Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 77-55-W - EASTVIEW ASSOCIATES / ANDERSON - CONDOMINIUM SENSITIVE AREA WAIVER
77-55-w 160th street 53rd avenue south ANDERSON WAIVER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY ALFRED SCHMID, as General • ) Partner of East View Associates, ) a Limited Partnership, ) Plaintiff, ) NO. 851063 v. ) ) THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a Municipal ) TRIAL BRIEF Corporation; EDGAR BAUCH, as ) Mayor of the City of Tukwila; ) GARY L. VANDUSEN, as President ) of the City Council, and KJELL ) STOKNES, as Director of Community ) Development, ) Defendant. ) ) ) NATURE OF THE CASE The City of Tukwila has, by resolution and ordinance, directed that, pending enactment of a new zoning ordinance, no application for building permits involving certain limited actions shall be processed. It does, however, allow applicants to seek from the City Council a waiver of the "no- action" rule. The plaintiff requested a waiver for his proposed large, multi - building apartment complex, and the Tukwila City Council denied that request. Plaintiff now asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the City to grant him a waiver of the general "no- action" rule. FACTS In 1975 the City of Tukwila determined that its then Comprehensive Plan (prepared in 1961) no longer reflected the needs of the community. The City undertook the long process of (1) MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 1 LEBOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING EEATTLE, WASHINGTON 90184 624 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 completely reevaluating the uses to which its lands should be put, (2) drawing up a new Comprehensive Plan, and (3) ultimately, rezoning its land in conformity to the new Comprehensive Plan. Work on a new Comprehensive Plan began in August, 1975. At the beginning of this process, the City Council passed Resolution No. 489. That Resolution provided that, pending enactment of a new land use policy plan, certain land use actions would not be allowed, and applications for permits involving such actions would not be processed. Resolution No. 489 gave affected parties the option of requesting from the City Council a waiver of the general no- action rule. The Planning Department would recommend, and the City Council would decide, whether the waiver should be granted. The Planning Department in 1975 promptly created internal criteria by which it would analyze whether to recommend grant or denial of an application. The criteria were set forth in a "Notice to Applicants." This same Notice, and these same criteria, were used by the Planning Department in connection with every application for a waiver from Resolution 489. Following an involved process of meetings, reports and revisions, the City on September 19, 1977 enacted its new Comprehensive Plan. The new Comprehensive Plan envisions plaintiff's land, as well as the surrounding areas, as appropriate for low- density residential use. Following adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan, the City began the process of revising its zoning laws, which process is now in its Third Draft. With the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in September, 1977, Resolution No. 489 ceased to be effective. Continuing the policy of Resolution No. 489, the City Council passed Ordinance 1035. That ordinance provides that, until the zoning ordinance and maps are made to conform to the new Comprehensive Plan, land use MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 2 LESOURD, PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL RANK 'BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 60134 624-1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • actions (1) inconsistent with the new plan, or (2) located in an area of constraint, will not be processed by the City unless a special waiver is granted by the City Council. During the period of time these policies have been in effect, the City Council has granted waivers to those applicants who have successfully qualified. Plaintiff owned the subject parcel of property for about a decade prior to 1977. It was zoned multiple residence under the old zoning laws during this entire period, but plaintiff made no applications for any building permits at any time prior to 1977. Plaintiff was quite aware that the City was enacting a new Comprehensive Plan. In July, 1977, just two months before Tukwila formally adopted the new Comprehensive Plan, plaintiff applied for a waiver of Resolution No. 489 in order to construct a 130 -unit apartment complex on a 3.1 acre undeveloped piece of sloped property. The Planning Department staff evaluated plaintiff's application in exactly the same manner it had evaluated every other application for a waiver, and recommended that the Council deny the waiver. The City Council did deny plaintiff's request for a waiver on August 15, 1977. When the waiver was denied, the City suggested that plaintiff could re -apply for a waiver for a new proposal. Before plaintiff submitted any new proposal for consideration, the new Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and Ordinance 1035 replaced Resolution 489 (September 19, 1977). On October 13, 1977, plaintiff submitted an application (dated October 3, 1977) for a waiver for a different project, to construct a 98 -unit complex on the same parcel of property. City Planning Department staff had advised plaintiff that he could submit his request under the provisions of the old law (Res. 489), and he did so. The Planning Department staff recommended a waiver be granted, MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 3 LESOURD, PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7000 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 50134 624.1040 1 1 allowing plaintiff to apply for permits for the new project. 2 The City Council considered plaintiff's new application on 3 November 14, 1977. It declined to decide the application until it 4 obtained from the City Attorney an opinion regarding whether the 5 plaintiff had to proceed under present law (Ord. 1035) or prior law 6 (Res. 489). On January 11, 1978, the City Attorney expressed the 7 opinion that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the plaintiff was 8 bound to comply with the provisions of existing law, Ordinance 9 1035. The City promptly informed the plaintiff that he would, 10 therefore, have to apply for a waiver of Ordinance 1035. 11 On April 19, 1978, almost 100 days later, the plainiff submitted 12 an application for waiver from the Ordinance No. 1035. That 13 application itself is brief (two pages) and required little effort 14 in addition to that already expended. Plaintiff continued to rely 15 on the same plans he had originally submitted to the City in October 16 1977. 17 The City Council considered plaintiff's application at two 18 19 consecutive meetings, and on May 15, 1978 denied the request. Plaintiff then brought this action, seeking mandamus to compel the 20 City to grant a waiver for his proposed project. 