BElLEVlJE~ 206 277 4455;# 9 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OP COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 May 2, 1995 THE REGULAR MEETING of the Board of Conunissioners of King COUllty Water District No. 90, King County. Washington, was held on the 2nd of May, 1995, at the offices of the District, 15606 S.E. 12Bth St:reet, Renton, Washington. COlTUnissioners Lovell and Rohrer were present at the meeting. Also present was District counsel, Jack H. Leininger I Laul.~ie Bickel of Hedges & Roth Engineering, Inc., and the District Manager, Daniel Selzler. The Chai~man of the Board, Commissioner Rohrer, called the meeting to order at the hour of 6:30 p.m. and asked for the first matter of new business. A Ms. Durocher of the Maple Wood Heights School District, F~l,,:lllLleB Dept., came before the Board and advised the City of Renton was interested in acting as the lead agency to provide ","w",n, to the school. Ms. Durocher further advised that the school needed the sewer line as soon as possible ~n that a St.ate mandate ,,'equired the connection and the school' B drainfield did not meet current code. The Board advised Ma. Durocher that to ascertain the City of Rent.on' B current plau~, ~h~ would need to contact the City directly, however, went. on to a.dvise that the niotrict had dry sewers not too far from the school and the locatjon of the school lies within the District's franchise sewer area. There followed a discussion regarding the need to update the Comprehenaive Plan to provide for sewers if contemplated by the District and the potential impact on the cOlTURunity if the District were to provide sewe1'S to the Bchool. It was <.l"'l"~·III.iued that Hedges &. Roth would take a preliminary look at the cost for the DiEltrict to provide sewerB to the school bearing in mind that the nist.riet gH 11 n .... rig t.o 00 aware of t.he Cit:y of Rent:on' B intention for annexation. An employee for the City of Renton advised the Board that he would be observing the meeting. MINUTES May 2, 1995 Page -1 SENT BY: _. 6-21-85 16:45 HNTB BELLEVlJE~ 206 277 4455;#10 A Mr. Kevin Simmons froro centex Homes also advised that he was observing the meeLlng to see how the District area is served ill that he is a potential devcloper in the area of l:lBth Street, East of Duvall Road. There followed a further discussion with both the School representatives and Mr. simmons regarding ·annexation by the City of Renton. The Board advised those present that the District will oppose the relinquishment of their water an.d sewer franchise t:o Renton through t.lle Boundary Review Board. The uext mat.ter r .. ised by Ms. Durocher was regarding the water service to the school and the need for fire protection at 3,000 gallons !,ler minute. Hedges 6'. Roth was instructed to look . at alternate hydraulic options on behalf of the school utilizing the previous module. M.t". Leininger presented a memorandum to the Commiasionera regarding revieionB to th.e standard Developer Extension Agreement. The 1 i'lnguage changes protecting the District were discussed and the Board advised that the ,changes would be reviewed in detail for further discussion, if necessary. 'l'here followed a brief discussion regarding the Stonegate project and the need for a specific DEA and reimbursement ayreement on the 1,000 feet to be confltructed by the Developer. Ms. Bickel pr.e::-;ented five easements that have been prepared on the Stonegate project to Mr. Selzler to obtain property owners' s;i.gnatures. A di.scussion ensued regarding one property owner having built a retaining wall over the easement and the engineer' B desire to utilize a different route in order to avoid the retaining wall but. dlt::lo because of the benefit to the District. by ut:ilizing the altet:nat:e route. The property owner of the alternate route alBo reCJll:1.rp.:d blacktopping. Legal was inst.t"'lcted to review t.he easement anc.l easernent language to see if the first property owner was in violation of its terms. > Ms. Bickel reported that completion of the baae maps is in progreBs. Turning to the Public Works Truet Fund monies, Me. Bickel advieed that the legislat.ur .. h .. d not yet approved the same. Next, Department MINUTES May 2, 1995 Page - 2 the April 12, 199.5 letter from the Seattle Water was addressed which commented on the blending report SENT BY: 6-21-95 lINTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#11 anu the apparent approval of compability with the Cedar River water if the package plant t.echnology is utilized. In addition, the District's operations and monitoring plan for the well supply was discussed and the need to satisfy Seattle prior to approval. Other authorizations which would be required were discuct::ed ~a was t_h~ pnt_p.:n1:i al 6it.es for the trp.:at:ment: plilnt. whi ch had been previously outlined. Commissioner Lovell advised a special meeting had been discussed to personally view the different potential plant sites. After reviewing a map which evidenced one of the moat desirous sites l Commissioner Rohrer adamantly opposed Lhe location and indicated that he would not be a party to turning someone' B backyard into a dump zone unless the property owner concu:t.':t.'ed and was advised of the potential odor. etc. Mr .. Selzler was instructed to contact the property owner to talk about the treatment facility. Ms. Bickel was instructed to contact the Uepartment of Fisheries t·o get their opinion. A propOSal fl.·om Robinson and Noble regarding the location of a second well site was presented by Ms. Bickel and tabled by the Board. ConUll.issione~-Lovell expressed his opinion that the District needs to identify a quarter Eection and put in ito water right application. '1'lle Board discussed identifying the timing of the PWTF contracts. Engineering permission for surveying and design by Hedges & Uoth ot 2700 feet of main replacement, including senst~ive areas, under Contract 1-96 and 7,000 feet of replacement. under. Contract 2-95 was discussed. A motion was duly made by Cotrunlsaioner Lovell and seconded by Commissioner Rohrer authorizing the surveying and design as stated. commissioner Rohrer advised that the bids to be solicited should be contingent upon the Public Works Trust Fund monies and easements being obtained. Conlmiasioner Rohrer then instructed Hedgee & Roth to update the previous engineers' cost estimat.e for Sewers and perform a quick update to provide to the school district. Dan Selzler was instructed 1:0 contact Liberty High to see if they are interested in participating in the cost of sewers to the area. Two leak adjustments were then presented and upon v~L·i.rl(.!i::lt.:luu or Lhelr validity by Mr. Selzler, a motion waa duly made by C<?1tunieeioner Lovel.l and seconded by Commiaeioner Rohrer approving the following leak adjustments: MINlITES May 2, 1995 Page - 3 SENT BY: 6-21-95 16:46 Account No. 52-1100 in the amount of $39.40 Account NO. 42-2200 in tile amount: of $18.80 206 277 4455;#12 A request from the High Valley Community Association to the District asking that I:h., Association be placed on the District' a mailing list was reviewed. Mr. Selzler was instructed by the Board to advise the Association that copies of the minutes weJ:e available to the pUblic at the District office. A request for Resolution No. 600 was presented for a L. Wesley. The properLy in question was reviewed. and it was determitled that 1,,_ Wesley was requesting water to the back of the previously subdivided property. A motion was duly made by Commissioner Rohrer and seconded by Commissioner Lovell approving L. Wesley's request for Resolution No. 600 based upon 124.00 feet of frontage at $26.00 per foot plus area and meter charge. Mr. $elzler then advised that due to the confined space requirements and other administrative overhead charges, the maintenance agreement for the J\pollo lift station at $20.00 per month was not sufficient and !:h", sum of $65 -$70 per month would be necessary to cover current overhead. Mr. Selzler waS instructed by the Board to contact the school to advise them of an increase of up to $100.00 per month in the maintenance agreement based upon equipment, administrative costs, depreciation, etc. Mr. Selzler was instructed to revise hi cost estimates and submit the final figure to the Board. A request from Mr _ !'leo!:t. Baker for the old meter rate was present:ed by Mr. Selzler who explained that he had a meeting scheduled wi til M;('. Baker last November to discuss the necessity of a se.parat.e tneter to his mobile home. Unfortunately, Mr. Sel.zler was unable to meet with Mr. Baker and the meeting ne'Ve~ t.ook place. Mr. Baker railed to pursue the mat.ter and subsequently the rates for meter::;: have increased. After a disclls,;inn hy t.he. Board it was· determined that the District would offer Mr. Baker a 50/50 split between tl1e old meter rate and new meter rate. Mr. Baker was also to be advised of the area charge of $300.00. Mr. Selzler was authorized ti utilize his best judgment in negotiations with Mr. Baker. A water consumption allll .puL·chase breakdown as prepared by the lJit'~rlct "taff was reviewed which estimated a 19%' water loss fnr March and April, 1995. Ultrasonic meters were discussed and the need to contact the Cit:y o·f Seattle regarding their meter reading. MINUTES May 2, 1995 Page - 4 SENT BY: 6-21-95 16:47 HNTB BELLEVIJE~ 206 277 4455;#13 Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.08U, and those expense reimburBement claimB certified as L'''4u1n,d by RCW 42.24.090 bave been recorded on a listing which haG been made available to the Board. doe" list As of this date, May approve for payment and further described 2, 1995, the Board, by unanimous those vouchers included in the as follows: vote, above Voucher numbers 50:.16 t:hrough 5045 in the total amount: of $33,739.24 from the Maintenance Fund, VOllch",r numbers 1369 and 130 in the total amount of $12,420.42 from the Construction Fund; Voucher number 442 in the total amount of $27.13 from the Sewer Construction Fund. Mr. Selzler, as Auditing that the~El were no deviations submitted for payment. Officer of from the the District, last blanket advised voucher Commissioner J.ovell circulated a letter he had addressed to King county Surface water Management under date of April 28, 1995, for review by the Board, regarding the May Creek Current and >Ut:ur.e Conditions Report. 'l'he final matter to be addressed was regarding the repealing or ReRnlut-.i(')n. NOS. 404 and 549 and increasing the cost for those properties not to be served by a District water main to a flat rate of $4,900.00 from $3,0000.00. A motion was duly made by Commissioner Lovell and seconded by Commissioner Rohrer~ aD approving the flat rate increase and repealing Reaolution NOB. 404 and 549. 'l'here being regular meeting, p.m. MINUTE:S May 2, 1995 Page - 5 no other or further business to come the Bame was duly ad' l ned at the h / . " before the r of 8:45 SENT BY: " , 6-21-95 16:47 HNTB BEliEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#14 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY WA TER DISTRICT NO. 90 APRIL 18, 1995 THE REGULAR MEET:ING of the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 9n, King County, Washington, was lJeln on the 18th day of April, 1995, at the offices of Lhe District, 15606 S.E. 128th Street, Renton, Washington. Commissioners Lovell and Bressan were present at the meeting' . Also present was Julie Christenson from the Law Office of ,Jack H. Leininger, Laurie Bickel from Hedges & Roth Engineering, Inc., and the District Manager, Daniel Selzler. The acting Chairman, Commissioner Lovell, called the meeting to order at the hour of 6,30 p.m. and requested the first matter of business. Mr. excused Se.lzler first early from the advised meeting that he in that would need he had a to be family emergency. Fi.rst, a Reimbursement: Agreement executed on the Holmes extension was presented to the Board by Mr. Selzler. 11. request from Doug Struthers & information from N. W. K.idney Center was next: reviewed request.; n9 a rp.ciuction in water rates for two incHviduals within the District who are on kidn<>y dialysis and utilize 494 gallons every other day. This request was considered by the Board and Mr. Lovell indicated that the District would respond to the request. vouchers audited and certified by the as required by RCW 42.24.080, and reimbursement claims certified as required MINUTES -April 18, 1995 Page -~ auditing officer those expense by RCW 42.24.090 SENf BY: 6-21-95 16:47 HNTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#15 have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the Board. As of this date. April IB, 1995; the Board, by unanimous vote, does approve for payment those vouchers included in the above list and further described as tallows: voucher Numbers 5009 through 5038 in the total amount at $38,981.24 from the Maintenance Fund; Voucher Numbers 1366 through 1368 in the total amount of $30,441.84 from the construction Fund; Voucher Number 441 in the total amount of $51.94 from the Sewer Construction Fund. Mr. Selzler, as Auditing Officer of advised that there had been no deviations blanket voucher submitted for payment. the District, from the last Mr. Selzler was then excused from the meeting. Neltt, the special meeting to be held on May 3, 1995, at the hour 0.£ 6;30 p.m. waEl discussed. Mr. Lovell advised that the purpose of the special meeting was to meet with a Department of Health representative in a preplanning meeting regarding the District's ComprehenElive Plan. The Minutes of April 4, 1995, were submitted for approval and upon motion being duly made by Commissioner I..ovell and s .. coaded by Commissioner Bressan, said Minutes were unanimously accepted as presented. Resolution 618 -Jl.ccepting Reimbursement (Latecomers) 1110 (Holmes) was p,:esented for approval and upon motion being duly made by Commissioner Bressan and seconded by Commissioner T..ovell, SF-d.li Rp.Rolution was unanimously adopted. Ms. Dickel was instructed to provide the District staff with a descriPtion of improvements to attach. The Public Works Trust Fund Application was reviewed which had been prepared by Hedges & Roth schedule (time) for financing waa diacussed. MINUTES -April IB, 1995 Page - 2 briefly and the SENT BY: 6-21-115 16:48 HNTB BEll.EVUE~ 206 277 4455;#16 A map presented by Ms. Bickel was reviewed which outlined the three potential locations tor the tilter plant, together with main replacements. It was determined that a apecial field meeting with· Mr. Selzler and the Board of Commissioners would be in order to inspect the potential sites. Thereatter, a map evidencing the Urban Growth Boundaries was briefly reviewed by the Board. Ms. Bickel auvi,;ed Lhal she would provide the Districl wilh .. b""e map at the next: meeting outlining the Boundariea. There followed a discussion regarding modification to the current water main replacement program. Based upon the recommendation of Hedges & Roth Engineering, it was determined to delete the main replacement portion of the current Contract 1 -95 along SR 900, Weat of 148th Avenue S.E. Mr. Lovell then advised that the proposed intertie with the City of Renton may be changed to l28th Street per his recent conversation with Ron Olson of the City of Renton. Ms. Bickel presented. a report from the Department of Ecology entitled Outlook for Water Right Applications and Questions & Answers, Key Issues tor Water Resources, for review by the Board. The revised plans received on the Stonegate project were revJ.ewed. Hedges &. Roth was instructed to prepare the easements on l>ehalf uf the Di"trit:t. The .. rea which will ,require a latecomer's agreement was also discussed. Next, a map depicting the Public Works Truct Fund projects was reviewed which evidenced approximately 7,200 feet for the next main replacement projects. Approximately $400,000.00 :i.n main replacement.s will be approved for Contract 2-95 and approximately $175,000. 00 in main replacements for Contract 3 -95 to be let in the fall of 1995. The Board also discussed the scheduling of the sensitive area replacements. and Thereafter, a seconded by motion was made by Commissioner Lovell Commissioner Bressan approving the MINUTES -April 18, 1995 l'age - 3 SENT BY: 6-21-85 16:48 HNTB BEUEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#17 commencement of drawings for Contract 2-95 by Hedges & Roth upon the legislature's authorization/notification that funds are available. Commissioner Lovell advised that the District' a CPA, Lar:>:y Wood, should be notified that the trust fund monies, when available, to devise an inL.,cnal control which will identify projects, funda and expenditures of the Lrust fund monies separate from other District funds and projects. The final matter to be discussed by Commiosioncr Lovell "'''''' ,·ega rcding t.he Burnstead annexation who stated that the District must determine if it wisheR t.O utilize its sewer franchise and require that those annexed properties to be served by sewer, be served by WD 90. Commissioner Lovell further expressed that although he understood the District's customers did not. desire sewers in their area, it may be the lesser of two evils. It was determined that a decision in this regard would need to be made quickly in that the District needs to respond to the City of Renton's requests. The final matter to come before the Board was brought by Ms. Bickel who advised that she had received correspondence from the Seattle Water Department which requested clarification trom Water District No. 90 regarding concerns over the ground water influence, along with a laundry list of other requirements. Ms. Bickel advised that the District may be required by Seattle to utilize the package plant filtration process. A "opy of the letter would be provided for the Board's review at the next regular meeting. Thp.rp. hf''''.ng no ot.her or further business t.o come before the regular meeting, the same was duly artjourned at the hour of 8:20 p.m. MINUTES -J\pril 18, 1995 Page - 4 ~, .. _;(5~=c.6>d"", ....... '\: .. ,---__ _ i-v. }?I , ~I 'J-H I SENT BY: \. \._. 6-21-95 16:49 HNTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#18 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 April 4, 1995 THE REGULAR meeting of the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90, King County. WaRhington, was held at the District office located at 15606 S.E. 128th Stl.·eet, Renton, waBhington. Present at the meeting were CommiE!sionerB Lovell and Bressan. AIBO present was District Counsel, Jack H. Leininger, Laurie Bickel of Hedges & Roth, and the District Manager, Daniel Selzler. Commissioner Lovell called the meeting to order at the hour of 6:30 p.m. and requested the first item ·of new business. The minutes of March 28, 1995, were presented for review by the Board and upon motion being duly made by Comlltiss.i.oner Lovell and seconded by Commissioner Bressan were unanimouBly approved as presented. Thereafter, Resolution No. 617 increasing Lhe meter charges as previously adopted by the Board waE! reviewed and signed. Mr. Leininger advised that he had reviewed the Licorice "'<ern n<evp.loper Ext.ension Agr"eement regarding additional engineering charges with Ms. Bickel. He in(i:i.cBted t.hat although the Agreement provided for payment by the Developer of all enqineerinq charges, the Agreement had not been proper1y extended, at which time the additional charges should have been discussed. Mr. Leininger further advised t:hat by law the Developer is required to pay all costs and !:.ha!:. nO costs are to be incurred by the District. Payment MINUTES April 4, 1995 Page 1 SENT BY: 6-21-95 16:49 HNTB BEUEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#19 of the fees by the Developer should be a condition of acceptance pursuant to the DEA. Ms. Bickel stated that the District had already paid the engineering fees so the District would need to request reimbursement. Mr. Leininger was instructed to contact the oeveloper by letter after receiving a breakdown of all charges from engineering. Mr. Selzler was instructed to wurk wiLh penny tu determine how and why the additional engineering charges were not caught and furt:her to advise Mr. Wood of the overage. Mr. Leirlinger was instructed to review and update the Developer Extension Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement language. Ms. Bickel suggested that the graph attached to t.he DEA be updated in that it ",as established in 1987. Commissioner Lovell then addressed the completion of th'" Cumprehensive Plan. Ms. Bickel presented a handbOOK published by the Department of Health regarding the Plan and further advised that Mr. Rodriguez could come to the next Board meeting if requested to talk about requirements of the St:ate. A motion was made by Commissioner Lovell pursuant to K.ing County Code 13.24. WAC 246-290-100 and RCW 57.16. directJ.ng Hedges & Roth to prepare tile Comprehensive Plan for King County Water District No. 90 for 1995. Commissioner B:1:essall secunded the motion aft.er confirming the cost of. completing the Compo Plan of $50,000 $55. 000.00. Mr. Bi(!kel advised that she had outlined the s(!ope of work in a previouc handout <:Ind that: work performed outside of the lined items would be additional chargee. Next, a Latecomer' 8 J\.grep.ment. was acceptance regarding t.he Holmes extension being duly made by Commissioner Bressan commissioner Lovell. said r~atecomer's unanimously adopted and the appropriate directed to be prepared. MINUTES April 4, 1995 Page 2 presented for and upon mot.ion and seconded by Agreement was resolut.ion was SENT BY: 6-21-95 16:49 HNTB BELLEVIJE~ 206 277 4455;#20 Ms. Bickel advised that she had not received a formal response to her letter regarding the Stonegate development however she had been advised by telepho'1e that they wanted to put the main to the North on the West side of· the property inatead ot the East side. Ms. Bickel indicated that that change would pose no problems. Mr. Roth had suggested via Laul:·ic Bickel, having the Developer put in the main previouoly anticipated as being constructed by the Difltrict because the Developer already had it on his plans. Engineering, however, has incurred costs and will incur additional costa on Stonegate and it was determined that those coste would be incorporated at the time of approval of design by Hedges & Roth. Mr. Leininger indicated that he would draft an a!Jreement specific to this particular main extenaion. The report by Hedges & Roth regarding High Valley had been reviewed by Ms. Bic]cel. The report suggested a pump control valve problem. Mr. 3el .. ler advised that the back up has been inatalled and Commiasioner Lovell stated that he would be corresponding with High Valley Community Association outlining the scope of work and corrections to the system which have been made. The next matter brought forward by Ms. Bickel was the latecomer boundaries in Licorice Fern previously discussed by Lhe Board. Upon rereview, Ms. Bickel indicated that an additional 20 units to the East could be included pursuant to the Comp. Plan. A map outlining the boundaries was presented [or review and based upon the engineering calculations the sum of $2,861.00 per unit at 203 units was determined to be the appropriate latecomer charge for the onoite propertieo. Mo. Bickel advioed th.:.t this amount included approximately $2B,OOO.00 in additional engineering. Upon. motion being duly made by Commissioner Lovell and ,,<'!cono<'!d by CommiRRionp.r Rr<'!RRan, :103 nntts at. $2, B61 .00 latecomer charge for the tank and pump stations and the Licorice Fern latecomer boundaries as established by engineering were unanimously accepted. Me. Bickel advised that the Public Works Trust Fund application would be ready for the next meeting or before. Mr. Leininger asked that he be supplied a copy of the MINUTES April 4, 1995 Paqe 3 SENT BY: 6-21-85 16:50 HNTB BELLEVUE~ 206 277 4455;#21 application for l:eview prior to the next meeting in that he would be out of town the week of the 17th. The final matter brought forward by Ms. Bickel was a memorandum dated April 3, 1995 from Hedges &: Roth regarding the Licorice Fern II off site properties evidencing the breakdown of DE fees and construction costs. Mr. Selzler presented for review and comment by the Board a letter dated April 3, 1995 from the City of Renton regarding the proposed Burnstead Annexation of 399.3 acres of the East Renton Plateau and lying within the District's franchise area. A public hearing on the annexation was scheduled for April 10, 1995. Mr. Selzler was diL-ected to advise the City that th .. District intends to provide water pursuant tu t_lle Coo~'dinated Water System Plan and within our franchise area and, further, that the information requested could be provided by the District in approximately one month. Commissioner Loveil asked that the Board review the City's letter for further discussion at the next regular Board meeting. There followed a hrief discussion regarding renewing t.he District's sewer franchise. Mr. Selzler then presented a letter dated March 31, 1995 from the King County Surface Water Management Division regarding the Draft Conditions Report for the May Creek Basin Plan which the Board stated would be reviewed. A I-esponse on the wellhead protection work was received from Hart & Crowser which outlined the scope of work and proposal in the amount of $35,000. Commissioner Lovell advised that he had worked with Hart & Crowser outside of the District and thereafter suggested that all bids be received and ~-ev1ewed simultaneously. Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer:. as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense rcimbur:.ement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing which has heen made available to the Hoarn. MINUTES ApI-il 4, 1995 Page 4 SENT BY: -~ .. - 6-21-95 16:50 HNTB BELlEVlJE~ 206 277 4455;#22 As of this. date, April 4, 1995, the Board, by unanimous vnte, does approve [or payment those vouchers included in the above list and further described as follows: Voucher Numbers 4990 through 5008 in the total amount of $11,234.04 from the Maintenance Fund; Voucher Number 1365 in the total amount of $51'/. UU from the Maintenance Fund; Voucher Number 440 in the total amount of $269.25 from the Sewer Conctruction Fund. Mr, Selzler, as Auditing Officer of advised that there had been no deviations blanket voucher submitted for payment.. the District, from the last A Temporary Employee Report for Terry Schmidt was next presented by Mr. Selzler in compliance with State requirements. Thereafter, Commissioner Lovell directed Mr. Selzler to have an staff employee· sign up for the free class on coliform monitoring. The Independent Auditor' B Report on Compliance with State Laws and Regulations was discussed by the Board as tollows: Item 7 District Management Should Improve Internal Control Procedure Over Payroll The Audito,,·'.. Concluding Remarks were thoroughly discussed and taken under udvisemcnt. Item 6 Distl."ict Management Should Update The Distl."ict's Comprehensive Water Plan The Auditor's ronc:llld;ng Remarks were thoroughly discussed and the resolution implementing the same which had h'len adopted. ILem 5 ." District Of[icials Should Implement Penalties for Late Payments -The Auditor's Concluding Remarks were thoroughly dj.sC!ussed as well as the resolution which had been heretofore adopted by the Board. There followed MINUTES April 4, 1995 Page 5 SENT BY: further increase 6-21-95 16:51 discussion the penalty regarding to 10%. HNm BEll..EVUE~ 206 277 4455;#23 the need to potentially Item 4 District Officials Should Meet Certification Requirements on Vouchers Submitted For Paym·ent to King County 'rhe Auditor's Concluding Hemarka were thoroughly discussed and the resolution which had been heretofore adupted by th., BuaI·d. I ten, 3 Diatrict Commissioners Need to Improve Internal Controls Over Payments for the Board Secretarial Function -Th(~ Auditor's Concluding Remarks were thoroughly discussed and the resolution which had been heretofore adopted by the Board. Item 2 District Officials Should Comply with the Requirements for Preparing Meeting Minutes and With the Open Public Meetings Act -The Auditor's Concluding Remarks were thoroughly discussed as was the need for strict compliance. It was suggested that the District obtain a copy of the BARS Manual. Item 1 District commissioners Should Establish Controls to Moni tor Latecomer Service Agreements The Auditor's Concluding Remarks were thoroughly discussed as was the need to review and update all District resolutions tor ease of reference. A rnap at the area in question was provided and the history of the subject main given by Mr. Leininger who advised that the proper charge of $4.00 per front foot had been paid by the property owner. MI·. Leininger advised that this was the only authorized charge of record Lind thLit there WLiS no record of a diBcussion having been had authorizing or requeoting LI lLitecomer's charge on this particular main. The main was installed to benefit a much larger portion of the District and not just to benefit the properties fronting t:h" fOam ... , which was consistent with the District's policies and procedures. Mr. Leininger further advised that the District is required to charge a property owner a pro-rata share of the cost of the system when it was installed, not what it would cost to build a system today. MINUTES April 4, 1995 Page 6 SENT BY: • • 6-21-95 16:51 HNTB BELLEVlJE~ 206 277 4455;#24 A discussion then ensued regarding the identification and calculation of costs at the time of the main replacement, as well as a discussion regarding special chal-ges, interest, and the possibility of establishing a special fee for those property owners within the District who are not connected to the District's system but are LeneLiLed Ly (in, hydrants_ The final matter to COme before the Board was a di:Jcuc::::ion regarding the mapping authorized by Hedges & Roth which details proposed main replacements, projects in progress and completed projects. Commissioner Lovell direc,ted Hedges & Roth to complete the mapping in an p-cnnomical fashion. There being no other or further busineas to come before the meeting, the aame waa duly adjourned at 9:00 p.m. MINUTES April 4, 1995 Page 7 Jun.20 '95.14:13 VALLEY DAILY NEWS FAX 1-206-854-1006 P. 2 -'-:--_. -_ .. -,--' ,-.,~, •.. :j FROM: L.lSBRB FOR KING CO. TO: 2Q5854UIBG JUN 19, 1995 4'33PM ~147 P.04 LAW urru::r.s I.I~II"." ,. """',Tr HEl..6ELL. FETTERM"N. MARTIN. TOPD .. HOKANSON "' ..... .,,.. ~I ... r,r ... .I0.-to!,. f,f.tJlI,.Oof ,.. .. ·11 II' ll. ""' .. Lf tl"Y'"I , .• ",JIt~A ~, .... wH,,..nN ,",,0"'" C\ ..... ·'.0 ... ,.""'" " "Itt'", .. ,. .... I.IUM .. U I' ..... \,l4l' W. 101'''''1 ",,,w'N oJ, \·"' ... arftl""~ PlIl.LINr \II. "",,,,"" OM"') "nOf.(. .",,(,r II bL"":JVr.I "", ... AN ~ ..-(,'Ow"". 1",,,,,,1."'" II, ."D.HAW ""Lllf,,'" oJ. K'N.'L~" 1 "LU.'CIIO D. "'ulfll~rn "'''fll1IIi r. '''~I'''n "'1""~ I (.'('Ie ... ... "fI. t,. ULAN I.I.I.WI. .. "" o ..... ,'tcH"nt'l ,. _"totf. rrh ..... . . ""n., f.' IIU"'''' rot.It""" u. 1I1.1.t.A'L" LlINK olIo •• "",.".,. .. cleo"",,, 1 . N"h',N lIIII'A'AftN h. "LAI" I Ifrfh" n. W"" H.n .. (.(IUOI. 1>.. NIC'OLID III .. • ... U.'t:'AI. "Nor ft'.tIN .,C"", t. ('.flll ''''~, .' ...... Io .. ' .. ·!'".u, ... n&. _'#,(.(,11'-'''.'01 Ull""C"I'II_ laoo ~Ur.r:T 50UND r'L~ .:selS F'OUUHt AVI"Nut S[A.l 'Lt. WAtilMIIC4TON OOIOI·R600 P.O. 800)( .'040 DEATTLI!. WA.HINQ.TON .8"'.384.- caoo) •• e·1 t 44 F"AX .aCH!J1 JI.n 1;.1taQr £.t04"IL "'",u'Ot-.o' •• U.OOM DtLLI':'1t'~ O,.,.ICE 2.:.2 '14.YL.1t~r: '(71111':"" ,,·.vt) ...... [ ... ,,' 1II1kt.1;:1 I'tLLCVUL. WA .... ,NI)'Ot\I •• 004· ••• ' 't!~I.O •• II ... lune 16, 1995 King County Boundary Review Board 3600 -I 16th S. F.., Suite 122 Bellevue, Washington 98006 Dear Board Members: r RECEIVED ,oLlyJ~".~. 6 1985 .r.:o', •. "',,..,.".&1." vI-:CLL'I III A~d.rv 'flo ....... , ~.~plC ... 1I CD. JAr..... RUt\ 1til" ""NA ~, ~"'.OU""'. ~I)N"'~AN _, I4CI' .• , OM Mo ... ,onM"f. ~"LJ"A ~. ,..,,111. IU""'" I· JOl "If'';'';'''. '''1M n. ""'«:1. .. r1l0 Q. MAMLL. .'" "' .... oJ, .""".'0 ""'Aln.t¥' •.• HANNO'. .,' .. • ... " .. D Il .... ODHrMon-r "0. c: .• Tt ..... "N" ~"'N" .. lOr " ....... ' .JANr O. kiM I." " .. CCI .... k\ L'ND"~, cnr .... n"N I'IOG,A I. f)rr.lllrn C""Ul ". l'(J~ILI. flt'CA,J.I.Ut.'CK WoU.IA .. A. "'''I.DCt.'' MU •• Et.1. V. t>ln •• N,.n", 'HOMA" W. Iillhrn HAlIK.! (, rl, tlhn ... f.~ , ... nn ... 'If I(a.t.u '''~ ... I •. :l.UlIUtL\I .r,·a", ""v, I," IIL",,."N t .. U ....... '''DC! This lellet is wrluen nn behalf of the Neighbors United for Representatlnn ("NUR"). an organizalion of residents and proporty owners living in and near an area proposed for the annexation known aa tho "Bumstead Annexation." On behalf of NUR, plCRle find enclosed two potitions requeSling the Boundary Revi~ Board review the proposed ~Burnstead Annexation" (DR.S No. 1922) to the City of Renton. NUll respectfully requeats that the Board reject the proposed annexation. The first petition ia subn\ltted purAiant to RCW 36.93, 100(3)(a), and contain. signatures of a\ lellSt S% of the registered voterl residing within tho proposed annexation area. The second pOlilion is submitted pursuant to llCW 36.93.IOO(3)(b), and conlains .ignatures ofthe owner. of property consisting oflltleast 5% of the auesaed valuation filr soneral taxation within the proposed annexation area. At nearly al the Neighbnn United for Representation have been able to detcnnine, the petition submitted pursuant to ItCW 36.93.100(3)(a) contain. approximately 27% ofthe reglatered voters reaidin" within the proposed annoxation area, while the petition submitted pUrluant to !lCW 36.93.100(3)(b) contajnllignaturel of the owners of apprOJl;ilnatcly 19.2% of the totalll8CS11cd valuation of the proposed annent ion area. In it. ease befbre the Boar(!, NOR will maintain that, amona other thinal, the City of Renton's notice of Intent to aMCX is not properly before the Board, since the petition doca not contain sufficient, IBwM lignatures. We will file a memorandum or Itatement Jun.20 '95 14:13 VALLEY DAILY NEWS FAX 1-206-854-1006 P. 3 -....:.--~, .. ~-- FROM:WSBRB FOR KING CO. TO' 2li!685411ilr.l6 JUN 19, 1995 4'34PM "147 P.~ King County Boundary Review DOlrd 6116195 page 2 explaining the grounds for the potition. In more del8i1 in the near future. In tho meantime, pleaRe note that, althoush tho pelltlons refbr to the Board illvolrilql ita jurisdiction, Neighbors United for Representation expressly reserves and does run waivo allY .rgunlent conoemina the: Do.rd'. lack of jurisdiction, in liahl of the Insufficiency of valid slgnature. fllvoring the annexation and other flaw •. So that matters can proceed, we would appreciate it if the Boundary Review BOllfd could set a date for a public hearing on this matter al prelcribed by law, provide notice of the hearing also 118 prescribed by law, and hold the hearing at a public facility In or near the proposed annexation .rea. We can suggest a few possible locations it the Board would like. Thank you for your aSBiBtanee with this maUer. If any questions arise, pleBle contact me immediately at 292·1144. Des:rp enca cc: Norman Green Sincerely, HELSBLL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD &. HOKANSON ,,pfJ1'j (! .~~.b Bob C. Sterbank . . . .0.· 0'" ""tinffl:]tH _ Jun.20 '95 14:14 URLLEY DRILY NEWS FRX 1-206-854-1006 P •. _4 __ _ • FRQM:WS8RS FOR KING CO. TO: 2068541006 JUN 19, 1995 4:32PM A147 P.02 J,*,,~ Jack H. Leiningtr 1120.S S.",h 2j!lth 51".,. nOI K'nI. 'MI,h;"" ... flBO.H 12 June, 19515 Washington State Boundary Review Board Central Building, Suite 608 810 3rd Avenue Seattle WA 98104-1693 Att'n: Ms. A1da H. Wilkinson Executive secretary 7i1,pI.."" (7()6) 8J2·22fJJ Nnimik: (Z06) 8j2·.96RII RECEIVED JUN 161995 WA It_ BounCl.')' Ae"iew lIo .. d For Kino Cu. RE: File No. 1922 -City of R"nton -BlIrnstead Annexation King county Water District No. 90's Request for Review Pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2). Dear Ms. Wilkinson: I am the attorney for King county Water District No. 90 and at the direction of the Board of Commi8sioners of the District am presenting this letter as is request by King county Water District No. 90 that the King County Boundary Review Board review the above-referenced matter pursuant to RCW 36.93.100(2). The Board of Commissioners for King County Water District No. 90 are presently reviewing and discussing the feasibility of sewer mains and the school districts within the proposed annexation have expressed an interest in reaotivating /l sewer main which il'l presently approved and existing wi thj n the franohise area of King County Water District No. 90. The proposal before th(" Boundary Review Board would disrupt these boundaries within the franchise area for sewer service and is objectionable to the Board of Commissioners of King County Water District No. 90. I have enclosed her .. with a check in the amount of $200.00 for the administrative "fee for a review I:>y the Boundary Review Board. If you need further or other information or Jun.20 '95 14:15 VALLEY DAILY NEWS FAX 1-206-854-1006 P. 5 ; .------~-.--- FROM'WSBRB FOR lONG CD. TO' 2li!68541 11106 JUN 19, 1995 4'32PM ~147 P.B3 if anything further is necessary to accomplish our intent to have a review pursuant to statute, please advise me immediately. JHL:jac Eneloeure Respectfully, .... -.. ~~.~ -. ,r. .. -,. ; _~--. '"-' ~....... . .-.. -- Jack H. Leininger cc: King County Water District #90 ce, Hedges & Roth Engineering. Inc. , .. ' ~. ,-... ,: .~ SEJYf BY: 6-15-ll5 10:56 ZUti Ut '1'1:>:>;11 U 'I .--. -_. Press Release Neighhors United (or Representation For iJnmediate Release Contact: Norm Green at 118-2151 Neighbors United for Representation, a group of eitizt:ns and property owners in the proposed Bumstead Annexation east of the City of Renton, today announced their intention to request that the Boundary Review l10ard for King County invoke its jurisdiction to review the propost:d annexation to the City of Rentnn. The group announced that they have sufficient petition signatures lIS required by law to trigger the review. Norm Green. a long time resident of the area, stated "The City barely gathered enough signatures to certify the petition and they had to count a $2.5 million school to do it. TI,ey'.C breaking up my neighborhood, they're raising my taxes and not allowing me the opportunity to vote. n Many residenLq ofthe annexation complained about the tactics used to gain the needed signatures. Cynthia Hussey complained "We were told that signing the petition would allow us to have an active voice in determining important issues in our neighborhood. The Renton City Council ignored U.'I at the public hearing in April and that's why I'm now fighting to have the Boundary Review Board reject Ibis proposal. n The group submitted signatures 10 the Renton City Council in April representing sufficient properly value to stop th" petition but were told that the deadline had passed a few days earlier. Residents were angered that the City of Renton gave no notice of the cut-off date to withdraw signatures. A major issue prompting the annexation is the desire of Burnstead Construction Company to obtain SWtilaJy 'sewer service for a proposed residential development, Residents agTCC that some homes need sewer service however, they asserl that the City of Renton is not the only option for obtaining sewers. They feel thllt Water District #90, who has II comprehensive sewer plan on the books lIS well as paris of sewer system already in place could provide the service in less time wld in a more cost efiective manner. Waler District 1190 cnmmisioners assert that the Dislrict has the sole franchise for providing sewer service to the area and are interested in providing the service. Neighbors United for ReprcseniationwiJl now file the petition with the Boundary Review Board which must then hold II public hearing on the matter within 45 days. The group has raised over $2000.00 to date in a dedicated fimd at US Bank to finance the preparation for the Boundary Review Board and a lawsuit in Superior Court should the BRH vole 10 approve the annexation. --End--- ,,!::NT BY: 6-15-95 10:57 HNTB BELLEVUE~ '-. Neighbors United for Representation, a group of residents and rroperty ownerS residing within and opposing the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton have heard numerous stories about tbe manner in which signatures for the 60% petition were gathered. We want to hear your story. Please use this sheet (attach more if necessary) to teU us .. ·lto a..lred YOII to sigll (for most in the White Fence Ranch Area it was Chris Holstrom), exactly what tlrey told )'011 at thl!.o"'iI!Yo" signed, if YOII /,,1, p~IIrt!t1 0" thnatened to sign and lfJ'oll /ell YOII knew wlrat yOil 1H'I"iI! siglling. We would also like to know if),nll t!l'U a .• ked to Irm'e yall,.lIame rcmowd ' and if so, ,.,lrell and if any City 0/ ReI/ton staff" contacted )'OU. We will present this information to the Boundary Review Board at our appeal hearing. a date for which has not been set yet. We may also use this information for a possible court casco Therefore, it is important th~t vou be as detailed as possible and truthful. Thank you for your help. PI"a.o;e retum the sheet by Wednesday, June 21st, to Cynthia Hussey at 12604'156th Ave SE (White Fence Ranch neighborhood) or Call Rod Demhowski Bt 271- , , 4084 with questions. I swear or affirm that the above statement and any parts of the statement attached on separate sheets (pleAse initial & date each shect) is true Bnd accuratc. Signed: ___ ~ _______________ _ Date: _____ _ Now those names must be validated by King County officials to make sure they meet the minimum require- ments, Wilkinson said. . In addition to the citizen challenge, Water'District 90 has .requested a hearing -which' means one is automati- . 'cally Scheduled, she said. Mid-August isprobably the .. earliest the hearing can be held: . Jack Leininger, District 90's anorney, said the water district holds the franchise to provide sewer service in '. the annexation area and objects·t.o the city's plan to extend sewer there. . , The district's commissioners are "just looking at cos15, at the request of citizens, " Leiningersaid. "They want to keep that window open" in case it appears the district can provide sewer service at a lower cost. ' Green said he believes District 90 can provide ~ers more cheaply; so the annexation isn't necessary. . "1 think that the only reason for annexation is (for developers) to be provided that sewer," he said.' ~" : . Mike. Kanel'lDlll!, Renton's ~Ianning and techni~ ser~ VICes dIrector, saId the .area IS part of the city's urban \ . growth area and its potential annex.ation area. "If it's urban (designated), it should be provided urban servic:-. es" under growth management guidelines, ~e said. . But sewers wouldn't be provided in the area immedi- ately after annexation, and sewer costs wouldn't be as high as some residents have suggested, Kimerman said. Besides those concerns, some residents say they were misled when the annexation petition was.circulated. . . "People were given the impression that what they were signing was the ability to vote on the annexation, ". Green said. . But when about a dozen residents tried to withdraw their names in April, city officials said the deadline for removing names had passed, Green said. . . "1 thitilc the thing that bothered me the most is that the Renton City Council ignored us at the public hearing in April." Wolf said. "There was a lot of opposition there. " Neighbors United for Representation also is disputing whether it was legal for the city to count Maplewood Heights Elementary when figuring whether enough land owners in the area support annexation. Without the school's assessed valuation included, the annexation couldn't move forward, Green said. • .:... ~ ", A3 Thursday, lune22, 1995. --------~~~---- l-ThkwiIa .. Annexation . . . . without · .. repre§~Qt,,~,jon : . Residerlt~.~~[1tt.9.~~~~ asay : . :.~,t~::';~ ,)/.'. ,~~ ':'1;;:~.;t:;:·::::::/::O::; . RENTON -Unwilling to risk their neighborhood's rural flavor and fearing expensive,' mandatory Sewer hook-Ups, some East Renton Plateau residents are fight- , ing annexation to Renton. . :.. . . "If they bring (sewers) out and we don't want them,. we don't want to have to hook up," said resident Kyle Janders, who lives on 156th Avenue Southeast. "We don't want a little strip' mall out here; It's a rurat.iirea. We don't want a bunch of apartments out. here, " he : said.· ::.' .. ' ..... ':.' .:'.,' ··;.·,e·:;· ,,:.~.:-': .. : ... It's not that we're opposed to development," said Norman Green, who lives on Southeast '132rid Street. "We're opposed to the way the city of Renton devel- ops." . . '.... ...... ", Although growth is inevitable, said Pat Wolf, another resident of 156th Avenue Southeast,"I think ii should be done right and I think it should be done with the people's representation" through an annexation elec- tion, she said. . .... . ~:." :.:."'. .. '" . But the annexation was initiated by petition by Burn- stead Construction Company, which wants to build a single-family subdivision within the 400-acre annex- ation area. The area, with about 473 residents, lies east of 140th Avenue Southeast and generally is bordered on the north by Southeast 120th Street and on Southeast 138th Place on the south. Janders, Green and Wolf are among residents and land owners who have signed petitions opposing the . annexation plan. The petitions were circulated by Neighbors United for Representation, which says it has gathered enough signatures to trigger a state hearing on the proposal. A hearing is required if citizens collect the signatures of either 5 percent of the annexation area's registered voters or those owning S percent of the area's assessed valuation. The group submined its petitions Friday to the Wash- ington State Boundary Review Board for King County, said Aida Wilkinson, the agency' s executive secretary .. The petitions contain the names of 63 voters and 69 . people who own 48 separate parcels in the area. .. -u:'~~ f!;~ . () -/ tV Washington State Boundary Review Board . ForKing County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenlle, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 June 1, 1995 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 RE: NOTIFICATION OF OFFICIAL FILING CiTY OF RENTON :jUN 0 2 '1995 Rt:lJtiVED GITY CLERK'S OFFICE FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION The Notice of Intention transmitted to this office is now complete and has been officially filed effective: May 8, 1995. Therefore, the end of the forty-five day period for invoking the Board's jurisdiction and requiring a public hearing is now officially June 22, 1995, You will be kept advised of all transactions affecting this action. As you are aware, a copy of your Notice was transmitted to the King County Council by this office. This was under date of May 10, 1995. Any revisions to the legal description subsequent to that date must be incorporated in your fmal ordinance/resolution filed with the MetrQPolitan King County Council. AIda H. Wilkinson Executive Secretary CC: Council Administration, ATTN: Kathy Nelson Council Administration, ATTN: Rebecha Cusack Department of Public Works, ATTN: William Vlcek Department of Assessments, ATTN: Diane Murdock Enviornmental Services, ATTN: Ikuno Masterson REF: 7.89.11 ... ~e:~ (] . [;eAvV g>6 IJ Washington State Boundary ReView Board . For King County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 . June 1, 1995 TO: FROM: IN RE: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RENTON ALDA H.WILKINSON, Executive Secretary REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION i.;ITY OF RENTON ;r,y CLERK'S OFFICE FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from the King County Engineering Staff regarding the legal description supplied as a part of the above Notice of Intention. We are assuming that you will be in accord with those recommendations and are continuing to process this file. However. if you should disagree with the requested corrections. please let me know immediately. Any questions regarding this should be directed to Tommy Burdette, King County Department of Public Works, at 296-3731. The legal as corrected must be used on all future documents affecting this proposal. AHW/rh Enclosures as noted CC: William S. Vlcek, Department of Public Works (w/o encls.) Kathy Nelson, Council Administration (w/o encls.) King County Roads and Engineering Division Department of Public Works Yesler Building 400 Yeslcr Way Room 400 Seanie, WA Sl3104-2637 May 30,1995 AIda Wilkinson Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board B6 RE: City of Renton's Bumstead Annexation (file 1922) Dear Ms. Wilkinson: RECEIVED MAY 3 11995 WA State Boundary Review Board For King Co. Thank you for the opportunity to review the legal description of the City of Renton's pro- posed annexation. Engineering Services Section stlL.'f has reviewed the legal description and King County Asses- . sor's maps transmitted May 10, 1995 for the boundary of the proposed annexation. The legal description has one minor error to be corrected in order to coincide with the boundary iden- tified on the maps. The correction is identified on the enclosed copy of the legal description and is found on page one in paragraph ten. The last part of the call, " ... to the northeast corner thereof;" should read" ... to the northwest corner thereof" The proposed annexation does not include any King County Parks nor does it conflict with any other municipal boundaries. If you have any questions, please call Senior Engineer Dennis Gorley at 296-6522. Michael A. Gillespie, P .E. Acting Manager Engineering Services Section MAG:DWG:dsn Enclosure ... cc: Kathy Nelson, Administrative Assistant, King County Council (w/enclosures) Jesse Krail, Manager, Roads and Engineering Division .~. May 10, 1995 TO: FROM: Washington State Boundary Review Board . . For King County Central Building. Suite ClJ8. 810 3rd Avenue. Seattle. WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 Mr. William S. Vlcek, Design Engineer King County Department of Public Works Room 900 K. C. Administration Building " .. " .- Aida H. Wilkinson Executive Secretary RE: FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Enclosed please find the legal description and related Assessor(s) maps supplied as part of the above noted Notice of Intention. It would be appreciated if you would review this and report your findings back to this office. . The copy of the enclosed legal is for your files; however, processing of this'matter would be facilitated if a copy of the legal with any notations would be returned with your report and the Assessor(s) maps. We would appreciate an answer within the 45-day filing period which is expected to end June 22, 1995. The deadline for requesting that the Board invoke jurisdiction and hold a public hearing can only be changed by a revision to the legal description or modification of the original Notice of Intention. The support and expert assistance of your staff on matters affecting this proposal are sincerely appreciated. Please let me kriow if we need provide you with any further data. . Enclosures: Legal/maps R.S.V.P. May 30.1995 REF: 7.89.5 ... .. Proposed Bumstead AnneXation Legal Description . . That portion of Sections 10, 11, 14, and IS, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter comer of said Section 10, said south quarter comer being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, said south quarter . comer also being a point on the centerline of SE 128th Street; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street, and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance·#3553; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to an intersection 'with the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly aJong said line, to the northeast comer of said subdivision arid a point on the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast comer thereof; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast comer thereof; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast comer thereof, and an intersection with the centerline of 148th Avenue SE; Thence easterly, entering said Section ll,along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast comer of said subdivision; . . . . " Thence northerly along the west line of the northeaSt quarter of the southwest quarter of the . southwest quarter of said section, to theqWrthea:svcomer thereof; .. = I\O~"""u~ -. Thence continuing northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section to the northwest comer thereof; Thence westerlY along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said right-of-way line a distance of15 feet to a point on a line being 15 feet north of and parallel with said north line' of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter' of the southwest quarter of said section; FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION " --;ft:z.-- CITv OF RENTON Earl Clymer, Mayor May 25,1995 Ms. Jan Durocher Renton School District 403 1220 North 4th Street Renton, W A 98055 PlanninglBuilding/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: STATUS OF BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear Ms. Durocher: You requested information regarding the current status of the Bumstead Annexation as it affects the extension of sewers to the Maplewood Heights Elementary School. On April 10, 1995, the City Council accepted the Petition to Annex and directed the Administration to submit a Notice of Intention package to the Boundary Review Board for King County. The package was received by the Board on May 8, 1995. The Board will hold the file for forty-five days during which review of the proposal can be requested. This period will end on June 22, 1995. If jurisdiction is invoked, the Board has 120 days from the filing of the request to schedule a public hearing. Following the hearing the Board can accept, reject or modify the proposal. If the Board approves the Annexation in some form, the City Council will hold a second public hearing on zoning. Following the hearing, the Council can adopt annexation and zoning ordinances. If Boundary Review Board's review is not requested, adoption of the ordinances could occur in July, 1995. Sewers cannot be extended, without Council approval, prior to annexation. Sewer lines past the existing city limits will be installed by local improvement district or by developers extension. The Bumstead Companies, initiators of the Annexation, intend to extend sewers to the area east of Maplewood Heights Elementary School. The City anticipates no submittal of plans by the developer until after annexation occurs. Given the current status of the annexation process, it is unlikely the Bumsteads can begin construction until 1996. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Sincerely, flZ» ~7JC2:: :s Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services cc Sue Carlson Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper conlllllna 50% recycled malerial, 25% post consumer /11,f~ 1::a/4 fit~ F'1:i ~ Renton School District 403 ~,~ 4.15 Main Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055-2700 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 22,1995 Councilmember Cynthia Sullivan Metropolitan King County Council 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Council member Sullivan: Re: Proposed Motion No. 95-359 I have become aware that a motion has been introduced by Mr. Brian Derdowski regarding a proposed City of Renton property annexation. The proposed action has been identified as the "Burnstead Annexation", and the motion requests the Boundary Review Board to review the annexation. The Renton School District is concerned with the additional delay which would be imposed as a result of this motion. I have enclosed a copy of a recent letter to Councilmember Derdowski, which he received prior to his motion, and which explains the relationship of this proposed annexation to a significant school construction project in our District. Your consideration of our concerns in contemplating formal action on the motion would be deeply appreciated. Superintendent GFK:n Enc .-_.-.:. ... May 22, 1995 '. .' CIT~ OF RENTON Mayor Earl Clymer ,0" • , '.", '::~. . "" Members, MetropOlitan·King County Council Economic Development and Regional Governance Committee 516 Third Avenue, Swte 1200 ,.: :' ... :". " -:. ... .:, " Seattle, W A 98104 SUBJECT: MOTION 95-359 TO REQUEST BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD REVIEW OF THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF RENTON Dear Council Members: The City of Renton urges the King County Council to reject the motion to invoke Boundary Review Board jurisdiction over the propOsed Bumstead Annexation. The City recognizes the role of the Boundary Review Board in ensuring that annexations occur in an orderly manner. The City also recognizes the County's right to·request Board review of any annexation propOsaL However, we question the role of the County Council in intervening in this particular situation . . , Several pOints are raised as issues in·the text of the mou'on. .•. I • Competition to extend municipal boundaries. No other municipality has indicated an interest or· an ability to annex this area. • Prevention of haphazard boundaries. The propOsed boundaries are not a result of happenstance, but rather define the area for which owners ofa significant majority of the assessed value have petitioned to join the City of Renton, and the area for which the City of Renton has declared the ability to provide urban level services. • Creation of logical service areas. Sanitary sewer service is not currently available in the area. The propOsal would not only create a logical service area, but would permit a full range of urban level services in an area designated for such services. The City is recognizing existing active service area boundaries where a continuation of current service is appropriate, e.g. water and school districts. • Open public forum for the review of these issues. Throughout the annexation process, the City made every attempt to include a public involvement compOnent The City hosted one neighborhood meeting . and staffed·two others. Offers were made to staff additional ne.ighborhood meetings at theiequest of residents. The City Council held one public meeting and one public hearing as required by State law. Individual property owners were notified for both. Additionally, City staff attempted to contact, in person, as many area residents as pOssible. " .. ".' ,. ," •• ' t.· . .. ': . ~ :'0' .. ~. . 'i ." . ':': . -", PaS" 2 May22,l99S /' ' CountVWid~ PI!!!!!!ing PQIi!a:; . FW-ll LU-26 FW-l3 LU-32 LU-33 . ':. " The land use pattern for King County shall . protect the natural environment by reducing the consumption of land and concentrating development. An Urban Growth Area, Rural iUeas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes countywide establishinent of a boundary for the Urban . Growth Area ... The lands within Urban Growth Areas (UGA) shall be characterized by urban development.... Cities are the appropriate provider oflocal urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the urban area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local . urban services provided by special purpose districts. A city may annex territory only within its designated potential annexation area. All cities shall phase annexations to coincide with the ability for the city to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to be annexed: Land .within a city's potential annexation area shall be deVeloped according to that city's and King County's growth phasing plans. Undeveloped lands adjacent to that citY should.be annexed at the time development is proposed to, receive a fun. range ofurbanservlces "", ': .. ,' !:;Qnsi~n!a:; '. The proposed Annexation is entirc:ly within the designated Urban Growth . Area. '. · , ". Urban development is currently constrained by a lack of existing urban level services. The City of Renton is capable of providing a complete range of urban services. If annexation is prevented, this area may not be characterized by urban development. The City of Renton is prepared to serve the proposed Annexation area with sanitary sewer service. This service is not-currently available. The only other option for sewer service would be through Water District 90, which is not currently providing this service. This · option would seem to conflict with Policy FW-l3 . The area is within Renton's potential annexation area. The City is capable of providing a full range of,urban services. The annexation was initiated and is supported by owners of undeveloped · lands who wish to develop upon. the · availability ofurban seryices. ~. ~. ..... '." . .. ~. ".' ' .. ' ~; .' -~ , '.' ", c' ' . ; " ," . .',," , ... ''';-,' , " ".: ;',.-, > .".' . , , , ," ~ <' ,'.":. , ..... ",'. ,~. :" " , ,i. . . ::.-: .,: .'>, ~~,: ;', . -. ;','. , ":. ' :~ ........ ,',' : ',-:.':".'.,-; .. :.~.:: .... -. .' "";~':-''':' .•..• ' :.,.,' •...•. :.. ..~.: ..•. : ~ .. ~., .~: '. -,~" , .. '". -":'-:7= ':';<.::'-":'::' , ' .. f .:/ .. '~ .•.. ,\.,{ ~-.,~;:> " ' .. \.' ". ',' '. ~ :-." \ ,f" ''',' .. \ . ,.;; ,:'" .:,': . " ' . "", '. I.:'· ' ..... : .. : :,' ,-'::: , , . . ~ '- ,- ",',;;.-'. ";". "~, : .:':::'," '" .".: . ," Page 3 May 22, 199' ' FW-3l CO-1O Protection of public health and safety aild the environnieritshall be !pven high priority in ' odecision-makingabout i,nfrastructure " ' improvements. 'County resideflts in botJi urban and rural areas shall have reasonable access to a , high-<!1l3lity drinking water source meeting all federal and state drinking water requirements, , ' In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten yearS, urban water and sewer , ' systems are preferred for new construction on existing lots and shall be required for new subdivisions: ' King County Comprehensive Plan Policv U-202 U-30l U-304 King County should encourage most population and employment growth to locate in the , contiguous Urban Growth Area in western King County, especially in cities and their potcotial annexation areas, King County should work,with cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should support annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies, King, County should support annexation proposals when: d. a. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed area is wholly witliin the Urban Growth Area and with the city's designated Potential Annexation Area; c. The city is planning for urban densities and ,efficient land'use patterns consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies ' ' and King County, land use plans; and, Adopted Countywide goSts and policies , for urban services, enviroiunental Rnci ' cultural' re.SourCc protection will be ' , supported, .. : Th,e subject area is wi~nthe City's sole sourCe aqUifer rechilrge area. , Continued installation of on-siie. septic systems is a concern to the City. Without annexation, and unless the , County can approve and require sanitary sewer service by Water District 90, residential development on the East Renton Plateau will be unplanned and depend on on-site septic systems. Consistency , Annexation would allow the provision of sanitary sewer service, which would enable development to occur at a density consistent with the County's growth management goals, Unless inconsistency with the King County Comprehensive Plan or the Countywide Planning Policies can be shown, the County should support this annexation, Proposed City zoning for the proposed Annexation would result in comparable development and density to that achievable under existing !Gng County zoning, 'F-212 .' Ioint plans for Service Planning Areas shall' 'include a',strategywhich will resolve facility and serVice deficiencies within 10 years:' '. ' , ,The proposed Annexation is mapped as a Service Planning Area: Sanitary sewer .' deficiencies in the area could be resolved ' , , '.~~-: ,." .. -~-::.,: ... , ~ .... ;;. ~ ',with anneXation. " ' . '"r.,:- '."1. "" ..... -, .. ' .. . .... . ... I, ' •• . """. ',' '. '. ",,~-).:, ',,~ ., . ': .',.,' . .;:. -.~' .' " -',"" ': ' , ' ' . .c. ,- .. - ;: " . ' .. ' . .. :, : ," . Page 4 May 22,1995 The proposed challenge calls into question the growth IlIlIlIiIgement planning efforts of the last five years. , The County Council has adopted the position that Urban Growth Areas will develop to uiban densities with 'wban level services and should be annexed into cities. Wecannoi find any adopted policies to question tlie proposed annexation. Therefore, this action appears inconsistent with the Countywide Planning Policies devel~ped in cooperation with King County. It also appears inconsistent with the County's own statement of. intent through the King County Comprehensive Plan to support annexation of unincorporated areas. , Without any specific reasons to question this Ann~xation, we request your opposition to the motion and your support of the Annexation ' Thank you for your consideration. Earl Clymer Mayor cc: Renton City Council Members Gary Locke, King County Executive .... ' . ,'." . '" . . ,,'.:. ".~'. ,.' .~. " " . , " -t;.,' , .' ,"'.- ' .... :,. ", , "-, .. ' ,~ , " .. .. ' . . ' ,. .~ ". ' . .'_,: . ..... . '", . ~. . May 17, 1995 FAX Memo To: Fred Bumstead --? cc. Sue Carlson From: Judy StoIOf;·~ Re: Derdowski MrL,n re <lo'undary Review Board Issaquah School District Impact Fee I. Derdowski Motion Brian Derdowski introduced Motion 95-359 at the County Council meeting Monday May 15th invoking BRB jurisdiction on the Burnstead Annexation. The motion was referred to the Economic Development and Regional Governance Committee which meets next May 23 at 9:30 a.m. Presumably the committee will act on the motion and return it to the Council. I will receive their agenda by the end of this week and fax it to you. Members of the committee are: Ron Sims, chair, Peter Von Reichbauer, Cynthia Sullivan, Bruce Laing, Greg Nickels, Larry Phillips, Kent Pullen. r have requested assistance from Cynthia Sullivan's staff on the best way to proceed. I have spoken to Sue Carlson who will initiate Renton's actions, possibly including Council Chair Bob Edwards contacting the council committee. Sue will also inform the Renton School District of this action. Fred will send a copy of the letter he sent to Brian Derdowski to other Council members. Please let me know if you want me to draft the cover letter. II Issaquah School District Impact Fee The Issaquah School District may try to invoke jurisdiction over that portion of the annexation area it believes falls within its borders. On the Stonegate Annexation, the City of Renton broke red an agreement between the school district and the applicant for payment of the impact fee authorized in the county-$2,700 per house. We do not know at this time how much territory is in Issaquah's district. PAGE 01 ~;:;:~ Judith Seoloff Associates Phnning & Public Process 213 5 Fairview East Slip 6 Seattle WA 98102 phone 443 8812 FA-\' 3289112 -" Ii : .... t e.--(flctv"wY"' ~wn'tJ . O(}.JfA 1ervY\.(..,~ Washington State Boundary Review Board For King County Central Building, Suite 608, 810 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1693 (206) 296-6800 May 16, 1995 The Honorable City Council City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 IN RE: SUMMARY FILE NO. 1922 -CITY OF RENTON -BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Enclosed is the staff report (Summary) on the above-referenced Notice of Intention. It is included in the agenda materials sent to the Boundary Review Board members for the meeting of June 8. 1995. The Boundary Review Board regularly scheduled public meetings are located at the Department Development and EvironmentaI Services (DOES) building, Hearing Room No. 1,3600 -136th Place S.E., Bellevue, WA. You are not expected to send a representative to this meeting. Any questions or comments should be directed to me as the Board's Executive Secretary at 296- 6801. Aida H. Wilkinson Executive Secretary AHWlrh Enclosure REF: 7.89.12 SUMMARY FILE NO. 1922 Thomas Guide Map No. 627, 656, 657 Date Received: 5-8·95 ENTITY City of Renton Date Filed: ACTION Annexation (Property 'Jwner Petition) Expiration 4S Days: 6-22-95 TITLE Burnstead Board Meeting: 6-8-95 Location Between 140th and approximately 156th Avenues S.E., and between S.E. 120th Street and approximately S.E. 138th Place Land Area 402.9 acres Population 473 Assessed Valuation $27,373,850 Community Plan Area Newcastle Community Plan Designation Urban County Zoning Single and Multiple Family Residential at densities of 4, 12 and 18 units per acre, Neighborhood and Community Business City Comprehensive Plan Rural Residential, Single Family Residential, Residential Options City "Zoning Residential R-l (maximum fIVe units per acre), R-8 (eight units per acre), R-10 (ten units per acre) District Comprehensive Plan NA District Franchise NA Uinan Growth Area (UGA) WithinUGA designated und~r Growth Management Act (GMA) " Local Service Area (LSA) SEPA Declaration Exempt ENTmESIAGENCIES NOTIFIED: King County Council Member(s) Derdowski, Laing Clerk of Council, Department of Assessments, Fire Marshal, Health Division, State Department of Ecology, Puget Sound Regional Council, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) Cities: Fire Districts: Water Districts: Sewer Districts: School District: King County Fire Protection District Nos. 10 and 25 King County Water District No. 90 Cedar River Water and Sewer District Renton No. 403, Issaquah No. 411 SUMMARY, FILE NO. 1922 (Continued) The City of Renton proposes the annexation of approxiinately 403 acres located on the eastern boundary of the existing City. The proposed annexation is adjacent to the existing City corporate boundary line along only a small portion of western boundary of the site. The proposed annexation creates a peninsula of unincorporated territory to the southwest of the annexation site, with the City surrounding the peninsula on three sides to the west, north and east. The annexation was initiated by the owner of 64 acres within the annexation site, in order to obtain sewer service necessary for future residential development. Additional property owners joined in the petition in order to obtain municipal services for both existing and future development. The area is currently unsewered, and existing development utilizes on-site sewage . treatment systems. There have been reported problems. with septic systems within the area. Existing land use consists of single family residential, local retail, a public elementary school, pasture and vacant land. Proposed City of Renton zoning for the area is residential at densities of five, eight and ten units per acre, combined with public uSes. It is estimated that the annexation area would support approximately 1,465 reSidential units at full development, with possible adjusments downward due to physical site constraints or upward with the use of density transfer. The City of Renton is prepared to provide sewer service, police and fire protection, and other urban services to the site following annexation. The area is currently located with King County Fire Protection District Nbs. 10 and 25, and City ftre protection service would replace service currently received from the two Districts. City police protection service would replace current King County police service. The one service not affected by annexation would be water service. The area is located within King County Water District No. 90, and Water District No. 90 would continue the same service to the area following annexation. . . City of Renton revenue and cost projections for the annexation indicate that expenditures to provide services to the area would exceed revenues realized from the area at the current level of development. However, at full development, the City of Renton would realize a net revenue gain from the annexation area. -~ .' ..... ~ -.. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENfON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM May 11,1995 Larry Warren Michael Kattermann ~~ Bumstead Annexation Update Revision to 10% Notice of Intention Bumstead Annexation As you probably already know, opponents of the Annexation have retained Peter Eglick to scrutinize the City's annexation procedures. A suit against the City has also been discussed. Also second hand information, Brian Derdowski has apparently agreed to champion the cause of annexation opponents. We do not know' if his support is sufficient to make the County request review by the BRB. 10 % Notice ofIntention Item 2 of paragraph 4 of the current Notice of Intention form may be misleading since the Council does not decide the zoning until after the second public hearing on zoning. The amended form has new language regarding zoning. Please confirm that the revised language is correct as to form. Thanks. WARREN.DOC/OD , , NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER RCW 3SA.14.120 .. (Direct Petition Method) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON City Hall 200 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of property which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions ofRCW 3SA.14.120 of all or any part of the area described below." The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. 1. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City would accept, reject or modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide what zoning designation will be placed . on the proposed annexation as determined by the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 3. The City Council will decide whether or not to require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed .. This page is the first ofa group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice ofIntention be presented and considered as one Notice ofIntention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention. Page I of2 WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election wIlen he is not a legal voter, or signs·a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identicalform as the same that appear 011 record ill the chain of title to the real estate.) Tax Lot Legal No. Sigry~ture and .Mailing Description Date Printed Name Address (Lot. Bloc, PInt. Assessor's , .. ,. . ... ~'o. or other) l. 2. 3. 4. .. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. Page 2 of2 ". NOTI<:E OF INTENTION TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (Direct Petition Method) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON City Hall 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are the owners of not less than ten percent (10%) in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of property which they desire to annex to the City of Renton. We hereby advise the City Council of the City of Renton that it is our desire to commence annexation proceedings under the provisions of RCW 3SA.14.120 of all or any part of the area described below. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included :IS part of this petition. The City Council is requested to set a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request for a public meeting with the undersigned. l. At such meeting, the City Council will decide whether the City would accept, reject or geographically modify the proposed annexation; 2. The City Council will decide whether to require simumltaneous adoption of proposed zoning regulations as determined by the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and, 3. The City Council will decide whether to require the assumption of existing city indebtedness by the area to be annexed. This page is the first of a group of pages containing identical text material. It is intended by the signers that such multiple pages of the Notice of Intention be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention. It may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice ofIntention. Page lor 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. -------------- WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his true name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (Names of petitioners should be in identical form as the same that appear on record in the chain of title to the real estate.) H:IANNEXI10%FOAMIOD Page Zof Z ..... ,.. I -May 11, J99S BAMOT. (BD:BD:ac) ,~o Introduced By: Propost;d No.: 1 MOTIONNO. ______ _ Brim Derdowski 95-359 2 A MOTION requesting the BoundazyReview Board. to review 3 the City of Renton propos~d annexation of"8umste$d 4 AIInexation" Pumuutt to RCW ~6, 93.1 00. 5 WHEREAS, the Bonndary Review BOaM (BRB) was created to provide a neutral 6 forum for the public hearing and the review Ilnd determination of proposed annexation. '7 8lld incorporations to avoid competition to extend mWlici pal boundaries, to prevent B haphazard boundary exteru;iollll, and to orea~ and preserve logical service an:as as set fonh 9 I\S purposes BIld objectives of the 8RB in RCW 36.93.010 and RCW 36.93.1110, and 10 WHEREAS. coordination between jlltlsdiclions and CXlUDinatiOD of servioe issues 11 should be encouraged. and. 12 WHEREAS, the City of Rentoil on May 8.1995 filed a notice ofint~ntion to QIUIex '13 the area known PS "BllI11Stead AAnexation", me 14 WHEREAS, RCW 36.93.1 00 providc:s for the BRB to review proposed 15 nnnexations. and King County Ordinance No. 8389 provides for 1\ means of requesting 16 5uch review, and 17 WHERF.AS, the public iG best served by open pUblic hearin& and review of these 16 i~ucs; '~ . 05/17-'95 IS: 41) FAX 206 2960198 KINr. co. tOU)I1('.IL 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 NOW, TImREFORE BE IT MOVED by the Council of!Gng County: The Washin210n State Boundary Review Boud for Kin; County is requested to review tbP. following specific action: Th~ City of RentOD's proposed lIIlJ'exation oC"BUtI1Itead Anoexation" BRB file No. 1922. PASSED by a vote of _ to _ this . __ day of __ ~ ____ --''' ~ .. KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 11 CWili 12 ArrEST: 13 14 Clerk of the Connoil 15 Attachments: 16 • May 8, 1995 Mary Ellen Hamblin . 13025 138th Avenue S. E. Renton, W A 98059 CIT*>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: ANNEXATION POLICY PLAN Dear Ms. Hamblin: Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1995. J was able to find some history on the Annexation Policy Plan. The Plan was started in 1988 and partially developed but never completed. Passage of the Growth Management Act in 1990 pushed policy work into the City's Comprehensive Plan, which includes an Annexation section within the Land Use Element. The annexation policies are enclosed. Reference to a separate Annexation Policy Plan was dropped from the Planning Commission's Scope of Review in Section 2-10-6 of the Renton Municipal Code when the Section was amended by Ordinance 4437 in 1994. The library's copy of the RMC was not updated to reflect this change. A copy of this section is also enclosed. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at 277-2475. Owen J. Dennison Assistant Planner HAMBLIN .DOC/OD 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ® This paper c~ntains 50% recycled material, 25% post consumer CITY OF RE:--,O;-; LAND USE ELEw, r Public and Private Rights-of-Way Objective LU-EEE: The open space functions of rights-of-way should be assessed in evaluating land use and transportarion decisions. Policy LU-372. Criteria should be developed to evaluate which public rights-of-way are most appropriate for open space treatment. Open space considerations coule! include criteria SLich as the following: a. access to light ane! air for abutting property, b. whether a street or alley is part of the open space character of a neighborhood, c. whether the street is a potential boulevard, or view corridor, and d. whether the street gives access to or is part of public open sp.ace. Policy LU-373. Where compatible with traffic rights-of-way and circulation needs, portions of existing streets may be considered for development of open space amenities such as small linear parks, or landscape areas. Policy LU-374. A city-wide boulevard plan should be developed. Polic)' LU-37S. A boulevard designation should be considered for roadways which are major transportation corridors in the City and also have the pOlential 10 function as open spaces. Boulevard StatuS would indicate a higher priority for landscape, sidewalk and trail improvements which would increase the amenity value of the street. Boulevard status could be based on cri- teria such as: a. landscape character, b. significant views, c. linkage to other open space elements, d. location in relation to scenic elements such as ridgelines or waterfront, and e. potential to develop a non-motorized transportation corridor. Policy LU-376. The open space functions of railroad and utility rights-of-way should be assessed. Abandoned utility and/or railroad rights-of-way should receive high priority for designation and acquisition as trail and/or open space corridors. ANNEXATION Sunlllar),: Urban growth is occurring in many areas of the county which may eventually become a part of Renton. The City is challenged to determine when and where future annexations of these 'areas will occur. The annexation policies are intended to provide the City with guidance when undertaking decisions about future annexations. They encourage the City to carefully identify, evaluate and conduct annexations that will enhance the quality of life, improve the efficiency of services, protect the environment and promote land use goals. Potential Annexation Areas Objective LU-FFF: Support aIJIJexations of county areas which are urban in character, or are logically served by the City due to drainage basins, boundaries, the location of aquifer recharge areas, conUTIunity separators, or other envirolilllental constraints. Policy LU-377. The City should continue to recognize the area within the sphere of influence boundary as the territory in which the City of t-49 Renton has an inherent interest in future land use decisions. CITY OF RENTON LAND L :LEl\1ENT . ." Policy LU-378. The City should encourage annexation of all territory within the urban growth limit line. Policy LU-379. Encourage annexation where the availability of infrastructure and services allow for the development of urban densities. Renton should be the primary service provider of urban infrasltllcturc and services in the resultant area provided that the City can offer such services in an efficicnt and cost-effective manner. Policy LU-380. The immediate areas for annexation to the City of Renton should include the territory contiguous with boundaries of the City such as: a. peninsulas and islands of unincorporated land; b. neighborhoods where municipal services have been extended; c. vacant lands subject to development pressure; d. developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural resources; e. lands which are available for urbanization under county com- prehensive plan. zoning. and subdivision regulations; and f. aquifer recharge areas. Policy LU-381. Establish and maintain an urban/rural boundary line. The following criteria should be the basis of establishing such a line: a. location of environmentally sensitive areas; b: desired density for future development; c. population allocation; d. efficient utilization of urban in- frastructure. such as sewer. water and roads; e. coordination of sewer extension in Water District 90; f. adopted plans and policies of the City and King County; g. coordination of developnlent standards between jurisdictions; and. h. identification of conununity separator areas. [·50 Discussion: the urban/rural boundQl)' defines all area within which people have an opporlunity 10 annex 10 Ihe City of Remon. Given a Ilumber of factors such as topography. existing alld planned lalld uses. popUlation. fiscal concerns. transportalion systems. sewer and water utililies, governmental services, and community values, Ihis area may eventually become a part of Renlon. The Urban Growth BoundQl)' establishes the geographic limits offuture annexation actions. It marks urban growth areas within the county that could eventually become a part of the City of Renton. Annexations can not occur beyond this boundary. Just because a proposed annexation is located within the annexa£ion area, however, does not guarantee its approval. Any annexarion proposal is subject to the appropriate review and approval process. CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMEi'iT Review Criteria for Annexations Objective LU-GGG: Promote annexations which would enhance the quality of life in the resultant City of Renton, making the Cit)' a good place to work, live, pia)' and raise families. Policy LU-382, Support annexations which would result in furureimprovements to the resultant City of Renton services through potential enhancements to levels of service or through elimination of duplication by service providers. Services· include water, sanitary sewers, storm water drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, park and open space, library, and public safety. Policy LU-383. Encourage annexations of areas in which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services. Policy LU-384. Support annexations which ·..,Quld facilitate an appropriate balance between the provision of jobs and the availability of housing. Policy LU-38S. Promote annexations which would simplify governmental structure in annexing areas and/or the resultant City of Renton. Policy LU-386. Promote annexations which would include' those who already use City services or who impact City infrastructure. Policy LU-387.· Support annexations of rural areas which w9uld remain rural in character in order to protect natural resources and/or rural zones to 'provide community separator areas. "jective LU-HHH: Create city boundaries through annexations that facilitate the efficient delivery of ·.;"crge·ncy and public services. Discussion: Annexation should only be pursued when il improves the community. These pOlicies stale that quality of life in the community can be enhanced through annexation when it improves the efficiency or level of municipal services and infrastructure, when it supports local land use goals, when it will simplify local government, or when it would allow protection of Ihe natural environment. These policies also indi- cate that areas which already receive or use City services and infrastructure should become a part of the City. These policies establish the general framework for reviewing annexation proposals. Boundaries Objective LU-III: Seek boundarie's that readily define city and county jurisdiction and correct the existing inconsistencies of the City's borders with future annexation proposals . Policy LU-388. The proposed annexation boundary should be defined by the following characteristics: a. annexation of territory that is adjacent to the existing City limits; in general, the more land adjacent to the City the more favorable the annexation; b. inclusion of unincorporated islands and peninsulas; c. use of boundaries that are readily identifiable in the field, such as I·S1 . waterways, ridges, park property, roads/freeways, and railroads; d. inclusion/exclusion of an entire neighborhood, rather that dividing portions of the neighborhood between city and county jurisdictions; and e. natural corridors should be identified and included as greenbelts or community separators between the City and adjacent jurisdictions. , - , CITY OF RENTON LA!,\D 1 ELEMENT (.1>;'""" Policy LU-406. The administrative staff of the City should work with potential annexation proponents to develop acceptable annexation boundaries. Policy LU-407. The administration staff should conduct a fiscal impact assessment of the costs to provide service and of the tax revenues, including bonding capacity, which would be generated in the area. The City recognizcs that fiscal impacts are only one of many criteria to be evaluated, and must be balanced with other annexation policy goals such as protection of sensitive areas, providing public service, governmental structure, or infrastructure, and aquifer protection. Discussion: The City should evaluate zoning alternatives for the annexation territory in light of existing and anticipated land uses, adjacent land uses, the existing comprehensive plan, Killg County zoning, and any environmental constraints specific to the area under considerarion. Annexation proponents who walll to process a development proposal with the City concllrrently with an annexation proposal may initiate the development review process after the Cit)' Council has held a public meeting on the Notice Of Intent to annex and authorized the circulation of the annexation petition. The City's Hearing Examiner may not hold a public hearing on a development proposal associated with an annexation until after the City Council has held a public hearing and approved the annexation. Acceptance by staff of a notice of intent to annex does not guaralllee the City '0' support of the pro- posal. Allthon'zation by the City Council to circulate the annexation petition does not commit the City 10 approve the annexation. These policies establish a framework for evaluating, approving and conducting proposed annexations. Each annexation proposal should be fully reviewed by the City according to these policies. Each review should inClude ajiscal impact analysis to supplement the evaluation. Annexations which meet the criteria established by these policies should be approved. Once the [-54 an!lexation is approved, the City should coordinate and facilitate the lransilioll berween County and Ciry government for annexed residenl.