Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 82-08-A - CITY OF TUKWILA - FOSTER PARK ANNEXATION82-08-a FOSTER PARK ANNEXATION ormiston stephen ^ - e t 5 MAILED TO: GEORGE E. THORTON 13738 53rd Ave. So. Seattle, 98168 JOHN F. BARTLETT 13744 53rd Ave. So Seattle, WA 98168 MARGRET VERTIN STEPHEN J. ORMISTON 13742 53rd Ave. So. 13726 53rd Ave. So. Seattle, 98168 Seattle, 98168 NICHOLAS TRACY 5326 So. 139th Seattle, 98168 August 26, 1983 As most of the residents in your neighborhood know the City of Tukwila has operated'Fbster Park since 1974. Ever since that time we have had a problem enforcing city park regulations at the park because the land is located in the county. City laws cannot be enforced in the county. In 1982 the City asked the South Central School Board if they would sign a petition to have the Foster Park site annexed into the City so we could provide better supervision. They agreed to do so only if the five county property owners to the east of the park, of which you are one, did not object. In March, 1982 a letter was sent to each of the five property owners asking if they would have any objections. The School Board received no objections and signed the petition in October, 1982 to annex the park into Tukwila. In July, 1983 the Boundary Review Board, which reviews such annexation petitions, discussed the School District's petition request. Several City staff attended the meeting to answer questions. The Boundary Review Board expressed a concern that the proposed park annexation would cause the five property owners to the east of the park to be isolated from other county land. The proposed park annexation would create an irregular boundary line which the Boundary Review. Board says they do not want to create, but believe the park should be part of the City. The Boundary Review Board has asked the City to meet with the five property owners to obtain their opinion about the proposed park annexa- tion and their opinion about their land annexing into the City. In order to provide you additional information for this situation and to answer questions you may have, we are inviting you to attend a meeting with the other four property owners on September 1st at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will be at the Tukwila City Hall in the Police Training Room. I will attend the meeting as will a Councilperson, Don Williams -Parks and Recreation Director, and Brad Collins - Planning Director. Page -2- J . August 26, 1983 GVD /DW /blk Sincerely, We hope we can provide you answers concerning public services, property taxes and land use. It is our hope you will consider joining the park annexation and become part of Tukwila. Please call Don Williams or myself if you have any questions (433- 1800). A map of the proposed park annexation is attached for your review. Gary'Van Dusen, Mayor Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Director Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 898188 • RE: FILE NO. 1182 CITY OF TUKWILA Proposed. Annexation (Foster; 82 -8 -A; Ord. 1282) King County Courthouse Boundary Review 73oard King County, State of W Seattle, Washington 98704 Telephone ( M ut 3, 1983. AUG 5 1883 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING ©CPT, As you know, the above- referenced action was filed by the King County Boundary Review Board effective M arch'9; At the meeting of the Board held ,Iu7:y 14, = 1983 , proposed action was discussed. Subsequently, a Request _Review was filed pursuant to RCW 36.93.100 (1) or (2) . GBM /pam Encis. - of Hearing (Modification) -Yours very truly, KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD: G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 344 -4196 'NOTICE OF MODIFICATION HEARING File NO. 1182 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the King County Boundary Review Board will, on Thursday, September 8, 1983, hold a modification hearing at 3:30 P.M. in Room 400, King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington, for the purpose of considering modification by addition to that certain proposal by the City of Tukwila known.as the - "Foster Annexation ", all in King County, Washington and more particularly described as: ". • 'r Thor- portion Of.`nhe` Steph.n `Fost., Dorii; tio,..'r. Clain Ng# 8:.' :_. t - Section.14, Towt4i0". = North; • Range -East W.M. iying•Saidied of.- the South morgirrri:-.03' South 137tti °Stre.M ,. Southeasterly :of •thia -^7. Southerly -- margin= o, South 138th. Streitf. -', Easter of.-- thirE• '` margin -of'5lst. Averiuri' -- .South: Natheriy of- North margin, of South':` :. 139th' Street: (Orchard" oft • '' Avenue) ' S r� W Ave is t TOGETHER. WITH , all 1 right- of•way r .of..53rd . "• Avenue South; 41 Iying ' . • Southerly of South 137th' Street; "and North ily'of the centerline (ex .. Easterly) of South.138t1t, Street (Held Street).t 'Boundary Review 'Board King County, State of Washington AT SAID TIME AND PLACE, any and all interested persons may appear and be heard with reference to said proposal. DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 29th day of July, 1983. KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD I G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary • „� - r NOTICE OF HEARING NO.•1182 • w • NOTICp -IS HEREBY`GIVEN that.:the'King County- Boundary Review Board will,.. on ThursdayThursday, ; July'14, 1983, hold a public hearing before a panel a.of said Board at 3:30 P.M. in Room 400, King County Courthouse, Seattle, M Washington,: for the purpose of considering the proposed annexation to - ';;:; ; :the City:of .Tukwila of an area known as "Foster ", all in King County, Washington, ;and more :particularly described as: King County Courthouse . Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 344 -4196 (See legal attached hereto and made a part hereof by ':reference) • AT SAID TIME AND PLACE, any and all interested persons may appear and be beard with reference to said proposal. DATED at Seattle; King County,. Washington, this 9th day of June, 1983. G. gRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary "Boundary Review 'Board King County, State of Washington OUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD • } =::That portion :of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38 in Section 14, :Township 23. North; Range 4 East, W.M.,..lying Southerly of the South, margin of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of the Southerly margin of South 138th . .Street; Easterly of the East margin of .51st Avenue South; Northerly of .:the North margin of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South;.TOGETHER WITH all right -of -way of 53rd Avenue South, 'lying Southerly of South 137th Street; and Northerly of the centerline (extended Easterly) of :South 138th Street (Held Street). Sent to i 6 (,�af,Lt{ K�V.�&' in - 378 A e elautij CDU✓ -1/021 Street and No. 'w -375 K.e. anti-Hawk P t e and 2l c. d ,l it �,JL� 1 a •- r1' , . iL S4,20 Postage Certified Fee 1 3 / . Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt Showing to whom and Date Delivered Return Receipt Showing to whom, Date, and Address of Delivery TOTAL Post tj r . , age ar►d beds X55 r f..) PoatmarkTor;Date :Li+ I • failow�i is requested (check oas) ' $Iwiv fo wh and date delivered. • Show to wl+ain, date.and addreat of deflrety :O RESTRICTED DEI IVERX Stiow to whdn and' dale dctivered ❑ .itEST3tIC'lED DE LiV ERX ° 8howto�rhuat, date, and addreu of de tivery.$ r { CONSULTPOSTMASTER R FO F EES) A11TN'Lr E ADORWEO7p! 7 ..nnom� w.REO1STERED NO w l CERTIFIED MO. 3 197. 151 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED — NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ee Reverse Gentlemen: Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Directo$ Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 73oundary Review 73oard King County, State of Washington King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 344 -4196 IN RE: FILE NO. 1182: CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Foster; 82 -8 -A; Ord. 1282) June 9, 1983. Enclosed please find a Notice of Hearing to be held by the King County Boundary Review Board, as prescribed in RCW 36.93.160(1). Rule I -D of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for the Board state as follows: GBM /pamr Enclosure "The Chief Clerk shall ascertain which govern- mental units are required by law to be notified of each hearing, and shall request from each gov- ernmental unit so affected a written statement to be submitted within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing of such request as to its position rela- tive to the Notice of Intention." If you require any additional information relative to this Notice of Intention, please let me know. Yours very truly, KIN COUN Y B RY REVIEW BOARD G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary BOARD Robert Beach Roger 1.. Burgess William E. Crooke Stanley G, Frey Dun Gann Kenneth E. Gates Albert P. Flaylor Doris A. Kos Eileen Lovett Denese S. Pedersen I lenry Schellert STAFF G. Brice Martin, Executive Secretary Walter E. Webster, Jr., Spociol Assistant Attornoy General Paula Anne Mills Russell, Secretary • 790 Asti City of Tukwila ▪ 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 April 29, 1983 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor King County Boundary Review Board W -378 King County Court House Seattle, WA 98104 ATTN: BRICE MARTIN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Subject: File No. 1187- -City of Tukwila Foster Annexation This letter is presented for transmittal to the membership of the Boundary Review Board in regard to the proposed Foster annexation. It is intended as a follow -up to your conversation on April 26, 1983 with Deputy City Attorney Carl Carlson during which the concerns identified in the Boundary Review Board staff report of April 8, 1983 were discussed. I understand from Mr. Carlson that the issues of procedural legality have been resolved satisfactorily; it is to the remaining topic of the proposed annexation's irregular boundaries that this letter is specifically addressed. We wish to acknowledge to the Board that the proposed annexation does indeed result in a less- than - optimum boundary configuration; an area of approximately 3.02 acres immediately east of the Foster annexation will be completely surrounded by Tukwila with only a twenty -foot wide linkage remaining to unincorporated lands to the south. The City has attempted consistently to configure annexation proposals so as to result in a city limit line which is geographically logical, easily identifiable to the public and consistent with our urban service capabilities. As you know, however, the attainment of this objective is hampered in certain instances when the cooperation of affected property owners is not forth- coming. In preparing. the Foster annexation petition, staff attempted to persuade the property owners of the aforementioned 3+ acre tract to participate; our efforts were soundly rebuffed. As it has been the City's long - standing policy to avoid forced annexations wherever possible, we thought it best to proceed with the proposal as submitted due to the urgent safety matters involved. It is precisely these compelling reasons of public safety which prompts us to urke the Boundary Review Board to decline jurisdiction and allow the Foster annexation to be completed. As stated in the notice of inten- tion, the subject site is owned by South Central School District 406, and is leased to and used by the City of Tukwila as a public park. However, because the property is not owned as a county park, King County law enforcement authorities will not enforce county park useage and con- duct codes at Foster. Neither will they assume responsibility to enforce City of Tukwila park codes. Thus, our long -term public open space Page -2- King County Boundaf Review Board ATTN: BRICE MARTI , EXECUTIVE. SECRETARY File No. 1187- -City of Tukwila Foster Annexation April 29, 1983 investment at Foster is rendered vulnerable to such abuse as vandalism, liquor law violations and loitering which cannot be resolved effectively either by King County or Tukwila police agencies. One of the criteria for review of annexation approval is the extent to which a proposed addition to corporate boundaries preserves neigh- borhood cohesion. Few things are more basic to identity of a vital neighborhood setting than the availability of safe, inviting public parklands. For this reason, the officials of Tukwila join with the petitioner in urging the Board to allow for the swiftest possible completion of the Foster annexation in the interest of public safety so that we may assume the responsibility and capability of adequate law enforcement service to this important neighborhood park. In return, we pledge our good -faith effort to resolve the resulting irregular boundary as quickly as time and circumstance allow. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, City of Tukwila ✓ � . AdailliAlP11110 Gary Va Dusen, Mayor GVD /MC /blk Regular Meeting Board of Directors South Central School District No. 406 April 27, 1982 PRESENTATIONS (continued) Superintendent Evaluation Committee Report: Board Member Joy Jenne reported the committee has selected an evaluation form to be used in evaluating the Superintendent. A discussion was held concerning a policy on evaluating the Superintendent. It was determined the evaluation form should not be a part of the policy. Moved by Mrs. Jenne and seconded by Mr. Hammond to adopt the form selected for this year's evaluation only. The evaluation of the superintendent to take place sometime between the end of the school year and the first of July and to immediately evaluate the form after the evaluation. A discussion was held and the motion carried. Cascade View Property Status: Chairman John Anderson reported the Eagle's hearing with the King County Council, related to rezoning or a use permit, has been continued until May 20. MATTERS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION 4 1 Expenditure Stabilization Options: Superintendent Fotheringham referred to page 14 of the Board Booklet, which lists potential cutbacks to be used to reduce staff by 3% per year and to freeze the dollar amount expended annually for non - personnel costs. On item B.5 he requested "by at least 50 %" be crossed out. The staff recommended acceptance of this as a tentative working plan, recognizing the staff reduction will be done through attrition and some won't be achieved. In this case we may need to do minor changes on the program reduction list. A discussion was held on revenue for transportation and reduction of transportation and the swim program. Moved by Mrs. Jenne and seconded by Mr. Turner to accept the tentative plan to obtain 3% staff cut and freeze on non - personnel expenditures. A discussion was held concerning a monthly update on progress toward the goal. Annexation Proposal for Foster Memorial Park: Superintendent Fotheringham reported he had received no input from property owners adjacent to the Foster Memorial Park. Moved by Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Hammond to direct staff to pursue annexation of Foster Memorial Park by City of Tukwila, with the understanding City of Tukwila is paying attorney fees. Motion carried. Summer School 1982: Administrative Assistant Floyd Robbins distributed a new proposal to Board Members for summer school. A discussion was held. Moved by Mr. Hammond and seconded by Mr. Turner to authorize summer school for 1982 as presented, mainstreaming E.S.L. students in reading and math, offering instrumental music and eliminating the • summer recreation program. Administration is to proceed with hiring of personnel. 