21 ARGUMENT 22 I . 23 MANDAMUS MAY ISSUE ONLY IF THE CITY'S 24 ACTION IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION 25 FOR A WAIVER WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 26 The function of mandamus is not to establish rights, but to 27 enforce rights that have been established. RCW 7.15.160 provides 28 that writs of mandate may be issued by a court 29 "to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board or 30 person, to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting 31 from an office, trust or station, or to compel 32 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 4 LESOURD. PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3000 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK •UILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96134 624 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person." To warrant the issuance of a writ, the applicant must establish that he has a clear and certain right to have an act done. Hence, it is axiomatic that mandamus generally lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial act or duty. When an official or board is empowered to do acts which involve the exercise of discretion, courts will not interfere with their acts. An official may be compelled by mandamus to exercise his discretion, but he cannot be compelled to exercise it in a certain manner. Aripa v. D.S.H.S., 91 Wn.2d 135, 141, 588 P.2d 185 (1978) . The only exception to this general rule is where the official acts in so arbitrary or capricious manner as to evidence a total failure to exercise discretion. Courts will then interfere, and compel the . performance of the discretionary acts or duties. Lillian v. Gibbs, 46 Wn.2d 629 (1955) . The "arbitrary and capricious "' standard is extreme: it refers only to willful and unreasoning action, taken without regard to or consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the action. Abbenhaus v. Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855, 858, 576 P.2d 888 (1978); Lillian v. Gibbs, supra. When it is shown that the decision maker had before it evidence, and there is room for two opinions, action "exercised honestly and upon due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious." Miller v. Tacoma, 61 Wn.2d 374, 390, 378 P.2d 464 (1963). Even if the court believes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates a wrong decision was made, so long as the decision maker acted honestly and upon due consideration, the conduct is not arbitrary and capricious. Gerla v. Tacoma, 12 Wn. App. 883, 887 -888, 533 P.2d 416 (1975) pet. for rev. den. 85 Wn.2d 1011. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 5 LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3000 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 58154 824 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Under both Resolution 489 and Ordinance 1035 the City Council performed a discretionary rather than a ministerial function. A duty or act is ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, but the performance is required by direct and positive command of the law. It is an act that an official or agent is required to perform upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion. 52 Am. Jur. 2d, Mandamus § 80. The City Council was empowered to, and did decide waiver applications; it held hearings and consider evidence in connection with them. The decision to grant or deny was a discretionary, not a ministerial, decision. II. THE CITY COUNCIL ACTED WITHIN ITS POLICE POWER IN ENACTING RESOLUTION 489 AND ORDINANCE 1035 The technique of placing a moratorium on certain land use actions pending revision of a city's land use scheme is a modern planning technique which is widely recognized. This device has been used by.Tacoma, Kirkland and King County, to defendant's knowledge. While this technique has not been challenged in Washington appellate courts, other states uphold the procedure and recognize its practical importance. As long ago as 1930, the California Appellate Courts upheld the procedure, stating: "The method of adopting comprehensive zoning ordinances involving, as it necessarily does, a lengthy study by the planning commission makes it imperative, if the ultimate plan adopted is not to be defeated by property owners constructing nonconforming buildings during . . . the incubation period, that some preliminary ordinance should be adopted to maintain the status quo until the details of the zoning ordinance can be worked out and such ordinance fully adopted." MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 6 LE$OURO. PATTEN, FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 624 -1 040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Lima v. Woodruff, 107 Cal. App. 285, 290 P. 480 (1930). Accord, Ogo Associates v. Torrence, 112 Cal. Rptr. 761 (Cal. App. 1974); Dallas v. Crownrich, 506 S.W. 2d 654 (Tex. Cir. App. 1974) (city's action in maintaining status quo a reasonable time pending rezoning action is reasonable exercise of policy power.) Tukwila did not enact a blanket moratorium; it required only that limited types of actions be postponed, absent a waiver. Substantial building activity has occurred while Resolution 489 and Ordinance 1035 have been in effect. III. NOTHING PREVENTS A CITY FROM IMPOSING PREREQUISITES ON ISSING PERMITS It is generally within the power of a municipality under its delegated general police powers to impose requirements and conditions precedent to the issuance of building permits. 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporation, S 26.204; 13 Am. Jur. 2d, Buildings, § 8 (1964) . Cities do so as a matter of course. The Uniform Building Code specifically provides that, before a building permit is issued, the responsible Building Official must be satisfied that the work contemplated conforms to the requirements of the Building Code and other "pertinent laws and ordinances." U.B.C. § 302 (1976 Ed.). Tukwila had adopted this Code. A typical prerequisite to the issuance of any building permit these days is the requirement that the permit application first comply with the State Environmental Protection Act. This requirement alone vests in every building official a discretionary basis on which to deny building permits. See Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) . MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 7 LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3000 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98134 824 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 IV. THE CITY'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL WAIVER REQUEST WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS Resolution 489 acknowledged that the existing comprehensive plan (1) pre -dated the State Environmental Policy Act, (2) no longer reflected currently held community