~. This transition process will incillde establishment of land use and zoning desig. natiolls, review of pending development proposals, and provide informarion about City policies and regulations. ... , 2-10-6 2-10-6: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The primary responsibility of the Plan· ning Commission is to review the Comprehensive Plao, carry out work activities in the Council adopted work program, and to elicit public input. for and to advise the City Council and the Mayor on land use planning matters. A. Authority: The City Council and Mayor have designated the Planning Commission to runc~ lion as the public' hearing body for many planning relat.ed activities of the City. The Council may, at its discretion, retain this function for any specific project, proposal, or plan. c. Representation: Planning Commissioners nrc entrusted to make recommendations rellect- ing the broad interests of' the community. Conduct and Fairness: All Commissioners shall conduct themselves in a manner consis- tent with the Code of Ethics for l\lunicipal Officers, title 42.23 RCW, and the Code of Ethics, Title 1, Chapter 6 of the Cily Code. (Ord. 4204, 2-20-89) D. Scope of Review: At the direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission shall review staff proposals, hold public hearings, and submit recommendations to the City Council and the Mayor on the adoption of and amendments to the following: 494 1. The Comprehensive Plan, and amend- ments to, as per City Code, Title IV, Chapter 3. 2. Neighborhood or subarea plans and stud- ies which will amplify and augment the Com- prehensive Plan. 3. Area-wide zoning. 4. Other land use plans and programs con- tained in the Commission's work program, or referred by the City Council. (Ord. 4437, 2-21-94) 2-10·8 2-10-7: PRIVATE COMPREHENSIVE PLA1\' CHANGES AND REZONING: (Rep. by Ord. 1437, 2-21-94) 2-10-8: REPORTS: The Planning Commission, at or before it.s first regular meeting in September of each year, shall make a fnll report in \vriting to the Mayor and City Council which shall contain, among others, the following infor- mation: A. A comparison of the program objectives and B. C. actual or anticipated results of the short-range programs or efforts; The extent to which unforeseen problems and opportunities have occurred; and Proposals for any new short-range programs to implement the policies of the Comprehen- sive Plan. COrd. 3076, 12-13-76, eff. 12-22-76) City of Renton Earl Clymer. Mayor May 5,1995 Lawrence and Shirley Blake 750 Royal Crest Circle #455 Las Vegas, NV 89109 CITY~F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION . Dear Mr. and Ms. Blake: The Renton City Council held the public hearing on the Bumstead Annexation on April 17, 1995. As the City relies on a list of addresses from the King County Assessor's tax records for notification of public hearings, we did not send a notice to your new address.· We will endeavor· to include your new address iIi notification for future hearings in regard to. the Bumstead Annexation .. Since you did not attend the hearing, I want to update you on the progress of the Annexation .. After lengthy testimony to the Council by proponents and opponents of the proposal, the Council voted to accept the Petition to Annex. The City Administration was directed to proceed with the next step in the process, preparation and submittal of a Notice of Intention package to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. This body will hold a public hearing if their review is requested. The Board has the power to accept, reject or modify ar.nexation proposals. Since opponents of the Annexation have been actively soliciting signatures to request that the Board take jurisdiction, we assume that a hearing and review will occur. Opponents have forty-five days after the Board· receives the Notice of IntentiOli package to request review ~ If and when the Boundary Review Board accepts the Annexation proposal in some form, the City Council will hold one more public hearing on zoning for the Annexation. We anticipate this will not occur until mid-summer. Following this hearing, the Council can adopt annexation and zoning ordinances. I encourage you to submit a letter to the Boundary Review Board stating your opinions on the Annexation, if a public hearing is scheduled. Please don't hesitate to call Owen Dennison of my staff at (206) 277-2475 for additional information or clarification. Sincerely, )nn ~.;fitE:: S Michael D. Kattermann, AlCP Director, Planning and Technical Services .200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ® This paper cOrlloios 50% recyctecl male rial, 25% post consumer 1/ .~~' ~~) CI'I ~ OF RENTON ..u. - May 3, 1995 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County 3600· 136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, W A 98006 Mayor Earl Clymer Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City of Renton hereby gives notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referred to as the "Bumstead Annexation". This annexation is proposed under the 60% petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.l4 of the RCW. The petition contains signatures representing about 62.4% of the total 1995 assessed valuation within the proposed annexation area. This annexation would incorporate into the City of Renton approximately 402.9 acres of territory for the provision of sanitary sewer and other urban level services. . To assist in your consideration of the proposed action, the required articles and exhibits are attached and numbered in accordance with the Board's suggested format. The enclosed exhibits are identified in the sequence in which they appear in the text . . Should questions arise during the review of the information and exhibits provided with this Notice· of Intention to Annex, please feel free to co~tact Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, at 277·2475. Please send noiices and other communications regarding the proposed annexation to:· Owen Deimison, Assistant Planner Department ofPlanninglBuildinglPublic Works City of Renton . 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Thank you for your consideration. S~;;0Q'.A~'. Earl Clymer --:--e:; ....... '- Mayor 200MiII Avenue South· Renton, Washington 98055 • (206)235·2580/ FAX(206)235·2532 @> This paper contains 50% recycled material, 25% post consumer NOTICE OF INTENTION I. BACKGROUNDIMAPS 1. The description of and reason for seeking the proposed action: The annexation of approximately 402.9 acres to the City of Renton was initiated by the owner of alxiut 64 acres to secure sanitary sewer service for future residential development. Other proponents seek local governance and urban level services for existing and future development. The annexation was initiated through the 60 % Direct Petition method under RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140, and 150. The proposed annexation area is located in the SE 114 of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the SW 114 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the NW 114 and SW 114 of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, and the NE 114 and SE 114 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The area is generally situated north and south of SE 128th Street, between l40th Avenue SE and one lot line east of 156th Avenue SE. 2. Enclosed are copies or the following actions taken by the City Council of Renton: A. B. Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Minutes of the November 14, 1994, meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the Bumstead 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition and authorizing the circulation of the 60 % Petition to Annex. Minutes of the April 10, 1995, meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the 60% Petition to Annex and declaring the City'S intent to annex the area, subject to the actions of the Boundary Review Board. 3. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.222, annexations are exempt rrom SEPA. 4. The Legal Description or the proposed annexation boundaries is enclosed as Exhibit C. 5. The rollowing maps are enclosed: A. Exhibit D: King County Assessor's maps (three sets) displaying: 1) The proposed Bumstead Annexation boundary. 2) The size in acres. 3) The City of Renton corporate limits in relationship to the proposed Bumstead Annexation. 4) The location of the nearest service points for the required utility services to the area. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 2 B. C. Exhibit E: Vicinity maps displaying: 1) The proposed Bumstead Annexation boundary. 2) The size of the proposed annexation in acres. 3) The City of Renton existing corporate limits relative to the proposed annexation area. 4) All major streets and other major physical features. 5) The boundaries of all cities or special service districts having jurisdiction in or neat the proposal. NOTES: The City and County library service area boundaries correspond to the City's corporate boundary. Water District 90 has a wastewater comprehensive plan, prepared in 1970 but never implemented. 6) King County and City of Renton Urban Growth Area boundaries established under the Growth Management Act. Exhibit F: A map of the current City of Renton corporate limits upon which the proposed Bumstead Annexation boundaries have been delineated. D. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations City of Renton Proposed Zoning White Fence Ranch Subdivision Letter from King County Topography n. FACTORS TIlE BOARD MUST CONSIDER 1. Overview A. The estimated population of the proposed Annexation area is 473. This figure represents 1.07% of the City's estimated 1995 population of 43,970. (Washington State Office of Financial Management) B. The proposed annexation area includes approximately 402.9 acres. , Washington State Boundary h~,lew Board Bumstead Annexation Page 3 C. The population density of the proposed Annexation area is about 1.2 residents per acre. The dwelling unit density is currently about .4 units per gross acre (total acreage). D. The 1995 assessed value of both land and improvements within the proposed annexation area is $27,373,850. 2. Land Use A. Existing land uses include single family homes, several local market area retail businesses, a public elementary school, livestock raising and vacant land. Existing residential uses occur both at urban densities and on large lots. Some accessory agricultural and commercial uses accompany the large lot residential development. B. Future land uses allowed under the proposed zoning designations are residential, with maximum densities of five (5), eight (8) and ten (10) units per net acre, and public uses. The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Rural, Residential Single Family and Residential Options. (Exhibit G, City of Renton Land Use Designations) Consistent with these designations, proposed zoning for the site includes Residential -5 Units per Acre (R-l), Residential -8 Units per Acre (R-8) and Residential -10 Units per Acre. (Exhibit H, City of Renton Proposed Zoning) No specific development applications accompany the Bumstead Annexation. 3. Comprehensive PlanslFranchises A. King County Comprehensive Plan/Ordinances 1) County Planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA): Among other requirements, counties that plan under the Act must: a) adopt a countywide planning policy; b) designate urban growth areas; c) designate and adopt development regulations to protect critical areas; and, d) adopt a comprehensive plan. (RCW 36.70A.04O) a) King County's Countywide Planning Policies state: "In collaboration with ... King County .. , each city shall designate a potential annexation area." (LU-31) "Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services." (LU-33) "Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract.· (FW -13) ----~-~--~----------------- Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 4 "In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban water and sewer systems ... shall be required for new subdivisions." (CO-I0) b) Urban Growth Area: The proposed annexation is within the Urban Growth Area as directed by the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Policies and as identified in the King County Comprehensive Plan. (see Exhibit E) That portion of the proposed Annexation area in the SW 114 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East was not designated as an Urban Growth Area (UGA) under King County Ordinance 11446 which established the "framework" UGA, but was added with the adoption of Ordinance 11581 which established the current UGA. Clarification of the extent of the area included in the revision to the UGA was provided in a letter from the King County Planning and Community Development Division. (Exhibit I, White Fence Ranch Subdivision Letter) c) The King County Sensitive Area Maps Folio identifies two wetlands, 150 and 22b, and a length of an unnamed stream within the subject area. No geological hazards, erosion, landslide, seismic or coal mine, are mapped for the proposed Annexation area. d) The King County Comprehensive Plan is addressed below. 2) King County Comprehensive Plan/Ordinances The following adopted King County Comprehensive Plan policies specifically support the proposed annexation: Chapter Two. Urban Areas. Section n.B. Directing Growth to Cities and Urban Areas U-202 King County should encourage most population and employment growth to locate in the contiguous Urban Growth Area in western King County, especially in cities and their potential annexation areas. Annexation would allow the provision of sanitary sewer service, which would enable development to occur at density consistent with the County's growth management goals. Chapter Two. Urban Areas. Section m.A. Planning with King County's Cjties for Future Annexation U -301 King County should work with cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should support annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. ., Washington State Boundary Rcvtew Board Bumstead Annexation PageS U-304 King County should support annexation proposals when: a. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed area is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within the city's designated Potential Annexation Area (for annexations); c. The city is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and King County land use plans; and, d. Adopted Countywide goals and policies for urban services, environmental and cultural resource protection will be supported. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. The area proposed for annexation is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The City of Renton is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns, consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and King County Land Use Plans. ~ity of Renton Comprehensive Plan policies and the City'S development regulations support the Countywide goals and policies for urban services and environmental and cultural resource protection. Chapter Two. Urban Areas. Section V.R, Residential Growth Patterns U-501: King County should encourage new residential development to occur in Urban Growth Area locations where facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely fashion. The City of Renton can provide sanitary sewer service in the timeliest fashion and at the lowest public cost. By allowing sewer service, annexation would increase the portion of the Urban Growth Area where new residential development can occur. Chapter Eight. Facilities and Services. Section n.B.3, Resolving Service Deficiencies F-212 Ioint plans for Service Planning Areas shall include a strategy which will resolve facility and service deficiencies within 10 years. The proposed almexation is mapped as a Service Planning Area. Sanitary sewer deficiencies in the area could be resolved upon annexation. 3) The adopted Newcastle Community Plan governs this proposal. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 6 4) The adopted Comprehensive Plan designations for the proposed annexation .are Urban Growth Area and Service Planning Area. The following table shows adopted King County Zoning and the number of lots permitted under each zone: Adopted County Zonin~ Maximum permitted lots· * ** *** R4 123210ts R-12 4 lots R-18 138 units NB 16 units·· CB 7S units·· Total 1 46S lots*** Units are substituted for lots where residential development may be multi-family. Densities allowed through the application of mixed-use development standards. Calculations reflect base densities. Transfer of density credits and density incentives would allow 2,187 total units. Calculations do not account for potential environmental constraints. 5) The annexation would result in King County ordinances and regulations being supplanted with those of the City of Renton. The primary ordinances directly affecting the development of the site are the City's zoning and building codes. a) The King County SewerlWater Comprehensive Plan. King County Code Chapter 13.24, Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plans, sets the requirements for comprehensive plans of water and sewer districts serving within the County's jurisdiction. The City of Renton has no comparable ordinance, since the City is generally capable of providing a full range of urban services. If service provision within the city limits by an outside agency is necessary, the arrangement is governed by a franchise agreement. The Comprehensive Water System Plan (adopted by Resolution 2897, 1992) is the functional plan that direct the maintenance, operation and development of the City's water utility system. Water System Plan Annexation Policies state, • Areas annexed with existing municipal supply must meet Renton Water Standards .• b) The King County Sewerage General Plan. Renton's Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (adopted by Resolution 2892, 1992), would supplant the King County Sewerage General Plan. This functional plan directs the maintenance, operation and development of the City'S sanitary Washington State Boundruy k.;vlew Board Bumstead Annexation Page 7 sewer utility system. The proposed Annexation area is outside of an active wastewater service area. Upon annexation, the area would be included in the City of Renton's Wastewater Utility Service Area and governed by the policies of the Wastewater General Plan. c) The proposed annexation area is not within any of the seven Agricultural districts described in King County Ordinance 3064, nor does it meet the criteria required for acquisition of interest in farmlands and open space lands in Ordinance 4341. The City of Renton does not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. d) The King County Sensitive Area Maps Folio identifies two wetlands, 150 and 22b, and a length of an unnamed stream within the subject area. No geological hazards, erosion, landslide, seismic or coal mine, are mapped for the proposed Annexation area. The wetlands are documented in the City's Critical Areas Inventory (Jones and Stokes, 1991; GEO Engineers, 1991; David Evans and Associates, 1991; HDR, 1991) One wetland, the east fork of Maplewood Creek and an unnamed stream are mapped within the proposed Annexation bounda,ries in the King County Cedar River Basin Plan Conditions Report. Critical areas are protected under Renton's Critical and Resource Areas Ordinances which would supplant King County Ordinance 4365. City sensitive area regulations are as follows: Greenbelt Regulations CRMC 4-31-35) adopts King County Sensitive Areas Folio, by reference, and provides critical area protections in addition to the regulations of the underlying zones. Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance CRMC +9) regulates land clearing, tree cutting and ground cover management in the vicinity of wetlands and State shorelines, on steep slopes and erosion hazard areas, and along riparian corridors. Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance CRMC 4-10) provides regulations designed to ininimize the detrimental environmental impacts of mining, excavation and grading activities. Flood Hazards CRMC 4-31-31) regulates development in flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Enyironmental Ordinance CRMC ~ requires disclosure of and mitigation measures for detrimental environmental impacts which might result from proposed project and non-project land use actions (pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C.120). -----------~ Washington State Boundary ReView Board Bumstead Annexation Page 8 Shoreline Master Program fRMC 4-19-1) is a general, comprehensive and long range plan to regulate construction and land use along shorelines of local and state-wide significance (pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58). Wetlands Management Ordinance fRMC 4-32) is designed to protect and maintain existing wetlands and wetland buffers and to encourage restoration of disturbed and low quality wetlands. Aquifer Protection Ordinance fRMC 8-8) provides protection of the City's potable water aquifers from contamination by regulated substances . (The preceding Renton Critical and Resource Area Ordinances are available on request.) e) No landmarks or sites of historical significance are mapped for the site in the Newcastle Community Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-345 states, "Officially designated historical sites should he preserved and/or incorporated into all development projects." t) The City of Renton has adopted the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual by reference in the City's Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC 4-22) as the design standard for controlling erosion and stormwater runoff for all new development within the City limits. Any future development within the annexation area will be required to comply with the surface water controls and design standards contained in the Design Manual. (The City of Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance is available on request.) B. City of Renton Comprehensive PlanlFranchise 1) City Planning Under the Growth Management Act (GMA) The City of Renton is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.040. In conformance with the requirements of the GMA, the City has designated critical areas and adopted development regulations protecting these designated critical areas. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.06O(4), since the City of Renton does not have a program' authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights, forest and agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance are not designated nor specifically conserved through development regulations. Certain critical areas are mapped for the proposed annexation area as noted in Section 3.A.5.d of this Notice of Intention. As a city planning under the GMA, the City of Renton is required to adopt a comprehensive plan. The City'S Comprehensive Plan was adopted on February 20, 1995. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation , . .., . Page 9 designates land uses for all areas within the City's Potential Annexation Area. (see Exhibit G, City of Renton Land Use Designations) 2) The proposal is not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, but is generally consistent with the policies. Discussion of adopted Comprehensive Plan policies relating to the proposal follows. The proposal is consistent with the Interim Land Use Element policies of the Comprehensive Plan that support annexation of lands within Renton's Urban Growth Boundary: • that are vacant and subject to development pressure (AX-1.4); • that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations (AX-I.4); • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services (AX-2.2); • that include environmentally sensitive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely influence the environmental character of Renton (AX-4.I); • that are adjacent to the City'S border and are subject to high growth pressure (AX-4.2); • that lead to the efficient provision of services to the City, such as police, fire, water, sewer, and transportation (AX-S.I); and, • that are in existing, emerging or prospective aquifer recharge areas that currently or potentially supply domestic water to the City (AX-I.4, AX-4.4». The proposal is also supported by Policy AX-4.3, which states, "Water resources should be protected to assure continued long-term, high quality groundwater and surface water supplies." The City'S best option for minimizing risk to the aquifer is to ensure sanitary sewer availability to the area through annexation. Policy AX-3.3 states: "Logical boundaries for the City of Renton should be made with new annexations. Logical jurisdiction boundaries of a city are defined by two components: 1) physical features, such as a ridge, watershed, or lake, as well as urban elements, such as a road; and, 2) the timing for the provision of public services. Timing for the availability of public facilities and services must be used to evaluate whether boundaries created by an annexation are logical at the time of application. " The proposed boundaries generally follow existing roadways where available and where the use of streets as physical boundaries could be supported by expressed interest in annexation to the City of Renton . . Upon annexation, urban level public services would be available to the area. Policy AX-3.6 states that, "Boundaries of individual annexations will not be reconsidered to exclude reluctant property owners if their exclusion is Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 10 inconsistent with annexation policies that address land use, environmental protection, and the efficient delivery of services." Areas excluded do not create boundaries that are inconsistent with annexation policies that address land use, environmental protection or the efficient delivery of services. No amendments to the adopted map or policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan are necessitated by this proposal. 3) The State has reviewed Renton's Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted on February 20, 1995. 4) Since the proposed annexation area is not currently provided with sanitary sewer service by Water District 90, sewer service will not require a franchise. The City of Renton would become the sanitary sewer service provider. 5) The area has not been the subject of a pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement. 6) Areas of the proposed Annexation are designated Residential Rural, Residential Single Family and Residential Options in the City's Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit G, City of Renton Land Use Designations) The City's Zoning Cooe was adopted June, 1993. 4. Planning data A. RevenueslExpenditures This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associated with annexing these areas as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full development at some undetermined point in the future. The "full development" scenarios for area should be considered 'order of magnitude" estimates of fiscal impact. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other comparable data, but actual results are likely to vary from these estimates. In general, costs associated with utilities have been assumed to be supported by rates charged for those services. 1) Estimated City Expenditures Bumstead Current Full Annexation Development Development County Contracts $ 8105 $ 45751 Police Protection $ 64 280 $ 329127 Parks N/A $ 192935 Road Maintenance $ $25635 $ 76904 Public $ 66,465 $ 374,907 Works/Courts/Other Total $ 164484 $ 1019624 Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 11 2) Estimated City Revenues to be Gained Burnstead Current Full Annexation Develooment Development Prooerty Taxes $ 86656 $ 702,287 Excess Levy Revenue $ 8964 $ 72,650 State Shared Revenues $ 28,068 $ 158435 Misc. Revenues $ 8213 $ 192,312 Total $ 131901 $ 1125 685 The net financial impact to the City would be an annual loss of $32,584 at current development and an annual surplus of $106,061 at full development. 3) The estimated reduction in County revenues would be $90,789.80 (property tax and excess levy revenues). 4) The estimated reduction in County expenditures is assumed to be comparable to or greater than the estimated reduction in County expenditures. 5) The estimated reduction in revenues to Fire District 10 is $452.69. The estimated reduction in revenues to Fire District 25 is $40,484.64. 6) The estimated reduction in expenditures to Fire District 10 is negligible. Fire District 25 contracts with the City of Renton for the provision of fire services. The revenue loss to Fire District 25 would be deducted from the cost of the contract for services with the City of Renton. B. Services 1) Water Service The proposed annexation is within King County Water District 90's service area. The following information was taken from the District's 1984 Comprehensive Water Plan. a) The area will continue to be served by Water District 90. A service agreement will be required. b) Water District 90 has six storage facilities that could serve the proposed Annexation. Reservoir #1 is located at SE 136th Street and 184th Avenue SE, with a nominal gross capacity of 4,750,000 gallons. Minimum usable capacity in the 645 Zone is 2,569,300 gallons. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 12 Reservoir #2 is located at SE 195th Street and 145th Avenue SE, with a nominal gross capacity of 2,000,000 gallons. Minimum usable capacity in the 645 Zone is 1,586,700 gallons. . Emergency capacity exists in five reservoirs serving higher pressure zones, ranging from 30,000 to 200,000 gallons. Nominal gross capacity in these facilities total 490,000 gallons. c) The area is served by the following mains: Twelye (12) inch mains follow: . SE 128th Street; SE 136th Street (if extended) between 148th Avenue SE and 152nd Avenue SE; and, 148th Avenue SE south of SE 128th Avenue. Eight (8) inch mains follow: 142 Avenue SE; 146th Avenue SE south of SE 132nd Street; and, 148th Avenue north of SE 128th Street. Remaining mains are four (4) or six (6) inch in diameter. d) The proposed Annexation area is in both 645 and 520 pressure zones. The 645 Zone is supplied by storage facilities with a 645 foot overflow. Four (4) pressure reducing stations feed water from the 645 Zone into this 520 Zone. Location Pressure In Pressure Out (pSI) (pSI) SE 136th St. and 152nd Ave. SE 120 52 SE 136th St. and l60th Ave. SE 85 38 SE 144th St. and 17lst Ave. SE 85 52 SE 136th St. and 144th Ave. SE 110 75 e) The potential residential capacity allowed under existing King County zoning is similar or greater than that achievable under the proposed City of Renton zoning. Therefore, the ability to serve potential future development will not be affected by the change in jurisdiction. t) The exclusive source for Water District 90 is the Seattle Water Department. Water comes from the Tolt and Cedar Rivers' watersheds. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 13 g) According to Water District 90's 1984 Comprehensive Water Plan, extensions are typically financed by UUD and developer extension. Revenue bonds should finance facilities that have a useful life of over twenty (20) years and that benefit the overall District. When portions of these facilities serve a new area, the proportional share of the cost should be assessed to the property owners in the new areas. 2) Sanitary Sewer Service a) Sewer service would be directly provided to the proposed Annexation by the City of Renton. b) The East Renton Sewer Interceptor will be completed during the second quarter of 1995. The main is sized to serve an area that includes the proposed Annexation, with an inside diameter of 22.5 inches. The City will build the Interceptor to the intersection of NE Fourth Street (SE 128th Street). New facilities to directly serve the area will be installed by developer extension or by local improvement district. c) Due to the topography and the location of the Interceptor, lift stations will be required for some portions of the subject area. d) Sewage disposal will be through METRO's treatment facilities. e) Upon completion of the East Renton Sewer Interceptor, the Renton Wastewater Utility system will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed annexation. 3) Fire Service a) The nearest station would be Station #16 located at 156th Avenue SE and SE 128th Street. b) Response time to any point within the proposed Annexation area would vary from one to two minutes. c) Station #16 is fully manned, with a staff of fifteen. Three firefighters are on duty per shift. The Department is staffed by 107 personnel. d) Major equipment located at Station #16 would include two 1,500 gallon per minute pumpers, one 100 foot aerial ladder truck, and one aid car. e) There are 90 fully certified EMT-Defib personnel. f) Renton's fire rating is Four, as determined by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 14 g) 5) General Valley Communication 911 service is the source of emergency vehicle/aid dispatCh. A) City of Renton services have not been extended to the area from the City of Renton. Therefore no annexation agreements have been required. B) Th~ site slopes gradually, generally northeast to southwest. The northeast portion of the area is on the divide between the May Creek and Cedar River drainage basins. (Exbibit J, Topography) No steep slopes are mapped in the King County Sensitive Area Folio or the City of Renton Critical Area Inventory. The limits of the proposed annexation are not defined by natural boundaries. c) Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 160, 161 and 162 that include the area proposed for annexation currently contain approximately 765 single family units and 5 multi-family units. City modeling of growth allocations from the Puget Sound Regional Council projects a combined increase of about 218 new single family units for the TAZs over twenty years. Figures for the ten year interval have not been calculated. d) e) t) Note: The TAZ figures above are for Growth Management purposes. Actual development is anticipated to be higher. TAZ allocations have not been recalculated subsequent to the redesignation to Urban Growth Area of that portion of the proposed Annexation in the SW 114 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. With the change in jurisdiction from King County to City of Renton, the residents of the area would receive access to other City services aside from fire protection and wastewater service. These would include parks, library, police, development planning, judicial, surface water, solid waste, transportation and housing and human services. No delays are expected in implementing service delivery to the area. All City departments reviewing the annexation proposal indicated that they would be able to adequately serve existing and future development on the area. Present adequacy of service to the area: Existing services to the area appear to be adequate with several exceptions. Sanitary sewer service is currently unavailable. Indications of problems with existing septic systems in the area have been noted by residents. Development at the densities allowed and required under existing King County zoning may not Washington Siate Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 15 be achievable without sewer service. Additionally, existing and future development on septic systems may pose a threat to the City's sole source aquifer. County police services have deteriorated, according to a Staff Report to the King County Council Law, Justice and Human Services Committee dated March 6, 1995. Citing a 29 % increase in dispatched calls per reactive patrol officer from 1990 to 1994, the Report states, "Reactive patrol staffing has been stretched thin in urban, suburban and rural unincorporated King County .• Development will increase the demand for services for which the City is the logical provider. The total cost of service to the area will increase with population, although the per capita cost will decrease. Costs should be offset by increased property tax revenues. The cost of infrastructure improvements within the area would be borne by developers and local improvement districts. Future rate increases for City utilities must be approved by the City Council. Rates may be affected by external factors, such as increases in tipping fees for solid waste and in METRO charges for sewage treatment. Rate increases for water service will be established by Water District 90 Annexation would allow the City of Renton to supplant all existing sources for urban services except water service. Water District 90 has had a comprehensive plan for sanitary sewer provision since 1970 but has not chosen to implement the plan. g) The required filing fee of $50.00 is enclosed. m. OBJECTIVES ,I) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. The area is generally comprised of large underdeveloped lots and pockets of development at urban densities. Existing residential subdivisions have been included or excluded in their entirety. 2) Use of physical boundaries, Including but not limited to bodies of water, highways and land contours. The area has no recognizable topographic or major hydrologic features. Where possible, road rights-of-way have been used to identify boundaries. 3) Creation and preservation of logical service areas. The proposed annexation would extend a sanitary sewer service to an area currently both unserved and outside of an active sewer district. City emergency response functions can logically extend to and efficiently serve the area. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 16 4) Prevention of abnormally Irregular boundaries. The proposal does not create islands or peninsulas of unincorporated County lands. Increased contiguity could not be achieved due to insufficient support for annexation in areas west of the proposed boundaries. 5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. Not applicable. 6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts. The proposal would not dissolve special purpose districts, but it would permit sanitary sewer service where service is currently unavailable. 7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries. The proposal neither creates nor improves impractical boundaries. 8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character The King County Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Urban. According to the Countywide Planning Policies, Urban Growth Areas are expected to develop to urban densities and on urban level services. Portions of the proposed Annexation area are currently developed at urban densities. Other portions appear to be subject to development pressures, largely constrained by the lack of urban services. Development, as envisioned in County plans is not likely to occur until sewers are available. Annexation would thus implement the Countywide Planning Policies and the policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan by allowing urban development to occur. 9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed Annexation area have been identified by King County or the City of Renton for long-term productive agricultural or resource use. EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL HEARING 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX NOVEMBER 14, 1994, MINUTES November 14, 1994 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PRESS APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES City Council Chambers Renton Municipal Building Mayor Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. RICHARD STREDICKE, Council President; KATHY KEOLKER- WHEELER, TONI NELSON, BOB EDWARDS, RANDY CORMAN, TIM· SCHLITZER. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN JESSE TANNER. CARRIED. EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the Mayor; ZANETT A FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; VICTORIA RUNKLE, Finance & Information Systems Administrator; SAM CHASTAIN, Community Services Administrator; BILL HUTSINPILLER, ·Parks & Recreation Director, JIM SHEPHERD, Facilities Director;.CAROLYN SUNDVALL, Housing & Human Services Manager; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Recreation Manager, MICHAEL NOLAN, C.I.P. Coordinator, CLARK PETERSEN, Library Director, MIKE .. KA TTERMANN; Planning & Technical Services Director, OWEN DENNISON, Planner; RON OLSEN, Utility Systems Director, ABDOUL GAFOUR, Civil Engineer; PRISCILLA PIERCE, Administrative Analyst; PAULA HENDERSON, Finance Planning Supervisor, SUE CARLSON, Economic Development Specialist; CHIEF A. LEE WHEELER, Fire Department; CAPTAIN GARRY ANDERSON, Police Department. George Erb, Valley Dally News .. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7,1994 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published Annexation: Burnstead, SE in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public 128th St .. meeting· to consider the Burnstead 10% Notice of lritent to Annex Petition affecting approximately 226 acres generally located south of SE 128th St., west of IS2nd Ave. SE (extended), north of SE 136th Pl., and east of 144th Ave. SE. Owen Dennison, Planner, stated that the City has received signed annexation petitions representing a portion of the proposed annexation area, which staff suggests be expanded beyond the boundaries of the initial annexation application. Other property owners have expressed interest in joining the annexation as well, although they have yet to sign· the annexation petition. Responding to Councilman Edwards, Mr. Dennison confirmed that the urban growth boundary was recently changed to include the area north of SE 128th St. and east of 148th Ave. SE. Mr. Edwards suggested that the area north to SE 120th SI. and east to IS6th Ave. SE, commonly·known as White Fence Ranch, be included in the annexation study area. Responding to Council President Stredicke, Assistant City Attorney Fontes recommended that the Maplewood Heights Elementary School site, bordered by SE 136th St. and 146th Ave. SE, be included in the annexation area as the November 14. 1994 Renton City Council Minutes Page 468 School District does not appear to be prohibited from signing the 60% petition. Mr. Stredicke felt that owners of smaller properties should not, against their will, be forced to annex because of the annexation of larger !leigh boring properties. Correspondence was read from Alan L. Wallace, Caimcross & Hempelmann, 701 Fifth Ave., Seattle, 98104, representing lack and Mardell Morrison, requesting that Council include in the proposed annexation area the Morrison and Ribera properties located north of SE 128th St. and east of 150th Ave. SE. Correspondence was read from Agnes and Gerald Pomeroy, 1847 -26th Ave. NW, Olympia, 98502, requesting annexation of their property located at 156th Ave. SE and SE. 132nd St. and supporting the installation of sewers in this area. Correspondence was read froin Howard V. Banasky, 1401 N. 26th St., Renton, 98056, commenting on traffic concerns in this area and stating that he did not support the annexation of his property, located at 142nd Ave. SE and SE 128th St.,·~nless it is zoned for business/commercial use. Correspondence was read from Robert E. Levy, 607 Third Ave., Seattle, 98104, stating that he opposed annexation of his property located at 144th Ave. SE and SE 128th St. unless this is zoned for neighborhood business/commercial use, as he felt this would be the most logical use of the site considering the high traffic volumes on SE 128th St. Audience comment was invited. Staci leske, Cairncross & Hempelmann, 70 I Fifth Ave., ,Seattle, 98104, representing lack and Mardell Morrison, explained that the Morrisons and Riberas are seeking tlie annexation of their properties to achieve the installation of sewer service. Saying that a technical study performed earlier had determined that septic systems in this area fail with frequency, presenting a health hazard to the City's water supply, Ms. leske further noted that the proposed annexation area as expanded lies within the urban growth boundary. She added that it would be more efficient to annex additional properties at this time rather than in a 'separate annexation effort later. Alan Smith, 13415 -144th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, was concerned about the potential for increased traffic volumes and surface water runoff in the proposed annexation area, and suggested that a feasibility study be conducted on these issues before proceeding with the annexation. He feared that additional development would adversely affect current residents, emphasizing that any new developments must be required to manage and mitigate their impacts. James L. McTighe, 14206 SE 128th St., Renton, 98059, supported the annexation of his property located on SE 128th St. east of 142nd Ave. SE. 10hn McTighe, 24929 -267th SE, Ravensdale, 9805 I, also supported annexation of the property he owns with his brother, which consists of approximately five acres just north of SE 128th St. Mr. McTighe explained he favored annexation as it would achieve sewer service in this area. Craig Landon, 105,20 -169th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, also supported the annexation of approximately five acres owned by him, noting plans to develop this property. Mr. LandQn added that protection of the City's aquifer is a concern given the many septic systems in this area. NOvember 14. 1994· Renton City Council Minutes Page 469 , . " Normao W. Green, 14128 SE J32nd St., Renton, 98059, opposed the annexation and felt that residents were being forced into it. Noting that no documentation regarding the operation of septic systems in this area has been provided to substantiate ·faiJure rate claims, he explained his concerns . regarding traffic volumes aod the quality of life currently enjoyed by area residents. Judy StoloIT, 2435 Fairview E., Seattle, responding to ao earlier question from Council, stated that the proposed annexation consists of approximately 98 parcels. . Fred Burnstead, 1215 -120th Ave. NE, Bellevue, 9S005, confirmed that his motivation for wanting to annex to the City is to achieve sewer service for his property. Saying that his company has atlempted to contact those who would be affected by the annexation, he added that before funds can be commitled to determining how to mitigate impacts related to traffic and storm water runoff, the City and annexation proponents first must be assured that the annexation will proceed. For the record, Council President Stredicke asked whether the City's intent is to locate single family homes on the property. Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Katlermann stated that the proposed zoning for the Burnstead property (about 64 acres) is. split between single family and low-density single family. A minority of the entire proposed annexation area includes parcels proposed for mixed residential zoning. In response to Councilman Edwards, Mr. Katlermann said that while including the White Fence Ranch develo:>ment in the annexation study area misht slow down the annexation process because of the need to secure signatures from more property owners, Council should direct that this be done now if it has any i,nterest in doing so in the interest of consolidating annexation efforts. Howard V. Banasky, 1401 N. 26th St., Renton, 98056, related specific concerns regarding the heavy volume of traffic on Cemetery Road (formally, NE 4th St/SE 128th St.): saying this is one of King County's busiest arterials. He felt this street could not handle the projected increase in traffic, emphasizing that this issue, including how atlempts to divert access off of Cemetery Road could affect other roads such as 144th Ave. SE, must be addressed before any additional development is allowed to occur. Albert Talley, 15322 SE 142nd St., Renton, 9S059, said he has yet to hear of any ad.vantage that would persuade him to support annexation of his property. Kelly Campbell, 14205 SE 129th St., Renton, 98059, was concerned that the proposed zoning for the currently vacant property directly to the west oC her dead-end street is mixed residential, which would allow duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes. Saying that she moved into this area for its quiet atmosphere, she echoed concerns of previous speakers reagarding the heavy volume of traffic on SE 12Sth St .. There' beins no further public comment, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ANNEXATION November 14. 1994 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Vaupel -1995/1996 Budget Citizen Comment: Gevers -Employee Conduct Renton City Council Minutes Page 470 AREA FOR THE SUGGESTED EXPANDED AREA, INCLUDING THE MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPED AREA NORTH OF SE 128TH ST. AND EAST OF 154TH AVE. SE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS WHITE FENCE RANCH; AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% ANNEXATION PETITION; REQUIRE THE SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF CITY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY CONCURRENTLY.WITH ANNEXATION (SF, SFL AND MR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN); AND REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.- Responding to Councilman Corman, Mr. Kattermann confirmed that the property referred to by Ms. Campell which is bounded by 140th and 142nd Avenues.SE and SE l30th and 128th Streets is designated mixed residential according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Although he agreed that it was not the City's place to plan infrastructure for an area not yet under its jurisdiction, Mr. Corman asked whether some of the concerns regarding traffic impacts and mitigation in this area could be alleviated by a general discussion of the City's policies. Mr. Kattermann replied that the City's adopted Transportation Element suggests that developments be assessed traffic mitigation fees to offset the cost of needed improvements. Executive Assistant Jay Covington added that new development is also required to provide surface water runoff mitigation. -MOTION CARRIED. Council President Stredicke asked that the Parks Department investigate the possibility that a parcel of land owned by Mr. Burnstead might be suitable as a new City park or open space in this area. Versie Vaupel, P.O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, voiced several concerns regarding the proposed 1995-1996 budget, saying that although the City'S Fire Department will experience a reduction of personnel due to the City of Bellevue's annexation of Newport Hills, the City will elsewhere add five to eight employees or full-time equivalents. She questioned whether the cost of adding a half-time business tax collector will continue to be made up year after year from increased business tax collections, and was also concerned about funding provided to the Downtown Renton Association and increasing utility rates for both residents and businesses. Mrs. Vaupel questioned the 20% increase in legal staff costs from 1994 to 1995 in addition to another projected increase for this service from 1995 to 1996. She concluded by encouraging the City to look for ways to lessen the costs for moderate improvements to the Police ~partment's working conditions. Councilman Corman agreed that perhaps the new half-time business tax collector position should not be advertised as permanent, as it might generate new revenue in the beginning but not over time. Responding to Mr. Corman, Executive Assistant Covington explained that the increase in the City'S legal costs results partly from the need to fund an additional prosecutor and, concurrently, more defense services as the number of jury trials has increased nearly three-fold in one year, and the public is generally not willing to . approve plea-bargaining for such cases as drunk driving and domestic violence. Mr. Covington assured Council that the City receives a high value for its legal budget. Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, echoed Mrs. Yaupel's concerns regarding the City's legal budget, saying Council should be aware , . , r :".' . ." EXHIBITB CITY COUNCIL HEARING 60% PETITION TO ANNEX APRIL 10, 1995, MINUTES April 10, 1995 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES PROCLAMATION April 10-16, 1995: Community Development Week SPECIAL PRESENTATION Finance: Excellence in Financial Reporting Award PUBLIC HEARINGS Annexation: Burnstead, SE 128th St to 156th Ave SE RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Municipal Building Mayor Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. TIMOTHY SCHLITZER, Council President; BOB EDWARDS; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER; JESSE TANNER; RICHARD STREDICKE. EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the Mayor; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/P.ublic Works Administrator; SAMUEL CHASTAIN, Community Services Administrator; VICTORIA RUNKLE, Finance & Information Services Administrator; MIKE KA TTERMANN, Planning & Technical Services Director; HUGH SIMPSON, Cash & Operations Supervisor; OWEN DENNISON, Assistant Planner; NEIL WATTS, Plan Review Supervisor; SUE CARLSON, Economic Development Specialist; LIEUTENANT DENNIS GERBER, Police Department. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1995, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. A proclamation by Mayor Clymer was read declaring the week of April 10- 16, 1995 as Cor,lmunity Development Week in the City of Renton, and stating the desire to support a diverse community with neighborhoods accommodating a variety of income groups and family sizes. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED. Sam Chastain, Community Services Administrator, accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Community Services Department. Mr. Chastain commented that over the last several years, the City has received in excess of $3 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for park projects, housing repairs, deferred home loans and other programs benefiting many Renton residents. Mayor Clymer announced that the City of Renton's Finance Department has again received the Excellence in Financial Reporting Award from the Goverment Finance Officers' Association. Hugh Simpson, Cash & Operations Supervisor, accepted the award on behalf of the Finance and Information Services Department. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public hearing to consider acceptance of the Burnstead 60% Petition to Annex, as well as proposed zoning to R-5, R-8 and R-IO. The site consists of approximately 402.9 acres located north and south of SE 128th St., from the City limits to about 156th Ave SE. / Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, briefly reviewed the history of the annexation proposal, stating that proponents have submitted signatures representing approximately 62% of the assessed valuation for the proposed April 10 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 136 In response to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler, Planning & Technical Services Director Kattermann stated that the R-5 and R-8 zones, proposed for 95% of the annexation area, allow only single family detached homes. Mr. Kattermann further clarified that King County's R-4 zoning is comparable to Renton's R-5 zoning, since the county uses a gross density calculation while the City uses a net density calculation. ApproximatelY 5% of the annexation area is proposed for R-IO zoning, which would allow single family attached homes, up to four units, to a maximum of 50% of total units. Sandra Simonson, 14239 SE l29th PI., Renton, 98059, opposed .the petition method of annexation and said this question should be put to an election. Inquiring about the percentage of actual residents represented on the petition, she said more information is needed on various issues such as the inclusion of the Maplewood Heights Elementary school property on the petition. She particularly opposed the R-IO zoning for part of the annexation area near her home, saying this would generate more crime and traffic. King Parker, 4601 NE Sunset Blvd., Renton, 98056, encouraged Council to achieve planned rather than patchwork development. Saying that change will happen and that it should be orderly and economically feasible, he counseled Council to consider the proposed annexation carefully and then support it for the betterment of all in the entire community. Bill Halgren, 2230 -l5lst PI. SE, Bellevue, 98007, stated that as the owner of a number of lots in the White Fence Ranch area, he has always assumed this area would someday be annexed by Renton. He encouraged acceptance of the petition and considered the annexation to be in conformance with the Growth Management Act and th~ urban growth boundary. Mr. Halgren also urged City staff to determine whether or not this area would qualify to have a community municipal council, which he supported. Jack Connell, 435 Main Ave. S., Renton, 98055, representing the Renton School District, supported the annexation of .this area including the Maplewood Heights Elementary school property, saying that the quality and consistency of service to residents would only improve. Mr. Connell also noted the advantage of working with one municipality rather than a governing body representing the interests of several communities. Doug Snyder, 565 NW Holly, Issaquah, WA, 98027, representing the Issaquah School District, submitted a letter describing the School District's concern with the proposed annexation as approximately 60% of the area lies within the Issaquah School District. Explaining that King County currently collects school impact fees on behalf of the District to pay for new facilities needed to serve development, Mr. Snyder asked Council to ensure that impacts of the proposed annexation are revenue neutral to the District. This would require that the City adopt a school impact fee, lest the District lose an approximate $1.6 million. City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren replied that the City could, under SEPA, consider the impacts on infrastructure and facilities (including schools) if and when development is proposed. AlternativelY, the City could adopt a school mitigation fee applicable to those portions of the City limits within the Issaquah School District. Fred Burnstead, 1215 -120th NE, Bellevue, 98005, explained his wish to build a quality single family subdivision on property owned by him in the proposed annexation area, emphasizing he did not expect to seek zoning more dense than that which would allow single family detached residences. April ro 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138 t! " . ~, told that, given his mother's residence in the proposed annexation area, it would be advisable for her to sign the petition. Cecil Mullins, 18631 -120th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, agreed that it was inevitable that Renton will grow to the east, and felt that both City and County zoning was realistic for this area. He supported the option to hook up to sewers, and said although he shared" concerns regarding the impact of additional development in this area, the City and the county both enforce stringent guidelines to protect environmental interests. Alice Prummer, 12227 -142nd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated she did not receive personal notification of the annexation proposal although she lives nearby. She was concerned regarding wetlands in this area, particularly with respect to the Orchards apartment project and any other planned multi-family development. Mildred Stewart, 12457 -156th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, did not want increased density in this area. She was additionally concerned regarding the potential cost of sewer installation and how this cost would be divided among property owners. Sue Rowland, 14212 -145th PI. SE, Renton, 98059, was concerned regarding the impact of additional development on 144th and 142nd leading south from the annexation area down toward Maple Valley, saying that 144th is already unsafe for children and pedestrians because it has no sidewalks yet is heavily trafficked. She claimed that the density allowed in the County would be less than that allowed in the City, and urged Council to consider the potential impacts on adjacent communities. Ms. Rowland commented on her desire to remain in unincorporated King County and said she would sell her home if the annexation was approved. Norman Green, 14128 SE 132nd St., Renton, 98059, stated that traffic on Cemetery Road (formally, NE 4th St./SE 128th St.) is very heavy. He was concerned about the potential for increased crime and taxes, and did not suppor.t the proposed zoning, particularly the R-8 category proposed for his property. He asked that Council give "residents a chance to vote on this issue. Larry Vickers, 13419 SE 141st St., Renton, 98059, said this area will inevitably be annexed and Renton should focus on making this happen the right way. He agreed this area needs more north/south streets, lest 144th be tremendously impacted by.additional development, and opposed the building of more apartment complexes in this area. David Ebert, 12613 -148thAve. SE; Renton, 98059, agreed with earlier speakers that this issue should be decided by property owners via an election. Staci Jeske, representing Jack & Mardell Morrison, stated that whatever misunderstandings may have occurred in the past, the Morrisons stand ready to comply with all applicable development regulations. Commenting that some people may be reluctant to annex due to their fear of uncontrolled growth, she said the GMA was enacted to help control growth and to ensure that development and services occur at the same time. She concluded by emphasizing that the entire proposed annexation area lies within the urban growth boundary, and the City of Renton is therefore expected to, eventually, provide it with urban services. Judy Stoloff, 2235 Fairview Ave. E., Seattle, praised the public process held with respect to the. annexation, including two community meetings. Referring April 10. 1995 Planning: Subdivision Ordinance Renton City Council Minutes page 140 adding that the only possible zoning for this property is R-IO under the current comprehensive plan designation. Councilman Tanner was troubled by the fact that although the Burnstead properties and the White Fence Ranch properties favor annexation, these areas are not contiguous to the City limits. Annexing them, therefore, would require annexing the in-between area, where many property owners appear to oppose annexation. Moved by Tanner, seconded by Stredicke, Council table action on this matter until April 17th to allow staff to provide information on individual properties in the proposed annexation area, specifically which owners support or oppose the effort.· Mrs. Keolker-Wheeler reiterated that, according to the petition submitted to and certified by the City, at least 62% of the assessed valuation in the total annexation area is represented by owners in support of annexation. ·Roll call: Three ayes (Corman, Tanner, Stredicke), four nays (Schlitzer, Edwards, Nelson, Keolker-Wheeler). Motion failed. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 60% ANNEXATION PETITION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A NOTICE OF INTENTION PACKAGE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD.· Councilman Corman said while he shared concerns regarding the proposed R- IO zoning on part of the property, multi-family development would probably be restricted to only I % to 2% of the total annexation area and would not, in any case, result in greater density than four-plexes. He further stated that in the time he has lived in Renton he has not been pressured to change his rural lifestyle, and said he was confident that Council will strive to protect this area, should it be annexed. ·MOTION CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public hearing to consider the proposed subdivision ordinance and the proposed street improvement ordinance. Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, explained that the revisions to the subdivision and the street improvement ordinances were undertaken to implement new land use policies, update language and modify the structure to refer to existing departments and officials, and make process revisions to provide better service. The revisions are also meant to improve public, owner and City participation in the process. Noting that the subdivision ordinance regulates platting and lot boundary adjustments, Mr. Watts reviewed the primary changes, which are meant to provide a logical, consistent format and improve the process. Under the proposed changes, a small plat of five to nine lots would not come before Council for approval but would be decided by the Hearing Examiner. Plats of four or fewer lots would be administrative decisions and no longer handled by the Hearing Examiner. The revisions also increase public notice requirements for planning activities. EXHIBITC LEGAL DESCRIPTION Proposed Bumstead Annexation Legal Description That portion of Sections 10, II, 14, and 15, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter corner of said Section 10, said south quarter corner being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, said south quarter corner also being a point on the centerline of SE 128th Street; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street, and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to an intersection with the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, to the northeast corner of said subdivision and a point on the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner thereof; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner thereof; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner thereof, and an intersection with the centerline of 148th Avenue SE; Thence easterly, entering said Section 11, along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence northerly along the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast corner thereof; Thence continuing northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section to the northwest corner thereof; Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 15 feet to a point on a line being 15 feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to a point on the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line of said subdivision to a point of intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter to the northerly right-of-way line of SE l28th Street; Thence westerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 866.01 feet; Thence southerly crossing SE 128th Street, entering said Section 14, to a point on the southerly right of way line of SE 128th Street, being a point 866.01 feet westerly of the east line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence continuing southerly along a line parallel with and 866.01 feet westerly of the east line of said subdivision to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line, to a point of intersection with the east line of the west half of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line, to a point of intersection with the south line of the northwest quarter of said section, said point also being a point on the westerly right-of-way line of 152nd Avenue SE, and a point on the centerline of SE 136th Street; Thence continuing southerly, along the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of said section to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said south line, to a point on the east line of said Section 15; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to a point on the easterly right-<>f-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to a point of intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of SE 136th Street; Thence westerly crossing 144th Avenue SE along said northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said line to an intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of SE 132nd Street; Thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of l40th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said line to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of SE 132nd Street; Thence easterly along said line to a point on the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line to the southwest comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, also being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470; Thence continuing northerly along said west line, and said City limits, crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section IS, also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. EXHIBITD KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAPS EXHIBITE VICINITY MAPS B( ~NSTEAD ANNE~ .I.TION VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT E CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBUC WORKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie. D.Visneski 20 April 1995 ____ Renton City Umlt. _._._ Urban Growth Boundary Propo.ed Annexotlon (Approximote Area = 402.9 Acre.) o 2000 4000 EI~! J~~~I 1:24,000 BURN STEAD ANNEXATION Fire Districts EXHIBIT E CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGjJlUILDING/PtJBLIC lrORlll O.DeDDisoll R.MacOnie. D.V!sDeBId 20 April 1996 o 1500 3000 ~I~~:~~~I 1:18000 ---- FIre DIstrIcts #25 & #'0 Boundary Renton CIty LImIts & Boundary for Renton Emergency Response Zones Proposed AnnexatIon Area ---- a I Bl ~NSTEAD ANNE~ '~TION SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY EXHIBIT E School District Boundory Renton City Limits . 1 010 ... 0~~2~000 = I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUlLllING/PUBUC WORKS O,Denni8on R.MaaOnla, D. Vl8neald 20 April 1995 ---- o I BT "1NSTEAD ANNE~ .\TION Water Districts EXHIBIT E Proposed Annexation Area City Limits & Water District Boundary 1000 2000 !! I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORK! O.Dennison R.MaoODle. D.ViJlDeaki 20 April 1995 EXHIBITF MAP OF THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS SHOWING THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES )URNSTEAD ANNEXK IN VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT F CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie, D.Visneski 20 April 1995 o I ____ Renton City Limits .'11 Proposed Annexotion 4000 ; ; 1 :48,000 8000 I EXHIBITG CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BL :NSTEAD ANN E)-'.TION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP EXHIBIT G 1",,::::::1 Residential Rural 1::::::::::1 Residential Single Family Residential Options Residential Planned Neighborhood Residentiol Multi-Family Infill mmmm Center Suburban Proposed Annexation Area ----Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 ~I~I I~~~I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNlNG/BUlLDING/pUBUC waRKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie. D. Visneski 20 April 1995 EXHIBITH CITY OF RENTON PROPOSED ZONING · .. -.'-.. _ ..... _,-"----,.--,.,,,---'"-''' ..... " .. --B"C :NSTEAD ANNEY -.TION PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON ZONING EXHIBIT H ("",,::::1 Residential - 5 dulac (::;:;:;::;1 Residential 8 dulac Im;;;::;;1 Residential -10 dulac I I Proposed Annexation Area ____ Renton City Limits 1 010;;;.;0~~2~00 0 = I 1:12000 e CTY Of Ra.ITON . PLAl'N'«iIlUDNGIPIJIUC WORKS + tR + ~~. D. VbMoId 20 Aprt 1995 EXHIBIT I WHITE FENCE RANCH SUBDIVISION LEITER " . KlngCounl;.'" Planning and Conununl~' I)e,·elopment DI\1.lon Pnr~. Planning nnd RNouf'C1$ Pcp,'lrrmCnl Smirh To\\'~r Building 506 ScC'ond Avenue Room 707 Sc:mlc. WA 98104 (206) 296-8650 January 26, 1995 ./.:l/hie{~. Kattermann, AICP 81~ector, Planning and Technical Services City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA '98055 RE: White Fence Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Kattermann: Thank you for your Ja~uary 9, 1995 letter requesting clarification on whether the subdivision of White Fence Ranch was included in the County's Urban Growth Boundary. The White Fence Ranch ~ included in the Urban Area when the King County Council adopted the revised King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) in December 1994. You are correct, however, that when the Council adopted the map designating the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the Countywide Planning Policies, it does not show the White Fence Ranch within the Urban Growth Boundary. This error will be corrected. This should not affect the proposed annexation of this area to the City of Renton, since the KCCP map designates this area as Urban, ,and the KCCP designates the final UGA. When Carol Lumb, from Community Planning, talked with you earlier this week about the White Fence Ranch, you also asked whether Briarwood Elementary School had been included in the UGA. This area was not included in the Urban Area either by the Countywide Planning Policies or the KCCP. The school is located in a larger area which was one of the Technical Review Areas (area R-I) designated for additional study by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) before a final recommendation was made on whether to designate it Urban or Rural. Most of that area was eventually designated as Urban by the GMPC when it, adopted the Countywide Planning Policies in June 1993. The Briarwood Elementary School, and the area north of it to Southeast 128th, was designated Rural. When the GMPC reviewed the Joint Planning Areas Report in September 1994, the remainder of the Briarwood Technical Review Area was not one of the areas identified by Renton or the County as one where there was disagreement on the Rural "MANAGING CHANGE TO BUILD BETTER COMMUNITIES" Michael D. Kattermann, AICP January 26, 1995 Page 2 designation. As a result, the Rural designation was carried forward in the KCCP's map and the Countywide Planning Policies map. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call me at 296-8658. Sincerely, / 0 /· .. --'-. . ._, Jim Reid ~nager JR:cpl ADM3.PAAI cc: Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Section ATTN: Carol Lumb, Community Planner EXHIBITJ TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Br--"tNSTEAD ANNE~Y \TION ---- Topography EXHIBIT J Proposed Annexation Area Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 ~I ~liiiil ~! I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON pLANl'llNG /BUILDING /fU1IIJc WORKS O.Dennison R.lla.ODie. D. Vlsneald 20 April 1995 CONCURRENCE DATE 41..2~.}1<) NAME INITIAL/wATE :)w,;rJ D£NI'\II~oJl.1 cD 'j /Zi j t'AI9iAQ \SArrcFtI NN 1I\t. S-~.l May 1, 1995 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 -136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, W A 98006 .0,-v G,;? Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATEL~SBYANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Re~ised Code of WashingtOn (RC/W); the City of Renton hereby gives notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referred to as the "Bumstead Annexation". This annexation is proposed under the 60% petition m'ethod in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW. The petition contains signatures representing about 62.4% of the tota11995 assessed valuation ",:ithin the proposed annexation area. This annexation would incorporate into the City of Rentl)ri approximately 402.9 aci:es of territory for the provision of sanitary sewer and other urban level services. To assist in your consideration of the proposed action, the required articles and exhibits are attached and numbered in accordance with the Board~ suggested format. The enclosed exhibits are identified in the sequence in which they appear in the text. Should questions arise during the review of the information and exhibits provided with this Notice of Intention to Annex, please feel free to contact Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, at 277-2475. Please send notices and other communications regarding the proposed annexation to: Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner Departtnent of Planning/BuildinglPublic Works City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, W A 98055 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 1~~Q.,~ .. Mayor ~er -t; 'VV '- ":', ... ",'. ' .. ~ \~ C" . OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND 'ILL I AI#: Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: DepUDiv/Board ............... Planning and Technical Services October 24 199 Staff Contact........ .......... Michael D. Kattermann, Director, Agenda Status RRENCE Planning and Technical Services DATE /b-/F-9y Owen Dennison (x-247S) Long Range Planning W~ INITIAL/ ATE .,~~ . lohg/~ Consent ................... X Subject: Public Hearing ......... IZJ..-;"""" . J FAL Bumstead Annexation -10% Notice ofIntent Correspondence ...... Ordinance ................ .k~1 .~ (;.!? Resolution ............... , Old Business ........... Exhibits: New Business ........... • Map· Study Sessions ........ information ............... Recommended Action: Approvals: Council schedule a public meeting to consider acceptance of Legal Dept... ...... a 10% Notice of Intent to commence annexation Finance Dept... .. proceedings.' Other ................ . Fiscal Impact: N/ A Expenditure Required .......... . Transfer/Amendment .............. . Amount Budgeted ............... .. Revenue Generated ............. , ... . Sum/"flary of Action: The City is. in receipt of a request to commence annexation proceedings for approximately 226 acres of property located east of Renton in the vicinity of Southeast 128th Street. The notice includes signatures of owners of over 10 % of the assessed valuation of the properties proposed for annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set a public meeting for November 14, 1994, to consider acceptance of the 10% Notice of Intent. AGNBILL.DOC JO/I'GM I/> foh cr . OF RENTON COUNCIL AGEND ILL I AI#: Submllling Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: DepUOlv/Board ............... Planning and Technical Services October 24, 1994 Staff Contaet.................. Michael D. Kattermann, Director, Agenda Status Planning and Technical Services Owen Dennison (x-2475) Long Range Planning Consent ................... X Subject: Public Hearing ......... Bumstead Annexation -10% Notice of Intent Correspondence ...... Ordinance •••••......••••• Resolution ................ Old Bu.ln .............. Exhibit.: New Business ....... ". • Map Study Session ......... Information .•••........... Recommended Action: Approvals: Council schedule a public meeting to consider acceptance of Legal Dept... ...... a 10% Notice of Intent to commence annexation Finance Dept... .. proceedings. Other ................ . Fiscat Impact: N/ A Expenditure Required .......... . Transfer/Amendment .............. . Amount Budgeted ................ . Revenue Generated ................ .. Summary of Action: The City is in receipt of a request to commence annexation proceedings for approximately 226 acres of property located east of Renton in the vicinity of Southeast 128th Street. The notice includes . signatures of owners of over 10% of the assessed valuation of the properties proposed for annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATtON: Council set a public meeting for November 14, 1994, to consider acceptance of the 10% Notice of Intent. AGNBILL.DOC .... ,--BURNSTEAD ANNEX{\.TION . VICINITY MAP • CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBUC WORKS O.DeIlllison R.MacOnie, D.Visneski 14 October 1994 - -RENTON CITY LIMI1S =~ ANNEXATION PROPOSED BY APPUCANT o I 2000 4000 ! !~~~I 1:24,000 13025 138 Avenue S .E. Renton, WA 'l8QS9 April 27, 19.95 PLANNI CITY O~GRDJVJSJON ENTON City of Renton Long Range Planning 200 Mill Ave S. Renton, WA 98055 MAY 1 1995 RECEIVED To: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison Dear Mr. Dennison; I'm enclosing a copy of the. portion of the. Renton Code. that references. the Annexation Policy· Plan, As you see, the. wording is capitalized; this indicates that it is a specific document it seems. Could you let me know what you discover ahout it? Just send your reply to my home please .• I appreciate your help. Yours truly, Mary Ellen Hamblin , . '.;. Rsptesentation: Planning Commissioners are ntrUsted to make recommendations reflecting ~. broad interests of the community. Conduct and Fairness: All Commissioners hall conduct themselves in 8 manner con- d.tAlnt with the Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers, title 42.23 RCW, and the Code of Ethics, Title 1, Chapter 6 of the Renton City C<lde. &<ope of Review: At the direction of the City eouncil, the Planning Commission shall reo yjow statT proposals, hold public hearings, and .ubmit recommendations to the City Council .nd the Mayor on the adoption of and amend· ... nts w the following: I. The Comprehensive Plan as per City Code Title lV, Chapter 3. 2. Neighborhood or area plans and studieD which will amplify and augment the Compre· htnIive Plan. 3. The Shoreline Management Master Pro· ,...m. •. The Capital Improvement Program. 6. The Streets and Arterials Plan. •. Annexation Policy Plan. T. Aron·wide zoning. I, TIU,. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. • Olh(>r land use plans, programs, and ordi- UOC(lS contained in the Commission's work F'l\C1'am. (Ord. 4204, 2-20-89) h,: PHIVATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CI\A.lIIGES AND REZONING: ~ Aceeptance of Petition. Any party may pot.tlOn the City Council to consider a change ., th., Comprehensive Plan. The City Council _III "'"iew the request and refer it to the PI..n".g Commission. The Planning Commis· tb10 ""'ill review the request and make a "'u"'mt!ndation to the City Council on its ::n ,lind whether it cnn be accommodated in Jh nrUng Commission work programs. Upon .. 'COt or the Planning Commission recom~ II! AtHln, the City Council, if it believes the B. C. 2-10-7 request is meritorious and that it can be accommodated within the work schedule of the Planning Commission, will accept the petition for private Comprehensive Plan amendment and will forward the same to the Planning Commission for placement in its work priority listing. The Planning Commission shall handle the private Comprehensive Plan amendment request in the same manner 8S any other private Comprehensiv2 Plan am~nd!Ilent requ~st. Concurrent Rezone Process. When a rezone request is to follow immediately after the pri· vate Comprehensive Plan change, and the re- ZOne is ten (10) acres or greater in size or is to be zoned to any designation except single- family residential, and there are only one or two (2) parties requesting the rezones, then the City Council shall retsin jurisdiction to hear the proposed private Comprehensive Plan amendment and proposed rezone at the same time, or to schedule a rezone afl.er adoption of the private Comprehensive Plan change, or refer the rezone to the Hearing Examiner should the Council so desire. Should the City Council desire to hear the proposed private Comprehensive Plan change and the proposed rezone at the same time, then it will accept the recommendation for private Comprehensive Plan change from the Planning Commission and direct the staff to negotiate a contract rezone with the applicant. Once informed by the statT that the contract rezone has been negotiated to the stail's satisfaction, then the City Council shall establish a joint public hearing to consider the private Comprehensive Plan change and the proposed rezone. Subsequent Rezone Process. In those instan- ces in which there is a pending private Comprehensive Plan change" and the rezone is to be processed separately with a time separa· tion of at least four (4) months from the City Council action on the private Comprehensive Plan amendment to the public hearings on the rezone, or the rezone is small, or the property is proposed to be rezoned to the R-l Zone, or in those instances in which there are a number of applicants for rezones, then the City Council shall receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission, shall act upon the recommendation from the Planning Commission, and shall refer the processing of any rezone application to the administration. The applicant will have the burden and duty of applying for and pursuing the rezone. The • ~ JJil.n/l.~ ;~ -------1../"-f'I&<.;~? ~ Renton School District 403 435 Main Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055-2700 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 25, 1995 Councilman Brian Derdowski King County Council Room 1200 King County Court House 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Councilman Derdowski: I am writing to clarify the needs of the Renton School District relative to the City of Renton Bumstead annexation currently under consideration. The annexation is critical to our schools and the housing of students in that area of our District. We are currently in the final design stage for construction of a new elementary school ----_ at Maplewood Heights. It is to be constructed during the 1996-97 school year on the exIsting site, which is currently served by an on-site septic drainfield. It is the only remaining school in our District not on sewers and, according to King County Department of Health, can not be constructed without sewer hookup. The Bumstead annexation would result in some shared costs to bring the sewer main to our school property. It is cost prohibitive for the school district to independently extend the sewer service to oUisite. Any delay in our constructior.would result in cost increases and potential conflict with our alternative housing of the 574 Maplewood - Heights students during construction. We are hopeful that you can become supportive of the proposed annexation. Timely response to our student housing needs is dependent upon it. Iwes Superintendent bc Rick Stracke ~Su~¥§A~i1I~91i}ii~ 255·9600 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 15606 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington 98059 King County Water Dis!. #90 April 18, 1995 City of Renton Michael D. KaUerman,AICP 200 Mill Street Renton, WA 98059 Dear Mr. Katterman: You have requested information from King County Water District #90 regarding the proposed Bumstead Annexation by April 19, 1995, for review by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. We will send the information you need, but find it won't be completed by this date because of the complexity of the project and the information required. An extension of approximately 30 days will be needed to show the District can continue to supply water for this area. Please keep us advised of progress made by the City of Renton on this Annexation. Sincerely, Var~~« Daniel Selzler, Manager Earl Clymer, Mayor April 17, 1995 Mr. Tom Trudnowski 1390 I SE \3 9th Street Renton, WA 98059 C1T'WlF RENTON . Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator RE: Bumstead and Marshall-Galusha Annexations Dear Mr. Trudnowski: This letter is in response to your telephone message from earlier today. You requested information on the current Bumstead Annexation and the status of the Marshall-Galusha Annexation. In regards to the Marshall-Galusha Annexation, the Council approved the annexation and the zoning on August 22, 1994. The annexation became effective August 31, 1994 (Ordinance #4470). The zoning placed on the property was Community Commercial, since renamed Center Suburban, for most of the area, with a small parcel at the very southern tip being zoned as Single Family, since renamed R-8 (Ordinance #4471). Information about the pending Bumstead Ann.exation is included in the enclosed issue paper. The Bumstead Annexation has been through the 10% and 60% petition steps and will soon be forwarded to the Boundary Review Board (BRB) for their review and action. The BRB has 45 days to complete their work. If there is an appeal, the BRB will schedule a public hearing and the review time is extended to 120 days. Upon completion of the BRB's review and action, ifit is approved, the annexation proposal is sent back to the City for adoption of the annexation ordinance and a final public hearing on the proposed zoning. I hope this information answers your questions. Please feel free to contact Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475 if you have any questions about the Bumstead Annexation or the process. Sincerely, Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services enclosure e: f"Owen Dennison Sue Carlson mk:c:\winword\document\anncxati\trudnowski.doc 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ® This pnper contains 50~G recycled malenal, 25% post consumer ":ill ..,-"- · ~, . ~~~~UAr.£~ _.tl~_. " .... ..-'1' , . ; ·1 "·~I. n·+ il=>', ,CI. ..IL ,t -Earl Clymer. Mayor April 14, 1995 Ms. Evelyn Donlan Schall 9924 115th Street S.W. Tacoma, W A 98498 SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Dear Ms. Schall: CIT""Y OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Thank you for your interest in the East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation. I am sorry that we were unable to accommodate you and other interested parties during the City Council's public hearing. As you requested, I am enclosing the information paper that was drafted for this Council action. The annexation process will be completed by July or August of 1995, barring any appeals to the Boundary Review Board. Based on the information you provided, your property, tax lot 063810'()250, would appear to be located just outside of Renton's Urban Growth Area. The City of Renton cannot assist you in the development of the property identified. Under the Washington State Growth Management Act, passed in 1990, many of the counties in the state were required to designate urban areas and rural areas. The Urban Growth Areas generally surround cities and are expected to develop to urban densities and with urban services such as sewers. Cities in King County can only annex areas designated as urban. Areas designated Rural are supposed to stay at low density and develop with rural level services. That is, without sewers. On Exhibit 3, Vicinity Map, of the enclosed City of Renton Memorandum, I have drawn the Urban Growth Area Line. The property you identified in your letter is outside of the Line. Therefore, Renton cannot annex the property. Renton could only extend sewers or other services if a health emergency existed. According to the King County Comprehensive Plan, "Public sewer expansions shall not occur in the Rural Area and on Natural Resource Lands except where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening existing structures permitted before the effective date of this plan [November, 1994] ... • (policy F·314) Since the property cannot annex to the City of Renton, all building permits and applicable regulation must be obtained from King County, I hope this information will assist you in your discussions with King County. If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277·2475. Sincerely, -----=~ ",~ . ;""." J t 1) < .." • t/)t.ll~ = / / (.', {r.-f > ,) ~ Mich;e\ D.Kattermann', AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services cc: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk :WO Mill Avenue South -Renton. Washington \lS055 ® nus paper contains 50°" recyCled m.alorloll, zs~:. post consumer 8"",,,>.Je...d F,. te CITY --iF RENTON April 13, 1995 Ronald and Eileen Belala 14224 SE 129th Place Renton, W A 98059 Re: Burnstead 60% Annexation Petition Public Hearing Dear Mr. & Mrs. Belala: City Clerk Marilyn J. Petersen Thank you for your letter expressing concerns with the Burnstead annexation proposal. Copies have been forwarded to the Mayor, Councilmembers, and Planning Department staff. It is unfortunate that the Council Chambers did not accommodate all attendees at the hearing last Monday night. The City is currently looking at alternatives to provide access to the proceedings by unanticipated overflow crowds. The 60% annexation petition you mention is contained in the official file, and is available for review by contacting the City Clerk's office. If I can provide additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ~, Marilyn 'Pe City Clerk cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Members, Renton City Council Mike KattermaI'n, Planning Director v 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-250 I This pap r co tnins 50% rae cl a ri I, 0/. I onsumer -------------------~------c_------------- April 11, 1995 Renton City. Council At the April 10th meeting approximately one third or more of the people who came were forced out into· the hallway and were unable to participate in the meeting due to overcrowding .. We realize this was a safety measure by the Fire Department. We feel the meeting should have been moved to a larger.area. Due to the lack of consideration by the Mayor and Council of the situation we feel that the needs of the attendees was over- looked·and were left with a feeling of despair. The Petition which everyone speaks of was never seen by us our any of our neighbors. We strongly feel that we are being walked across just to reach a personal monetary gain by a few with no regard for our personal interests. We also feel that the Renton Public School System should not be allowed to vote and use School assets against the Public. This has become a stacked deck against the home owners of the area. We are also concerned about zoning codes and the ability to "move wetlands" in order to develop properties. This would include multi-family units in a single family dwelling area. Sincerly, Ronald and Eileen Belala 14224 S.E. 129th Place Renton, Wa. 98059 Earl Clymer, Mayor To: From: Date: , Subject: Mike Kattermaim ,~-',"j .. ~( ,. ,."',.,,,CIT~F; RENTON MEMORANDUM , Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Lawrence J Warren, City Attorney, April 12, 1995 'Annexing Street Rights-of-Way'Adjacent to Annexing Properties; County Bonded Indebtednes~ Obligations of Annexing Properties By memo dated April 3, 1995 concerning the Bumstead annexation you asked two questions, One ' ' of them had to do with the county's library bonds after annexation,', Since that'question has not been raised during the annexation hearings, I will not answer it I will' state that Victoria called , ,Municipal Research and Services Center and they responded that the annexation would free the , properties from' any library bonds, Depending on the nature of the bonds and how they were issued, I might question that statement" " ,With respect to the right-of-way in RCW ?5A 14AIO'ihe ,correct interp~etation is that all,or none of a section of right-of-way must be annexed" Stated another way, the aimexation must stop' at the right-of-way line, or include all o(the,right-ofcwayto theopposirig right of , way line, As long as, ihe entire width of the right-of-way is annexed, the City ca~ use any segment of the right-of-way it wishes, Stated another way, on a north-south road the City can stop the annexation of a border road at any point along the north-south access, However;' any portion of the roadway taken in through the annexation must include the entire east-west dimension of the road (its width) .. I hope this adequately answers your question. LJW:as, cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington A8:113A3, --------' ~"" Lawrence 1. Warren Post Office Box 626 -100 S 2nd Street -Renton', Washington' 98057 : (206)255-8678 * This paper contains 50% recycted material" 25% post consu~e.r " APRIL 10, 1~~5 '! ,~ DEAR SIRS, I AM A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION AREA AND WAS PRESENT AT THE ClTY COUNCIL MEETlNG OF MONDAY APRIL 10,1995 AT 7:30 FOR THE PUBLlC HEARING REGARDING THE BURNSTEAD 60~ ~~TITION TO ANNEX AND TO CONSIDER ZONING AS R- 5,R-8 AND R-10. I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE BUT THE HEETING RAN SO LATE THAT I HAD TO LEAVE TO GET TO WORK BEFORE GETTlNG A CHANCE TO SPEAK. I WOULD LIKE FOR THIS LETTER TO SERVE THE SAME PURPOSE AS IF I HAD SPOKE TO THE COUNCIL AT THE HEARING. 1 AM IN FAVOR OF THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION AND THE PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE AREA. I REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATlON AS PROPOSED. I SIGNED THE BURNSTEAD 60" PETlTlON ALONG WITH MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO ARE ALSO OWNERS OF THE APPROX. 5 ACRES LOCATED ON SE 128TH ON THE NORTH SIDE BETWEEN 142ND AVE AND 144TH AVE. THE KING COUNTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBERS FOR THE LOTS WE OWN ARE: 102305-9167-06 AND 102305-9035-0&. TELEPHONE: 432-383& eA..-: SINCERELY JOHN MCTIGHE 2492c)-267TH AVE. SE RAVENSDALE, lolA. 98051 ~~ '/ft,JIo ·1 , .' .' f ... -May 11, 1995 BAMOT. (BD:BD:ec) Introduced By: Propost;d No.: 1 MOTIONNO. ______ _ Brian Derdowski 95-359 :2 A MOTION requesting the Bound8ly Review Board to micw 3 the City of Renton proposed annexation Qf"BumstoM 4 AnneXAtion" PU1'8WU1t to RCW 36.93.100. 5 WHEREAS, the BOlDlda/Y Review Board (BRB) was cteated to provide a neutral 6 furum for the public hearing and the review IUtd determination of proposed anne~on. '7 and incorporations to avoid competition to extend mWlicipal bo\llldaries, to prevent B haphazard boundary txtensiODll, and to create and preservclogical service aRaB as ~t forth 9 cs purposes and obJectivcs ofthc 8RB in RCW 36.93.010 and RCW 36.93.1110, and 10 WHF.REAS,coor<lination betweenjutlsdiclions mel cxlW1inatioP of service issues 11 should be eDCOu£Llged, and . 12 WHEREAS, the City of Rent",!! on May 8.1995 filed a notice ofint~ntion to 4IU1ex ·13 the 1ItC8 known 11$ "BurtlIltead Annexation", U1d 14 ~RBAS. RCW 36.93.100 provid~s for the aRB to review proposed 15 l\IlD.exations. and King County OrdinlUloe No. 8389 provides Cor ft means of requesting 16 ~uGh review, and 17 WHERF.AS. the public: is best served by open public hearlne and review of the-'lC 1 e iAAucS; Ie) 00 -t' ... 05/17195 15:41) F.U 206 2960198 KIN .. CO. COtlNCIl 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 NOW. TImREFORE BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County: The Wasltin&1on State Boundary Review Board for Kina County is requested to review the foUowing specific action: The City of Renton's proposed lU)ftexation oC"Buntatcad ADDexation" BRS tik: No. 1922. PASSED by a vote of _ to _ this . __ day of_-_____ --'.> KING COUNTY COUNCIL KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON 11 Crum 12 ATrEST: 13 14 Clerk of the COl1llOiI 15 Attachments: 16 --- DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM April 10, 1995 Timothy J. Schlitzer, President Members of the Renton City Council Earl Clymer, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator C-2. Michael Kattermann (#6190~ Burnstead Annexation RECEIVED APR 1 01995 RENTON CITY COUNCIL A flier (attached, last page) has been circulated through the proposed Bumstead Annexation area. Information in the circular differs significantly from information provided by the City of Renton . . The attached response letter has been mailed to a portion of the Annexation area. However, it appears that the issues raised in the flyer have not been fully put to rest. Reference may be made to the information in the flier at the public hearing this evening. cc: City Clerk CCRSPNS.DOC/OD Earl Clymer, Mayor April 3, 1995 CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department , Gregg Zimmerman P,E., Administrator Dear East Renton Plateau Resident: The attached document is being distributed in the East Renton Annexation area. The information expressed is substantially different from the information the City of Renton has provided, The City would like an opportunity to respond to these issues. Issue 1: The whole annexation attempt could fail if only some residents of the White Fence Ranch area were to remove their names from the petition. Response 1: The boundaries were drawn based on the assessed value of the properties represented by the signatures on the Petitions. It is true that the current East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation proposal could not be supported in its current form if a significant number of the residents of White Fence Ranch opposed annexation, However, the "terminal date" for the Petition to Annex has passed, Under the Revised Code of Washington State, after a Petiti9n to Annex is submitted to the City, a certification process is conducted on the Petition. Signatures can be added and withdrawn until the certification is begun. Certification of signatures on the East Renton Plateau Petition to Ann~x began on March 29, 1995. Although you cannot remove your name from the Petition, this does not mean that East Renton Plateau Annexation area residents have no more voice in the process. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the Annexation proposal on April 10, 1995, at 7:30 PM. The City Council decides whether to accept or reject annexation proposals and whether to modify the proposed boundaries. The public hearing is a forum for you to voice your support of, or opposition to, the Annexation proposal. Issue 2: Annexation means that your taxes will raise by 78e per thousand of assessed valuation. $117 on a $150,000 home. Response 2: According to the City's Finance Department, property taxes will increase by 19C per thousand of assessed value if annexation occurs. This would represent an increase of $28.50 per year for a $150,000 home. Issue 3: You will have to pay for the bonded indebtedness of the King County Libraries but you will not be able to use them. Response 3: ' The City is awaiting a legal opinion on whether bond obligations for the County library system would follow property owners after annexation. However, it appears that this is not the case. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ,;,L" . ~ -- In any event, the Renton and King County library systems are working on a reciprocal agreement that would allow residents of the area to use facilities in both systems. The agreements and shared data bases are anticipated to be in place by late 1996. Issue 4: You will pay a 6% surcharge on alI utilities, water, phone, gas, electricity, cable. Response 4: This is partially true. City residents do pay a 6% utility tax. However, water service to the Bumstead Annexation area is provided by Water District 90. If annexation occurs, the W.O. 90 would continue to serve, and this service would not be taxed by the City. The City's Finance Department calculated an average yearly utility tax bill of $127.44. This amount would be off-set by a reduction in surface water fees of $25.00 per year and a reduction of $150.00 per year in solid waste fees for residents using one garbage can. According to State law, solid waste service, and the reduced fee schedule, would not begin for five years following annexation. Issue 5: You will have the highest utility rates in the state. Response 5: A comparison of utility rates among surrounding jurisdictions, cities and utility districts was conducted for 1995. The study showed that Renton's overall monthly utility charges ranked fourth from the lowest, out of ten cities and districts. Sewer rates will not apply until connection. Water will continue to be provided by Water District 90 according to their rates. Solid waste and surface water rates are currently lower in the City than the County. Issue 6: For those who desire sewers, there are alternatives that cost less, remember, with sewers, you will pay $32 each month just for being connected. You could annex and not get sewers for years! Response 6: In many cases, sewers are the most dependable, long-term solution ·to sewage disposal. Additionally, the cost of connecting to the City's sanitary sewer system may be comparable to the cost of an alternative septic disposal system. Extension of sewers will be done either by development interests, or by local improvement districts (LID's) established by local residents with City coordination and assistance, or by a combination of both. Availability of sewers will not happen overnight. However, neighborhoods can take matters into their own hands by forming an LID to extend sewers. If there is a neighborhood consensus that sewers are needed, an LID will greatly accelerate provision of sewers, and will allow the extension of service without waiting for developers to install local sewer lines. Therefore, the neighborhood can have a hand in establishing a time table for obtaining sewer service. ,. . .. Issue 7: gridlock, etc. You will fmance the . infrastructure for more housing, traffic, and growth, which in turn requires more schools, police, roads, Response 7: The East Renton Plateau will develop with or without annexation. When development occurs, developers must pay fees. to off-set the additional demands on the infrastructure, ·i.e., roads, schools, etc. Property taxes, on the other hand, pay for the services the County or the City provides. These services include fire and police protection, road and surface water facility maintenance, judicial and legislative services, libraries, parks and others. Annexation can give you a voice in the way that growth occurs in the City of Renton. As growth does not depend on annexation, growth also does not depend on infrastructure improvements. Increasing demands on the County's road system and police and other services will continue to stretch the County's ability to provide these necessary services. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the East Renton Plateau as a Service Planning Area. King County has pledged to invest in road improvements only for existing and pipeline developments in these areas. (policy U-407) Growth will occur, but the commitment to finance the improvements to accommodate that growth has not been made by the County. Issue 8: City sewers will cost the average home owner between $22,000 and $30,000. Response 8: If White Fence Ranch homeowners were to bear the full cost of extending the sewer main from 138th Avenue SE to the subdivision, this cost may be reasonably accurate. However, property owners north of SE 128th Street, from White Fence Ranch to the city limits, have indicated an interest in obtaining sewer service. Dividing the cost of the main extension among a large number of property owners would allow significant savings for individual owners. The cost of providing sanitary sewer service is dependent upon a number of issues such as proximity to an existing system, difficulty of construction and the relative size of the proposed service area. The White Fence Ranch area, as it exists now, is relatively isolated and distant from existing facilities. Therefore, it could be cost prohibitive for residents to bear the entire cost of the extension required to serve their area. Any future development that may occur in their general vicinity would significantly reduce the potential cost to White Fence Ranch residents. In addition, the City has worked to spread the cost of such extensions to all directly benefiting parcels through Special Assessment Districts. An example is the Sierra Heights Local Improvement District (LID) that, through the establishment of a special Assessment District, reduced the average cost per lot from $13,000 to approximately $8,000 per lot. A grant further reduced the cost to approximately $5,000. Additional connection charges would be assessed on top of the LID main extension . Issue 9: You can update your old [septic] system for between $9,000 and $15,000. Response 9: This may be true, but this price might also be sufficient for sewer provision. Annexation does not require sewer connection, except in cases of complete septic failure or when an LID is formed for a neighborhood. However, annexation provides the option of sewers. Sincerely, Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services ,", .. ,~ ..... ANr'-' -XATION p' ERT There ~ill be a community meeting on TUESDAY. APRIL 4th at 7:30 PH at Lord of Life. Lutheran Church, located at SE 128th & 160th SE. If YOU have any questions about costs to YOU, or what you can expect If the annexation proceeds. thi5 is the place to get your answers. The whole annexation attempt could fall If only some residents of the White Fence Ranch area were to remove their names from the petition. Annexation means that your Taxes will raise by 78¢ per thousand of assessed valuation. $117 on a $150.000 home. You ~Ill have to pay for the bonded Indebtedness of the King County Libraries but you will not be able to use them. You will pay a 6% surcharoe on all uti·lities, water. phone. gas, electricity, cable. . You will have the highest utility rates in the state. For those who desire sewers. there are alternatives that cost less, reme~ber. with sewers. YOU will pay $32 F.ACH MONTH just for beinq connected. You could annex and not get sewers for years! You will finance the Infrastructure. for more housing. traffic. J gridlock. and growth. which in turn requires more schools. police.; roads. etc .. Bill Stuth an expert appr~iser on sewers and septic systems claims that City Sewers will cost the avera~e home owner between $22,000 and $30,000. He also states tl\aL you can update your old system for between $9.000 and $15.000. He also likes what they call a STEP SYSTEM whlch would only cost the average homeowner about $5000. The whole city of Hoquiam uses this system now. WHATEVER YOU SPKND ON SEWERS OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS, IT WILL NOT HAKE YOUR HOME WORTH ANY MORE ON THE REAL ESTATK HARKET. CheCK it out. Who gains if you annex the city? Th \ nk abou tit! Distributed by. East Renton Plateau Community Council. For further information. call Ray Gri'ffln at 228-5673. ..: ';- '. ;, :;,:':. :~,:~: .. . ~ ." . '. . .. '. i.':, ,:;;;i~llirIJ~;,~:{,.:, '" Date: To: Via: From: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM April 10, 1995 City Council Mayor ClymerCC. Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator (,. ;?, Planning/Building/Public Works Department . Staff Contact: Michael D. Kattermann, Director Planning and Technical Services Owen Dennison, Planner Subject: I. Issue Long Range Planning Issue Paper Bumstead Annexation 60% Petition to Annex/Rezone to R-5, R-8 and R-10 Proponents of the Bumstead Annexation circulated a 60% Petition to Annex as authorized by the City Council on November 14,1994, at the 10% Notice of Intent Public Meeting. They have now submitted signatures representing approximately 62% of the assessed valuation for an area of about 402.9 acres. (Exhibil1) The proponents are requesting Council acceptance of the Petition to Annex. At the Public Meeting, Council exercised the option to require the acceptance of City zoning for the area, concurrent to annexation. The zoning originally proposed Included Single Family Low DenSity (SFL), Single Family (SF) and Mixed Residential (MR). Since the Notice of Intent Public Meeting, Council has amended the names of these zones and directed the drafting of a new intermediate density zone, R-S. As a result, the zones now proposed for the subject properties are R-S (pending), R-8 and R-10. II. Recommendation On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends approval of the Bumstead Annexation as proposed. If Council concurs In this recommendation, the Administration recommends that Council move to accept the Burnstead Annexation as proposed by certifying the 60% Annexation Petition, and authorize the Administration to prepare a Notice of Intention package for submission to the King County Boundary Review Board. 1/ Issue Paper -60% Petition to •.. ,nex I Zoning Bumstead Annexation April 10,1995 Page 2 III. Background The Bumstead Construction Company Initiated the annexation of 226 acres to the City of Renton, Including near1y 64 acres owned by the proponent. At the Public Meeting for the 10% Notice of Intent, the City Council authorized circulation of the 60% Petition to Annex for an expanded area of about 600 acres. The additional areas, north, east and west of the original proposal, were Included as a result of expressed interest from property owners in these areas and Comprehensive Plan policies that recommend expansion of annexation proposals to increase contiguity with existing city limits. The Bumstead Company and other proponents of the annexation obtained signatures of property owners representing abou1 62% of the assessed value for an area of approximately 402.9 acres. The new proposal Is entirely within the expanded boundaries approved by the Council for circulation of the Petition to Annex. At the 10% Public Meeting for the proposad Bumstead Annexation, Council elected to require the assumption of a pro rata share of the City's bonded Indebtedness and the assignment of City of Renton zoning concurrent to annexation. The zoning proposed at the Public Meeting and proposed on the Petition to Annex was Single Family Low DenSity (SFL), Single Family (SF) and Mixed Residential (MR). At the time the Council was considering increasing the density in the SFL (now R-l) Zone to 5 units per acre. Since that time the Council directed staff to develop an intermediate zone Instead; the result Is the R-5 Zone. As a result of the Council's renaming of various zones and the proposed addition of the R-5 Zone, the zoning recommendation is now R- 5, R-8 and R-l0, reflecting the Council's direction. (exhibit 2) Assignment of these zoning designations will render several existing commercial uses non- conforming. Rezoning to a designation that would permit commercial uses will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map at a later date. The following Is a summary of existing conditions: 6O'lI.ISSUE.DOC Location: The subject site is located east of the city limits, north and south of SE 128th Street and between 140th Avenue SE and one lot line east of 156th Avenue SE. (Exhibit 3) The city boundary contiguous to the proposal was established by Ordinance #4470, adopted on September 1, 1994 and by Ordinance #3553 on June 8, 1981. Purpose of Annexation: Owners of properties In the area are interested In receiving urban level services, partlcular1y sanitary sewers. Not all parcels within the subject area are appropriate for on-site septic systems. Sanitary sewers are desired to support existing and future development. Assessed valye: The total assessed value of the currently proposed Bumstead Annexation area is $27,373,850. The Petition to Annex contains signatures representing 62.36% of this total. The Bumstead Company's properties have an assessed value of $793,300. existing Zoning: The County zoning of the area Includes both residential and commercial/residential designations. (exhibit 4) R-4 Predominantly single family detached; 4 units per gross acre R-12 Predominantly apartment and townhouse; 12 units per gross acre R-18 Predominantly apartment and townhouse; 18 units per gross acre Issue Paper -60% Petition to .. ' .nex I Zoning Bumstead Annexation April 1 0,1995 Page 3 NB Nelghbomood Business; dally retail and personal services; 8 dwelling units per gross acre with mixed use development CB Community Business; convenience and comparison retail and personal services; 18 dwelling units per gross acre with mixed use development The densities given for the KIng County zones refled base density. Higher densities can be achieved through density Incentives and transfer of density credits. existing City zoning In the portion of Renton adjacent to the proposed Annexation Is Center Suburban (CS). Geography of the area: The expanded annexation area generally follows a gentle slope northeast to southwest. (exhibit 5) No geologic hazards are currently mapped tor the subject area in the City's Critical Areas Inventory. existing Land Uses: existing land uses within the annexation area Include single family homes, several convenience retail businesses, heavy equipment storage, Maplewood Heights Elementary School and vacant land. (Exhibit 6) existing residential uses occur both at urban densities and on large lots. Some accessory commercial and agricultural uses accompany the large lot residential development. Surrounding land uses ara single family residential to the west and south. Land uses to the north and east are generally vacant and rasidential. Comprehenslye Plans: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the area as Residential Rural (RR), ReSidential Single Family (RS) and Residential Options (RO). (exhibit 7) Proposed zoning Implements these land use deSignations. King County's Comprehensive Plan Identifies the area as Urban Growth Area. The proposed Annexation boundary abuts the Urban Growth Boundary along the northeastem comer of the subjed area. The following Is a summary of City of Renton Departmental Review comments: 6O'lbISSUE.DOC Water Utility: Municipal water service Is currently provided to the area by King County Water District 90. Twelve inch mains follow SE 128th Street, 148th Avenue SE and SE 136th Street east of 148th Avenue SE. The Water Distrid would continue to serve after annexation. Although a service area boundary agreement does not exist between the District and the City of Renton, the proposed annexation Includes no disputed service areas. Wastewater utility: The area Is located In the Lower Cedar River Wastewater Coliedion Basin. Sanitary sewer service Is not currently available to residents of the area. All wastewater disposal Is by septic system. The City Is currently construding the East Renton Interceptor, antiCipated to be finished during the second quarter of 1995, which will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed annexation area. The City has no plans to extend the Interceptor pest SE138th Avenue. Developers and local Improvement districts will be responsible for the costs of extenSion past this point. Surface Water Utility: The proposed annexation area Is located within the Maplewood and Orting Hills Subbasins of the Cedar River Surface Water Drainage Basin. Two wetlands, the east fori( of Maplewood Creek and unnamed straam are mapped within the annexation boundaries in the King County Cedar River Basin Plan Conditions Report. Only the wetlands are mapped within the proposed annexation area on the Wetlands, Issue Paper -60% Petition to ... ,nex / Zoning Bumstead Annexation April 1 0,1995 Page 4 Lakes, Streams and Rivers Map (Jones and Stokes, 1992) of the City's Critical Areas Inventory. All runoff in the subject area discharges into the Cedar River. Erosion/sedimentation and local flooding problems exist within, and downstream from, the proposed annexation area. Maintenanca Services: Maintenanca Servicas estimates the cost of improving existing roadways to City maintenanca standards in the subject area to be about $11,410. The cost of these improvements would be borne by private property owners. Yeariy maintenanca costs, after roadways are brought up to City standards, is estimated to be $23,850 Fire Department: Most of the annexation area is located within King County Fire District 25. Renton's Fire Department now serves the area on a contractual basis from the Fire District's Slation 16 located on 156th Avenue SE. Following annexation, Fire servicas would still be provided from the seme location. Approximately thirty acres are currently within the servica area of Fire District 10. The City's Fire Department would assume servica for this area. The proposal wouid not trigger a transfer of either Fire Districts' facilities to the City. police Department: Renton Pollca currentiy have two designated patrol districts in the Renton Highlands. The annexation area wouid be an extension of the R-9 patrol zone. Future development would require additional staffing to maintain the present offlcars per thousand residents retio. parks pepartment: The proposed Annexation includes two pareals planned for development as a community park. The property will be acquired by King County and transferred to the City for development. Equipment for the park is estimated at $97,000. Year1y maintenanca of the park is projected to cost $192,935. The following is a summary of the Bumstead Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis 6O%ISSUE.DOC This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associated with annexing these areas as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full development at some undetermined point in the future. The 'full development' scanarios for area should be considered 'order of magnitude" estimates of fiscal impact. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other compareble data, but actual results are likely to vary from these estimates. In general, costs associated with utilities have been assumed to be supported by rates charged for those servicas. Table 4, below, shows a net loss for the City of $32,584, at current development. The projection for full development is a net surplus of $106,061. The yeariy costs in the Full Development scanario include $192,935 for maintaining the community park that is planned for forty acres of the proposed Annexation area. Tabie 1. and Current Development Issue Paper -60% Petition to ...• nex I Zoning Bumstead Annexation April 10.1995 Page 5 Table 2. Estimated Annual Revenues at Current and Full Development Property Tax Excess Levy State Shared Misc. Total Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenues Current $86,656 $8,964 $28,088 $8,213 $131,901 Development Full $702,287 $72,650 $158,435 $192,312 $1,125,685 Development Table 3. Estimated Annual Costs at Current and Full Development County Police Parks Roads Pub.wksl Total Contracts Courts/Other Current $8,105 $64,280 NIA $25,635 $86,485 $164,484 Development Full $45,751 $329,127 $192,935 $76,904 $374,907 $1,019,624 Development T bl 4 A a e nnua IR IC st S evenue 0 f C ummary· or t d F II D urren an u eveopmen t Estimated Revenues Estimated Costs Revenues Less Costs Current Development $131900 $164484 ($32584) Full Development $1 125685 $1,019624 $106,061 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION (Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2429) Consjstency wjth the Comprehenslye Plan: 6O'l6ISSUE.DOC Upon annexation, the City will be capable of providing services to support development at urban densities. Some additional and upgraded infrastructure will be required within the area to be annexed, concurrent to new development. The costs for these Improvements will be bome by the developers. All reviewing departments indicate that the proposed annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services. (AX-l.3, AX-2.2, AX-5.1) Renton has an inherent Interest In subject area as It Includes vacant lands subject to development pressure, developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural resources, lands which will be available for urbanization under the county comprehensive plan, and aquifer recharge areas. (AX-l.4, AX-4.2, AX-4.4, AX- 6.4) Development In the proposed annexation area currently impacts City Infrastructure. (AX- 2.5) The proposed annexation Is adjacent to the city boundary, is generally defined by readily Identifiable boundaries where available, does not cleave neighborhoods, and is over ten (10) acres. (AX-3.2, AX-8.3) Issue Paper -60% Petition to ,,,.nex I Zoning Bumstead Annexation April 10,1995 Page 6 The annexation would allow increased control over land uses along a major entrence to the City. (AX-3.5) Consistency wjth BoundaN Revjew Board Objectlyes; (from RCW 36.93.180) 6O%ISSUE.DOC a. PreseNation of natural neighborhoods and communities. The area Is generelly comprised of large, underdeveloped lots with pockets of development at urban densities. Existing residential subdivisions have been Included or exciuded in their entirety. b. Use of physical boundaries, Inciudlng but not limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours. Where possible, road rights-of-way have been used for identifiable boundaries. In some cases, property lines have been used as boundaries. c. Creation and preseNation of logical seNice areas. According to the City's Wastewater Utility, the East Renton Sewer Interceptor, upon completion, will have the capacity to seNe future development In the proposed Annexation area. Responding City Divisions stated that the proposel represents a logical extension of their respective seNlce areas. d. Prevention of abnormally Irregular boundaries. The proposel does not create Islands or peninsulas of unincorporated County lands. e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of Incorporetlons of cities in excess of ten thousand population In heavily populated urban areas. Not applicable. f. Dissolution of Inactive special purpose districts. The proposal would not dissolve special purpose districts, but It would permit sanitary sewer seNice where seNlce Is currently unavailable. g. Adjustment of Imprectlcal boundaries. The proposal neither creates nor Improves impractical boundaries. h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban In character. Portions of the proposed Annexation area are currently developed at urban densities. Other portions appear to be subject to development pressures. I. Protection of agriculturel and rurel lands which are deSignated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed Annexation area have been Identified by' King County or the City of Renton for long term productive agricultural or resource use. BU"R.NSTEAD ANNEX t\.TION Annexation Area EXHIBIT 1 e CITY OF RENTON AID PLANNlNG/BUILDING/PUBlJC WORKS + ~ + O.Dennison ~ R.MacOnl., D.Vlm •• kI ~ 31 March 1995 dMl o I Proposed Annexation Area 1:12000 2000 I BUP~STEAD ANNEXft1'ION PROf'vSED CITY OF RENTON LONING EXHIBIT 2 > 1 Residential - 5 dulac 1::;:::::::1 Residential 8 dulac I!Eii!mm Residential -10 dulac Praposed Annexotion Areo ----Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 ~I ~~~I~~~I 1:12000 CTY OF RENTON e P\.AlINIIGJBlI..I)t.IGIPUBUC WORKS + ~ + O.DonNoon R. Mac<Wo...t..D. vr...Id 31 Mord! 1'1'15 BUT'~STEAD ANNEXJ TION VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBUC WORKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie, D.Visneski 31 March 1995 ____ Renton City LImit. If!IIIJ Proposed Annexation o 2000 4000 ~I ~I iiiiiiiiiii!!~~~1 1:24,000 u BUP~STEAD ANNEX~ION KING COUNTY ZONIN~ EXHIBIT 4 : ~ JI SF S r 1-I ....... tI- I"" :\ R-4 I!;;;!!!! mH R-12 po::::::! R-18 !:m:::;;;1 CB Ililli!iftD N B I Proposed Annexation Area ____ Renton City limits M'" 1-1 o I l:::: . ..... 1000 I : 1 ;12000 ;"1- f'; 2000 I OTY OF RlNTON e ~/BW)Ni1PUlUC WORKS +__ + aD ,OIIGII ~ R. ~. Do VIor..Id 31 """' 1995 ---- o I BUT'~STEAD ANNEX" TION Topography EXHIBIT 5 Proposed Annexation Area Renton City Limits 1000 I 1: 12000 2000 I \ CITY OF RENTON pLANNING/BunJ>ING/PUBLIC WORKS O.Dennl8on R.MacOnie. D.Vlane8k1 31 March 1995 BUP~STEAD ANNEX; '{'ION EXISTING LANDUSE V ":1 Vacant P:::::::I Residential li::mmij Commercial 1'·::::::::::::1 Public Use I I Proposed Annexation Area ____ Renton City Limits EXHIBIT 6 o I 2000 I CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BlJILDING/PUBIJC woRKS O.Dennison R.HacOnie. D.Visneski 31 Harch 1995 BUP~STEAD ANNEX}'l'ION COMPREHENSivE PLAN MAP EXHIBIT 7 1:1 Residential Rural f~:::~::"" Residential Single Family ""","","'" Residential Options E .. • ...... ·, iii;;;;;;; Residential Planned Neighborhood Residential Multi-Family Infill Center Suburban Proposed Annexation Area Renton City limits o I 1000 I 1: 12000 2000 I CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/Bun.DING/pUBLIC WORKS O.Dennison R.MaoOnie. D. Visneski 31 March 1995 Date: To: Via: From: ! CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM April 10, 1995 City Council Mayor Clymer Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department '" CONCURRENCE DAT~ '1.-'i-P.S NAME INITIAl/DATE Q~ Il .... .-so-.-. CO '1.-5" fh'l"-Un1-ir",,!Mt,<\ ilI~ 4_:; ""tJ. twq.,?, G'l. ttj.{ I.l ('0. In ~~ Staff Contact: Michael D, Kattermann, Director Planning and Technical Services Owen Dennison, Planner Subject: I. Issue Long Range Planning Issue Paper Burnstead Annexation 60% Petition to Annex/Rezone to R-1, R-5 and R-8 Proponents of the Bumstead Annexation circulated a 60% Petition to Annex as authorized by the City Council on November 14,1994, at the 10% Notice of Intent Public Meeting, They have now submitted signatures representing approximately 62% of the assessed valuation for an area of about 399,3 acres. (Exhibit 1) The proponents are requesting Council acceptance of the Petition to Annex. At the Public Meeting, Council exercised the option to require the acceptance of City zoning for the area, concurrent to annexation. The zoning originally proposed included Single Family Low Density (SFL), Single Family (SF) and Mixed Residential (MR), Since the Notice of Intent Public Meeting, Council has amended the names of these zones and directed the drafting of a new intenmediate density zone, R-S. As a result, the zones now proposed for the subject properties are R-S (pending), R-8 and R-10. II. Recommendation On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends approval of the Bumstead Annexation as proposed. If Council concurs in this recommendation, the Administration .. recommends that Council move to accept the Bumstead Annexation as proposed by certifying, the 60% Annexation Petition, and authorize the Administration to prepare a Notice of Intention package for submission to the King County Boundary Review Board. ~~ CONCURRENCE r--' ['1:~.T~ 4 /..to b<: P·1j:;: .. :;r: INITIAL/DATEI( I • DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM April 10, 1995 Timothy J. Schlitzer, President Members of the Renton City Council Earl Clymer, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Michael Kattermann (#6190) Burnstead Annexation t'IICH dC" till""'" Gf2t,"?.c. z. ",,,,£ot A flier (attached, last page) has been circulated through the proposed Bumstead Annexation area. Information in the circular differs significantly from information provided by the City of Renton. The attached response letter has been mailed to a portion of the Annexation area. However, it appears that the issues raised in the flyer have not been fully put to rest. Reference may be made to the information in the flier at the public hearing this evening. cc: City Clerk CCRSPNS.DOCfOD IJNA! fWlUoLJ'vt iL,,1\I C-2 <II a On the 'l th day of -I1r"f:lq<1.IlA,1o.o!'1o.o!" , _______ • 1995. I deposited in the mails of the United States. a sealed envelope C6lit11ining . ckT<vw"If\A=hrw;, documents. This information was sent to: (Signature of Sender) _AA!It.a'/!j·AIldY!t:u.&._.!:~=--,Sc.iib::;~.~-<Lc.r:=-_______ _ J STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that instrument and acknowledged it to be hislherltheir free mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Lf / rJ I q?, r i otary lic in an~ the State of Washih~(in;: , ... ,~ Notary (Print) IJzJl-l?t-A1jtr.J. fJ(A L~'.:.;·1:12 My appOintment expires: =079,t ... i • Project Name: ~q-ead 1m~~M Project Number: NOTARY.DOC CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: April 7, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Larry Warren ~ Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190)\,\ \ BURN STEAD ANNEXATION ISSUES At our meeting with the East Renton Plateau Community group on Tuesday, April 4, there were some issues and questions raised for which I did not have a ready answer. Basically, the issues are as follows: Election versus petition method: there was at least one person (who does not live within the current annexation area) strongly pushing to scrap the petition and start an election drive instead. The 2 main arguments he made are that residents of the annexation area could vote on whether to accept the city's bonded indebtedness and they could vote whether to establish a "community municipal corporation." These will no doubt be pushed very strenuously on Monday at the public hearing. The other issue was whether properties on the rural side of the urban growth boundary would be included in the annexation if they are now part of a lot or parcel within the annexation due to a lot line adjustment. I don't know that this will be an issue for Monday's public hearing, but it does raise some interesting questions for the city and the county.to work out. I hope this information will be helpful to you in preparing for Monday's public hearing. Please feel free to contact me at 277-6190 or Owen at 277-2475 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. cc: Gregg Zimmerman Jay Covington Sue Carlson Owen Dennison S. William Halgren 2230 -151 st Place SE Bellevue. WA 98007-6321 April 6. 1995 Renton City'Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton. WA 98055 Dear Council Members .• : l_ I Sllpport your acceptance of the Burnstead 600/0 Petition to Annex because: • It is in conformance with Countywide Planning Policies. • It provides an opportunity for more affordable housing. • It makes I"",nd available to accommodate population projections in the Renton area. • It will provide near-by housing to meet Renton employment requirements thereby reducing long distance commuting. • It fLlrthers the effort for both contiguous and orderly development and provision of urban services. • The White-Fence Ranch area already characterized by development which is consistent with urban development and deserves urban services, and • Annexation is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Therefore. I encourage you to approve the Burnstead 60% Petition to Annex that I believe is in the best interests of the citizens of both the areas involved and the City of Renton. Sincerely. ~ ~)2; ?x y ?{, ~-~-... ~':"" ~ S. William Halgr-en • To: From: Date: MEMORANDUM Renton City Council Lawrence 1. Warren, City Attorney April 6, 1995 If) /K£ ~l/ttJtl CITY ~F RENTON Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Subject: Bumstead Annexation The City staff has been informed that there will be a protest concerning the Bumstead annexation on two grounds: (I) that the school district should not be permitted to sign the petition to annex, and (2) general opposition to the annexation, This memorandum is intended to advise you concerning the law on these two issues, I, Protest concerning the school district's signature on the petition to annex, Apparently one or more protesters will take the position that the school district does not have the legal ability to sign a petition to annex, The general statute on annexation for code cities, RCW 35A. 14, 120, is silent on the ability of school districts to sign a petition to annex, However, I could find no prohibition to such a signature, In contrast, I did find a statute, RCW 28A,335, I 10, which did allow school districts to petition for annexation in charter cities if the annexation is composed 100% of school district properties, There is a case in point, Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn, App, 722, 577 P,2d 164 (1978), In construing language nearly identical to the code city annexation language the court has held that municipal governments, such as the city or school districts, are owners of land with the right to petition for the annexation of its property, This topic has been debated by the Boundary Review Board in a case involving Mill Creek, The conclusion was that the various taxing districts such as school districts, fire districts, sewer districts, etc, have the legal ability to sign a petition to annex, I have further discussed this with the school district's attorney and our joint conclusion is that the school district has the legal ability to sign the petition, We can find no legal authority to the contrary, Post Office Box 626 -100 S 2nd Street -Renton. Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 ® ThiS paper containS 50~;' recyCled malerial, 25% poSI consumer Renton City Council 04/06/95 Page 2 2. General Protests. The Council is quite often addressed by those opposing the annexations but not living within the boundaries of the annexation. Technically, these people have no standing to protest the annexation. There is a statute, RCW 36.93.100(4), which does allow a protest by those outside the annexation boundaries. However, the majority of the members of the Boundary Review Board must agree to hear the request for review, and the request for review must be by 5% of the registered voters who deem themselves affected by the action and reside within one quarter mile of the proposed action, but not within the jurisdiction proposing the action. Therefore, anyone who does not reside within one quarter mile of the boundaries of the annexation does not have the legal ability to protest the annexation either before the City Councilor before the Boundary Review Board. Of course, they have the free speech right to express an opinion about the annexation, but that opinion has no legal effect on the annexation. Should you have any questions, I stand ready to answer m. LJW:as. cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Jay Covington A8113.19. April 6th, 1995 Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,. Washington 98055 Re: Burnstead Annexation Dear Council Members: (}J~ ~ ¥,~~,(J.-.1~· ...... , ',," . ,_ .... _',;:::0 '';~~."Y' ('·LERK'S·OFFlCE It may not be possible for me to attend the meeting scheduled for Monday ihe 10th. As a resident of White Fence Ranch, I wish to relay my continued support of the Burnstead Annexation. I appreciate the City providing information to clarify representations being made by others concerning costs and other related annexation matters. We also appreciate your consideration of our concerns related to zoning and development in the surrounding areas. I have been informed that you will be incorporating some of our suggestions in the related zoning definitions. Thank you for your support of our annexation request. Norman & Cynthia Green 14128 SE 132nd St. Renton, Wa. 98059 April 5, 1995 Marilyn J. Petersen Renton City Clerk Renton Municipal Bldg. 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, Wa. 98055 Re: Bumstead Petition to Annex into the City of Renton Dear Ms. Petersen: 6 c,'" 'j n '[00'; I ,j"['1 . .• :,]v'.) ~i L::-.(, 1:.; \; l:lJ r.'.:ITY (~i..ERr<':::~ OF~:iC!:: This letter is intended to register our opposition to the Bumstead Petition to Annex into the City of Renton and the resulting zoning considerations as proposed by the City. My wife and I have lived in the Renton area for more than 35 years. We built our home on SE 132nd Street approximately 12 years ago. We selected this site for several reasons including the "country" environment, lack of encroaching apartments and high density housing, and the appealing quality of life which this area provided. It is our opinion that the petitioned annexation and zoning proposal under consideration will result in a dramatic negative impact on the areas traffic congestion, crime, and overall quality of life we now appreciate. This proposed annexation will in our opinions accomplish only two things. First, it will provide a very few property owners the ability to develop properties which under existing County zoning codes could either not be used for residential development or developed at a density level substantially less than is now being proposed. These landowners purchased their properties knowing full well of the development and building restrictions. If this annexation succeeds, the rest of us landowners will be forced to subsidize the developers through large increases in our taxes and fees, including the initial installation of the sewer system. Second, the City benefits because they obtain a larger tax base. In an article in the Valley News dated November 4th, 1994, it was stated that the City has already earmarked the taxes that would be generated from this annexation not for expanded services to the new City citizens but to pay for improvements in the deteriorating downtown area. There has been much said by both the City and proponents of the annexation with regard to reallocation and redirection of County funds for maintenance and improvements to roads and other infrastructure away from the proposed annexation area in favor of County areas on the East Side. These statements were made to infer that if the residents of our area want our roads maintained and improved, annexation into the City of Renton was our best option. In fact, the City has no intention or fiscal ability to maintain or improve the infrastructure of our area any better than the County. The City has stated that they will have to increase our taxes even further, using traffic mitigating fees to offset cost for any road improvements required to handle the increase population which would result from this annexation. With regard to the proposed zoning, we are disappointed with what we believe to be implied misinformation with regard to the number of residences allowable per acre. The various plot plans illustrating the various zoning areas make reference to such terms as "Resideritial-5 dulac and Residential-10 dulac". When discussing these terms with my neighbors and others, they all believe that these references imply that there are allowed only 5 single family homes per acre or 10 single family homes per acre. In fact, I understand that these figures refer to dwelling units per acre which the City of Renton defines as anything from a "typical" single family home to a duplex, triplex, or fourplex. Therefore, when it says 5 dulac, there could be as many as 20 dwelling units per acre built. In addition, the City of Renton considers gross acres in their calculations. Therefore, in calculating the number of building units per acre on a 10 acre lot, the required improvements such as roads, sidewalks, easements, greenbelts, etc. are not subtracted from the total acreage available. This means that the proposed lots in a zoning area of 5 building units per acre equates to an average lot size of about 5,000 sq. ft., about half the size of the average lot in Maplewood Heights. It is my understanding that the county zoning references net acreage in their calculations for building density. The Maplewood Heights area was developed to approximately 2.5 bu/ac under County regulations. Again, we would like to express our disapproval with the Burnstead Annexation proposal. Sincerely, Norman and Cynthia Gree~ -:2L-t:--c-VV"~~=--:-r./-~ (JFLLe~:;~kl~ April 5th, 1995 Renton City Council 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,. Washington 98055 Re: Bumstead Annexation Dear Council Members: . :.. PLANNiNG DIVISION CIT",-.,-''"'Cf\IT0N APR 6 1995 RECEIVED This is to express my complete support of the Bumstead Annexation and the proposed zoning for the annexation area. I also feel this represents the majority of people from the White Fence Ranch sub-division as I have been the principal signature gatherer on petitions submitted from this area. As may be noted from the attached sub-division map, signatures representing over 70% in assessed valuation, and over 73% of the property owners, were submitted on our petition. One of the major factors in this effort has been the desperate need for sewers in the White Fence Ranch sub-division. A study conducted by King County in 1993 as a part of the May Creek Septic Tank Study highlighted a 17% failure rate on existing septic systems in White Fence Ranch. The other major concern of those who signed the petition involves future zoning and growth in the area. By becoming a part of the annexation we hope to have a more active voice in potential future proposed zoning changes. You should be aware that a vocal minority is attempting to short-circuit the annexation process. On April 4th a meeting was held by the East Renton Plateau Community Council to follow-up on flyers distributed in the area which made claims such as $30,000 costs per lot for sewers if the annexation occurs. While I managed to get representatives from the City of Renton to this meeting (who were conveniently not previously invited), I am afraid that the selective order in which those attending were allowed to speak did not allow for a meaningful response or clarification to many of the miss-stated facts which have been presented by the East Renton Plateau Community Council. I personally contacted nearly all residents of White Fence Ranch over this last weekend. With one exception, I was not advised of any swing in position by those who signed the annexation petition. However, the efforts of those who have consistently been against annexation are taking a new direction. This group intends to ask you to throw out the current 60% annexation petition in favor of an election to annex in the fonn of a Municipal Corporation. It is the intent of this group to also request that the Boundary Review Board throw out the 60% annexation in favor of forming a Municipal Corp., under the guise of a claim of irregular boundaries. While the election process will gain favor with many people who are primarily concerned with future zoning or assuming existing City of Renton debt, both you and the Boundary Review Board should be aware that the real intent of this minority grQup Is to block any and all annexation of the area. . . I, and nearly all of those who are signature to the annexation petition, remain convinced that the proposed Bumstead Annexation is in the best interests of the community effected and should not be delayed for any reason. Respectfully Submitted, L?L~ Chris Holstrom White Fence Ranch Annexation Petition Status -415195 I-- r--r-- Tot Req Cur % Tot Req Cur % I Tot Req Cur % Tot Req Cur % Totals Ledgend Not Contacted Yet Petition signed Non-Resident Owner Undeckted Firm No Block 1 $2,700,500 $1,620,300 $1,413,800 52,35% Block 2 $1,943,200 $1,165,920 $1,753,000 80,21'1(, Block 3 $2,268,069 $1,360,841 $1,709,069 Block 4 $2,533,000 $1,519,800 $1,792,500 7O,7nI Totals $9,444,769 $6,888,881 Non-Resident owners mailed petition copy and letter asking for 51 nature on 12114 _ Plated, Undeveloped Road Right-of-way , . ~.~ 'ii .. >+- ..u. . -Earl Clymer. Mayor April 5, 1995 , , Dear White Fence Ranch Resident: CIT~F RENTON Plimning/BiIilding/Public Works Department Gregg ?:immerman P.E., Administrator This letter is to update .you on the progress of the proposed Bumstead Annexation' and the proposed zoning" and to provide 'some general information regarding Renton citiz.enship . . BUrnstead Anne~atiQn' -Process White Fence Ranch and the area west to 148thAvenue SE was not designated as Urban until the King COUlity Council adopted revisions to the Urban' GroWth Boundary in,December, 1994. When this occurred, the White Fence: Ranch Subdivision became .' eligible to participate in . annexations'. At the request of White Fence' Ranch property owners, the' subdivision was included . in' an expanded East .Renton Plateau (Burnstead) Annexation. Sufficient signafures have been . collected'on a : Petition to Annex to support the annexation of about 400 acres shown on the enclosed March, 1995, map. . The City has now scheduled a public bearing on the Petition to Annex for April 10, 1995, at 7:30 PM. This will be your opportunitY to offer your coinments to the' City 'Council before they vote . on :whethtir to accept, reject or modify the annexation proposal. This will also be the first of two opportunities to comment on zoning for the Annexation .. , . If the Council accepts the Petition, the City will submit an information packet on the proposed , Amiexation to the BciundaryReview Board for King County .. The Board maintains possession of the file for forty~five days. During, this period;. other 'agencies, for example, utility and school : districts, or sufficient groups of private .citizens can requeSt a hearing' on. the Annexation. . If a hearing is requested, the Board will review the proposal and may accept; reject or modify it: . ' '. . After the Board's forty-five days have passed, or after the Board has accepted some form of the . BurnsteadAnnexation, the City will schedule a second public hearing on zoning. At the close of • • • J this hearing, the Council can adopt; annexation and zoning ordinances. Proposed Zoning Until the area annexes, development must follow King·County zoning. The County,zoning for the 'area including and west of White Fence Ranch to 148th Avenue SE is R4. This means that four homes can be built on an acre of land, The County calculates density on gross acreage. White Fence Ranch is about 3.2 homesper'~ acre.·' , .... :.' '. In the Petition to Annex that was cirCUlated in your neighborhood and ,throughout the proposed Annexation area, three proposed zoning designations were identified on the Petition f9rm and on an attached map. (enclosed) These zones were Single Family Low Density (SFL), Single Family (SF) and Mixed Residential (MR): The area north of SE 128th Street from the east side of White Fence Ranch to 148th Avenue SE was proposed as ·SFL. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 * This paper cO~lajn8 50r" recycled rriale~lal, 2.5% post cons~mer . Page 2 April 5, 1995 At the time the SFL Zone was proposed for this area, the City Council had indicated an interest in raising the maximum number of homes allowed in the zone from one to five per net acre. Renton calculates density based on net acreage, the area that is left for development after streets and environmentally sensitive areas are deducted. White Fence Ranch is about four homes per ~ acre. This is roughly equivalent to the County's density of 3.2 homes per ~ acre. Since the Petition was released for circulation, in an effort to make the zone names more understandable, the City Council renamed most of the City's zones. For instance, SFL was changed to R-l to reflect the one home per acre maximum, SF was changed to R-8, MR was changed to R-I0, etc. However, the substance of the zones was not changed. Additionally, the Council directed City staff to leave the SFL (R-l) Zone at one home per acre and to create a new zone, R-5, that would allow up to five homes per net acre. The R-5 Zone will be proposed to the City Council for the zoning of White Fence Ranch and much of the rest of the Bumstead Annexation. This would allow development of the area surrounding your neighborhood to be similar to that in White Fence Ranch. The City Council has not yet adopted this new R-5 Zone, but adoption is anticipated before the proposed Annexation is completed. If you want to give testimony to the City Council before they make a decision on the creation of the R-5 Zone, a public hearing will be scheduled for a Council meeting in April. Chris Holstrom of White Fence Ranch has asked to be informed of the meeting date. You will also have two opportunities to offer your comments to the City Council on the zoning that will be applied to the proposed Annexation. The first, as noted above, will be on April 10, 1995. The second meeting will be held after the Boundary Review Board's review period is finished. You are encouraged to attend either or both meetings. Concerns have been voiced that the proposed zoning would allow multi-family development throughout the Bumstead Annexation area. The reality is that 95 % of the area is proposed for single family neighborhood development. The remaining 5%, adjacent to the existing city limits and shown on the map as MR and R-I0, would allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. However, even in the MR area, at least 50% of any development must be single family. Existing King County zoning of the same area would allow about at least 1 112 times as many units. Renton Citizenship The following points highlight the differences that annexation and Renton citizenship will bring. • You will be able to vote in City Council elections. This will give you representation at the local level with a responsive ear to local concerns and a greater voice in the City'S present and future. • Police protection: The number of officers per thousand residents will increase significantly with annexation. • Sewers: The policy of the Renton City Council is to require annexation prior to extension of sanitary sewer service. The City will not extend the interceptor past 138th Avenue NE. However, property owners from White Fence Ranch to the city limits have indicated an Page 3 April 5, 1995 interest in receiving service for existing or future development. The cost of extending a main can be shared among the property owners who will use it. • Fire protection: White Fence Ranch is currently served by City of Renton firefighters under contract with Fire District 25. Fire service would not change. • Recreational opportunities: Forty acres of land at the southern end of the proposed Annexation area will be developed for passive and active recreation if annexation occurs. Additionally, some user fees, such as boat launching at Coulon Park, are less expensive for Renton residents. • Free use of the Renton libraries: Additionally, the City is working on a reciprocal agreement with the County library system. • Garbage collection is mandatory, but rates would be significantly lower. According to Washington law, your current solid waste hauler will continue service for five years. When the City's contracted hauler assumes the service for your area, the per-can rate decrease will take effect. • Monthly surface water utility rates would decrease from $7.09 to $5.18. Also enclosed is a letter responding to a flyer distributed for a meeting of the East Renton Plateau Community Council. The letter contains information that has been included in previous information packets. City staff is available to answer your questions. If you have any questions on sewers, please call David Christensen at 277-6212. For other annexation questions, please call Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Sincerely, !fLlj~ ~ Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services cc Gregg Zimmerman Sue Carlson David Christensen Owen Dennison , " f::: :;1 1;:::::::::1 .......... .......... I ---- BUT"'~STEAD ANNEX' TION PROPOSED' CITY OF RENTON ZONING MARCH, 1995 Residential - 5 dulac 0 1000 Residential 8 dulac I I Residential -10 dulac 1:12000 OTY OF RENTON 2000 I Proposed Annexotlon Areo PI.AJ'oN«i~1PlIIlJC WORKS Renton City limits +eR + OJ) ..... L MtxOri8t99 D. YhMIId 31 MInh 5 . -. ---- BUnNSTEAD ANNEX' TION PROPOSED ZONING JANUARY 1995 Mixed Residential Proposed & Expanded Annexation Areas Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 ~I~~~I I 1:12000 aTY OF RENTON ® PlANNINGIBlJl.DING/PUBUC WORK, S • 6ID + O.Demilon ~ R. MacOnIe, D. Yosneoki 5 .IcnIary 1995 , !. To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Sam Chastain\=Communit y Services Administrator Lee Wheeler, ire Chief From: Jim Hanson & Mike Kattermann I~~. Agenda listed below. City of Rentonl1995 Downtown Watermaln Rehab (New) (W/lsonIPyweI/15586) LUA-95-034,ECF The City of Renton Water Utility proposes to replace several existing watermains The project also includes installation of fire hydrants and other appurtenances. The new watermains would be connected to existing watenmains. Location: The project site is located within Section 18 of Township 23 N, Range 5 E, W. M., in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Nelson Place Storm Replacement (New) (CareyIPywe/l15586) LUA-95-035,ECF The project will replace the existing 12-and 18-inch stonmwater pipes with approximately 700 feet of new 12-, 18-, and 24-lnch pipes. The new stormwater system will replace the failing pipes in Nelson Place NW and Rainier Avenue with a new system that will be located in City right-of·way. Approximately 5 new Type 2 catch basins and 6 new Type 1 catch basins will be installed. Location: The project is located on the west side of Rainier Avenue North, from the Intersection with Nelson Place NW to 180 feet north of the intersection with NW 3rd Place. Construction will also occur in NW 3rd Place, from the intersection with Rainier Avenue to the intersection with Hardie Avenue NW. Smurflt Materials Recovery Facility (New) (PyweI/15586) LUA-95-033,SA,SM,ECF The applicant seeks Site Plan Approval, Environmental Review and a Substantial Development Penmit to construct a concrete tilt·up building for a materials recovery facility. The applicant proposes to construct a 61,100 SF recycling center building. Parking for 58 cars will be provided on·site. Approximately 75% of the site will be covered by impervious surface with the remainder reserved for landscaping and water quality features. Location: South side of SW 34th Street, East of Springbrook Creek, West of Lind Ave. Zoning for the Proposed Bumstead Annexation -(New) j(Dennlson12475) 7 LUA-94-133,A,ECF,R City of Renton zoning will be adopted concurrent to the annexation of about 400 acres on the East Renton Plateau (Burnstead Annexation). City of Renton zones R-5 (net yet adopted), R-8 and R-10 are proposed to supplant the existing King County zoning of R-4, R-12, R-18, CB and NB for the properties proposed for annexation. Location: The proposed zone changes will affect properties East of the existing City limits North and South of SE 128th Street between 140th Avenue SE and one lot line East of 156th Avenue SE. Master Site Plan Ordinance (New) (RosenI2719) LUA-95-047,ECF The proposed non·project action is a Zoning Code amendment to create a new chapter (Chapter 34) entitled "Master Site Plan Approvals". The Master Site Plan approvals amendment is intended to provide a review process for the approval of conceptual site plans; appropriate for projects that include phased development, a series of projects or improvements on a site, etc. Northwest Handling (Discussion) (HuerterI2518) LUA-95-021 ,SA,ECF, V Response to comment letter received from Metro recommending implementation of a Transportation Management Plan. ee: J. COvington, EXecutive Assistant to the Mayor L. Warren. City Attorney (R) F. Kaufman, HearinQ Examiner S. Carlson, Economic Development Specialist (R) J. Gray, Fire Prevention A. Larson. Fire Prevention (R) P. Pierce. P/B/PW Admin . \-, '. . ' ... '. . . e~~.~ .ill. .. -. . . /" . , , Planning/Building/Public Works Department '. 'Gregg Zimmerman P.E.; Administrator . Earl Clymer, Mayor .' ." . .' April 3, 1'995 . Dear East.Re~tonPlateauReside~t: . -)0, • ',,, . The . attached documerit. is being distributed in the' East Renton Annexation area. The· information expressed is substantially. different from the information die City of Renton has' provided. T!ie City would like an opportunity to "respond to .these issues. Issue ,1:. ';The whole anne:mtionattemp~ .eoilldfail ,if only some residents of 'the White Fence Ranch area.were to remove their names from the petition. . ,,:., .' . ";'. .' ,'-" .' . " " '. .... .' ",' ReSponSe 1: . The boundaries were drawn baSed on the asseSsed value of the properties represented by the sigrtatures 6n ·the Petitions. 'It is tru-ethat the current East, Renton Plateau ,(Burnstead) Annexation proposal Could. not'be supporte& in its current form if' a significant . number of· the residents of White Fence Ranch opposed annexation:' ".' . , . , . .', . . .. ' . However, the "terniinaldate",forthe Petition to Anriex haspas~ed .. ,Under the'Revised Code of Washington State; after a PetitiQn·to 'Annex is submitted to the City, a certification process is conducted on the Petition. ' Signatures can be added and' withdrawn until the certification is. . begun .. C~rtification of. signatures on the East. Renton· Plateau Petition to Annex began on .. March 29,1995. Although'You cannol'remove your naine from tJie Petition, this doeS not mean'that:East Renton Plateau Aimexationarea residentS have no more voice in the process .• The City Council will hold· a public hearing on the Aimexation proposal on Apr/ItO, 199~,' at: . 7:30' PM.' The City Council decides whether to accept or .reject annexation . proposals and . whether t~ modify the proposed boundaries. The public hearing. isa forum for you to voice . your support of, or opposition to! the Annexation·proposal. .. . . . . ISsue 2: A~exatio~.it~nsthatYoUr taxes will raise by 78~Per thousand of ' .. ' ..... assessed v8Iuation. $117 on Ii $150,000 home •. '. . '. . ... ,-. . . . . . ,,'" . Resp~nse 2: ,According to'the CitY;~'Finarice Department, propeity taxes will increase by 19¢ per thousarid of assessed value: if annexation occurs .. This would' repreSent an increase of $28.50 per year for a $150,000 home. " . . , . . '.' '. " '.'" ." " . :. ' . Issue .3: You. will have ~o pay for the bonded in,debtedness.of.the King County Libraries but you will notbe.able to uSe them ... . ' , . ,-, ' I : ,'. . ,'" '. ',:. ,,' .' . • • .: • Response 3:'~ The City is awaiting aleglli opinion on whether bond obligations for the County . . library system would follow property owners' aftllr annexation. However, it appears that.'this is not the case. .' 200 Mill Avenue South ~ Renton; Washington 98055 : (1) ThiS; pap~~~'o~;~ina 50%-';~CVCled ma!~rial: 25% post co~sumer. .' . In any event, the Renton and King County library systems are working on a reciprocal agreement that would allow residents of the area to use facilities in both systems. The agreements and shared data bases are anticipated to be in place by late 1996. Issue 4: You will pay a 6% surcharge on aU utilities, water, phone, gas, electricity, cable. Response 4: This is partially true. City residents do pay a 6% utility tax. However, water service to the Burnstead Annexation area is provided by Water District 90. If annexation occurs, the W.D. 90 would continue to serve, and this service would not be taxed by the City. The City'S Finance Department calculated an average yearly utility tax bill of $127.44. This amount would be off-set by a reduction in surface water fees of $25.00 per year and a reduction of $150.00 per year in solid waste fees for residents using one garbage can. According to State law, solid waste service, and the reduced fee schedule, would not begin for five years following annexation. Issue 5: You will have the highest utility rates in the state. Response 5: A comparison of utility rates among surrounding jurisdictions, cities and utility districts was conducted for 1995. The study showed that Renton's overall monthly utility charges ranked fourth from the lowest, out of ten cities and districts. Sewer rates will not apply until connection. Water will continue to be provided by Water District 90 according to their rates. Solid waste and surface water rates are currently lower in the City than the County. Issue 6: For those who desire sewers, there are alternatives that cost less, remember, with sewers, you will pay $32 each month just for being connected. You could annex and not get sewers for years! Response 6: In many cases, sewers are the most dependable, long-term solution to sewage disposal. Additionally, the cost of connecting to the City'S sanitary sewer system may be comparable to the cost of an alternative septic disposal system. Extension of sewers will be done either by development interests, or by local improvement districts (LID's) established by local residents with City coordination and assistance, or by a combination of both. Availability of sewers will not happen overnight. However, neighborhoods can take matters into their own hands by forming an LID to extend sewers. If there is a neighborhood consensus that sewers are needed, an LID will greatly accelerate provision of sewers, and will allow the extension of service without waiting for developers to install local sewer lines. Therefore, the neighborhood can have a hand in establishing a time table for obtaining sewer service. Issue 7: You will f"mance the infrastructure for more housing, traffic, gridlock, and growth, which in turn requires more schools, police, roads, etc. Response 7: The East Renton Plateau will develop with or without annexation. When development occurs, developers must pay fees to off-set the additional demands on the infrastructure, Le., roads, schools, etc. Property taxes, on the other hand, pay for the services the County or the City provides. These services include fire and police protection, road and surface water facility maintenance, judicial and legislative services, libraries, parks and others. Annexation can give you a voice in the way that growth occurs in the City of Renton. As growth does not depend on annexation, growth also does not depend on infrastructure improvements. Increasing demands on the County's road system and police and other services will continue to stretch the County's ability to provide these necessary services. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the East Renton Plateau as a Service Planning Area. King County has pledged to invest in road improvements only for existing and pipeline developments in these areas. (policy U-407) Growth will occur, hut the commitment to finance the improvements to accommodate that growth has not been made by the County. Issue 8: City sewers will cost the average home owner between $22,000 and $30,000. Response 8: If White Fence Ranch homeowners were to bear the full cost of extending the sewer main from 138th Avenue SE to the subdivision, this cost may be reasonably accurate. However, property owners north of SE 128th Street, from White Fence Ranch to the city limits, have indicated an interest in obtaining sewer service. Dividing the cost of the main extension among a large number of property owners would allow significant savings for individual owners. The cost of providing sanitary sewer service is dependent upon a number of issues such as proximity to an existing system, difficulty of construction and the relative size of the proposed service area. The White Fence Ranch area, as it exists now, is relatively isolated and distant from existing facilities. Therefore, it could be cost prohibitive for residents to bear the entire cost of the extension required to serve their area. Any future development that may occur in their general vicinity would significantly reduce the potential cost to White Fence Ranch residents. In addition, the City has worked to spread the cost of such extensions to all directly benefiting parcels through Special Assessment Districts. An example is the Sierra Heights Local Improvement District (LID) that, through the establishment of a special Assessment District, reduced the average cost per lot from $13,000 to approximately $8,000 per lot. A grant further reduced the cost to approximately $5,000. Additional connection charges would be assessed on top of the LID main extension. Issue 9: You can update your old [septic] system for between $9,000 and $15,000. Response 9: This may be true, but this price might also be sufficient for sewer provision. Annexation does not require sewer connection, except in cases of complete septic failure or when an LID is formed for a neighborhood. However, annexation provides the option of sewers. Sincerely, Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services At--. EXATION I-. ..... ERT There will be 8 community meetlnq on TUESDAY. APRIL 4th at 7,30 PM at Lord of Life Lutheran Church: located at SE 128th & 160th SE. If YOU have anY questions about costs to YOU, or what YOU can expect If the annexation proceeds, thi5 is the place to get YOur answers. The whole annexation attempt could fail if onlv some residents of the White Fence Ranch area were to remove their names from the petition. Annexation means that your Taxes will raise by 78¢ per thousand of assessed valuation. 5117 on a $150,000 home • . -You will have to pay for the bonded indebtedness of the King Countv Libraries but you will not be able to use them. You will pay a 6% surcharqe on all utilities, water, phone, gas. electricity, cable. . You will have the highest utility rates in the state. For those who desire sewers, there are alternatives that cost less, reme~ber, with sewers, yoU will pay $32 EACH MONTH just for beinq connected. You could annex and not get sewers for years! You will finance the Infrastructure for more housing, traffic, qridlock. and growth, which in turn requires more schools, pOllce'i roads, etc .. Bill Stuth an expert appraiser on sewers and septic systems claims that City Sewers will cost the averaqe home owner between $22,000 and $30,000. He also states that vou can update your old system for between $9,000 and $15,000. He also likes what they call a STEP SYSTEM which would only cost the average homeowner about $5000. The whole city of Hoquiam uses this system now. WHATEVER YOU SPEND ON SEWERS OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS, IT WILL NOT HAKE YOUR HOME WORTH ANY MORE ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET. Check it out. Who gains if you annex the city? Thi nk about it! Distributed by, East Renton Plateau Community Council. For further information, call Rav Griffin at 228-5673. , ... ~ "m .;~~ CITY JF RENTON Earl Clymer, Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator April 3, 1995 Commissioners Water District 90 15606 SE 128th Street Renton, W A 98059 SUBJECT: PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXA nON District Commissioners: The City of Renton is processing a request to annex 399.3 acres of the East Renton Plateau to the City of Renton. The area lies within the boundaries of Water District 90. (See enclosed maps) This letter is to apprise you of the proposal and to request certain information that the City must forward to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. Water District 90 has declared both the desire and the ability to continue to provide water . service to the area. The City recognizes the District's franchise and does not wish to encroach upon the District'S· s·e~ice area. However, with any proposed annexation, the Boundary Review Board requires an analysis of the sources for all primary urban services. The proposed City zoning allows comparable densities to those permitted under the existing King County zoning. The City projects 954 residences and a population of 2676 at build-out. Are these figures consistent with the District's source capacity? Additionally, the Boundary Review Board has requested the following information for inclusion in the report on the Bumstead Annexation proposal: 1) The location and capacity of storage facilities to serve the area; 2) Existing water sources aside from the Seattle Water Department; 3) Pressure station location and measured flow for the area; 4) Any additional or upgraded mains within the area that are not represented on the Water District's 1993 facilities map; and, 5) A brief evaluation of the present adequacy, cost and rates of service to the area and how you see future needs and costs increasing. I assume that we can find Items I, 2 and 3 in your Comprehensive Plan, if you have an available copy to send us. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 on ". r. t • N I We would appreciate a response by Apri119, so that we can make a timely submittal to the Boundary Review Board. If you have any questions, please contact Owen Dennison at 277- 247S. Thank you. S~iJ.Kdl£->f Michael D. Kattermann; AlCP Director, Planning and Technical Services . cc: Gregg Zimmerman Sue Carlson Ron Olsen Lys Hornsby /,., . -r " • v · ~ ." • " > ~ • • • • • 0 !': • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :::.::::1 R-4 H:ijjH'i!jjmHl R -12 1:"""":1 R-18 I;m;;;ml CB Iii!::::!:!) NB BUP~STEAD ANNEX' TION KING COUNTY ZONING '<-:1T--t--T-'-~~~~+HI------lf----j. ~ t-------lB 1---r-'5.J o 1000 2000 ·~I~!· I 1:12000 Proposed Annexation Area Renton Cit Limits +!R + CTY Of ROOON ~1Bl.I.I)t.IG/PU!IJC WORJ(! o.o..wan I. Mac:OW, D. ~ 255-9600 KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 15606 Southeast 128th Street Renton, Washington 98059 King County Water Dis!. #90 April 18, 1995 City of Renton Michael D. Katterman,AICP 200 Mill Street Renton, W A 98059 Dear Mr. Katterman: You have requested information from King County Water District #90 regarding the proposed Bumstead Annexation by April 19, 1995, for review by the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. We will send the information you need, but find it won't be completed by this date because of the complexity of the project and the information required. An extension of approximately 30 days will be needed to show the District can continue to supply water for this area. Please keep us advised of progress made by the City of Renton on this Annexation. Sincerely, 9q.ru/~/~ Daniel Selzler, Manager SENT BY: 4-3-95 ; 7:23AM HNTB 1lELLEVVE .... 16.IINY'D COnr/l.,fllc') 600 1 oath Aw.., Suite 400. Ucllevup., WA 9&J04 (206) 45~~~) "53.~.ArChltec;turai f.t)C (2Q6) 4GO 2597 -------------------- DELIVER TO: FROM: Transmitted by: TELECOPIER COVER SHEET --~~~SZti~'--______ --- Total Number of Pages (including cover sheet): A ---- o Original will be mailed 0""i'-axcd copy only HNTB Job No_~: __ Dale Sent: COMMENTS: 206 277 4455;# II 2 Qt. IVa • Ow&..,- -riii... ~rrt4~P IS &bwt.. C .. 9.eUL.,..rQ> hi'-wl-W. r (Lf,.~I'IJ-JOi.D w,,.., -.-. ni OW"J {jJr I toI.S ,.... .. ;...rl.., ~ ~() --,Me. ~j;.T.S 6v' -;,.U.. C. rl . .. ',:, ,-.. ~~\'lIIP" IIIL CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator -Earl Clymer, Mayor April 3, 1995 Commissioners Water District 90 15606 SE 128th Street Renton, WA 98059 SUBJECT: PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION District Commissioners: The City of Renton is processing a request to annex 399.3 acres of the East Renton Plateau to the City of Renton. The area lies within the boundaries of Water District 90. (See enclosed maps) This letter is to apprise you of the proposal and to request certain information that the City must forward to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. Water District 90 has declared both the desire and the ability to continue to provide water service to the area .. The City recognizes the District's franchise and does not wish to encroach upon the District's service area. However, with any proposed annexation, the Boundary Review Board requires an analysis of the sources for all primary urban services. The proposed City zoning allows comparable densities to those permitted under the existing King County zoning. The City projects 954 residences and a population of 2676 at build-out. Are these figures consistent with the District's source capacity? Additionally, the Boundary Review Board has requested the following information for inclusion in the report on the Bumstead Annexation proposal: 1) The location and capacity of storage facilities to serve the area; 2) Existing water sources aside from the Seattle Water Department; 3) Pressure station location and measured flow for the area; 4) Any additional or upgraded mains within the area that are not represented on the Water District's 1993 facilities map; and, 5) A brief evaluation of the present adequacy, cost and rates of service to the area and how you see future needs and costs increasing. . I assume that we can find Items I, 2 and 3 in your Comprehensive Plan, if you have an available copy to send us. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 11I1S PAPF.R CONTAINS.5O% RECYCLED MATERtAL.10% pO~CONSUMER We would appreciate a response by April 19, so that we can make a timely submittal to the Boundary Review Board. If you have any questions, please contact Owen Dennison at 277- 2475. Thank you. . '#/:Pfj,!(c11lC =t Michael D. Kattennann; AICP , Director, Planning and Technical Services . cc: Gregg Zinuiterman Sue Carlson Ron Olsen Lys Hornsby " .' ·of •• ' .... ..... . .. • .; . -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -• , . BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION PRO. SED CITY OF RENTOl. lONING I: :1 Residential - 5 dulac 1::::::::::1 Residential 8 dulac 1:;:::::::;1 Residen tial -10 dulac , 'Proposed Annexation Area ____ Renton City Limits 0~~--,1~000 2000 1= .. ' I 1:12000 aTY Of RlNTON e 1'lA!