'Motion carried. Ashland Shakespeare Festival: Chairman Anderson referred-to Kate Ostrom's letter requesting use of the School District van to attend the Ashland Shakespeare Festival this summer. They would leave July 26 and return -3- F.A. LESOURD DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS O. MCLAUGHLIN JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD' DAVID A. LAWER ROGER CREMO LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE.FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 TELEPHONE: 12061624-1040 TELECOPIER: 12061 624.3087 TELEX /TWX: 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE: 19071 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE April 20, 1983 Ms. Paula Russell King County Boundary Review Board King County Courthouse Third & James Streets Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: File No. 1182 -- City of Tukwila Proposed Annexation (Foster) Dear Ms. Russell: CARL J. CARLSON P. WARREN MAROUARDSON LAWRENCE A. ZELENAK JULIE G. WADE MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'BARA DANIEL W. FERM ROBERT M. KANE, JR. GREGORY N. SMITH JEFFREY C. WISHKO SUSAN M. GRAY WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL • ADMITTED IN ALASKA ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation of Tuesday, April 19. The question has been raised whether the City of Tukwila must proceed under RCW 28A.58.044, in handling an annexation of school district property. My con- clusion, based on the analysis set forth below, is that it need not. RCW 28A.58.044 applies to annexations by cities and towns conducted pursuant to RCW Title 35; it does not apply to annexations by Optional Municipal Code cities, con- ducted pursuant to RCW Title 35A. Tukwila is an Optional Municipal Code city. Our courts have held that the power to own land implies the power to petition for annexation of that property. See, Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722, 725, citing Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409. All property owners, then, absent some statute to the contrary, automatically have the power to petition for annexation of their property. School districts do have the power to own property (RCW 28A.58.040), and they therefore automatically have the power to petition for annex- ation the same as any other property owner -- absent some specific statutes to the contrary. RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130 govern annexation petitions in cities and towns; RCW 35A.14.120 governs the same pro- ceeding in a Code city. Prior to 1971, the pertinent language in all three statutes was essentially the same, and RCW 28A. • Ms. Paul Russell King County Boundary Review Board April 20, 1983 Page Two 58.044 did not exist. At that point, then, school boards all operated under the general rule, and all had the authority to petition for annexation under the governing statutes. In 1971, for some reason, limiting language was added to RCW 35.13.125 and 35.13.130, essentially removing the general authority of school districts to petition under those sections. At the same time, a new section, RCW 28A.58.044, was enacted authorizing school districts to petition under those two sections. The amendments, all of which were enacted at the same time, appear to be offsetting, and it is unclear to me just what the point was. I have attached a copy of the orig- inal statute, as enacted, because it makes clear how these changes interrelate. In any event, RCW 35A.14.120 was not amended, and did not have any limiting language added to it. School districts being annexed to Code cities, therefore, need no specific authority to submit annexation proceedings, such as is granted by RCW 28A.58.044. Give me a call if you have any comments, or would like to talk about the analysis set out in this letter. Very truly yours, CJC:mh Enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Van Dusen, Mayor Ms. Mabel Harris, Council President ' Mark Caughey, Tukwila Planning Department LeSOURD & PA Carl J. C rlson OW- L 12 professional nurse, to administer drugs, medications, treatments, tests, injections,, and inoculations, vhether or not the piercing of tissues is involved and vhether or not a degree of independent judgment and skill is required, when selected to do so by one of the licensed practitioners designated in this section, or by a licensed registered professional nurse who need not be physically present; provided the order given by such ((licensed practitioners eha3 *)) p ►1„Isj gs,, 4l chituggin be reduced to writing within a reasonable time and made a part of the patient's record. Passed the House February 27, 1971. Passed the Senate March 8, 1971. Approved by the Governor March 23, 1971. Filed in Office of Secretary of.state March 23, 1971. CHAPTER 69 [House Bill No. 250) CITIES AND TOWNS- - ANNExATION-- SCHOOL PROPERTY AN ACT Relating to cities and towns, including the annexation of school property thereto; amending section 35.13.125, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by section 10, chapter 88, Laws of 1965 ex. less. and RCW 35.13.125; asending section 35.13.130, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by section 11, chapter 88, Laws of 1965 ex. seas. Ind RCN 35.13.130; adding a new section to chapter 223, Laws of 1969 ex. seas. and to chapter 281.58 RCW; and declaring an emergency. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: Section 1. Section 35.13.125, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by section 10, chapter 88, Laws of 1965 ex. seas. and RCW 35.13.125 are each amended to read as follows: Proceedings for the annexation of territory pursuant to RCW 35.13.130, 35.13.100, 35.13.150, 35.13.160 and 35.13.170 shall be commenced as provided in this section. Prior to the circulation of a petition for annexation, the initiating party or parties who ! shall RI 2l2I1 1 II lectigp 2 a ail 1221 1221dat2U la., shall be the owners of not less than ten percent in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for vhich annexation is petitioned, shall notify the legislative body of the city or town of their intention to commence annexation proceedings. The legislative body shall set a date, not later than sixty days after the filing of the request, for a meeting with the initiating [153] (154) MIL E2 v tnS:Tor 14 parties to determine whether the city or town will accept the proposed annexation, whether it shall require the simultaneous adoption of the comprehensive plan if such plan has been prepared and filed for the area to be annexed as provided for in RCN 35.13.177 and 35.13.178, and whether it shall require the assumption of existing city or town indebtedness by the area to be annexed. If the legislative body requires the assumption of indebtedness and /or the adoption of a comprehensive plan, it shall record this action in its minutes and the petition for annexation shall be so drawn as to clearly indicate this fact. There shall be no appeal from the decision of the legislative body. Sec. 2. Section 35.13.130, chapter 7, Laws of 1965 as amended by section 11, chapter 88, Laws of 1965 ex. mess. and RCN 35.13.130 are each amended to read as follows: 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. ( (!t) ) ASSISI !hSlf all &h4 PIQPt= Akashi IQ h4 annul is propeat Qi a s0221 litImisi& ass at tsh2Ql Airman § M lilt the npiihiop L9I apaalatiQn as in stain 2 9.1 Ibis 1221 asandat2U= it ApthotggA, us sttitinp 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 vhicCi' annexation is petitioned((7)) The Pgtit#Qn shall set forth a description of the property according to government legal subdivisions or legal plats and shall be accompanied by a plat 'which outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be annexed. If the legislative body has required the assumption of city or town indebtedness by the area annexed, and /or the adoption of a comprehensive plan for the area to be annexed, these facts, together with a quotation of the minute entry of such requirement or regniresents shall be set forth in the petition. 1111 �SL.CTIQp Sec. 3. There is added to chapter 223, Laws of 1969 ex. sess. and to chapter 281.58 RCN a new section to read as follows: 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 sections 1 and 2 of this 1971 . amendatory act. UUN SECTIQIL. Sec. 4. This 1971 amendatory act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately. !Z! 110291, Sec. 5. If any provision of this 1971 wAlUINSLTH 12 amendatory act, or its applicaton 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. Passed the House February 20, 1971. Passed the Senate March 10, 1971. Approved by the Governor March 23, 1971. Piled in Office of Secretary of State March 23, 1971. CHAPTER 70 [Engrossed House Bill No. 267] INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES -- TRANSFERS -- RESIDENCE AN ACT Relating to intoxicating liquor; amending section 27, chapter 62, Laws of 1933 ex. sess. as last amended by section 3, chapter 178, Lays of 1969 ex. Bess., and RCN 66.24.010; amending section 23U added to chapter 62, Laws of 1933 ex. sess. by section 1, chapter 217, Laws of 1937 and RCN 66.24.025; repealing section 1, chapter 153, Laws of 1937 'and RCN 66.24.110; and providing an effective date. BE IT ENACTED BI THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OP WASHINGTON: Section 1. Section 27, chapter 62, Laws of 1933 ex. Bess. as last amended by section 3, chapter 178, Lays of 1969 ex. Bess., and RCN 66.24.010 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Every license shall be issued in the name of the applicant and ((se lfeense shall be transferals/et nee shalt)) the holder thereof shill nQt allow any other person to use the license. (2) For the purpose of considering any application for a license, the board ■ay cause an inspection of the premises to be made, and may inquire into all setters in connection with the construction and operation of the premises. The board may, in its discretion, grant or refuse the license applied 'for. No retail license of any kind shall be issued to: (a) A person who is not a citizen of the United States, except when the privilege is granted by treaty; (b) A person who has not resided in the state for at least one ((Tear)) 1Qf prior to making application, except in cases of licenses issued to dining places on railroads, boats, or aircraft; (c) A person who has been convicted of a felony within five years prior to filing his application; (d) A copartnership, unless all of the members thereof are qualified to obtain a license, as provided in this section; (e) A person 'those place of business is conducted by a manager [ 155] F.A. LESOURD' DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS O. MCLAUGHLIN JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD' DAVID A. LAWER ROGER CREMO' Mr. Mark Caughey Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mark: Re: Foster Annexation LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98154 TELEPHONE: 1206) 624.1040 TELEGOPIER: 1206) 624.3087 TELEX /TW %: 910 444.4180 CABLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE: 1907) 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE April 20, 1983 Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum I prepared to Dan Woo responding to some questions involving the Foster annexation. Enclosed also is a copy of a letter to Paula Russell, restating this memorandum's analysis on one of those questions; I pre- viously sent to Ms. Russell the Johnson v. Spokane case referenced in the memorandum. I have not, obviously, said anything to the Boundary Review Board with respect to issues Nos. 3 and 4 in this memorandum. Very truly yours, LeS � RD & PATTEN Carl J. Carlson CJC:mh Enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Van Dusen, Mayor Ms. Mabel Harris, Council President CARL J. CARLSON P. WARREN MAROUARDSON LAWRENCE A. ZELENAK JULIE G. WADE MARIANNE SCHWARTZ 0 SARA DANIEL W. FERM ROBERT M. KANE. JR GREGORY N. SMITH JEFFREY C. WISHKO SUSAN M. GRAY WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL • ADMITTED IN ALASKA ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON F.A. LESOURD DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEADE EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS 0. MCLAUGHLIN JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLIAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO JOHN R. BEARD' DAVID A. LAWER ROGER CREMO C LESOURD & PATTEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98154 TELEPHONE: 1206) 624.1040 TELEC OP I E R: 12061 624.3087 TELEX /TWX: 910 444.4180 CARLE ADDRESS: LESOURD LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 425 G STREET. SUITE 630 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 TELEPHONE: 1907) 277.4531 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE April 18, 1983 Mr. G. Brice Martin Executive Secretary King County Boundary Review Board King County Courthouse Third & James Seattle, Washington 98104 Re: File No. 1182 -- City of Tukwi Proposed Annexation (Foster) Dear Mr. Martin: CJC:mh Enclopure cc: vMr . Mark Caughey (w /encl.) Very truly yours, LeSOURD & PATTEN Carl J. iCarlson CARL J. CARLSON P. WARREN MAROUARDSON LAWRENCE A. ZELENAK JULIE G. WADE MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'BARA DANIEL W. FERN ROBERT M. KANE. JR. GREGORY N. SMITH JEFFREY C. WISHKO SUSAN M. GRAY WOOLVIN PATTEN ROBERT L. PALMER OF COUNSEL • ADMITTED IN ALASKA ALL OTHERS ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON WL5EQ NO) APR 19 1983 CITY OF TUMN LA PLANNING DEPT. I am a deputy city attorney with the City of Tukwila, and I am working with Dan Woo of this office in connection with Tukwila's proposed Foster annexation. Enclosed is a copy of a state Court of Appeals case, establishing that tax - exempt property is to be taken into account in deter- mining whether or not an annexation petition is signed by the owners of 75% in value, of the property for which annexation is petitioned, according to the assessed valuation of that property for general taxation. The case is Johnson v. Spokane, 19 Wn. App. 722. I hope to have spoken with you about this, by the time you receive this letter. JOHNSON v. SPOKANE Apr. 1978 19 Wn. App. 722.577 P.2d 164 702, 375 P.2d 143 (1962). Moreover, any influence allegedly exerted upon Mrs. Ramirez by the State was not prejudi- cial; State v. Young, 11 Wn. App. 398, 523 P.2d 946 (1974); nor is the contact between the deputy sheriffs and Mrs. Ramirez analogous to the influence exerted in State v. Kearney, 11 Wn. App. 394, 523 P.2d 443 (1974). Therein the court ruled. that an implantation of bias, suspicion or prejudice against the defendant was unconstitutional. The trial court did not find those conditions here. We find no error. Thus, having concluded that the convictions of both Dault and Wilder must be reversed, these matters are remanded for retrial. GREEN and MCINTURFF, JJ., concur. 