values, and (3) did not reflect the recognized state of the act of planning and community development. It directed "all segments of the City, including the City Council," to identify and establish "goals and policies consistent with the environmental mandate contained in the Environmental Policy Act, and with the currently held values of the community in order that a new land use plan may be prepared and adopted by the City of Tukwila." Section 3. Pending adoption of a new comprehensive plan, the Resolution directed that certain types of land use actions which particularly impacted upon "present community values and future goals and resources" be postponed. Resolution 489 singled out, among others, (1) rezone applications, (2) precedent - setting actions which involve significant unmitigated environmental impacts (per an Environmental Impact Statement), and (3) grading /clearing /etc. in hilly areas (which also tend to be heavily- wooded) identified as "Proposals for grading, clearing, excavation or filling which are: 1. Located in an area with average slopes in excess of 25 %. 2. Located in a geographical area identified by governmental or quasi- governmental agencies as having: (a) Naturally unstable,, unstable when modified, or in areas of known landslides. MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 8 LESOURD. PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3000 SEATTLE •FIRST NATIONAL YANK /WILDING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 95154 624 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 (b) Areas which serve to naturally detain significant amounts of storm water run - off." All land use actions identified as high impact by Resolution 489 were placed in a prohibited category. The resolution, however, allowed proponents to seek a waiver of the policies contained therein. Section 4. The City Council was empowered to receive "evidence or other materials or findings" from the proponent, to hold public hearings on the request, and to receive the recommendation of the City Planning Department. The Council was limited in its review to determining whether there should be a waiver from the policies expressed in Res. 489; it was not to determine the merits of actually granting a permit. Plaintiff will contend not that the City failed to consider evidence, but that it considered too much evidence, in deciding his waiver application. Plaintiff's project was identified by Res. 489 primarily because of its placement in an area which was "naturally unstable, unstable when modified, or in an area of known landslides." Plaintiff suggests that consideration of his waiver application itself should therefore have been limited strictly to a review of whether his project could be safely built. All high impact land use actions identified by Resolution 489 were held off pending adoption of the new Plan. They were allowed to proceed only if the proponent established that the action did not threaten "present community value and future goals and resources." The Resolution directed the council to establish and follow policies consistent with the new State Environmental Policy Act and currently -held community values. All waiver applications were treated by the City equally, and were measured by the same policies and criteria expressed in Resolution 489. That Resolution dealt with issues far greater than construction safety, and plaintiff's MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 9 {.ESOURD. PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SCATTLE•RIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 624.1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 suggestion that his proposal be limited to that issue alone is meritless. The evidence at trial will establish that the City Council did honestly and in good faith consider the evidence and exercise its discretion. Its decision therefore cannot be changed by a court. V . PLAINTIFF HAS NO VESTED RIGHT TO PROCEED UNDER OLD LAW Eight weeks after plaintiff submitted his original plans and application, the Tukwila City Council simultaneously passed (1) the new Comprehensive Plan, and (2) Ordinance 1035. That ordinance provides that, pending the development of a new zoning ordinance, the following actions may not proceed without a waiver by the City Council: 1. Land use actions, which are inconsistent with the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. 2. Proposals for building, grading, clearing, excavation or filling which are located in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Basemap of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan as an area of constraint. Ordinance 1035 does impose somewhat stricter rules for determining whether or not to grant a waiver than did Resolution No. 489. Plaintiff was told by the City he could submit an application for a waiver under prior law, which he did. The City later determined that in fact, legally, he had to comply with existing law. Plaintiff presumably will argue that he had a "vested right" to have his waiver application for the 98 -unit complex processed under Resolution 489. Such argument stretches the vested rights doctrine into new and inappropriate territory. Two separate questions arise in vested rights cases: (1) MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 10 LESOURD, PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3000 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96154 624 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 whether a right has vested in the owner, and (2) if so, when that right became fixed. In the present case, no right ever accrued in the plaintiff to have his application processed under Resolution 489, so we need not concern ourselves with the second question. The vested rights rule originated in cases where, after a, building permit had been issued, property was rezoned. The courts have held that in such circumstnces, (1) the owner has a right to deal with his property as allowed by the law, and (2) the right becomes fixed at the time his building (or other) permit clearly establishes that he has the right -- i.e., at the time it complies with all zoning and building codes and regulations. Bishop v. Town of Hougton, 69 Wn.2d 786 (1966) ; Hall v. Hall, 53 Wn.2d 125 (1958) . (In this latter regard, Washington takes a minority position. Most jurisdictions hold that the right vests only at the time the applicant incurs substantial costs.) Rights "vest," then, only where (1) the law explicitly allows a certain property use, and (2) the owner has complied with all procedural preconditions to engaging in such use. Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 475 (1973). Plaintiff failed at any point prior to enactment of Ordinance 1035 to comply with all procedural preconditions to obtaining a City Council waiver under Resolution No. 489. As detailed above, the Council carefully considered plaintiff's application under Resolution 489 and found that it did not comply. Shortly thereafter, Ordinance 1035 was passed. Plaintiff had perfected no right to proceed under 489. More importantly, no rights could have vested regarding the new 98 -unit development because plaintiff did not even submit such application until October, 1977. The prior application was for a different project, and that application has been rejected. When MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 11 LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING. HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3000 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 913184 624-1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 plaintiff's new application was submitted, a new law was in effect. The fact that the City itself was uncertain at the time under which law plaintiff's application should be processed does not change the law. VI. THE CITY'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER UNDER ORDINANCE 1035 WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. In order for a waiver to be granted under Ordinance 1035, the applicant's proposal must meet the following five criteria: "1. That the proposed action does represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale. 2. That no other reasonable alternatives are available which would not require a waiver. 3. That sufficient mitigating measures are provided if the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Basemap as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint. 4. That the request for waiver is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensiive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. That the requirements of this ordinance impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map." The City Council had had plaintiff's application before it since October, 1977. It had previously received a detailed staff council report evaluating the proposal; the Council had itself previously discussed the proposal. It considered plaintiff's application at length at two City Council meetings, on May 8, 1978, and on May 15, 1978. The Council had received from plaintiff ample information. It heard oral statements from plaintiff's representatives, and in MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 12 LESOURD, PATTEN. FLEMING. HARTUNG 4 EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL. SANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96154 624 -1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 addition heard both written and oral statements from numerous members of the community. The Council heard evidence indicating, among other things, that (1) there had been landslides in the area of plaintiff's property in the recent past, and (2) plaintiff's proposal was inconsistent with both Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and neighboring Highline's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, it had before it a letter from a private local attorney expressing the opinion that the proposal did not meet the waiver criteria. The Council then determined, item -by -item, that, based on the information before it, plaintiff's proposal did not meet each of the criteria for a waiver. The Council did honestly consider evidence, and it came to a decision on which reasonable people might disagree. The decision was therefore not arbitrary and capricious. DATED: April , 1980 MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR MOTION TO DISMISS - 13 ,LeSOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY Attorneys for Defendants By Carl J. Carlson LtSOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING, HARTUNG & EMORY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SSATTLE•FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 824 -1040 qj aac GOVA/ta did gal- ix rhie- ktia cou thzm, — ./Aem f4/14 i a/er &out) A441 /VIA 144TA. 12407 tteet44)f kt-e etwer/lik e ki if14"--1/4file-tx/-e44.44/ekin/titf 144fdat- we u.ta /cold Vi Aeuxtrzakt da/e,(4774-if.44/A -e • f leg th/ (744, "Per ai4-elgr4•ec. 444 e- 5 11.976/ 4-1eaf (.,-) >14/1(.11L 41i 4c/ n- re~ dz4w-ri1rti€40; etil ems 1Z /n oec4 1/01447 044-4 frr wkiar )Ye& 40(4..i Ate.0.1 0114,/dLe -ye4y a-0 ke.ift / e- Weintie. 10, aiiiltet(filk ( Aj ovaMita-(Act- kt6t1 mkrw 144u (hit -fam.47 kitt v tif3 ;frt Fh/tiftt- a44{) 044 1? U. ai1 1 -- cl i kt m g- or 7 tielARS " wiThrte Got if wor K." My name is Fred N. Satterstrom and I have been Associate Planner for the City of Tukwila for the past four years. I am over the age of twenty -one and am competent in this matter. The reason for requiring a waiver from Resolution #489 in the Bryant - Anderson- Schmidt matter was because of the apparent environmental sensitivity of the proposed site. The document entitled Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area, prepared by the Tukwila Planning Department and attached as a part of this affidavit, identified the subject site as being composed of geoloic substrata which had poor slope stability (SEE, Maps 1 -2 and 1 -3). Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1978 . Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at ���ccc�� . �1 . day of Dec. en-r her- 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Order Constituting Alternative Writ of Mandamus - 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY ALFRED SCHMID, as General ) Partner of East View ) Associates, a Limited ) Partnership, ) r . ) 8.� 3.0';3 Plaintiff, ) NO. ) vs. ) ORDER CONSTITUTING ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a ) MANDAMUS Municipal Corporation; ) EDGAR D. BAUCH, as Mayor ) of the City of Tukwila; ) GARY L. VAN DUSEN, as ) President of the City Council; ) and KJELL STOKNES, as Director ) of Community Development, ) ) Defendants. ) ) This matter came on for hearing upon the affidavit and complaint of the plaintiff who alleges that the defendants have wrongfully refused to process his application for a building permit to construct an apartment house at 53rd Avenue South and South 160th Street in the City of Tukwila, Washington, or to issue said building permit. It appearing from said affidavit and complaint that an alternative Writ of Mandamus should be issued herein, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the above -named defendants are hereby commanded to process the plaintiff's application for said building permit and issue the building permit applied for or in the alternative appear before the Presiding Judge of the above - entitled court, Room E942, King County Courthouse, Seattle, Washington on , v��'/09l�r!/ 1978, at /O'00 , •M. • to show cause why MAIIOA�� YOUNOSCNO,'000CNARI. ALLAN A LAMSON ATTORN[VR AT LAW 7721 RLATTL[•FIRRT NATIONAL RANK RUILOINO ■LATTL[,WARHINOTON 9111$4 611 -1144 1 2 3 4 5 .6` 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 13 14 15• 16 17 18 9 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1978. they have not done so. Presented by: DONE IN OPEN COURT this j/V# day of e& H. GO CHER Attorney for Plaintiff Order Constituting Alternative writ of Mandamus 2 idC IARD M1. 