+Nl/IW)IIIG/PtlIUC W04tlCS • ..a. OD ..... ~ L Ma.CNe. D. VIftoId 7Merc/11P95 ,<," i. BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONI~\Z I :1 R-4 t:TI!HH!!W,!!j R -12 P:::~:;;I R-18 1i!:::::::::!t CB ~"""",= lUij:::HD NB I I Proposed Annexotion Area ____ Renton City Umits o 1000 2000 I 1 1 I 1 :12000 OTY Of 1UNT0N e ~IIlAJ)N)J1UIJC wORJ(S • ..a. QJ:I .... ~ L~.D.~ 21 """' ,"S · . STAFF REPORT A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE Project Neme Applicant File Number Project Description Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Zoning for the proposed Bumstead (East Renton Plateau) Annexation Bumstead Construction LUA-094-033,A,ECF Project Manager Owen Dennison The City of Renton seeks to assign zoning to properties Included In the proposed 399.31 acre Bumstead (East Renton Plateau) Annexation Is a non-project action under SEPA Rules. City of Renton zones R-5 (pending), R·8 and R-l0 are proposed to supplant the existing King County zoning of R-4, R-12, R-18, CB and NB. (see attached maps) The proposed zone changes will affect properties east of the existing city limits north and south of SE 128th Street (NE Fourth Street) between 140th Avenue SE and one lot line east of 156th Avenue SE. (see attached map) The properties are located in the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the NW 1/4 and SW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, and the NE 1/4 and SE 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. NA 399.31 acres Proposed New Bldg. Area NA gsf Total Building Area gsf NA RECOMMENDA TION Staff Recommend that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance. Project Location Map ERCRPRT.DOC .. ' City of Renton PIBIPW Department ZONING FOR THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXA TION REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4. '995 B. RECOMMENDATION .. Jonmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-94-033. A. R. ECF Psg.20'4 Based on analysis of probable Impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: x DETERIIIINA nON OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS w~h 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None Required Advisory Notes to Applicant: DETERIIIINAnON OF NON· SIGNIFICANCE· IIImGATED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. The following notes "'" aupplementa/lnfDnnat/on provided In conjuncIJon willi the environmental determlnaIJon. Because th .. e nol .. are provided sa Inlbtma/Jon only. they"", not aubjecl to the appeal proceaa toT environmental dele"",nalJona. 1. Further environmental review will be required as specific development proposals are submitted for the properties within the annexation area. 2. If substantial changes are made to the R-5 Zone prior to adoption of the ordinance effecting the Zone, supplemental environmental review may be required. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Whether the applicant haa adequal8ly Id_ed and addresaed envlronmenta/lmpacl8 anllelpaled to occur In conjunclJon willi the propoaed development? Pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.222, annexation of territory by a city is exempt from compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the scope of this analysis does not Include impacts resulting from annexation aside from those directly ascribable to the Imposition of City of Renton zoning. Environmental impacts of the imposition of City zoning are taken to be those that result from the difference In development potential between the proposed zoning and the existing King County zoning, and those that result from the application of the proposed zoning to the physical geography of the area. Under the proposed zoning, the potential number of dwelling units Is about 1523. Potential capacity under the existing King County zoning is 2188 dwelling units, assuming that maximum density is achieved through density incentives and transfer of density credits. Without density incentives and transfer of density credits, potential capacity allowed under King County zoning is about 1468 dwelling units. The foregoing calculations have not deducted sensitive areas or existing development. No restriction of density due to the availability of sanitary sewers was Included. A 20% deduction for rights-of-way was used in calculating net density for City of Renton zoning. The potential capacity figures are intended only for comparison purposes. Environmental review was conducted on the existing King County zoning as implementation of the King County Comprehensive Plan. Environmental impacts of the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were addressed in Draft, Final and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements. ERCRPRT.DOC City of Renton PlB/PW Department • 10nmental Review Committee Staft Report LUA·94·033, A, R, ECF ZONING FOR THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXA TION REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4, '995 Pog.30f4 1. Earth Impacts: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the assignment of City zoning to the subject properties. The primary risk of earth Impacts would be associated with geologic hazards from future development. No erosion, steep slope, seismic or coal mine hazards are mapped within the subject area in the City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory. As future residential projects are proposed under the proposed zoning, additional environmental analysis will need to be conducted in order to determine the environmental Impacts and mitigation required for each project. Mitigation Measures: None Required. 2. Air Quality Impacts: No adverse impacts are antiCipated to result from the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning is exclusively residential. The overall potential residential density allowed under the proposed zoning is similar to or less than that allowed under existing zoning. Therefore, Impacts resulting from residential uses under the proposed zoning should be comparable to or lower than those that might occur under existing zoning. As future residential projects are proposed under the proposed zoning, additional environmental analysis will need to be conducted in order to determine the environmental impacts and mitigation required for each project. Mitigation Measures: None required. 3. Water Impacts: Wetlands and streams are mapped within the subject area. Proposed zoning would allow the maintenance of large animals. The City code currently contains prohibitions against animal grazing In wetland buffers but includes no similar protection of stream buffers. Revisions to the City's Animal Ordinance are anticip'ated to include fenced setbacks along streams. Residential development is currently prohibited in wetlands and restricted in the buffer areas. Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas that might result from specific development proposals must be addressed at the time a specifiC development application is submitted to the City. Mitigation must be sufficient to address the identified impacts and must be consistent with established guidelines for protections of environmentally sensitive areas. Mjtigation Measures: None required. 4. Housing Impacts: Proposed zoning might result In fewer housing units than could be achieved under existing zoning with transfer of density credits or density Incentives. County zoning base densities allow a similar number of housing units at build·outto that possible under the proposal. County zoning would allow a greater number of multi·family units. As future residential projects are proposed under the proposed zoning, additional environmental analysis will need to be conducted in order to determine the environmental impacts and mitigation required for each project. Mitigation Measures: None proposed. 5. Land Use ERCRPRT.DOC Impacts: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the subject area, proposed zoning is residential. However, this zoning action would make three existing retail businesses non· conforming. Since the commercial development conforms to existing zoning, the activities could continue as legal non·conforming uses under the proposed zoning. Rezoning to a deSignation consistent with the uses would require amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map In 1996 or thereafter. Additionally, forty acres of the subject area that are proposed for development as a community park are proposed for R·8 Zoning. Community parks are not Included in the permitted uses under the R·8 Zone or under other zones applicable within this Residential Single Family deSignated area. Before the City can develop the park, either the R·8 Zone must be amended or a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and rezone must be effected. ~ .1 City of Renton P/B/PW Department • 10nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-94-033, A, R, ECF ZONING FOR THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXA TION REPORT AND DECISION OF APRIL 4, '995 Psg04 of 4 As future residential projects are proposed under the proposed zoning. additional environmental analysis will need to be conducted in order to determine the environmental impacts and mitigation required for each project. Mitigation Measures: None required. 6. Transportation Impacts: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result to result from the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning is exclusively residential. The overall potential residential density allowed under the proposed zoning is similar to or less than that allowed under existing zoning. Additionally. existing NB and CB Zones allow commercial development. Therefore. development that could occur under the proposed zoning is likely to generate fewer dally vehicular trips than would be generated under the existing zoning. Transportation impacts resuiting from specific projects will need to be assessed at the time that new development applications are submitted to the City. Mitigation Measures: None Required. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS TIIo _, has been clrcu_ to CIty Dopartmentall Dlvhllonal Rovlow.,. for 11101, rev/aw. Whore applIcable, lII .. e comments have beenlllCOtpOl8l8d Into tho IaJd offh/a reporl .. MltIl/Btion Moasures and/or Notes 10 ApplIcant. ..lL COpIes of all Rov/aw Comments are contaIned In 1110 Ome/al Fllo. _ COpIes of 011_ Comments are attached to III/a ruport._ ERCRPRT.DOC .. . . -. PURPOSE OF CHECKUST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all govemmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must ba 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 halp the agency decide whether an EIS Is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPUCANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Govemmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the envIronmental Impacts of your proposal are significant, requIring preparetlon 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 govemmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govemmental 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 CHECKUST 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 (partO). 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. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Non-Project: Zoning of the Bumstead (East Renton Plateau) Annexation 2. Name of applicant: Bumstead Construction 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1215 120th Ave NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 454-1900 Contact: Judith G. Stoloff, 322-8252 4. Date checklist prepared: March 9, 1995 S. Agency requesting checklist: ENVCHLST.DOC City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works -Planning and Technical Servicas Division City of Renton Environments' C. ~'(/ist Zoning Ordinance Revisions (Sectl, ~31·8 • Mixed Residential Use) March 20. 1995 Page 2 of 14 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing. if applicable): Adoption of the zoning ordinance for the Annexation area should occur in the second quarter of 1995. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. Ust any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Draft. Final and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements King County Comprehensive Plan Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements Environmental review of the proposed R·5 Zone 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for govemmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known 10. Ust any govemmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City Council adoption of an ordinance imposing City zoning designations on the proposed Annexation. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. Imposition of City of Renton zoning on properties included in the proposed 399.31 acre Bumstead (East Renton Plateau) Annexation. City of Renton zones R·5 (not yet adopted). R·8 and R·10 are proposed to supplant the existing King County zoning of R·4. R·12. R·18. CB and NB. (see attached maps) If substantial changes are made to the R· 5 Zone prior to adoption of the ordinance effecting the Zone. this environmental review may require supplementing. Pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.222. annexation of territory by a city is exempted from compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. Therefore. the scope of this analysis does not include impacts resulting from annexation aside from those directly ascribable to the imposition of City of Renton zoning. Environmental impacts of the Imposition of City zoning are taken to be those that result from the difference in development potential between the proposed zoning and the existing King County zoning. 12. Location of the proposal. Giv. su_nt In(onna~on (or • person to understand the precis. loca~on of your prepoa.d pre1.ct. Including a stre.t .ddre ... If any .• nd section. townshIp •• nd range If known. If. proposal would occur over 8 range of'sreB, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide 8 legal deSCription, site plan, IIfcInlty map. and topogrsphfc map. If reason.bIy •• a.able. While you should submit .ny plans requ'red by the agency. you are not requ'red to dupUcat. maps or detailed plans submitt.d wfth any permit appllca60ns relat.d, to this ch.c_. The proposed zone changes will affect properties east of the existing city limits north and south of SE 128th Street (NE Fourth Street) between 140th Avenue SE and one lot line east of 156th Avenue SE. (see attached map) The properties are loceted in the SE 114 of Section 10, Township 23 North. Range 5 East. the SW 114 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the NW 114 and SW 1/4 of Section 14. Township 23 North, Range 5 East. and the NE 1/4 and SE 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. Ganarel description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____ _ The topography of the subject area ranges from flat to rolling. ENVCHLST.OOC City of Renton Envlronmente/ c.. ,klf.t Zoning Ordinance Revlalona (Sect., .1-31-8 -Mixed Residential Use) March 17, 1995 Page 3 of 14 b. c. What Is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Unknown 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 eny prime farmland. The soli types are unknown but likely varied, given the nearly 399 acre size of the subject area. d. Are thera surface Indications or history of unstable salls In the Immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None noted on the City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory, Erosion Hazards Map (GEO Engineers, 1991) . e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. t. Could erosion occur as a rasult of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NA. Zoning ofthe subject properties Is a non-project action. g. About what percent of the site will be coverad with ImpeNious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. h. Proposed measuras to raduce or control erosion, or other Impacts to the ealth, If any: NA Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 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. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 3. WATER ENVCHLST.OOC a, Surface Wafer: 1) Is there any surface water body on or In the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows Into. The City of Renton Critical Area Inventory, Wetlands, Lakes, Rivers and Streams Map (Jones and Stokes, 1992), shows two wetlands, W21 K and W18K, at least partially within the subject area. An unnamed stream, a tributary of the Cedar River, is shown In the vicinity of the proposed annexation area. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio Indicates the presence of a length of an unclassified stream and two wetlands (150 and 22b) at least partially within the affected area. The location of Wetland 22b has not been field verified. The stream is a Cedar River tributary. The King Coun!y Cedar River Basin Plan shows three streams (0303, 0303a and 0307)and one wetland (150) within the affected area. The streams are Cedar River tributaries. City of Renton Envlronmentel C, ,kiist Zoning Ordinance Revisions (Sect., J..3f-8 -Mixed Residential Use) Merch 17, 1995 Page 4 of 14 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. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 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. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrewals or diversions? Give generel deScription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No part of the area to be zoned Is within a 100 year floodplain. 6) Does the proposal Involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? "so, describe tIr. type of w.ste .nd .nllclpeted volume of dlsch.rge. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. b. Ground Wafer: 1) Will ground water be withdrewn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give gen.raI description. PUf/JOSS •• nd .pproxlm.te qu.nlltles" known, NA, Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged Into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for ex.mple: Domestic sew.ge: IndustJlal, containing tire following chemlc.Is".: .gricultural; etc.). Describ. tIr. gen.,., size of tire system, the number of such aystem&, the number of houses to be served (If applicable), or tire number of .nlm.1s or hum.ns tire system!s) .,. expected to .'MI. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. c. Wafer 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. NA. . Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action .. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so; generally describa. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water Impacts, if any: NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 4. PLANTS ENVCHLST.DOC a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: The proposal Is to zone an area of approximately 400 acres. The vegetation marked with an 'X' below may be found in some or all of the affected area. x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass x pasture crop or grain CRy of Renton EnvironmentsJ C •. _ Adist Zoning Ordinance Rev/alona (S9Cti~ ,.31-6 -Mixed Residential Use) March 17. 1995 Page 5 of 14 x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bull rush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, ml/fol', other x other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NA. Zoning of the subjed properties is a non-projed adion. c. Ust threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No endangered or threatened vegetation is known to be within the affeded geographic area. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or . enhance vegetation on the site, If any: NA. Zoning of the subjed properties is a non-projed adlon. 6. 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: . Unknown. Sirds: hawk, haron, eagle, songbirds, other _________ _ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, baaver, othar __________ _ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, hening, shellfish, othar _______ _ b. List any threataned or endangered species known to ba on or naar the site. Unknown c. Is tha site part of a migration route? If so, explain The entire State of Washington is included within a migration route for birds, known as the Pacific Flyway. This flyway, as it overlies Renton, is used by a variety of migratory birds, including, but not limited to the Canadian goose. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, If any: NA. Zoning of the subjed properties Is a non-projed adion. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heetlng, manufacturing, etc. NA. Zoning of the subjed properties is a non-projed adion. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. NA. Zoning of the subjed properties Is a non-projed adlon. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? Ust other proposed measures to reduce or control energy Impacts, if any: NA. Zoning of the subjed properties Is a non-projed adion. T. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ENVCHLST.OOC a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposura to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous wasta, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The proposal Is to Impose residential zoning on an area currently zoned residential and commercial. No Increased environmental health risks are anticipated as a result of the proposal. Cfty of Renton Environmental C,._.;kllst Zoning' Ordlnanca Ravlalona (S8Ctl~ .. 4-31-8 -Mixed Resldantlal Usa) March 17,1995. Page 6 of14 1) Describe special emergency seNices that might be required. NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmentel health hazards, if any: NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operetion, other)? NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 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, operetlon, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. . The proposed zoning would allow lower potential residential densities than Is possible under the existing zoning for the area. Therefore, long- term noise Impacts resulting from residential development may be lower as a result of the proposal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NA .. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. 8. LAND AND SHOREUNE USE ENVCHLST.DOC a. . What is the current use of the site and adjecent properties? The subject area Includes residential, commercial, low Intensity agriculture and public use (Maplewood Heights Elementary School), as well as vacant lands. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Severel properties within the subject area are currently used for maintaining cattle and horses. c. Describe any structures on the site. The subject area Includes detached single family resldenilal, commercial and aCC8ssory structures. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. f. g. NA. Zoning of the subject properties is a non-project action. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The subject area currently Is zoned with King County zoning designations R-4, R-12, R-18, CB and NB. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The King County Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the subject area are Commercial Outside of Centers, Community Business and Urban Residential 4-12 du/acre. If applicable, what Is the current shoreline master program deSignation of the site? . The subject area Is not designated under the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. h. Has any part of the site been clesslfled as an "envlronmentelly sensitive" aree? If so, specify. The City of Renton Critical Area Inventory, Wetlands, Lakes, Rivers and Streams Map (Jones and Stokes, 1992), shows two wetlands, W21 K and W18K, at least partially within the subject area .. An unnamed stream, a tributary of the Cedar River Is shown In the vicinity of, but outside, the proposed annexation area. Cfty of Renton Environmental C, "lliist Zoning Ordinance Revisions (Sectl. ..31-8 -Mixed Residential Uss) March 17, 1995 Page 7 of 14 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work In the completed project? The proposal Is a non project action, The projected residential population of the subject area at build-out, given the density constraints of the individual zones, is 2616. This calculation assumes a percentage deduction from the total area for sensitive areas, rights-of-way and lands otherwise unavailable for development In the calculation of net acreage. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Zoning of the SUbject properties Is a non-project action. The proposal would not preclude the continuation of existing residential uses. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement Impacts, if any: None proposed. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, If any: The proposed zoning Is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and with the mapped Comprehensive Plan land use designations. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, If any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-Income housing. Under the proposed zoning, the potential number of dwelling units Is about 1523. Potential capacity under the existing King County zoning is 2188 dwelling units, assuming that maximum density Is achieved through density Incentives and transfer of denSity credits. Without density incentives and transfer of density credits, potential capacity allowed under King County zoning Is about 1468 dwelling units. The foregoing calculations have not deducted sensitive areas or existing development. No restriction of density due to the availability of sanitary sewers was included. A 20% deduction for rights-of-way was used in calculating net density for City of Renton zoning. The potential capacity figures are intended only for comparison purposes. The proposal might result in significantly fewer housing units, but more likely would result In approximately the same, as under King County zoning. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether hIgh, middle, or low-Income housing. As described In 9.a, above, the proposal might result In fewer potential housing units, but more likely will result In approximately the same number as would be achieved under King County zoning. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, If any: None proposed. Comprehensive Plan policies would govem residential development of the area. 10. AESTHETICS ENVCHLST.DOC a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building meteriel(s) proposed. The proposal does not Include specific development projects. However, the proposed zoning would restrict new development to a maximum height of 30 feet. b. What views In the Immediate viCinity would be altered or obstructed? NA. Zoning of the subject properties Is a non-project action. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, If any: None proposed. Zoning of the subject properties is a non-project action. Development that occurs after annexation would be directed by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan .. City of Renton Environmental C •. ~ .Wist Zoning Ordinance Revla/ona (Sect._ . 4-31-6 -Mixed Realdentlal Uae) March 17, 1995 Page 8 of 14 11. UGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will tha proposal produce? What tima of day would it mainly occur? NA. Zoning of the subjed properties is a non-projed adlon. b. Could light or glare from the finished projeCt be a safety hazard or Interfere with views? NA. Zoning of the subjed properties Is a non-projed adlon. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NA. Zoning of the subjed properties Is a non-projed adlon. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare Impacts. If any: None proposed. Zoning of the subjed properties Is a' non-projed adion. Development that occurs aller annexation would be dlreded by the Land Use policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and infonnal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 40 acres of the area affeded by the proposal Is slated for acquisition of park space to be used for passive and eventually adive recreational opportunities. A King County neighborhood park Is adjacent to the south border of the affeded area. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so. describe. The zoning proposed for the subjed area would not make existing public recreational uses nonconforming. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control Impacts on recreation. including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The proposal Is a nonprojed adlon. However. development of new community and regional parks In the R-8 zone would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone or an amendment to the R-8 Zoning Code to allow new community park uses. 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. None Known. b. Generelly describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or culturellmportance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None proposed. Development within the subjed area that occurred after annexation would be dlreded by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 14. TRANSPORTATION EIVVCHLST.OOC 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 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element designates SE 128th Street is a principal arterial and 44th Avenue SE as a colledor arterial. SE 128th Street provides access to 1-405. b. Is site currently served by public trensit? If not, what Is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? City of Renton Environmentsl C.,_,;k1ist Zoning Ordinance Revlslona {Sectl"n 4-31·6· Mixed Resldentlsl Use} March 17, 1995 Page 9 of 14 The proposal is a non project action. The subject area Is served by a METRO bus route that follows SE 128th Street. c. . How many parl<lng spaces would the completed proJact have? How many wOuld the project eliminate? As a non·project action, the proposal Is programmatic, and does not Include specific developments. With those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review Is required under SEPA Rules, Identification and examination of parking system Impacts could be required. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roeds or streets, not Including driveways? If so, generally describe (Indicate whether public or privete? The proposal Is a nonproject action and does not Include specific developments. e. Will the project use (or occur In the Immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposal Is a non project action and does not Include specific developments. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, Indicate when paak volumes would occur. The proposal is a nonproJect action. Potential residential density of the subject area under the proposed zoning Is estimated to be similar to, or less than, potential density permitted under the existing King County zoning. Thus, at bulld·out, daily vehicular trips generated by development at the densities permitted under the proposed zoning should be similar to, or fewer than, those generated under the existing residential zoning. Additionally, existing zoning of the subject area Includes both existing and undeveloped commercial areas. These uses would generate more vehicular trips than the proposed residential zoning of these areas. g. Proposed measures to reduce or controttransportation Impacts, if any: None proposed. Transportation Impacts, and measures to mitigate the impacts, resulting from development that might occur under the proposed zoning would be addressed at the time of development application. 16. PUBUC SERVICES a. Would the project rasult in an increased need for public seNices (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. . Potential residential density of the subject area under the proposed zoning is estimated to be similar to, or less than, potential density permitted under the existing King County zoning. Therefore, the need for public services would be similar to, or less than, what would eventually be required under existing conditions. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public seN/ces, If any. None proposed. PubliC service Impacts, and measures to mitigate the impacts, resulting from development that might occur under the proposed zoning would be addressed at the time of development application. 16. UTlUTlES ENVCHLST.DOC a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, rafuse seNlce, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. The proposal Is a nonproject action. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the seNice, and the general construction activities on the site or in the Immediate vicinity which might be needed. The proposal Is a nonproject action. City of Ranton Envlronmantal C.. ..klf"t Zoning Ordinance Ravlalona (Sec"_ 4-31.8. Mixed Reslden"al Use) March 17, 1995 Paga 10 of 14 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· significanca that it might issue in relianca upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 0 ~ <0 • Name Printed: OW~-7I.J J. D!9\Il\h<..<vy' Date: ,3/ '7/.,\ r ; ENVCHLST.OOC City of Renton Environmental C,,_ .. klist Zoning Ordinance Revla/ona (Sectl.. .J.31·8· Mixed Realdent/al Use) March 17, 1995 Page 11 of 14 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions Involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions,) Because these questions are vel}' general, It may be helpful to read them In conjunction with the list of the alements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aWare of the ex/ent 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. (a) 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? 2. ENVCHLST.DOC The potential reSidential density that could be reached in the subject area under the proposed zoning is less than the maximum that is possible under the existing King County zoning. ~chievlng the maximum density under the existing zoning would require using transfer of density credits or density Incentives. Considering only the base densities In the existing zoning, the potential residential density is similar to that under the proposed zoning. Therefore, it Is antiCipated that discharges to water, emissions to air, and production of noise resulting from residential activities would not constitute significant impacts if the proposed zoning is Implemented. The only land use that would be allowed under the proposed zoning that is not permitted in all or portions of the subject area, under the existing zoning, is the raising of livestock. This activity currently occurs as a legal nonconforming use in the affected area under the County's jurisdiction. Impacts related to this use that might Increase as a result of the proposal. (b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such Increases are: (a) With specific development applications, the City requires that proponents provide Information concemlng Impacts from discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, release of toxic or hazardous substances; and production of noise. Further, the proponent Is required to provide sufficient mitigation to address Identified Impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City Comprehensive Plan elements, as well as regulations (as mandated by GMA) which set standards for the typelintensity of development throughout the City. Mitigation must be consistent with established guidelines for limitations to discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, release of toxic or hazardous substances; and production of noise. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposal Is unlikely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life except as results from the raising of livestock. Impacts to plants, animals, fish, or marine life which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposed zoning, are anticipated to be limited to a level which Is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and objectives. (b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: With specific development applications, the City requires that proponents provide Information concemlng Impacts fromlto plants, animals, fish, or marine life. Further, the proponent Is reqUired to provide sufficient mitigation to address identified Impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City Comprehensive Plan elements, as well as regulations (as mandated by GMA) which set standards for the typelintensity of development throughout the City. Mitigation must be consistent with established guidelines for limitations to plants, animals, fish, and marine life. City of Renton Environmental C.. Aiat Zoning Ordinance Revlalona (Sectl, ~31·6 • Mixed Residential Use) March 17, 1995 3. 4. 6. ENVCHLST.OOC (a) (b) (a) Page 12 of 14 How would the proposal be ""ely to deplete energy or natural resources? Since the maximum potential development density Is greater under current zoning than would be achievable under the proposed zoning, the proposal should not contribute to the depletion of energy or natural resources, Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: With specifiC development applications, the City requires that proponents provide Information concemlng Impacts fromlto energy and natural resources. Further, the proponent Is required to provide sufficient mitigation to address Identified Impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City Comprehensive Plan elements, as well as regulations (as mandated by GMA) which set standards for the type/Intensity of development throughout the City. MItigation must be consistent with established guidelines for limitations to depletion of energy and natural resources. How would the proposal be ""ely to use or affect environmentally sensitive arees or arees designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such es paries. wlldemess, wild and scenic rivelS, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposal designates the area proposed for the park as R·8, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Residential Single Family. Neighborhood parks are the only type of new park development allowed In the R·8 Zone. At approximately 40 acres, this land should develop as a community park. Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or other protected areas which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposed zoning, are anticipated to be limited to a level which Is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and objectives. (b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce Impacts are: (a) The City will need to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land used designation to Residential Rural and with a concurrent rezone to RC, R·1 or R·5. New community parks are permitted uses in any of these zones. Altematlvely, the R·8 Zoning Code could be amended to include new community parks as permitted uses. With specific development applications, the City requires that proponents provide Information conceming impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or other protected areas. Further, the proponent Is required to provide sufficient mitigation to address Identified Impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City Comprehensive Plan elements, as well as regulations (as mandated by GMA) which set standards for the type/Intensity of development throughout the City. Mitigation must be conSistent with established guidelines for limitations to intrusion Into environmentally sensitive areas or other protected areas. How would the proposal be II"ely to affect land and shoreline use, Including whether It would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses Incompatible with existing plans? The proposed zoning Is conSistent with the adopted land use designations In the Comprehensive Plan. The environmental Impacts resulting from the Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan were addressed in Draft, Final and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements. Residential land uses are permitted under existing zoning and would be permitted under the proposed zoning. The local densities would change under the proposal but the overall densities are estimated to be similar. The proposal would decrease the potential density of the highest density nodes. County zoning for the subject area includes a zone that allows up to 27 units per gross acre. The most proposed zone providing the greatest density would allow 10 units per net acre. The proposal does not Include a commercial zone. Therefore, existing commercial development will be made nonconforming by the proposal. City of Renton Environmental C,. ..<IIst Zoning Ordinance Revlslone (SectJ, .-31-8 -Mixed Resldent/a' Use) March 17, 1995 6. Page 13 of 14 The raising of large animals, where it did not occur prior to the adoption of the current County zoning code In 1993, Is prohibited under the existing conditions. This would be a permitted use, subject to lot area restrictions, under the proposal. Impacts from land uses which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposal, are anticipated to be limited to a level which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and objectives. No mapped shorelines exist within tha boundaries of the affected area. (bJ Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use Impacts are: (aJ To bring the existing commercial uses Into conformance with the Land Use and Zoning Maps, the owners of such property must Initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use and zoning to designations that allow such activities, I.e. Convenience CommerciallCC Zone. With spacific development applications, the City requires that proponents provide Information concemlng Impacts fromlto land and shorelines uses. Further, the proponent is required to provide sufficient mitigation to address Identified impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City Comprehensive Plan elements, as well as regulations (as mandated by GMA) which set standards for the typellntenslty of development throughout the City. Mitigation must be consistent with established guidelines for ilmitations to land and shorelines uses. How would the proposal be likely to Increase demands on transportation or public services and uUlltles? Potential residential density of the subject area under the proposed zoning Is estimated to be similar to, or less than, potential density permitted under the existing King County zoning. Thus, at build-out, daily vehicular trips generated by development at the densities permitted under the proposed zoning should be similar to, or fewer than, those generated under the existing residential zoning. Additionally, existing zoning of the subject area Includes both existing and undeveloped commercial areas. These uses would generate more vehicular trips than the proposed residential zoning of these areas. Similarly, the proposal would not Increase demands on public services and utilities. Impacts to transportation or public services, which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposal, are anticipated to be limited to a level which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and obJectives. (bJ Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(sJ are: With specific development applications, the City requires that proponents provide Information concerning Impacts to transportation or public services. Further, the proponent Is required to provide sufficient mitigation to address Identified Impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City Comprehensive Plan elements; as well as regulations (as mandated by GMA) which set standards for the typellntensity of development throughout the City. Mitigation must be consistent with established guidelines for limitations to transportation or public services. 7. (aJ Identify, If possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment ENVCHLST.DOC No conflicts with local, state, or federal laws or requirements are known. The proposed zoning is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan which must be conSistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and with Washington State law. City of Ranton Environmental C/ •• .;k1ist Zoning Ordinance Ravla/one (Sect;. .. 31·' • Mixed Residential Uae) March 17. 1995 Paga 14 of14 SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above infonnation is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non· signlficanca that It might Issue in relianCe upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or wlllfu. lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC i I / 'ho.A. AM --l-='40L-.TIME I.e 'VLI . M ____ ~~~~~~~~~~/(_,----~ OF TELEPHONED PHONE_~~COc~_-'~~~ ___ ~nmruD>.-_-+_-+1RQET~U~R~N~E~D~ __ ~ ARE;. CODE NUMBER EXTENSION YOUR CALL FAX# ___ ~t:~=r __ ~~~~ __ -r ___ t-___ ~ __ ~P~LE~A~S~E~C:A~LL~~ MESSAGE~~~~~~~fl~~~~ __ -+~~~i-__ ~~~~L;L;C:A~L~L~AG~A~I~N~ CAME TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU ".., SIGNED ( PHONE CALL ) ( PHONE CALL ) M ____ ~~~~J_~~~~~~ __ _J~4r~._--------~ TELEPHONED OF ______ -L~~~L-~~~~~~ __ ~k_+_~~~~ __ --~ RETURNED PHONE_-'c.Trm~ ____ ~~'-____ ~~Eru.-__ -+ __ -+~YO~U~R~C~AL~L~ __ -1 FAX# _____ A~RETA-C-OD~E~--.--NU-M-B-ER-------E-X-TE.N-SI-ON_r--_; __ _;-P-LE-A-S-E-C-A-LL--~ WILL CALL AGAIN MESS~>_~~UU~ __ ~~~~~~~~~~4-_+O~~ __ ~ ( PHONE CALL ) j '/ Ih'i> I e. -I /-e,.-i!> +D V" i<:.. e.. "'-<-C I" C. <2 r Y"\ 0,,", -i-h.e. propc,eG~ v-v'\r'leKu.f-,,,,n 0+ 1'<.",£1 0"'- / ,-/-(-fk Ave. 5£ '~AJ 0 +l-tel' a.re.a.5 a,rou Ad +~ere, My I'I-CLl"le. P Do",} ,S,-hec:lc... " 14."'c/ ~ wv\er (9V\ i '-l t *' /Wt. S€.. ~ i )u • .j oi I. ~ ,"-'CU1+ V"'.r L ;-y..{'rJrM"'-'ho/'\ 5e.",--I-+0 IM-e a.\::.ou-t +he pro:,.C\.Ad CO 1'\<;', O,,+h'I$ .yropo5 e .d CU'\ rteXG<.-t',-o-" . TA ",v1 k'l(1 II :PD vJ 5 t.-h.et:-I" 17D{5 fl 17--8'+-I-, 7<. ~j/l-,) o~., £ • .1£. 18'0 S'1 The attached petition is being distributed in the East Renton Annexation area. It is very likely that you will be asked questions about one or more of the issues raised by the petition, so we thought it would be a good idea to provide you with the City's response to these issues. Issue 1: The Annexation area has been greatly expanded. Response 1: The annexation area has been expanded from the original 226 acre area requested by Bumstead to its current 621-plus acre size. In addition to making the annexation boundary more regular,. this expansion is due to requests from property owners within the expanded area to be included in the annexation. Reasons people have requested to be included in the annexation vary, but in some cases it was to gain access to sewer service. Issue 2: Annexation does not guarantee sewer service or a time table for service. Response 2: Without annexation, sewer service will not be available at all because there is currently not a sewer provider in this area and the City does not typically extend sewer service outside its City limits. It is true that annexation does not guarantee sewer service because existing residents will not be required to hook up to sewer. Extension of sewers will be done either by development interests, or by local improvement districts (LID's) establi~hed by local residents with City coordination and assistance, or by a combination of both. Availability of sewer service will not happen overnight. However, neighborhoods can take matters into their own hands by forming an LID to extend sewers. If there is a neighborhood consensus that sewers are needed, an LID will greatly accelerate provision of sewers, and will allow the extension of service without waiting for developers to install local sewer lines. Therefore, the neighborhood can have a hand in establishing a time table for obtaining sewer service. Issue 3: Those with small tracts wishing to subdivide will be forced to wait until major landowner developers are taken care of. Response 3: The City has no law or code that will force small tract owners who wish to subdivide to wait until major landowner developers are taken care of. However, the annexation area is located within the City's Sole Source drinking water Aquifer Recharge Area. The City's Aquifer Protection Ordinance does require that new developments shall, as a condition of the building permit, be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system. This means that availability of sewers will be an issue with new development. While the code technically would allow a subdivision to occur before sewer service was available, no new houses could be occupied before being connected to sewer. Such issues would have to be worked out on a case by case basis. \ January 12, 1995 Page 2 Issue 4: Sewer service to some areas of Renton may not be available for years. The new interceptor will not extend beyond 138th Ave. SE. Response 4: The City has stated that no further City financed projects were currently scheduled for this area, however, we have also stated that we do anticipate as annexations occur that development or local residents interested in forming LID's would extend sewer service to this area gradually over time. How much time is anyone's guess, but given the interest of some of the large property owners (Bumstead, Ribera, the School District and the White Fence area it would not be surprising to see sewer generally available to a large portion of the annexation area within 5 to 10 years. Sewers to the Sierra Heights area took the amount of time indicated initially because of poor communication with the community and then because of efforts to reduce the total cost to the residents by securing a grant and low interest loan from the State to help finance the construction of the sewers. By waiting for this financing package, the community was able to reduce their proportional share cost from approximately $12,000 to under $5,000 for a typical single family l,ot. Issue 5: Assessments jor property on sewer lines will be approximately $166 per front foot and carry a 7 to 10% interest rate. Response 5: The cost of $166 per front foot is a reasonable estimate of cost for installation of an 8" sewer main. However, in the majority of cases those costs are distributed to all those who potentially directly benefit from the sewer. AIl such, this figure cannot be used as an individual's cost for that s.ewer main installation. The sheet (attached) sho\'ring typical costs for a single family lot are probably more appropriate to use for those folks in already subdivided areas. It is extremely difficult to give a similar breakdown for the larger, subdividable properties and as' such we have hesitated to give out such information. In regards to the interest charge, if the sewer is installed by a developer and the developer chooses to pursue a Latecomer's Agreement for the offsite line, then no interest would accrue on that latecomer's charge. In addition, latecomer's charge would have a maximum life of fifteen years that it could be held against the property. If no connection is made to the facility in that time then the charge would be removed. If a City held latecomer's Agreement is placed then interest will be levied. As a result of recent Council action it would be anticipated that the rate of that interest would be based on the actual cost of financing the improvement by the City instead of the historical automatic 10% rate that was previously used. .\ January 12, 1995 Page 3 Issue 6: Refusing to sign a petition favoring annexation will in no way affect your rights as a property owner. Response 6: This statement is correct. Issue 7: AnneXation means you must assume a share in having to repay all of the City indebtedness. Issue 7: QU8stionforFinanceDireetol.'(f·) I fL'TL CIT\, c..CJUNC-tt-Ot§O'.;>lON. Issue 8: Annexation means you WILL see an increase in all your monthly utility and cable bills. Response 8: This is incorrect. Water rates will stay the same (customers will continue to be served and billed by WD 90). Storm water rates will GO DOWN from $7.09 per month to $5.54 (this includes 6% utility tax) per month for a household. Sewer rates would only be imposed upon connection to the sewer system, and connection will not be mandated. Garbage rates will stay the same for five years, and then after that will revert over to City rates (which are currently significantly lower than the rates 'charged for garbage service in the annexation area). Note that garbage service will become mandatory, so those currently without garbage collection would be required to pay for service at current area garbage rates. Cable bill impacts is a question for Vic. Issue 9: Annexation will in no way reduce restrictions on wetland development since Renton has adopted King County's Wetland Design Manual as their standard. Response 9: This statement isincon·ect. The City of Renton has not adopted King County's Sensitive Areas ordinance, and we have our own Wetlands Management Ordinance that is not the same as King County's. There is not space here to compare the regulations, but they do ditTer. Issue 10: Once the annexation is finalized, there is no turning back. Response 10: Although there is a method available for de annexation, it is a rare and difficult action. For all practical purposes, the statement is correct. .. ..-.. ~ Cr. ')F RENTON COUNCIL AGENDt ,LL I AI#: Submitting Data: P1anning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of: DepUDIv/Board ............... Planning and Technical Services March 27 1995 Sta" Contact .................. Michael Kattermann, Director, Agenda Statua Owen Dennison, Long Range Planning consent ................... x Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION pubnc Hearing ......... X Bumstead Annexation -60 % Public Hearing Correspondence ...... Ordinance ................ Bumstead Annexation -First Zoning Public Hearing Resolution ................ CONCURRENCE Old Bualness ........... exhibits: New Bualness .......... DAlI .5-,;P-pS • Maps study Sesslon8 ........ NAME INITIAL/D Information ............... &.-.. :;0. . 00 3/' ~1(.,rl1A . l~ '7- ..d. dt./ Recommended Action: Approvals: 'r. ? Council schedule a public hearing to take testimony legal Dept ......... regarding: Finance Dept ..... • acceptance of a 60% Petition to Annex; and, Other ................. • a proposed ordinance to zone the subject properties R-5, R-8 and R-I0. Fiscalimpect: N/ A Elcpendtture Required '"'''''''' Amount Budgeted ................ . Summary of Action: Transfer/Amendment ............. .. Revenue Generated •••...•••••••....• On November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council authorized the proponent to circulate a 60% Petition to Annex for approximately 600 acres north and south of SE 128th Street, from the city limits to about 156th Avenue SE. The City has received the 60% Petition to Annex, signed by the owners of 61. 7% of the assessed valuation of the property in a reduced area of about 399.3 acres. The Revised Code of Washington requires a public hearing when a Petition to Annex is filed with the City, and requires two public hearings prior to adoption of a zoning regulation for the area proposed for annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set a public hearing for April 10, 1995, to consider acceptance of the 60% Petition to Annex and to consider zoning for the proposed annexation. AGNBl60'lI..DOC :re ? ~ t..7 • CI'. OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDJ.. >ILL I AI#: Submitting Data: Planning/BuildingtPublic Works For Agenda of: Dept/DIvIB .. ,,!... ............ Planning and Technical Services March 27. 1995 Staff Contact .................. Michael Kattermann, Director, Agenda Status Owen Dennison, Long Range Planning Conaant ................... X Subject: PROPOSED ANNEXATION Public Haartng ......... X Bumstead Annexation -60% Public Hearing ComHlpondenca ...... Bumstead Annexation -First Zoning Public Hearing Ordlnanca ................ Resolution ................ Old Bualneaa ........... Exhibits: Now Bualness .......... • Maps Study Sesslona ........ Infonnation ............... Recommended Action: Approvals: Council schedule a public hearing to take testimony legal Dept ........ . regarding: . Finance Dept .... . • acceptance of a 60% Petition to Annex; and, Other ................ . • a proposed ordinance to zone the subject properties R-5, R-8 and R-lO. Flscsllmpact: Nt A Expendltura Required .......... . Transfer/Amendment ............. .. Amount Budgeted ................ . Rovenua Ganerated ................ .. Summary-of Acthx1: On November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council authorized the proponent to circulate a 60% Petition to Annex for approximately 600 acres north and south of SE 128th Street, from the city limits to about 156th Avenue SE. The City has received the 60% Petition to Annex, signed by the owners of 61. 7% of the assessed valuation of the property in a reduced area of about 399.3 acres. The Revised Code of Washington requires a public hearing when a Petition to Annex is filed with the City, and requires two public hearings prior to adoption of a zoning regulation for the area proposed for annexation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council set a public hearing for April 10, 1995, to consider acceptance of the 60% Petition to Annex and to consider zoning for the proposed annexation. AGNBl60'lIo.DOC BUDNSTEAD ANNEX~TION VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBIJC WORKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie. D.Visnesld 14 March 1995 ____ Renton CIty LImIts I~_I Proposed Annexation o I 2000 ! I 1:24,000 4000 I · .~ BUi~"sTEAD ANNEX}TION Annexation Area e CITY OF RENTON 6ID PLANNING/BUUJlING/PUBUC YORKS + ~ + O.Dennison ~ R.KacOnle, D.Vlaneold 14 Karch 1996 EXHIBIT 1 ----Renton City limits Proposed Annexation Area • ,/ DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: STAFF CONTACT: SUBJECT: ISSUE: CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM March 27, 1995 Timothy J. Schlitzer, President City Council Committee of the Whole Mayor Earl Clymer Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Michael Kattermann, Director Planning and Technical Services Annexation Update Two ongoing annexation efforts, Bumstead and Stonegate, have been before the Council and will require further Council action before finalization. This report is intended to: • update the Council on the status of these proposals; • highlight the potential issues that may arise as these annexations progress; and, • reaffirm the importance of continued annexation to the City's plans for the Renton urban area. RECOMMENDATION: Information onl y, no recommendation. BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Current Annexations: Stonegate: • Council accepted the Petition to Annex for the proposed Stonegate Annexation on January 9, 1995. • The proposal was then forwarded to the Boundary Review Board for the forty-five day period during which a request for the Board's review can be filed. That period ends March 27, 1995. • The Issaquah School District stated an intent to request review if the City could not assure the District of school impact fees required under King County's jurisdiction. While this issue seems to have been resolved between the owner of Stonegate and the District, it will recur in future ", March 27, 1995 Page 2 annexations as other areas of the City's potential annexation area lie within adjacent school districts. A more formal mechanism is needed to allow the City to assess impact fees for these districts. • The Administration will request a second pubic hearing on the zoning for the Annexation for April 17, 1995. The Council can then adopt Ordinances effecting both the zoning and the annexation. . Bumstead: • At the 10% Notice of Intent public hearing on November 14, 1994, Council was presented with a proposal to annex 226 acres. Staff recommended expansion of the proposed boundaries in response to interest expressed in surrounding areas. Council authorized circulation of a Petition to Annex for an expanded area of approximately 600 acres. • The Administration is prepared to return to the Council on April 10, 1995, for a public hearing on a Petition and zoning for a revised proposal encompassing 399 acres. • If the Petition to Annex is accepted by the Council, a file will be prepared for submittal to the Boundary Review Board by April, 20, 1995. Issues and Responses: A recurrent assertion by residents of the potential annexation area is that their neighborhood is "rural" and should be maintained at existing densities. • By including these lands in the Urban Growth Area, the City and County have declared that growth and continued development to urban densities is appropriate. • In addition, several areas are already developed at "urban" densities but only have rural services. The Bumstead Annexation is a "developer led" proposal. A referendum would provide a better gauge of public interest in annexation. • A referendum can always be initiated by residents. • The petition method includes owners of developed and undeveloped property and allows the City to be more proactive about annexation and growth. A tenet held by some residents of the East Renton Plateau is that development of the area can be postponed if sewers are kept from the area. • Some existing development is on ineffective septic systems. • Withholding services will result in more piecemeal development that will ultimately be more difficult and costly to serve. • The Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage annexations of areas in which Renton is the logical provider of urban infrastructure and services. (policy LU-370) • Much of the East Renton Potential Annexation area is within the City'S aquifer recharge area. Policy LU-367 recognizes aquifer recharge areas as being of immediate annexation interest to the City. March 27, 1995 Page 3 Residents of the area have expressed concern that annexation will promote development that will over-tax the existing transportation system. • The densities allowed under County zoning are similar, and in some cases greater, than those allowed under the proposed City zoning. • Unless the area is removed from the Urban Growth Area or sanitary sewer service is permanently prohibited, development will ultimately occur with or without annexation. • Increases in traffic flows will follow the regional growth under any circumstances. • Traffic impacts resulting from specific development proposals must be addressed and mitigated when the projects are proposed. • Annexation will allow the City to collect fees for development of the area to off-set impacts resulting from specific projects. Residents of the proposed annexation and adjacent areas have expressed concern that increased development will increase surface water flows, exacerbating existing problems. This argument against annexation equates annexation with development. • As previously noted, annexation and development are different issues. Development is not dependent upon annexation except where sewers are required. • Surface water impacts must be addressed and mitigated at a project level. The City has adopted the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is a misconception that the Bumstead Annexation will encourage new multi-family development. • The zoning proposed for the proposed annexation is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan land use designations adopted by the Council. • Of the 399 acres included for consideration in the annexation proposal, only about 21 acres are proposed for development other than detached single family residential. Development in this area is adjacent to the existing city limits, and would allow up to 10 units per net acre, at least 50% of which must be single family detached. Existing County zoning for most of the 21 acres would allow over 18 dwelling units per gross acre. (The King County figures for grnn density reflect more residential units per original unit of land than do the City'S ~ density figures.) • The Council has directed that new, large-scale multi-family development be restricted to Centers and Multi-Family Infill districts. (policy LU-18) Neither of these designations are included in the area proposed for annexation. Several residents have expressed concern that the Bumstead Annexation drive has occurred without sufficient public process. • The City cannot annex arbitrarily. Signatures supporting the Annexation must represent at least 60% of the assessed value of the area. In most cases, this cannot be achieved without the involvement of a significant number of owners of existing development. • The annexation process has included two neighborhood meetings with City staff available to answer questions. The second meeting was hosted by the City and included the participation of Council members. ,.b > March 27, 1995 Page 4 • City staff and annexation proponents attempted to personally visit each residence within the proposed area. • Since the area north of SE 128th Street and east of 148th Avenue SE was not considered for inclusion in the annexation proposal prior to the 10% Notice of Intention Public Meeting, the City repeatedly offered to staff an informational meeting for the White Fence Ranch neighborhood. The offers were not accepted. GMA/Comprehensiye Plan: The Urban Growth Boundary defines the area slated for eventual development to urban densities and with urban level services over the next twenty years. Since this also represents the eastern Potential Annexation Area boundary, the City has a vested interest in the area's future. Development of the area will impact City infrastructure and services with or without annexation. Annexation provides a mechanism to protect the City'S long-term interests and to assure that the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are implemented for development in the Urban Growth Area. Policy LU-375 states that the City should encourage annexation of all territory within the Urban Growth Boundary. The primary constraint to development of the unincorporated portion of the East Renton Plateau is lack of sewer service. The East Renton Sewer Interceptor was designed to include capacity to serve the area of the proposed Bumstead Annexation. Additionally, the Countywide Planning Policies, ratified by the Council, name cities as the preferred urban service providers to the Urban Growth Area. Policy LU-366 states that Renton should be the primary service provider in areas where the availability of services and infrastructure allow for the development at urban densities. Policy LU- 370 encourages the annexation of areas in wbich the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services. Other Comprehensive Plan policies encourage annexation: • where there are vacant lands subject to development pressure; • where there are lands which are available for urbanization under the County's Comprehensive Plan; • in aquifer recharge areas; and, • in areas which would include those who already use City services and infrastructure. CONCLUSION; The City's interests extend past the city limits. The Renton urban area will continue to develop and the City should ensure that development occurs in an orderly and coordinated manner. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basic guide to evaluating the City's long term interests. COW·ISSU.DOC Earl Clymer, Mayor February 17, 1995 Chris Holstrom 1441 Queen Avenue NE. Renlon, WA 98056 CITY JF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: REMAINING SIGNATURES FOR WIllTE FENCE RANCH Dear Chris: Thank you for obtaining the additional signatures. Unfortunately, in comparing signatures· to the Assessor's records, I found some additional gaps. Perhaps some of these are due to a change in circumstance and cannot ·be remedied. Given the small margin for error, it would be best to obtain the additional signatures or to confirm changes in ownership or marital status prior to Boundary Review Board scrutiny. 1) Kathryn Stueclde signed for Block 2 Lot 23 (-DS30) and Block 4 Lot 10 (-1020). The property is in· the name of James Stueclde. 2) Jack and Amy Sue Loveless signed for Block 2 Lot 32 (-0620). The records show Gerald and Marian Chance. Have the Lovelesses purchased the property? ·'3) Kenneth Christianson Signed for Block 3 Lot 19 (-D810). We need Lind Christianson's signature: 4) Paula Allison signed for Block 4 Lot 9 (-1010). We need Arthur Allison's signature. 5) Marion Witt signed for Block 4 Lot 15 (-1070). We need Carl Witt's signature. 6) Christopher Lincecum signed for Block 4 Lot 27 (-1190). We need Rebe Lincecum's signature. (Rebe may be a truncated version of a longer name.) . Thanks again for your efforts.' Owen Dennison . 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 THIS PAPER CONTAINS SO% RECYCLED MATERlAL 10% POST CONSUMER Owen Dennison, Planner City of Renton Planning/Building Dept. 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Dennison, 5766 146th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98007-3054 . January 31, 1995 I am the owner of lot 16 (parcel number # 142305-9016) in the 60% Petition -Bumstead Annexation. I am supportive of the petition except the proposed zoning on my property .. The proposed zoning indicate my property will be zoned as Single Family Low Density (4u/Ac.) after annexation to the City of Renton. Currently, my property is zoned 4UI Ac in the King County Urban Growth Comprehensive Plan. It only makes economical sense if I can get minimum 5UI Ac for my property to cover the development costs and taxes. I would prefer to get the same zoning of Single Family as the Bumstead property south of my property. I would appreciate it very much if you would advise me how to go about to change proposed zoning on my property. . You may reach me at 979-3445 ifthere are any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, '. L¢f<I{/ ~Y---' /f~~eMcheungt1 . "CI"I'Y ')FRENTON Jariuary27,1995 Puget Colony Homes 5920 100th Street SW Tacoma, WA98499 'To whom it may concern: Mayor Ea-rl Clymer. Property owners on the East Renton Plateau initiated an annex~tion to th~City of Renton last November. The proposed boundariesofthe'annexation are shown on the enclosed map .. Origillally the. request included only the darker shaded area of the map. Responding to interested oWners north,east and west of the proposal, . the Rent9n ,City. Council expanded the boundaries to include these areas. Organizers of the drive were authorized by the City Council to circulate a Petition to Annex which requires ~ignatures from owners of property' representing 60% of the assessed value of the annexation area. They have talked. to your· neighbors on the' Plateau, many of whom have already signed. Nowthey need yoursupport:' .' . Puget Colony Homes is li~ted as the taxpay~r of record for t,ne or more~roPerties within' the annexation area.·Please take this time to consider .the beriefitsof annexing' this property to the City of Renton. ,."., . What V-rlll annexati~n offer you as a.landowner? • Access to sewers .. The City willcoinplete an interceptor line to NE 4th Street (SE 128th) and Duvall · .' Avenue NE by Spring of 1995. Annexation is required for . connection, but COlmection 'is not,mandatory except for cases 6f failed or failing'septic' systems within' 330 feet of an available.-sewer, new. construction .. or involvement in a Local Improvement District.' Charges will not be a~sessed until service is provided. • '. Incr~ased police protection. • Citydevelop~ent of 40 acres of park land in the anriex~tion·~rea. Enclosed are additional materials to explain what annexation woUld,meanto y~u: . '. ..' '". \" , .. If ·you think .that annexation 'is ,in your interest, we want your' signature., We haveiiicluded' a Petition to Annex, with your property identification nUmber on it. Please fill in. the date, print or type your name and mailing address and sign the Petition: Since the taxpayer of record is listed as a corporation; we will need an excel-pt from yoUr corporate bylaws authorizing you to sign for the corporation. Please return the Petition and the' excerpt from th,e corporate bylaws to us in :the enclosed pre-addressed envelope. This is your opportunity to help make this annexation a success .. To insure that your signature is rounted;please return your Petition to the City of Renton by Monday, February 6, 1995. . _.' . '.' . . . .... . .... , .' . .", : If you have any questions, please feel' free to call Sue Carlson at 277-4419 or Ow~n De:ciuson at 277-2475. They are available to answer any questions you might have about .Renton or this . annexation. . . . . sr·ncerelY, .. Ci& Ear 'Clymer Mayor ... 200 Mill Avenue So~th ,Renton, 'Washirigtcm 98055-(206)235~2580 . . . TIllS PAPER CONTAINS"SO% REC;YCLED MATERIAL, 10% POS'f CONSUMER . ~ ,-"", FIRSTLAST ADDRESS CITY Jose Rivera, Jr. 14333 SE 170th Street Renton, W A 98058 Mark Costello snd Gail Miller 850 Camas Avenue NE Renton, W A 98056 Franklin D. Harach 7804 129th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98056 Robert snd Cheryl V sn Geystel 25818 Gold Beach Drive SW Vashon, WA 98070 Thomas Neeedham l4231149th Place SE Renton, W A 98059 Robert snd Melinda Hasegawa 312116th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98144 Rsndall and Rosemary Leifer 5127 S. Fountain Street Seattle, WA 98178 Cynthia Bouw 25055 SE 224th Maple Valley, WA 98038 Carl and Kathleen Godsoe 9201 Blackberry, #11 Anchorage, AK 99515 Jo snd Judy Taylor 4414 Happy Vslley Road Sequim, W A 98382 Kenneth snd Terri Day 815 Second Avenue Seattle, W A 98104 Louis Barei 614 S. 18th Street Renton, W A 98055 Joel Guariz C/O Executive House, Inc. #14246 7517 Greenwood Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 Stanley snd Wendy Rice 7635 118th SE Renton, W A 98056 Marshsll snd Elsa Lambert 8836 123rd Avenue SE Renton, W A 98056 Ernest Clark 7029 Ripley Lane N. Renton, W A 98056 Larry and Joanne Chase 2403 185th Avenue E. Sumner, WA 98390, Donald Hanson 12078 Jefferson Point Road Kingston, WA 98346 Puget Colony Homes 5920 l00th Street SW Tacoma, W A 98499 Ivyl Lea 7443 NE 123rd Place Kirklsnd, W A 98034 Cory snd Cindy Brandt 13568 139th Place SE Renton, WA 98059 Vincent Smith 14105 143rd Avenue SE Renton, W A 98056 Arthur Ford 8122 47th Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98118 , William Hiser 921 Monroe Avenue N. Renton, WA 98056 James Belmondo 1221 Edmonds Avenue NE. Renton, WA 98056 .I~"~" "'/II CIT'\. OF RENTON """,' Earl Clymer, Mayor Finance &' Information Services Victoria A. Runkle,' Administrator InterOffice Memo To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Clymer Jay Covington Chief Wallis Gregg Zimmerman Sue Carlson Owen Dennison :\ 1_. 0'......--. Victoria A. Runkle U~ . January 26, 1995 Bumstead Annexation Attached is the new Bumstead annexation work. It includes a decrease for Police under current development. The net costs under current development (negative impaCt on·the City) is $3,532 annually. We have changed the park costs and allocated miscellaneous costs differently in the full development option. We now will have a positive impact of $236,872. We state in the verbage part there are additional costs to the park in the long run. However, we do not include those full costs. We also do not include the purchase or construction costs of the Park in this 'analysis. Remember, our argument is that we would not fully develop the Park until other areas --primarily the Maplewood area comes into the City. I think this addresses the issues we have discussed. Please let me know what additional information you want. This is becoming an ongoing project. '. 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206) 235-2607 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION (Expanded) to City of Renton Financial Impact Analysis The proposed annexation includes some 621-plus acres on the eastern bounda!)' of Renton. The original annexation area included some 64 acres of undeveloped land owned by the Bumstead Construction Coinpany;but was not contiguous to the City boundaries. Subsequently, other intervening property owners were approached regarding annexing to Renton. The total potential annexation area has been divided, for purposes of analysis, i~to seven areas, designated A through G. They are shown on the attached map with these designations. .' This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associated with annexing these areas as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full ' development at some undetermined point in'the future. The "full development" scenarios for': each area should be considered "order of magnitude" estimates of fiscal impact. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other comparable data, but actual results are likely to va!)' .from these estifDates. In general, costs associated with utilities have b.een assumed to be supported by rates charged for those services. Annexation Area: The site is located east ofthe'city timits, south ofSE 120th Street and west of 156th Avenue SE (see map). For purposes of this review,due to the method used in colleCting signatures of petitioners, the expanded annexation area is divided into seven subareas, which are the subjects of this report, They are: Area A: This'is the original Bumstead proposal, which includes the properties owned 'by the proponent of the annexation, the Bumstead Construction Company. The 40-acre . Colasurdo property; comprised of the southernmost lots in this area, may be suitable for development as park space. Therefore, the worksheets attached provide for impacts "with park" or "without park". Area B: A large number of property owners in the southern tier of properties of this area have indicated an interest injoining the annexation. The owners of property in the "upper' tier" have generally declined to be included; therefore, this report omits the "upper tier" and addresses only the "lower tier" impacts. Area C: This is the White Fence Ranch subdivision and properties to the west. These are proceeding independently of one another. They are identifIed separately in this analysis. Area D: We have referred to this area by its NW bounda!)' corner, as SE 128thll52nd SE. Area E: This is a smaller area, more densely populated than others, referred to as "Puget Colony/Other." . ' .. < . Area F: We have referred to this area as 140th SE/SE 136th. It lies on the southwestern ·corner of the proposed expanded annexation. Area G: Maplewood Height Elementary School lies on this site, on the southern boundary of the annexations. Taken as a group,at full development, these annexations would represent a 10% increase in Renton's current population, and .up to a 9. -1% increase in the City's current assessed valuation of $3,590,619,089. Table I (attached) shows the estimated changes in number of housing units and population of the areas, from current development to full development. The tables relating to current and full development show the estimated impacts for each individual area, as well as the cumulative impacts. Impact of Annexation' at Current Development: Tables C-I through C-3 display estimated revenues, costs and a comparison of the two for all seven areas, at current development. This conservative projection; displayed on Table C-3, shows that without development of the properties, General Fund revenues yielded by the annexation will cover an estimated 99% of the costs of service. The difference is; however, relatively small, and both costs and revenues have been conservatively estimated. Impact.of Annexation at Full Development: Tables F-l through F-3 provide similar data for the areas at full development, both with the 40-acre park and without it. The addition of housing units.to the properties dramatically increases the assessed valuation, and as a result, total General Fundrevenues also increase sharply. In general,. the greater the number of housing units added to the property, the higher the increase in revenue, since reveillles are primarily property tax and population~based. Costs also rise, particularly in the "with park" scenario, where parks maintenance and operation costs will consume some $192,935 to provide full services and activities. The potential 40-acrc park provides opportunities for passive as well as active areas. This analysis presents the costs for operation and maintenance of the active area only, where most costs arise. At full development, revenues exceed costs of service for all areas. With the park active areas developed and operating, revenues exceed costs by 17% or $ 236,872; assuming the park area is.developed as. single family residential instead, revenues exceed costs by 38%, or $503,083. 2 . APPENDIX 1. Population: TheRenton Finance Department estimates Renton's 1995 population at 44,438 (including estimated populations of the Winsper and Marshall/Galusha annexations). Current population of the subareas has .been identified in the analysis. Renton planning officials estimate the P9Puiationper household for this annexation at 2.78 persons, based upon current population of reasonably similar areas. 2. Assessed Valuation: Estimates of "full development" assessed valuation have been derived 1T0m data on comparable development. The analysis assumes no increase:in assessed valuation other than from the addition of housing units, consistent with the use of {constant dollars for revenues and services. For purposes of estimating future assessed valuation, we applied an average improvement value of $250,000 per undeveloped parcel. 3. Revenues/Costs: AlJ estimates are provided in 1995 dollars, based upon the dty's 1995 budget. .. The estimates assume January 1 implementation for the annexations. NO'adjustments have been made for the length of time and/or inflation prior. to the areas' reaching full developnient. 4. General Fund Revenue Projections: . .' . a.· Property Taxes: .Property tax revenues are divided into two parts "-the base level and' the amount provided for levieslbonds. Only the base amount of $3.48/$1 000 A V has been included in revenue calculations. The City Council has elected to extend proportional share of bonded· indebtedness to the area, and the excess levy of$.36/$1000 AVhas been applied, in the analysis. No adjustment has been made to recognize the imp'act of the increased assessed value from annexation on the total amount required for debt service. The amount identified as levylbond debt service revenues from annexation is the amount that the levy rate would be reduced for the City as a whole. b. State-Shared Revenues: State-shared revenue estimates for 1995 have been applied to the estimated population (current and "fully developed"). These per capita distributions are based on the Municipal Research & Services Center estimates as of August 1994, consistent with those used in the Cityof Renton 1995 Budget. They are summarized below: 3 Tax Distributed Liquor Tax Liquor Board Profits Gas Tax -Roads Gas Tax -Arterials Motor Vehicle Excise Tax . 1995 $ Per Capita Criminal Justice Sales Tax Allocation $ 2.98 6.01 15.69· 7.33 14.18 13.20 . Total $59.39 Several of the abo~eshared r~venues have restricted purpo·~es, under State law: ·Gas Tax must be used as follows: ·Roads: "proper road, street and highway purposes, induding paths and trails. " .. ·Arterials: "construction and:repair of arterial highways and city streets" and "projects consistent with rapid masstransit plans." ·Motor Vehicle Excise Tax· must be used for "police and fire protection or public health"; ·Criminal Justice Sales Tax Allocation is restricted to criminal justice purposes. Since the City of Renton alsq allocates .unrestricted revenues to all of these purposes to support the full costs of the various programs, no distinction has been made between restricted and unrestricted revenues in this analysis. [t can be assumed, for example, that increases in restricted revenues could be used to decrease allocations of unrestricted revenue (for example, an increase in gas tax for road maintenance could be offset by a decrease in the amount of sales tax allocated for road maintenance). c. Sales Tax and Business License Revenue: We have not included an estimate for revenue from these sources, since the areas in question are nearly totally identified as residential. d. Miscellaneous Revenues include real estate excise tax, utility tax and business permits. Real estate excise tax revenues must be used for "capital improvement" ·and "capital projects." They hav.e been simply prorated on the basis of population, as representative of housing turnover, at $15.75 per capita. 4 --------------. -------- Utility tax revenues are calculated on a per capita basis, for an average residence, based on an estimated 'annual utility bill of some $3,120. The resulting rateof$72.04 per capita was then applied to estimated population in the annexation areas. Fines and forfeits have been calculated on a per capita basis also, using the 1995 budget projection of$16.45. 5 .. Projected General Fund Costs: Cost figures have been developed. from a number of sources, including the City'S 1995 Budget, stair; memoranda and other materials collected to date regarding these and previous annexations. a. King County Contract Services: The rates fpr these services are calculaced on a per capita basis, and ;are those costs reflecte}l in the 1995 budget " Contract Service 1295 Contract Cost ger cagita .,:. Alcohol $ 9,996 $ .22 Public Defender, $'120,000 $ 2.70 Public Health $575,280 $ 12.95 Jail Services $ ·55,401 $ 1.25 Jail Medical ServiCes $ 1.383 $ .03 Total $ 762,600 $ .17.15 b. Public WorkS Department: As development occurs, Public Works estimates that up to 4.5 employees may be required for certain periods of time to provide planning and development assistance. In addition, this analysis covers only the General Fund costs. SJme increased utility maintenance services may need to be addressed in the future. This analysis assumes that such costs will be recovered through utility service rates. . . . c. RoadlUtility Construction: The City of Renton will incur no unreimbursed costs for construction of new roads and utility infrastructures. Developers will be required to absorb these costs or, if parcels are developed individually, LID's and/or ULiDs will be used to finance infrastructure improvements. Once the roads and other improvements are completed, maintenance will become the responsibility of the City of Renton. (Source: Clin~on Morgan, Transportation Planning) d. Road Repair and Maintenance: The City will incur costs for street maintenance for the additional roads required with full development For purposes of estimating the fiscal impact, the Public Works Department has estimated maintenance costs per linear foot, assuming the streets have been brought up to City standards. The Public Works Department estimates the cost of bringing current roadways up to standard at $25,644. This cost will be borne by the property owners, through LID's. 5 .. e. Police Protection: The Police Department sees no significant problems associated with the annexation. Existing designated patrol zones in the Renton Highlands could be extended to serve the area as necessary. The department estimates that service can be extended to the area at current development with one additional patrol officer. The existing ratio of 1.8 officers per 1000 residents would require additional officers at full development. Police calls for service related to commerciaVindustrial businesses are minimal (approximately onc call annually for each 1,494 square feet of space).:' Since there is very little commercial activity in the proposed annexation area, it is assumed that the impacts on police calls for serv.ice from commercial sources would be insignificant. One police patrol car is required for every thre~ additional officers. Because of the multiple areas included in this report and their.i;umulative impacts, We have applied a unit cost (officers per capita) and noted that at ultimate full development, additional officers and two additional police cars will be required (cars have an approximate cost of $18,500 each, with a two year life). f. Fire Protection: The Renton Fire Department currently serves most of this area uhder contract with Fire District #25, and believes it will be able to continue serving the entire area with existing personnel from the Fire District 25 station, and that ownership of assets would be unaffected. One small portion of Area C is within Fire District # 1 0, ahd would therefore be withdrawn from that district and served by Renton. At full buildout, call volume may increase by some 150 calls per year, requiring some minimal increases in operating supplies. g. Water: With the exception of the. area west of 140th Avenue SE, the entire area is currently served by Water District #90. With annexation, the water district will continue to serve the area through franchise to the City. Extension of water service to new development in the area will be borne by the developers and/or property owners through LID's, except for the area within the City'S water utility servi'ce area. h. Parks: Within the original Bumstead annexation area lies the Colasurdo property, including some 40 acres available to purchase and develop as a park. The Renton Community Services Department estimates that the acquisition of the land for park use would cost some $1.2 million, potentially funded by King County. Additionally, the park's full development costs, spread over several years, approximate $4.5 million, to provide the community with active and passive areas, including softball, soccer, baseball and tennis; rest rooms, concession facilities, picnic shelters, trails, open space, parking lots and utilities. Annual maintenance and operation costs, to be borne by the City of Renton, are approximately $238,250, including $25,000 for utilities, and an initial equipment cost of $97,000. For purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that the active areas of the park are developed and operated first. This includes three softball field combinations; three soccer 6. fields; one restroom/concession area; and parking for 200-250 automobiles. The $192,935 annual maintenance and operation costs for the active area park includes one full-time employee, two temporary position, and two seasonal positions, plus part-time recreation assistance, supplies and utilities. i_ Courts/Other City Costs: Because of the significant cumulative impact of the annexation and development of these seven areas upon the City, we have conservatively factored in, as a cost, the potential impact on general city administration. The associated columns on Table C-2 and F-2 include the' per capita costs of other City. services, including Munjcipal Court, Legal SerVices, Hearing Examiner, City Clerk, Human Resources & Risk Management, Finance & Information Services and others. i. Surface Wllter Management: The ~urface-Water Utility Division of Public Works sees the expanded annexation area as a logical extension of service, since the area currently drains to the City, and is located in the Cedar River Basin. However, there are some .areas which currently experience flooding, .. and will need to be addressed by the City, should the annexation occur. Surface water management expenses are recovered through fees, and no attempt has been made here to estimate. the financial impacts brought by the annexation. 