722 Reconsideration denied May 12, 1978. [No. 2428 -3. Division Three. April 13, 1978.1 CARL E. JOHNSON, ET AL, Appellants, V. THE CITY OF SPOKANE, Respondent. 111 Municipal Corporations — Annexation — Petition — Par- ticipation by City. A city's tax exempt status does not affect its right to petition for the annexation of unincorporated property owned by it under RCW 35.13.130, which requires such an annex- ation petition to be signed by the owners of at least 75 percent of the property nought to be annexed according to assessed valuation. [21 Statutes — Construction — Proviso — Effect. A proviso which is added to a statute which is general in both language and purpose is to be strictly construed to create special exceptions to the general provisions; an exception from the general provisions must be shown to fall within both the specific language and special purpose of the proviso. [3] Taxation — Assessment — Exempt Property — Statutory Provisions — Effect. The proviso which was added to RCW Apr. 1978 JOHNSON v. SPOKANE 723 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 84.40.175 by Laws of 1975, 2d Ex. Sess., ch. 61, ¢ 15 to require assessors to value private leases on exempt property on request does not alter their affirmative duty under the other provisions of the statute to describe, value, and list the tax exempt property itself in the same manner as taxable property. Nature of Action: An individual brought this action challenging annexation proceedings based on the city's par- ticipation in the petition for annexation and the considera- tion of city owned land for purposes of meeting statutory requirements. Superior Court: The Superior . Court for Spokane County, No. 237593, Willard A. Zellmer, J., entered a judg- ment in favor of the city on May 2, 1977. Court of Appeals: The court holds that the applicable statute (RCW 35.13.130) permits the city to participate like any other owner of unincorporated land in such an annex- ation proceeding and affirms the judgment. David D. Kilpatrick, for appellants. Richard Wrenn, City Attorney, Larry Winner, Assistant, Lukins, Annis, Bastine, McKay & Van Marter, P.S., and Martin G. Weber, for respondent. MUNSON, C.J. —The plaintiff brought this action for an order restraining the City from considering the petition for annexation of the land around Beacon Hill until the requirements of RCW 35.13.130 had been met and for a determination of whether the city's property could be included within the valuation determination to meet the 75 percent requirement of the statute, thus determining if the petition had been signed by the necessary 75 percent of the owners under RCW 35.13.130. This case was submitted to the trial court on stipulated facts; those facts essential to this appeal are set out below. Pursuant to RCW 35.13.125 -.160, on February 17, 1977, a petition for annexation of land near Beacon Hill was filed with the Spokane city clerk. The petition for annexation 724 JOHNSON v. SPOKANE Apr. 1978 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 was signed by the five legal or equitable owners of 19 par- cels of land (five additional parcels are not pertinent to this appeal). One of these owners is the City of Spokane. These 19 parcels comprise 95.3 percent of the land valuation ($69,670) and 76.6 percent of the total valuation of both land and improvements ($102,470). That portion of the 19 parcels owned by the City of Spokane is exempt from pay- ment of general ad valorem property taxes under Const. art. 7, § 1 (amendment 14) and RCW 84.36.010. If the value of the city -owned property subject to the petition were to be excluded from the computations, those persons signing the petition for annexation would represent 94.9 percent of the land valuation, but only 69.5 percent of the total valua- tion of land and improvements. [1] RCW 35.13.010 provides that property not already incorporated as part of a city or town may be annexed to the city or town to which it lies contiguous. Such annex- ation can be commenced by petitioning the city or town. RCW 35.13.125 -.160. RCW 35.13.130 specifically provides in pertinent part: [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. The trial court concluded that the City of Spokane was an "owner," that the City of Spokane has a right' to petition the city for annexation of property owned by it, and that the phrase "assessed valuation for general taxation of the property' contained within RCW 35.13.130 was merely the standard by which to determine the value of the property, but did not limit the property to be included in the calcu- lations necessary for annexation. Plaintiff now appeals the trial court's determination. 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 Parosa v. Tacoma, 57 Wn.2d 409, 357 P.2d 873 (1960), the court primarily dealt with the issue of which of two statutes on incorporation and annexation were applicable. Apr. 1978 JOHNSON v. SPOKANE 725. 19 Wu. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 After determining that the original statute was the applica- ble statute, because the later- enacted statute had been improperly enacted, the court briefly considered the ques- tion whether the Port of Tacoma had the authority to peti- tion for annexation. The court stated: Appellant's argument that the Port of Tacoma has no authority to petition the city for annexation of its own property is without merit. RCW chapter 53.08 endows such districts with power to own land, one of the attri- butes of which is the right to petition for annexation by a city. RCW 35.13.130. Parosa u. Tacoma, supra at 417. The version of that statute in effect at the time of the Parosa decision stated in perti- nent part: The petition shall be in writing, signed by the owners of not less than seventy-five percent (75%) in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned, .. . (Italics ours.) Laws of 1945, ch. 128, § 3, p. 328. For pur- poses of this appeal, the version of that statute in effect at the time of Parosa is identical to that in effect now. RCW 35.21.010 gives the City of Spokane the power to own land; therefore, the City of Spokane, as an owner of land situated outside an incorporated city, has the right to petition for the annexation of that property under RCW 35.13.130. Parosa v. Tacoma, supra. The phrase 'value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property for which annexation is petitioned' in RCW 35.13.130 is the legislature's designa- tion of the standard for determining if the owners of 75 percent of the land by value have signed the petition. It was necessary for the legislature to designate the criteria for determining value (here the assessed valuation for general taxation of the property ") in order to avoid dis- putes as to the applicable standard for valuation and to have fair and consistent valuations of all property readily available whenever there is a petition for annexation. 726 JOHNSON v. SPOKANE Apr. 1978 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 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. [2] Plaintiff contended the legislation requiring the assessor to value the land is not applicable to property exclusively in the possession of the city. Before it was amended in 1976, RCW 84.40.175 stated: At the time of making the assessment of real property, the assessor shall enter each description of property exempt under the provisions of RCW 84.36.005 through 84.36.060, and value and list the same in the manner and subject to the same rule as he is required to assess all other property, designating in each case to whom such property belongs, and for what purpose used, to entitle it to exemption, and he shall require from every person claiming such exemption proof of the right to such exemption. In 1976, the statute was amended with the following provi- sos added: Provided, That with respect to publicly owned property exempt from taxation under provisions of RCW 84.36- .010, the assessor shall value only such property as is leased to or occupied by a private person under an agreement allowing such person to occupy or use such property for a private purpose when a request for such valuation is received from the department of revenue for use in an audit of the taxable rent as provided for in 'The property owned by the City of Spokane is exempt from taxation under RCW 84.36.010. Apr. 1978 JOHNSON v. SPOKANE 19 Wn. App. 722, 577 P.2d 164 727 RCW 82.29A.020(2)(b): Provided further, That this sec- tion shall not prohibit any assessor from valuing any public property leased to or occupied by a private person for private purposes. (Italics ours.) In discussing the statutory rules of construc- tion as to provisos, the court in Seattle v. Western Union Tel. Co., 21 Wn.2d 838, 850, 153 P.2d 859 (1944), quoted Sackman v. Thomas, 24 Wash. 660, 64 P. 819 (1901): • "Now, it is a rule of construction that where the enact- ing clause is general in its language and objects, and a proviso is afterwards introduced, that proviso is con- strued strictly, and takes no case out of the enacting clause which does not fall fairly within its terms. In short, a proviso carves special exceptions only out of the enacting clause, and those who set up any such exception must establish it as being within the words, as well as within the reason, thereof." [3] The original portion of RCW 84.40.175 was general in its language. The provisos added to RCW 84.40.175 in 1976 were part of legislation dealing with valuating lease- holds, when so requested by the Department of Revenue. See Senate Journal, 44th Legislature (1975), at 468. Thus, in applying the above statutory construction rule, the pro- visos should be construed so as to place upon the county assessor an affirmative duty to value publicly owned prop- erty leased to or occupied by a private person when requested by the Department of Revenue or at the discre- tion of the assessor. The addition of the proviso should not be construed so as to interfere with the original portion of the statute which requires the county assessor to enter a description of the tax exempt property, its value, and list the property as he does all other property. The fact that WAC 458 -12 -160 requires that property owned exclusively by a public exempt body is to be removed from the assess- ment and taxation roles should not be construed as contra- dicting RCW 84.40.175, which requires the county assessor to list and value all property, including that tax exempt. 728 STATE v. STALLWORTH Apr. 1978 19 Wn. App. 728, 577 P.2d 617 The trial court properly concluded that the City of Spokane was an owner within RCW 35.13.130, and there- fore a proper signator on the petition for annexation of property to the City of Spokane. The petition met the requirements of RCW 35.13.130 as to valuation; the City could properly consider it. Since the City of Spokane is a proper signator on the petition for annexation, if the City passes an ordinance annexing the property subject to the petition, that ordi- nance would not be void ab initio as asserted by the plain- tiff. Therefore, that assignment of error by the plaintiffs is without merit. Judgment affirmed. GREEN and Mohan, v, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied June 2, 1978. Review denied by Supreme Court November 3, 1978. [No. 2176 -3. Division Three. April 13, 19781 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. CLARENCE EUGENE STALLWORTH, Appellant. [1] Homicide -- Second - Degree Murder — Presumption — Due Process. An instruction that an unexcused killing is pre- sumed to be second- degree murder relieves the State of the burden of proving every element of the crime and violates due process. [2] Appeal and Error — Harmless Error — Instructions — Constitutional Right. An error affecting • constitutional right does not require corrective action when the reviewing court deter- mines it to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [3] Homicide — Excuse or Justification — Burden of Proof — Due Process. The State has the burden of proving every element of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt including the lack of excuse or justification when such lack is included in the definition of the offense. Apr. 1978 STATE v. STALLWORTH 19 Wn. App. 728, 577 P.2d 617 [4] Criminal Law — Self - Defense - Burden of Proof — Instructions. A defendant claiming self - defense has the obligation to produce some evidence tending to establish self - defense, but the State retains the burden of proving the absence of self- defense, and the instructions should so state whenever self - defense is an issue. [5] Criminal Law — Confessions — Absence of Counsel — Effect. There is no constitutional prohibition against the State communicating directly with an accused who is represented by counsel. [6] Criminal Law — Confessions — Incomplete Statements — Efect. The State is not required to place an entire confession into evidence so long as the defendant has an opportunity to present omitted portions. [7] Witnesses — Refreshing Recollection — Use of Memo- rands. A witness may, subject to the discretion of the trial court, use notes or other memoranda to refresh his memory upon a show- ing that a need for such refreshing exists, such materials are exam- inable by opposing counsel, and the court is. satisfied that the material is being used to aid, not supplant, the witness' memory. . Nature of Action: An altercation following a traffic accident resulted in the death by shooting of one vehicle driver and his passenger. The other driver was charged with two counts of first - degree murder. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Benton County, No. 4319, Albert J. Yencopal, J., on October 27, 1976, entered a judgment on a verdict of guilty on one count of first - degree murder and one of second- degree murder. Court of Appeals: Finding that an impermissible bur- den of proof was placed on the defendant by the instruc- tions, the court reverses the judgment and remands for a new trial. • William A. McCormick and Sensney, Davis & McCor- mick, for appelllantlappointed counsel for appeal). Curtis Ludwig, Prosecuting Attorney, and Dennis Yule, Deputy, for respondent. 729 *ILA 4, City of Tukwila 2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard . Tukwila Washington 98188 7 • Gary L VanDusen, Mayor April 12, 1983 King County Boundary Review Board King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 ' ATTN: Paula Anne Russell Re: 'Boundary Review Board File 1182 Proposed Foster Annexation This letter is intended as a follow -up to the telephone conversation which took place yesterday afternoon between Brice. Martin and City Attorney Dan Woo in which Mr. Woo requested that the Board's review of.the Foster Annexation be put forward to the April 28, 1983' agenda. By doing so, we shall have additional time to review the staff's analysis of this application and prepare a response. Please take the 'steps necessary to put this item forward to April 28th. I have enclosed also a copy of your 8 April 1983 correspondence for your files as requested. TUKWI / LANNING DEPARTMENT M�,fk Caughey, Associate Planner xc: City Attorney Parks and Recreation Planning Director MC:jt • Dear Sir: GBM /pr. King County Courthouse Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Director Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 'Boundary Review 'Board King County, State of Washington IN RE :. T.F. ¥1 -28: CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Foster; 82 -8 -A; Ord. 1282) The Notice of Intention transmitted filing and ha filed effective File(s) No. You will be kept this action. Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 344 -4196 Yours very truly, G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary ett CC: Clerk of the Council, ATTN: King County Department of Public Works, ATTN: Rex Knight King County Department of Assessments, ATTN: B Mr. Hatold Robertson, Mgr., K.C. Dept. of Planning Mr. Ralph Colby, Supervisor, BALD - ATTN: Terry Brunner Mr. Bob Edmundson, Office of Budgets & Program Development April 1, 1983. KIN CO Y BOUND Y REVIEW BOARD to $ffilg now acceptable for and assigned advised of all transactions affecting As you know, a copy of the Notice wa transmitted the King County Council by this office under date of a ruary , Any revisions to the legal description must be incorporated in your final ordinance /resolution filed with the King County Council. Diane Murdock BOARD Robert Beach Roger L. Burgess William E. Croake Stanley G. Frey Don Gann Kenneth E. Gates Albert P. Naylor Doris A. Kos Eileen Lovett Denese S. Pedersen Henry Schellert STAFF G. Brice Martin, Executive Secretary Walter E. Webster, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General Paula Anne Mills Russell, Secretary Regular Meeting Board of Directors South Central School District No. 406 March 23, 1982 PRESENTATIONS (continued) A.A.S.A. Convention: Superintendent Fotheringham reported on his attendance at the American Association of School Administrators' Annual Conference in New Orleans, at which he gave a presentation on "Management Styles for Small School District Superintendents." Small Schools Drive -In Conference: Superintendent Fotheringham briefed the Board on this conference which was held in Pasco. Showalter Middle School Evaluation: A sample of the mailer to be used by parents, staff and students in evaluating the Middle School Program was distributed to Board Members. MATTERS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION Neudorf Field Resurfacing: Athletic Director Bill Baumgart reviewed a proposal from Sportsturf Northwest for renovation of Neudorf Field. A discussion was held on the process to be used in the renovation and that this was a method to alleviate muddy conditions at minimal cost. Moved by Mr. Hammond to authorize the administration to proceed with negotiations to improve at least the center one -third of Neudorf Athletic Field. Seconded by Mrs. Baldwin. A discussion was held on the process and area to be improved at a cost of less than $10,000. Motion carried. Property Lease Agreements with City of Tukwila: Chairman John Anderson informed the Board there were no changes from the long -term leases reviewed previously. Moved by Mr. Turner and seconded by Mr. Hammond to authorize John Fotheringham to sign the lease agreements with the City of Tukwila. Motion carried. 5 Annexation Proposal: Don Williams of the City of Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department requested the Board consider annexation of the old Southgate Property and the Foster Memorial Park to the City of Tukwila. This property is being leased by the District to the City of Tukwila. If annexed this would allow the City of Tukwila to furnish police and fire protection to the property. A discussion was held on desires of patrons living in the two areas. A patron, Bill Wise, spoke . in favor of annexation of the Southgate area. Moved by Mr. Hammond and seconded by Mrs. Baldwin to direct the administration to support annexa- tion of the Southgate site and Foster Memorial Park site to the City of Tukwila for police and fire protection if that is the desires of other property owners. Motion carried. 1982 -83 School Calendar: Chairman John Anderson informed the Board this calendar is the same as the one presented the previous month except that Spring Vacation is later. It was noted the Spring Vacation on the calendar did not agree with the dates at the bottom of the calendar. Superintendent Fotheringham reported Highline and Federal Way School . Districts plan to have their Spring Vacation the same week. Moved by -3- 8L4 ' 1909 encl. City tt Tukwila Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard . Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor Boundary Review Board King County W -378 King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 . Attn: G. Brice Martin Executive Secretary xc: City Atty. Ping. Dir. ark Caughey . Associate Planner 433 -1849 9 March 1983 SUBJECT: City of Tukwila Proposed Annexations: 82 -8 -A "Foster" (T.F. #1 -28) 82 -11 -A "Southgate (T.F. #1 -29) In response to your correspondence dated 4 March 1983, our Engineering De- partment Staff has reviewed the legal description modifications suggested by Mr. Knight of the County Public Works Department in his memorandum of 28 February 1983 and finds them acceptable. 'Accordingly, we . enclose one (1) copy each of a revised legal description for each proposed annexation action. I hope that this material will complete our applications and en- able the Boundary Review Board to finalize its review process. Again, we ask that you notify us of date on which these applications will appear on the Board's agenda. Thanks for your assistance. TUKW�).- 1�jP LANNING DEPARTMENT f/ 1/ Mr. Mark Caughey Acting Director Tukwila Planning Department City of Tukwila 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 GBM /pr Enclosufe as noted RE: T.F. #1 -28: CITY OF TUKWILA - Proposed Annexation (Foster; 82 -8 -A; Ord. 1282) 'Boundary Review 'Board King County, State of Washington King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 344 -4196 March 4, 1983. Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from the King County Engineering Staff after checking the legal description and Assessor's Maps submitted as part of the above Notice of Intention. If you are in agreement with these comments, please submit to our office a revised legal description. We suggest you direct any questions regarding this matter to the Department of Public Works, attention Jim Bergsma, on Extension 4134. Yours very truly, KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD G. BRICE MARTIN Executive Secretary Mr. G. Brice Martin Executive Secretary Boundary Review Board W -378 Courthouse Dear Mr. Martin: Re: Proposed Annexation to City of Tukwila (Foster) Temporary File No. 1-28 We have checked the legal description of the attached proposed annexation and find it unsatisfactory. Please revise the legal discription to read as follows: That portion of Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying Southerly of the South margin of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of the Southerly margin of South 138th Street; Easterly of the East margin of 51st Avenue South; Northerly of the North margin of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South; TOGETHER WITH all right -of -way of 53rd Avenue South, lying Southerly of South 137th Street; and Northerly of the centerline (extended Easterly) of South 138th Street (Held Street). The related Assessor's map appears to be for the same area as described in the legal description. This annexation does not appear to include a portion of a County park nor conflict with any other city in the vicinity. Ver truly yo rs, R`F1X H KNIGHT, .E. Design Engin er Engineering Services RHK /JRB :asp Attachment: Entire File cc: Marie Stiles 402 -A Courthouse . King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director March 1, 1983 ± K.C. BOUNDAat' I., mellow MAR it 0 • 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344.2517 Foster Annexation: That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in• 1. "'' Section 14, Township 23 North,. Range 4 East, WM., lying Southerly of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of South 138th .Street; Easterly of 51st Avenue South;- Northerly of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South;.. TOGETHER WITH the West 1/2 of 53rd Avenue South., lying Southerly of South 137th Street; , and Northerly, of the center line (extended Easterly) of South 138th Street (Held Street). . * .. , CERTIFICATION • I, Maxine Anderson, City Clerk of the City of do hereby certify that .this Ordinance, being 1 2, a true and correct Copy of the original Ordinance passed on•the 6th day of December, 1982, as said.Ordigance appears on the Minute Book of the City of Tukwila, Washington. .7 • DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. EXHIBIT x'ne Anderson, • • ity Clerk • ••• 15 joa MU I MN I POI 0 /7 5. . . . . . • . . RIVERTON ROVLIIN ■ MCMICKEH HEIGHTS& SEATTLE- TACOMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DRIVING INSTRUCTIONS FROM DOUNTO4�N SEATTLE TO: AREA 1: "Southgate" 1) S/B I -5 to Exit 156 2) Rt. onto Interurban Ave, 3) Lt. onto S.133rd St. (Under 5991 4) Follow S. 133rd'to So, 130 St. 5) Rt. onto So. 130th St, 6) Rt. onto'41st Ave So. AREA 2; qFo4 11 S/ B I.5 to Exit 156 21 Lt. onto Interurban Aye. 3) &t, onto 52nd Ave So, 4) Lt. onto 51st Ave. So, 5) Lt. onto S. 139th St. Foster Annexation: That' portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. ' 38 , in- . Section 14, Township 23 North,. Range 4 East, W.M., lying Southerly of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of South 138th .Street; Easterly of 51st Avenue South;. Northerly of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South; ,.TOGETHER WITH the West 1/2 of 53rd Avenue South, lying Southerly of South 137th Street; • and Northerly, . of the 'center line (extended Easterly) of South 138th Street .(Held °Street) e 14 ARA CERTIFICATION I, Maxine Anderson,'City Clerk of the City of•.Tukwila,•Washington, do hereby certify,. that :this Ordinance, bei ng Ordi nance• No. 1'282, ii a true and correct Copy of the original Ordinance passed on the 6th day of December,. 1982, as said Ordinance appears on the Minute Book of the City of Tukwila, Washington. r V • x'ne Anderson, City Clerk • DATED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983. EXHI.B IT 4. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT P -170 Insurance Building, M.S. AQ-44 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -5450 Robert S. O'Brien State Treasurer Legislative Building Olympia, WA 98504 ATTN: Ann Lawson Dear Mr. O'Brien: February •25, 1983 HENN I MRR 3 198 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. . This is to: 1) inform you of revisions to the Official April 1, 1982 Population Estimates used in distributing liquor excise tax, and 2) transmit the Second Quarterly Report of Annexations to Cities and Towns (approved by this office from December 1, 1982 through February 28, 1982) and your copy of the Summary Report of Populations Annexed. The 1982 population estimates were revised on the basis of corrections to the 1980 census counts that were received from the Bureau of the Census on February 14, 1983. Revised 1982 population estimates of cities and counties affected by the 1980 census count corrections are shown in the enclosed table. Please include these population revisions when distributing revenues to cities and counties. Also enclosed are the Second Quarterly Report of Annexations to Cities and Towns and your copy of the Summary Report of Populations Annexed. The Official April 1, 1982 Populations and Adjusted Populations shown in these reports reflect the above mentioned 1982 population estimate revisions. Cities and towns annexing during the Second Quarter are being sent a copy of this letter, the Second Quarterly Report and copies of their annexations. JRW:pw Enclosures (3) Sincerely, //avez John R. Walker Assistant Director Forecasting ac Estimation Division cc: Honorable Ralph D. Munro, Secretary of State James E. Hoeing, Controller Liquor Control Board John Gonsalez, Director, Dept. of Licensing Don Burrows, Director, Dept. of Revenue Lyle Jacobsen, Deputy Treasurer, State Treasurer's Office Director, Property Tax Division, Dept. of Revenue Director, Excise Tax Division, Dept. of Revenue Manager, Local Finance Section, Public Transportation and Planning Division, Dept. of Transportation Supervisor of City and Urban Area Mapping, Dept. of Transportation Annexing Cities and Towns JOE TALLER Director C f Revised 1982 Estimate Official 1982 Based on Estimate . Census Correction Difference King County 1,311,400 1,311,400 .0 Unincorporated 538,076 538,251 +175 Incorporated 773,324 773,149 -175 Kent 23,775 23,600 -175 State Total 4,264,000 Unincorporated 2,117,137 Incorporated 2,146,863 4,264,000 2,117,312 2,146,688 0 +175 -175 .:t - INriICA1Eti A STREET ANNEXATION OFFICE OF :�erttx �r�;+�a�R:r:1_ �.+ c_ •ve,•;,la: ?�!•'..= �'?S�fr.4� -a' �;�i^Lf1hTs. *IL Asti City of Tukwila ▪ 6200 Southcenter Boulevard a ▪ 19 . Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor State of Washington Office of Financial Management Population Studies Division House Office.Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 SUBJECT: "Foster" Annexation Certificate xc: Mayor City Clerk Mar Caughey A ociate Planner 20 December 1982 In accordance with RCW 35.13.260, we transmit herewith the following mater- ials certifying annexation to the City of Tukwila certain contiguous terri- tory commonly referred to as the "Foster" Annexation (City file no 82 -8 -A): 3 - Copies, Executed Certificate of Annexation (Form 170.1) 3 - Copies, Tukwila Ordinance 1282 effecting said annexation 3 - Maps, 8 1/2" x'll" format illustrating annexation boundaries Do to the fact that the Foster annexation area is in use as a public park and thus has no permanent population, we have omitted the Special Population Census Schedules which normallly accompany the Certificate of Annexation. Note also that this matter is still pending before the King County Boundary Review Board; we expect a favorable decision on the annexation request from that organization in the near future. If you require further information, please call me at 433 -1849. TUKWILA LANNING DEPARTMENT Brad Cj ins, Director •. This form trust be filled out in triplicate and all sup, plementary documents nn st be in triplicate with the exception of the Special Population Census Schedules. 1. Name of city or town 2. Was a Boundary Review Board or Annexation Review Board hearing held? Date Pr'n1 no 3. Ordinance Number? 1282 4. According to what statute (s) was this annexation accomplished? Rev ;.5./1.,..1.4....1 ?0 5. When was this ordinance passed? 6 (jeCt "b. )- 6. When was this ordinance published? 1 December '! 9R2 7. How many days after publication did this ordinance become effective? 8. On what date did this annexation become part of the municipality? •6- "" ;, erQh-Fr•-1-9P.f'•' 9. Area of this annexation in acres? 3.1 , 10. How many housing units, including vacant units were existent in the annexed area on the date this territory became a part of the municipality? none 11. How many housing units in the annexed area were occupied on the date this territory became a part of the municipality? M/A 12. Population of annexed area on the date this territory became a part of the municipality? (Number of residents determined by actual count) TIM Definitions and procedures in census taking, as set forth by the Office of Financial Management, must be followed. Special Population Census Schedules and Enwwu ton's Manual are available on request. READ CAREFULLY THE EXPLANATORY NOTE BEFORE FILLING OUT THIS CERTIFICATE NOTE:. The following informaticn is necessary and must be enclosed before the annexation can be processed (RCW 35.13.260): a. The .thhee copies of the annexation certificate should be filled out and e.igned. " b. Thhee copies of the relevant ORDINANCE; containing the legal description of the annexed territory. c. Thhee MAYS of the annexed area. The naps should conform to acceptable engineering standards, including directional arms, scale, properly designated streets, highways, railroads, rivers, blocks, and other physical characteristics relevant to the territory and boundaries of the annexed area as well as existing municipal limits with the area annexed outlined in red. The map shall be on an 81/2" X 11" sheet or folded to that size. d. One copy of the Special Population Census Schedules used to enumerate the population of the annexed area. I hereby certify that, to effect the above annexation, all legal requirements have been satisfied, and that the data set forth in this certificate ;'incllcding the attached documents, are true; an?L correct. ` ai ;('Signed) , ' Mayor [SEAL]. 7 Revised 6/77 C , Dater • Attest: % ".;,r'" e, ,7 r City (Town) Clerk ' . - Date ' • do Cahbon Pape& needed - Do Not Sepahate Fo'un ANNEXATION CERTIFICATE STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Population Studies Division House Office Building Olympia, Washington 98504 Year No Cahbon Papeh needed - Do Not Sepahate Fa/1m WHITE - Office of Financial Management CANARY - Apartment of fighways PINK - To be returned to City or Town after approval OFFICE RECORD File Number Date received Certificate Approved byY. , ,t I /! , Stab C.rtitjiag Official Date Remarks Form 170.1 . / Y CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO /a2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY CONTIGUOUS TO THE'CITY OF TUKWILA (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE' "FOSTER" ' ANNEXATION), PROVIDING FOR. ASSUMPTION BY SAID TERRITORY OF CITY BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND ZONING SAID TERRITORY.' WHEREAS, a petition to annex the real property hereinafter described has been filed with the City Clerk of the•City of Tukwila, signed by owners of one hundred percent of the property according to the assessed valuation for the general taxation of property for which annexation is petitioned, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila has determined that all property within the territory seeking to be annexed shall, upon annexation, be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as the property of the City of Tukwila is assessed and taxed to pay for any outstanding indebtedness of'the City 'of 'Tukwila existing prior to or at the date of annexation of this property, and WHEREAS, the City Council fixed the date of November 15, 1982, as the date for public hearing thereon and caused due and proper notice. of said hearing to be posted and published as required by law, conducted a hearing on that date and received no comments critical of the annexation, and WHEREAS, with respect to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, a formal declaration of environmental. non - significance was entered in the Tukwila SEPA public information- center on'July 1, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The territory requesting annexation to the City of Tukwila is situated in King County, State 'of Washington, is contiguous, proximate and adjacent to the present corporate limits of the City and is more particularly described in Exhibit A and depicted'on Exhibit B, both of which are attached and incorporated in full by this. reference. . .Section 2. The territory set forth in this ordinance and for which the petition for annexation is filed'is hereby annexed to the City of. Tukwila . Section 3. All the property within this territory annexed hereby shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the City of Tukwila, including assessment of taxes and payment of any bonds issued or debts contracted prior to or existing'at the date of annexation. Section 4. Said area hereby annexed shall be and hereby is classified and zoned as R -1 -20 (Single Family Residential). Section 5. Said area annexed hereby shall become a part of the City of Tukwila, and this ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the 17th day of December , 1982. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFUKWILA, WASHINGTON, . at a regular meeting thereof this ( day of ,Z/,4"...c,f,c.i,.. , 1982. Approved as to Form Ma1ot ; Gafy L. Van Dusen • Published Record Chronicle - December 10 c:.1 Woo 19 Ordinance 1282 EXHIBIT A FOSTER ANNEXATION: LEGAL DESCRIRTION That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38 in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying Southerly of the South margin of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of the Southerly margin of South 138th Street; Easterly of the East margin of 51st Avenue South; Northerly of the North margin of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South; TOGETHER WITH all right -of -way of 53rd Avenue South, lying Southerly of South 137th Street; and Northerly of the centerline (extended Easterly) of South 138th Street (Held Street). CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT 82 -8 -A Foster Park Annexation AGENDA ITEM The attached materials constitute a complete petition for and notice of intention to.commence proceedings to annex Foster Park to the City of Tukwila. This p'tition represents a cooperative effort between the City staff and the administration of South Central School District to bring the park site under City protection and control. Adoption of the accompanying resolution will formally begin the annexation approval process by accepting the petition and setting a public hearing at the regular meeting of 2 August 1982. Since we anticipate that the' Council will act favorably at that time on the petition request,, we shall prepare an appropriate ordinance for your approval which will formally annex Foster Park and create an appropriate zoning classification. Proponent'. City of Tukwi la Lead Agency Location of Proposal Responsible Official Position /Title COMMENTS: Planning Director CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COAM4UNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL . DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Annexation of Contiguous Territory 51st and 52nd Ayes So. between 137th and 139th Sts. City of Tukwila 0 File No. EPIC - 184 -8a This proposal has been determined to (am/not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EI (W/is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by 'the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Brad Collins Date 1 July 1982 Signature Supplemental Data Sheet Foster Annexation Action 82 -8 -A Item 2: Population of the Annexed Area Since th permanen Item 1: Geographic Setting The Fost ;r annexation area is immediately contiguous to an established residential neighborhood at the northwest boundary of the City. The site encompasses Joseph Foster Memorial Neighborhood Park consisting of an athletic field, picnic area, tennis court and open paved play area. Low - density housing is the p edominant use characteristic of surrounding lands, although the annexation site is adjoined at its northeast corner across 53rd Avenue South by the medium - density Terrace Apartment complex. To the west of the site abo t 500 yards distant is the easterly margin of Interstate 5. The neighboring property to the south is under City of Tukwila control and represen s potential space for expansion of Foster Memorial Park. entire annexation area is devoted to parkland useage, there is no population present. Item 3: Comprehensive Plan The anne ation territory is included in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan which wa- adopted in September, 1977. The site is designated thereon as "Parks a d Open Space" and "Public Facilities." Item 4: Development Potential The anne south pr portion is curre It is th useage a Developm County f bleacher expected The Fost of Tukwi purpose grant re this sit this sit Item 5: ation is divided roughly in half by an escarpment which runs north - duci.ng a lower terrace on the east half (where the ejcisting developed f Foster Park is situated) and an upper terrace on the west half which tly vacant. City's intent to commit the entire annexation area to long -term a public park. In 1982, the City of Tukwila obtained Community nt Block Grant funds through a cooperative application with King r development of a youth athletic field and baseball diamond with on the upper terrace area. Construction of these facilities is to begin in early 1983. r Park property, the subject of this, annexation, is leased by the City a from South Central School District 406 for 25 years for the expressed f parkland useage. Further, stipulations of the aforementioned block uire a 20 -year committment on the City's part to public park useage of . Thus, there is little potential for more intensive development of Comparative Zoning Section of Ordinance 1282 designates the entire annexation site as R -1 -20 (Single amily Residential, 20,000 square feet minimum lot size required), consiste t with city -wide zoning of other parklands within the corporate boundary County zoning at present is S -R. Page -2- Supplemental Data Sher, Foster Annexation Act\ ,1n 82 -8 -A Item 6: Service Delivery The following table describes infrastructure service delivery systems already in place, and which are adequate to existing and potential public park development. See also the series of service district vicinity maps attached to this Notice of Intention. ' Police Services now provided by the County will be assumed by Tukwila. It is routine practice of the Tukwila Police Department to respond to emergency service calls at the urban fringe in concern with County forces. However, upon annexation, the City will be able to enforce its own municipal code statutes regulating public park useage and will be able to do so with city personnel. Enhanced response time and effectiveness of police services is anticipated upon annexation. Fire and imergency medical protection service will be provided by the Tukwila Fire Department, with back -up assistance as required from districts 1 and 18. Item 7: Taxation The entire annexation area encompasses surplus school property committed to long -term public park useage. As such, the property has no assessed valuation for taxation pruposes and will have no effect on the City or County tax base. MC /blk Service Purveyor Facility Location Alt. Agency Storm Sewer Water Supply Sanitary Sewer Tukwila W.D. 125 Tukwila 18" Main 4" Main 6" Main 8" Main 8" Main S. 139th St. 53rd Ave. So. 51st Ave. So. 53rd Ave. So. 51st Ave. So. None Tukwila None Page -2- Supplemental Data Sher, Foster Annexation Act\ ,1n 82 -8 -A Item 6: Service Delivery The following table describes infrastructure service delivery systems already in place, and which are adequate to existing and potential public park development. See also the series of service district vicinity maps attached to this Notice of Intention. ' Police Services now provided by the County will be assumed by Tukwila. It is routine practice of the Tukwila Police Department to respond to emergency service calls at the urban fringe in concern with County forces. However, upon annexation, the City will be able to enforce its own municipal code statutes regulating public park useage and will be able to do so with city personnel. Enhanced response time and effectiveness of police services is anticipated upon annexation. Fire and imergency medical protection service will be provided by the Tukwila Fire Department, with back -up assistance as required from districts 1 and 18. Item 7: Taxation The entire annexation area encompasses surplus school property committed to long -term public park useage. As such, the property has no assessed valuation for taxation pruposes and will have no effect on the City or County tax base. MC /blk . . . . CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public Hearing on the 16th day of August, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following: A PETITION TO ANNEX 3.4 ACRES SITUATED CONTIGUOUS TO THE NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE CITY, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS JOSEPH FOSTER MEMORIAL PARK Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on same. CITY OF TUKWILA Maxine Anderson City Clerk • ;- �� f % Cam` 1 10- sr .V IFoved NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA: The undersigned, being owners of at least ten per cent (10 %) by assessed valuation of the area for which we propose annexation, here- with file with the City of Tukwila our Notice of Intent to circulate petitions requesting annexation•to the City of Tukwila of the follow- ing described property continguous to said City. It is proposed that this area will seek annexation not subject to the general indebtedness of the City of Tukwila. Area proposed for annexation: (Note: Insert here a legal description describing the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation.) That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying Southerly of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of South 138th Street; Easterly of 51st Avenue South; Northerly of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South; TOGETHER WITH the West 1/2 of 53rd Avenue South, lying Southerly of South 137th Street; and Northerly of the center line (extended Easterly) of South 138th Street (Held Street). Common Location of Area: Total Assessed:Valuation: Foster SIGNED: Name & Address / 1- 42"4'P\ 430A,C1) ci}A/,$ir.1V DATE: Y Jays7 4 'f '' /.f7iticr 1 DE3u /8ZU AWIF School District Property, No Assessed Valuation, Property Owned Assessed Valuation.. (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS, IF NECESSARY) Foster Annexation: That portion of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. 