'ISHIKAWA MEROEBi YOUNOBERO, OOUCHER, ALLEN &.LAR•ON • ATTbRN EYB AT• LAW 3721 BEATTLE•FIRBT•NATIONAL BUILOINO EATTLEj .WAS HINGTO :98154' • • ALFRED SCHM/D, as General Partner of East View Associates, a Limited Partnership, Dated September 10, 1978 kN ES ( • • -r1. /COY /so_ „, Defendant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR 1CXl7 COUNTY 4 , 8510 (33 Plaintiff ) NO. vs. ) THE CITY OP TU WILA, a ) SUMMONS Municipal Corporation= ) EDGAR D. BAUCH, as Mayor ) of the City of Tukwila, ) GARY L. VAIN DUSEU, as ) President of the City Council; ) and WELL LL STOR S, as Director ) of Community Development, ) A lawsuit has been started against you in the above entitled court by ALFRED SCD , plaintiff. Plaintiff's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this summons. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned attorney for the plaintiff within 20 days after the service of this summons, if served within the State of Washington (or within 60 days after said service, if served outside the State of Washington), exclusive of the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where plaintiff is entitled to what he asks for because you have not responded. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned attorney, you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so, the demand must be in writing and must be served upon the plaintiff. Within 14 days after you serve the demand, the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. If you wish to seek the advice of an attorney in this matter, you should do so promptly so that written response, if any, may be served on time. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Superior Court Civil Rules of the State of Washington. Attorney for Plaintiff 3721 Seattle -First National Bank Bldg. Seattle, Washington 98154 622 -1244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TIIE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY ALFRED SCI -IMID, as General Partner of East View Associates, a Limited Partnership, v s. Plaintiff, THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a Municipal Corporation; EDGAR D. BAUCH, as Mayor of the City of Tukwila; GARY L. VAN DUSEN, as President of the City Council; and KJELL STOKNES, as Director of Community Development, Defendants. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING Affidavit in Support of Motion for Writ of Mandamus - 1 NO. ) I 851G €3 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ALFRED SCHMID, being first duly sworn upon oath deposes and says: That I am the general partner of East View Associates, a Washington limited partnership. That one of the assets of the partnership is a parcel of unimproved land situate within the city limits of the City of Tukwila and comprising of approximately 3.7 acres. Said parcel of land is situate at 53rd Avenue South and South 160th Street in the City of Tukwila. That said parcel of land is now and for more than the last twenty one years is zoned as RMH by the City of Tukwila and by its predecessor, the town of Tukwila. That said zoning authorizes the construction and maintenance of multiple residence high density units on said land. MERGES. YOUNGBERG, GOUCHER, ALLEN & LARSO ATrC7f7NEYS AT LAW 3721 SEATTLE - - H7ST NATIONAL HANK 0111 LOING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9E3154 622.1244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 That affiant on July 19, 1977 applied in writing to the officers of the City of Tukwila for authority to construct multiple dwelling units on said parcel of land. That the City Council of the City of Tukwila and its officers and agents of said city have refused to process said application on the grounds that additional multiple dwelling units in the City of Tukwila are not now needed; that said structure might tend to diminish'land and building values of private residences near said parcel of land; and that it is within the contemplation of the City Council to ultimately change the zoning of said parcel to limit it to first residence use. That there is an urgent need for multiple dwelling residences in the City of Tukwila; that virtually all of the private residences near said parcel of land lie beyond the present city limits of the City of Tukwila; that under the present zoning of said parcel of land the partnership known as East View Associates, which has owned the land for more than eight years, has acquired rights which have vested in it to have its application for a building permit processed and approved. That the acts of the City of Tukwila and'its officers and agents in refusing to process said application is arbitrary and capricious, is without foundation or basis in law, and is damaging to East View Associates. That affiant has no plain speedy or adequate remedy at law. That this affidavit is made in support of the attached Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Affidavit in Support of Motion for Writ of Mandamus •- 2 / ,,t/ '7 ALFRED SCHMID MERGES, YOUNGBERG, GOUCHER, ALLEN & LARSOI` ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3721 SC ATTLE•f - IRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WA1 HINCirC)N E1154 622-1344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 A • of August, 1978. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this J i'�day Affidavit in Support of Motion for Writ of Mandamus 3 NOT. • Y PUBLIC in and for the t e State of Washington, residing at Seattle. MERGES, YOUNGBERG, GOUCHER, ALLEN 55 LARSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3721 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL. DANK E1111LCING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9 ©154 622 ' ' ^}' � . .. � ,. � .......� _ :• "�" `�'°' sl"�seao - �.r!+:+, ?::!7. ^,.i^.1 vtF_KS%vt:^ -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY ALFRED SCHMID, as General Partner of East View Associates, a Limited Partnership, vs. Plaintiff, THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a Municipal Corporation; EDGAR D. BAUCH, as Mayor of the City of Tukwila; GARY L. VAN DUSEN, as President of the City Council; and KJELL STORNES, as Director of Community Development, Defendants. COMES NOW Alfred Schmid and for his Petition for Writ of Mandamus directed to the defendants above named; states and alleges as follows: I. Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 1 851.0f33 NO. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ) ) ) That East View Associates is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Wash- ington and has its principal place of business in King County, Washington. II. That the plaintiff Alfred Schmid is the general partner of East View Associates and has authority to bring this action. III. That the City of.Tukwila°•is a municipal corporation and is a city of the third class. MERGES. YOUNGLIEFiU:, GOUC11E17. ••1 1. .4'K L 1• SL71'1 (¢ k!F2A,r•' A'f r1 AT 14V/ 3721 SEATTLE•Flr•ST NAT :Ot A L. ti4AF: t11.