7 BURNSTEAD ANN!=XATION (Expanded) Current Development vs. Full Development Current Develoement Full Develol1ment Area Units Pop. Units Pop. A: Burnstead 63.0 175.1 with park 517.5 1438.7 without park , '674.3 1874.6 .. B: SE 128th Street 17.0 47.3 11 i 1 325.5 (Lower Tier) . . ... .' C: White Fence Ranch 79.0 219.6 124.0 344.7 Morrison/Ribiera 8.0 22.2 192.5 535.2 . Total 87.0 241.8 316.5 879.9 D: SE 128th/152nd SE 31.0 86.2 '184:3 512.4 E: Puget Colony/Other 49.0 136.2 105.6 293.6 F: 140th SEISE 136th 54.0 150.1 193.6 538.2 Total All Areas 301.0 836.8 with park 1434.6 3988.2 without park 1591.4 4424.1 . Table 1 • BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION (Expanded) Estimated Annual Revenues at Full Development Property '. Excess .. State' .. . Assessed Tax Levy Shared Misc. Area Population Valuation Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenues Total A: Burnstead with park " 1438.7 $112,932,000 $ 393,003 $ 40,656 $ 85,444 $ 103,660 $ 622,763 without park 1874.6 $ 148,212,000 $ 515,778 $ 53,356 $ 111,332 $ 135.057 $ 815.524 B: SE 128th Street . 325.5 $ 25,357,449 $ 88,244 $ 9,129 $ 19,331 $ 23,478 $ 140,182 (Lower Tier) C: White Fence Ranch '344.7 $ 20,327,760 $ 70,741 $ -$ 20,472 $ 24,861 $ 116,073 Morrison/Ribiera 535.2 $ 43,039,232 $ 149,777 $ 7,318 $ 31,786. $ 38,582 $ 227,462 Total 879.9 $ 63,366,992 $ 220,517 $ 7,318 $ 52,257 $ 63,443 $ . 343,535 D: SE 128th/152nd SE 512.4 $ 41,128,300 $ 143,126 $ -$ 30,431 $ 36,940 $ 210,498 E: Puget Colony/Other 293.6 $ 19,427,000 $ 67,606 $ -$ 17,437 $ 21,180 $ 106,223 F: 140th SE/SE 136th· 538,2 $, .39 ,49~,76.1 .$ 137,438 0$ .6,994. $.,.' . 31. 964~ $ 38,798 $ 215,194 . G: Maplewood Elementary 0.0 $ 2,473,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - (tax exempt) Total All Areas (taxable) with park 3,988.3 $ 301 ,705,502 $1,049,935 $ 64,096 $ 236,865 $ 287,498 $ 1,638,394 without park 4,424.2 $ 336,985,502 $1,172,710 $ 76,797 $ 262,753 $ 318,895 $ 1,831,155 '. Table F-1 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION (Expanded) Estimated Annual Costs at Full Development County "Public Area Population Contracts Police Roads Parks Works Courts/Other Total A: Burnstead , ' . with park 1438.7 $ 24,674 $ 167,522 $ 19,226 S 192,935 $ 45,091 $ 157,075 $ 606,523 without park 1874.6 $ 32,149 $ 218,278 $ 19,226 $ -$ 45,091 $ 218,328 $ 533,073 B: SE 128th St(Lwr. Tier) 325.5 $ 5,582 $ 37,901 $ 19,226 $ -$ 10,202 $ 35,537 $ 108,449 C: White Fence Ranch 344.7 $ 5,912 $ 40,137 $ 19,226 $ -$ 10,803 $ 37,634 $ 113,711 Morrison/Ribiera 535.2 $ 9,179 $ 62,319 $ -$ -$ 16,774 $ 58,432 $ 146,703 Total 879.9 $ 15.090 $ 102,456 $ 19.226 $ -$ 27.578 $ 96.065 $ 260,415 D: SE 128th/152nd SE 512.4 $ 8,788 $ 59,664 $ 19,226 $ -$ 16,059 $ 55,943 $ 159,680 E. Puget Colony/Other 293.6 $ 5,035 $ 34,187 $. 19.226 $ -$ 9.202 $ 32.055 $ 99,705 F: 140th SEiSE 136th 538.2 $ 9.230 $ 62,668. $ 19,226 $ $ 16.868 $ .58,760 $ 166,752 , -, c G. Maplewood Hts Elem •. 0.0 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - Patrol Cars.(2) $ -$ 18,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ - . -.-- Total All Areas with park 3,988.3 $ 68,399 $ 340,049 $ 115,356 $ 192,935 $ 125,000 $ 435,435 $ 1,401,523 without park 4,424.2 $ 75,875 $ 533,654 $ 115,356 $ -$ 125,000 $ 496.688 $ 1,328,073 Parks Equipment (onetime) $ 97.000 $ 97,000 "The Public Wor1<.s Department estimates that up to 4.5 employees will be required to provide service to the area. This annual cost has be,en estimated at $125,000 for purposes of this analysis. Table F-2 \ , BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION (Expanded) Annual Revenue/Cost Summary: Full Development Revenues popufati~n Assessed Estimated Estimated less Area . Valuation Revenues Costs Costs A: Bumstead with park 1438.7 $ 59,542,841 $ .622,763 $ 606,523 $ 16,240 without park 1874.6 $ 102,364,500 $ 815,524 $ 533,073 $ 282,451 B: SE 128th Street 325.5 $ 17,849,949 $ 140,182 $ 108,449 $ 31,733 (Lower Tier) C: White Fence Ranch 344.7 .~ 16,952,760 $ 116,073 $113,711 $ 2,361 Morrison/Ribiera 535.2 $ 29,201,732 $ 227,462 $ 146,703 $ 80,759 Total 879.9 $ 46,154,492 $ 343,535 $ 260,414 $ 83,121 D: S{'128th/152r,d SC . . 512.4 $ 29,630.800 $ 210,498 $ 159,680 $ 50.818 E: Puget Colony/Other 293.6 $ 15,182,000 $ 106,223 $ 99,705 $ 6,518 . F: 140th SE/SE 136th 538.2 $ 22,273,761 $ 215,194 $ 166,752 $ 48,442 G: Maplewood Elementary' 0.0 $ 2,473,000 $ -$ -$ - (tax exempt) " ,,:;,,_ .r '" . Two patrol cars $ -$ 18,500 $ -$ 18,500 - Total All Areas (taxable) with park 3.988.3 $ 190.633,843 $1,638,394 $1,401,522 $ 236,872 without Dark 4,424.2 $ 233,455.502 $1.831,155 $1,328,072 $ 503,083 Tablei F-3 BURNSTEAo ANNEXATION (Expanded) Estimated Annual Revenues at Current Development I. 'Property Excess State A$ses--s~d ,·To3,X '. . Levy Shared. Misc. Area Population Valuation Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenues Total I I A: Burnstead 175.1 $ 10,669,500 $ 37,130 $ 1,021 . $ 10.399 $ 2.968 $ 51,518 I B: SE 128th Street 47.3 $ 2,834,949 $ 9.866 $ -$ 2,809 $ 866 $ 13,541 . (Lower Tier) C: White Fence Ranch 219.6 $ 10,202,760 $ 35,506 $ 4,223 $ 13,043 $ 3,701 $ 56,472 Morrison/Ribiera 22.2 $ 1,526,732 $ 5,313 $ -$ 1,321 $ 454 $ 7,087 Total. 241.8 $ 11,729,492 $ 40,819 $ 4,223 $ 14,364 $ 4,154 $ 63,559 0: SE 128th/152nd SE 86.2 $ 6,635,800 $ 23,093 $ 2,409 $ 5,118 $ 1,505 $ 32,125 E: Puget,ColonylOther 136.2 $ 6,692,000 $ 23,288 $ 2,910 $ 8,090 $ 2,329 $ 36,617 ... F: 140th SEiSE 136th 150.1 $ 8,083,761 $ 28,131 $ 890 $ 8,916 $ 2,557 $ 40,495 _. G: . Maplewood Elementary (tax exempt) . _ . 0.0 $ 2,473,000 $. -$ -$ -$ -$ - Total An Areas (taxable) 836.7 $ 46,645,502 $ 162,326 $ 11,453 $ 49,696 $ 14,379 $237,855 Table C-1 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION (Expanded) Estimated Annual Costs at Current Development County Pub.Wks/ Area Population Contracts ·Police Roads Courts/Other Total A: Burnstead f75.1 $ 3,003 $ 12,921 $ 6,409 $ 24,605 $ 46,938 B: SE 128th Street 47.3 $ 811 $ 3,490 $ 6,409 $ 6,647 $ 17,357 (Lower Tier), C: White Fence Ranch 219.6 $ 3,766 $ 16,207 $ 6,409 $ 30,861 $ 57,243 Morrison/Ribiera 22.2. $ 381 $ 1,641 $ -$ 3,125 $ 5,148 Total 241.8 $ 4,148 $ 17,848 $ 6,409 $ 33,986 $ 62,391 0: SE 128th/152nd SE 86.2 $ 1,478 $ 6,360 $ 6,409 $ 12,110 $ 26,356 E: Pliget Colony/Other 136.2 $ 2,336 $ 10,052 $ 6,409 $ 19,142 $ 37,939 F: 140th SElSE 136th 150.1 $ 2,575 $ 11,078 $ 6,409 $ 21,095 $ 41,156 -;-, .. " . . :~-. . , ~_I • G: Maplewood Hts Elem. 0.0 $ -$ -$ -$ - • Patroi'Car (1) $ -$ 9,250 $ -$ -$ 9,250 • POlice Officer (1) $ 61,750 $ 61,750 Total All Areas 836.7· $ 14,351 $ 71,000 $ 38,452 $ 117,584 $ 241,387 . ' • The Renton Poli~e Department estimaies thai one officer will De' sufficieht to provide patrol serVice; ihis officer's costs are spread over the seven annexation areas to show the relative impa'ct of each annexation. Table C-2 ',BURNSTEAD ANNEXATioN (Expanded) Annual Revenue/Cost Summary: Current Development Revenues Assessed Estimated Estimated less Area , Population Valuation Revenues Costs Costs A: Bl!r!1st~ad :~ ' ..... , '. . (without park) 1'75.1 ,$10,669,500 $ 51,518 $ 46,938 $ 4,580 B: SE 128th Street ' 47.3 $ 2,834,949 $ 13,541 $ 17,357 $ (3,816) (Lower Tier) . C: White Fence Ranch 219.6 $10,202;760 ' $ 56,472 $ '57,243 $ (771) Morrison/Ribiera 22.2 $1,526,732 $ 7,087 $, 5,148 $ 1,940 Total 241.8 $11,729,492 $ 63,559 '$ 62,391 $ 1,168 . , ~ .' ~ , ,.. . ' ;. ,:.,;:. >. ~~. -, , . 0: SE 128th/152nd SE .86.2 ' $ '6.635,806 $ 32,125 $ 26,356 $ 5,769 E: Puget Colony/Other 136.2 $ 6,692,000 $ 36,617 $ 37,939 $ (1,322) ,F: 140th SEISE 136th 150.1 $ 8,083,761' $ 40,495 $'. 41,156 $ (662) G: Maplewood Hts School 0.0 $ 2,473,000 $ -$ -$ - Patrol Car (1) $ 9,250 ' $ (9,250) Total All Areas (taxable) 836.7 $ 46,645,525 $237,855 $ 241,387 $ (3,532) ---- , Table C-3 BUl'~STEAD ANNEXATION Annexation Areas & Existing Covenants to Annex e CITY OF RENTON 'f@R·PUNNING/BUlLJJING/PUBllClI'ORK!l ..t O.Den..nlBon -R.},CllcOnle. D.Vlane:ald e 17 NOTemb~ 100-4 o I 1 0 0_0~~2~0 0 0 -I 1:12000 EXHIBIT 1 ----Renton City Limits Covenants to Annex I:';; ::'_::-,-,-'<I Proposed _by Applican t I::::::::::::~ Expanded Annexation Area KingCoun~' Planning and Community Del'elopment Division P,lrks, Planning and Resources Dejmrtmenl Smith Tower Building SOG Second Avenuc Room 707 SCIlt!lc, WA 9HI04 (206) 296-8650 January 26, 1995 4:1/1,'/~ . . Ctiael D. Kattermann, AICP irector, Planning and Technical Services· City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: White Fence Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Katterlnann: Thank you for your Janui\ry 9, ·1995 letter requesting clarification on whether the subdivision'of White Fence Ranch was included in the County's Urban . Growth Boundary. ' ., " . . The White Fence Ranch was included in the Urban Area when the King County Council adopted the revised King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) in December 1994. You are correct, however, that when the Council adopted the map designating the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the Countywide Planning Policies, it does not show the White Fence Ranch within the Urban Growth Boundary. This error will be corrected. This should not affect the proposed annexation of this area to the City of Renton, since the KCCP map designates this area as Urban, and the KCCP designates the final UGA. When Carol Lumb, from Community Planning, talked with you earlier this week about the White Fence Ranch, you also asked whether Briarwood Elementary School had been included in the UGA. This area was not included in the Urban Area either by the Countywide Planning Policies or the KCCP. The school is located in a larger area which was one of the Technical Review Areas (area R-l) designated for additional study by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) before a final recommendation was made on whether to designate it Urban or Rural. Most of that area was eventually designated as Urban by the GMPC when it adopted the Countywide Planning Policies in June 1993. The Briarwood Elementary School, and the area north of it to Southeast 128th, was'designated Rural. When 'the GMPC reviewed the Joint Planning 'Areas Report·in September 1994, the remainder of·the Briarwood Technical Review Area was not one of the areas identified by Renton or the County as one where there was disagreement on the Rural "MANAGING CHANGE TO BUILD BETTER COMMUNITIES" Michael D. Katterm ... _" AICP January 26, 1995 Page 2 designation. As a result, the Rural designation was carried forward in the KCCP's map and the Countywide Planning Policies map. I hope this in~ormation is helpful. If you have any questions, please call me at 296-8658., Sincerely, B ~nager JR:cpl ADM3.PAAl cc: Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Section ATTN: Carol Lumb, Community Planner ( Earl Clymer, Mayor January 24, 1995 ,Mr. Donald Maggard 16023 SE 135th Street Renton, W A 98059 Dear Mr. Maggard: AfIlNf:'7-, r.t.t:: CIT~ViENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator Thank you for your signature in ,support, of the proposed East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation (which' includes the White Fence Ranch subdivision) .. WashiDgton State' has narrowly, if not always clearly, defined what constitutes a valid petition' and what constitutes an acceptable signature: In th'e event of an appeal of the' annexation to the Washington State' Boundary Review Board for King County, discrepancies' between the property owner's name(s) , ' 'as represented iIi the Assessor's records and as shown on the 'petition could result in an exclusion of the signature. To safeguard the validity of this' Petition to Annex, we are' requesting the signatures of all parties named on the King County Assessor's rolls. The affect of the foregoing is that we are requesting that Jolene Maggard also sign the enclosed .', Petition as she is listed as a taxpayer of record for your property. Please return the Petition with the additional signature in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope as soon as possible. Your prompt attention is appreciated. If Ms. Maggard is no longer a ' legal owner, please send back the Petition with a notation to that effect. . If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, !lliJlrlJ,;bJx ::s Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 TIllS PAPER COI'ITAINS.509It RECYCLED MATERIAL, 10% POST CONSUMER ANNe,,-, r-''-(; ~rt? CIT~;~~~N Earl Clymer, Mayor January 24, 1995, Carroll and Rebecca Asbell 14422 SE 132nd Street Renton, W A 98059 Dear Mr. and Ms. Asbell: Planning/Building/Public Works Department' Gregg Zimmennan P,E., Administrator Since my letter of December 2, 1994, we hav,e not heard from you regarding the ongoing annexation effort in your area. I know that you have had concerns about how annexation ' would affect your ability to maintain horses on your property. Without knowing the specifics of your situation, I hope that my letter provided yoil with enough information to make a , reasonable assessment. '. I would like to take this opportunity to offer additional materials to help you evaluate the other aspects 'of annexation.' Please take the time to consider both the immediate and long-term benefits that would be gained by Renton citizenship. If you find that annexation is in your best interest, please return the enclosed Petition to Annex in the enclosed pre-addressed envelope. Owen Dennison of my staff is available to answer any questions you may have. He can be reached at 277-2475. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, flt:» ~--=--~ Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 ' nns PAPER CONTAINS.5Oo/Io RECYCLED MATERIAl., 10':\ POST CONSUMER Earl Clymer. Mayor January 24, 1995 Karl and Cheri Goeres 13116 138th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Dear Mr: and Ms. Goeres: 1\:f\I N';; ><.... \-I c...1.,!. 6u"""'5"'~ CIT~ RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department . GreggZimmennan P.E., Administrator ; The City of Renton is processing an annexation on the East Renton Plateau. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of the proPosal. You are listed as the taxpayer of record for a property included in the area. Previous owners of your property signed a covenant (enclosed) to receive utility ser'vice. The City of Renton is now requesting that you execute a Petition to Annex as required under the provisions of the covenant. Please fill out the enclosed Petition with the date, your mailing address and both of your names, signed and printed. " Please return the Petition in the pre-addressed envelope by February 6, 1995. Your prompt attention is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, !It-:U~ ~ Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Plaiming and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton. Washington 98055 nils PAPER CONTAINS.5O% RECYClED MATeRIAl.. I~ POST CONSUMER . . . 152)0 .. ..,2.01 IIENAN!' TO ANNEX.TO TIlE CITY OF RBNfO_ G-oI"V' \)OSS!.eC tWd shClOcrn l/assL-er-,hereinafter referred to lllo~ers, U hereby covenant and agree to sign the neces.sary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. I. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which this covenant shall aooly 1s as follows: The North 99 toot of the aouth 198 fe.t of the aoutheaat quarter of the northeeat quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, tovnahip 23 North, Range 5 Baat., W.M. . EXCEPT the eaet 330 teet AND EXCEPT the west 169.28 feet, Situate in the COUnty of·King, State of Washington. 2. Basis for Covenant •. This. covenant to annex is given as a condition to ~. '.' being permitted to hook up to s~ and water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to. annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the premises, and shall be a covenant· running. with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their h~ir5, successors Or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to anne. the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time a.~ the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to quelify under the 75\ method pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, . . together with such other adjoining or. contiguou. area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such innexation. If the owners, their successors AVa Sill! n31,/303Y 111?-'?''l-~ e7 .. ·oe/2~ REeD F C~SHSL ~\e55 R 4,'P" • .,. ---------- 'or assigns ~dO so, the City'ros.rv •• tho right~~inat. such utility services. S. Filing. Thes. covonants shall b. filed with tho King County Auditor. IN WITNESS' WHEREOP the owners of 'the premises have signed those covenants ,<his ,;>.o~ day ofD .A J1M - , l!Il.l. ~~L~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appear.d be for. m. -.fl;;-:A=D('-'T....!<Q",,,,=9,,,:-, .,L-,-, ... S, .. b ...... O''''CuD.LY)u. '(""'lsle,! to me known to b. tho h'dividual(s) , , d.scrlbed in and who executed. the within and foreao~ng instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed. for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official •• al this ~D~ 19&1. daYOf~' .iii::.: :, ··14 iJI S. . 1.(424 i£¥ UJA U :liIlI,:iI; (j _ -~. .. Earl Clymer. Mayor January 24, 1995 • Frederick and Judy Busch 13843 SE 132nd Street Renton, W A 98056 Dear Mr. and Ms. Busch: A-NN tn,.1,\ 1'0 N '-::11 .. '; CITY'" R;NTON' . Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator The City of Renton is processing an annexation on the East Renton Plateau. The enclosed map shows,the boundaries of the proposal. You are listed as the taxpayer of record for a property included in the area. You signed a covenant (enclosed) to receive utility service in 1983. The City of Renton is now requesting that you execute a Petition to Annex as required . under the provisions of the covenant. Please fill out the enclosed Petition with the date, your mailing address and both of your names,signed and printed. .. Please return the Petition in the pre-addressed envelope by February 6, 1995. Your prompt attention is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincenily, /JZ:d tJ.#tA-:? Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South .. Renton, Washington 98055 TillS PAPER CONTAINS.50% RECYCLED MATElUAL. 10% POST CONSUMER I . , . ·I'I~ • . .,ORDED THISn~(::i COVBHANl' TO ANNIix TO 'IlU! CITY OF RBm'ON " II . . • a~'n referred to as "owners ," hereby covenant and alree to· siln the necessary petitions for annox~tlon to the city Itmitl of the-City of Renton. Washington. for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Losal Description. The 10,a1 doscription of the property to which this covenant Ihall apply is as follows: The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of Washington, County of King.and is described as follows: The East 330 feet of the South 190 foet'of the SE quarter of the HE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT County roads; EXCEPT all coal and minerals and the right to explore for and mine the same as reserved in Deed recorded June 26. 1900 under Recording No. 192430. Situate in the County of King, State of Washington. hereinafter referred to &I "the premises." 2. Basil for Covenant. This covenant to annex 11 "aiven al a condition to being permi tte~ to hook up to ___ ~ water Jervice from the City of Renton to lerve the promi.e •• 1. Parties Bound. This aareoment and the covenant to! annex shall be binding on the owner and all porions .ubsequently acquirina any riaht, title or intere.t in or to .aid property referred to as the premi.es, and shall be a covenant runnin, with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owner., their heirs, aucce,sors or assigns, aaree and covenant to sign a petition to anneX the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time al the assessed valuation of tho subject premises is .sufficient to qualify under the 75\ method pursuant to RCW lSA.14.i20. ·together with such other adjoin1nl or contiruous aroa as the City or other petitioneri may determine. The ownerl further agreo, whon 10 notified by tho City, to promptly circulate and e~ecute luch Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regardin. such annexation. If tho owners, their successors 83./11 .... 04 REeD r- CASHSL -.0547 B 4.0(".1 ",,,,""IA.OO 22 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF . . ,' . .. • or assigns fail to do so, the Clty'reserves the right to terminate such utility services. S. Filing. These covenants shall b. filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this _'=:2.:...1 __ day of Octo be.r'" • 19113. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ), On this day personally appeared .. b~fore .me .Judy R"P Btlscb & FrQdsr1Gk b. Dusch ____________ to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregbing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and -purposes therein me.ntioned. CTVP,N undcr my hand ond official .eol this -,2;:_,;,' ___ day of OCtODd', .' ,1 .' .:.. ..... ITNfV"", r-" .. £ • CITY& RENT~~!>T~" """ -Earl Clymer, Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P,E" Administrator January 24, 1995 Donald Lucas 13216 138th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98056 Dear Mr. Lucas: The City of Renton is processing an annexation on the East Renton Plateau, The enclosed map shows the boundaries of the proposal. You are listed as the taxpayer of record for a property included in the area. A previous owner of your property signed a covenant (enclosed) to receive utility service. The City of Renton is now requesting that you' execute a Petition to Annex as required under the provisions of the covenant. Please fill out the enclosed Petition with the date, your mailing . address and your name, signed and printed. Please return the Petition in the pre-addressed envelope by February 6, 1995. Your prompt attention is appreciated .. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, JlU} ;t1,~-----:s Michael D. Katterniann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 TillS PAPER CO/'orI'AI1"JS.5O"7I' RECYCLED MA.TERIAL. 10% POST CONSUMER I'I,c .... v r f ..... '-' '.IANI' TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OP Rw;oIlR~ 15Z3OS"" ........ 4.00 55 ____ -''''' ...... (;''''A'''4'''') --,W"",..:.. -"A. .... "~c."'IM"""'-__________ • hereinafter referred to as "owners," hereby covenant and agree to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to tho city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the propert~ herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which C1)~ C") IJi g ',) <l)N .... N g~ this covenant shall apply is as follows: TilE. ,<)()Rr1I hAtl' of' TIle )}cR'rIJEI1ST t;rJrlRff,f] of' rill!. .souTh~t1rsr Qu~eTEJ3 of rile. A.HJ1f!1'hW.s5TCPP""If!l2!J8 CYf .scan~ Nt, 7<>GtJ,vshlio .e>.g .uoem, Rt1.u:;.e&'6,4S7; cU. In" ,IV ~AJ9-&tMJ7J.', ~h;i»rcW" E.¥~T 77tE ~.e;.1, oo"o,EG:?'j' EJ'C,cpT rh.E. aJE,sT <JeJ P e 6T; £~'T ThE lEAS; ..s'eJl"£Sr. lI') In It)c() ~ hereinafter referred to as lithe premises.1I This covenant to annex is given as a condition to M. ?<:l 2. Basis for Covenant. , ~ being permitted to hook up to sewer an~ water service from the City of Renton _ _~ to serve the premises. ~ 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or.interest in or to said property Teferred to as the premises, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time 85 the assessed' valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75\ method pursuant 'to RCW 35A.14.120. together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the .City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such. Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners, their successors FllEDfDR RECORD AT REUUEST Of OffiCE Of 1lIE CITY CInK REIflON MUNICIPAL 1lDG. 100 1II11l1'll SO. annOM. 'Ill SSliS fiilr» n-< ''''OJ! -'" 6~jrl r .. ~ ..... ,O .~. ;: ;;-: ." " =< .:.~' ': C> 3i.." 1:r -'::' C '"' Ul ~ tiC .." II: t. c! .: ,,, co ~i r '4 ~. • -~:. \ ~ ~ M S 12 ...... or assigns fail to do so, tho City' reserve. the right to terminate such utility services. S. Filing. These covenant. shall be filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this i I day of t"i ' , 1995 • tacO /,,2. ~U'a!Q' STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 55 COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personaUy appeared before me " eA" W" L +(1 B f ,/( A fi . , ____________ to me known to be the individua~escribed in and who executed the within and forego,ing instrument, and acknowledged signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for 'the uses purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this If day of y V""~' 'N -. "'" . 197 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF -omCE OF 111[ CIIT C11R111 ROOOK MUItlCIPAI, BUIll. 200 Mill AYl so. RDI1OH,WA_ • " 'Washington, residing et ~ .. SOapClU C 22$4 se: 22 us tQaUQ -$ " ••• ~ DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM January 23, 1995 Randy Corman, Renton City Council Brian Wilson, Police Stan Engler, Fire . _ . ---. ..---. -"\ (MilCeKattermann, J!!B!PW Victoria Runkle, Finance & Information Services John Holt, Fire Owen Dennison, P!B!PW Shawn Mendenhall, Fire Terry Higashiyama, Parks Leslie Betlach, Parks Garry Anderson, Police Sue Carlson / .-~. SUBJECT: Annexation Information Enclosed are some Renton Recycles plastic bags that you can take with you when you go out doorbelling in the annexation area. Please toss the LocalTouch bags that we gave you with your original package. If people are not home, leave the information in the plastic bag and place it on their door knob. We have had some questions about where the proposed park will be located. For your information we have enclosed a map highlighting the park in blue Please keep this map for your information only. We need any signatures that you may get on your petition by Monday, February 6. Thanks for your time and help. 1= I- BUnNSTEAD ANNEX" '{'ION PROPOSED ZONING EXHIBIT 3 o '" ~ \ ~ tL -.-i' ··•• •• ··· ... ·~·.· •. SE R.·· •. 2.'·n.·dTs ~f-_\. .. '='-'w L ___ I ~. j\:1., .' .••• ··· .•. ·....5£1; ~dttl i: m~ .... w ~m ..H ~ HIII!tllll'l--g -;y, h=-= " v Tn 1m . . . Vl \fl.... . '" ~@'-l~l~:~ Ll=:ULlI «: ~ \ \ \..W "~" T .•• :;. f-i.'. -.. --" .. ~. -1 '': '7jj§Jg;:::t:;;:;~t--..~ J ~ .•••.. ' .•.•• ~ .. '.' .......•• ~ ~~-'ll i!?, 00'6 I Ri= lTTTT' "Sti:i6thS! .' ..••••.••.. ~. ; , I . SE I ghlPd F'" Single Family Law Density I . Single Family 1000 2000 ~iiiii! I 1:12000 o 1 I 1:',:",:::.\ Mixed Residential . \....1_--, Proposed & Expanded Annexation Areas Renton City Limits CTY Of R&O'ON ® Jl\.ANlllHGIBlIJ)toIGIPUIIlIC WCIRX . + ftR + ~. D. VlIMoId 5 .kn*Y 1995 DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM January II, 1995 Bumstead Annexation Petition Canvassers· . Owen Dennison (#2475) ~ SUBJECT: Walking Maps and Petitions Walking Maps The areas outlined in green are your canvassing territory. The map on the reverse side of, or attached to, the walking map shows the location within the annexation area. The maps include: Petition a) A 10 digit property identification number. b) The name of the taxpayer of record. This should be the name(s) on the Petition. To be safe, we should have signatures for all names listed for any particular property, even if the taxpayer of record is listed as John or Joan Smith. Owners of multiple properties need only sign once, providing it is clearly indicated that the signature is intended to represent all properties. Initials can be substituted for the first and middle names. c) The address of the taxpayer of record. If a property does not have an address under the name, the owner has additional property on the map. A v" symbol indicates both properties are under one ownership. In instances of multiple property ownership, the property with the address on it may not be the owner's residence. Please use the address to locate the owner. d) Red dots indicating previous opposition to annexation. Calls on these residences are discretionary. Your welcome may be brief, but you may have an opportunity to win a convert .. Please make sure that signers have signed and printed their names, and filled in the date· and address boxes. Use more than one line if additional space is needed. Please note the instructions above for who can sign the Petition. Since the property identification numbers are included on the map, please have the signers insert this 10 digit hyphenated number in the Tax Lot Legal Description column. Thank you for your time and effort in making this annexation a success. To: From: Date: Subject: CITY OF RENTON MAYOR'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM Bumstead Annexation Petition Canvassers Susan Carlson (#4419) January 12, 1995 Information in Packets Please read the information provided carefully. Your canvassing packets contain the following information: Multiple Copies of: • Annexation Newsletter -enough for one to each household. • Annexation Petitions - 4 or 5 copies. Not enough to leave at every house. • Self-addressed envelopes for returning petitions to the City -same as above. • Renton Investment Guide -one for each household. • Sewer Information Sheet -one for each household . . ~ • Parks Brochure - 4 or 5 per packet. • Color Zoning Map of Annexation area -(limited # of copies) • Financial Impact Analysis of "Typical Household" -one for each household. It also includes: • A map of the specific area assigned to each team with names and addresses. • A copy of a petition being circulated in the area urging residents to oppose the annexation and the City's response to the issues raised. Please read this carefully as there is an active campaign underway to derail this annexation. If you have questions or need additional materials please call me at #4419 or Owen Dennison (#2475). Thank you for your participation in this project. .§= or ~'" hi f-- h- o I \ l Bt':NSTEAD ANNEY \TION PROPOSED BOUNDARIES EXHIBIT" 8 1000 2000 I I e ory Of RENTON ~1Sl.JI,DING1PWIC WORKS + &lID + OJ)errison ~ R. ~, D. VlonooId 5 .IarIIcry 1995 1:12000 ~ -#-\7 I "j I02.~o5-932.0 #d-~-~ t-A W BEN c.\!: !3,Ee Q . ~-~ 12-'-11 I'"I~"~ PrV.~f. , Zr~ '-«... ~e..U. ~ lo2:~o5-"1';)1(, PI'>\lIO E'Se.EGt:i" ~ ~ 12.."1 ~ 1 '"I''ji fri AV.5E - 0 , " 102.~oS-"12.1"1 ~.I<:(r~ . E.OwA~P e,ll.\TT~ , ~. 12.('IS" I'I'~'" 1\1I . .se- t (OON'T TAI.l< To WA~OI'l) AI,,6~ N 102.';)05-'\\'\2. ' t.u Roe-Ell-T I-IOAGrUe V) 1 Z,E> 2.'1 ILlY,"" AV. ,se: lLl ~ Z 11l 102.:?'06" • "'I 1"13>. ~ T. WHlIbQC.1S :t: /J~~ 12-"~7 l'tog'" PL. ~t r- OO j"" - I I02.:!>oS -"1.2.0'" ~ t:~N ''"0 MIC.l'IAE:1;.. P e; '" I!Io 0 '( 1 "I (, '-\ 0 .sE I'Z. g'" S r. ..:.. .5IJ () f -d4 v lit', ~V r--uJppJ., ,....., f<~~ .-V I ...... ~ • , " • .5 E' \Zi) ,\,fI Sf. -, It. -. -'---- 1= I- I- BUY"'NSTEAD ANNEX"TION PROPOSED ZONING \:::: :::1 Single Family Law Density Single Family "":::::::1 Mixed Residential EXHIBIT 3 1 1 Proposed & Expanded Annexation Areas _ _ _ _ Renton City limits o 1000 2000 ~I~ I I 1:12000 OTY Of R&n'ON e JIl.AIoNGJllW)NGIMUC WORK + '" + ~:~ D. VJnoId 5""" 1995 .. • ooIL - Pt-NNIn..l-I/.-G C. .... ~~T<m'" CITY. RENTON Earl Clymer, Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator January 20, 1995 Gerald and Shirley Pieczynski 13405 138th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98055 Dear Mr. and Ms. Pieczynski: The City of Renton is processing an annexation on the East Renton Plateau. The enclosed map shows the boundaries of the proposal. You are listed as the taxpayer of record for a property included in the area. You signed a covenant (enclosed) to receive utility service in 1977. The City of Renton is now requesting that you execute a Petition to Annex as required under the provisions of. the covenant. Please fill out the enclosed Petition with the date, your mailing address and both of your names, signed and printed . Please return the Petition in the pre-addressed envelope by February 6, 1995. Your prompt attention is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Thank: you. Sincerely,. m:u~~ Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 TillS PAPER CONTAINS SO% RECYCI.ED MATElUAL. 10% POST CONSUMER • referrod to AS "owners-, hereby covenant. and .'lree to a19" the necessary rJ8 titiona for annexation t.o the city limits ot the City of Renton, WAshington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth balow. 1. Legal De8cripti~n: The le9al description of the property to which M this covonant shall apply'. is AS follows I ("") The North 1/'2 ·of the North 1/'2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast o 1/4 of the Northwost 1/4, . ~ &XC~PT the Eaet 190 feet thereof: ALBO the North 30 feet of the East 190 feet of the North. 1/2 bf the North 1/2 of the Southwest 114 of . the Southeast 1/~ of the Northweet 1/4, EXCEPT the East 20· feet thereof for road: eubJeot to an easement for road and utlli ties over e.a1d North 30 feet: ALL 1n Sect10n 15, 'ro,mahlp 23 North, 11an6e5 gaat \j.I~., EXCEPT alf coal and minerals .. nJ. the right to explore for and mlne the same. horuinaftnr retorred to a8 "the promiBe8"·~ 2. Basis for Covenant •. This covenant to ~nnex Is 'liven as a condition to being permitted to hoc,k.up to ..... ao<l water service from the City of Runton to serve the premises. J. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex ,s~all be bindinl;l on the owner and ull person,s subsequently acquiring any right" title or in~erQst in or to said proporty rehz-rod to 8S the premises, and shall be a c.:ov.mant running with t~e land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or 888i9ns, I1IJruo 'and covenant to 8ign a ,potition to'~annex tho abovo described premises untu thu City of Renton"at !!'uch time as tho aB.oasuel valuAtion ot the Bubjuct promisos is SUfficient t~ qualify under the 75\ method pursuant to ReW 3S~.l4.l20, t0gether with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners,their .':. \ . • succes.sors or a98i9n8 fail to do 80, the City reserve. the right to terminate such utL1Lty services. 5. Filing. These covenants ahall be filed vith the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the oWnor. of tho. premises have aigned thOle covenants this __ .".4""...,5"'-____ day of C'UA'ch" • 1 97 7. !:iTA'I'E OF WASHINGTON COUNTY or KING ss _li~.(I£.R. £"'1f1'"u,L Ut;> rJ e'er??,"'"" LAe On this day perSOnallY' appeared bef~r. me ..21 ....... pJ R. P '-&r.q,,,}, .l!..' no •• oJ ~_p P4~ -.... lk.' to rno kn'own to be the individual!.) de.cribed in and who cxucuted the within and foreqoinq instrument, and acknowledged .that they si9ned the Barne as their free and VOluntary act and deed. for the UBes and purposes therein meht"ioned. __ I .GJV~,:N :! Ply hand and official .ea~ thio ,-~Q,c...;S'~~ __ '_ day of _~:,~)4~,~~~~.~ ______ . 1977 • . .. , .. , .... \ .. :" . . '.-........ ~ '.' ll' . '. " """" o ,',. ", .. '-'.-.':'-.... Notary Pub Washington, '.' .i January 16, 1995 Renton City Council Members City Hall 200 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98055 Subject: Bumstead Construction comments on Comprehensive Plan Housing Element; G-25 Land Use Amendment; T-3 Text Amendment Dear City Council Members: Congratulations on the generally positive public response to Renton's Comprehensive Plan. The diligence of the councilmembers, staff and planning commissioners really paid off. The public knows we have been heard and been given thoughtful response even if every request has not been granted. These written comments expand on my public testimony at the January 9th public hearing. . 1. Housing Element The Council, planning commissioners and staff are to be commended for the hard work put into developing this element. It provides excellent analysis and addresses the housing needs of all current an,d future city residents. It also provides a way to measure success in achieving its objectives. 2. Land Use Map Amendment G-25 The Burnsteads support the plan designations of low density .. single family on the north and single family on the south, but may request flexibility in administration of the zoning to allow the best possible site design. It is our understanding that for our portion of that zone, SFL will allow 5 units per net acre. We have reviewed David Bricklin's letter and agree that he has laid out reasonable options for implementing different zoning categories within the SFL land use designation. We do think that the urbani community separator areas should be reviewed and generally allowed to develop at 4 to 5 units per acre unless they abut or include sensitive areas or resource lands. This relatively low density can provide a transition between more dense development and truly rural areas. Judith Stoloff Associates Planning & Public Process 2235 Fairview East Slip 6 Seattle WA 98102 Phone 4438812 FAX 3289112 . ~. We also note that the East Renton Plateau, where the Burnstead property is located, is no longer on the edge of the urban growth area. Therefore it would not be appropriate to be considered an urban separator. Actually single family land use would be more . appropriate; that can be considered now or during the first round of plan amendments. We will be following the final development of land use regulations, to assure that regulations support the plan objectives ,and differentiate between resource areas and low density residential areas. 3. Text Amendment T-3 Although our proposectplan text amenl;lments were denied, we feel that many issues can be resolved in the upcoming revision of PNR zoning. We will participate in review of. development requirements and comment on these as they are prepared. Yours truly, Judifu G: sw;.,!!f1I -. Earl Clymer, Mayor . January 9, 1995 Mr. Micbael H. Wilkins . Manager King County Property Services Division CITY .IF·RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator Department of Construction and Facilities Management King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Room 500 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJI!CT: KING COUNTY PROPI!RTJI!S IN THI! PROPOSI!D BURNSTI!AD (EAST R1!NTON PLATI!AU)ANNI!XATION Dear Mr. Wilkins: Thank you for your letter of December 30, 1994, regarding consideration of King County becoming a signatory to the proposed Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton. I appreciate your attention in this matter. The combined assessed valuations of King County properties in the area make the County an important participant in the process. To accommodate the schedule of the initiating proponent of the annexation, the City is pushing for an early completion of the annexation. The City had originally requested a. response by January 11,1995. I understand your requirementa for adequate consideration of the proposal and that this will necessitate additional time. You requested an extension of the deadline until January 31, 1995. Under the circumstances, I can provide some relief from the original schedule. However, I would appreciate any expediting of County's review that you can offer. Even a reduction by a week from your original estimated date of completion would help significant! y. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. t:;; ftfl. #A = S Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 nns PAPER CONTAINS SO% RECYCLED MATERIAL. 1O':"b POST CONSUMER Earl Clymer, Mayor January 9, 1995 Mr. Jim Reid . CITY ")F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator ,,·r" Manager " .,. King County Planning and Community Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 707 Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Reid: On October 26, 1994, the King County Council's Growth Management, Housing and Environment Committee met to consider the recommendations of County staff regarding the disposition of the Joint Planning Areas. In discussion of Renton's Joint Planning Area 1, the question was raised by a Committee member as to why the White Fence Ranch subdivision, contiguous to the east border of Area 1 (see enclosed map), had not been included. Principal Planner Rebecca Lind of the City of Renton Long Range Planning staff responded, saying that the City of Renton had been unaware until recently of interest on the part of the property owners of the subdivision in eventually annexing. She noted that inclusion of the subdivision would be appropriate since the plat was clearly urban in density. It is Ms. Lind's recollection that the Committee had voted to recommend an urban designation for .the subdivision as well as for Area 1. It has now come to the City's attention that the White Fence Ranch subdivision was not ultimately included in the Urban Growth Area as described in the recommendations attached to King County Ordinance 11581. We would like to know if in fact the recommendation to include the subdivision was, by oversight, not forwarded to the County Council. Or, alternatively, did the Council consciously choose to leave. the subdivision with a Rural designation? 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 nils PAPER CONTAINS 50% RECYCLED MA,TElUAL.lO':'o .POsrCONSUMER Mr. Jim Reid January 6, 1995 Page -2 Renton is currently processing a substantial annexation request which includes White Fence Ranch. The owners of property in the subdivision have strongly supported the petition and are concerned that the annexation may be delayed. I would appreciate any information you can provide to correct this situation so the annexation can proceed as quickly as possible. Michael D. Kattermann, AICP . Director, Planning and Technical Services . ,/. ',-~ .. ' ,~. ,". -::~;:' .' , .': ." cc:' . ~~y~~ClYri1er .' !;, Jay Covington' . Gregg Zimmerman Sue Carlson ... ; . " :,1" .-;-' .': .\ " '\! " .'" - W'r\\TE: FE;NC£ RI\I\lQ\ ..5 \J 130\ \lIS ION Renton -East Urban 'Growth 0 0.5 1 King Coumy PCDD 1'04 MILES 0 * 0 Area ~ /';' CJ 0 GJ 1.5 - U~ GROWTH AREA -OPEN SPJICE Uni~ .Adivity Contal'l Joint Planning . -. -I_mad C_ .. '\" Municii-l wllUlfllhedo Urbon Con ...... M_ CPP 'framework UGA and R-'llllion Exec. Propooed Fir-.J UGA Wmr IIadieI Exoculiw Propco;ecj UGA ~ lar Joint Planning --RURAl AREA Au .. Towna Fa..... Produclion DioIricII ~1Iln1 PnxIucIX>n 0iImi<:ZI " The attached petition is being distributed in the East Renton Annexation 'area. It is very likely that you will be asked questions about one or more of the issues raised by the petition, so ';"e thought it would be a good idea to provide you with the City's response to these issues. Issue 1: The Annexation area has been greatly expanded. Response 1: The annexation area has been expanded from the original 226 acre area requested by Burnstead to its current 621-plus acre size. In addition to making the annexation boundary more regular, this expansion is due to requests from property owners within the expanded area to be included in the annexation. Reasons people ·have requested to be included in the annexation vary, but in some cases it was to gain access to sewer service. Issue 2: Annexation does not guarantee sewer seroice or a , time table for seroice. Response 2: Without annexation, sewer service will not be available at all because there is currently not a sewer provider in this area and the City does not typically extend sewer service outside its City limits. It is true that annexation does not guarantee sewer service because existing residents will not be required to hook up to sewer. Extension of sewers' will be done either by development interests, or by local improvement districts (LID's) established by local residents with City coordination and assistance, or by a combination of both. Availability of sewer service will not happen overnight. However, neighborhoods can take matters into their own hands by forming an LID to extend sewers. If there is a neighborhood consensus that sewers are needed, an LID will greatly accelerate provision of sewers, and will allow the extension of service without waiting for developers to install local sewer lines. Therefore, the neighborhood can have a hand in establishing a time table for obtaining sewer service. . Issue 3: Those with small tracts wishing to subdivide will be forced to wait until major landowner developers are taken care oj. Response 3: The City has no law or code that will force small tract owners who wish to subdivide to wait until major landowner developers are taken care of. However, the annexation area is located wi thin the City's Sole Source drinking water Aquifer Recharge Area. The City's Aquifer Protection Ordinance does require that new developments shall, as a condition of the building permit, be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system. This means that availability. of sewers will be an issue with new development. While the code technically would allow a subdivision to occur before sewer service was available, no new houses could be occupied before being connected to sewer. Such issues would have to be worked out on a case by case basis. January 12, 1995 P~e2 ~ Issue 4: Sewer service to some areas of Renton may not be available for years. The new interceptor will not extend beyond 138th Ave. SE. Response 4: The City has stated that no further City financed projects were currently scheduled' for this area, however, we have also stated that. we do anticipate as annexations occur that development or local residents interested in forming LID's would extend sewer service to this area gradually over time. How much time is anyone's guess, but given the interest of some of the large property owners (Bumstead, Ribera, the School District and the White Fence area it would not be surprising to see sewer generally available to a large portion of the annexation area within 5 to 10 years. Sewers to the Sierra Heights area took the amount of time indicated initially because of poor communication with the community and then because of efforts to reduce the total cost to the residents by securing a grant and low interest loan from the State to help finance the construction of the sewers. By waiting for this financing package, the community was able to reduce their proportional share cost from approximately $12,000 to under $5,000 for a typical single family lot. Issue 5: Assessments for property on sewer lines will be approximately $166 per front foot and carry a 7 to 10% interest rate. Response 5: The cost· of $166 per front foot is a reasonable estimate of cost for installation of an 8" sewer main. However, in the majority of cases those costs are distributed to all those who potentially directly benefit from the sewer. AB such, this figure cannot be used as an individual's cost for that sewer main installation. The sheet (attached) showing typical costs for a single family lot are probably more appropriate to use for those folks in already subdivided areas. It is extremely difficult to give a similar breakdown for the larger, subdividable properties and as such we have hesitated to give out such information. In regards to the interest charge, if the sewer is installed by a developer and the developer chooses to pursue a Latecomer's Agreement for the offsite line, then no interest would accrue on that latecomer's charge. In addition, latecomer's charge would have a maximum life of fifteen years that it could be held against the property. If no connection is made to the facility in that time then the charge would be removed. If a City held latecomer's Agreement is placed thlm interest. will be levied. As a result of recent Council action it would be anticipated that the rate of that ihterest would be based on the actual cost of financing the improvement by the City instead of the historical automatic 10% rate that was previously used. January 12, 1995 .Page3 • Issue 6: Refusing to sign a petition favoring annexation will in no way affect your rights as a property owner. Response 6: This stateme'nt is,correct. Issue 7: Annexation means you must assume a share in having to repay all of the City indebtedness. Issue 7: Question for' Finance Director. Issue 8: Annexation means you WILL see an increase in all your monthly utility and cable bills. Response 8: This is incorrect. Water rates will stay the same (customers will continue to be served and billed by WD 90). Storm water rates will GO DOWN ~rom $7.09 per month to $5.54 (this includes 6'7, utility tax) per month for a household. Sewer rates would only be imposed upon connection to the sewer system, and connection will not be mandated. Garbage rates will stay the same for five years, and then after that will revert over to City rates (which are currently significantly lower than the rates 'charged for garbage service in the annexation area). Note that garbage service will become mandatory, so those currently without garbage collection would be required to pay for service at current area garbage rates. Cable bill impacts is a question for Vic. Issue 9: Annexation will in no way reduce restrictions on wetland development since Renton has adopted King County's Wetland Design Manual as their standard. Response 9: This statement is incorrect. The City of ReJ1ton has not adopted King County's Sensitive' Areas ordinance, and we have oW' own Wetlands Management Ordinance that is not the same as King County's. There is not space here to compare the regulations, but they do differ. Issue 10: Once the annexation is finalized, there is no turning back. Response 10: Although there is a method available for de annexation, it is a rare and difficult action. For all practical purposes, the statement is correct. THE BURN STEAD ANNEXATION The Burnstead Annexation is not a "Done Deal", in spi tei of what some people would have YOU think. Consider these circumstances: 1. In an attempt to make the proposal more logical and palatable to The Boundary Review Board, the annexation area has been greatly expanded. 2. Annexation does not guarantee sewer service or a time table Eor the installation of that service or any other utility. 3. T~ose ~ith small tracts. wishing to subdivide, will be forc~d to wait until major landowner developers are taken care of. 4. Sewer service to some areas of Renton may not be available Eor years. The new interceptor will NOT extend beyond i38th Ave. SE. (It took over ten years to extend sewers to Sierra Heights aEter they annexed to the city of Renton.) 5. Assessments for property on sewer lines will be approximately $166 per front foot and carry a 7 to 10% interest rate. 6. Refusing to sign a petition favoring annexation will in no way affect your rights as a property owner. 7. Annexation means you must assume a share in havi~g to repay al I of the city indebtedness. 8. Annexation means you WILL see an increase in all of your monthly utility and cable bills. 9. Annexation will in no ~ay reduce restrictions on wetland development since Renton has adopted King Counties' Wetland Design Manual as their standard. 10.Once the annexation is finalized, there is .no turning back. We are your neighbors who appreciate our present environment and would like to retain it as long as possible, we ask that you to join us in opposing this developer initiated annexation proposal by signing the attached peti tio~ and returninq it to any of the parties listed below. Ray Griffin 14306 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 Maurice Quesnel 13218 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 Franc Rectenwald 13016 144th Ave. SE Renton, 98059 PLEASE NOTE I , Any registered voter living either in or within 1/4 mil e oE the proposed annexation boundaries may sign ·t his petition. Please turn in by J2.n. 1:'-l'.)'-)4· - '". ' ',", ", . King County Property Services Division Department of " Construction and Facilities Management King County Administration Building " , 500' Fourth 'Avenue Room 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 206·7470 TDO (206) 296·0100 FAX (206) 296·0106 'December 30, 1994 , ,", Mr., Michael D. Kattermann" AICP :D:i.reqtor, 'Planning'and TechnicaL: Services' City of, Renton -200 Mill Avenue 'South 'Rentori,'WA 98055 RE: 'Proposed Annexation to ,the City of Reriton Dear Mr. Kattermann: " ~, "i .. , 1 " , I ',). c,'. " . , r Thank yau far yaur 'letter of December 20, 1994 regardi~gthe prapa,sed annexatian af properties to the ,City afRenton. ' Since' there 'are several C,9unty-awned properties within the annexation' area, ,the informatian has been forwarded to the, custadial, . ,agencies, far their' camments.' .Upan receipt af their' respanses, '" the package will be forward'ed to. the, County Executive's Office' where" the decision' to sign or not sign the petition will be made." To. allaw adequate ti~e to 'consider your annexation request an extensio~ of the deadline unti,l; January . " '"." ", ,." ,,". , '. . , , petition, we 31,1995.' Please call if'you have Inventory & Sales, Officer Carol ,Thompson at 296-7470 any questions. " } " ' Sincerely;, :;:?2;~/ jJMV,,-~ \ " ' " ' ',.. 'Michael H. Wilkins'," Manager " CT' ," , " ,'" '0' " Enclosure I' ' dc: Tim Ceis, 'Executive Staff Paul Reitenbiich, Chief, Community Planning Section', " " ,,' DATE: TO: FROM:. SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM December 13, 1994 Ron Olsen cMiICe-K:iittelinann Jim Hanson Mel Wilson Jack Cru ml ey Gregg Zimmerman C 2. Burnstead Annexation Canvass I have been asked by the Mayor's office to provide a list of several staff members from our Department to participate in the Bumstead Annexation petition drive_ . I believe it would be sufficient if we could provide one participant from each division (one man-day per division)_ The work will involve attending an orientation/training meeting on January 4 at 9:30 in the 5th floor conference room, and then joining teams of City staff to solicit signatures during the week of January 9th. The Mayor's office and the City Attorney have verified that this canvassing will be done during City work hours. Therefore this will not involve voluntary unpaid work after hours. Please write down your division's candidate on the attached list and return to me. Thank you. cc: Sue Carlson DATE: TO: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM December 9, 1994 Mayor Clymer ~~Gregg>Zirilinetinari">" Jay Covington Larry Warren Victoria Runkle Jim Hanson Sam Chastain Lee Wheeler AI Wallis Mike Kaltermann Mel Wilson l<"ROM: Sue Carlson k SUBJECT: Bumstead Annexation Canvass • CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ADMIN. Per our discussion at the lastEDSC meeting, please list the names of your department members who will participate in the Bumstead Annexation petition drive. We plan on sending teams out to solicit signatures beginning the week of January 9. Please return the list to me by December 21, and have the department members involved mark their calendar for January 4, 1994 at 9:30 a.ill. in the 5th Floor Conference Room for an orientation/training meeting. Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks NAME DEPARTMENT ~J \: f-------------+------------j \ /'\ ,./ J (, \ \ r •. ~<>t-6:.. •• ' ,. . CIT"" OF RENTON Earl Clymer. Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E •• Administrator December 6, 1994 Mr. Wayne R. Richardson P. O. Box 58603 Renton, WA 98058-1603 Dear Mr. Richardson: At a recent meeting with Owen Dennison of my staff, you inquired as to whether development permits applied for and received in King County would be accepted by the City of Renton after annexation. You also asked whether County or City would then have jurisdiction over inspection of such development. Finally, you asked if the City'sjurisdiction could supersede the rights afforded you under the Homestead Act. . An interlocal agreement can be negotiated between the City and the County regarding the transfer of jurisdictional responsibilities. These interlocal agreements can include provisions for allowing development to occur according to County development standards for projects which were permitted prior to annexation. Under these conditions, County inspectors could continue to oversee such development. In answer to your last question, City code cannot supersede any special right provided by a State law unless specifically outlined in the enabling legislation. Sincerely, !!It:U~ » Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South, Renton. Washington 98055 (i) This paper contaIns 50% recycled malenal, 25% poat consumer " MEMORANDUM City of Renton DATE: December 6, 1994 TO: FROM: Larry Warren ~ Michael Katterman~ SUBJECT: INQUIRIFS BY RESIDENT OF TIlE BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION AREA A County resident owns a lot in the proposed Bumstead Annexation area and lives in a trailer or similar structure on the property. He stated that he intends or has commenced to apply for County permits to build a single family detached unit on the lot. He mentioned having applied for and received some status under the Homestead Act (this may merely relate to the conditions of his existence in a substandard dwelling). His questions were as follows: '. 1) Will the City honor building permits applied for and received prior to annexation? 2) _Will City or County inspectors enforce development/building standards? 3) Will any status granted under the Homestead Act, which may be recognized by the County, transfer to, and be recognized by, the City after annexation? Due to the potentially sensitive nature of responses to these questions, we have tried to be circumspect in answering his inquiries. Thus, we ask that you critique the accompanying response letter. Thank you. .. • " ._"-0" --.; -. PETITION T~ ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON UNDER RCW 35A.14.120 (60% Petition -Bumstead Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent (60%) in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, or real property located contiguous to the City of Renton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 3SA.14.120 et seq. . The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, Washington, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit I) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention" to commence annexation . proceedings, the City CQuncil of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 3SA.14.120 on November 14, 1994. The City Council then detennined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further, pursuant to RCW 3SA.14.120, the undersigned petitioners agree to: (1) Submit the 10% Notice ofIntent Petition as an intent to annex; (2) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regul~ions for the . subject property ( proposed as Low Density Single Family, Single Family, Mixed Residential -Exhibit 3); (3) Accept the City's Comprehensive Plan designations as they affect the subject property; and (4) Assume their proportional share of the pre-existing City bonded indebtedness. . all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting.· . WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: (a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance aMex the above described territory to become part of the City of Rent Oil; Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. Page 1 oe2 Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. This two page fonn page is one ofa number ofidentica1 forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: E"DY p"'so" who dgru th'" pditlo" with any oth,., than "'" trllll"lIm4, or WilD knOftlingly·dgru mo,e tllan o"e ofthtlSe ptllitio,,1I, 0, dgru a petillo" seeking an electlo" when he '" "ot a legal "ot,." or dgru a ptllitio" whe" he is otherwise "ot qllalified to sign, 0, who maku herein any false .statement, shaU be gllilty of a misdemeanor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (NomD o/petilionen .hould b. in Ukntical/orm as thuome Ihat IIPpe/U on reco,d in Ih. chain o/tiJle 10 the ,eallUlate.) 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. " PageloU (See ovu) , EXHffiIT 1 ANNEXA nON AREA BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION ---- e CITY OF RENTON +~. ~=~~DlG/PUBLIC WORlll R.llacODle, D.VImnld 17 HO'l'8mber 1 DIN IImllD_mlll 1::;::;:;:;:;1 Renton City Umlts Covenonts to Annex Proposed by Applicant Expanded Annexation Area · .. , .... EXHIBIT 2 Bumstead Annexation Legal Description That portion of Sections 10, 11, 14, and 15, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M, in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter comer of said Section 10, said south quarter corner being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, said south quarter corner also being a point on the centerline of SE 128th Street (NE 4th Street); Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street (Nc 4th Street), ar.d the existing City limits of Renton as aMexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to an intersection with the north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the s.outhwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; . Thence easterly along said north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the centerline. of 142nd Avenue SE; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to the east line of said subdivision; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the south .half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to an intersection with a line 50 feet west of and parallel with the east line of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line a distance of 16.00 feet; Thence easterly along a line 16 feet south of and parallel with the north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the east line of said subdivision; Thence continuing easterly along a line 16 IClet south of and parallel with the north line of the south half of the northeast quarter c;>f the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to a point of intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of l48th Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly extension of the south line of Gerber's Addition to Renton as recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 98, records of King County, Washington; I Thence easterly along said westerly extension of the south line of said plat, crossing 148th Avenue SE, and along the south line of said plat to the southeast comer thereof, said southeast comer also being a point on the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 11; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, said east line also being the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast comer thereof; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwt!st quarter of said section, to the northeast corner thereof, Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter, to an intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 15 feet to an intersection with a . line 15 feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line of the east half of the southwest quarter, to an intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section;, Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast comer thereot; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter to an intersection with the northerly right~or-:-vay line of SE 128th Street; Thence westerly along said right-of-way linea distance of 30 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the northerly extension or the westerly right-or-way line of 156th Avenue SE' ' , Thence southerly along said northerly extension, a distance of 109 feet more or less, to a point on the southerly right of way line of SE 128th Street in the northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing southerly along the westerly right-of-way line of IS6th Avenue SE, crossing SE 132nd Street, to an intersection with the northerly right-Of-way line of SE 136th Street; Thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line, crossing 152nd Avenue SE, to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 152nd Avenue SE; 2 ..... " . , . ,', . Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section to an intersection with the east line of said Section IS; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the souiheast quarter of said Section 15 to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly aleng said easterly right-of-way line crossing SE l36th Street to the southwest comer of Lot 15. Black Loam Five Acre Tracts. as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, records of King County, Washington, said southwest comer also being a point on the northerly right-of-way line ofSE 136th Street; Thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line, crossing 144th Avenue SE, 142nd Avenue SE, 140th Avenue SE, and 139th Place SE, to a point of tangency with a curve to the right, having a radius of 30 feet, at an intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of 138th Avenue SE; Thence southwesterly across 138th Avenue SE, to the southeast comer of Lot 14 of the phit of Goe's Place as recorded in Volume 85 of Plats, pages 12 and 13, records of King County, Washington; said southeast comer also being a point on the westerly right-of-way line of said " 138th Avenue SE,ar,d also being a point on the south line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said south line of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the south line of said plat, a distance of 8 feet, more or less, to a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3143; Thence continuing westerly along siUd south line of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the south line of said plat, and along the existing City limits of Renton to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of 137th Avenue SE as it intersects with the easterly extension of the centerline ofSE 136th Street; , Thence continuing westerly along said centerline of SE 136th Street, and along said south line of the northwest quarter, and along said existing City limits, to the southeast comer of the plat of Fernwood East as recorded in Volume 113 of Plats, pages 68 and 69, records of King County, Washington, said southeast comer also being the southwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3163, to the northeast comer of said plat; 3 Thence continuing northerly along the east line of Fernwood North, as recorded in Volume 128 of Plats, pages 100 and 101; records of King County, Washington, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3570 to the northeast comer of said plat; Thence westerly along the north line of said Plat, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line, and along said existing City limits, to the northwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3946. to the northeast comer of said subdivision; Thence easterly along the n9rth line of the south half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, crossing 136th Avenue SE (Bremerton Avenue NE) and 138th Avenue SE (Duvall AvenueNE) to an intersection with the east line of the west 20 feet ofthC,l southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, said east line also being the easterlyright-of-way line of 138th Avenue SE (Duvall Avenue NE); Thence southerly along said easterly right-of-way line, an':! along said,existing City limits, to an intersection with the south line of the north 186.15 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; . Thence easterly along said south line of the north 186.15 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the east line of the west 234 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said east line of the west 234 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the south line of the north 'half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, and along said existing City limits, to the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line. and along said existing City limits, crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section IS, said north quarter comer also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10. and the Point of Beginning. 4 · .. . ... ,' ... " . ----_ .... 1:::;::;:1 Single Family Low DensHy 1::::::::::1 Single Family 100!i!PM Mixed Residential EXHIBIT 3 PROPOSED ZONING BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION . .. PUJamlC:/lJUJUlDlC:/PUIIUc YORD e CITY OF RENTON + ~ + OJlelUlbo .. -lUI.cOIlIe, D. ftaDuId 10 Non ........ 1_ O~I ~! 10,00 1:12000 2000 1 ~. -" ,----" c 87410 142305 Area A: Legal Names, PIOs, AVs 0005 108000 Ribera-Balko Ent 9017 326000 Finer Homes 0006 Carr, R & J 9020 Johnson, 0 112000 I En!. 9021 197000 Ribera-Balko En!. OU 9 36000 C 00 2 ,Donut Shop 144450 ~ Loth. C 0015 lU,,,UU C Fallis. G 001 185100 C 0030 L M&E 97700 Bales, 0040 .V .N 10, QT 7) ~ 133900 I.R& 50000 Bales, .W 0022 N (Do, QT 7) 152305 lO 9( 80000 West Coast 11 .. 11 Inn\ 0023 50000 lales, G Etal 9019 H =d .R 0 902 .B J 170066 AI R&T LevI 70000 Sooon. G 73500 Wes ;os5tCRl.lno) 70000 Blake. L 9( 1000 Wes :oast (Hlillol 70000 C 9( R 004 .F 9( 60000 En!. 004 (una. 9048 4000 .R 004 FO ~ 12701a 0 0050 ,~hRII, R & C 9061 9150 O&E 0051 .L l62 135700 MC\;lInCy. T 'alley, A L Barei. L 95000 C P GraY. J C W&R 106C 1 '''lUU R 9( 45000 West Coast (Huna) 0061 1 1 ;,uu B&C 1098 148200 .. ee. C -iiser. W .. ee. R & M _ee. C ::ollln. J Sadar. F . S&L ,haw, E ,R&M 0066 ".on .. 1 M 110 129400 C,n, v P 0068 R 113 R& .E 0069 '''",,0 C 116 Gray, J E Ske.s 0 W J&S Sac jar. F .R 91 S&O 0074 liea, B 32 100400 West Coast (Hung) 0075 38100 .W 139 Vlulvihill, M :Iark. E BV". R ,B C&O R 91 roulx, P l80 70000 Mills, M !1 ~ Yahn, C 081 Marui. :H Yahn. C & M a85 W !15 Green, N & C 100 iiii=T .J 9227 Kina County 9004 ~ 9229 127000 tJ 9005 9007 7"" .. nn 0 Total: 4851000 9016 95000 G (e " Area A: Legal Names, PIOs, AVs ~~, .. . 87410 0"' •. En!. __ ~~-7~~R&~ ~ ,En!. 00 ~I()O ,~ 00 2 281 00 Donut Shop )15 lU,.oUU ,C 0016 185100 , C 0019 97700 Bales, G Etal 0020 49000 (Do, QT 1) 0021 Bates, 3 tat 022 (Do, QT ?) 152305 023 Bales, 3 024 MnrRn R&D 52200 T 49300 OC 70000 l':nnnn. G F 16600 Kuna, 0 0049 121100 FO o /700 l"h .. 11 : ~ C o 1400 o railey, 0053 76200 larei, l 0054 8 100 P 0055 C 0060 1" 00 R 0061 1 00 B & C 0062 102300 Hiser, W ~1":l:I'UU .ee, C ~,F )065 1 ihaw, E '066 17900 M ~ ~ Banes.o R 1070 1100 . E 007' 88700 , 0 oo~ 8100 ladar. F 145700 . R 0077 83400 B ~~MR 0081 70000 ~~, S;----- 008 100000 W .. ~~n.~ R .J 900 , 9007 r.nl"""'rln 0 9016 95000 G lJ -~~~~ Finer 0 97~ ,En!. 0010 91700 Loth. C 1020 FalliS, G 030 ,II&E 1040 11 '4UU 106 7500 ~ ;:st 91 11= ,~ 9025 170000 R & T 1033 55000 _evv, R ~73500 West (:oast _~,*"----,-;,1' West Coast 1 00 R 60000 ,En!. 91 40000 ,R l055 127000 (' 0 l06 9H 0 & E 106 T 906· 0 l ii906~ 0 'av, J :; --~ W~ l099 13~ 100 ee. R & M ! 12: Collin, 13: 12 13 9' 1101 9117 116000 118 00 Ie ,S& L ,R&M 'rn"l" P R& J&S :cott, W .5&0 Westoast (Hun!!) MI . M evy, C&O P i2E 0 Yahl1-' Yahn, C & M l219 1 J r.r .... n.N8.C ---;~~ 1271 0 Kin!! o Total: 10669500 .. !; ' . " .. Area B:' Legal Names, PIDs, AVs 769560 0010 212600 Ribera-Balko En!. 102305 9016 70000 Ribera-Balko En!. 9024 171400 Ribera-Balko En!. 9027 179700 Ribera-Balko En!. 9035 128849 McTighe, John, Et al 9039 129200 Ribera-Balko En!. 9040 97500 Briere, G 9041 187300 Reid, B & B 9103 90000 B~ersdorfer, G & 0 9142 149500 B~ersdorfer, G & 0 9160 Bla~lock, I 9161 Allan, R & M 9162 Ke~es, C 9167 88300 McTighe, G 9169 Bunker, M 9192 Hoague, R 9193 Whitlock, T 9206 Peabod~, E & M 9219 Britts,E 9251 64200 Ribera-Balko En!. 9274 75700 Ribera·Balko En!. 9304 40000 Briere, G 9316 Ebbert, 0 9320 Reed,L 1684249 ----..... . Area B: Legal Names, PIDs, AVs ... 769560 0010 212600 Rlbera·Balko Ent. 102305 9016 70000 Ribera-Balko Ent. 9024 171400 Ribera-Balko Ent. 9027 179700 Ribera-Balko Ent. 9035 128849 McTighe, John, Et al 9039 129200 Ribera-Balko Ent. 9040 97500 Briere, G 9041 187300 Reid, B & B 9103 90000 Byersdorfer, G & 0 9142 149500 Byersdorfer, G & 0 9160 143900 Blaylock, I 9161 138800 Allan, R & M 9162 116800 Keyes, C 9167 88300 McTighe, G 9169 99400 Bunker, M 9192 111300 Hoague, R 9193 111100 Whitlock, T 9206 94900 Peabody, E & M 9219 114300 Britts,E 9251 64200 Ribera-Balko Ent. 9274 75700 Ribera-Balko Ent. 9304 40000 Briere, G 9316 110100 Ebbert, 0 9320 110100 Reed, L 2834949 · . " Area C: Legal Names. PIOs, AVs 935330 0010 5000 Isgrigg, 0 ·0530 25000 Stuekle, J 0020 97000 Isgrigg, 0 0540 12500 Halgren, W 0030 12500 Halgren, W 0550 Che!!1 Street Investments 0040 139700 Welch, J 0560 Che!!1 Street Investments 0060 116600 Janders, K &P 0570 12500 Halgren, W 0070 108100 Smith, S, H!!llgen-Smith, 0580 120000 F!}:e, 0 & B 0080 Wolf,P 0590 12500 Halgren, W 0090 116000 Maddocks, 0 0600 110400 Dennison, 0 & J 0100 97000 Garr, BL and MH 0610 111800 Niblock, J 0110 12500 Garr, B 0620 118800 Chance, G &M 0120 97500 Cartson. A 0630 121600 Parker, C & E 0130· Thom~ons. A & A 0640 12000 Smith. J 0140 Christensen, W 0650 12000 Smith, J 0150 86500 Butler, F 0660 Lee, R 0160 Gibeault, R 0670 Packer, E 0170 Gibeault, R 0680 115200 Oliver, J 0180 117600 Harrison, L 0690 109200 Bonson, W 0190 119300 Whitfield, R & L 0700 105900 Goonan, M 0200 114600 Purd~, E 0710 105900 Bilodeau, M 0210 Ochoa, B 0720 Walimakl, J .J' 0220 Harrison, T & M 0730 28000 Maggard. 0 & J 0230 27500 Stewart. 0 0740 108500 Bowers, R&D 0240 stewart, 0 & M 0750 89169 McDermott, G & L 0250 Wiliiamson,J 0760 139400 Cummings, W 0260 Henke, W& L 0770 20000 United Mortgage CO!!!. 0270 Martin. 0 & A 0780 Nelson, Emil & R 0280 Russell, J 0790 109600 Sa~er, E 0290 Babcock, 0 0800 109800 Van Ditto, S 0300 101400 Dufur, G & V 0810 111000 Christianson, K & L 0310 Shimmel, M 0820 105000 Stock, W& K 0320 125200 Lockridge, P 0830 104100 Lee. J & B 0330 118200 Azzola, L 0840 105700 Segaran, C & R 0340 127900 Lukas, P & J 0850 Deshaw, R 0350 107400 Bumside, R 0860 25000 Hillstead, R 0360 12500 Bumslde, R 0870 Oemoeolis. C 0370 12500 Dolan, L 0880 12500 Halgren, W 0380 12500 Dolan, L 0890 12500 Halgren, W 0390 Dickson, C & C 0900 12500 Halgren, W 0400 25000 Halgren, W 0910 12500 Halgren. W 0410 12500 Halgren, W 0920 25000 Holstrom, J 0420 MCCo~, J 0930 12500 Halgren, W 0430 95000 Famsworth, J 0940 12500 Halgren, W 0440 106400 Klennert, C 0950 12500 Halgren, W 0450 102300 Camebeil, A 0960 12500 Halgren, W 0460 108900 Dodge, E & G 0970 12500 Halgren, W 0470 99000 Wright, M 0980 Gurchak. J 0480 114200 Walters, G 0990 Kana~a, 0 0049 12500 Weisser, G 1000 Bums, B 0500 12500 Weisser, G 1010 111400 Allison, A 0510 12500 Weisser, G 1020 96600 Stueckle, J 0520 12500 Halgren, W 1030 118800 Lambirth, J & P , . Area C: Legal Names, PIOs, AVs 2624869 1090 12500 Johnson, 0 0110 12500 Johnson, 0 1110 130400 Adkisson, WO & L 1120 12500 Johnson, 0 .1130 98400 Schneider, K 1140 104700 Dolan, L 1150 114600 Mooney, F & T 1160 Palmer, G 1170 123100 Smeltzer, J ·1180 109100 MacDonell, T 1190 116900 LIncecum, C & R 6518669 1200 109900 Shaw, E 1210 Olson, C&C 1220 115900 Hamer, R 1230 Monison,O 1240 Rhoades, R 3893800 .. Area C: Legal Names, PIDs, AVs 935330 0010 Isgrigg, D Stuekle, J 0020 Isgrigg, D Halgren, W 0030 Halgren, W Cherry Street Investments 0040 Welch, J Cherry Street Investments 0060 Janders, K &P Halgren, W 0070 Smith, S, Heggen-Smith, Frye, 0 & B 0080 Wolf,P Halgren, W 0130 102900 Thompsons, A & A 0840 12000 Smith, J 0140 96500 Christensen, W 0650 12000 Smith, J 0150 86500 Butler, F 0660 106900 Lee, R 0160 77600 Gibeault, R 0670 107200 Packer, E 0170 25000 Gibeault, R 0680 115200 Oliver, J 0180 117600 Harrison, L 0690 109200 Bonson, W 0190 119300 Whitfield, R & L 0700 105900 Goonan, M 0200 114600 Purdy, E 0710 105900 Bilodeau, M 0210 101400 Ochoa, B 0720 105800 Walimaki, J 0220 89100 Harrison, T & M 0730 28000 Maggard, D & J 0230 27500 Stewart, D 0740 108500 Bowers, R&D 0240 104900 Stewart, D & M 0750 89169 McDermott, G & L 0250 111000 Williamson,J 0760 139400 Cummings, W 0260 108400 Henke, W& L 0770 20000 United Mortgage Corp. 0270 102800 . Martin, D & A 0780 106500 Nelson, Emil & R 0280 105000 Russell, J 0790 109600 Sawyer, E 0290 108100 BabcOck,D 0800 109800 Van Ditto, S 0300 101400 Dufur, G & V 0810 111000 Christianson, K & L 0310 115200 Shimmel, M 0820 105000 Stock, W & K 0320 125200 Lockridge, P 0830 104100 Lee, J & B 0330 118200 Azzola, L 0840 105700 Segaran, C & R 0340 127900 Lukas, P & J 0850 107600 Deshaw, R 0350 107400 Bumside, R 0860 25000 Hillstead, R 0360 12500 Bumside, R 0870 25000 DemopOliS, C 0370 12500 Dolan, L 0880 12500 Halgren, W 0380 12500 Dolan, L 0890 12500 Halgren, W 0390 25000 . Dickson, C & C 0900 12500 Halgren, W 0400 25000 Halgren, W 0910 12500 Halgren, W 0410 12500 Halgren, W 0920 25000 Holstrom, J 0420 25000 McCoy, J 0930 12500 Halgren, W 0430 95000 Famsworth, J 0940 12500 Halgren, W 0440 106400 Klennert, C 0950 12500 Halgren, W 0450 102300 Campbell, A 0960 12500 Halgren, W 0460 108900 Dodge, E & G 0970 12500 Halgren, W 0470 99000 Wright, M 0980 119000 Gurchak, J 0480 114200 Walters, G 0990 12500 Kanaya, D 0049 12500 Weisser, G 1000 12500 Bums, B 0500 12500 Weisser, G 1010 111400 Allison, A 0510 12500 Weisser, G 1020 96600 Stueckle, J 0520 12500 Halgren, W 1030 118800 Lambirth, J & P """ .. Area C: Legal Names, PIOs, AVs 935330 1040 124200 Weisser, G .. 3352869 . , 1050 114100 Costello, J & L 1080 144900 Miller, C & 0 1090 12500 Johnson, 0 0110 12500 Johnson,O 1110 130400 Adkisson, WO & L 1120 12500 Johnson, 0 1130 98400 Schneider, K . 1140 104700 Dolan, L 1150 114600 Moone:t, F & T 1180 97700 Palmer, G 1170 123100 Smeltzer, J 1180 109100 MacDonell, T 1190 116900 Lincecum, C & R 1200 109900 Shaw,E 1210 107300 Olson, C & C 1220 115900 Hamer, R 1230 12500 Morrison, 0 1240 120000 Rhoades,R 8049900 9402769 112305 9001 215800 Morrison, J, Inc. 9004 19050 Morrison, J, Inc. 9011 242400 Ribera-Balko En!. 9015 147800 Ribera-Balko En!. 9017 89000 Olding, T 9018 92300 Mullins, C 9020 60000 Mullins, C 9021 106900 Normile, 0 & J 9023 65000 Normile, 0 & J 9029 148500 Ribera-Balko En!. 9030 83182 Lscke:t,C 9093 105500 Sheds, 0 1375232 ." . .' ,,-... Area D: Legal Names, PIDs, AVs Karl and Cheri Goeres 13116 138th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98059 Donald Lucas 13216 138th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98056 _~rald and Shirley Pieczynski 13405 138th Avenue SE Renton, W A 98055 Dominic Carlo 4924 25th Avenue S Seattle, WA 98108 • cederick and Judy Busch 13843 SE 132nd Street Renton, W A 98056 CO .... NANT TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF Rh ... ON G-a r,{ \)Q S$ LA c Md 5 bClll em \ 10 S5 L -f? r , hereinafter referred to 1s "owners," hereby covenant and agre: to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which this covenant shall aDDlv is as follows: The North 99 feet of the south 198 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East., \i.M. EXCEPT the east 330 feet AND EXCEPT the west 169.28 feet, Situate in the County of 'King, State of Washington • .;,UWCA,:l' 'lV~ . [(t::ot:':"clcioIll:5 cUll.. ~xl.,!t::ptj.on~ cOllta.in~ in 1Je~ teom Nort.nero pacitic Hallroad Comoanv; Recocded June 20, 1900 under recording No. 192430. nere~narLer rt::It:l'l't:U LoV a::t ~II'C l'.& 'l;;1U~"''IOi''. 2 . Basi s for Covenant. ' This, covenant to annex is given as a condition to being permitted to hook up to 6-V' s~ and water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to, annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the premises, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time as the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75% method pursuant to RCW 35A.14.l20, , together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the' requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners, their successors AVa SiH! (1J~.1303l! 1f1g--'i''l-(/j. 87/0:3/26 REel) F Cf,".jSHSL #1855 R E,,, OD · "'J " f~~ , " '. 1.." ~ C1J ~ 'toO , .. ~ o ~ 00 or assigns fail to do so, the City'reserves the right to terminate such utility services. 5. Filing. These covenants shall be filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOf the owners of the premises have signed these covenants ,this c-y-D"'I:l!: day OfU'flO-Li§;;\: ,l!fi,l. \ "", ,. o?~Lb4k Lxf6~u{/~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 55 COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me ..Q...,o Qj QN\d L . ~bQJDD \((!?~::§:'Ie..{ , to me knolin to bs the individual(s) described in , and who executed,the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ~D~ 19 %1. N07,iry Public i shington, res daYOf~' ;~Of ,,;·Hi'W·'Iti\y·· F·· /-J ." I. COVl::IIANT TO AIINEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON _ ,i c:.a. LUI -,'--. ~==-:..:::,--,==:.....=...!~:=.!..!..~=c:::::. -J G01oro rj WO:(-e.v- GE;jt;,t:D Ft. AND SHIRLEY J. PIE;C'"YNSKI Sertr,'c -L ~re..:e.Jl'l'..eA1.+ hereinafter r~ferred to as "owners", hereby covenant and Agree to sign the, necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which M this covenant shall apply is as follows: M The North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the South·,Test 1/4 of the Southeast o 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4: ' ,f::: E;XCE;PT the East 190 feet thereof: ALSO the North 30 feet of the East 190 feet of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Southl'Test 1/4 of the Southeast 1/~ of the Northwest 1/4; EXCEPT the East 20 feet thereof for road: subject to an easement for road and'utll1ties over sald North 30 feet; ALL in Sectl.on 15, Tovtnshlp 23 North, l1ane;e 5 East \1.1~.: EXCEPT all" coal and minerals and the right to explore for and mlne the same. hcruindftor referred to as "the pr~misesll. 2. Basis for Covenant. This covenant to annex is given as a condition to being permitted to hook up to "'._ ..... and water service from, the City of Runton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the premises, and shall be a t:ov.,nant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, 4qruc 'and covenant to sign a potition to annex the above described premises untu thu City of Renton at su<.:h time as the assossed valuation of the subjuct premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75\ method pursuant to RCW 351\..14.120, together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the .City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If th'e owners, their Page 1 successors or assigns fail to do so, the City reserves the right to terminate such utility services. 5. Filing. These covenants shall be filed with the Kinq County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this __ ~.z;...S>=!... ____ day of ~/p.Rch" , 197 7. STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me -.Jz~~ /(, P ~~ ... ~, Q~~ ~i7Q '24 "1 l to me lm~wn to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged.that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein niehdoned. .G ... IVEN:I DIY hand and official seal this _ ... 2-",-5",-4_ 1 _. day of _...-,' ··,-M"*",~::::· =' ;.<;.7'-.,..,.-----" 1977. '(,' . ';, (f". ,,! ; r: ~ '.~"" ~ .. : ....... ~: .\ " . , . \'. " " • .:' ~;;; ",:: j : "':"'-~ .. :-:'" .," .. , .... , .. ' .. ::;!;:,:;~;.~ .~:;~ .¢;;--.~<;,s.. . ,.: .. ;~ "'.".-.; _" .... ; . "'. ,I Notary Pub Washi'ngton, -... ;' COVENANT'TOANNEX TO'THE CITY OF RENTON RECORDED TH!SOf.'ic·.::; nOV ~ /I 22 ~H 'BI f} .... TH~ 0 1".':;)1(,:: CF _..Ji_Ud-"-Jy,--R_.,--=Bu~sc::c,,-r.--=:.a:.:.nd=---,h-, .... ..,ed~e-,-v,-,i c:;:.k::.....;L::...;..' ...:;73u.=::.sc::.h...:.-__ '\ C~f.~~rlf~:fi iONS .' "'- referred to as "owners." hereby covenant and agree to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton. Washington. r-~ for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. tn o ~ 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which o ~ this covenant shall apply is as follows: C'l ao The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the State of Washington, County of King and is described as follows: The East 330 feet of the South 19B feet'of the SE quarter of the NE quarter of the NW quarter of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 5 East W.M., in King County, Washington; EXCEPT County roads; EXCEPT all coal and minerals and the right to explore for and mine the same as reserved in Deed recorded June 26, 1900 under Recording No. 192430. Situate in the County of King, 'State of Washington. hereinafter referred to as lithe premises," 2. Basis for Covenant. This. covenant to annex is given as a condition to being permitted to hook up to ...... ~water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequent~y acquiring any right, title or interest in Or to said property referred to as the premises, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time as the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75\ meth~d pursuant to RCW 35A.14.l20, together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly cirCUlate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners, their successors 83/11./04 REeD F CASHSL #0547 8 4. (nJ 'I-:>t:>':"4.00 22 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF ornCE OF THE CITY ClERK RENlON MUNICIPAL BlDG. . 2IlI Mill AVL SO. REH1DII, WA 90055 or assigns fail to do so, the C~ty'reserves the right to terminate such utility services. 5. Filing. These covenants shall be filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this 21 dayof Ociober-,19110. " J'(~ ~ ;(i'k?d~ \; O~~~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me alld,y Rile Bllscb 8; Frllderi Gil b. 81 __________________________ to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that the signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal ,his 21 _::....:.... ___ day of october 19~3. ... ~ -------------- ·1 ;l; ~.----------Notary Public in an Wash l_ngton, residing " ! ~ r· : ...... . ".:' " .' .-~ --~ '-.~:;:t\ •... \\",;""1; ...... ,.--- " I l I I 1 ~ , ", 1.-,,' ,., .'.' 