38, in Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying Southerly of South 137th Street; Southeasterly of South 138th Street; Easterly of 51st Avenue South; Northerly of South 139th Street (Orchard Avenue) and Westerly of 53rd Avenue South; TOGETHER WITH the West 1/2 of 53rd Avenue South., lying Southerly of South 137th Street; and Northerly of the center line (extended Easterly) of South 138th Street (Held Street) .. 4640 SOUTH 144th STREET Dear Frank: JJF:mm copy - Board Members 1.. SCHOOL S outh 9enti / KING COUNTY Mr. Frank Todd, Mayor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Seattle, Washington 98188 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98168 • Phone: 244 - 2100 The South Central School District Board of Directors has been responsive to the City of Tukwila's desire to annex the Tukwila Community Center (our old Southgate School) property into the City. We understand this annexation would allow the City of Tukwila to furnish police and fire protection to the property. It should be noted, however, that the supportive School Board action to annex was made with the stipulation that annexation would be the desire of all residential property owners included in the area to be annexed with the Southgate property. On March 23, 1982, when the Board agreed to support the annexation, only the three residential properties to the immediate east of the old school site were said to be joining in the annexation. Each of those three were willing supporters to the annexation concept. Should the City now seek a larger area to annex, along with the School District property, then further consideration by the School Board will be necessary. Please contact me if you feel a need to discuss this issue. Sincerely, John J. Fotheringham Superintendent of Schools June 5, 1982 .mo 7'e - c, H ax €.-17r7.76 I'1 Being part of the Stephen Foster Don. Claim #38 in Sec. 14, T. 23 N. R. 4 E. W.M., the boundaries of which Commence at a point and stake in the West line of said Sec. 14, which point is 597.83/100 ft. South of the * Sec. Corner in the West line of said Sec. 14, running thence along the South Easterly line of a public highway called Foster Str. N. 71053' E. 144.50/100 ft. to a stake; thence N. 47 °35' E, along said Foster Str. 70 30/100 ft. to a stake; thence N. 34° 10' E. along said Foster St. 62.25/100 ft. thence East, parallel with the South line of said Stephen Fost. Don. Claim, 5.65/100 ft. to a point in the West line of a public highway called College Ave; thence South, aling the West line of College Ave., and parallel with the West line of Said Sec. 14, 451.51/100 ft. to a stake in the North line of a public highway called Orchard Ave.; thence West, along said Orchard Ave. and parallel with Ihe South line of said Don. Claim 49.50/100 ft. to a stake; thence North, parallel with the West line of said Sec. 14, 280.50/100 ft. to a stake; thence West, parallel with the South line of said Don. Claim 181.50/100 ft. to a point and stake in the West line of said Sec. 14; thence North, along the West line of said Sec. Fourteen, 30.12/100 ft. back to the point of beginning; the tract so bounded containing One Acre more or less, and being all situate in King County, Wash., and adjoining the East line and North line of an Acre tract now owned and used for public school pur- poses by said School District #144, is the same Section. Part of the Stephen Foster Donation Claim No. ° 38 in Twp. 23 N., R. 4 E.W.M., described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the E. line of College Avenue and the S. line of East Street, said point being 460.5' South and 249' East of the quarter section corner between Sections 14 and 15 in said township and range; running thence E. 312'; running thence S. 465.95' to a stake on the South line of said Donation Claim; thence W. along said line 312.feet to the East line of College Avenue; thence North 465.95' to the point of beginning, excepting a strip of land 18' wide heretofore conveyed to King County as Held Avenue, the center line whereof extends East from point 669.5 feet South and 249 feet East of the said quarter section corner. AND Being a tract of land as follows: Commencing at a point Eighteen (18) feet North of the South line of Stephen Foster's Donation Claim on Section line between Sections Fourteen and Fifteen (15), thence North along said Section line Seventeen (17) Rods, thence East Eleven (11) Rods, thence South Seventeen (17) Rods parallel with the said Section line, thence West Eleven (11) Rods, to the place of beginning, being a tract of land Seventeen (17) by Eleven (11) Rods and containing one (1) acre more or less in Section 14 Twp. 23 North, R. 4 E. W.M. • 75 0: 133RD .4/ • 0 N OVERLAP SEC. TP 10 TM 1171, rco.vc E 1,642 23.0 85 25.! /3.. iii J D a ke w. /3 /o5 ,•• i I.: •-oz,v-c A.- 7'y y/d / 1'0. / � J ' That portion of the south 2 acres of tract 58 lying east of Riverton- Renton Junction Road. That portion of tracts 62 and 63 lying northeasterly of Riverton - Renton Junction Road. Tract 57, EXCEPT that portion lying east of the west 200 feet thereof and north of the south 75 feet of the north 2 and 24/25th acres of said tract 57, ALL in Riverside Interurban Tracts, according to plat thereof recorded in volume 10 of plats, page 74, records of King County, Washington. 6;// / . // p y.? I-,7 �7 4.e s f fire ■2. o o /t. )/ i/ ° d. /A "- A portion of Tract Fifty -Seven (57) of Riverside Interurban Tracts, described as beginning at a point 200 feet east and 81.70 feet south of the northwest corner of said tract; thence south parallel with the west line of said tract 81.70 feet; thence east parallel with the north line of said tract 145.45 feet, more or less, to the westerly marginal line of county road; thence northeasterly along said westerly marginal line 82.86 feet, more or less, to a point 81.70 feet south of the north line of said Tract 57; thence west 159.27 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning. 3/?/ F. A. LESOURD V:J`:VIN PATTEN DONALD 0. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG MEA E EMORY LEON C. MISTEREK DV: AYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS 0. MCLAUGHUN JOH=N F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LAW RENCE E. HARD ROONEY J. WALDBAUM Mr. Bryce Martin Executive Director King County Boundary Review Board King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Mr. Martin: LESOUR'O, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG 84 - EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 (206) 624.1040 March 22, 1982 ROBERT L PALMER COUNSEL I am the City Attorney for the City of Tukwila, Washington. I have been advised that proceedings may soon be instituted to annex some property into the City of Tukwila. It is my understanding that one area which may be involved in these proceedings includes a.parcel of land owned by the South Central School District which is contiguous to three parcels of land owned by separate private property owners. All of these parcels are contiguous to the City. It. is my understanding that the assessed value of the three privately held parcels is not less than 75% of the total assessed'value of the entire area in question, including the School District property. In reviewing the provisions of RCW 35.13.130, it is my opinion that the School District property can be included within the boundaries of the property to be annexed pursuant to the petition method, provided the the three private property owners sign the petition. The City will proceed with the annexation proceedings based on this opinion unless we are advised differently. LEH:sk cc: Mr. Don Williams Mayor Frank Todd' Mr. Bud Bohrer Very truly yours, LeSOURD, PATEN, FLEMING, TUN & EMORY Lawrence E. Hard BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLAM TOONE DANIEL D. WOO CARL J. CARLSON P. WARREN MAROUARDSON LAWRENCE A M. ZELENAK JULIE G. WADE MARIANNE SCHWARTZ O'BARA DANIEL W. FERM WILLIAM S. WEINSTEIN PATRICIA A. FOISIE Mr. Don Williams, Director Park and Recreation Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone (206) 344 -4196 March 11, 1982 IN RE: ANNEXATION OF SCHOOL LANDS FOR PARK PURPOSES Dear Mr, Williams: 'Boundary Review 'Board King County, State of Washington This will confirm our telephone conversaticn of this date. Attached please find a copy of the Notice of Intention Format requirements which will be of assistance to you in formulating your approach to these three annexation requests you are assisting the school and citizens in preparing. I am forwarding to you a number (3) of proposals submitted requesting (1) waiver and (2) annexation by cities for you to review regarding the amount of data needed to respond to the Notice of Intention Format. You will note I started making a number of notations on Pages 2 and 3; those may or may not be important, . When you have looked them over, and I have had more time to give this some further consideration, would you give me a call? We can then discuss it in light of your understanding of what other cities have done and you will be in a position to make some decisions based on your par- ticular perception of the amount of time and effort you are able to spend, and what may or may not be relevant in these proposals. Let me know if I have helped? PAR Encls, Yours very truly, KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD G. BRICE MARTIN, Executive Secretary Paula Anne Russell, dm. Asst. NOTICE OF INTENTION FORMAT 48 As required by RCW 36.93, a Notice of Intention is hereby given to the King County Boundary Review Board by (City, Town or Special Service District Defined in RCW 36.93.020(1)8(2).) Transmit the following items assembled together in eight (8) complete sets, to assist in consideration of the pro - posed action. The items submitted should be numbered in accordance with the following: 1. A brief statement regarding the general background of, and the reason for seeking, the proposed action. 2. A copy of the resolution /ordinance accepting the pro- posal, including a copy of any resolution /ordinance adopted on an environmental impact assessment or statement. 3. A copy of the SEPA checklist with declaration attached. (Statements with yes or maybe answers have to have been briefly explained in said statement.) 4. A description of the nature of the proposed action. EX: by the petition method, or by the election method, including the statutory provisions under which the action is being sought. 5. The legal description of the boundaries of the area involved in the proposed action. (This must be extremely legible, capable of reproduction by xerox, and on a separate page entirely,) 6. A King County Assessor's Map or Maps on which the area involved in the proposal is clearly indicated, with its size in acres stated, and with the entity corporate limits in said vicinity also indicated, together with the location of the nearest service point(s) for the required services to said proposal shown thereon. 7. An 8 1/2 x 14 inch vicnity map designating the area of the proposal and at least one mile surrounding it, to- gether with all significant geographic features, including bodies of water, major streets and highways, and boundaries of all units of government in the area as they currently exist. (The scale on this map must be sufficient so that anyone would be capable of driving to the area in cases of over- lapping governmental jurisdictions, please prepare MORE THAN ONE MAP to indicate all affected units of government. DO NOT USE SECOND OR THIRD GENERATION XEROX COPIES which will not reproduce adequately. Where boundaries are contiguous and difficult to define, please cross -hatch or tape with engineering tape so there is no question of identification, all units of government should be indicated so there is no question as to their boundary locations.) Shae „g /VA A. Population population density and per capita assessed valua on? B. Existing and anticipated land uses? aa C. 1. Is the area within your comprehensive plan? When eat/ was your comprehensive plan approved? NOTICE OF INTENTION FORMAT REQUIREMENTS Page Two 1)/ 8. A map of entity corporate limits as they currently exist, upon which the proposal has been delineated. 9. Boundary Review Board review of the factors stated in RCW 36.93.170 (a copy of which is attached hereto) as they af- fect the proposal requires data responses to the following questions from the proponent. (Entities should respond to those questions which they have determined relate to their proposal and which will permit King County Council and King County Executive Staff to appropriately respond to their review requirements of Notices of Intention back to the Boundary Review Board.) 2. Do you have a current franchise for this area? If not, do you anticipate requesting a franchise amendment to cover this area? If so, when? 3. How does the proposal relate to the King County Comprehensive Plan, or any amendments thereto for this area? 0-,(.771/"..K414 /1111-14 4. Are there any additional county policies, regula- tions, or studies or guidelines which have been adopted subsequent to the County's Comprehensive Plan which directly affect this area? 5. What is the present K.C. Zoning? 