■1EDlr “.: SLAl'TI.F.. \Nw ShING1CI`I 5)1.31 6.1 6;2.2-1244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 IV. That the defendant Edgar D. Bauch is the Mayor of the City of Tukwila; Gary L. Van Dusen is the President of the City Council; and Kjell Stoknes is the Director of Community Development of said city. V. That the limited partnership known as East View Associates is now and for more than eight years last past has been the owner of the premises situate within the city limits of the City of Tukwila and legally described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East W.M. a distance South 89 °31'13" East 23.86 feet from the Northwest corner of said Section; thence continuing South 89 °31'13" East 601.67 feet to the West line of 53rd Avenue South; thence South 21 °10'20" East 262.37 feet; thence South 3 °24'20" East 162.95 feet to the Northeasterly margin of South 160th Street; thence along the said Northeasterly margin North 76 °07'40" West 109.97 :Feet; thence North 70 °55'05" West 305.05 feet; thence North 40 °25'10" West 170.49 feet; thence North 52 °02'00" West 254.38 feet to the point of beginning; (ALSO KNOWN AS a portion of Lot 1, Block 1 of McMicken heights Division No. 1, an unrecorded plat) EXCEPT THAT portion beginning at the Southeast corner of the above described tract; thence North along the East line of said described tract 104.30 feet; thence South- westerly on a straight line 100 feet, more or less, to a point on the southerly line of said described tract which is 40 feet Westerly of the point of beginning; thence Southeasterly along the Southerly line of said described tract 40 feet to the point of beginning; situate in the Town of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. VI. That said premises consist of approximately 3.7 acres of land and is entirely unimproved. Street and 53rd Avenue South in the City of Tukwila. That said parcel of land is located at South 160th Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 2 MERGES. YOCINGBEfhr , GOIJC{iE1 . .. L1. F: •1. 1.r.us `N :. u!. AT1'('flNEY5 AT 1 A•N :1721 :1EA TTLL- 17a llW a{. ua A'n Wig fl{l:, 7 t:ATTLI:, \Vf511iNr,T01 :, h.l :�•{ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 VII. That said parcel of land has heretofore been the subject of zoning procedures taken by the City of Tukwila. That said parcel is now and for more than 21 years has been continuously zoned as RMH, which is defined by ordinance of said city as authorizing the construction and maintenance of multiple residence high density use of said land. VIII. That said parcel of land is now and has for many years last past been assessed by the King County Assessor at a rate consistent with its land classification for multiple dwelling use and real estate taxes are now and for many years last past have been paid by East View Associates on said property at substantially higher rates due to the land classification of said parcel of land. IX. That said parcel of land because of its site, configuration and economic value is presently zoned for its highest and best use, that is, for multiple dwelling use. That there exists presently a shortage of living units in multiple dwelling facilities within the City of Tukwila and its environs. X. That prior to July 19, 1977 the architect for East View Associates inquired of the planning division of the Office of Community Development of the City of Tukwila the procedure to follow in connection with the filing of an application for a building permit to construct multiple dwelling facilities upon the subject property which would contain a total of 130 living units. Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 3 MERGES, YOUNG )I RG, GO11C31eI4 L. 1.Ai.!.E.t. ;t t1•::.I1 AI 1 IV f.Y :i t,,C 1 A'.V 3721 SLAT fLc 1!IST ry41l ?1t..L. it t; 111ti C.'1 01. )8i4 622- 1244 That at said time the plaintiff's architect was advised by the Office of Community Development that the plaintiff would be required to seek a waiver by the City Council from the provisions of Resolution Number 489 of the City of Tukwila, for the asserted reason that the application for a building permit pertained to land which might contain unstable soil. XI. That on July 19, 1977 the plaintiff filed an application for waiver of the provisions of Resolution Number 489 with the Office of Community Development of the City of Tukwila for construction of 130 multiple dwelling living units. XII. That on August 15, 1977 the request for waiver was heard before the City Council which tentatively denied the application and directed the planning division to instruct the plaintiff that it might re -apply for a waiver. The waiver was tentatively denied by the City Council on August 15, 1977 for the asserted reason that the plaintiff's proposed plans for the development of its property was not consistent with the Council's concern for the preservation of the natural environment which assertedly is part of a Comprehensive Plan for the future re- zoning of this and other lands then contemplated by the City Council. Further, the plaintiff was advised to re- submit an application for a waiver that showed a greater concern for the natural environment. The Council dicl not tentatively deny the plaintiff's application because of soil conditions at the subject property and said property does not contain any unstable soil and there are no other physical factors which would make it dangerous or unwise to build multiple living units on said property. Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 4 MERGES, YOUNGUER . GOUCIIEI . r•1.t Erg LA rtS(•rJ ATTC11tNI: \ A'r LAW 3721 5CA1TI.2. F I r:7 MANCH:A MANIC :. 1. ti x111( L S I.A1 rL.I. \V FSr11N ;, T (1N S8154 622-1244 reduction to improvements location and fewer than 98 units would make the Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 5 XIII. That pursuant to the direction given the plaintiff by the City Council, the plaintiff engaged an architect to prepare plans and specifications substantially amending the original plans and specifications for the contemplated living units. The new plans and specifications provided for a reduction in the number of contemplated living units from 130 units to 98 living units, thereby making the contemplated structure more compatible with the natural environment and thereby leaving a larger area for trees, shrubs and green areas. XIV. That 98 living units is the minimum number of housing units that said parcel of land can economically sustain and a contemplated not economically feasible in view of the size, terrain of the subject property. XV. That on October 13, 1977 the plaintiff thereupon re- submitted to the Office of Community Development of the City of Tukwila his application calling for a waiver under the provisions of Resolution Number 489 based upon the new plans and specifications for 98 living units. That the Office of Community Development reviewed and considered said plans and specifications for said project and thereupon on November 14, 1977 recommended to the City Council that said waiver be granted to allow plaintiff to file for a building permit to construct said building units. XVI. That on November 14, 1977 there came on before a MERGES. 