1 . COVENANT TO ANNEX TO T~E CITY OF RENTON 1;v..05-"'OI:) -or -n J)orn I n I (!.. F. Ca.. r / (;) , hereinafter ----~~~~~~~~~~~~---------------------- referred to as "owners," hereby covenant and agree to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Legal Description. The legal description of the property to which this covenant shall apply is as follows: N~ of the NW~ of the SE ~ of the NW~ of Sect. 15 TWP 23N R 5. E.W.M. 85/0l/21 RECD F C~SHSL #0377 8 4.00 ***'*4.00 55 hereinafter referred to as "the premises." 2. Basis for Covenant. This covenant to annex is given as a condition to '-(M.?<l being permitted to hook up to . water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and nIl persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the premises, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time as the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75% method pursuant. to RCW 35A.14.120, together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the City or other' petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation .. If the owners, their successors ;:gill '-... n-< :.: ::<I ::><: O'-i '" _.:c or ....., C> ~Om -'" FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF G')V) <: C-,)~~~ "I °r'-< cO' s= .'.:~;-, '" ~ OffiCE OF THE CITY ClERK ~ ,-,..,!!. C; :;:':":·0 ;'l::'..., tJ> RENTON MUNICIPAl. BLDG. ':..--:z = '" 200 Mill AYE. SO. ,= 0 cxO )J> z -< RENTON, WA 98055 U1" <.r " '}: '" ~ g ~ N ~ If:) CO or assigns fail to do so, the City'reserves the right to terminate such utility services. 5 .. Filing. These covenants shall be filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this /o:i. day of JI,/oveh?oec , 198.;(.. iJj~ Jh ~ '1 ~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me lJaa, tv! (e E, Gfl I-/0 ----to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GTVEN under my hand and oHidal seal this /()~ day of //).)(I(.'&t4",. 19i3~ • ~.c.;_.\,'" r ... '.,J'_' COV"NANT'TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RF"'l'OSR5H5L ****4.00 . 55 ,," ' ________ ~~~ea-A~A~J~~LV~~, ~)~U~C~~~5=L _____________________ , hereinafter referred to as "owners," hereby covenant and agree to sign the necessary petitions for annexation to the city limits of the City of Renton, Washington, for the property herein described and on the terms more fully set forth below. 1. Legal. Description. The legal description of the property to which OJ\) Mil) ~() ON <lJ N ~ 0') this covenant shall. apply is as follows: The. "t.JoR r11 hALf' 0 of' PIl=-,lJoRrlJE/JST C/tit1RrFA3 of rile .souThcl'95T Q,II4·erc.eo·F Tne. /Jote7i1uJS5T.4'U.I9.e.re.6 of' Sco-l7t.1A..J /.0', 7O~],(jshlio 000' .uo.erh, A7rJA:..X>£6.c.4S7; a)./71.) /.<.J /(/1v<fJ.. ~)7Y J <U4shilJ<S-lCJ.0;, E~tZe;Or / '7tE ..(}ll.el17 00 .o.eb7,/ ,E.Y(!,{ijQT 'Tho evE$T .::7" Pci6T; £.¥(!.EpT ThE i?r1Si ..g",c£.E7: be 1J') If) <lJ({) ~ hereinafter referred to as "the premises." This covenant to annex is given as a condition to ..:] . N 2. Basis for Covenant. , ~ being permitted to hook up to sewer and water service from the City of Renton to serve the premises. 3. Parties Bound. This agreement and the covenant to annex shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property referred to as the premises, and shall be a covenant running with the land. 4. Time for Performance. The owners, their heirs, successors or assigns, agree and covenant to sign a petition to annex the above described premises unto the City of Renton at such time as the assessed valuation of the subject premises is sufficient to qualify under the 75% method pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, together with such other adjoining or contiguous area as the .City or other petitioners may determine. The owners further agree, when so notified by the City, to promptly circulate and execute such Petition and to comply with all the requirements of law regarding such annexation. If the owners, their successors fiLED FOR RECORD AT REUUESI Of OFFICE OF 11IE CITY ClERK RENtON MUKICIPAL BlDG. 200 hlllll'lt SO. IlEIIlOK, W~ 9S05S ?gCIJ n-< ;:r;: 0-i =;:t:r -",:J,11 G){/) ~:.~"()S' .. ., ::;0: ." -. . Q -< -"-_ .. -... '0 ::;-..., v~ ~ -.:=:> =. w <r. ",. a::: ~ <on ~ ~> 1'1 ~z ,.,., to -.,~ ~" vi ~ ~ " • 'V '" C'J '" ~ ~ ,-oj ~, ~ :';i;:' S. Filing. These covenants shall be filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this I / day of t..Lj , 1995 . to,,, <" 'twa", , STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me L ICA ~. I AtJ WtibKRB pi II e ____________________________ to me known to be the individua~escribed in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and signed the s,ame as their free and voluntary act and deed, purposes therein mentioned. GTVEN under my hnnd nnd offi ci 01 seal this If 197 acknowledged that they for the uses and",~($\, :l"':j~ ~ff;:!. .. \ .. ~t\.htJ.",.. k.~ . . :.'., ~P."I 1111 , ... ... ' .' ,v",' .... ' . ... . .' ~.'." . ~.. '"") d ny 0 fJ!.(j !.'f.;r (tl F ;- ~. (! . \. , :; ", '~fl r:r "-). u, , ~ : ... ~~ /,::,';~.~;:-g,: . , ~" }. <, \\ <\,,: ~ '.' T.:,'~. vI':~\'. •• A :. ·1·.,I;OIS'>".,."; .: } Iv··· .. ···· ""'" '/ ... ' Notary'Pu&11c in Washington, residing ~~';\;."~.~.' __ .... _ .L! FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF - OffiCE OF 1HE CI1YC\ERII , RENTON MUNICIPAL 8IJIG. 200 Mill Avt SO. R£HTON, WA _ or assigns fail to do so, the City'reserves the right to terminate such utility services. 5. Filing. These covenants shall be filed with the King County Auditor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owners of the premises have signed these covenants this I ; day of t.Lj , 1995 • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me -------------------to me known to be the individua~escribed in purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 197 FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF OffiCE OF 1RE CITY ClERK' RENTON MUNICIPAL BlDG. . 200 Mill AYl SO. RENTOH,WAm Notary Public in and r Washington, residing at ..=!;~~'" '-'''1-__ ~'1;~'; Earl Clymer, Mayor December 20, 1994 Whei Jen Lin 4502 177th Avenue SE Issaquah, W A 98027 Dear Whei Jen Lin: CITY"')F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P,E., Administrator Thank you for your interest in annexing to the City of Renton. We have received your 60% Petition to Annex. However, we cannot include your properties without some additional documentation. The taxpayer of record according to the King County Assessor's Office is West Coast Investments, Inc., Shirley and Claudia Hung (Trust). Since your signature does not match the name in the Assessor's records, we require verification that you are authorized to represent the owner(s). If the property is owned by a corporation, State law dictates that signatures on petitions to annex which represent corporate entities must include an excerpt from the corporate bylaws which states that the signer is "duly authorized to execute deeds or encumbrances on behalf of . such corporation." The certified excerpt must be attached to the petition. If you are administering trust properties, please provide documentation showing such authority. Every signature is important in bringing the annexation to a successful conclusion. Your attention in this matter is appreciated, If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. Sincerely, ll2JJJ~_= _~. Michael D. Ka!e~~ Director, Planning and Technical Services .... 200 Mill Avenue South.-Renton,Washington 98055 " '" '~. :.~:. :,,; .. ~" . :64'S. Trils'p~D6r~~nlal~s·50o/.:r~c'lo~ ;.n.&terlal, 25%'poSI con~.um~r , . ":~ .. Earl Clymer. Mayor December 20, 1994 Mr. John C. Cochenour 2700 Northrup Way, Suite 400 Bellewe , W A 98004 Dear Mr. Cochenour: CIT~RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Thank you for your interest in annexing to the City of Renton. We have received your 60 % Petition to Annex. However, we cannot include your properties without some additional documentation. State law dictates that signatures on petitions to annex which represent corporate entities must include an excerpt from the corporate bylaws which states that the signer is "duly authorized to execute. deeds or encumbrances on behalf of such· corporation." The certified excerpt must be attached to the petition. Every signature is important in bringing the annexation to a successful conclusion. Your attention in this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison of my staff at 277-2475. MIi~ ') Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton. Washington 98055 This paper conlain, 50% recycled maleria!, 25% post consumer ~~ Earl Clymer. Mayor December 14, 1994 Mr. John R. McTighe 24929 26th Avenue SE Ravensdale, W A 98051 Dear Mr. McTighe: C1T"\IPF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator It is my understanding that Owen Dennison of my staff talked with you on the telephone following your inquiry letter of November 17, 1994. In the letter, you ,. expressed a concern regarding the Single Family (SF) zoning proposed for your properties abutting SE 128th Street in the expanded Bumstead Annexation area. I want to confirm, by way of this letter, the options for requesting a zoning change as outlined by Mr. Dennison in his telephone conversation with you. As background on the zoning amendment process, the City Council adopted a land use map as part of the Comprehensive Plan in June of 1993. This map designates areas of the City and surrounding areas for various land· uses, commercial, industrial, residential, etc. The City policies for each land use designation are implemented by one or more zoning designations. By the State law, zoning must be consistent with the underlying land use designation. Although the City Council adopted land use designations for areas outside of the City, zoning is not adopted prior to annexation. The zoning that is proposed for the annexation area' merely implements the existing land use designations, Low Density Single Family, Single Family and Single Family Up To Four Units Mix. By law, the City Council considers requests once each year for amendments to the Land Use Map that permit changes to the zoning. The Riberas requested and received 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton. Washington 98055 * This paper contains 50% recycled male rial, 25% poat consumer Mr. John R. McTigh, December 8, 1994 Page -2 an amendment to the Land Use Map earlier this year (with a concurrent rezone to MR) for their property adjacent to yours on the west. You will have a similar opportunity in 1995. As Mr. Dennison explained, the window for submitting amendment requests in 1995 is from January 3 to March 31. The forms used last year included lines for your name, your property location and legal identification, the existing use of the property, your request and a brief justification for the change. The process will be similar in 1995. A processing fee of $1000 will be required. After staff research and analysis of each request, a staff recommendation is presented to the Renton Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommendation is then· forwarded to the Renton City Council for a final decision. . Please contact the City's Long Range Planning Section after the first of the year and staff can discuss your request with you. I hope that the situation has been clarified and your questions answered to your . satisfaction. If you require any additional clarification or have other questions or· concerns, Owen Dennison is available at 277-2475. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, . Zw..4t8!?----s-- Director, Planning and Technical Services "' CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 13, 1994 TO: Mike Katterman FROM: ~el Wilson SUBJECT: Bumstead Annexation Traffic Issues Reference is made to your memo of November 23, 1994. The traffic issues raised are very difficult to evaluate. The only thing that is clear is a study would not be productive. Any study using traditional methodology would show that N.E. 4th/S.E. 128th will not handle the projected increase in traffic due to the project. However, it would also show that N.E .. 4th/S.E. 128th will not handle the projected increase in traffic even without the project. And, rejecting the project may aggravate traffic conditions. In general if we reject development in Renton the development will move further out resulting in longer trips and more through traffic. If the project goes forward and the annexation occurs we will at least have some resources (mitigation and taxes) to help address problems. Please let me know if you or the City Council have further questions. c:· Sue Carlson Gregg Zimmennan CITY December 5, 1994 Ms. Ellensworth )F RENTON Community Services Sam Chastain, Administrator Subject: Potential Park Acquisition, Developmental Cost, Maintenance and Operation Cost, and Equipment Cost Dear Ms. Ellensworth: Acquisition 1.2 Million Development Cost 4.5 Million Maintenance & Operation Cost Annual Maintenance & Operation Utilities Equipment Cost (start-up) Funding Source King County Parks & Recreation Funding Source -Potential Development Fees Grants -State, Federal and Local Donations from Clubs, Service - Organizations Bond Issue City of Renton $213,250.00 $25,000.00 . $97,000.00 The cost projections above were based on these assumptions. The components of the park would include the following. • Activity Area and Passive Areas • Softball, Soccer and Baseball Complex • Tennis Courts • Restrooms and Concession Facilities • Picnic Shelter/Picnic Areas • Play Equipment • Trails -Interim an Connection to King County Trail and System • Open Space/Buffers • Parking Lots • Utilities 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 nilS PAPER CONTAINS 5O'JI> RECYCLED MATERIAL. lK POST CONSUMER Ms. Ellensworth December 5, 1994 Page 2 of2 If you have-any questions, please call me at 235-2568. Sincerely, ~ ~ c-~... :..IF}>'?£, 1 c..,... -" __ ( ~ -P __ Sam Chastain Community Services Administrator cc: -Victoria Runkle, Finance Administrator -----...... ---.. ~----.!,. -.' .. -.~-~. '~"-'.----'-~ .... ,-.----...... ~ . " ",""';:'"""; """-", January 10,1995 Ms, Ellsworth Via Fax: 546-7606 :'::"" , .. , • , ·50/1~Q··· CITY OF . RENTON Co=unity Services Sam CbastaiD. AdmlDistrator Subject: Operation and Maintenance Cost for Phase I of the 40 Acre Park Site located within the Bumstead Annexation Dear Ms, Ellsworth: I have prepared the maintenance and operation cost for Phase I of the proposed park which would be developed in two phases, Reading the climate expressed by the residents within this annexation area, the need is for an activity area such as soccer, baseball, etc, Activity Areas 3 softball field combinations 2 soccer field -standard size 1 soccer field -championship size 1 restroom faCility/concession area included . parking for 200-250 automobiles Maintenance & Operation Cost: based on the following: 1 full-time employee 2 PERS pOSitions 2 seasonal positions Supplies/Parks Benefits Janitorial Supplies/Labor Recreation part-time, 5 FTE Supplies/Recreation Administration costs Sub-Total Utilities Total Maintenance and Operation Equipment Cost (start-up) I 95-018db $35,815 24,060 24,060 20,000 9,000 15,000 25,000 13,000 7,000 $172,935 20,000 $192,935 $97;000 '\ 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 nus PAPER CONTAINS ~ RECYcum MATERlAL.l~ POST CONSUMER. · " .. . ~. ,- Ms., 'Ellsworth Bumstead Annexation o & M Costs Phase I , , :. If you have any questions, please call me at 235-2568. Sincerely, ,~ ~ ~~a:f77c~~£~~ Community Services Administrator cc: Jay Covington, Executive Assistant Victoria Runkle, Finance Administrator 95-018db .. ~Fe Earl Clymer, Mayor November 23, 1994 Bill Halgren 2230 151st PI. SE. Bellevue, WA 98007-6321 CITY :IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation Dear Mr. Halgren: At their regular meeting on Monday, November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council voted to accept a Notice of Intent to Annex for an area south of SE 128th Street and west ot 152 Avenue SE. As a result ot expressed Interest In annexation by property owners outside ot the proposed area, the Council voted to expand the potential boundaries. The Council then authorized the circulation ot Petitions to Annex in the expanded area. Attached, please find the 60% Petitions to Annex and additional annexation Intonnation. Please ensure that all requested Intonnation is Included: date, signature, printed name, mailing address, tax lot legal identification. Please use additional lines as necessary. The signatures must match names on the assessor's tax records. For signatures representing corporations or other legal entities, please Include an excerpt trom the bylaws showing such authority. We would appreciate having your petitions retumed to the Planning and Technical Services Division by December 12. 1994, to expedite this process. Please retum to: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Similar packets will be sent to Messrs. Weisser and Holstrom. It you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Thank you. Michael D. Kattennann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 TillS PAPER CONTAINS 50% RECYCLED MATERIAL. 10% POST CONSUMER .. November 22, 1994 SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation Dear Property Owner: At their regular meeting on Monday, November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council voted to accept a Notice of Intent to Annex for an area south of SE 128th Street and west of 152 Avenue SE. As a result of expressed Interest in annexation by property owners outside of the proposed area, the Council voted to expand the potential boundaries. The Council then authorized the circulation of Petitions to Annex in the expanded area. Attached, please find the 60% Petition to Annex. You may have already signed the 10% Notice of Intent which resembles this form. However, it is still essential that you sign this form also. This is the primary instrument of annexation. Please include all requested information: date, signature, printed name, mailing address, tax lot legal identification. Please use additional lines as necessary. The signature must match a name on the assessors tax records. If you are signing for a corporation or other legal entity, please Include an excerpt from the bylaws showing such authority. The City must receive your petition by December 12,1994, for it to be included. Please retum to: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Your signature Is Important. Thank you for Interest. Sincarely, 117' IJ !l ,A~ ~ /1l.kA-{ flJ\ ~~ Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services cc: Sue Carlson PETITLTR.DOC , .. ~Pe Earl Clymer, Mayor November 23, 1994 Steve and Tara Holman 13612 SE 136th Street Renton, WA 98059-5125 CITY .IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau (Burnstead) Annexation Dear Mr. and Mrs. Holman: Thank you for your patience with regard to the processing of your annexation request. At their regular meeting on Monday, November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council voted to accept a Notice of Intent to Annex for an area south of SE 128th Street and west of 152 Avenue SE. As 'a result of expressed interest in annexation by property owners outside of the proposed area, the Council voted to expand the potential boundaries. The Council then authorized the circulation of Petitions to Annex in the expanded area. The three properties Included In your Notice of Intent submittal are within these expanded boundaries. Attached, please find the 60% Petitions to Annex and additional annexation Information. Please ensure " that ail requested Information Is Included: date, signature, printed name, mailing address, tax 101 legal Identification. Please use additional lines as necessary. The Signatures must match names on the assessor's tax records. For signatures representing corporations or other legal entities, please Include an excerpt from the bylaws showing such authority. ' We would appreCiate having your petitions returned to the Planning and Technical Services Division by December 12, 1994, to expedite this process. Please retum to: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 In the event that your and your neighbors' properties are not included in the final annexation area, your request will be considered separately. If you have any questions, please cail Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Thank you for your Interest. Sincerely, flU} ~7l:-~==-==-~=5~ Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 nus PAPER CO,,"AINS.5O'Jio RECYCLED MATERIAL. 10'!\ POST CONSUMER • Earl Clymer. Mayor November 23. 1994 Mr. Alan Wallace Caimcross and Hempelmann 70th Floor. Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue Seattle. WA 98104-7016 CIT,\, DF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation Dear Mr. Wallace: At their regular meeting on Monday. November 14. 1994. the Renton City Council voted to accept a 'Notice of Intent to Annex for an area south of SE 128th Street and west of 152 Avenue SE. As a result of expressed interest in annexation by property owners outside of the proposed area, the Council voted to expand the potential boundaries. The Council then authorized the circulation of Petitions to Annex In the expanded area. ' Attached, please find the 60% Petitions to Annex and additional annexation Information. Please ensure that all requested Information is included: date, signature, printed name. mailing address, tax lot legal Identlficetlon. Please use additional lines as necessary. The signatures must match names on the assessor's tax records. For signatures representing corporations or other legal entities, please Include an excerpt from the bylaws showing such authority. We would appreciate having your petitions returned to the Planning and Technlcel Services Division by December 12. 1994, to expedite this process. Please return to: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South Renton. Washington 98055 If you have any questions, please cell Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely. Michael D. Kattermann. AICP Director. Pianning and Technicel Services 200 Mill Avenue South ~ Renton, Washington 98055 nils PAPER CONTAINS 5O'l'I> RECYCLED MA.1CRIAL. JO'!\ POST CONSUMER ~~ Earl Clymer, Mayor November 23, 1994 Gary Weisser 12236 155th Ave. SE Renton, WA 98059 CITY .:IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation Dear Mr. Weisser: At their regular meeting on Monday, November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council voted to accept a Notice of Intent to Annex for an area south of SE 128th Street and west of 152 Avenue SE. As a result of expressed Interest in annexation by property owners outside of the proposed area, the Council voted to expand the potential boundaries. The Council then authorized the circulation of Petitions to Annex in the expanded area. Attached, please find the 60% Petitions to Annex and additional annexation infonmation. Please ensure that all requested lrifonmatlon Is Included: date, signature, printed name, mailing address, tax lot legal Identlficetlon. Please use additional lines as necessary. The signatures must match names on the assessor's tax records. For signatures representing corporations or other legal entities, please include an excerpt from the bylaws showing such authority. We would appreciate having your petitions retumed to the Planning and Technicel Services Division by December 12, 1994, to expedite this process. Please retum to: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Similar packets will be sent to Messrs. Halgren and Holstrom. If you have any questions, please call OWen Dennison at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, ---_ .... S Michael D. Kattenmann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 nils PAPER COtorrAINS 5()IJI. RECYCLED MATERIAL. I~ POST CONSUMER ~~ Earl Clymer, Mayor November23,1994 Chris Holstrom 1441 Queen Avenue NE. Renton. WA 98056 CIT"Y .IF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmennan P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: East Renton Plateau (Bumstead) Annexation Dear Mr. Holstrom: At their regular meeting on Monday, November 14, 1994, the Renton City Council voted to accept a Notice of Intent to Annex for an area south of SE 128th Street and west of 152 Avenue SE. As a result of expressed Interest In annexation by property owners outside of the proposed area, the Council voted to expand the potential boundaries. The Councir then authorized the circulation of Petitions to Annex In the expanded area. Attached, please find the 60% Petitions to Annex and additional annexation Information. Please ensura that all requested Information is Included: date, signature, printed name, mailing address, tax lot legal identificetion. Please use additional lines as necessary. The signatures must match names on the assessor's tax records. For signatures representing corporations or other legal entities, please include an excerpt from the bylaws showing such authority . . , We would appreciate having your petitions retumed to the Planning and Technical Services Division by December 12, 1994, to expedite this process. Please retum to: Long Range Planning Attention: Owen Dennison 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 Similar packets will be sent to Messrs. Weisser and Halgren. If you have any questions, please call Owen Dennison at 277-2475. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael D. Kattermann, AICP Director, Planning and Technical Services WHFENCE3.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 TIllS PAPER CONTAINS SO')(, RECYCLED MATERIAL, I~ ponCONSUMER CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 23, 1994 TO: Mel Wilson . Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190~ FROM: SUBJECT: BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION TRAFFIC ISSUES At the 10% Petition Public Meeting at City Council on November 14, virtually everyone in opposition to the proposed annexation raised increased traffic on SE 128th as a concern (see copy of attached Council minutes). I bring this to your attention because it could become a potential stumbling block for Council approval of the annexation. One of the speakers suggested that a study of traffic impacts be done before the annexation proceeds. Although Council did not embrace this idea, it was apparent to me that at least Council member Corman would like to have more information about how traffic volumes can or would be addressed in this area. I suspect that other Council members may also desire more information . . , Mr. Bumstead explained that it would be difficult and extremely costly to conduct such a study now, so early in the process. I stated that individual projects are reviewed for their traffic impacts when they are proposed and that current practice and the Transportation Element include provisions for funding at least some of the costs of impacts through fees on the development. I also explained that the road is currently in the County and that I did not know what plans the County has, or what information the City has about future improvements or traffic volumes on that roadway. I don't know how you want to address this issue, if at all, but I am available to discuss it with you in more detail at your convenience. cc: Gregg Zimmerman Sue Carlson Owen Dennison • Date: To: Via: From: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM November 14,1994 City Council Mayor Clymer Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department Staff Contact: Michael D. Kattermann, Director Planning and Technical Services Owen Dennison, Planner Subject: 1. ISSUE: Long Range Planning Issue Paper Bumstead Annexation 10% Notice of Intent The Bumstead Construction Company proposes the annexation of a number of parcels to Renton. The proponent owns nearly 64 acres of undeveloped land which is not contiguous to the city boundary. Therefore, the Bumstead Company has solicited the interest of intervening property owners in annexing to Renton. This annexation, as . proposed, would include approximately 226 acres At its discretion, the City Council can extend the boundaries of an annexation area beyond those proposed by the applicant. Comprehensive Plan Policy AX-8.4 states that, "annexations proposed by the petition method should be expanded to include areas surrounded by the City on three sides and those properties with recorded covenants to annex, provided the expansion does not render the proposal incapable of meeting state guidelines. Policy AX-8.3 encourages larger annexations in order to minimize duplication of effort. In compliance with these adopted poliCies, the Administration is working with property owners in the neighborhoods immediately north, east and west of the proposed area to assess the degree of interest in participating in this annexation. Issue Paper-10% Notice of I, .It Bumstead Annexation November 14, 1994 Page 2 It is known that sufficient interest exists in certain areas within the expanded boundaries to support a larger annexation. The extent and degree of interest over the surrounding areas, particularly to the east, is not currently known. Therefore, the Administration believes that it would be prudent for the Council to include several study areas in the preliminary annexation boundaries. The City Council will retain the option of accepting the 60% Petition for a smaller area. II. Recommendation On the basis of the following analysis, the Administration recommends Council accept the 10% Notice of Intent. If Council concurs in this recommendation, the Administration recommends that Council take the following actions (pursuant to RCW 35A .. 14.120): 1. The Administration recommends that the Council set the boundaries of the annexation area for the expanded area (Exhibit 1) and authorize the circulation of the 60% Annexation Petition; 2. The Administration recommends that the Council require the simultaneous adoption of City zoning on the property concurrently with annexation (SF, SFL . and MR to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan -Exhibit 2); and, 3. The Administration recommends that the Council require the property owners to assume a proportional share of the City's bonded indebtedness. 111. Background 1. Location: The subject site is located east of the city limits, south of SE 125th Street and west of 156th Avenue SE. (Exhibit 3) The city boundary contiguous to the original proposal was established by Ordinance #4470, adopted on September 1, 1994. The expanded area is adjacent to boundaries established by Ordinance #3570 on August 24,1981, by Ordinance #3163 on October 24, 1977, and by Ordinance # 3143 on June 13,19.77. 2. Purpose of Annexation: Owners of properties in the area are interested in receiving urban level services, particularly sanitary sewers. Not all parcels within the subject area are appropriate for on-site septic systems. Sanitary sewers are desired to support existing and future development. 3. Assessed Value: The assessed valuation of the property within the original proposal is $10,672,500. At this time, owners of properties representing 31% of this total have Signed Notice of Intent petitions. Another 5% have otherwise indicated an interest in' participating in the annexation. The Burnstead Company's properties have with an assessed value of $793,300. BRNSOISS.DOC To date, neither the assessed values of the study areas nor the assessed values of properties belonging to parties outside of the original boundaries with an expressed interest in annexation have been tallied or compared. Council will be provided with these figures if property owner interest permits consideration of the expanded boundaries. Issue Paper -10% Notice ot "nt Bumstead Annexation November 14, 1994 Page 3 Properties with signed covenants to annex are represented in Exhibit 1 .. 4. Geography of the area: The expanded annexation area generally follows a gentle slope to the southeast. The only topographic feature of note is a ravine through which Maplewood Creek crosses the southwestern corner of the area. (Exhibit 4) 5. Existing Land Uses:. Existing land uses within the annexation area include single family homes, several convenience retail businesses, a light industrial firm, heavy equipment storage and vacant land. (Exhibit 5) Existing residential uses occur both at urban densities and on large lots. Some accessory commercial and agricultural uses accompany the large lot residential development. Maplewood Heights Elementary School is adjacent to but not included in the proposed annexation area. This is due to the City's understanding of the State mandated procedures by which school district properties must annex. The City is continuing to research the legal basis of this position. Surrounding land uses are single family residential to the west and south. Land uses to the north and east are generally vacant and residential. 6. Existing Zoning: The County has applied a number of residential and one commercial zone to the proposed annexation area. The existing King County zones are listed below. RT-2400-P TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL AT 12 TO 18 UNITS/ACRE , RS-9,600 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 9,600 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE SR (15,000) SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, 15,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT SIZE B-N NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS -SMALL SCALE RETAIL / SERVICE Existing zoning in the portion of Renton adjacent to the expanded annexation area includes Community Commercial (CB), Single Family (SF) and Mixed Residential (MR). (Exhibit 2) 7. Comprehensive Plans: Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates portions of the area as Single Family -Up to 4 Units Mix, Single Family Residential and Low Density Single Family. Since adoption of the Interim Land Use Element and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan in June, 1993, the Committee of the Whole has recommended certain amendments to the Land Use Map. These amendments redesignate the land uses of certain parcels, but do not introduce additional designations to the vicinity of the proposed annexation area. (Recommended amendments are represented. in Exhibit 6.) Zoning recommended by staff implements these land use designations. (Exhibit 2) Inconsistencies between the current land use designations and existing land BRNSDISS.DOC Issue Paper -10% Notice of Jnt Bumstead Annexation November 14,1994 Page 4 uses can be reconciled through the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The Executive Proposed King County Comprehensive Plan, June 1994, identifies the area as Urban Growth Area. 8. Public Services: Municipal water service is currently provided to the area by King County Water District 90. Twelve inch mains follow SE 128th Street, 148th Avenue SE and SE 136th Street east of 148th Avenue SE. The Water District would continue to serve after annexation. Although a service area boundary agreement does not exist between the District and the City of Renton, the proposed annexation includes no disputed service areas. The area is located in the Lower Cedar River Wastewater Collection Basin. Sanitary sewer service is not currently available to residents of the area. All wastewater disposal is by septic system. The City is currently constructing the East Renton Interceptor, anticipated to be finished by the first quarter of 1995, which will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed annexation area. The area within the proposed and expanded annexation boundaries is within the East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District Boundary. The proposed annexation area is located within the Maplewood and Orting Hills Subbasins of the Cedar River Surface Water Drainage Basin. Two wetlands, the east fork of Maplewood Creek and unnamed stream are mapped within the annexation boundaries in the King County Cedar River Basin Plan. Only the wetlands are mapped within the proposed annexation area on the Wetlands, Lakes, Streams and Rivers Map (Jones and Stokes, 1992) of the City's Critical Areas Inventory. All runoff in the subject area discharges into the Cedar River. Erosion/sedimentation and local flooding problems exist within and downstream of the proposed annexation area. Most of the annexation area is located within King County Fire District 25. Renton's Fire Department now serves the area on a contractual basis from the Fire District's Station 16 located on 156th Avenue SE. Following annexation, Fire services would still be provided from the same location. Study areas north of SE 124th Street and east of 148th Avenue SE are currently in Fire District 10. Annexation within the proposed or expanded boundaries would not trigger a transfer of either Fire Districts' facilities to the City. Renton Police currently have two designated patrol districts in the Renton Highlands. The annexation area would be an extension of the R-9 patrol zone. Future dev~lopment would require additional staffing to maintain the present level of officers per one thousand population ratio. 9. Fiscal Analysis: A fiscal analysis will be provided to the Council with the 60% Petition to Annex. BRNSDISS.DOC Issue Paper -10% Notice of ~nt Bumstead Annexation November 14, 1994 Page 5 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION (Pursuant to City Council Resolution 2429) 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Upon annexation, the City will be capable of providing services to support development at urban densities. Some additional and upgraded infrastructure will be required within the area to be annexed, concurrent to new development. The costs for these improvements will be borne by the developers. All reviewing departments indicate that the proposed annexation represents a logical extension of their respective services. (AX-1.3, AX-2.2, AX-S.1) Renton has an inherent interest in subject area as it includes vacant lands subject to development pressure, developed areas where urban services are needed to correct degradation of natural resources, lands which will be available for urbanization under the county comprehensive plan, and aquifer recharge areas. (AX-1.4, AX-4.2, AX-4.4, AX-6.4) Development in the proposed annexation area currently impacts City infrastructure. (AX-2.S) The proposed annexation is adjacent to the city boundary, is generally defined by readily identifiable boundaries, does not cleave neighborhoods, and is over ten (10) acres. (AX-3.2, AX-8.3) The annexation would allow increased control over land uses along a major entrance to the City. (AX-3.S) 2. Consistency with the following Boundary Review Board Objectives: (from RCW 36.93.180) . a. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities; b. Use of physical boundaries, including but not .limited to bodies of water, highways, and land contours; c. Creation and preservation of logical service areas; d. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; e. Discouragement of multiple incorporations. of small cities and encouragement of incorporations of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; f. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts; g. Adjustment of impractical boundaries; h. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character; and, i. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. The proposal is consistent with achieving of these objectives. BRNSDISS.DOC BU~NSTEAD ANNEX. TION Annexation Areas & Existing Covenants to Annex e CITY OF RENTON ~ PLANNING!BUILDING!PUBUC lI'O~KS + ... + O.Dennison -R.MacOnie. D.ViBneski 10 Novetnber 1994 o ~1~000 2000 ~I ~111111 I~~~I 1:12000 EXHIBIT 1 """,,:;::::::,::::1 [:::::"",,:1 Renton City Limits Covenants to Annex Proposed by Applicant Expanded Annexation Area {15FL 1::::::::::1 SF l!pmmHnm!!1 M R P-I CB MF-I MF-C BU--NSTEAD ANNEY .TION ZONING MAP Low Density Single Family Single Family EXHIBIT 2 Mixed Residential Public Institution -Medical Community Commercial Multi-Family Infill Multi-Family Community Center 0~~~1~0_00~~2~000 . l:: I::: I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BuUJ)ING/PUBUC WORKS O.Denniaon . R.lIacOnle. D,VUID •• 1d i !BUPNSTEAD ANNEx}rrION VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS O.Dennison R.MacOnie. D.Visneski 10 November 1994 ____ Renton City Limits Ii iii::iii:r:::::iiim! Annexation Proposed by Applicant [~H<:I Expanded Annexation Area o 2000 4000 ~I ~!iiiiiiiiiiii!E' ~~~I 1:24,000 BUP,NSTEAD ANNEX A TION ---- Topography EXHIBIT 4 Proposed Annexation Areas Renton City Limits o 1 0 0iiim0~~2~O.o 0 .~1 ~~~!= ! 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS a.Dennison R.MacOnie. D.Visneski 10 November 1994 BV NSTEAD ANNEX. rrON EXISTING LAND USE . I:::· Vacanti Residential Commercial Public Use EXHIBIT 5 Proposed & Expanded Annexation Areas ----Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 I~~I~~~I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBllC WORKS O.Dennison R.M.acOnie. D.Visneski BUHN"STEAD ANNEXA l'ION \..,JMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mn.r EXHIBIT 6 1::::::::::1 Single Family Residential - 8 dulac 1 mffffffHHU::1 Single Family/Up to 4 Units Mix I: :::1 Low Density Single Family - 5 dulac IUllII!liII Existing Multi-Family District ~1 Planned Neighborhood E ........ ··I C ·t C t J;;;;;;;;;. ommunl y en er L.._;J.! Proposed & Expanded Annexation Areas ----Renton City Limits ...... " ..... ........... " .. O~I ~~1~01~0~0~~2~0100 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS O.Dennison R.llaoOnie, D.Visneski 10 November 1994 Date: To: Via: From: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM November~1994 City Council Mayor Clymer Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Department CONCURRENCE DATE Lt.-It! -9 t. NAME INmAL/DATE O·~"'l~ 6ii) ll-IQ bl t.<a~.Je.....-111lt. tl 1.0 C:;;.t:~_ !;t/Jt~1I /, Staff Contact: Michael D. Kattermann, Director Planning and Technical Services Owen Dennison, Planner . Subject: 1. ISSUE: Long Range Planning Issue Paper Bumstead Annexation 10% Notice of Intent ., The Bumstead Construction Company proposes the annexation of a number of parcels to Renton. The proponent owns nearly 64 acres of undeveloped land which is not contiguous to the city boundary. Therefore, the Bumstead Company has solicited the interest of intervening property owners in annexing to Renton. This annexation, as proposed, would include approximately 226 acres At its discretion, the City Council can extend the boundaries of an annexation area beyond those proposed by the applicant. Comprehensive Plan Policy AX-S.4 states that, "annexations proposed by the petition method should be expanded to include areas surrounded by the City on three sides and those properties with recorded covenants to annex, provided the expansion does not render the proposal incapable of meeting state guidelines. Policy AX-S.3 encourages larger annexations in order to minimize duplication of effort. In compliance with these adopted policies, the Administration is working with property owners in the neighborhoods immediately north, east and west of the proposed area to assess the degree of interest in participating in this annexation. ·~ _ •• J' ........ ~"' ... ~ "'6 a. I,,;luser lOOk at this issue. The com· plexity of the tax laws and an unknown "reformed" health care reimbursement system prevent this levy from being the traditional "more services for more tax- es" issue. The fire service respeets Val- ley Medical Center's right to ask the taxpayers in its district for additional subsidies, but the public's vote will decide far more than just "what kind of hospital Valley Medical will be." We want the voters to fully understand that this levy has far-reaching implications for the delivery of fire and emergency medical services to their community. Mark Fitzgerald; Fire Chief King County Fire Protection. District 20, SeBttie Annexation can hurt owners financially ID -.:1-9'/ I was recently notified by the City of Renton about a proposed annexation in my neighborhood. My property is adja- cent to it, I contacted the city and asked how an annexation is approved. A proposed annexation requires property owners representing 60 percent of the total assessed valuation of the proposed annexation to approve it. Then it becomes part of the city. This annexation was initiated by a property owner who is a developer. There is another property owner who is willing to sell his substantial parcel to the city for a park. The city hosted an open house and staff was available to answer questions and provide information about the pro- posed annexation. There was also an abundance of general information avail- able about the city. A representative of the developer was also available for questions. If it passes, the city could acquire property for another park, Then the developer may noi have to dedicate any of his property for a park. If the City does not acquire the property, the owner will have the option to develop it because most of the necessary amenities will be in place. If it passes, there will also be a signifi- cant financial impact on its property owners. There will be expenses associat- e<! with installation of the sanitary sewer system as well as the potential expense incurred if city voters approve the pur- chase of property for a park. I question whether ALL the property owners will be able to financially afford the anticipated annexation expenses and those in the future. The property oWl\ers who are unable to afford the annexation expenses will most likely have to sell their property. . After a second look at the proposed annexation, I am fortunate that my prop- erty was not included. At this time, I don't have the resources to meet the . financial obligations associated with it and I have not been put in a compromis- ing financial position. . . I believe the requirement regarding annexation approval should be modified or changed. There are many benefits to annexation to: the property owners. However t an annexation should not occur which may cause some of the property owners to find themselves in a financial dilemma. ..' Judy H. Hastings Renton " Reaction mixed to annexation IO~3-91 request in Renton By LEAH KOHLENBERG Valley Daily Naw. RENTON -City officials are considering the biggest annexation request of the year, and residents' reactions are mixed about it. About 200 people attended a pub- lic information meeting Tuesday night to discuss the annexation pro- posal requested by Fred Bumstead, who wants to build a housing devel- opment on land now located outside the city. Bumstead wants to extend sewer lines to the property, which can only be done if the land is inside the city limits. Some people wanted nothing to do with annexation, others were inter- ested, and still others outside the proposed area wanted in, said Owen Dennison, a city planner who attended Tuesday's meeting. "There was quite a mixture," Dennison said. Burnstead's is the third annex- ation request made to the city this year, Dennison said. The exact boundaries of the proposed annex- ation haven't been determinedlyet. Burnstead is proposing to arihex a roughly rectangular area bordered by Southeast 128th Street, 152nd Avenue Southeast, Southeast 138th Place and 140th Avenue Southeast. Renton planners suggested extending the area as far west as 136th Avenue Southeast, as far east as 156th Avenue Southeast and two blocks further north of Southeast 128th Street. The final annexation plan will be developed by city planners based on comments at Tuesday's meeting, as well as comments on return mailers sent to all residents affected by the proposal, Dennison said. Then the plan will be sent to the City Council for approval, probably sometime in late October and early November. Before the request could be approved, Dennison said, Burnstead would have to prove that those who own at least 60 percent of the total assessed property valuation in the proposed annexation area want to About 200 people attended a public Information meeting Tuesday night to discuss the annexation proposal requested by Fred Burnstead, who wants to build a housing development on land now located outside the city. become part of the city. Once they became city residents, those in the annexed area wouldn '\ pay much difference in property tax- es. If the City Council voted to make the new residents pay for a share of the city's outstanding bond debt, property taxes would rise 19 cents per $1 ,000 of assessed valuation, or · about $19 a year more for a · $100,000 house, Dennison said. If · the new" residents were excluded from that obligation, however, their property taxes would shrink five cents per $1,000, or about $5 annu- ally on a $100,000 house, he said. The only other taxes residents would pay as Renton citizens is a 6 percent tax on their utility bills. But that is a trade-off from the non-resi- dent rate on water and sewer ser- vice, which is 50 percent more than city residents pay. As Renton residents, those in the annexation area would enjoy the' benefits of city life, from lower park rental fees to free use of the city library system to more police pro, tection, city officials say. The residents could also hook up to the city sewer system, althougIi no one is required to do so. Burnstead would pay to extend the sewer system to his property, and surrounding residents who face the line would pay a fee if they want to connect to it, Dennison said. An additional 42 nam.re colleCted from high school students and from junior high students, Brown said. She said concern and interest in the issues among citizens hadn'l unabated. "We'll keep putting the pressure on. The kids are too important not to," Brown said. Pmpcsal offers parking break Relief could be on the way for some Seattle merchants hurt by the prolonged closure of the Kingdome. The King County Council's budget committee on Friday passed a proposal from County Executive Gary Locke to allow free parking in the dome's lots at nights and on weekends, if there are no events going on in the stadium. The arrangement would last through the end of the year and would cost the county an estimated $2,500 in lost revenue. If the full council agrees today, the plan will take effect immediately. Currently, it costs $3 to park at the Kingdome for less than three hours during the day or from 5 p. m. to midnight, or $5 for more than three hours during the day until midnight. The hope is that the lure of free parking will bring more people to the Pioneer Square area and benefit merchants, including several restaura- teurs, who have seen their business decline since the Kingdome closed July 19. A $32.5 million repair project is In progress, and the dome is cxpected to reopen Nov. I. Work starts on First Avenue bridge SEATTLE -Construction work will be launched this week on the First Avenue South bridge project, a $200 million effort to remove a traffic bottleneck and one of the most dangerous bridges in the area. The bridge, linking Pacific Highway (State Route 99) and State Route 509, has been the scene of numerous head-on collisions and fatalities over the years. The state's plan calls for construction of a new bridge over the Duwamish River that will carry four lanes of southbound traffic. The existing bridge will be refurbished and, when the project is completed sometime in 1997, will carry four northbound lanes. State, King County and Seattle officials will take part in a ground breaking ceremony for the project noon Wednesday. Huen readies for Homecoming RENTON -Hazen High School will celebrate its annual Homecom- ing this week. At 6 p.m. Thursday, the Homecoming parade will start at the Highlands Safeway on Sunset Boulevard and proceed along Sunset to Hazen High. The parade will be preceded by a 5 p.m. fund-raising barbecue at the Highlands Safeway. The barbecue will feature hamburgers, hot dogs and soft drinks. Half of the proceeds will be donated to Easter Seals and the other half will be donated to the Hazen senior class. Shana Barlow is chairwoman of the parade. Free depression screening Thursday TUKWILA -A free screening program for depression is slated Thursday at Highline Specialty Center. Community members will have an opportunity to meet with a mental health professional to discuss symptoms of depression and any concerns. As part of Mental Health Awareness week, free seminars on other mental health issues, such as anxiety and dementia, will be offered. To sign up for the depression screening or other classes, call 244-0180. Work to close part of road The King County Department of Public Works will close Issaquah- Hobart Road between Southeast 153rd Place and Southeast 154th Street from 10 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 13, through approximately II p.m. Tuesday, Qct. 18, to replace a damaged drainage pipe under the roadway. Through traffic will be detoured onto Cedar Grove Road and ., • MEMORANDUM City of Renton DATE: September 23, 1994 TO: Clark Petersen FROM: Owen Dennison ~ SUBJECT: POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED EAST RENTON PLATEAU ANNEXATION At the meeting on September 21 regarding the City's East Renton Plateau Annexation open house, information was requested on residency and acreage in the proposed annexation area. We estimate that approximately 156 persons reside within the boundary of the Bumstead's proposal. This boundary is identified as "A" on the accompanying map. Approximately 573 people live within the boundary that defines the largest anticipated extent of the annexation (line "B"). The approximate area of the current proposal ("A") is 226 acres . . These boundaries represent only the current proposal and are subject to change. cc: Sue Carlson Gregg Zimmerman Sam Chastain Lee Wheeler Allan Wallis <.-• Document1, 09J26I94 AHHEXATIOH AHAL YSES Impact of Ea'st itenton Area on Current and Future Taxpayers September 16. 1994 .. PROPOSED ANNEXATION PROPEItTY TAX ANALYSIS 1994 Properly Taxes (Based on $1,000 Assessed Valuation) UNAFFECTED TAXES State School Fund County General Funds County General Fund County River Improvement Inter-County River Veteran's Aid Mental Health Councilmanic Debt Countywide Voted Debt Fingerprinting Levy Emergency Comms Regional Justice Levy Voter Approved Bonds Conservation Futures Port of Seattle EMS Renton School District Hospital District TTL Taxes that do NOT change AFFECTED TAXES City General Fund (I ) County Roads Fire District #25 Library District TTL Taxes that DO change TOTAL TAXES 11 ) Renton Voted Debt Unincorporated 8rea 3.3960 1.1331 0.0164 0.0004 0.0109 0.0242 0.0574 0.0200 0.1597 0.2973 0.4332 0.0625 0.3037 0.2497 3.6009 01477 9.9131 0.0000 1.5764 1.5000 05789 3.6553 13.5684 0.0000 11 J THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE CITY OF RENTON BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. I City of Renton 3.3960 1.1331 0.0164 0.0004 0.0109 0.0242 0.0574 0.0200 0.1597 0.2973 0.4332 0.0625 0.3037 0.2497 3.6009 01477 9.9131 3.4868 0.0000 0.0000 00000 3.4868 13.3999 0.3628 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEX.XLS IMPACT OF AttttEXATIOttS Ott CITY'S "EAL T" . flssessed Value Comparisons 1994 Actual AV BaseGrowth Current East Renton Build out East Renton Potential Property Taxes Current East Renton Build Out Assumptlolls 4% 10,500,000 75,000,000 36,173 257,982 Assessed Value 3,409,509,631 3,545,890,016 3,556,390,016 3,620,890,016 z General Fund Rate Taxes 3.48 11,750,010 3.51 12,455,011 3.50 12,455,011 3.44 12,455,011 C:DATA:COMM:AV Revenue Source Gas Tax 16.3%) Gas Tax-Arterials Liguor Taxes MVET Criminal Justicell ) Total City Gains STATE REVENUES (Per Capita) 1995 Estimate (Based Upon 1993 Actaals) City County Share Share $ 15.69 $0.00 $7.33 $0.00 $8.99 $2.50 $ 14.18 $0.00 $0.30 $ 1.52 (I) Criminal Justice has different categories from I 993; thus compa~son illustrates magnitude; not necessarily actual amounts. (2) 1994 Population of Annexed Area = 180 City Gains Based Upon Populationl2) $2,824.20 . $1,319.40 $ 1 ,618.20 $2,552.40 $54.00 . $8,368.20 c:data:comm:ANNEX2.XLS FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON A "lYPICAL HOUSEHOLD" East Renton Annexation Area $100,000.00 $25.00 0% 6% $0.00 $1.50 $45.00 0% 6% $0.00 $2.70 $85.00 0% 6% $0.00 $5.10 $0.00 $85.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 can $0.00 $15.50 $0.00 Includes City of Renton Bonded Indebtedness 8.00 $61.20 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 $186.00 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEX.XLS FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON A "lYPICAL HOUSEHOLD" East Renton Annexation Area .. Base· $100,000.00 $25.00 $45.00 $85.00 2 can Does not include City voted indebtedness $13.57 $1,357 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 $7.09 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13.40 $1,340 6% $1.50 6% $2.70 6% $5.10 $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.50 $1,357.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $85.08 $0.00 $0.00 $18.00 $32.40 $61.20 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEX.XLS FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON A "lWICAL HOUSEHOLD" East Renton Annexation Area ·.-MontIiIY $100,000.00 $25.00 0% 6% $0.00 $1.50 $0.00 $45.00 0% 6% $0.00 $2.70 $0.00 $85.00 0% 6% $0.00 $5.10 $0.00 $7.09 $5.00 .08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ." ". $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 can $21.23 $15.50 $254.76 Does not include City voted indebtedness $18.00 $32.40 $61.20 $0.00 $0.00 $186.00 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEJ<.XLS FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON A "TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD" East Renton Annexation Area $100,000.00 $25.00 0% 6% $0.00 $1.50 $0.00 $45.00 0% 6% $0.00 $2.70 $0.00 $85.00 0% 6% $0.00 $5.10 $0.00 $7.09 $5.00 $85.08 $0.00 $0.00 $O.QO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 can $21.23 $15.50 $254.76 Includes City of Renton Bonded Indebtedness $18.00 $32.40 $61.20 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 $186.00 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEX.XlS 1 FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ON A "lYPICAL HOUSEHOLD" East Renton Annexation Area $100,000.00 $25.00 0% 6% $0.00 $1.50 $0.00 $45.00 0% 6% $0.00 $2.70 $0.00 $85.00 0% 6% $5.10 $7.09 $85.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Does not include City voted indebtedness $18.00 $32.40 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEX.XLS ~. I .. FINANCIAl IMPACT ANALYSIS ON A "TYPICAL HOUSEHOLD" East Renton Annexation Area $100,000.00 , $13.57 $25.00 0% 6% $0.00 $1.50 $0.00 $45.00 0% 6% $0.00 $2.70 $0.00 $85.00 0% 6% $0.00 $5.10 $0.00 $7.09 $5.00 $85.08 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Includes City of Renton Bonded Indebtedness $18.00 $32.40 $61.20 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 C:DATA: COMM:ANNEX.xLS CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 26, 1994 TO: Richard Stredicke, President Members of the Renton City Council FROM: Mayor Clymer SUBJECT: Issues -Bumstead Annexation BACKGROUND \ Recently, the City of Renton has been approached by property owners in several neighborhoods about the possibility of annexing into the City. As these annexation requests move forward, the Council will be asked to make decisions regarding the expansion of City boundaries and services. The City Council at its 1994 retreat identified annexations as one of its highest priorities. The purpose of this meeting is to use the Bumstead annexation request in East Renton to explore some of the issues surrounding annexations: ---- Bumstead Construction has submitted a letter to the City requesting annexation of approximately 226 acres east of the City limits along SE 128th (see attached map). The assesed valuation of this area is estimated to be $10,508,0000. As required by State law, the letter contained signatures of owners representing 10% of the assessed property valuation in the proposed area. Property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation will have to agree to annex into the City before this proposal can move forward. - ANNEXA TION POLICIES The proposed Bumstead Annexation meets many of the City's adopted annexation policies. Policy AX 1.2: The City should encourage annexation of all territory within the urban growth line. All of the proposed annexation area is within the urban growth line. Policy AX 1.3: Areas where the availability of infrastructure alld services allows for the development of urban densities should be annexed to the City of Renton. Policy AX 2.3: Encourage annexations of areas in which the City of Renton should logically be the primary supporter of urban services. Policy AX 4.2: Areas of unincorporated King County adjacent to the City's border that are subject to high growth and development potential should be annexed to the City. The completion of the East Renton sewer interceptor will open this area to pressure from development. Although the availability of sewers will increase the pressure for development, property owners can currently develop their property, under King County regulations, using septic tanks at a density of 3 units per acre. It is important to annex these areas before development occurs. The city can insure that these developments meet our development standards for streets, parks, transportation and building standards. Policy 3.5: Annexation proposals should include areas that allow for control over land uses along major entrance corridors to the City. This annexation proposal includes the property along SE 128th (NE 4th) from the current city boundary to 152nd Ave SE. This is a major gateway to our city and should be developed to City standards. The City does not want to see a continuation of strip commercial development along SE 128th. Policy AX 4.4: Annexations of areas which lie within· existing, emerging or prospective aqUifer recharge zones that currently or potentially supply domestic water to the City should be pursued. This area lies within the City'S Aquifer Protection Zone 2. The City's policy is to require sewer service for new developments in Zone 2 rather than allow development on larger lots with septic tanks. It is in the best interest of current city residents to annex this area and control how development occurs over the aquifer. Issues At the meeting on Tuesday, September 27 at Maplewood Elementary, City staff will be available to answer questions that residents raise about how this annexation will affect them. Before agreeing to annex into the City, property owners will want to clearly understand the benefits that they will receive from annexation. Property tax rates and service levels are anticipated to be the primary areas of concern. Presentation by Bumstead Construction on their proposed development Financial impact to residents in this area if annexation occurs. Does the City Council wish to require assumption of outstanding City voter approved bonded indebtedness for newly annexed areas? Level of service and zoning issues. How City ordinances will affect this area. • Zoning • Sewers • Police and Fire Service • Transportation Improvements and Street Maintenance • Parks and Recreation Facilities • Large animals -Many residents in this area have acreage and under King County regulations are allowed to have horses on their lots. An information sheet comparing the regulations in King County and Renton for large animals is attached to this memo. This could be a major issue to residents in this area. Staff has prepared information cards on the major issues. These cards will be available to the public at Tuesday's meeting. If there are additional subjects that you feel should be addressed on information cards, please tell Sue Carlson so she can produce these for the open house. Altachments: Issue paper on large animal ordinance Adopted Annexation Policies ... :... -.', ~ ·.J .. , , .... , Outline for Committe of Whole Meeting on Annexations I. Why annexations are important -Jay Covington High priority for Council Growth Management Issues Ability to provide better, more efficient urban services Impact of areas adjacent to the City on quality of life in Renton -need to influence Financial health of City Review of annexation policies Strategies that cities can use to encourage annexations II. Introduction of Burnstead Annexation -Judy Stoloff Area to be annexed Number of acres, assessed valuation . What the Burnsteads are planning on their property III. Financial considerations -Victoria Runkle Financial impact on residents if they agree to annex into the City How will the City benefit from annexations IV. Issues relating to service -Gregg Zimmerman Sewers Aquifer Streets Zoning Large animal ordinance DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: WHAT: WHERE: WHEN: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM September 12, 1994 Gregg Zil11l1lcrnulIl Owen Dennison Ron Olson DOll Persson Lee Whcclcr Art Lnrson ROil Straka Lys Hornsby Jim Hanson Sam Chastain Jack Crumley Mcl Wilson Karl Hamilton Rcbecca Lind Victoria Runklc Darc Christensen Mike Knttcrmnn \ Clark Pctcrscn SlIe Carlson. Economic Devclopmcnt SpeCialist Annexation Open House Wcdnesday, Scptcmber 21 East Rcnton Anncxation Open House Preparation 5th Floor Conrcrencc Room 2:011 p.m. PLANNING DIVISION CITY 0"" RENTON SEP 121994 IRECE!VED This meeting will be 11 nm through or the Open House thnl will be held Oil September 27 ;:11 Maplewood Hcights. Plcase bring a list or samples or thc handouts and presentation mmerials that your dcpartmcnt will bring to the event. Iryoll cannot allcnd this prcparationmccting, plcase scnd someone in YOllr plnec. Iryou havc any qllestions, plcasc call me at ,·1,) I~. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM September 8, 1994 J Division Directors Gregg Zimmerman Bumstead Annexation PLANNIN CITYOFGADIVISIO/V . ENTON' SfP 97994 RECEIVED The Mayor's office has requested our department to provide representation and/or exhibits for the open house scheduled for September 27 on the EaSt RentonlBumstead Annexation. .... . The attached handout from Sue Carlson provides information about the annexation to include a map and suggestions on City department participation. Please determine who from your division will represent the City at this open house, and also the types of materials and approach your division will provide. I realize this is somewhat short notice, but I need your response by the 15th in order for me to respond back to the Mayor. Thank you .. City of Renton Mayor's Office Memorandum To: All Administrators From: Susan Carlson --x4419 ' Date: September 6, 1994 ~ Subject: EastRentonlBurnstead Annexation The Mayor has scheduled a community open house at Maplewood Elementary on Tuesday, September 27 from 6:30 -8:00 PM. The purpose of the open house is to give people in the East Renton annexation area an opportunity to meet with City staff and elected officials concerning the proposed annexation. The City Council and the Mayor will be attending this meeting. This is a higll priority and I would encourage you, as well as appropriate members of your staff, to attend this meeting. I envision this as a sort of trade show atmosphere with displays set up around the room , and staff answering questions on an individual'basis. There will be a short (10 minute) program at 7:00 PM to allow the Mayor and City Council members to say a few words. Please put some time and thought into your displays for this meeting. If this open house concept is successful, we will incorporate it into our formal annexation strategy. . Attached are some ideas about what information might be of interest to residents of this area and a map of the an~exation area'. These arc suggestio'ns only. If you have other ideas, please fe~l free to incorporate them into your presentation materials, There will be a meeting the' week of September 19 with all participating departments. to r,eview presentation materials. ' The open house will be held in the cafete~ia. As you probably remember from your school days, this is not the most sophisticated type of facility and support services and display 'materials 'will be minimal. If you need special equipment (easels, electrical cords, TVNideo) to make your display attractive, please call Jim Shepherd. Jim can also help with moving materials and displays to the school. His number.is 5525. He needs to hear from you by September 20. The cafeteria will be open at 5 :00 PM for set up. We will be discussing this at the EDSC meeting on Thursday morning, September 8, If you have any questions, please call me at exten,:n 4~?0:?de '?ho LV~ ct!flY'(!)q Ct, -8~ t:fJ/~/12 , cc: Mayor Clymer Jay Covington Jim Shepherd y Open H?use East Renton Annexation September 27,1994 Maplewood Elementry 6:30 -8:00 PM I. City Department Participation A. Finance: Property Tux analysis-King County, Fire District 25 Vs Renton With and without voted bond indebtedness . Affected and Unaffected taxes Computer model -Fiscal Imapct Worksheet ( have computer at meeting) State shared revenues -per capita shares B. Water\Sewer\Stonn Drainage: - Cost to hook up to sewer -fees for sew~r interceptor, LID etc. Put into format of monthly charge instead ·oflump sum City sewer and water rates-would Water District 90 continue serving area? Maintenance and upgrades to storm water system C. Fire Service - Map showing location of fire station Response time Aid units Community Services D. Police Protection - Traffic enforcemerit Neighborhood Block Watch Progralfl DARE program Number of police per 100 population Response time Animal Control and fees? E. Parks - . Chart showing fees for residents V s non-residents for pools, community center Information on Library -location of branches, number of books and services Map showing location of parks within City Color photos of parks Plans for new parks in area if annexed Senior citizen activities F. Long Range Planning- Large color map. of area with zoning clearly marked . Chart showing policies of City about multifamily locations that would support the idea of this area as single family. Map of proposed annexation area O. Public Works- Street maintenance and repairinformation Improvements planned -map Recycling programs not offered in county? Code enforcer H. Opportunities to become involved - List of Boards and commissions Volunteer opportunities Human service Access to local public officials Special events -Renton RiverDays and 4th of July l.Other Copies of Renton Report Copies of City Budget Copies of Renton River Days Report . Brochure of Renton Parks Chamber/City Brochure Guide to City Services w/ phone numbers List of City Council Members Incentive package????? ~ 'V (Cl Q) 4-' Cf: , ~ I-< :J (:C '- 4 ! ·, ... City of Renton Mayor's Office Memorandum To: All Administrators From: Susan Carlson --x4419 Date: September 6, 1994 ~ Subject: East Renton/Bumstead Annexation The Mayor has scheduled a community open house at Maplewood Elementary on Tuesday, September 27 from 6:30 -8:00 PM. The purpose of the open house is to give people in the East Renton annexation area an opportunity to meet with City staff and elected officials concerning the proposed annexation. The City Council and the Mayor will be attending this meeting. This is a high priority and I would encourage you, as well as appropriate members of your staff, to attend this meeting. I envision this as a sort of trade show atmosphere with displays set up around the room and staff answering questions on an individual basis. There will be a short (10 minute) program at 7:00 PM to allow the Mayor and City Council members to say a few words. Please put some time and thought into your displays for this meeting. If this open house concept is successful, we will incorporate it into our formal annexation strategy. Attached are some ideas about what information might be of interest to residents of this area and a map of the annexation area. These are suggestions only. If you have other ideas, please feel free to incorporate them into your presentation materials. There will be a meeting the week of September 19 with all participating departments to review presentation materials. The open house will be held in the cafeter.ia. As you probably remember from your school days, this is not the most sophisticated type of facility and support services and display materials will be minimal. If you need special equipment (easels, electrical cords, TV Nideo) to make your display attractive, please call Jim Shepherd. Jim can also help with moving materials and displays to the school. His number is 5525. He needs to hear . from you by September 20. The cafeteria will be open at 5 :00 PM for set up. We will be discussing this at the EDSC meeting on Thursday morning, September 8. If you have any questions, please call me at extension 4419 .. cc: Mayor Clymer Jay Covington Jim Shepherd , .. ~ Open House East Renton Annexation September 27, 1994 Maplewood Elementry 6:30 -8:00 PM I. City Department Participation A. Finance: Property Tax analysis -King County, Fire District 25 Vs Renton With and without voted bond indebtedness Affected and Unaffected taxes COmPuter model -Fiscal Imapct Worksheet ( have computer at meeting) State shared revenues -per capita shares B. Water\Sewer\Storm Drainage: - Cost to hook up to sewer -fees for sewer interceptor, LID etc. Put into format of monthly charge instead of lump sum City sewer and water rates -would Water District 90 continue serving area? Maintenance and upgrades to storm water system C. Fire Service - Map showing location of fire station Response time Aid units Community Services D. Police Protection - Traffic enforcement Neighborhood Block Watch Program DARE program Number of police per 100 population Response time Animal Control and fees? E. Parks- Chart showing fees for residents V s non-residents for pools, community center Information on Library -location of branches, number of books and services Map showing location of parks within City Color photos of parks Plans for new parks in area if annexed Senior citizen activities .d: yK~of.)f±' vJ/~ 6Jf~~~~5 cJ·wull ~ F. Long Range Planning -Q;,...~ Large color map of area with zoning clearly marked Chart showing policies of City about mul1jfamily locations that would support the idea of this area as single family Map of proposed annexation area G. Public Works - Street maintenance and repair information Improvements planned -map Recycling programs not offered in county? Code enforcer H. Opportunities to become involved - List of Boards and commissions Volunteer opportunities Human service Access to local public officials Special events -Renton River Days and 4th of July 1. Other Copies of Renton Report Copies of City Budget Copies of Renton River Days Report· Brochure of Renton Parks Chamber/City Brochure Guide to City Services w/ phone numbers List of City Council Members Incentive package????? -" I n ~ ~ II JS "'",691 "' ~I JS ~, "'" II JS .. , "'" I )S r.i "1>" )\ / 1-, l> ' ,=- 1 1--1------11---h-,I- f" C r -:l ,I;> I , i~ '. """"'.' '." .'_ ...... -'_", , ........ _ ... , •• U'"l_'" _ .... r' , ,_ .... :( ( ~~ '( ( ~ Herman, RecOI~ Kaufman & Simmerly 51 ,ph ... T •• >.r;.kj ~ f. C".>ld Hem.a. Ruben B •. Ia,·klon Robert C. iUurlllJo' SIt'<tn P. Realt Prul E. Simmerly l1,omuO. ~mJon.lJ'O Ms. Carol R. Campbell, Chair ATTORNeYS AT LAW August 22, 1994 Vashon Island Committee for Self-Government P.O. Box 2194 Vashon Island, WA 98070 Re: proposed Ineomorntion of the Citv of Vashon Island Dear Ms. Campbell: 900 ."u emit< s.u..~. ;oo·IOSth A.et\1l~ ~oru...st B.n" .... lI'ashinCl'. !18004 Facsimile: ao5l451·16t!l Telepto.e: (1(16) 451·1100 I write to you in my capacity as Special Assistant Attorney General for the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County. On March 23, 1994, the Board received under cover of your letter dated March 22. 1994 a Notice ofIntent for the proposed incorporation of Vashon Island. Included in that submittal was a statement of your committee's plan to petition the King County Council for funding of an incorporation study. As you may be aware ITom conversations with Board staff, Board rules comain a detailed Notice oflntention format for incorporation proposals. In order for a Notice of Intent ofa proposed incorporation to be legally sufficient, the notice must comply with Board rules_ In the case of incorporations. the rules require very specific financial and other data for the Board's determin!tion of the feasibility ofa new city. In lieu of providing $pecific infonnalioJ1,.proponent~ of an incorporation may provide the Board \vith assurances that a study wil! be conducted and made a part of the Notice onnlent. As oflhis writing. no study has been conducted, the information required by the Board's Notice of Intention format has nOt been submitted, and the Board does not have a legally sufficient filing in lhis mailer. After lengthy research and review. I have advised the Board (and the Board has accepted my opinion) that it is legally impossible to incorporate Vashon Island under existing law. Accordingly. the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County is returning your Notice of Intent without action. Your letter of March 22, 1994 recognizes the requirements of the Growth Management EXHIBIT~6_ par.r ..J., OF :l Ms. Carol R. Canlpb~lI, Chair August 19, 1994 Page - 2 r.,:.· ~ ( Act. As you know, R.C.W. 35A. 14. 110 mandates rhe creation of "urban growth areas". In a subsequent legislative session, that statute was amended and imposed upon counties the duty to adopt regulations designating interim urban growth areas. The statutory scheme does not distinguish "urban growth areas" from "interim urban growth areas". As you are also aware, the King County Counsel adopted Ordinance 11110 on November S, 1993. The preamble to this ordinance specifies that it is adopted for the purpose of meeting the Growth Management Act's requirement that counties designate interim urban growth areas. Ordinance 11110 excludes all of Vashon Island from any interim urban growth area. On April I, 1994, the legislature adopted Substitute House Bill 21,76. This bill amends R.C.W. 36.93.150 and imposes an affirmative duty upon Boundary Review Boards to remove territory from proposed incorporations falling outside urban growth areas. This duty imposed is mandatory and not discretionary, and in this case the Board is required to exclude the entirety of Vashon Island from the proposed incorporation. The Board i~ prohibited by law from approving the incorporation, and an incorporation study and public hearing before the.Boundary Review Board, under these circumstances, would be a fruitless use of public IUnds. If you have any questions about any orlhe information contained in this leIter, please do not hesitate to contact me. RCKJIsv cc: .-\.1. Culver, Chair • .''1 very truly. yours, .... /. ) .... i ~ ..• _// ~/' .' -/ /:'/i/~~ "" ". ...-. 0/ . ..:.-...... , .. R:bert·C. Kaufman j" . Special Assistant Att6mey General AIda H. Wilkinson, Executive Secretary Honorable Kent Pullen, Chair, Metropolitan King County Council Honorable Greg Nickels, King County Council person Gary Locke, King County Executive Jim Brewer, Legal Counsel, King Coumy Council EXHIBIT 6 PAGE .1 Of.2 ~ .... "" , '" ,. BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION Fire Districts EXHIBIT E CITY OF RENTON PWINING/BUlLDING/PUBlJC WORKS O.DeDDlaon lUlacOn1e, D.Vlaneald 20 April 1eeD o 1500 3000 ~I~~~:~~~I 1 :18000 ---- Fire DIstrIcts #25 at #'0 Boundary Renton CIty LImIts at Boundary for Renton Emergency Response Zones Proposed AnnexatIon Area ---- o I BV-qNSTEAD ANNEY ~.TION SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARY EXHIBIT E School District Boundary Renton City Limits . iiiiii~1 ~00_0~~2~000 '= I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/lIUILDING/PUBIJC WORD o .Desmiaol1 R.MacOnle, D.VisIleaki 20 April 1995 ---- o I B1T-qNSTEAD ANNE~T\TION Water Districts EXHIBIT E Proposed Annexation Area City Limits & Water District Boundary 1000 2000 ! I I 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBIJC '-ORIC O.DeDDiaoD R.MaoDDle. D.VilIDeIJd 20 April 1995 EXIDBITF MAP OF THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS SHOWING THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES 1URNSTEAD ANNEXA'" ,)N CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC O.Dennison R.MacOnie, D.Visneski 20 April 1995 VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT F WORKS o I ____ Renton City Limits __ Proposed Annexation 4000 . : 1 :48,000 8000 I EXHIBITG CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSNE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BU"O,NSTEAD ANNEY 4"TION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP EXHIBIT G ,,,,,,,,,1 Residential Rural 1::::::::::1 Residential Single Famny Residential Options Residential Planned Neighborhood Residential Multi-Family Infill li!:mmii Center Suburban Proposed Annexation Area ----Renton City Limits o , 10,00 20,00 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBUC WORKS O.Dennison R.MaoOnie. D.Vlaneald 20 April 1995 EXHIBITH CITY OF RENTON PROPOSED ZONING BPD,NSTEAD ANNEY ~.TION PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON ZONING EXHIBIT H 1::::::::::1 Residential - 5 dulac 1;:::::::::1 Residential 8 dulac ii;::;:::::1 Residential -10 dulac Proposed Annexation Area ----Renton City Limits o 1000 2000 ~I~~I~I I 1:12000 CTY OF RENTON Pl..Al+lNGIBl.I.DNGIPUII.IC WORKS O.Domloan R. MaoCWe, D. 'IIIMUI 20 Apri 1995 EXHIBIT I WHITE FENCE RANCH SUBDMSION LEITER " . K1ngcoun~' Planning lind Conlntunl~r De\'clopmcn, Dhi.lon P..,kJi. Planning nnd Rc:;mu'C'CS Dcp.,rrmcnt Smith Tower Building 506 Second Avenue Room 101 Seattle. WA 98104 (206) 296-8650 January 26, 1995 _/.:llhie{~. Kattermann, Oi~ector, Planning and City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 AICP Technical Services RE: White Fence Ranch Subdivision Dear Mr. Kattermann: Thank you for your January 9, 1995 letter requesting clarification on whether the subdivision of White Fence Ranch was included in the County's Urban Growth Boundary. The White Fence Ranch ~ included in the Urban Area when the King County Council adopted the revised King County Comprehensive Plan (KCCP) in December 1994. You are correct, however, that when the Council adopted the map designating the Urban Growth Area (UGA) for the Countywide Planning Policies, it does not show the White Fence Ranch within the Urban Growth Boundary. This error will be corrected. This should not affect the proposed annexation of this area to the City of Renton, since the KCCP map designates this area as Urban, and the KCCP designates the final UGA. When Carol Lumb, from Community Planning, talked with you earlier this week about the White Fence Ranch, you also asked whether Briarwood Elementary School had been included in the UGA. This area was not included in the Urban Area either by the Countywide Planning Policies or the KCCP. The school is located in a larger area which was one of the Technical Review Areas (area R-l) designated for additional study by the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) before a final recommendation was made on whether to designate it Urban or Rural. Most of that area was eventually designated as Urban by the GMPC when it adopted the Countywide Planning Policies in June 1993. The Briarwood Elementary School, and the area north of it to Southeast 128th, was designated Rural. When the GMPC reviewed the Joint Planning Areas Report in September 1994, the remainder of the Briarwood Technical Review Area was not one of the areas identified by Renton or the County as one where there was disagreement on the Rural "MANAGING CHANGE TO BUILO BETTER COMMUNITIES" Michael D. Kattermarll', AICP January 26, 1995 Page 2 designation. As a result, the Rural designation was carried forward in the KCCP's map and the Countywide Planning Policies map. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please call me at 296-8658. Sincerely, , , , (--./ . ~ --.-. Jim Reid ~nager JR:cpl ADH3. PMl cc: Paul Reitenbach, Chief, Community Planning Section ATTN: Carol Lumb, Community Planner EXHIBITJ TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPOSED BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION BP~NSTEAD ANNE:V~TION ---- Topography EXHIBIT J Proposed Annexation Area Renton City limits O.~I ~~1~1~0!00 20100 1:12000 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING /pUBUC WORKS O.Denni8on R.WacOnie. D.ViBne8k1 20 April 1995 CITltOF RENTON May 3, 1995 State of Washington Boundary Review Board for King County 3600 -136th S.E., Suite 122 Bellevue, W A 98006 Mayor Earl Clymer Subject: NOTICE OF INTENTION TO EXPAND THE CITY OF RENTON CORPORATE LIMITS BY ANNEXATION Dear Board Members: As required by Chapter 36.93 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), the City of Renton hereby gives notice of intention to annex territory hereafter referred to as the "Bumstead Annexation". This annexation is proposed under the 60% petition method in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 35A.14 of the RCW. -The petition contains signatures representing about 62.4% of the total 1995 assessed valuation within the proposed annexation area. This annexation would incorporate into the City of Renton approximately 402.9 acres of territory for the provision of sru.itary sewer and other urban level services. To assist in your consideration of the proposed action, the required articles and exhibits are attached and numbered in accordance with the Board's suggested fonnat. The enclosed exhibits are identified in the sequence in which they appear in the text. Should questions arise during the re.view of the infonnation and exhibits provided with this Notice - of Intention to Annex, please feel free to contact Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, at 277-2475 . . Please send notices and oilier communications regarding the proposed annexation to: . Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner Department ofPlanninglBuildinglPublic Works City of Renton - 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Js~ -Mayor 200 Mill Avenue South -Renton, Washington 98055 -(206)235-2580/ FAX(206)235-2532 . ® This paper contains 50% recycled material. 25% DOsl consumer NOTICE OF INTENTION I. BACKGROUNDIMAPS 1. The description or and reason ror seeking the proposed action: The annexation of approximately 402.9 acres to the City of Renton was initiated by the owner of about 64 acres to secure sanitary sewer service for future residential development. Other proponents seek local governance and urban level services for existing and future development. The annexation was initiated through the 60 % Direct Petition method under RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140, and 150. The proposed annexation area is located in the SE 114 of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the SW 114 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, the NW 114 and SW 114 of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, and the NE 114 and SE 114 of Section IS, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The area is generally situated north and south of SE 128th Street, between l40th Avenue SE and one lot line east of 156th Avenue SE. 2. Enclosed are copies or the rollowing actions taken by the City Council of Renton: A. Exhibit A: B. Exhibit B: Minutes of the November 14, 1994, meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the Bumstead 10% Notice of Intent to annex petition and authorizing the circulation of the 60% Petition to Annex. Minutes of the April 10, 1995, meeting of the Renton City Council accepting the 60% Petition to Annex and declaring the City's intent to annex the area, subject to the actions of the Boundary Review Board. 3. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.222, annexations are exempt rrom SEPA. 4. The Legal Description of the proposed annexation boundaries is enclosed as Exhibit C. 5. The following maps are enclosed: A. Exhibit D: King County Assessor's maps (three sets) displaying: 1) The proposed Bumstead Annexation boundary. 2) The size in acres. 3) The City of Renton corporate limits in relationship to the proposed Bumstead Annexation. 4) The location of the nearest service points for the required utility services to the area. --" ---------------------- • . Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 2 B. C. Exhibit E: Vicinity maps displaying: 1) The proposed Bumstead Annexation boundary. 2) The size of the proposed annexation in acres. 