6. Is there a basin -wide sewer /water plan, or a County sewer /water plan affecting this area? ✓ D. Please describe the topography, natural boundaries or drainage basin(s) of the area in question. E. What significant growth have you projected for this area, (as well as the surrounding incorporated and unincorporated areas of King County), during the next ten (10) year period? What source /documents is the basis for this projection? F. Describe briefly how, when, and fro where you propose to provide seer this area. G. Cite the location a nd most desirable future location of all community facilities affecting this area. H. Briefly give your responses to the following: 1. Any present municipal services available to the area, and the estimated future need for such services. 2. The effect of County ordinances, other governmental codes or regula'tions,'on existing land use in the area, and /or provision of services to the area. 49 df Gti� 4 d • NOTICE OF INTENTION FORMAT REQUIREMENTS Page Three 10. ADDITIONAL NOTES: 1. Indicate the present cost and adequacy of govern- mental services (including the County - provided services). How will this proposal measure against such costs? 4. Is there any other municieal entity capable of '" providing the subject service to the area? (This includes overlapping, adjacent or in close prox- imity to the subject area.) 5. What is the probable future need for such services as the entity is proposing for this area? (EXAMPLE: RCW 36.93.180(2) Use of Physical Boundaries This proposal meets the above objective because 11. The required $25.00 filing fee. 50 Respectfully submitted, BY: (Title and Capacity) What is your estimate of the effect of this pro- posal, or any alternative thereto, on cost and adequacy of service to this and adjacent areas? 7. What effect will this proposal have on the finances, debt structure and contractual obligations and rights of any other affected governmental unit? J. Please review the effect this proposal will have on adjac- ent areas, on mutual economic and social interests, and in particular, on the local governmental structure of the County. A review of the effect of this proposal upon the objectives of the Boundary Review Board Act (RCW 36.93.180) shows this proposal will meet the following objectives for the reasons cited: 2. Questions on maps should be submitted to BRB Staff. 3. Large annexations can have the Assessor Map Requirements waived in lieu of alternatives at the discretion of Executive Secretary Martin. Please ask BRB Staff about this if the occasion arises. Notices, processes and other communications regarding this proposal should be directed to the undersigned at , who will ensure that appropriate copies are distributed to all initiator's interested parties. (Initiator under RCW 36.93.020(1), (2), and Board Rules I -B -3, 1 and 2.) Entities have found in the past submitting the legal for checking prior to filing a NI saves time in that any errors can be corrected at that point, without delaying the time on the Notice. Francis Reissig, 900 K.C. Administration Bldg., Seattle, WA 98104 (344 -4134) will be glad to assist in this regard. p NOTICE OF INTEN .jN FORMAT REQUIREMENTS Page Four 4. Sometimes copies of previously filed NI are available at the Board's office. Please ask Board Staff if you feel it could be of some assistance to you in preparing your NI. 5. Please don't hesitate to come to the Board's Office to ask questions regarding the NI requirements at any time. RCW 36.93.170: FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD In readiing a decision on the 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 use plans and zoning; per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; 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 ordi- nances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions on existing uses; present cost and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the 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. (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. RCW 36.93.180: OBJECTIVES OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD The decisions of the boundary review board shall 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 areas; (4) Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries; (5) Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and en- couragement 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; and (8) Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities or towns of unincorporated areas which are urban in character. 51 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AGENCY GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (RCW 43.21C) BY THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act ( "SEPA "), RCW 43.21C, established the Council on Environmental Policy ( "CEP ") to establish and adopt guidelines for the implementation of SEPA, and WHEREAS, CEP did adopt such guidelines effective January 16, 1976, which are codified as WAC 197010, and WHEREAS, Section WAC 197 -10 -800 specifies that each local agency is required by RCW 43.21C.120 to adopt its own rules, ordi- nances or resolutions governing the implementation of SEPA con- sistent with the provisions of this chapter (agency guidelines), and WHEREAS, WAC 197 -10 -806 specifies that the agency guidelines shall implement the provisions of that chapter and be consistent therewith and incorporate the criteria and provisions of Chapter 197 -10 of the Washington Administrative Code by operation of Law except for the provisions clearly designated as optional, but that agencies may add additional procedures or criteria to those set forth in that chapter if they are not inconsistent with or contra- dict that chapter and do not make compliance with any provisions of that chapter a practical impossibility, and which additional provisions shall also be consistent with SEPA, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the King County Boundary Review Board to avoid misunderstandings by stating its interpretation of the SEPA Guidelines and to provide procedure for its implementation of the SEPA Guidelines, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the King County Boundary Review Board (the Board) adopt the following agency guidelines. Section 1. The purpose of these agency guidelines is a) to state the interpretation by the Board of cer- tain provisions of the SEPA Guidelines, WAC Chapter 197 -10; b) to point out the pertinence and application of certain provisions of the SEPA Guidelines to the operation, function and procedures of the Board; and 52 c) to implement application of the SEPA Guidelines by the Board and provide procedure for such implementation in the function of the Board. Section 2. Having been created pursuant to RCW 36.93 the Board considers that it is a local agency within the provisions of WAC 197 - -10- 040(23). Section 3. Actions over which the Board has jurisdiction as defined in WAC 197- 10- 040(2)(c)(iv) include the creation of, or annexation to, any city, town, or special purpose district as de- fined in RCW 36.93.020(2), and all other actions defined in RCW 36.93.090. Section 4. The Board is considered to be an agency with jurisdiction under WAC 197 -10- 040(4) only with respect to actions defined in Section 3 hereof. Section 5. The Board may be a local consulted agency under WAC 197 -10- 040(7) in accordance with WAC 197 -10 -500 with refer- ence to actions specified in Section 3 above. Section 6. The Board will not be the lead agency as defined in WAC 197 -10- 040(19) with respect to actions specified herein with the single possible exception specified in Section 13 here- inafter set forth. Section 7. License as defined in WAC 197 -10- 040(20) em- braces the actual or implied approval of an action specified herein given a) by the Chairman of the Board under RCW 36.93.110 in such instances where approval is proper, or • b) by the provision of RCW 36.93.100 where juris- diction of the Board has not been invoked, or c) by approving decisions of the Board or a panel of the Board under RCW 36.93.160. Section 8. A notice of intention as requred by RCW 36.93.090 53 for any action specified in Section .3 will be filed by the local agency as defined in WAC 197 -10- 040(23) to which such action is proposed. Section 9. A notice of intention as requried by RCW 36.93.090 for any creation action as defined in Section 3 which is a private project as defined in WAC 197 -10- 040(28) will be filed with the Board by the private applicant as defined in WAC 197 -10- 040(27) who is responsible for initiating such action. With respect to the business of the Board a private project means a proposal to create any city, town, or special purpose district defined in RCW 36.93.020(2). Section 10. A proposal as defined in WAC 197-10-040(29) is considered to be an action as defined in Section 3 and all other actions defined in RCW 36.93.090 for which a notice of intention has been filed with the Board in accordance with its rules. Section 11. To implement WAC 197 -10 -055, the local agency or private applicant at the time of filing its notice of intention under RCW 36.93.090 of any action defined in Section 3 shall file with the Board all environmental documents as defined in WAC 197 -10- 040(15) that have been prepared with respect to such action prior to the filing of such notice of intention. As a minimum, a threshold determination with respect to the action and the en- vironmental checklist (WAC 197 -10 -365) on which it is based, un- less WAC 197 -10- 300(2) applies, shall be filed with the Board by the local agency or private applicant in conjunction with the not- ice of intention relating to such action. After the filing of the notice of intention, the local agency or private applicant shall file with the Board each additiaial environmental document prepared with respect of the action promptly after each such docu- ment has been prepared. Section 12. With each notice of intention, the local agency filing such notice shall designate the lead agency or lead agen- cies as determined under WAC 197 -10 -203, -215, and -220, if the local agency filing the notice of intention is not the lead agency. With respect to notices of intention for creation of any city, other than a first class city, town, or special purpose district as defined in RCW 36.93.020(2), except' a metropolitan park district, filed by a private applicant or applicants, King County shall be deemed by the Board to be the lead agency in accordance with the 54 55 spirit of WAC 197 -10 -220; EXCEPT, where a city is proposed under RCW Chapter 35.04, or Chapter 35A.04, the priycipal county shall be deemed by the Board to be the lead agency.— With respect to notices of intention for creation of a city of the first class, the Board will be the lead agency (see RCW 35.03.020) unless King County is designated as lead agency by agreement under WAC 197 -10 -240. With respect to notices of inten- tion for creation of a metropolitan park district (RCW 36.31.020), the city shall be deemed by the Board to be the lead agency. Section 14. The acceptance by the Board of a notice of intention shall be exempt under WAC 197 -10 -170, but the local agency or private applicant filing such notice shall not other- wise be exempt from the requirements of the agency guidelines of the Board. Section 13. Where a notice of intention has been filed with the Board by a private applicant, the Board, by formal action of the Board, may require such applicant to provide an environmental checklist under WAC 197 -10 -100, - 310, -365, and may require the private applicant to provide the Board with a threshold determination under WAC 197 -10 -100 and -330, as approved by WAC 197- 10- 805(3)(b). In addition, in the case of creation of a first class city, the Board by formal action may require the private applicant to provide a draft or final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under WAC 197 -10- 100(1). Section 15. Each notice of intention shall state or be ac- companied by a statement of any environmentally sensitive area under WAC 197 -10 -177 in the territory to which the action of the notice of intention relates. 1. With respect to the creation of cities (other than first class cities) and towns, see RCW 35.02.035 or 35A.03.050. With respect to the creation of special purpose districts, see e.g., sewer dis- tricts (RCW'56.03.070); water districts, (RCW 57.04.030); fire pro- tection districts (RCW 52.04.030); drainage improvement districts, (RCW 85.06.030); flood control zone districts, (RCW 86.15.050); ir- rigation districts, (RCW 87.03.020); drainage districts, (RCW 85.06.030); and public utility districts,(RCW 54.08.010.) • Section 16. The Board is an agency having jurisdiction by law over actions specified in WAC 197- 10- 040(2)(c)(iv) to which a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall be sent under WAC 197- 10- 460(1)(c), but is not an agency possessing environ- mental expertise in accordance with WAC 197 -10 -465. Section 17. The Board is an agency with jurisdiction over actions specified in WAC 197- 10- 040(2)(c)(iv) and the final EIS should be circulated to the Board under WAC 197 -10 -600 if that EIS relates to an action for which a notice of intention has been filed with the Board. Section 18. For those actions where the Board is the lead agency, the responsible official of the Board under. WAC 197 -10 -820 is the Executive Secretary of the Board for all appropriate pur- poses under the Board's agency guidelines. Section 19. The office of the Board is hereby designated as its SEPA public information center under WAC 197 -10 -830, at least until a regional public information center is formed. The present address of the Board office is the King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington 98104. The Board shall maintain at its infor- mation center a register of the notices of intention, each notice being designated and indexed under a brief description . of the nat- ure of the proposal which is the subject of the action to which the notice of intention pertains, and shall keep on file copies of all environmental documents pertaining to such notice. Such regis- ter shall also designate the lead agency of each action or proposal. Such records shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after closing of the filing of each particular action by the Board. ADOPTED BY THE KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD this 13th day of January, 1977, by a vote of 10 to 0, and signed by me in authentication of its said adoption on said dat- ERNEST STOWE, Chairman KING COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 56 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: PROPONENT: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.21C(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: POSITION /TITLE: DATE: FEE: FORM FOR (PROPOSED /FINAL) DECLARATION OF (SIGNIFICANCE /NON- SIGNIFICANCE) SIGNATURE: DATE PAID: RECEIPT NO.: 57 s Introduction: The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all state and local governmental agencies to consider environmental values both for their own actions and when licensing private proposals. The Act also requires that an EIS be prepared for all major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to help the agencies involved determine whether or not a pro- posal is such a major action. Please answer the following questions as completely as you can with the information presently available to you. Where explanations of your answers are required, or where you believe an explanation would be helpful to government decision makers, include your explanation in the space provided, or use additional pages if necessary. You should include references to any reports or studies of which you are aware and which are relevant to the ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGRJUND I. Name of Proponent 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Propos- al (including but not limited to its size, gen- eral design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environ- mental impacts, including any other infor- mation needed to give an accurate understanding of the environmental setting of the proposal): 8. Estimated !)ate for Completion of the Pro- posal: 9. Lit of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (feder- al, state and local - - - -- including rezones): 58 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST answers you provide. Cu aplcte answers to these ques- tions now will help all agencies involved with your pro- posal to undertake the required environmental review without unnecessary delay. The following questions apply to your total proposal, not just to the license for which you are currently applying or the proposal for which approval is sought. Your an- swers should include the impacts which will be caused by your proposal when it is completed, even though completion may not occur until sometime in the future. This will allow all of the agencies which will be involved to complete their environmental review now, without duplicating paperwork in the future. NOTE: This is a standard form being used by all state and local agencies in the State of Washington for vari- ous types of proposals. Many of the questions may not apply to your proposal. If a question does not apply, just answer it "no" and continue on to the next question. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, ex- plain: I I . Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" an- swers are required) (I) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth con- ditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, dis- placements, compaction, or overcovering of the soil? Yes Maybe No (c) Change in topogra- phy or ground surface re- lief features? (d) The destruction, cov- ering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposi- tion or erosion of beach sands, or changes in sil- tation, deposition or ero- sion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or de- terioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of ob- jectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direc- tion of water move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorp- tion rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the . amount of surface water Yes Maybe No 5 0 in any water body? (e) Discharge into sur- face waters, or in any al- teration of surface water quality, including but not limited to tempera- ture, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the di- rection or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the quan- tity of ground waters, ei- ther through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, ei- ther through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bac- teria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? Explanation: (4) Flora. Will .the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diver- sity of species, or num- bers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, mi- croflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered spe- cies of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: Yes Maybe No I (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the di- versity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land an- imals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, ben - thic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered spe- cies of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barri- er to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to ex- isting fish or wildlife h:IbiLat? Explanation: (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: (7) Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: (8) Land Use. Will the pro- posal result in the alter- ation of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: (9) Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural re- sources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural re- source? Yes Maybe No Mn Explanation: (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the re- lease of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesti- cides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset condi- tions? Explanation: (11) Population. Will the pro- posal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: (12) Housing. Will the pro- posal affect existing housing, or create a de- mand for additional housing? Explanation: (13) Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of addi- tional vehicular move- ment? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or de- mand for new parking? _ (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ (d) Alterations to present patterns of circu- lation or movement of people and /or goods? _ (e) Alterations to water- borne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehi- cles, bicyclists or pedes- trians? Yes Maybe No Explanation: (14) Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following ar- eas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recre- ational facilities? (e) Maintenance of pub- lic facilities, including roads? (f) Other governmental services? (15) Energy. Will the propos- al result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or ener- gy? (b) Demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of ener- gy? Explanation: (16) Utilities. Will the pro- posal result in a need for new systems, or altera- tions to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications sys- tems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drain- age'? (f) Solid waste and dis- posal? Yes Maybe . No Ill. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowl- edge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any dec- laration of nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepre- sentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 61 Explanation: (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: (18) Aesthetics. Will the pro- posal result in the ob- struction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the pro- posal result in the cre- ation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Explanation: (19) Recreation. Will the proposal result in an im- pact upon the quality or quantity of existing rec- reational opportunities? Explanation: (20) Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a sig- nificant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Yes Maybe No Explanation: PROPERTY TAXES: STREETS: FACT SHEET FOSTER PARK ANNEXATION It is the City's intent to provide the five property owners to the east of Joseph Foster Memorial Park with information concerning the change from residents of the County to the City. Taxes, elections, zoning and services may change to some de- gree. This sheet will provide most of the answers. If the property owners agree to annex into the City, we are asking each property owner to sign a letter so we may forward the information to the Boundary Review Board for their September 8 meeting and include the properties in the proposed annexation. According to the County, the current tax rate is 10.70064 for this area of un- incorporated County. Tukwila's rate is 9.99633. Tukwila's rate is lower by .70431, which,'if this rate was appl.ied•to a $63,100 house, the property tax would be $43.17 less in the City than the County. Please see the attached sheet. ELECTIONS: Once the property is part of the City, the owners would register as voters of the City and would vote for City elected officials and not the County. Tukwila has a Mayor - Council form of government with 7 councilmembers. 10LICE SERVICES: The Tukwila Police Department would provide 100% of the services. We have a fully staffed department that can respond in a very short period of time. FIREFIGHTING SERVICES: The City Fire Department will take over the primary responsibility for fire services from Fire District 18. The total services of the department can be provided and will be backed up by Fire District 18. ZONING: The City envisions the properties to be zoned for single family residences. Exact zoning will have to be done by the Council. Horses are allowed under certain conditions. UTILITIES: Water services, sewer service and other utilities will remain the same as they are now. You will be served by the same companies or agencies. The City's Public Works Department will assume all road maintenance responsibili- ties, which we believe will be more responsive than the County. Storm drain ser- vice, snow removal and sanding will occur once main roads are serviced. BUILDING PERMITS: The City's Building Division will serve this area utilizing most of the same codes as the County. City permit fees are lower than the County. PARKS AND RECREATION: FACT SHEET Foster Park Annexation Page 2 Tukwila and County residents are all welcome to utilize our programs and parks. City residents are allowed to register before County residents for certain classes or athletic activities. Local citizens serve on the Park Commission and advise the Council on programs and park development and use. Citizens have direct ac- cess to the Commission. DIRECT ACCESS: Because of the small size of the resident population -- 3,585 - -it is much easier for the citizens to have a direct "say" on City business. The number of bureau- cratic levels is less than in the County on nearly all requests for response or service. County '.Port E.M.S. Road /Tukwila (incl . Foster Gol f Li nks ) School #406 Water #25 F`fre District Rural Library FJV:sv Total Average Residential Property in the South Central School District #406 Assessed Value - $61,300 Decrease in Tax Percentage Tax Distribution .1983 Foster Tukwila Unincoporated Area Incorporated Area • Taxing Code 4615 Code 2392 District Tax Rate Tax Tax Rate Tax State 2.94146. $180.31 2.94146 $180.31 1.36180 83.48 1.36180 83.48 .32416 19.87 .32416 19.87 .12370 7.58 .12370' 7.58 1.26467 77.52 2.03507 124.75 (.17) 3.18892 195.4 3.18892 195.48 1.00000 61.30 -- .49593 30.40 .02122 1.30 10.700.64 $655.94 9.99633 $612.77 -$43.17 6.5% STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Affidavit of Publication ss. Audrey .. DeJole being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that . sba. is the ...C+l3i*F • •Clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE, a newspaper published six (6) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four (4) times a week in Kent King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a ..Ordifl>ince No • 1 282 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of consecutive issues, commencing on the .1Qtb. • day of December , 19 ...82., and ending the .1.Qthlayof December , 19... az, both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of SLt. 1 i3Q which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundedirwords for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Subscribed and sworn to before me this • Dee iber VN #87 Revised 5182 , 19... Chief. •G•ierk 13th• C 'e18o8 day of Notary Public in ;fi for the State of Washington, residing at sek King County. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. WASHINGTON•r "'. /1 41G,004.1,4 0 F. ,__ iN vOFCrrv. bEe�rE'Dt4Ess ‘ZON1NG ,•„4'; S,AlD, t : Art ifi Styr. ' {� V ey dir ±Iu atiioFit;�ortfpYjiiii} texi�iOn -;'Q propoN4 \ ?or.r tion 01'0 WMEREA8Vitlitt `C t bekNOtOWAia 'H s:'et tntlniii YYY 0044 : 1 1,1 4 ;pribr�g 4,",§iW th } C ou f� t, `idr ? pp t1 5,' p�!O Ic'diit� tl» indcat�d�lw,tuw,, P wj' i�•ad np .thef'dtate�, �„�1 R: no :t�;ntit'�ct�i�t o'e;"IMn j ' "e bri . 16reil p1 �t►¢.:s�. posio k "• STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING oath, deposes and says that... " s the ' of gh ' 0us. ' el O e THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE, a newspaper publtshea ssix (6) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four (4) times a week in Kent King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, • Washington. That the annexed is a -Hearing. =?3799 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of consecutive issues, commencing on the day of ��b.. y , Affidavit of Publication October Audrey. ••De 3oit • 2.qq }}�da of 0�+ 0 A , both dates 1nC1 v y and that PSeh t ne�vsprper was regularly distributed to its sub scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of 5.1.14. avhich has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. ' / '' l ,.,. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 ) ),•'• Aiiz obar `, i9 -62 VN *87 Revised 5B2 being first duly sworn on ,19.:...8 and ending the C6'fer "'Clerk day of Notary Public in and the State of Washington, r iding at King County. Petipr°l , ^ , — Passed by the Legislature, 195S, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 195S. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. 7:1f6' OF..•TUINV '� u"f Mytmd all Intereste parka NOTJCE�DF:PUBI:K "t iorii:i»'dnvltid�lo::prs- u::�;HEARIN3 BY�?HEi.:rC 2sent'to voice approval, :dl 4UKW1U1ZITY•COUNCII.::aPP 'ai;..ao9p1 agon :" NOTICE. IS• HEREBY' al'" ���- r ` ‘ • Crn- OFIUKWILA nden VEN : that -th r ila:City ;; ,*g- , , F ~ " conduct Publicz = :``Maxine rA rso 'Hearing on 'thi :15th tlay'nL November ;�1B82;tiatfaioo = the' Y# !I , i *: 9 682 l7Ii2: 6 2 0 03 S o:uth;c±:t1•l e:. :`:Boulevard tito:oonaldicthi jloll AN O O ;;;ACRES • CONTIGUOUS;TO tT HE ':CITY ". BOUNDARY' COMMONLY'; REFERRED TO •NAS= ;THE:4 ”FOSTER PARK": ANNEXATION, - ANNEXATION OF All p ACRES CONTIGUOLISI •O CITYi BOUNDARY. gCOM MONEY. `,REFERRED ' 1 'TOASTNEtSOUT}It3ATE '• :ANNEXATION.;_ " '