1'OCJNGSENG, GUUta IE 1'1 :. i.i..JN. 1. .l TI ITNCY3 :.1' 1.A:Y 3721 SLATT_L•rl(:::T 11.111•3ht,1. 13 aN it 1�1.�LC.It, L. S LATTL.1., W ASH 1 ; ;TOIV ':)1.71.115-1 622.12 -1.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 6 regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tukwila the plaintiff's application for a waiver to said city's Resolution No. 489, which procedure the plaintiff had been directed to follow by the Office of Community Development of said city. At said meeting the City Council declined to act on said application until it had received from its City Attorney an interpretation regarding the plaintiff's application. Thereafter the City Attorney advised the City Council and the Mayor that it was probable that the plaintiff's application had acquired vested rights by reason of his earlier application for a waiver under Resolution Number 489 to enable applicant to apply for a building permit and that the request for a waiver under Ordinance No. 489 should be considered by the City Council. XVII. That on January 16, 1978, notwithstanding the legal opinion, the Mayor and City Council declined to consider the plaintiff's application unless it was filed under Ordinance No. 1035, which Ordinance casts greater burdens and expense upon an applicant for a waiver. XVIII. That the plaintiff then directed his architect to complete said plans and specifications in minute detail so as to comply with the requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 1035. That completing said plans to comply with requirements under Ordinance No. 1035 so greatly increased the costs that plaintiff has no alternative but to proceed with the project. xIx. That thereafter the plaintiff on April 19, 1978, while 6IERGES. 1'OUNC,LIE176 GOUCHEtr .=1.! !C L.Gfi <%>P: f: .••U- ATrOKNL'1'� .1 LAW :1731 yr.ATrLc F:I1 T N:. i'1 CI: ,.. 1. BANK Iit■!LL11Li. ac ATr1.C. 4b15:1 622.12.14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 still preserving his rights under application for a waiver under Or applicant to file for a building referred said application directl comment. That on May 15, 1978 th again came on before a regular me which denied the plaintiff's appl xxI. That the action of the of Tukwila and its officers and application was arbitrary, capri unlawful. That said application that the plaintiff had acquired application processed and approv Ordinance No. 489. Further, the City Coun and without promulgated application xx. prior notice to the solely for the purpo a so called "project Petition for Writ of Mandamus - plaintiff's application ting of the City Council ication. Ordinance No. 489, filed an inance No. 1035 to allow ermit. That said office 7 to the City Council without City Council of the City gents in denying said ious, unreasonable and was denied notwithstanding ested rights to have the d under the provisions of it in passing upon the merits of the plaintiff's application a bitrarily and unreasonably laintiff devised and e of denying the plaintiff's merit schedule ", whereby certain elements pertaining to tie proposed project were given arbitrary weights. That said procedure had never been followed before in such an application b the City Council. xxII. That the entire proceedings whereby the plaintiff was denied the right to a building permit to construct the contemplated improvements was arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and unlawful. MERGES, YOLIIVCLLEI -C, GOIJCIIEI:, :.Ll tit! L/ ,:N a is ..'.tr ATrc,,Nl:' AI I.,\V 3721 SEATTI.0 11,::7 l:ANK t,1AI rl. E. \V r,�111Ni..c :�Lil !34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 0 W(LL1AM H. GOUCHER Attorney for Plaintiff . It That the plaintiff has no adequate or speedy remedy at law and this court should direct that a Writ of Mandamus be issued to the defendants directing them to process the plaintiff's application for a building permit, or to show cause why they are not required so to do. WIIEREFORE, petitioner prays that he be granted the relief sought in the foregoing Petition and that a Writ of Mandamus be issued by this court to the officers of the defendant City of Tukwila. MERGES. YOUNGBERG. GOUCIIL'R, l.l. L•M1:, t.A RSC'•:v is f!f7Alti A TTi) EYS P1' I VN 372t SEATTLE•! Nn113t1 LAN f. UIf %Gill t'. S GAT ;LE. W%_:IIIN:. TON OB1 54 62.2.1244 • ,. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) • ss. COUNTY OF KING and says: of August, 1978. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this Petition for Writ of Mandamus - 9 ,e4:Le...04;e4K4L A •'RED SCI -IMID ALFRED SCHMID, being first duly sworn on oath deposes That I am the petitioner in the above - captioned cause. That I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. NdTARY PU IC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Seattle. MERGES, YOUNGBERG, GOUCHER, ALLEN & LARBO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3721 S'CAT'I NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 622-1244 , FILC LL05 o k) .17 /1 Lo w .-- tf c s (//40\ fl P �J D Pn P\- P\- TD A co k �ti s/31 ELMS a F(LE" A-r c cry o 3 May 1978 MEMORANDUM CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: City Council FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: Bryant Waiver to Ordinances 1035 and 1053. INFORMATION ON THE WAIVER REQUEST: Present Zoning: RMH Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single- family Size of Property: 3.16 acres Total Number of Condominium Units: 98 This is the first waiver application before the City Council under Ordinance 1053, which amended Ordinance 1035. In order to establish procedures and consistency, we have taken the criteria from Ordinance 1035 and placed them in the attached checklist. We propose no waivers be granted without the Council voting on the checklist. .� Action Request: Since this is the first waiver that the Council would act on by use of a checklist, I recommend the Council, by motion, approve the content and con- cur to its use. The advantage of this approach. is that I feel it makes the City Attorneys success at defending city actions higher. Units Per Acre: 31 Land Stability: Refer to Map 1 -3, Data Inventory Slope: Refer to Map 1 -4, Data Inventory Geology: Refer to Map 1 -2, Data Inventor Soils: Refer to Map 1 -6, Data Inventory (Additional Data Inventory Book available in Planning office of City Clerk's office.) No analysis of how the proposed development conforms to existing city ordinances has been done. Should a waiver be approved, all ordinances of the City would be required to be complied with, even if this would cause changes to the proposal. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard n Tukwila, Washington 98188 n (206) 242 -2177 Memorandum City Council Page 2 3 May 1978 FORMER ACTIONS ON THIS PROPERTY: The following is a chronology of events regarding waiver requests on this property: 1. 