3) The City of Renton existing corporate limits relative to the proposed annexation area. 4) All major streets and other major physical features. 5) The boundaries of all cities or special service districts having jurisdiction in or near the proposal. NOTES: The City and County library service area boundaries correspond to the City's corporate boundary. Water District 90 has a wastewater comprehensive plan, prepared in 1970 but never implemented. 6) King County and City of Renton Urban Growth Area boundaries established under the Growth Management Act. Exhibit F: A map of the current City of Renton corporate limits upon which the proposed Burnstead Annexation boundaries have been delineated. D. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J: City of Renton Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations City of Renton Proposed Zoning White Fence Ranch Subdivision Letter from King County Topography II. FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER 1. Overview A. The estimated population of the proposed Annexation area is 473. This figure represents 1.07% of the City's estimated 1995 population of 43,970. (Washington State Office of Financial Management) B. The proposed annexation area includes approximately 402.9 acres . Washington State Boundary k.. .• ew Board Bumstead Annexation Page 3 C. The population density of the proposed Annexation area is about 1.2 residents per acre. The dwelling unit density is currently about .4 units per gross acre (total acreage). D. The 1995 assessed value of both land and improvements within the proposed annexation area is $27,373,850. 2. Land Use A. Existing land uses include single family homes, several local market area retail businesses, a public elementary school, livestock raising and vacant land. Existing residential uses occur both at urban densities and on large lots. Some accessory agricultural and commercial uses accompany the large lot residential development. B. Future land uses allowed under the proposed zoning designations are residential, with maximum densities of five (5), eight (8) and ten (10) units per net acre, and public uses. The City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Residential Rural, Residential Single Family and Residential Options. (Exhibit G, City of Renton Land Use Designations) Consistent with these designations, proposed zoning for the site includes Residential - 5 Units per Acre (R-l), Residential - 8 Units per Acre (R-8) and Residential -10 Units per Acre. (Exhibit H, City of Renton Proposed Zoning) No specific development applications accompany the Bumstead Annexation. 3. Comprehensive PlanslFranchises A. King County Comprehensive Plan/Ordinances 1) County Planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA): Among other requirements, counties that plan under the Act must: a) adopt a countywide planning policy; b) designate urban growth areas; c) designate and adopt development regulations to protect critical areas; and,d) adopt a comprehensive plan. (RCW 36.70A.04O) a) King County's Countywide Planning Policies state: ·In collaboration with ... King County .. , each city shall designate a potential annexation area.· (LU-31) ·Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services.· (LU-33) ·Cities are the appropriate providers of local urban services to urban areas either directly or by contract.· (FW -13) Washington State BoundaJy Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 4 "In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban water and sewer systems ... shall be required for new subdivisions." (CO-I0) b) Urban Growth Area: The proposed annexation is within the Urban Growth Area as directed by the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Policies and as identified in the King County Comprehensive Plan. (see Exhibit E) That portion of the proposed Annexation area in the SW 114 of Section II, Township 23 North, Range 5 East was not designated as an Urban Growth Area (UGA) under King County Ordinance 11446 which established the "framework" UGA, but was added with the adoption of Ordinance 11581 which established the current UGA. Clarification of the extent of the area included in the revision to the UGA was provided in a letter from the King County Planning and Community Development Division. (Exhibit I, White Fence Ranch Subdivision Letter) c) The King County Sensitive Area Maps Folio identifies two wetlands, 150 and 22b, and a length of an unnamed stream within the subject area. No geological hazards, erosion, landslide, seismic or coal mine, are mapped for the proposed Annexation area. d) The King County Comprehensive Plan is addressed below. 2) King County Comprehensive Plan/Ordinances The following adopted King County Comprehensive Plan policies specifically support the proposed annexation: Chapter Two. Urban Areas. Section n.B. Directing Growth to Cities and Urban Areas U-202 King County should encourage most population and employment growth to locate in the contiguous Urban Growth Area in western King County, especially in cities and their potential annexation areas. Annexation would allow the provision of sanitary sewer service, which would enable development to occur at density consistent with the County's growth management goals. Chapter Two. Urban Areas. Section III.A. Planning with King County's Cities for Future Annexation U-301 King County should work with cities to focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should support annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. Washington State Boundary Re .. ew Board Bumstead Annexation Page S U -304 King County should support annexation proposals when: a. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan; b. The proposed area is wholly within the Urban Growth _ Area and within the city's designated Potential Annexation Area (for annexations); c. The city is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and King County land use plans; and, d. Adopted Countywide goals and policies for urban services, environmental and cultural resource protection will be supported. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan. The area proposed for annexation is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within Renton's Potential Annexation Area. The City of Renton is planning for urban densities and efficient land use patterns, consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and King County Land Use Plans. City of Renton Comprehensive Plan policies and the City's -development regulations support the Countywide goals and policies for urban services and environmental and cultural resource protection. Chapter Two. Urban Areas. Section V.B, Residential Growth Patterns U-501: King County should encourage new residential development to occur in Urban Growth Area locations where facilities and services can be provided at the lowest public cost and in a timely fashion. The City of Renton can provide sanitary sewer service in the timeliest fashion and at the lowest public cost. By allowing sewer service, annexation would increase the portion of the Urban Growth Area where new residential development can occur. Chapter Eight. Facilities and Services. Section n.B.3. Resolving Service Deficiencies F-212 Joint plans for Service Planning Areas shall include a strategy which will resolve facility and service deficiencies within 10 years. The proposed annexation is mapped as a Service Planning Area. Sanitary sewer deficiencies in the area could be resolved upon annexation. 3) The adopted Newcastle Community Plan governs this proposal. Washington State BoundaIy Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 6 4) The adopted Comprehensive Plan designations for the proposed annexation are Urban Growth Area and Service Planning Area. The following table shows adopted King County Zoning and the number of lots permitted under each zone: Adopted County Zoning Maximum permitted lots· * ** *** R-4 1,232 lots R-12 4 lots R-18 138 units NB 16 units·· CB 7S units •• Total 1 46S lots--- Units are substituted for lots where residential development may be multi-family. Densities allowed through the application of mixed-use development standards. Calculations reflect base densities. Transfer of density credits and density incentives would allow 2,187 total units. Calculations do not account for potential environmental constraints. 5) The annexation would result in King County ordinances and regulations being supplanted with those of the City of Renton. The primary ordinances directly affecting the development of the site are the City's zoning and building codes. a) The King County SewerlWater Comprehensive Plan. King County Code Chapter 13.24, Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plans, sets the requirements for comprehensive plans of water and sewer districts serving within the County's jurisdiction. The City of Renton has no comparable ordinance, since the City is generally capable of providing a full range of urban services. If service provision within the city limits by an outside agency is necessary, the arrangement is governed by a franchise agreement. The Comprehensive Water System Plan (adopted by Resolution 2897, 1992) is the functional plan that direct the maintenance, operation and development of the City's water utility system. Water' System Plan Annexation Policies state, • Areas annexed with existing municipal supply must meet Renton Water Standards .• b) The King County Sewerage General Plan. Renton's Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (adopted by Resolution 2892, 1992), would supplant the King County Sewerage General Plan. This functional plan directs the maintenance, operation and development of the City's sanitary Washington State Boundary kc>'iew Board Bumstead Annexation Page 7 sewer utility system. The proposed Annexation area is outside of an active wastewater service area. Upon annexation, the area would be included in the City of Renton's Wastewater Utility Service Area and governed by the policies of the Wastewater General Plan. c) The proposed annexation area is not within any of the seven Agricultural districts described in King County Ordinance 3064, nor does· it meet the criteria required for acquisition of interest in farmlands and open space lands in Ordinance 4341. The City of Renton does not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights. d) The King County Sensitive Area Maps Folio identifies two wetlands, 150 and 22b, and a length of an unnamed stream within the subject area. No geological hazards, erosion, landslide, seismic or coal mine, are mapped for the proposed Annexation area. The wetlands are documented in the City'S Critical Areas Inventory (Jones and Stokes, 1991; GEO Engineers, 1991; David Evans and Associates, 1991; HDR, 1991) One wetland, the east fork of Maplewood Creek and an unnamed stream are mapped within the proposed Annexation boundaries in the King County Cedar River Basin Plan Conditions Report. Critical areas are protected under Renton's Critical and Resource Areas Ordinances which would supplant King County Ordinance 4365. City sensitive area regulations are as follows: Greenbelt Regulations CRMC 4-31-35) adopts King County Sensitive Areas Folio, by reference, and provides critical area protections in addition to the regulations of the underlying zones. Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance CRMC 4-9) regulates land clearing, tree cutting and ground cover management in the vicinity of wetlands and State shorelines, on steep slopes and erosion hazard areas, and along riparian corridors. Mjning. Excavation and Grading Ordinance CRMC +to> provides regulations designed to minimize the detrimental environmental impacts of mining, excavation and grading activities. Flood Harards (RMC +31-30 regulates development in flood hazard areas identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Environmental Ordinance CRMC ~ requires disclosure of and mitigation measures for detrimental environmental impacts which might result from proposed project and non-project land use actions (pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C.120). Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 8 Shoreline Master Program CRMC 4-19-1> is a general, comprehensive and long range plan to regulate construction and land use along shorelines of local and state-wide significance (pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58). Wetlands Management Ordinance CRMC 4-32) is designed to protect and maintain existing wetlands and wetland buffers and to encourage restoration of disturbed and low quality wetlands. Aquifer Protection Ordinance CRMC 8-8) provides protection of the City's potable water aquifers from contamination by regulated substances. (The preceding Renton Critical and Resource Area Ordinances are available on request.) . e) No landmarks or sites of historical significance are mapped for the site in the Newcastle Community Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-345 states, "Officially designated historical sites should be preserved and/or incorporated into all development projects. " f) The City of Renton has adopted the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual by reference in the City's Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance (RMC 4-22) as the design standard for controlling erosion and stormwater runoff for all new development within the City limits. Any future development within the annexation area will be required 10 comply with the surface water controls and design standards contained in the Design Manual. (The City of Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance is available on request.) B. City of Renton Comprehensive PlanlFranchise 1) City Planning Under the Growth Management Act (GMA) The City of Renton is required to plan under RCW 36.70A.04O. In conformance with the requirements of the GMA, the City has designated critical areas and adopted development regulations protecting these designated critical areas. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.06O(4), since the City of Renton doeS not have a program authorizing transfer or purchase of development rights, forest and agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance are not designated nor specifically conserved through development regulations. Certain critical' areas are mapped for the proposed annexation area as noted in Section 3.A.5.d of this Notice of Intention. As a city planning under the GMA, the City of Renton is required to adopt a comprehensive plan. The City'S Comprehensive Plan was adopted on February 20, 1995. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Washington State Boundaty ReVIew Board Bumstead Annexation Page 9 designates land uses for all areas within the City's Potential Annexation Area. (see Exhibit G, City of Renton Land Use Designations) 2) The proposal is not specifically addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, but is generally consistent with the policies. Discussion of adopted Comprehensive Plan policies relating to the proposal follows. The proposal is consistent with the Interim Land Use Element policies of the Comprehensive Plan that support annexation of lands within Renton's Urban Growth Boundary: • that are vacant and subject to development pressure (AX-l.4); • that are available for urbanization under county comprehensive planning, zoning, and subdivision regulations (AX-l.4); • for which the City of Renton should logically be the primary provider of urban infrastructure and services (AX -2.2); • that include environmentally sensitive areas and vacant land where future development could adversely influence the environmental character of Renton (AX-4.1); • that are adjacent to the City's border and are subject to high growth pressure (AX-4.2); • that lead to the efficient provision of services to the City, such as police, fire, water, sewer, and transportation (AX-s.l); and, • that are in existing, emerging or prospective aquifer recharge areas that currently or potentially supply domestic water to the City (AX-l.4, AX-4.4». The proposal is also supported by Policy AX-4.3, which states, "Water resources should be protected to assure continued long-term, high quality groundwater and surface water supplies." The City'S best option for minimizing risk to the aquifer is to ensure sanitary sewer availability to the area through annexation. Policy AX -3.3 states: "Logical boundaries for the City of Renton should be made with new annexations. Logical jurisdiction boundaries of a city are defined by two components: 1) physical features, such as a ridge, watershed, or lake, as well as urban elements, such as a road; and, 2) , the timing for the provision of public services. Timing for the availability of public facilities and services must be used to evaluate whether boundaries created by an annexation' are logic8I at the time of application. " The proposed. boundaries generally follow existing roadways where available and where the use of streets as physical boundaries could be supported by expressed interest in annexation to the City of Renton. Upon annexation, urban level public services would be available to the area. Policy AX-3.6states that, "Boundaries of individual annexations will not be reconsidered to exclude reluctant property owners if their exclusion is Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 10 inconsistent with annexation policies that address land use, environmental protection, and the efficient delivery of services." Areas excluded do not create boundaries that are inconsistent with annexation policies that address land use, environmental protection or the efficient delivery of services. No amendments to the adopted map or policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan are necessitated by this proposal. 3) The State has reviewed Renton's Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the provisions of the Growth Management Act. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted on February 20, 1995. 4) Since the proposed annexation area is not currently provided with sanitary sewer service by Water District 90, sewer service will not require a franchise. The City of Renton would become the sanitary sewer service provider. 5) The area has not been the subject of a pre-Annexation Zoning Agreement. 6) Areas of the proposed Annexation are designated Residential Rural, Residential Single Family and Residential Options in the City'S Comprehensive Plan. (Exhibit G, City of Renton Land Use Designations) The City's Zoning Code was adopted June, 1993. 4. Planning data A. RevenueslExpenditures This analysis identifies the General Fund revenues and costs associat~ with annexing these areas as they are currently developed, as well as estimating the annual fiscal impact of their full development at some undetermined point in the future. The "full development" scenarios for area should be considered "order of magnitude" estimates of fiscal impact. All assumptions regarding revenues and costs are based on existing standards or other comparable data, but actual results are likely to vary from these estimates. In general, costs associated with utilities have been assumed to be supported by rateS charged for those services. 1) Estimated City Expenditures Bumstead Current Full Annexation Development Development County Contracts $ 8,105 $ 45751 Police Protection $ 64 280 $ 329127 Parks N/A $ 192935 Road Maintenance $ $25635 $ 76,904 Public $ 66,465 $ 374,907 Works/Courts/Other Total $ 164,484 $ 1019624 Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 11 2) Estimated City Revenues to be Gained Bumstead Current Full Annexation Development Development Property Taxes $ 86 656 $ 702287 Excess Levy Revenue $ 8964 $ 72 650 State Shared Revenues $ 28,068 $ 158435 Misc. Revenues $ 8213 $ 192312 Total $ 131901 $ 1125685 The net fmancial impact to the City would be an annual loss of $32,584 at current development and an annual surplus of $106,061 at full development. 3) The estimated reduction in County revenues would be $90,789.80 (property tax and excess levy revenues). 4) The estimated reduction in County expenditures is assumed to be comparable to or greater than the estimated reduction in County expenditures. 5) The estimated reduction in revenues to Fire District 10 is $452.69. The estimated reduction in revenues to Fire District 25 is $40,484.64. 6) The estimated reduction in expenditures to Fire District 10 is negligible. Fire District 25 contracts with the City of Renton for the provision of fire services. The revenue loss to Fire District 25 would be deducted from the cost of the contract for services with the City of Renton. B. Services 1) Water Service The proposed annexation is' within King County Water District 90' s service area. The following information was taken from the District's 1984 Comprehensive Water Plan. a) The area will continue to be served by Water District 90. A service agreement will be required. b) Water District 90 has six storage facilities that could serve the proposed Annexation. Reservoir # 1 is located at SE 136th Street and 184th Avenue SE, with a nominal gross capacity of 4,750,000 gallons. Minimum usable capacity in the 645 Zone is 2,569,300 gallons. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 12 Reservoir #2 is located at SE 195th Street and 145th Avenue SE, with a nominal gross capacity of 2,000,000 gallons. Minimum usable capacity in the 645 Zone is 1,586,700 gallons. Emergency capacity exists in five reservoirs serving higher pressure zones, ranging from 30,000 to 200,000 gallons. Nominal gross capacity in these facilities total 490,000 gallons. c) The area is served by the following mains: Twelve (2) inch mains follow: SE 128th Street; SE 136th Street (if extended) between 148th Avenue SE and 152nd Avenue SE; and, 148th Avenue SE south of SE 128th Avenue. Eight (8) inch mains follow: 142 Avenue SE; 146th Avenue SE south of SE 132nd Street; and, 148th Avenue north of SE 128th Street. Remaining mains are four (4) or six (~) inch in diameter. d) The proposed Annexation area is in both 645 and 520 pressure zones. The 645 Zone is supplied by storage facilities with a 645 foot overflow. Four (4) pressure reducing stations feed water from the 645 Zone into this 520 Zone. Location Pressure In Pressure Out (pSI) (pSI) SE 136th St. and 152nd Ave. SE 120 52 SE 136th St. and l60th Ave. SE 85 38 SE 144th St. and 171st Ave. SE 85 52 SE 136th St. and 144th Ave. SE 110 75 e) The potential residential capacity allowed under existing King County zoning is similar or greater than that achievable under the . proposed City of Renton zoning. Therefore, the ability to serve potential future development will not be affected by the change in jurisdiction. f) The exclusive source for Water District 90 is the Seattle Water Department. Water comes from the Tolt and Cedar Rivers' watersheds. Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 13 g) According to Water District 90' s 1984 Comprehensive Water Plan, extensions are typically financed by ULID and developer extension. Revenue bonds should finance facilities that have a useful life of over twenty (20) years and that benefit the overall District. When portions of these facilities serve a new area, the proportional share of the cost should be assessed to the property owners in the new areas. 2) Sanitary Sewer Service a) Sewer service would be directly provided to the proposed Annexation by the City of Renton. b) The East Renton Sewer Interceptor will be completed during the second quarter of 1995. The main is sized to serve an area that includes the proposed Annexation, with an inside diameter of 22.5 inches. The City will build the Interceptor to the intersection of NE Fourth Street (SE 128th Street). New facilities to directly serve the area will be installed by developer extension or by local improvement district. c) Due to the topography and the location of the Interceptor, lift stations will be required for some portions of the subject area. d) Sewage disposal will be through METRO's treatment facilities. e) Upon completion of the East Renton Sewer Interceptor, the Renton Wastewater Utility system will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed annexation. 3) Fire Service a) The nearest station would be Station #16 located at 156th Avenue SE and SE 128th Street. b) Response time to any point within the proposed Annexation area would vary from one to two minutes. c) Station #16 is fully manned, with a staff of fifteen. Three firefighters are on duty per shift. The Department is staffed by 107 personnel. d) Major equipment located at Station #16 would include two 1,500 gallon per minute pumpers, one 100 foot aerial ladder truck, and one aid car. e) There are 90 fully certified EMT-Defib personnel. t) Renton' s fir~ rating is Four, as determined by the Washington State Survey and Rating Bureau. Washington State Bouncla!y Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 14 g) Valley Communication 911 service is the source of emergency vehicle/aid dispatch. 5) General A) City of Renton services have not been extended to the area from the City of Renton. Therefore no annexation agreements have been required. B) The site slopes graduaUy, generaUy northeast to southwest. The northeast portion of the area is on the divide between the May Creek and Cedar River drainage basins. (Exhibit 1, Topography) No steep slopes are mapped in the King County Sensitive Area Folio or the City of Renton Critical Area Inventory. The limits of the proposed annexation are not defined by natural boundaries. c) Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 160, 161 and 162 that include the area proposed for annexation currently contain approximately 765 single family units and 5 multi-family units. City modeling of growth allocations from the Puget Sound Regional Council projeets a combined increase of about 218 new single family units for the TAZs over twenty years. Figures for the ten year interval have not been calculated. Note: The TAZ figures above are for Growth Management purposes. Actual development is anticipated to be higher. TAZ allocations have not been recalculated subsequent to the redesignation to Urban Growth Area of that portion of the proposed Annexation in the SW 114 of Section 11, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. d) With the change in jurisdiction from King County to City of Renton, the residents of the area would receive access to other City services aside from fire protection and wastewater service. These would include parks, library, police, development planning, judicial, surface water, solid waste, transportation and housing and human services. e) No delays are expected in implementing service delivery to the area. All City departments reviewing the annexation proposal indicated that they would be able to adequately serve existing and future development on the area. 1) Present adequacy of service to the area: Existing services to the area appear to be adequate with several exceptions. Sanitary sewer service is currently unavailable. Indications of problems with existing septic systems in the area have been noted by residents. Development at the densities allowed and required under existing King County zoning may not Washington State Boundary Review Board Bumstead Annexation " " ~ Page 15 be achievable without sewer service. Additionally, existing and future development on septic systems may pose a threat to the City's sole source aquifer. County police services have deteriorated, according to a Staff Report to the King County Council Law, Justice and Human Services Committee dated March 6, 1995. Citing a 29% increase in dispatched calls per reactive patrol officer from 1990 to 1994, the Report states, "Reactive patrol staffing has been stretched thin in urban, suburban and rural unincorporated King County. " Development will increase the demand for services for which the City is the logical provider. The total cost of service to the area will increase with population, although the per capita cost will decrease. Costs should be offset by increased property tax revenues. The cost of infrastructure improvements within the area would be borne by developers and local improvement districts. Future rate increases for City utilities must be approved by the City Council. Rates may be affected by external factors, such as increases in tipping fees for solid waste and in METRO charges for sewage treatment. Rate increases for water service will be established by Water District 90 Annexation would allow the. City of Renton to supplant all existing sources for urban services except water service. Water District 90 has had a comprehensive plan for sanitary sewer provision since 1970 but has not chosen to implement the plan. g) The required filing fee of $50.00 is enclosed. m. OBJECTIVES 1) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. The area is generally comprised of large underdeveloped lots and pockets of development at urban densities. Existing residential subdivisions have been included or excluded in their entirety. 2) Use of physical boundaries, Including but not limited to bodies or water, highways and land contours. The area has no recognizable topographic or major hydrologic features. Where possible, road rights-of-way have been used to identify boundaries. 3) Creation and preservation or logical service areas. The proposed annexation would extend a sanitary sewer service to an area currently both unserved and outside of an active sewer district. City emergency response functions can logically extend to and efficiently serve the area. Washington State Boundaty Review Board Bumstead Annexation Page 16 4) Prevention or abnormally irregular boundaries. The proposal does not create islands or peninsulas of unincorporated County lands. Increased contiguity could not be achieved due to insufficient support for annexation in areas west of the proposed boundaries. 5) Discouragement or multiple incorporations or small cities and encouragement or incorporation or cities in excess or ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. Not applicable. 6) Dissolution or inactive special purpose districts. The proposal would not dissolve special purpose districts, but it would permit sanitary sewer service where service is currently unavailable. 7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries. The proposal neither creates nor improves impractical boundaries. 8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns or unincorporated areas which are urban in character The King County Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Urban. According to the Countywide Planning Policies, Urban Growth Areas are expected to develop to urban densities and on urban level services. Portions of the proposed Annexation area are currently developed at urban densities. Other portions appear to be subject to development pressures, largely constrained by the lack of urban services. Development, as envisioned in County plans is not likely to occur until sewers are available. Annexation would thus implement the Countywide Planning Policies and the policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan by allowing urban development to occur. 9) Protection or agricultural and rural lands which are designated ror long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. Not applicable. No portions of the proposed Annexation area have been identified by King County or the City of Renton for long-term productive agricultural or resource use. EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL HEARING 10% NOTICE OF INTENT TO ANNEX NOVEMBER 14, 1994, MINUTES November 14. 1994 Renton City Council Minutes Page 468 School District does not appear to be prohibited from signing the 60% petition. Mr. Stredicke felt that owners of smaller properties should not, against their will, be forced to annex because of the annexation of larger ~eighboring properties. Correspondence was read from Alan L. Wallace, Caimcross &. Hempelmann, 701 Fifth Ave., Seattle, 9SI04, representing Jack and Mardell Morrison, requesting that Council include in the proposed annexation area the Morrison and Ribera properties located north of SE 128th St. and east of 150th Ave. SE. Correspondence was read from Agnes and Gerald Pomeroy, 1847 -26th Ave. NW, Olympia, 98502, reQuestins annexation of their property located at I S6th Ave. SE and SE 132nd St. and supporting the installation of sewers in this area. Correspondence was read from Howard V. Banasky, 1401 N. 26th St., Renton, 980S6, commenting on traffic concerns in this area and stating that he did not support the annexation· of his property, located at 142nd Ave. SE and SE 128th St., ~nless it is zoned for business/commercial use. Correspondence was read from Robert E. Levy, 607 Third Ave., Seattle, . 9SI04, stating that he opposed annexation of his property located at 144th . Ave. SE and SE 12Sth St. unless this is zoned for neishborhood business/commercial use, as he felt this would be the most logical use of the site considering the high traffic :volumes on SE 128th St. Audience comment was invited. Staci Jeske, Cairncross &. Hempelmann, 701 Fifth Ave., ·Seattle, 98104, representing Jack and Mardell Morrison, explained that the Morrisons and Riberas are seeking the annexation of their properties to achieve the installation of sewer service. Saying that a technical study performed earlier had determined that septic systems in this area fail with frequency, presenting a health hazard to the City's water supply, Ms. Jeske further noted that the proposed annexation area as expanded lies within the urban growth boundary. She added that it would be more efficient to annex additional properties at this time rather than in a·separate annexation effort later. . Alan Smith,I341S -144th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, was concerned about the potential for increased traffic volumes and surface water runoff in the proposed annexation area, and suggested that a feasibility study be conducted on these issues before proceeding with the annexation. He feared that additional development would adversely affect current residents, emphasizing that any new developments must be required to manage and mitigate their impacts. James L. McTighe, 14206 SE 128th St., Renton, 98059, supported the annexation of his property located on SE 128th St. east of 142nd Ave. SE. John McTighe, 24929 -267th SE, Ravensdale, 9805 I, also supported annexation of the property he owns with his brother, which consists of approximately five acres just north of SE 12Sth St. Mr. McTighe explained he favored annexation as it would achieve sewer service in this area. Craig Landon, IOS.20 -169th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, also supported the annexation of approximately five acres owned by him, noting plans to develop this property. Mr. LandQn added that protection of the City's aquifer is a concern given the many septic systems in this area. November 14, 1994 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE PRESS APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES City Council Chambers Renton Municipal Building Mayor Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the, nag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. RICHARD STREDICKE, Council President; KATHY KEOLKER- WHEELER, TONI NELSON, BOB EDWARDS, RANDY CORMAN, TIM, SCHLITZER. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMAN JESSE TANNER. CARRIED. EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the Mayor; ZANETT A FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; MARILYN PETERSEN, City Clerk; VICTORIA RUNKLE, Finance & Information Systems Administrator; SAM CHASTAIN, Community Services Administrator; BILL HUTSINPILLER, Parks & Recreation Director; JIM SHEPHERD, Facilities Director; ,CAROLYN SUNDVALL, Housing & Human Services Manager; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Recreation Manager; MICHAEL NOLAN, C.I.P. Coordinator; CLARK PETERSEN, Library Director; MIKE , , KA TTERMANN, Planning & Technical Services Director; OWEN DENNISON, Planner; RON OLSEN, Utility Systems Director; ABDOUL GAFOUR, Civil Engineer; PRISCILLA PIERCE, Administrative Analyst; PAULA HENDERSON, Finance Planning Supervisor; SUE CARLSON, Economic Development Specialist; CHIEF A. LEE WHEELER, Fire Department; CAPTAIN GARRY ANDERSON, Police Department. George Erb, Valley Da/ly News ' MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7,1994 AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. PUBLIC MEETING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published Annexation: Burnstead, SE' in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public 128th St ' , meeting'to consider the Burnstead 10% Notice of Intent to Annex Petition affecting approximately 226 acres generally located south of SE 128th St., west of IS2nd Ave. SE (extended), north of SE 136th Pl., and east of 144th Ave. SE. Owen Dennison, Planner, stated that the City has received signed annexation petitions representing a portion of the proposed annexation area, which staff suggests be expanded beyond the boundaries of the initial annexation application. Other property owners have expressed interest in joining the annexation as well, although they have yet to sign'the annexation petition. Responding to Councilman Edwards, Mr. Dennison confirmed that the urban growth boundary was recently changed to include the area north of SE 128th St. and east of 148th Ave. SE. Mr. Edwards suggested that the area north to SE 120th SI. and east to 156th Ave. SE, commonly 'known as White Fence Ranch, be included in the annexation study area. Responding to Council President Stredicke, Assistant City Attorney Fontes recommended that the Maplewood Heights Elementary School site, bordered by SE 136th St. and 146th Ave. SE, be included in the annexation area as the NOvember 14. 1994· Renton .City ,Council Minutes Page 469 Norman W. Green, 14128 SE 132nd St., Renton, 98059, opposed the annexation and felt that residents were being forced into it. Noting that no documentation regarding the operation of septic systems in this area has been provided to substantiate failure rate claims, he explained his concerns . regarding traffic volumes and the quality of life currently enjoyed by area residents. ' Judy Stoloff, 2435 Fairview E., Seattle, responding to an earlier question from Council, stated that the proposed annexation consists of approximately 98 parcels. ' Fred Burnstead, 1215 -120th Ave. NE, Bellevue, 98005, confirmed that his motivation for wanting to annex to the City is to achieve sewer service for his property. Saying that his company has attempted to contact those who would be affected by the annexation, he added that before funds can be committed to determining how to mitigate impacts related to traffic and storm water . runoff, the City and annexation proponents first must be assured that the annexation will proceed. For the record, Council President Stredicke asked whether the City's intent is to locate single family homes on the property. Planning & Technical Services Director Mike Kattermann stated that the proposed zoning for the Burnstead property (about 64 acres) is. split between single family and low-density single family. A minority of the entire proposed annexation area includes parcels proposed for mixed residential zoning. In response to Councilman Edwards, Mr. Kattermann said that whi:e includin8 the White Fence Ranch develo:>ment in the annexation study area might slow down the annexation process because of the need to secure signatures from more property owners. Council should direct that this be done now if it has any ~nterest in doing so in the interest of consolidating annexation efforts. Howard V. Banasky, 1401 N. 26th St .• Renton, 98056, related specific concerns regarding the heavy volume of traffic on Cemetery Road (formally, NE 4th St/SE 128th St.),' saying this is one of King County's busiest arterials. He felt this street could not handle the projected increase in traffic, emphasizing that this issue, including how attempts to divert access off of Cemetery Road could affect other roads such as 144th Ave. SE. must be addressed before any additional development is allowed to occur. Albert Talley, 15322 SE 142nd St., Renton, 98059, said he has yet to hear of any ad,vantage that would persuade him to support annexation of his property. Kelly Campbell, 14205 SE 129th St., Renton, 98059, was concerned that the proposed zoning for the currently vacant property directly to the west oC her dead-end street is mixed residential, which would allow duplexes, tri-plexes and four-plexes. Saying that she moved into this area for its quiet atmosphere, she echoed concerns of previous speakers reagarding the heavy volume of traffic on SE 128th St. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO SET THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ANNEXATION November 14. 1994 AUDIENCE COMMENT Citizen Comment: Vaupel -1995/1996 Budget " Citizen Comment: Gevers -Employee Conduct . .. ,. ReDlon CIty Council Mmutes Page 470 AREA FOR THE SUGGESTED EXPANDED AREA, INCLUDING THE MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPED AREA NORTH OF SE 128TH ST. AND EAST OF 154TH AVE. SE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS WHITE FENCE RANCH; AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% ANNEXATION PETITION; REQUIRE THE SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF CITY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY CONCURRENTLY. WITH ANNEXATION (SF, SFL AND MR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN); AND REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ASSUME A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF THE CITY'S BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.· Responding to Councilman Corman, Mr. Kattermann confirmed that the property referred to by Ms. Campell which is bounded by 140th and 142nd Avenues ,SE and SE 130th and 128th Streets is designated mixed residential according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Although he 'agreed that it was not the City's place to plan infrastructure for an area not yet under its jurisdiction, Mr. Corman asked whether some of the concerns regarding traffic impacts and mitigation in this area could be alleviated by a general discussion of the City's policies. Mr. Kattermann replied that the City'S adopted Transportation Element suggests that developments be assessed traffic mitigation fees to offset the cost of needed improvements. Executive Assistant Jay Covington added that new development is also required to provide surface water runoff mitigation. ·MOTION CARRIED. Council President Stredicke asked that the Parks Department investigate the possibility that a parcel of land owned by Mr. Burnstead might be suitable as a new City park or open space in this area. Versie Vaupel, P.O. Box 755, Renton, 98057, voiced several concerns regarding the proposed 1995-1996 budget, saying that although the City'S Fire Department will experience a reduction of personnel due to the City of Bellevue's annexation of Newport Hills, the City will elsewhere add five to eight employees' or full-time equivalents. She questioned whether the cost of adding a half-time business tax collector will continue to be made up year after year from increased business tax collections, and was also concerned about funding provided to the Downtown Renton Association and increasing utility rates for both residents and businesses. Mrs. Vaupel questioned the 20% increase in legal staff costs from 1994 to 1995 in addition to another projected increase for this service from 1995 to 1996. She concluded by encouraging the City to look for ways to lessen the costs for moderate improv,ements to the Police Department's working conditions. Councilman Corman agreed that perhaps the new half-time business tax collector position should not be advertised as permanent, as it might generate new revenue in the beginning but not over time. Responding to Mr. Corman, Executive Assistant Covington explained that the increase in the City's legal costs results partly from the need to fund an additional prosecutor and, concurrently, more defense services as the number of jury trials has increased nearly three-fold in one year, and the public is generally not willing to ' approve plea-bargaining for such cases as drunk driving and dom'estic violence. Mr. Covington assured Council that the City receives a high value for its legal budget. Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Ave. NE, Renton, 98056, echoed Mrs. 'Vaupel's concerns regarding the City's legal budget, saying Council should be aware " ,"'.t. J' ••. ~ . ..t.'~ , . EXHIBITB CITY COUNCIL HEARING 60% PETITION TO ANNEX APRIL 10, 1995, MINUTES . April 10, 1995 Monday, 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCILMEMBERS CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES PROCLAMA TION April 10-16, 1995: Community Development Week SPECIAL PRESENTATION· Finance: Excellence in Financial Reporting Award PUBLIC HEARINGS Annexation: Bumstead, SE 128th St to 156th Ave SE RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Municipal Building Mayor Clymer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order. TIMOTHY SCHLITZER, Council President; BOB EDWARDS; RANDY CORMAN; TONI NELSON; KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER; JESSE TANNER; RICHARD STREDICKE. EARL CLYMER, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Executive Assistant to the Mayor; LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Planning/Building/P.ublic Works Administrator; SAMUEL CHASTAIN, Community Services Administrator; VICTORIA RUNKLE, Finance & Information Services Administrator; MIKE KATTERMANN, Planning & Technical Services Director; HUGH SIMPSON, Cash & Operations Supervisor; OWEN DENNISON, Assistant Planner; NEIL WATTS, Plan Review Supervisor; SUE CARLSON, Economic Development Specialist; LIEUTENANT DENNIS GERBER, Police Department. MOVED BY SCHLITZER, SECONDED BY STREDICKE, COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1995, AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. A proclamation by Mayor Clymer was read declaring the week of April 10- 16, 1995 as Cor.lmunity Development Week in the City of Renton, and stating the desire to support a diverse community with neighborhoods accommodating a variety of income groups and family sizes. MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION . AS READ. CARRIED. Sam Chastain, Community Services Administrator, accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Community Services Department. Mr. Chastain commented that over the last several years, the City has received in excess of $3 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for park projects, housing repairs, deferred home loans and other programs benefiting many Renton residents. Mayor Clymer announced that the City of Renton's Finance Department has again received the Excellence in Financial Reporting Award from the Goverment Finance Officers' Association. Hugh Simpson, Cash & Operations Supervisor, accepted the award on behalf of the Finance and Information Services Department. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public hearing to consider acceptance of the Burnstead 60% Petition to Annex, as well as proposed zoning to R-5, R-8 and R-IO. The site consists of approximately 402.9 acres located north and south of SE 128th St., from the City limits to about 156th Ave SE. Owen Dennison, Assistant Planner, briefly reviewed the history of the annexation proposal, stating that proponents have submitted signatures representing approximately 62% of the assessed valuation for the proposed April 10 1995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 136 In response to Councilmember Keolker-Wheeler, Planning & Technical Services Director Ka!!ermann stated that the R-S and R-8 zones, proposed for 95% of the annexation area, allow only single family detached homes. Mr. Ka!!ermann further clarified that King County's R-4 zoning is comparable to Renton's R-S zoning, since the county uses a gross density calculation while the City uses a net density calculation. Approximately 5% of the annexation area is proposed for R-IO zoning, which would allow single family attached homes, up to four units, to a maximum of 50% of total units. Sandra Simonson, 14239 SE 129th PI., Renton, 98059, opposed the petition method of annexation and said this question should be put to an election. Inquiring about the percentage of actual residents represented on the petition, she said more information is needed on various issues such as the inclusion of the Maplewood Heights Elementary school property on the petition. She particularly opposed the R-IO zoning for part of the annexation area near her home, saying this would generate more crime and traffic. King Parker, 4601 NE Sunset Blvd., Renton, 98056, encouraged Council to achieve planned rather than patchwork development. Saying that change will happen and that it should be orderly and economically feasible, he counseled Council to consider the proposed annexation carefully and then support it for the betterment of all in the entire community. Bill Halgren, 2230 -ISlst PI. SE, Bellevue, 98007, stated that as the owner of a number of lots in the White Fence Ranch area, he has always assumed this area would someday be annexed by Renton. He encouraged acceptance of the petition and considered the annexation to be in conformance with the Growth Management Act and the urban growth boundary. Mr. Halgren also urged City staff to determine whether or not this area would qualify to have a community municipal council, which he supported. Jack Connell, 435 Main Ave. S., Renton, 98055, representing the Renton School District, supported the annexation of this area including the Maplewood Heights Elementary school property, saying that the quality and consistency of service to residents would only improve. Mr. Connell also noted the advantage of working with one municipality rather than a governing body representing the interests of several communities. Doug Snyder, 565 NW Holly, Issaquah, WA, 98027, representing the Issaquah School District, submitted a letter describing the School District's concern with the proposed annexation as approximately 60% of the area lies within the Issaquah School District. Explaining that King County currently collects school impact fees on behalf of the District to pay for new facilities needed to serve development, Mr. Snyder asked Council to ensure that impacts of the proposed annexation are revenue neutral to the District. This would require that the City adopt a school impact fee, lest the District lose an approximate $1.6 million. City A!!orney Lawrence J. Warren replied that the City could, under SEPA, consider the impacts on infrastructure and facilities (including schools) if and when development is proposed. Alternatively, the City could adopt a school mitigation fee applicable to those portions of the City limits within the Issaquah School District. Fred Burnstead, 1215 -120th NE, Bellevue, 98005, explained his wish to build a quality single family subdivision on property owned by him in the proposed annexation area, emphasizing he did not expect to seek zoning more dense than that which would allow single family detached residences. April 10. ! 995 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138 , :"" ',:", .' 'I told that, given his mother's residence in the proposed annexation area, it would be advisable for her to sign the petition. Cecil Mullins, 18631 -120th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, agreed that it was inevitable that Renton will grow to the east, and felt that both City and County zoning was realistic for this area. He supported the option to hook up to sewers, and said although he shared concerns regarding the impact of additional development in this area, the City and the county both enforce stringent guidelines to protect environmental interests. Alice Prummer, 12227 -142nd Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, stated she did not receive personal notification of the annexation proposal although she lives nearby. She was concerned regarding wetlands in this area, particularly with respect to the Orchards apartment project and any other planned multi-family development. Mildred Stewart, 12457 -156th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, did not want increased density in this area. She was additionally concerned regarding the potential cost of sewer installation and how this cost would be divided among property owners. Sue Rowland, 14212 -145th PI. SE, Renton, 98059, was concerned regarding the impact of additional development on 144th and 142nd leading south from the annexation area down toward Maple Valley, saying that 144th is already unsafe for children and pedestrians because it has no sidewalks yet is heavily trafficked. She claimed that the density allowed in the County would be less than that allowed in the City, and urged Council to consider the potential impacts on adjacent communities. Ms. Rowland commented on her desire to remain in unincorporated King County and said she would sell her home if the annexation was approved. Norman Green, 14128 SE 132nd St., Renton, 98059, stated that traffic on Cemetery Road (formally, NE 4th St./SE 128th St.) is very heavy. He was concerned about the potential for increased crime and taxes, and did not support the proposed zoning, particularly the R-8 category proposed for his property. He asked that Council give residents a chance to vote on this issue. Larry Vickers, 13419 SE 141st St., Renton, 98059, said this area will inevitably be annexed and Renton should focus on making this happen the right way. He agreed this area needs more north/south streets, lest 144th be tremendously impacted by additional development, and opposed the building of more apartment complexes in this area. David Ebert, 12613 -148th Ave. SE, Renton, 98059, agreed with earlier speakers that this issue should be decided by property owners via an election. Staci Jeske, representing Jack & Mardell Morrison, stated that whatever misunderstandings may have occurred in the past, the Morrisons stand ready to comply with all applicable development regulations. Commenting that some people may be reluctant to annex due to their fear of uncontrolled growth, she said the GMA was enacted to help control growth and to ensure that development and services occur at the same time. She concluded by emphasizing that the entire proposed annexation area lies within the urban growth boundary, and the City of Renton is therefore expected to, eventually, provide it with urban services. Judy Stoloff, 2235 Fairview Ave. E., Seattle, praised the public process held with .respect to the annexation, including two community meetings. Referring April 10. 1995 Planning: Subdivision Ordinance Renton City Council Minutes Page 140 adding that the only possible zoning for this property is R-IO under the current comprehensive plan designation. Councilman Tanner was troubled by the fact that although the Burnstead properties and the White Fence Ranch properties favor annexation, these areas are not contiguous to the City limits. Annexing them, therefore, would require annexing the in-between area, where many property owners appear to oppose annexation. Moved by Tanner, seconded by Stredicke, Council table action on this matter until April 17th to allow staff to provide information on individual properties in the proposed annexation area, specifically which owners support or oppose the effort." . Mrs. Keolker-Wheeler reiterated that, according to the petition submitted to and certified by the City, at least 62% of the assessed valuation in. the total annexation area is represented by owners in support of annexation. -Roll call: Three ayes (Corman, Tanner, Stredicke), four nays (Schlitzer, Edwards, Nelson, Keolker-Wheeler). Motion failed. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL ACCEPT THE 60% ANNEXATION PETITION AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO PREPARE A NOTICE OF INTENTION PACKAGE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD.- Councilman Corman said while he shared concerns regarding the proposed R- 10 zoning on part of the property, multi ·family development would probably be restricted to only I % to 2% of the total annexation area and would not, in any case, result in greater density than four-plexes. He further stated that in the time he has lived in Renton he has not been pressured to change his rural lifestyle, and said he was confident that Council will strive to protect this area, should it be annexed. "MOTION CARRIED. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Clymer opened the public hearing to consider the proposed subdivision ordinance and the proposed street improvement ordinance. Neil Watts, Plan Review Supervisor, explained that the revisions to the subdivision and the street improvement ordinanc·es were undertaken to implement new land use policies, update language and modify the structure to refer to existing departments and officials, and make process revisions to provide better service. The revisions are also meant to improve public, owner and City participation in the process. Noting that the subdivision ordinance regulates platting and lot boundary adjustments, Mr. Watts reviewed the primary changes, which are meant to provide a logical, consistent format and improve the process. Under the proposed changes, a small plat of five to nine lots would not come before Council for approval but would be decided by the Hearing Examiner. Plats of four or fewer lots would be administrative decisions and no longer handled by the Hearing Examiner. The revisions also increase public notice requirements for planning activities. .. ' .. EXHIBITC LEGAL DESCRIPTION Proposed Bumstead Annexation Legal Description That portion of Sections 10, II, 14, and IS, a1\ in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, WashingtOn described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter corner of said Section 10, said south quarter corner being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, said south quarter corner also being a point on the centerline of SE 128th Street; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street, and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to an intersection with the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, to the northeast corner of said subdivision and a point on the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner thereof; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner thereof; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the northeast corner thereof, and an intersection with the centerline of 148th Avenue SE; Thence easterly, entering said Section 11, along the north line of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast comer of said subdivision; Thence northerly along the west line· of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast corner thereof; Thence continuing northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section to the northwest corner thereof; Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 15 feet to a point on a line being 15 feet north of and parallel with said north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; --------------- Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to a point on the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line of said subdivision to a point of intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast corner of said subdivision; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter to the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street; Thence westerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 866.01 feet ; Thence southerly crossing SE 128th Street, entering said Section 14, to a point on the southerly right of way line of SE 128th Street, being a point 866.01 feet westerly of the east line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence continuing southerly along a line parallel with and 866.01 feet westerly of the east line of said subdivision to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said line, to a point of intersection with the east line of the west half of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line, to a point of intersection with the south line of the northwest quarter of said section, said point also being a point on the westerly right-of-way line of 152nd Avenue SE, and a point on the centerline of SE 136th Street; Thence continuing southerly, along the east line of the west half of the southwest quarter of said section to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said south line, to a point on the east line of said Section 15; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to a point of intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of SE 136th Street; Thence westerly crossing 144th Avenue SE along said northerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said line to an intersection with the southerly right-of-way line of SE 132nd Street; Thence westerly along said southerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of l40th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said line to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of SE 132nd Street; Thence easterly along said line to a point on the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line to the southwest comer of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said section, also being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470; Thence continuing northerly along said west line, and said City limits, crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section 15, also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. EXHIBITD KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAPS EXHIBITE VICINITY MAPS BU~NSTEAD ANNEY' .TION VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT E ____ Renton CIty LImIts _._._ Urban Growth Boundary CITY OF RENTON ... Proposed Annexation PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBUC WORKS (Approximate Area = 402.9 Acres) O.Dennison R.MacOnie, D.Visneski 20 April 1995 o 2000 4000 EI~! J~~~I 1:24,000 Training Session East Renton Annexation January 4, 1995 Agenda I. Introductions -Jay Covington Why Annexations are important to the City II. General Description of Annexation Area -Sue Carlson III. Questions/Concerns Being Raised by Residents -Owen Dennison IV. Information -Gregg Zimmerman, Owen Dennison, Dave Christiansen, Victoria Runkle Zoning and land use Sewers Police and Fire Protection Storm Drainage Garbage Taxes Parks Library Street Maintenance .IV. Assignment of Teams and Areas -Sue Carlson V. Handouts wkt ~t ~. ~~~Is? ~~bk Yo CcIM-fl) ~ ~ m.t plctr-.. Ljo a ur-e p ~r< P'()f0$eJ)p;t6Sfv.e.-5~f J&~) ~ t(C--h'te-(~ J-u Vh.. Commonly Asked Qestions About Annexations Will my taxes increase? . Will I have to hook up to sewer or can I remain on my septic system? Is garbage pick-up mandatory? }feb; bl.(.t wodf L\ ~Vet' ~ 6 YI"S, Can I keep my horses and other large animals? Is Renton a part of the Kin~ County Library system? I-I-q~ .~f'Oco.t K' c is; e21/t.-11-vz'frl:J feo.:>K ~/111r& Will my address change?-Ye-s What is the zoning in my area? Will apartments be built next door? Who will respond to emergencies? Both Fire and Police? What plan does Renton have to deal with the increased traffic in my area? TOTAL-AV.XLS Total AV Signed Unsigned Area A 10669500 2972000 7697500 27.86% Area B (Lower Tier) 2834949 1684249 1150700 59.41% Area C (except WFR) 1526732 925650 601082 60.63% White Fence Ranch 9402769 6204969 3197800 65.99% Area D 6635800 647000 5988800 9.75% Area E (Puget Col) 5545800 290900 5254900 5.25% Area E (remainder) 1146200 0 1146200 0.00% Area F 8083761 458900 7624861 5.68% Area G 2473000 2473000 0 100.00% Total AV 483185111 Signed AVs 156566681 Remaining AVs 326618431 1 Percentage 32.40%1 Total of A, B, C, G: 26906950 Signatures for A-C & G: 14259868 Percent: 53.00% \ Page 1 PETITION TO ANNEX TO THE CITY OF RENTON UNDERRCW 35A.14.120 (60% Petition -Bumstead Annexation) TO: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 The undersigned are owners of not less than sixty percent (60%) in value according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, or real property located contiguous to the City of Renton. We hereby petition that such property be annexed to the City of Renton under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120 et seq. The territory proposed to be annexed is within King County, WashIDgton, and is contiguous to the City of Renton. A map (Exhibit 1) and legal description (Exhibit 2) are included as part of this petition. In response to a duly filed and considered "Notice of Intention" to commence annexation proceedings, the City CQuncil of the City of Renton met with the initiating parties under RCW 35A.14.120 on November 14, 1994. The City Council then<determined that the City would accept the proposed annexation. Further, pursuant to RCW 35A.14.120, the undersigned petitioners agree to: (1) Submit the 10% Notice of Intent Petition as an intent to annex; (2) Accept the City's simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations for the < subject property ( proposed as Low Density Single Family, Single Family, Mixed Residential-Exhibit 3); (3) Accept the City's Comprehensive Plan designations as they affect the subject property; and (4) Assume their proportional share of the pre-existing City bonded indebtedness. < all as noted in the minutes of the Council meeting and contained in the electronic recording of such meeting. WHEREFORE, the undersigned property owners petition the City Council and ask: ( a) That the City Council fix a date for a public hearing about such proposed annexation, cause a notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons who are interested to appear at the hearing and state their approval or disapproval of such annexation or to ask questions; and (b) That following such hearing, and consistent with any approval by the Boundary Review Board, the City Council by ordinance annex the above described territory to become part of the City of Renton, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force, and to receive City public services. Page 10f2 This two page form page is one of a number of identical forms which comprise one petition seeking the annexation of the described territory to the City of Renton, Washington as above stated, and may be filed with other pages containing additional signatures. WARNING: Every puson who signs this petition with /Illy other th/lll his tru. nlUM, or who knt1Wlngly silf1l8 mor. th/lll on. olthu. petitiolU, or silf1l8 a petition s.ddng /III ekctlon when h. is not a kgal "otg, or silf1l8 a petition when h. is othuwls. not fuaH.fkd to sign, or who InIIkD her.in /Illy lals. statmtmt, mall b. guilty 01 a misdenut/lllor. The undersigned have read the above petition and consent to the filing of this petition. (N-ofpd/lJotun .hDu14 _In I4en11clllfomo as th.sturU thlll app.ar 011 record In th. do";" oftlt'" III th.,,111 atlll&) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Pagc20U EXHIBIT 1 ANNEXATION AREA BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION ----Renton CIty limIts COWlnants to Annex + !lID + I'WOONG/BUIUIDfG/PUBUC 'l'ORlS e CITY' OF RENTON ~ O.DezuWtOIl 100111_ Proposed by Applicant I::::::::::::J Expanded Annexotlon Area R.1I.cOale, D.lImedcl 17 NO?ember leN o I 1000 I I 1:12000 2000 I EXHIBIT 2 . Bumstead Annexation Legal Description That portion of Sections 10, 11, 14, and 15, all in Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W:M., in King County, Washington described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter comer of said Section 10, said south quarter comer being a point on the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, said south quarter comer also being a point on the centerline of SE 128th Street (NE 4th Street); Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said' section, and said City limits, to the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street (NE 4th Street), and the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3553; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of said section, and said City limits, to an intersection with the north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence easterly along .said north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said 'section, to the east line of said subdivision, said east line also being the centerline of 142nd Avenue SE; Thence continuing easterly along the nort~ line of ~e south half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to the east line of said subdivision; Thence continuing easterly along the north line of the south .half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, to an intersection with a line SO feet west of and parallel with the east line of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section; Thence southerly along said line a distance of 16.00 feet; Thence easterly along a line 16 feet south of and parallel with the north line of the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to the east line of said subdivision; Thence continuing easterly along a line 16 feet south of and parallel with the north line of the south half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said section to a point of intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the westerly extension of the. south line of Gerber's Addition to Renton as recorded in Volume 61 of Plats, page 98, records of King County,. Washington; Thence easterly along said westerly extension of the south line of said plat, crossing 148th Avenue SE, and along the south line of> said plat to the southeast corner thereof, said southeast corner 'also being a point on the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said ,Section 11; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, said east line also being the west line of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast corner thereot; Thence northerly along the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section, to the northeast corner thereot; Thence westerly along the north line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter ofthe southwest quarter, to an intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of 148th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 15 feet to an intersection with a line 15 feet north of and parallel with said north line 'of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along said line, and its easterly extension, to an intersection with the west line of the east half of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line of the east half of the southwest quarter, to an intersection with the north line of said southwest quarter of said section; • Thence easterly along the north line of said southwest quarter to the northeast corner thereot; Thence southerly along the east line of said southwest quarter to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of SE 128th Street; Thence westerly along said right-of-way line a distance of 30 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the northerly extension of the westerly right-of-way line of lS6th Avenue SE; Thence southerly along said northerly extension, a distance of 109 feet more or less, to a point on the southerly right of way line of SE 128th Street in the northwest quarter of said Section 14; Thence continuing southerly along the westerly right-of-way line of 156th Avenue SE, crossing SE 132nd Street, to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of SE l36th Street; , Thence westerly along said northerly right-of-way line, crossing 152nd Avenue SE, to an intersection ,with the westerly right-of-way line of 152nd Avenue SE; 2 ------- Thence southerly along said westerly right-of-way line to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section to an intersection with the east line of said Section IS; Thence westerly along· the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of said Section IS to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of 144th Avenue SE; Thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line crossing SE 136th Street to the . southwest comer of Lot IS, Black Loam Five Acre Tracts, as recorded in Volume 12 of Plats, page 101, records of King County, Washington, said southwest comer also being a point on the northerly right-of-way line of SE 136th Street; Thence westerly along said. northerly right-of-way line, crossing 144th Avenue SE, 142nd Avenue SE, 140th Avenue SE, and 139th Place SE, to a point of tangency with a curve to the right, having a radius of 30 feet, at an intersection With the easterly right-of-way line of 138th Avenue SE; Thence southwesterly across 138th Avenue SE, to the southeast comer of Lot 14 of the plat of Goe's Place as recorded in Volume 85 of Plats, pages 12 and 13, records of King County, Washington; said southeast comer also ,being a point on the westerly right-of-way line of said 138th Avenue SE,and arAd being a point on the south line of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence westerly along said south line of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the south line of said plat, a distance of 8 feet, more or less, to a point on the existing City limits. of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3143; Thence continuing westerly along said south line of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the south line of said plat, and along the existing City limits of Renton to an intersection with the northeasterly right-of-way line of 137th Avenue SE as it intersects with the easterly extension of the centerline of SE 136th Street; Thence continuing westerly along said centerline of SE 136th Street, and along said south line of the northwest quarter, and along said existing City limits, to the southeast comer of the plat of Fernwood East as recorded in Volume III of Plats, pages 68 and 69, records of King County, Washington, said southeast comer also being the southwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along the east line of said Plat, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3163, to the northeast comer of said plat; 3 ~---------------- Thence continuing northerly along the east line of Fernwood North, as recorded in Volume 128 of Plats, pages 100 and 101, records of King County, Washington, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3570 to the northeast comer o,fsaid plat; Thence westerly along the north line of said Plat, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the west line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line, and along said existing City limits, to the northwest comer of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the north line of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #3946, to the northeast comer of said subdivision; Thence easterly along the north lil1e of the south half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along the existing City limits of Renton as annexed by Ordinance #4470, crossing 136th Avenue SE (Bremerton Avenue NE) and 138th Avenue SE (Duvall Avenue NE) to an intersection with the east line of the west 20 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, said east line also being the easterly right-of-way line of 138th Avenue SE (Duvall Avenue NE); Thence soutHerly along said easterly right-of-way line, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the south line of the north 186.15 feet of the southeast quaiter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easteriy along said south line of the north 186.15 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the east line of the west 234 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said east line of the west 234 feet of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section, and along said existing City limits, to an intersection with the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said section; Thence easterly along the south line of the north half of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter, and along said existing City limits, to the west line of the northeast quarter of said section; Thence northerly along said west line, and along said existing City limits, crossing a portion of SE 128th Street, to the north quarter comer of said Section IS, said north quarter comer also being the south quarter comer of said Section 10, and the Point of Beginning. 4 ...... EXHffiIT 3 • I •• ' "'1".' _ " ... PROPOSED 'ZONING BURNSTEAD I : : ::::::~ Single Family Low Density Single Family Mixed Residential o 1000 2000 ~I ~! '~~~I 1: 12000 , ,'" ".' '" '." " " ' ',j:- '~._/ ' '~ .' . " '1"- '·,.t " , ' . '," " '. i ".-, . -: f '-"' .. ' ,--.. ' --, ";~ ~ :':.' , ,',,,-' ·, ..... ':,; ..... .' j ;., , .,\.' SINGLE FAMILY SEWER FACT SHEET Typical fees at time of side sewer installation: IIEM Special Utility Connection Charge East Renton Interceptor Special Assessment District Side Sewer Permit Side Sewer Installation TOTAL: Typical cost of sanitary sewer main participation CQSI $470.00 <D $235.62 $60.00 <Zl $2,000.00 $2,765.62 Per single family lot (9,000 to 12,000 SF lots) based on average of Dayton Avenue Local Improvement District (completed September, 1994) Total Average Assessment: $5,800 Yearly Payment ® $547.00 Single Family Monthly Sewer Rate (1994) City of Renton Metro @) TOTAL: $11.47 $15.90 $27.37 <D Estimated cost based on engineer's estimate. Actual cost will be determined up~n completion of qonstruction. Current estimated time of completion for construction is March. 1995. Interest will begin to accrue to the final assessment figure 30 days after recording of the final assessment district. Estimated average cost. Actual cost will vary depending upon such factors as owner installed versus installation by contractor. Other factors such as length and difficulty of construction will also affect the actual cost. @ Yearly Local Improvement District payment amount based on 20 year loan,at 7% compounded interest. @) In addition to the monthly sewer rate paid through the City's bill, Metro charges $7.00 per month for 15 years (or you have the option of paying off the remaining balance by applying an 8· percent discount per year) for new single family customers connecting to a sewer system. If you were to pay the' charge at time of connection, the total fee would be $726.26. H:DOCS:94·B6B:DMC:ps I. II. III. BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION PRESENTATION TO BRB 9/21 PUBLIC HEARING '. \ LOCATION & HISTORY --LINKS TO RENTON (Mike) BRB OBJECTIVES --HOW MET (Mike) ANTICIPATED QUESTION TOPICS PlanninglLand Use~ ".!te.-.. Finance-V')V Fire SelVice .Lee' _ Sewer provision -~tl School District prope~ -L'rJ'I' ( J-C2:rg;a lilMI dftIt Process -l)~ TOTflL FlttflttClflL IMPflCT Ott fl "TYPICflL 'OOSEtiOLD East Rcznton flnnczxatlonflrcza Base Monthly Assumptions County City 125,000 S 13.57 $ 13.40 $ 1 ,696 $ 1 ,675 25 0.0% '6.0% $0.00 $1.50 45 0.0% 6.0% $0.00 $2.70 22 0.0% 6.0% 0.00 1.32 85 0.0% 6.0% 0.00 5.10 0 0 0 Renton Voted Debt Coulon Park .2211 000 Senior Housing .14/1000 Annual County $ 1 ,696 0 0 0 0 0 0 $1,987 0.00 0.00 10.00 50.00 2,097 City $ 1 ,675 18.00 32.40 15.84 6.1.20 0.00 0.00 $1,973 ($14) 27.50 17.50 7.00 13.00 2,048 COAT A: COMM:ANNEX4.xLS • BRB Presentation The annexation was initiated by the Bumstead Company, owner of about 64 acres of land on the East Renton Plateau. The original proposal on the 10% Notice of Intent petition covered 226 acres. (Map # 1) After meeting with the proponents, the City Council expanded the boundaries to about 600 acres, to increase contiguity with the existing city limits and to include property owners in the vicinity who had expressed an interest in joining the annexation. (Map #2) The 60% Petition to Annex was ultimately accepted for a smaller area of about 403 acres with the current boundaries. (Map #3) The contraction of the boundaries resulted from insufficient interest in annexation in some of the areas surrounding the original proposal. Signatures on the Petition to Annex represent about 62% of the assessed value within the proposed boundaries. The Bumstead Company initiated the annexation to receive sewer service from the City of Renton. Sewer service is currently unavailable in this portion of unincorporated King County. Development on many of the remaining partially developed or undeveloped parcels in the proposed Bumstead Annexation area is constrained by the lack of available sewer service. For achievement of the goals of the Growth Management Act and the King County Countywide Planning Policies, sewer service must become available. Over the last _ years, the City of Renton has engaged in the planning and construction of the East Renton Sewer Interceptor to remedy the existing need. At no time in the planning or construction phases of the Interceptor development did the Water District propose an alternative to the City'S provision of sewer service. Sid Forman of the Seattle/King County Department ofHea1th is available this evening to answer questions regarding the existing need for sewers in currently developed areas of the proposed Annexation. The City has taken a proactive role in the Bumstead Annexation. Factors the Board Must consider: The 403 acres that comprise the proposed Bumstead Annexation are located on the East Renton Plateau, a geographic extension of the northeastern portion of the City of Renton. The proposed annexation boundaries are contiguous to the eastern boundary of the City of Renton along Field Avenue N.E. (l4Oth Avenue S.E.) if extended. The eastern boundary of the annexation extends to the Urban Growth Boundary, north of S.E. 128th. South of S.E. 128th Street, the annexation boundaries generally follow public streets, although Of the Factors to be considered by the Board in RCW 36.93.170, the City of Renton considers the following factors to be critical to the Board's review of this annexation proposal. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning: King County. According to the King County Comprehensive Plan and implementing zoning, future J .~ land uses in the area proposed for annexation will be primarily single family at four units per acre. In d:!l. \ e.7 addition, the Plan includes nodes of higher density multifamily and mixed-use developments at eight to ~l I eighteen units per acre. . The King County Comprehensive Plan identifies the Urban designated portion of the East Renton Plateau as a Service Planning Area, apparently due to the lack of available sewers now or within six years through extensions included in adopted sewer plans. The K ccf fCfP 4/j~-k ~ rus lNf' k. BRB Presentation 1) Brief history of the annexation Progression of boundary changes (map) 2) Brief description of the annexation area (factors the Board must consider) Population existing land uses assessed valuation likelihood of significant growth in the area 3) Services: existing need other sources (WD 90 discussion) effect on cost and adequacy of services in the area and to adjacent areas effect on finances (fiscal analysis, loss of revenue to County, fire districts) 3) City services -what would be available on the first day 4) Comp Plan Land Use Map / proposed zoning / existing zoning 5) Fiscal analysis 6) BRB Objectives '$' -Ib-t~ I ~U~~a i-t.tYl_, ~l ~P~i\IL~&r'd2_' ~,-' ~-- ~_,_. _' LjJRw_/~_'~-~f~-~>;,-t?~H~_'? }kle<Lv'h(tt'a-'i-e<J?!..-, --- -"----1-1------~-----'..--"--;-~------- 't:. t, -, . ) '. , - , , ~--, ' -I----------~,~~----~-------~--- " Objectives or the Boundary Review Board (RCW 36.93.180) (1) Preservation or natural neighborhoods and communities The properties and residents of the proposed annexation constitute geographical and social extensions of the City of Renton. The area is located on the East Renton Plateau, wbich rises well within the city limits and extends east past Lake Kathleen. No physical barriers !eparate the area from the City. Outside of the Renton's corporate boundary, the Plateau lacks any significant retail or social centers and recreational facilities. Therefore, the Ci!y' of Renton has long served as a commercial center for the area and provided recreatio~a1 ~~ties aLGeQe~~ ~~g!.qnal Park, the C~Jlr_~!~~~ trai! and other City amem les. The £nJy arterial ~ithin the proposed annexation, S.E. 128th Street (Cemetery Road) provides a direct connection to the City. The historic orieiiiitiOiitO"Renton logically defines ihe area as part of the greater Renton community. - At the neighborhood level, individual subdivisions were regarded as potential socially and locationally distinct areas. Where development has occurred at urban densities, ~ proposed annexation boundaries have included or excluded residential pockets in their entirety,- (2) Use or physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies or water, highways, and land contours The location of the proposed annexation on the East Renton Platea convenient topographjc features or water bodies to define the tv boundaries. For portions of the area north of S .E. 128th Street, there are no roads proximate to the subject area to use for boundaries. Although lot lines are not preferred for representing corporate limits, they were used by default for some segments of the proposed boundary. South of S.E. 128th, road right&oot:.way or extensions of existing roads serve to define the proposed boundaries. At the extreme southern end of the proposed annexation are two undeveloped parcels. King County is arranging a transfer of these parcels to the City of Renton to be developed as a park after annexation. The park will create both a recognizable tl( boundary and a buffer between development within the annexation area and the • neighborhoods to the south. An area south of S.E. 128th and east of 152nd Avenue, if extended, are defined on the c~ south by King County open space properties and on the east by a lot line. The dearth of roadways and other physical features have prohibited strict consistency with oK the Objective. Consistency was achieved where possible within the constraints of expressed interest in annexation. (3) Creation and preservation or logical service areas The annexation area represents a logical extension of City of Renton services. Except for water provision, the City is prepared to assume all aspects of service delivery upon annexation. W!IIer service is currently provided by Water District 90. Water service areas are established 'by the East King County Coordinated Water System Plan . • ~~ 17 ... -k-.II-sv).-0;7 li~ , ~.,.e..-f"O#;{5 ~Ks+ re~ti:~lYiceJUtlSCIlcclOII "6111d eI!!IIIge Hem Fire Distl'ie~a Ie tile Gil¥ ofPeoton Pire' I i~'('tIU')' of'>epmbnellh However, as the Fire District contracts with the City, the source of service Jew. SVc.s /M~W.il1,not change. Wa-fe-r -WD#1" Annaxation would create a logical service area for the provision of sanitary sewers. The ~ City ~as recently completed the East Renton Sewer Interceptor which terminates at N.E. 4th 14._ Street (S.E. 128th Street) and Duvall Avenue N.E. (138th Avenue S.E.) The Interceptor £~liV'. l,.I,:;CI'C)f' was SiZed to accommodate the future sanitary sewer needs of the annexation area. '. ~ Water District 90 claims to represent an alternative sewer service provider. At present, /' ,...a f),cA, however, the Water District has no certificate of necessity, no current comprehensive sewer U I).J plan and no apparent funding source for new infrastructure. Additionally, the Water District has not moved to implement the original sewer plan in the 25 years since its adoption. There are no guarantees that the Water District would folIow through with its expressed interest in creating a sewer system if the annexation fails. Policy LU-36 of the King County countywide Planning Policies states that the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County "should be governed in its decisions by the , interim urban growth boundary and the adopted and ratified countywide planning policies" . Framework Policy FW-13 states, "Cities are the appropriate providers oflocal urban services either directly or by contract." The Policy continues, "Urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts· without the approval of the city in whose pote'~tial annexation area the extension is proposed." The clear direction of the Countywide Planning Policies is that the Board cannot (should not) favor sanitary service provision by the Water District. The development proposal for the forty acre park demonstrates that the area is II logical extension of the City's park services. S.E. 128th, provides direct access to the area by City of Renton Police services. I (4) Prevention of abnormalIy irregular boundaries The proposed boundaries are adequately contiguous to the existing Renton corporate boundary and would create a projection of incorporated land. The southern extension is st D necessary to serve Maplewood Heights Elementary School with sewers and to include the \ O~ forty acres proposed for City development as a park. The northern extension of the \, ~proposer annexation was included to alIow sewer service in the White Fence Ranch .. \! subdivillion where both residents and the Seattle/King County Health Department have ~y stated tl'at a need currently exists. \ os't The Ci~ approached property owners north, east and west of the proposed annexation boundaries to encourage participation in the annexation. The addition of these properties would )jave increased contiguity with the current city boundary. Insufficient support existed'in these areas to include additional properties in the annexation. Current boundaries are not\pptimal ---J Ifould not present obstacles to efficient service provision ~ ~:JJ611'Q( v~",l6 (5) Discouf,i ement of multiple incorporations of smalI cities and encouragement of incorpol )lUon of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas The East Renton Plateau has bee oposed for incorporation as the City of Briarwood. The proposed incorporatio lild include a population estimated at 8,500 by the Briarwood Incorpor' Committee. Annexation would discourage the proposed incorporation. Countywide Planning Policy LU-34 states, "Unincorporated areas that are already urbanized and are within a city's potential annexation area are encouraged to annex to that city in order to receive urban services. Where annexation is inappropriate, incorporation may be considered. " The City contends that the annexation is appropriate, therefg~e iru:9fJ1eratieil. ,_"'e!I!HJAt.and should not be considered a reasonable alternative. L.yt Y6z.. 1t9f),'c4 (6) Dissolution or Inactive special purpose districts pt'tW,' J..Lr sf wk--slfCG" The proposed annexation would not dissolve an inactive special purpose district, but it would allow sanitary sewer service where service is currently not available. (7) Adjustment ot Impractical boundaries From a service provision standpoint, neither existing nor proposed city boundaries are impractical. (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns or unincorporated areas which are urban in character (9) The proposed annexation is designated Urban Growth Area in the King County Comprehensive Plan which was amended to include the loint Planning Area east of 148th Avenue S.E. and north of S.E. 128th Street. Development within the proposed boundaries is divided between those areas where development at urban densities has been possible on septic systems and those areas that where development has been constrained by a lack of sewers. The more intensely developed areas are distributed throughout the proposed annexation. Without annexation, the undeveloped portion may not develop uniformly at urban densities. Countywide Planning Policy LU-33 states, Undeveloped lands adjacent to that city should be annexed at the time development is proposed to receive a full range of urban services. Protection or agricultural and rural lands which are designated tor long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority jk No portion of the area is designated as a Forest Production District, an Agricultural J:f\ Production District, or a Mineral Resource Site in the King County Comprehensive Plan. U:\BRBPRESI o g .. 1 4. 9 5 02 1" PM KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 90 " September 8, 1995 Dear Resident, POI 255·8800 16500 South, .. t 128th Str .. t Renton, W •• hlngton 8806; . . The City of Renton has intend:ns of annexing several properties that are presently within King County Water District 90's water and sewer service area. Apparently, this action was initiated by developers, property owners and the Renton School District to obtain the availability of sewers. KCWD #90 is the authorized fh nchise holder to serve both water and sewer within our service area. This franchise has been in plac:! for several decades. The District's plans and designs for a main sewer line (gravity flow) to allow sewer service to the western half of your District has been in place since 1980. We fed the economics and efficiencies of a gravity flow sewer system to be the most beneficial to the residents in this area. Due to the importance of this issue, the District Commissioners have requested a hearing with the Boundary Review Board to discuss these issues and protcct.the interest of the District's customers. This hearing is set for Thursday, September 21, 1995 7:00 PM at Maplewood Heights Elementary school. ' Unfortunately, the District was not approached for sewer service until after the annexation process had begun. With the sewer intet ,st of developers, the Issaquah and Renton School Districts, and the . 4 White Fence Ranch area, sewer service could be more economically served by KCWD #90. Not only would the installation factor be l"lore economical, the ongoing electrical and maintenance costs of a gravity flow system would be considerably less expensive than Renton's proposed pumped system These factors greatly impact sewer rates. The Board of Commissioners \ believes there are other advantages inherent in having KCWD #90 provide the sewer service in thi:l area. Service by the District would allow the residents to maintain and control their own system through the elected Board of Commissioners. If served by Renton, there are no local controls. Undoubtedly, you would also participate in Renton's cost for maintenance, operations, pumping and upgrading of a much older system. With a totally new gravity system installed by your District, initial costs and monthly sewer rates will be considerably less expensive. The Commissioners at KCWD #90 are taking the necessary steps to preserve our fi"anchise for this area and its ability to serve the residents needs. 1 Sincerely, King County Water District #90 • -RH2 ENGINEERING TE' 10 .206-869-7769 , compleled. County franchises do not apply. A utility franchise from the City of Renton would be required. According to King County. Water District 90 ha~ never had an approved sewer system iili!n. Such a plan is required under both state law (RCW Title 57) and County Code (KCC 13.24). The district did prepare an Engineering Report in 1970. The report was presented to the district "for the . purpose of developing a comprehensive plan for the district. Obviously the report is 25 years old and would not be valid for any planning purposed today. In fact. even though the district has a sewer franchise from King County. they could not obtain right-of-way constructiun permits to install sewers because they do nOI have an approved sewer plan. (See KCC 14.44) SEWER FACILITIES A number of relevant sewer facilities exist in the vicinity of the Bumstead Annexation. These include Metro facilities. dry sewers and City of Renton facilities. The Metro Cedar River Interceptor is located in the Maple Valley highway south of the proposed annexation. This facility. if adequate extensiiins were made. could provide service to at least part of the Bumstead Annexation. In 1975 and 1976, Water District 90 and Metro entered into agreements whereby this interceptor wa~ extended to 156th Place SE. Under these agreements, the Cedar River Interceptor wa~ extended by Water District 90. In tum, Metro reimbursed the district for certain portions of the cost of the extension. Upon complelion, the interceptor wa.< deeded to Metro. Se r <S.9S 8:26 No.OOl P .. 04 Dry sewers were installed in the plat of Briar Hills. While these sewers are known to exist, their ownership and condition are uncertain. They are also located outside the boundaries of the Bumstead Annexation. However, it is possible that they could be part of a system of sewers that provides service to part of Bumstead Annexation. This would be entirely dependent on the condition, slope and capacity of the dry sewers. The City of Renton just compleled the East Renton Interceptor project. This facj!jty terminates at the western boundary of the Bumstead Annexation in NE 4th Street. In addition, the East Renton Interceptor has Interceptor can serve nearly al1 of the Bumstead Annexation by gravity. (See Figure 2.> SUMMARY Sewer service to the B umstead Annexation by Water District 90 is not consistent with the· Growth Management Act, the Countywide Planning Policies, nor the King County Comprehensive Plan. Further, Water District 90 lacks the authority to provide sewer service because it has no franchise, approved sewer plan, nor sewer facilities that could serve the area. The City of Renton is the logical and appropriate sewer service agency and ha~ existing facilities that can serve the annexation by gravity. 'RH2 ENGINEERING. V' No. 206-869-7769 Countywide Planning Policies and King County land use plans; and d. Adopted Countywide gaals and policies for urban services. environmental and cultural resource protection will be supported. 10'.207 ". Water and sewer utilities that provide Iheir services to unincorporated King County shall prepare capital facility plans consistent with requiremenls of the Growth Management Act and King County Code. F-208 ." Water and sewer ulililies 111111 provide their services to unincorporated King Counly shall demOrlS/ralc whether or nOI they are able to adequately provide service 10 their area by either submilling addendums to recenrly approved plans or by submitting new plans to King Counly within one year from the dare of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Bumstead Annexation. including ~ewer service by the City of Renton. is consistent with Policies U-301 and U-304. As documented below. Water District 90 has not complied with Policies F-207 and F-208. S£WER SERVICt; ASSUMPTION Chapter 3S.J3A RCW specifically authorizes cities (such as Renton) to a~sume sewer service within its corporate boundaries. Specifically. RCW 35.l3A.OSO states "".the city may a.sume, by ordinance, jurisdiction of the district's responsibilities. property. facilities and equipment within the corporate limits of the city ..... , s' 15.95 8:26 No.001 f.03 As is documented below. Water District 90 currently ,ha~ no sewer facilities within the Bumstead Annexation. In addition. as is documented below. the city has installed a major sewer interceptor that is specificall y designed to serve the annexation area. KING COUNTY APPROVALS For Water District 90 to provide sewer service (0 the Burnstead Annexation several approvals and agreements are required. Thesc' include a contract with Metro to treat scwage. a franchise to have sewers in county rights-of-way, an approved sewer comprehensive plan and right-of-way construction permits to install sewers. On October 3. 1974. Water District 90 entered into a contract with the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. This contract provided for Metro (now King County) to . treat and dispose of sanitary' sewage collected by Water District 90. Water District 90 hasncver delivered sewage to Metro under this contract. On October 7. 1975. Water District 90 obtained a franchise from King County to "lay down. construct. maintain and operate a system of sewer lines ...... in King County right-of-way. The franchise agreement was signed by the County Executive. and one member of the Water District 90 Board of Commissioners. Since neither a majority of the board nor thc chairman signed the franchise. there is some question as to its validity. The boundaries of thc purported sewer franchise relative to the Bumstead Annexation are shown on the attached Figure I. While this franchise may exist, it is meaningless for two reasons. First. Water District 90 docs not have a King County approved sewer plan (see below). Second. once the Bumstead Annexation is ., i "~ •... RH2 ENGINEERING TE )0.206-869-7769 BACKGROUND The Boundary Review B'oard is considering proposed annexation of an area known as the "Bumstead Annexation" to the City of Renton. Water District 90 requested that the Board invoke jurisdiction for this proposed annexation on the grounds that it (the district) was the appropriate provider of sewer service to this annexation. The following paragraphs respond to this assertion. The discussion proceeds from the broad to the specific. It begins with statewide policy and permilling requirements and proceeds to specific facility issues. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT CONSISTENCY The Growth Management Act (OMA) establishes statewide policy for provision of urban services such as sanitary sewers. The GMA, in section 36.70A.llO, establishes that cities are the preferred providers of urban services within Urban Growth Areas (UGA). The proposed Bumstead annexation is within 'the UGA established cooperatively by King ,County and the Growth Management Planning Council. (See allached Figure I.) Further both the King County Countywide Planning Policies and the policies of the King County Comprehensive Plan establish cities as the preferred .provider of urban (sanitary sewer) stlrvices in the UGA. Countywide Framework Policy FW·13 states: Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services 10 urban area" either directly or by contraet. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide Se '5,95 8:26 No.OOI P:02 services. Urban services shall not be eXlended through Ihe use of special purpose dislricls without the approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the urban area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose. districts. This policy wa~ adopted by King County (Ordinance 11446) and ratified by the Suburban Cities consistent with the OMA. Provision of sewer service by Water District 90 to the Bumstead Annexation would violate this policy. The King County Comprehensive Plan, adopted pursuant to the GMA, also contains policies relevant to this annexation. These policies include U-30!, U-304, F-207 and P- 209. U-301 King County should work with the cities co focus countywide growth within their boundaries and should support annexations within the Urban Growth Area when consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. U-304 King County should support annexation proposals when: a. The proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan; b: The proposed area is wholly within the Urban Growth Area and within the city's designated Potential Annexation Area (for annexations); c: The city is planning for urban densities and efficient land use pal/ems consistent with the .- To: From: Date: Subject: Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman ~ke Kattermann Owen Denison MEMORANDUM Oftice of the City Attorney Lawrt!nce J. Warren DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 81995 RECEIVED Anne Santos, Legal Assistant to Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney July 27, 1995 Brief of the City of Renton Concerning School District Property I am enclosing Larry's first draft of the above-referenced brief Please review the same and direct any comments that you might have to his attention. Thank you. LJW:as. Enclosure A8:115.51. Anne Santos Post OtTic" Bo.x 626 -100 S 2nd StrcCl -Renton. WJshill~toll 98057 . (206)255-8678 ® This paper coflt:llns 500~ reClcl~d malerlal, 25% pos7consumer In Re: BEFORE THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON Burnstead Annexation I. FACTS NO. ? BRIEF OF THE CITY OF RENTON CONCERNING SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY The Renton School District signed a petition to annex one of its schools, Maplewood Elementary, to the City of Renton. Opponents of the annexation have claimed that the school district was without authority to sign the petition, or alternatively, that the City could not use the school district's signature on the petition to obtain sixty percent of the assessed valuation as required under the petition method of annexation. Stated another way, the protesters seemed to state that the Renton School District was an improper signatory to the sixty percent petition because the school district's property is tax exempt. II. ISSUE SHOULD THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY BE CONSIDERED IN THE SIXTY PERCENT PETITION TO ANNEX? III. ARGUMENT This issue has been directly answered by the Washington courts. See Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d BRlEF OF CIn' OF RENTON -I 164 (1978). In that particular case the appellant claimed that the annexation proceedings were improper because the City of Spokane considered city-owned property for purposes of meeting statutory requirements. Specifically, the issue, as stated by the appellate court, was "whether the City's property could be included within the valuation determination to meet the seventy-five percent requirement of the statute, thus determining if the petition had been signed by the necessary seventy-five percent of the owners under RCW 35.13.130'." The court decided, at page 724: "We conclude that for purposes of allowing the City of Spokane to petition for annexation the City of Spokane is an 'owner' under RCW 35.13.130." In arriving at its decision, the court cited to Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d. 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960). In that case the court determined that the Port of Tacoma had authority to petition the City of Tacoma 'for annexation as it was endowed with the power to own land, one of the attributes of which is the right to petition for annexation by a city. The school district is similarly endowed with the power to own land, such as Maplewood Elementary School, and has the power to petition the City for annexation. '. Subsequent to the case of Johnson v. Spokane, the Legislature amended this statute by providing that for cities and towns with populations greater than 160.000 located east of the Cascade mountains. the owner of tax exempt property may sign the petition to annex, but the value of the property shall not be used in calculating the sufficiency of the required signatures unless only taxes and property are proposed to be annexed into the city or town. Similar language has not been added to the statute applicable to this case, RCW 35A.I~.120. and in any event, the City of Renton is not located east of the Cascade mountains. BRIEF OF CIn' OF RENTON - 2 The appellants may also argue that the school district signature is invalid because the district property is tax exempt. That argument has also been rejected in Johnson v. City of Spokane: "In addition, the phrase 'value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property' does not require that the property actually be taxed. Cf. Fry v. Mayor & City Council, 11 Ariz. App. 490, 466 P.2d 41, 46 (1970) . Although the property is exempt from taxation (RCW 84.36.010), RCW 84.40.175 requires the county assessor to list tax exempt property. The city's property, although tax exempt, is considered and dealt with as part of the general legislative scheme for real property taxation. The fact that the City of Spokane does not pay taxes is insufficient to exclude the City of Spokane as an owner under RCW 35.13.130. Cf. Fry v. Mayor & City Council, supra. The statute applicable to this annexation is RCW 35A.14.120. In relevant part that statute states: "A petition for annexation of an area contiguous to a code city may be filed with the legislative body of the municipality to which annexation is desired. It must be signed by the owners, as defined by RCW 35A.01.040(9) (a) through (d), of not less than sixty percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned:." RCW 35A.Ol.040(9) defines who has authority to sign as owners of property on petitions. That is not an issue in this case. Other than that, and the fact that RCW 35.13.130 requires seventy-five percent in value to sign, rather than sixty percent, the statute analyzed in Johnson v. City of Spokane and the statute applicable to this case are nearly identical. Therefore, Johnson v. City of Spokane, supra, is current applicable authority and indicates that the school BRIEF OF Cln' OF RENTON - 3 • district, although tax exempt, has the authority to sign the petition and have its property value considered in the petition to annex. This exact issue was raised before the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board in the case of City of Mill Creek Proposed Annexation North Neighborhood Area, File No.16-94. A copy of a letter containing legal arguments on this case by the city's attorneys is attached. Please note starting on page 3 is a discussion similar to that made in this brief. The findings and decision of the Boundary Review Board is also attached. While the Board did not specifically discuss whether or not the school district property should be included, Finding 3 concluded that eighty-six point eight percent of the assessed value within the proposed annexation signed the petition. The following finding states that there were two public schools within the annexation area, and lists the other uses. From this, one must conclude that the school district property was included in this annexation. In conclusion, applicable statute, IV. CONCLUSION under the plain reading of the the school district property should be included within the sixty percent petition to annex. The only applicable case authority so holds. Additionally, the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board, when addressing this exact issue, counted school district property in a petition to annex. The school district does own the questioned BRIEF OF CITY OF RENTON -~ property and should have the right, as the property owner, to petition to annex. The portion of the appeal challenging the school district I s signature on the petition to annex should be dismissed. DATED THIS 3.19:56:as. BRIEF OF Cln" OF RENTON - 5 day of _____________ , 1995. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence J. Warren of Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S., Attorney for City of Renton Earl Clymer. Mayor Boundary Review Board Central Building 810 Third Avenue, Ste. 608 . .. Seattle, Washington 98104· Attn: Legal Counsel CIT_ OF RENTON September 7, 1995 Office of the City Attorney Lawrence J. Warren Re: Bumstead Annexation, No. 1922 Dear Members of the Boundary Review Board: Last week, I filed a brief for the City of Renton' responding to a request to return the pending Bumstead Annexation to the City of Renton because the City allowed the Renton School District to sign on a sixty percent petition to annex. By means of this letter I request the Boundary Review Board to dismiss that request as being outside the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. The Boundary Review Board's review of an annexation petition is governed by the objectives of the Boundary Review Board detailed in RCW 36.93.180. Factors to be considered by the Board are detailed in RCW 36.93.170. Neither of those statutes relate in any fashion to the sixty percent petition. Rather, the sixty percent petition is detailed, in this matter, in RCW 35A.14.120. RCW 35A.14.130 simply requires that the petition meet the requirements of the sixty percent petition and is sufficient according to the rules as set forth in RCW 35A.01.040. If that occurs then the legislative body may entertain the petition for annexation. Because of this language it would appear that the decision on whether or not the sixty percent petition is sufficient is left to the local legislative body and is not within the purview of the Boundary Review Board unless that step was totally skipped. In this instance, the City of Renton obtained a petition, reviewed it, made a knowing decision that the School District's signature was appropriate, and proceeded with the annexation. That decision is not challengeable before the Boundary Review Board and is outside the jurisdiction of the Boundary Review Board. Therefore, the City of Renton respectfully requests that the Boundary Review Board dismiss the request to return the petition to the City of Renton as being a matter outside its jurisdiction. LJW:ldm cc: Mayor Earl Clymer Council Members Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman ~ truly yours, . C-~/O/"C~~'--'" Lawrence J. Warren City Attorney Sue Carlson Mike Kattermann Owen Dennison Lee Wheeler Sam Chastain Victoria Runkle Bob Sterbank Peter Eglick Bob Kaufman Post Office Box 626 -100 S 2nd Street -Renton, Washington 98057 -(206)255-8678 This paper contains 50% rec cled male rial, 25% OSI consumer '- I. II. III. THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. Thursday, July 20, 1995 Meadow Ridge Elementary School 27710 -l08th Avenue S.E. Kent, WA AGENDA WITNESS SIGN-IN -6:30 P.M. It is from this Ust that wilnesses are called to testify. CALL TO ORDER -7:00 P.M. IUchard Schoon, Chair ROLLCALL Ethel Hanls, VIce ChaIr Lydia Aldredge Lloyd Baker A.J. Culver Loren Dunn Jim Hawkins AGENDA. July 20, 1995, Coni. Page Two IV. PUBUC HEARING -FILE NO. 1917 -CITY OF KENT -MERIDlAN ANNEXATION 6:30P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:30 P.M. 8:00 P.M. Introduction of Exhibits Swearing in of Witnesses Proponent: Presentation by City of Kent (30 minutes) Opponents: Presentation by Petitioners for Hearing (30 minutes) General Testimony: Groups are limited to 10 minutes and individuals have 3 minutes Rebuttal: City of Kent (10 minutes) V. FILE NO. 1917 -CITY OF KENT -MERIDlAN ANNEXATION -Direction to the stqflon Resolution and Hearing Decision VI. ADJOURNMENT .) r. • 1 }MtJ..JJM I -r0 § (;f'-.~ r _. ) u.>~LiPj ~ ""p~ Md l / '(/~ AGENDA, July 20, 1995, Coni. ~ V', JJ.. P~eThne ~~'A~r~ .dl. ·.(;'J'rN ~ ~ cr :..; V" • ~'" • '(/ ~O), 1;i1" B A C K G R 0 UN D S TAT E MEN T ~\\\ ~~ tI' tY . ~ 'f' ~U if :"y 0' ¥" ~~ The Boundary Review Board The Boundary Review Board was created in 1967 by the legislature in part to .... provide a method of guiding and controlling the growth of municipalities ... • (RCW 36.93.010). There are twenty-one such boards in the State of Washington. The Board is a quasi-judicial, administrative body empowered to make decisions on such issues as incorporations, annexations, mergers, disincorporations, etc., by cities, towns and sewer, water and fire districts. It can approve, deny, or modify a proposal. Its decisions are final unless appealed to the King County Superior Court. When that occurs, tile appeal is on the record. That is, the Court reViews the file, exhibits, transcript and the board decision, rather than conducting a new hearing. Board members are residents of the County and serve for four year terms. They are not allowed to hold other local government elected offices or jobs. Their compensation is $25 per day for work on Board business. Members may not properly discuss proposals under their consideration outside of the public hearing (ex parte communications). Appearance or Fairness Doctrine In general, decision-makers such as Board members must not only be fair in their actions (Le., have no conflicts of interest), but must also, to the ordinary citizen, appear to be free of any position or influence which would impair their ability to decide a case fairly. However, the State Supreme Court has held that if a person is of the opinion that a decision-maker is so impaired, that opinion must be stated at the first available opportunity. ~uikts ~ '3 oy>-h'w...~ -Pros cfC-s of e..::d.... ~ /<e"""",Ir. LI.-c Ltv.. N>.CCi>f· l<c- -I "'COJ'fOI'ot +e -AnV'\'e',K' cfo ~~ AGENDA, July 20, 1995, Cont. Page Four SUMMARY OF HEARING PROCEDURES Sign-In to Speak A roster will be found on the table at the entrance to the hearll1g facility. Those who wish to testify must sign in before witnesses are sworn. All speakers will be C3IIeli from this list. If you sign in once. it is not necessary to do so at any continuation of the hearing. Exhibits Please submit exhibits to staff for marking before the Call to Order. The Board must retain all exhibits until a decision is filed and'the appeal period ends (30 days)~ or until all court proceedings are completed in the case of an appeal. Speakers Please state your name and address for the benefit of the court reporter prior to testifying. When referring to an exhibit, please state the exhibit letter. TIme Limits The time limit for individual speakers shall be three (3) minutes. Representatives of governmental units or organized groups shall be allowed ten (10) minutes. In order to qualify for ten minutes, a group should be prepared to document an established and recognized membership. It is assumed that the group representative will speak on behalf of the group members and that individual members will not speak separately in addition to the group time. Testimony The Boundary Review Board Act requires the consideration of certain factors (see RCW 36.93.170) and specifies objectives the Board must seek to accomplish (see RCW 36.93.180). Testimony and evidence related to these factors and objectives will be the most effective. .1 'I. AGENDA, July 20, 1995, Cont. Page Five Cross Examination Witnesses may not question other witnesses or the Board. According to the Board' s Rules of Practice and Procedure, only Board Members may examine witnesses. Rebuttal The rebuttal shall be limited to 10 minutes. Rebuttal must be prefaced by a citation of the disputed testimony. Rebuttal may not include closing statements, a summary, or any additional information, unless such information is in answer to questions and issues raised in previous testimony. 36.93.170 Factors to be considered bv boarcl--In- corpontion proceedinas exempt from stat~ en,ironmental polley aeL In reaching a decision on a proposal or an al· temative. the board shall consider the factors affectinR such proposal. which shall include. but not be limited t~ the following: (I) Population and territory: population density: land area and land uses: comprehensive plans and zoning. as adopted under chapter 35,63. 35A.63. or 36.70 RCW: per capita assessed valuation: topography. natural boundaries and drainage basins. proximity to other pop- ulated areas: the existence and preservation of prime ag- ricultural soils and productive agricultural uses: the likelihood of significant growth in the area and in adja· cent incorporated and unincorporated areas during the next ten vears: location and most desirable future loca- tion of co'mmunitv facilities: (2) Municipal'services: need for municipal services: effect of ordinances. governmental codes. regUlations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and ade- quacy of governmental services and controls in area; prospects of governmenlal services from other sources; probable future needs for such services and controls: probable effect of propOsal or alternative on cost and adequacy of services and controls in area and adjacent area: the effect on the finances. debt structure. and con- tntClual obligations and rights of all affected govern- menial units: and (3) The effect of the proposal or alternative on adja- cent areas. on mutual economic and social interests. and on the local governmental structure of the countv. The provisions of chapter 43.21C RCW. Slaie Envi- ronmental Policy. shall not apply to incorporation pro- ceedings covered by chapter 35.02 RCW. [1989 c 84 § 5: 1986 c 234 § 33: 1982 c 220 § 2: 1979 ex.s. c 142 § I: 1967c 189 § 17,] Snenb'llil~i982 c 110: See note 'oIlGwin, RCW 36.93.100. Incorpol'luon DroceeCllftp-. uemDr from Jl.lle envlronmenr.:u Dol,,;v .:1'::. RCW JJ.::C;:O. . 36.93.180 Objecti,es of boundary _jew board. The decisions of the boundary review board shall attempt to achieve the following Objectives: (I) Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities: (2) Use of physical boundaries. including but not lirr ited to bodies of water. highways. and land contours; (3) Creation and preservation of'logical service areas: (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of mUltiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas; (6) Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts: (7) Adjustment of impractical boundaries: (8) Inc;;rporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in 'character: and (9) Protection of agricultural and rural lands which arc designated for long term productive agricultural and resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority, [1989 c 84 § 6; 1981 c J32 § 10: 1979 eu. c 142 § 2; 1967 c 189 § 18.] s.-biHt,-I9I1 • 332: See no'e rollowin, RCW 35.13,t65. 36.93.185 ObJecti,es of boundary nriew boarO- Water. sewer district annexations. IIterler. Territory not adjaceal to districL The proposal by a water district or sewer district to annex territory that is not adjacent to tbe district shall not be deemed to be violative of the objectives of a boundary review board, solely due to the fact that the territory is not adjacent to the water'dis- trict or sewer district. The proposed consolidation mct'lll' oi two or more water districtS or two or mo sewer districts that are not ad,iacent to each other shall not be deemed to be violative of the objectives of a boundarY review board solelv due to the fact that the districts 'are not adiacent. r 1989 c JOg § 13.] , . f"qI'CP1 i IIII ~aS44L4=r"lta/!iillm.l1l H MER I 0 IAN AN N E XA T ION I~' "toil " 'i rllir[f~ ~ ~ NORTH * ~ .3 EXHIBIT SCALE: 1" =2000' ~ MERIDIAN ANNEXATION (~J7L I1c. ~ ) •• _=" •• _._"." KENT CITY LIMITS " ~~ ~~ s;. !::i ~ ::- 0;;- - N s:> ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. ., Boundary Review Board Public Hearing on Kent's Meridian Annexation (to counter Covington Incorporation) July 20, 1995 7:00 PM 7:14 Call to order -Swearing in of witness en masse 7: 17 Jim Harris, Planning Director Brief description of Kent and Annexation area -map Population Annexation boundary City services Utilities in annex. area -water/sewer maps Comp Plan -land use map No capital facilities planning yet -working w/ KC to coordinate CF Fiscal impact analysis -Overhead of costs and revenues (below), breakdown in packet Revenues: ~ cP~-t~ Taxes General government l" \ P , NO State shared revenue Police N 01 E-' Utility services Public Works Fines and forfeitures Leisure Services Licenses and permits Utilities Mise fees Planning and Code Enforcement Beginning fund balance -$405,527 Planner -Two points -Accuracy, BRB Objectives -therefore proposal should be approved 1) Accuracy City knew about the Covington proposal Every effort made to conform to the procedures, thorough, textbook . City invites scrutiny of its procedures No protest agreements -countering arguments that the annexation was forced on people Signature map 2) Objectives (End -7:35) No fractioned neighborhoods New police staff recruited City will maintain and improve roads Award winning, nationally recognized parks program Would prevent abnormal boundaries This would discourage incorporation of smaIl cities Would not affect special purpose districts Agricultural use zoning Questions by Board: Why were certain properties excluded? Answer: One was excluded because access was external to annex. area. Missed other one. State shared revenues may be reduced in the future. How was this factored into the CostlRevenue analysis? Answer: No good response. Certain assumptions went into the analysis. There is a patchwork of utility districts serving the area. Does the City have a plan for combining or dissolving districts and assuming service? Answer: Laws governing assumption of districts preclude most at this point. Additional annexation will make this possible in the future in some cases. Assumption of some of the districts, e.g. Soos Creek WIS, would be hampered by basins and the existing facility layout and system integration (pump stations). 7:47 Opponents -Will address Objectives 1,2,3,4,5,7,8 History with Kent Few police (contract service?) Taxes will be transferred to downtown improvements How will Kent pay for additional services and infrastructure Want to be part of a small town not a big city Misrepresentations by the petitions circulators (told we could vote! We want to vote!) Obj.l Kent has no tradition of protecting single family areas Kent has historically pushed industrial uses to the outlying areas Residents have an affiliation with the School District, but the S.D. is distinct from the City. Would effectively split a community in two. Obj.2 132nd is the natural break for stopping Kent's encroachment Covington Chamber of Commerce identifies the area as a separate community. Obj.3 Kent will not provide services east of 132nd Kent Comp Plan does not address service provision in this area. 7:58 Second opponent Obj. 4 No coherent objection Obj. 5 Sole reason for annexation in to stop the incorporation drive Covington will not be a viable incorpomtion if annexation succeeds. Represents 1/2 of proposed incorpomtion (another opponent confirmed later that the actual fraction is 1/3) Obj 6,7,8 No coherent points. 8:04 General testimony Opp. -Proposed amendment to KC Comp Plan U-302 Opp. -Use of no protest agreements was "procedurally unconscionable". Opp. -Signatures on request for review showed opposition Comment from Boardmember -Incorporation is a different issue. The Annexation must be weighed on its own merits. Does a majority oppose? Pro. -Chris Vance's representative stated that he supports the annexation and that it is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies and the KC Comp Plan, and that it is in the best interest of the region. Opp. -Beachhead for Kent in campaign eastward. Kent's record of stewardship. Apartment and warehouses degrading the countryside because of greed. Kent's aggression. Pro.-. Property owners pay the taxes and therefore should decide annexation Pro. -Natural extension of the Kent community. Orientation of the residents. Where do you go to shop, for services? Pro., representing an organization (10 min.) Overheads Options for avoiding incorp. Ideas: Costlbenefit Petition process Citizens effort Meets legal requirements KC policies Majority of residents Kent offers superior services than Covington could Pro. -City of Kent did not organize Pro. -History of schools (a little hard to follow) Pro. -American Right to Self-Determination Describe history of annexation -initial proposal through 60% Petition boundary Submit leaflets and letters by City and opposition Color overheads, good graphics We need heads from the area speaking. Emphasize that Renton was involved in information and circulation. Beat the opposition to the jump. Renton recognizes an interest in the outcome. Aquifer, direction of development in the Planning Area, providing sewers where a need exists. Emphasize orientation of community to Renton. address, shopping, parks \ . ,", . T PLANNING DIVISION r.ITV,....~ '"2C"~'TnN SEP 131995 iI1.:.CEIVED L~WOFFICESOF \V'""~l~:~ :fi~,~:'/:," '-C-2 HER}v1AN. R.ECOR. KAUFMAN & SIMMERLY ,~~, r" STEr'HEN T AR..A"'-l ,\.1. CER.. .... LD HER.MAN R06ER. T B. JAC"'-SON R.OBERT C. K."UFMAN" STEVEN r. RECOR. P"UL E. SII\,IMEFl..L y Peter I. Eglick, Esq. Bob C. Sterbank, Esq. September 6, 1995 Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson P,O. Box 21846 Seattle, WA 98111-3846 RE: File No. 1922 -City of Renton -Bumstead Annexation Dear Messrs. Eglick and Sterbank: 900 CITY CENTER BELLEVUE 500· l08TH ,A,VENUE NoR. THEAST BELLEVlIE. WASHINCTON 9800..:t FACSIMILE: (206) ~5HG89 ThEr'HONE: (206) 451-1400 I represent the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County, and write in response to your letter of August 25, 1995 received by the Board on August 29, 1995, Your letter requests "a response in advance of the hearing now set for September 21, 1995.". Unfortunately, the next regular meeting of the Board will not occur until September 19, 1995. As a consequence, it will be impossible for me to review either your letter or the City of Re~ton's response with the Board prior to that date. As a matter of courtesy, however, I am writing you to advise you in advance of the Board's policy concerning challenges to the sufficiency of annexation petitions. In virtually every matter coming before the Board wherein a petition is involved, the sufficiency of such petition is determined by other government entities, Typically, petitions are certified by either the mwricipality affected by the proposal or the County of King. -It is the policy of the Board to accept the certification ofa petition by either of these entities, and the Board has yet to conduct hearings or entertain argument concerning the legal sufficiency of a petition. In this matter, the City of Renton has certified the sufficiency of the petition. I do not anticipate that the Board will deviate from the consistent policy it has applied in the past and consider such argument in the instant matter. . -.. . ~.". : .. : ....... -. ',' . : ~. ., "',' , ... ", ..... September 6, 1995 Page - 2 I will discuss your letter and the City of Renton's response thereto with the Board at its regular meeting on September 19 and contact you thereafter. Very truly yours, RCKIIsv cc: Lawrence r. Warren, Esq. AIda H. Wilkinson, Executive Secretary /> ~'. ~COR, KAUFMAN, & SIMMERL Y ./ / .' -"~!rl-' .-,,' --~.-----------------... ------'" ._---.---.--~ . ---....---'~"'--'-.. . : .. ' , .' , " . ~--~-II~-----------------~----~~ .. ,~,~-~~~- . .. ' . . ,.-:.-~------.----,----------'. " " . ,,' , .. .. , . -'" ,. '" '.' ----1------------ 11-4 ~ R-12 iIlW:lII fl-18 BURNSTEAD ANNEXATION KING COUNTY ZONING PROPOSED CrrY OF RENTON ZONING & PARK D=:J CB c:::J N8 ~ Propoood Ann_ ..... ...... _ Renton at)' LinIt8 c:::=J _tlaI - 5 w/= I~=I R_tlaI 8 wI" I~~.q Realdentlal -10 dulac ~ Pmtr • • OD ' e ~1IIlJlDING1I'\JBUC WORKS ~ R. MaoOnIo, D. V"_ 7 So,.Iodoo< 199' King County Zoning sinJ:le familv, townhouse, aDt. townhouse, aDt Standards R-4 R-ll R-18 NB" CB" Base density: 4 12 18 8 18 dwelling units/gross acre dulac dulac dulac dulac dulac Maximum density··: 6 18 27 12 24 dwelling units/gross acre dulac dulac dulac dulac dulac Minimum density: 3.4 9.6 1l.5 none none dwelling units I gross acre dulac dulac dulac Minimum lot area none none none NA NA Minimum lot width 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft NA NA Minimum lot depth none " none none none none Minimum street setback 10ft 10ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft . Minimum interior setback 5ft 5ft 5ft 20ft 20ft Base height 35 ft 60 ft 60ft 35 ft 35 ft 45 ft ••• 60ft··· Max. building coverage 35% 60% 60"10 NA Max. impervious surface 45% 85% 85% 85% • •• ••• I Residential in mixed use development only With density incentives (affordable housing, open space/park dedications, historic preserVation, energy conservation) and transfer of density credits Allowed only for mixed use developments NA 85% , , I , , " City of Renton Zoning single familv detached only. UDto 4-plex Standards R-S R-S R-8 R-I0 Clustered Base density NA NA NA NA (see maximum density) Maximum density: 5 5 8 10 dwelling units/net acre dulac dulac dulac dulac Minimum density: none none 5 7 dwelling unitslnet acre dulac dulac Minimum lot area 7,200 sqft 4,500 sq ft 4,500 sqft 4,500 sq ft Minimum lot width SO ft· SO ft SO ft 50 ft (interior lots) 60ft .. Minimum lot width 60 ft· 60 ft 60ft 60ft (comer lots) 70ft·· Minimum lot depth 65 ft· 65 ft 65 ft 65 ft .' 70ft·· Minimum street setback IS ft· 15 ft IS ft IS ft of a primary structure 20 ft·· (new stn:et) ••• Minimum stn:et setback Average of 20 ft or avg. 20 ft or avg. 20 ft or avg. of a primary structure abutting of abutting of abutting of abutting (existing stn:et) development development development development ' Min. rear yard setback 20 ft· 25 ft·· Maximum height 30 ft Max. building coverage ·35%···· Max. impervious none surface For lots of one acre or less For lots greater than one acre 20 ft 20 ft 5ft ~ 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 35%···· 35%···· 50% none none none • •• ••• The front setback of the primary structure may be reduced to 10' if all parlrlng is provided in the rear yard. •••• 50% for lots 5,000 square feet or less • APARTMENTS Pennitted in R-4, R-12, R-18 zones with various lot sizes and units per acre. , Permitted in R-4, R-12, R-18, NB, CB zones with various lot sizes . and units per acre. Pennitted in R-4, R-12, R-18, NB, CB zOnes with various lot sizes and units per acre: " Throughout the annexation, King County base density allows a similar number of units as Renton's zoning. As shown here, housing type can vary more in King County. RENTON SlNGLEFAMILY -DETACHED FOURPLEXorDUPLEX Pennitted in R-5, R-8, R-IO zones with various lot sizes and units per acre. Permitted in R-IO zone with various lot sizes and units per acre. No more than 50 % of units in a development can be in fourplexes, triplexes and duplexes. (1 o ~ ~ .. r:n ~ o ~' '" =' §: ~' ~ ~; trj -----------------~---------------------- Comparison of King County gross density calculation to City of Renton net density calculations. City of Renton: R-5 Zone 1 acre parcel (gross area) King County: R -4 Zone 1 acre parcel (gross area) Roadway deducted from initial parcel area (.8 acres remain -net area) 4 units/acre X 1 acre = 4 units 5 units/acre X .8 acres = 4 units Roadway deducted from lot areas Residential density, as it is used in zoning regulations, is the number of homes or multifamily units that can be built on a given amount ofland, usually an acre. King County and the City of Renton express residential zones according to a density figure. For example, the County's R-4 Zone and the City's R-5 Zone are residential zones that allow development at four units per acre and five units per acre respectively. However, the County and City densities described in the zone names do not correspond. This is because the densities are calculated differently .. The County uses a gross density calculation, where the City uses net density. As described above, gross density gives a figure for the number of units that can be placed on the whole parcel. Only after the number of lots is calculated, the gross density times the total area, are the roadways deducted. In deriving net density, the City subtracts areas that cannot be built on, such as roads and sensitive areas, from the total area. Then the density is multiplied by the remaining lot area. As the figure above shows, if20% of the area ofa parcel are used for roads, the County's R-4 Zone and the City's R-5 Zone would each allow the same four units to be built. j ! i ·, a LI'l'\.VV\..> ff:ner ~J Washington State Boundary RevievJ Board . . For King County Gmtral Building. Suite 608. 810 3rd Avenue. Seattle. WA 98104-1693 (206) 29tXi800 August 11, 1995 The Honorable City Council City of Kent [ffi~@~~W~[QJ AUG 1 4 1995 220 -4th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032-5895 RE: RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION FILE NO. 1917 -CITY OF KENT -MERIDIAN ANNEXATION Dear Sir or Madam: CITY OF KENT CITY CLERK The Resolution and Hearing Decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for King County on the above-referenced file is enclosed for filing as prescribed by RCW 36.93.160(4). In order for the proposed action to be finalized, it is now necessary that you complete the other statutory requirements or procedures specified in your Notice of Intention. Where required, you must file with King County a certified copy of your final ordinance or resolution accomplishing this action, together with a copy of this letter, with the Council Administration, 402 King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington 98104, ATIN: Ms. Kathy Nelson. If this proposal has been denied, you need to do nothing further. Aida H. Wilkinson Executive Secretary Enc: CC: Resolution and Hearing Decision Ms. Kathy Nelson, Council Administration Ms. Ikuno Masterson, Environmental Division Ms. Diane Murdock, King County Department of Assessments Mr. William S. Vlcek, King County Department of Public Works Mr. Bob Bruce, Elections Superintendent, King County Division of Records and Election Ms. Mary Behm, King County Emergency Medical Services King County E-911 Program -' The Honorable City Council(s): Auburn ' The Honorable Boards of Commissioners: King County Fire Protection District No. 37; King County Water District No. 111 and Covington Water District Superintendent, Kent School District No. 415 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 -------------------------- INRE: PROCEEDINGS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY CITY OF KENT Proposed Annexation (Meridian) King County, Washington FILE NO. 1917 RESOLUTION AND HEARING DECISION The Notice of Intention fLIed in. Boundary Review Board File No. 1917 proposed the annexation of certain territory known as "Meridian" by the City of Kent, King County, Washington. After notice duly given, a hearing was held Jl!!y 20, 1995. before a quorum of the Boundary Review Board at Meadow Ridge Elementary School, 27710 108th Avenue S.E., Renton, Washington. On the basis of the testimony, evidence and exhibits presented at said hearing, and the matters on file in said File No. 1917, it is the decision of the Board that the action proposed in said Notice of Intention be, and the same is, hereby approved as modified by the deletion of territory. The legal description of the modified annexation area is attached hereto . and marked as "Exhibit A", together with a map showing the boundaries of the area as modified herein marked as "Exhibit B". FACTORS AFFECTING THIS PROPOSAL In reachingthls decision, the Board has considered the many factors prescribed in RCW 36.93.170. The following have been selected for particular attention: Land Area The proposed Meridian annexation to the City of Kent is 3,372 acres, or 5.27 square miles, in area. The annexation area is contiguous to the eastern boundary of the existing City of Kent, following the current City boundary line from S.E. 240th Street on the north almost to S.E. 281st Street on the south. The annexation location is on the Soos Creek Plateau to the east of Kent, referred to as the "East Hili" of Kent. The eastern bound8.J.)' of the anne;{ation extends to the vicinity of Big Soos Creek, following various property lines along the west side of the Creek . between S.E. 256th Street on the north and Highway 18 on the south. Kent Kangley Road (SR 516 and S.E. 272nd Street) is a major arterial providing access through the annexation site from west to east. The annexation area includes Lake Meridian, which is located within the central to eastern portion of the annexation area immediately to the north of Kent Kangley Road. .' In the northwestern portion of the annexation area, the northern boundary lille_is S.E. 240th Street, turning southerly immediately to the east of Clark Lake to S.E. 248th Street, then easterly along S.E. 248th Street to 132nd Avenue S.E., and then southerly along 132nd Av~nue S.E. to S.E. 256th Street. The northern boundary follows S.E. 256th Street immediately to the north of Lake Meridian, extending to the eastern boundary of the annexation area at Big Soos Creek. Highway 18 forms the boundary of the annexation area in the southeast corner. PAGE ONE -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) .... . 1 The southernmost boundary is S.E. 288th Street, and S.E. 288th Street forms the southern 2 boundary between Highway 18 in the southeast comer and 132nd Avenue S.E. to the west.· The 3 southern boundary to the west of 132nd Avenue S.E. follows S.E. 282nd Street and property lines 4 in the vicinity of S.E. 281st Street. 5 6 Approximately half of the geographical area of annexation, the southeastern portion surrounding . , 7 Lake Meridian, oV0flaps with the proposed City of Covington incorporation, for which petitions 8 have been rued \vith the Clerk of the Metropolitan King County Council. The City of Covington 9 overlap area includes all of the annexation area between S.E. 256th Street on the north and S.E. 10 288th Street on the south, extending westerly to 132nd Avenue S.E. south of Kent Kangley Road, 11 and westerly to 128th Avenue S.E. north of Kent Kangley Road. 12 13 The boundaries of the originally proposed Meridian annexation are modified, in response to a 14 request from tl1e City of Kent,. to delete two areas included in the original proposal. The first 15 deletion is a triangular area located to the southeast of Highway 18, bounded by 152nd Avenue 16 S.E. on the east and S.E. 288th Street on the south. The requested deletion conforms to an 17 adjustment, or clarification, of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary line adopted by King 18 County under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The second area is a single lot located on 19 the north side of S.E. 282nd Street inunediately to the east of 120th Avenue S.E., if extended. 20 The lot is the site of an existing single fanilly residence, accessible only from outside the 21 annexation area to the west and a natural part of the single family residential neighborhood 22 inunediately to the west and outside of the annexation area. 23 24 Population and Population Density 25 26 The estimated population of the proposed annexation area is 20,000 residents. Based on a 27 geographical area of 3,372 acres, population density is almost six (5.93) residents per acre. 28 According to City of Kent growth projections, the population of the annexation area will increase 29 6,000 to 8,400 residents by the year 2010, resulting in a year 2010 population of 26,000 to 30 28,400 within the annexation area. 31 32 The current population of the City of Kent is 44,000 residents. The proposed annexation would 33 increase the total City population by over 45 percent to 64,000 people. 34 35 Land Uses 36 37 Existing land use within the proposed Meridian annexation area is predominantly single fanilly 38 residential. The area includes two retail oriented commercial centers, the larger of which 39 classifies as a community commercial center, and the other as a neighborhood commercial center. 40 Both commercial retail centers are located on Kent Kangley Road, with the major center to the 41 southwest of Lake Meridian at 132nd Avenue S.E., the point where Kent Kangley Road joins 42 S.E. 272nd Street. The smaller of the two centers is located to the southeast of Lake Meridian 43 at 152nd Avenue S.E. There is multiple fanilly residential development located around each of 44 the two commercial centers. 45 46 PAGE TWO -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) ~--------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 -7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Comprebensive Land Use Plaos and Zoniog King County Proposed future Iaod use, according to the King County Comprehensive Plan, is primarily single family residential at a density of four to six units per acre, combined with commercial in the two existing commercial areas and multiple family residential around the larger center at Kent Kangley Road and 132nd Avenue S.E. King County zoning classifications generally reflect current Iaod use. City of Kent 'The City of Kent initially prepared comprehensive plans for the proposed annexation area in 1982, with adoption of the City of Kent "East Hill Plan." 'The East Hill Plan established the City of Kent sphere of influence as extending to the east to Soos Creek. 'The updated City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, prepared in response to the Growth Management Act, confIrms City intent to annex territory to the east to the vicinity of Soos Creek. Meridian area Iaod use designations in the recently updated City of Kent Comprehensive Plan are almost identical to those in the King County Comprehensive Plan. 'The City of Kent states that zoning classifications under City of Kent jurisdiction would also correspond to the land use designations in the King County Comprehensive Plan. In anticipation of a January 1, 1996, effective date for the annexation, the City of Kent states that land use planning and zoning for the area would be accomplished during the summer of 1995. Growth Management 'The proposed Meridian annexation area, as modified, is entirely within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary lines established by King County under the Growth Management Act (GMA). 'The deletion of the triangular area to the southeast of Highway 18 reflects a clarifIcation of the UrbanjRural boundary line adopted by King County. As a result of the adjustment in the UGA boundary line, the triangular area currently is designated Rural, and the deletion is mandated by GMA. 'The entire annexation area is designated Urban under the King County Comprehensive Plan adopted under GMA. Both the King County Comprehensive Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies, adopted by King County and ratified by the cities in King County under GMA, include policies favoring annexation over incorporation in urban areas. 'These policies state that annexation may be considered where aimexation is inappropriate. 'The proposed Meridian annexation is within the Potential Annexation Area (FAA), or Municipal . ~ Urban Growth Area (MUGA), designated by the City of Kent under GMA. 'The City of Kent has reached agreement with the City of Auburn on the boundary line between the PAA's of the two cities, as it relates to the Meridian annexation. 'The southeastern portion of the proposed annexation extends to the City of Kent P AA boundary at Soos Creek to the east and at S.E. 288th Street to the south. PAGE THREE -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) 1 Per Capita Assessed Valuation 2 3 Assessed valuation of the Meridian annexation area is $608,519,578. Based on a population of 4 20,000 residents, per capita assessed valuation is $30,426. 5 6 Topogarnby;:Natural Boundaries and Drainage Basins ,7 ~ 8 The proposed Meridian annexation to the City of Kent is located on the Soos Creek Plateau to 9 the east of the existing City. The area is referred to as the East Hill of Kent and is located at lOa higher elevation than the City to the west. 11 . 12 Natural drainage within the annexation area flows generally toward the southeast. The largest 13 drainage catchment within the annexation area is Lake Meridian, and the outlet from Lake 14 Meridian flows into the Soos Creek system. Many small tributaries within the annexation area 15 also flow into Big Soos Creek to the east, and Big Soos Creek eventually discharges into the 16 Green River . . 17 18 The eastern boundary of the proposed annexation area is Soos Creek, which forms a natural 19 boundary for the City. Existing park and open space lands along the Creek combine with the 20 actual Creek to provide a: visual and functional boundary for the community, and the new City 21 boundary at Soos Creek coincides with the boundary of the drainage basin for the area 22 23 Most other new City of Kent boundaries created by the proposed annexation follow major· 24 roadways. which form physical City boundaries. The northern boundary line is defmed by S.E. 25 240th Street, 132nd Avenue S.E., and S.E. 256th Street, all of which are major roadways. The 26 southern boundary line is defmed by S.E. 288th Street and 132nd Avenue S.E .• both of which 27 are major roadways, as well as by Highway 18 in the southeast comer. Deletion of the triangular 28 area to the southeast of Highway 18, included in the original proposal, improves the annexation 29 by utilizing the physical boundary created by the highway and eliminating territory separated by 30 the highway. 31 32 Location and Most Desirable Future Location of COnlrnunitv Facilities 33 34 One of the reasons given by Meridian area residents for desiring annexation to the City of Kent 35 was accessibility to government. Residents pointed out that the Kent City Council and 36 commissions meet locally in the evening, as opposed to the Metropolitan King County Council 37 and committees, which meet during regular work hours in downtown Seattle. Annexation area 38 residents expressed a desire for local governance and stated that the City of Kent, with 39 administrative offices and services located immediately adjacent to their area to the west, offers 40 the most desirable location for community facilities. 41 42 Probable Effect of Proposal on Adequacy of Services 43 44 Water 45 46 The proposed annexation would not affect water service within the Meridian annexation area. PAGE FOUR -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The City of Kent already provides water service to the western portion of the annexation area, extending from the, current City of Kent boundary line generally at 116th Avenue S.E. to approximately 124th A venue S.E. The major portion of the annexation area is within King County Water District No. Ill. The boundary line between the City of Kent and Water District No. III service areas generally follows 124th Avenue S.E., including in Water District No. III some properties to the west of 124th north of Kent Kangley Road, and including in the City of Kent service area some properties to the east of 124th south of Kent Kangley Road. The City and District service areas would remain the same following annexation, and the District would continue to provide direct service to the same area. The City of Kent and Water District No. 111 have discussed the possibility of an eventual voluntary dissolution of Water District No. III at some future date, with provision for dissolution over a transitional Period of time. The City of Kent was originally the sole source provider of water to Water District No. Ill, and the City's East Hill system and the Water D istrict No. 111 systems are hydraulically compatible: Water District No. 111 currently utilizes eight wells for water supply, but also has four interties with the City of Kent system, three of which are serviced from the City East Hill system. Although this would allow for eventual operation as one system,. the City of Kent does not anticipate assumption of the Water DiStrict in the near future. Isolated pockets within the annexation area currently utilize individual wells for water supply. These wells would be allowed to remain in use until such time as connection to a public water system becomes necessary, and annexation would not affect continued use. Sewer The proposed annexation would not affect sewer service within the Meridian annexation area. The City of Kent 'already provides sewer service to approximately the western half of the proposed annexation area. The eastern portion of the annexation area, including the area around Lake Meridian, is within the sewer service area of Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The southernmost portion of the proposed annexation area is within the future sewer £ervice area of the City of Auburn. There would be no change in current service areas as a result of the annexation. Currently established service areas are based on topographical considerations affecting gravity flow, and alteration of existing basin networks would not promote logical service areas. In the northern portion of the annexation area, to the north of S.E. 256th Street, the City of Kent sewer service area extends easterly to 124th Avenue S.E. Between S.E. 256th and 282nd Streets, the City of Kent service area extends further east in the direction of Lake Meridian, reaching as far as 141st Avenue S.E. at S.E. 282nd Street. An interloca1 agreement between the City of Kent and Soos Creek Water and -Sewer District ~ confirms that Soos Creek Water and Sewer District would continue to provide the same direct sewer service to the eastern portion of the area following annexation. It is not anticipated that the City of Kent would assume any portion of the Soos Creek District sewer service area in the future. PAGE FIVE -KENT{MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 , 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The southern border of the annexation area, located within the. future City of Auburn sewer service area, along with other isolated pockets of the annexation area, currently utilizes individual on-site sewage treatment systems. The annexation would not affect the continued use of these systems. Fire Protection --.. The proposed annexation would not affect fire protection service to residents and properties within the Meridian annexation area. The annexation is located within King County Fire Protection District No. 37, which currently contracts with the City of Kent for service. Fire service following annexation would be provided directly by the City of Kent, rather than by contract through Fire District No. 37, but the ar~ would receive the same service. Average response tinie for the City of Kent/Fire District No. 37 department is five minutes. There are two fire stations located within the annexation area, one at S.E. 256th Street and 140th Avenue S.E., and the other at S.E .. 272nd Street and 156th Avenue S.E. Two other stations, although located outside the area, provide service to the area. One is the City of Kent/Fire District No. 37 headquarters. station, located across the street from the annexation on 116th Avenue S.E. at S.E. 248th Street. The other is located to the north of the annexation site on 132nd Avenue S.E. The current fire inSurance rating for the incorporated City of Kent is Class 4, while the current rating for the annexation area is Class 5. Police Protection The City of Kent would assume responsibility for police protection service to the Meridian annexation area following annexation. The City stated its commitment to providing the annexation area with the same level of police service currently provided to the existing City of Kent. In order to meet this commitment, the City of Kent has already initiated the process of hiring additional police officers and support staff. The annexation financial plan prepared by the City provides for a total of 21 new police personnel, including 16 uniformed officers, a community service officer, two records specia1ists, a word processing technician, and a secretary. Annexation area residents testified that they desire improved police protection and feel that the City of Kent would be able to provide them with improved police service. In particular, need was expressed for improved police service to handle traffic in the Lake Meridian area, and Lake· Meridian residents anticipated that the City of Kent would have the capability of providing additional service to the areas around the Lake, including the park. Road Maintenance The City of Kent would assume· responsibility for road maintenance within the Meridian annexation area following annexation. The City would become responsible for maintaining an addition 45 miles of streets located within the annexation area. The annexation fmancial plan prepared for the City provides for the addition of two maintenance personnel, plus required additional equipment and materials. The City states that once the annexation is fmalized, the City will inventory maintenance needs in the annexation area, reconsider maintenance priorities PAGE SIX -KENT/MERIDlAN (APV/MOD) 1 for the City as a whole, and prepare a new maintenance program including the annexation area. 2 3 Parks and Recreation 4 5 The City of Kent reported that is has a nationally recognized award winning parks and recreation 6 system, and that residents of the proposed annexation area already participate in City parks and . 7 recreation programs. Testimony from annexation area residents confIrmed that the City has an. 8 outstanding program and that they are current participants. 9 10 As a result of the annexation, the City of Kent would add fIve new parks ·to the City system, 11 including the King County park at Lake Meridian. The City expects to assume ownership and 12 control of these parks, at or around the time of ?JIIlexation, through conclusion of an interlocal 13 agreement with the County .. 14 15 According to the City fInancial plan prepared for the annexation, the City would employ two 16 additional full-time parks personnel, plus a number of seasonal workers, in order to maintain the 17 new parks. The plan provides for additional equipments, as well as personnel, in order to 18 accommodate the parks and recreation needs of the annexation area. 19 20 Cost of Services 21 22 City of Kent analysis of the taxes paid by annexation area property owners before and after 23 annexation suggests that despite some significant tax differences, overall taxes under City· and 24 County jurisdiction are essentially equal. Following annexation, the average property owner 25 would pay less in property taxes, but an equivalent additional amount in other taxes. 26 27 The conclusion is that following annexation, property owners would receive at least equal 28 services for the same costs. 29 30 Effect on the Finances. Debt Structure. and Contractual Obligations of Affected 31 Governmental Units 32 33 City or Kent 34 35 City of Kent projections of revenues realized from the annexation area, compared to expenditures 36 for the provision of services to the annexation area, predict a net revenue impact of $32,363 for 37 1996, the first year of the annexation. Estimated revenues for the flISt year are $3,513,372, and 38 estimated expenditures are $3,481,009. The largest expenditure item is police protection service, 39 with an estimated cost of $1,513,469 for the year .. ~ - ·41 The City of Kent currently has the highest possible bond ratings from both 11oody's (Aaa) and 42 Standard and Poor's (AAA), and the City states that it does not expect any serious ~pact on its 43 debt structure or contractual rights and obligations as a result of the proposed annexation. The 44 City has prepared a thorough financial plan for the proposed annexation, which provides for 45 delivery of services to the annexation area at service levels equal to those currently provided to 46 the existing City. PAGE SEVEN -KENT/MERIDlAN (APV/MOD) .. 1 Annexation area residents testifed that they seek annexation to Kent as a well organized city with 2 an excellent tax base, superior fmancial resources, and the ability to provide improved services 3 to the area. 4 5 King COUD9' 6 ' , 7 Estimates, prepared by the City of Kent indicate that King County would lose $3,582,841 in 8 revenues'as a reSUlt of the proposed Meridian annexation. This figure includes $946,395 in road 9 tax reven~e and $1,192,481 in state shared revenues as the largest items. The City assumes an 10 equivalent amount in reductions to King County expenditures. 11. 12 Special Districts 13 14 The proposed Meridian annexation would not affect the special districts providing services to the 15 annexation area. King County Water District No. 111 and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District 16 would continue to provide the same direct service to the same water and sewer service areas. 17 Although fire service responsibility would transfer from King County Fire Protection District No 18 37 to the City of Kent, the District already contracts with the City to provide service to the area. 19 The District currently pays the City same amount that it receives in revenue from the area, and 20 the only change following annexation would be direct City collection of those same revenues. 21 22 OBJECTIVES 23 24 This decision of the Washington State Boundary Review Board tends to accomplish the 25 pertinent objectives specified in RCW 36.93.180. 26 27 Preservation of natural neighborhoods and comrtlUnities 28 29 Annexation area residents testified overwhelmingly that they identify with the City of Kent and 30 have always considered themselves a part of the Kent community. Residents of the area 31 overlapping with the proposed Covington incorporation testified that they identify with the City 32 of Kent, rather than with Covington. They stated that they travel west to Kent, rather than east . 33 toward Covington, to shop and do business. Residents testified that community issues, such as 34 . sidewalks and .park management, are different from the issues in Covington, and that the City of 35 Kent would be in a better position to address these issues than would it newly incorporated City . 36 of Covington. Annexation area residents stated that as residents of the East Hill of Kent, they 37 always assumed they would eventually become part of the City of Kent. 38 39 The City of Kent historically has viewed the East Hill of Kent as part of the Kent community 40 and has anticipated eventual annexation of the area. The Kent East Hill Plan, adopted in 1982, 41 specifically planned for eventual expansion of the City east to Soos Creek. Residents testified 42 that Soos Creek is the natural boundary between their community and the Covington community. 43 As evidence of general recognition of Soos Creek as the community boundary, they presented 44 pictures of signage, which tends to utilize the Covington name to the east of Soos Creek, but uses 45 the name Meridian to the west of Soos Creek. 46 PAGE EIGHT -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The updated City of Kent comprehensive plan for the Meridian area, recently prepared to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA), focuses on preservation and protection of the established residential neighborhoods within the annexation area. The proposed annexation includes the entire Lake Meridian community and does not split any natural neighborhoods. The annexation extends the City to the natural community boundary line at Soos Creek, which is the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) boundary line established by the City comprehensive plan under GMA. Modification of the boundary line to delete a single lot in the vicinity of S.E. 282nd Street and 120th Avenue S.E. improves the boundary by restoring one existing single family residenceJQ its natuiaJ. neighborhOOd, located to the west and south outside of the annexation boundary. The original annexation boundary line included the one single family residential property, which is naturally part of a single family residential neighborhood otherwise excluded from the annexation. The property surrounding the parcel to the north and eru.i within the annexation area is a townhouse development entirely different in character. There is no access to the one single family residence from within the annexation through the townhouse complex. The only access to the property is from outside the annexation through the single family residential neighborhood to the west and south. This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (1). Use of physical boundaries. including but not limited to bodies of water. highwavs. and land contours The eastern boundary of the proposed Meridian annexation is Soos Creek, which forms a natural physical boundary delineating the annexation area. Soos Creek is the boundary of the drainage basin for the area, and use of the Creek as the boundary preserves the drainage basin entirely under a single jurisdiction. Soos Creek, along with park and open space lands reserved along the Creek, forms a natural barrier between neighborhoods and is recognized as the natural boundary between established communities. The City of Kent recognized and utilized this natural boundary in adopting Soos Creek as the boundary of the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) designated in the City comprehensive plan prepared in response to the Growth Management Act . (GMA). . Other new City of Kent boundaries created by the proposed Meridian annexation are defmed by major roadways, which form physical boundaries for the City. The northern boundary follows S.E. 240th Street, 132nd Avenue S.E., and S.E. 256th Street, all of which are major streets. The southern boundary line follows S.E. 288th Street and 132nd Avenue S.E., both of which are major streets. Highway 18 fomis the southeastern boundary of the annexation area. The annexation boundaries are modified to delete a triangular area to the southeast of Highway 18, which was included in the originally proposed annexation. This modification inj:reases the length of the boundary defined by Highway 18. , ." This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (2). PAGE NINE -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) 1 Creation and preservation of logical service areas 2 3 The proposed Meridian annexation would preserve currently established logical service areas for 4 the delivery of water, sewer and fire protection service. The same jurisdictions would continue 5 to serve the ~e areas following annexation. The City of Kent would continue to provide water 6 and sewer to the same City service areas in the western portion of the annexation area. King ~ 7 County Water District No. 111 would continue water service to the major portion of the 8 annexation area for the near future. There is a possibility of future assumption of Water District 9 No. 111 by the City, which would be logical from a service delivery standpoint, as the two 10 systems are hydraulically compatible. It has been established by interlocal agreement that Soos 11 Creek Water and Sewer District would continue to provide sewer service to the eastern portion 12 of the annexation area, including all of Lake Meridian. Current sewer service areas were 13 established on the basis of topography and gravity flow considerations, and these logical servic~ 14 areas would be maintained. With regard to fire protection service, the City of Kent already 15 serves the area by contract with King County Fire Protection District No. 37,.and the logically 16 established City of Kent/Fire District No. 37 service area would be preserved. 17 18 The proposed annexation constitutes a logical extension of City of Kent service areas for police, 19 surface water utility, road maintenance, parks and other mun,icipal services. The City of Kent 20 has traditionally considered the annexation area, referred to as the East Hill of Kent, to be a 21 natural part of the Kent community. The City adopted the Kent East Hill Plan in 1982, which 22 planned for the eventual extension of City services east to Soos Creek. Soos Creek forms a 23 natural boundary for the community, corresponding to the boundary of the drainage basin for the 24 area. The recently updated City comprehensive plan, prepared in response to the Growth 25 Management Act (GMA), establishes Soos Creek as the eastern boundary of the City Potential 26 Annexation Area (PAA). The southern PAA boundary has been negotiated with the City of 27 AubllI1l. based on the logical provision of services by the two cities. The currently proposed 28 Meridian annexation extends the City boundaries to the PAA boundary at Soos Creek on the east, 29 and to the shared P AA boundary with the City of Auburn to the south. 30 31 The City of Kent has prepared a fmancial plan for the proposed Meridian annexation, which 32 addresses the provision of services to the annexation area. The financial plan demonstrates that 33 the City would be able to meet its commitment to provide the annexation area with services at 34 the same levels currently provided to City of Kent residents. 35 36 This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (3). 37 38 Prevention of abnormallv irregular boundaries 39 40 The proposed annexation does not create any abnorrnaJ1y irregular boundaries for the City of 41 Kent. The new City boundaries created by the annexation generally follow straight streets, 42 except for the use of property lines in the vicinity of Soos Creek. The southeastern annexation 43 area boundaries correspond to the City Potential Annexation Area (P AA) boundary line 44 established under the Growth Management Act (GMA). . 45 46 This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW 36.93.180 (4). PAGE TEN -KENT{MERIDIAN (APV{MOD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Annexation of unincorporated areas which are urban in cbaracter The proposed Meridian annexation area is developed at overall urban densities and already receives urban level services. The area is classified as Urban in the adopted King County Comprehensive Plan, and King County includes the area within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) designated under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The boundaries of the originally proposed Meridian annexation are modified to delete a triangular area located to the southeast of Highway 18. The deletion conforms to King County adjustment of the UGA boundary line, which changes the classification of the triangular area to Rural. Deleticm of the area is required under GMA, which prohibits annexation of territory outside the Urban Growth Area. This decision tends to accomplish the objective specified in RCW ~6.93.180 (8). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY THAT, for the above reasons, the action proposed in the Notice of Intention contained in said File No. 1917 be, and the same is, hereby approved as modified by the deletion of territory as described in Exhibits A and B . attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. .. ADOPTED BY SAID WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY by a vote of 8 in favor and 0 against this 10th day of August 1995, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said date. FILED BY ME this of August, 1995. 11 th day ALDA H. WILKINSON, Executive Secretary WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVmW BOARD FOR KING COUNTY ." --.- , •• 0 PAGE ELEVEN -KENTfMERIDIAN (APV/MOD) EXHIBIT A Those portions of sections 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35 all in Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; including any recorded plats and unrecorded plats and any righ~s-of-way lying therein; described as follows: , The East 30.QO feet of Section 20, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King·County, Washington, AND ALSO the Northwest quarter of section 21, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within S.E. 240th Street; AND ALSO the Northeast quarter of said Section 21, EXCEPT the East half thereof, AND EXCEPT any portion thereof lying within S.E. 240th street; AND ALSO the South 30.00 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of said section 21; AND ALSO all of the Southwest quarter of said Section 2l, AND ALSO all of the Southeast quarter of said Section 21, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in . 132nd Avenue S.E.; AND ALSO the Northwest quarter of Section 28, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT those portions lying within Kent city Limits established under Ordin~nces 1874 and 3171; AND ALSO all of the Northeast quarter of said section 28; AND ALSO all of the Southwest quarter of said section 28, EXCEPT that portion lying within Kent City Limi ts established under Ordinance 3171; AND ALSO all of the southeast quarter of said section 28; AND ALSO the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of section 32, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King county, Washington, EXCEPT that portion lying within Kent City Limits established under Ordinance 3171; AND ALSO the South half of the Northeast quarter of said section 32; AND ALSO the Northwest quarter AND the Northeast quarter of section 33, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W. M. , in King County, Washington; AND ALSO the North half of the North half of the North half of the Northwest quarter of· the Southwest quarter of said Section 33; AND ALSO the North half of the Northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 33, EXCEPT the West 165.00 feet of the South half of the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 33; AND ALSO the North half of the North half of the southeast quarter of said Section 33, together with S.E. 282nd Street lying adjacent thereto; AND ALSO the North 30 feet of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section 33; AND ALSO the East 30.00 feet of the Southeast quarter of said section 33; AND ALSO all of section 27, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in S.E. 256th street; AND ALSO all of Section 34, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington lying Northwesterly of SR 18, together with that portion of 132nd Avenue S.E. lying adjacent thereto, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in S.E. 288th Street; AND ALSO all public right-of-way (H8th Avenue S.!.~ •. ?lnd_S!oos <;:reek Drive S.E.) lying within the West half·of the West half of th!3 Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington;. AND ALSO that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section 26, described as follows: That portion of Lot 1, Block 4, PAGE TWELVE -KENT/MERIDIAN (APV/MOD) Terrace Park10-Acre Tracts, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 56, records of King County, Washington lying Westerly of Soos Creek Drive S.E., together with Soos Creek Drive S.E. lying adjacent thereto; AND ALSO Lots 1, 2 and 3 of King County Short Plat No. 880080, recorded under King' County Recording No. 8110140550, said short plat being a portion of Tract 4, Block 4, Terrace Park 10-Acre Tracts, according to the Plat recorded in Volume 15 of Plats, page 56, records of King County, Washington, together with Soos Creek Drive S.E. lying adjacent thereto; AND ALSO the Southwest quarter of section 26, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, together with S.E. 264th Street lying adjacent thereto, EXCEPT the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of said section 26; AND ALSO that portion of the North half of the North half of' the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26, lying Westerly of the centerline of Soos Creek; AND ALSO the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said section 26; AND ALSO th~ North half of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26; AND ALSO the South half of the South half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of said section 26; EXCEPT that portion lying within 156th Place S.E.; AND ALSO the South 30.00 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said section 26; AND ALSO all of the Northwest quarter of section 35, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W. M., in King county, Washington, EXCEPT any portion thereof lying in Primary state Highway No.2 (SR 18); AND ALSO that portion of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35, lying Westerly of the centerline of Soos Creek; TOGETHER WITH that portion of S.E. 272nd Street lyi~g East of Soos Creek in the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO Lots 1 and 2 of King County Short Plat No. 1184001, recorded under King County Recording No. 8605080993, records of King County, Washington, said short plat being a portion of the South half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO Lot 1 of King County Short Plat No. 8S3126, recorded under King county Recording No. 8405231102, records of King County, Washington, being a portion of the North half of the South half of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO the East 234 feet of the West 254 feet of the South 275 .. 46 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35; AND ALSO that portion of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said section 35, lying Northwesterly of Primary State Highway No.2 (SR 18); AND ALSO the West half of the southwest quarter of said-Section 35, lying Northwesterly of Primary state Highway No. ~ (SR 18), AND :::~CEPT <'.ny-port ion. tr. "'.,.<:><:> " J '< ing in S. E. 288 th Street i'_ AND ZI.l-C::Cl that portion of th~ !~orthe<:,st. quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 35, lying Northwesterly of Primary State Highway No. 2 (SR 18). SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON EXAMINATION OF RECORD TITLE. PAGE THIRTEEN -KENT{MERIDIAN (APV{MOD) ;<; Cl t11 (3 ~ z @ z !::! <' @ ~ ~ ~ ~ o tJ ~ -~, --III ~IL' ' "I'?;!I' .----'Tf'+r~If~\!l~~~idfutLLUllJ I I I '" , 1m 11111 ~II II I J-f" 1_1.I.J. lmT".:-· I' " ,10 , I , . 1 1'''11 r I I I MERIDIAN ANNEX~T~~O~------~l NOIITII -0- SCALE: 1"=2000' l'it~IMEllIDIAN ANNEXATION "@O _mo. KENT CITY LIMITS . 1 .... ; ID~LI.JLLLJ ~ IMnE-" ~1~:'. ~' ~ .',,' . ~... .... /" '. =+;c '. ,,', . /[ . . .. r '.: /" • ~.v ,.: ';1 'j ffiilr;l:t'\~:.t·~~f· ;~ ~J:~.ll(l: !~'!'11-ffi / I 1ft,;, " /1'1 "I, .. ,'-.;,:,/ I I Iii tr1 ~ ~ ~ ~ tr1