19 July 1977: Applied for waiver to Resolution #489. 2. 25 July 1977: Item was before City Council Committee -of- the - Whole. Motion made and passed to place on 1 August 1977 regular agenda. Applicant not present. 3. 1 August 1977: Item was before the Council at regular meeting. Motion made and passed tabling item until 15 August 1977 since applicant was not present. 4. 15 August 1977: City Council denied waiver request to Resolution #489 per. Staff recommendation, which was as follows: ... "deny the waiver and instruct the applicant that he may apply for another waiver but not until such time as the development plans are revised to reflect a greater concern for the natural environment." 5. 29 August 1977: Letter from Jack Bryant requesting reasons for denial. Response made by City Attorney. 6. 27 September 1977: Resolution #489 officially became repealed and Ordinance 1035 took effect. (Five days after publication.) 7. 14 October 1977: Jack Anderson submits new. application for waiver under Resolution 489. 'Project revised to be less dense. 8. 19 October 1977: Telephone conversation held between Jack Bryant, architect for Jack Anderson,. and Fred Satterstrom regarding whether or not waiver can be processed under Resolution 489 or must be processed under Ordinance 1035. 9. 20 October 1977: Telephone discussion occurred between Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner and Larry Hard, City Attorney, regarding whether the applicant can apply under Resolution 489 or not. 10. 20 October 1977: Letter from Fred Satterstrom to Jack Bryant setting forth the position of the City Attorney on the matter. Essentially, that Jack Anderson has the choice of applying under Resolution 489 or Ordinance 1035. Application for waiver to Resolution 489 accepted and scheduled for City Council action. 11. 14 November 1977: Item appeared before City Council Committee -of- the - Whole. City Council referred the matter to the City Attorney for written legal inter -. pretation regarding whether or not Jack Anderson has vested rights in applying for a waiver under Resolution 489. 12. 15 November 1977: Letter sent to Larry Hard per Council request. 13.. January 12, 1978: Letter received back from Mr. Hard to the effect that a waiver to Ordinance 1035 would be required. 14. January 16, 1978: The matter was before the Committee -of- the -Whole and administration took the position that a waiver to Ordinance 1035 was required. Council took no action to disagree with position consequently it became the City's position. Memorandum City Council K S /ch 15. April 19, 1978: Waiver application to Ordinances 1035 and 1053 submitted by Jack Anderson. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the criteria form for Council decisions be followed and appropriate action taken as deemed necessary to make an informed decision. PLANS ON FILE IN CITY CLERKS OFFICE. NO 82" x 14" reductions submitted. Page 3 3 May 1978 EASTVIEW ASSOCIATES CONDOMINIUM WAIVER City:_ Seattle, Washington (7 CITY OF TUKI•'ILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 1035 (Please type or print) Permit applied for requiring a waiver: To construct a 98 unit condominium. Date of Application: April 19, 1978 Name of Applicant: Eastview Associates, a limited partnership Mailing Address: 1525 Taylor Avenue North Legal. Description of Property Affected: Zip: 98109 Ownership Interest in Property: Feehold interest Portion of Lot one (1), McMicken Heights Division Number one (1) - (unrecorded), lying North of South 160th Street and West of 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. General Location of Property: At South 160th Street and West 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington, containing approximately 3..7 acres and presently zoned RMH Phone: 284 - 4670 1. State specifically the action .in Ordinance No. 1035 to which you are request- ing a waiver: To construct a 98 unit condominium as per plans submitted herewith. Applicants do not waive by this application any rights now vested in them under Ordiance No. 489. 2. Briefly and generally describe the action you are proposing, including demen- sional information about the development : That a waiver from Ordinance No. 1035 be granted permitting the construction of the proposed 98 unit condominium on the subject property, presently zoned RMH, as per plans submitted herewith. 3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant i.n scale? If so, please explain: The proposed condominium is about one -third the density now permitted under RMH zoning. 4. Are other reasona le development alternatives available which would not require a waiver? If so, ...nat are these alternatives? NONE 5. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Base - map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint, what mitigat- ing measures are provided? Some of the terrain will be undisturbed, including considerable natural vegetation; new plantings will be provided; the buildings will have a low profile, due to the slope of the land; the City of Seattle water line easement to the north will be unaffected; a system of catch basins and holding tanks for storm water will be provided; all utilities will be underground. 6. What goals and policies can you identify which would support your request for waiver, if any? The proposed condominium is consistent with the best use of the land and is particularly desirable now in view of the present housing shortage in the Kent and Tukwila vicinity. 7. In your opinion, do the requirementsofOrdinance #1035 impose a special hard- ship to a site which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? The land was purchased by the applicants many years ago to construct multiple dwelling units permitted under the then existing zoning. The land cannot . economically be used for single family residences and is not desirable or feasible for such use. The applicants have carried for years the burden of the high real estate taxes due to the RMH zoning and have spent thousands of dollars preserving the property and preparing it for its proposed use. EASTVIEW ASSOCIATES .A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OWNER'S SIGNATURE: By: BELOW THIS LINE IS. TO BE FILLED IN BY TIME CITY: Date application is complete and accepted for filing: Date SEPA review complete: 4!/, ,4(,4i - r r/Z r , Limited Partner General Partner -2- 7//97-2 raDPOSED APARTDIEte tUDEZION a ibUTLEIL IDE Poetosi OF Lar i Lvi. nom oF Sr: --***•••■ * tizst of into Aus.5o. hicads,0 tiestiTS Jticic tJ. etZvn.rt • Artc urrEc . A 1 A. - 4 )8 111•AYS 147 C.za.s Voetzto.re • • PLOT PL 1.1 T Mil IL) 12 - r • UJ4.. rot 1, vS snq as /9 • tt, Ell III Ms • ..0._11.1. ----"° _,,..estbair, ii kal."•..-;"ritlifi 111 milliinIll 1 ,1 1 )NIIIII,VE , s i Ell III . Lr1C 7 —_ _ _ 1111 NE immummoolli - - OE EN 41.7! REEF 1 i1111 11 „mum, A • ...J.!. , .,. ,. i.,:..,... ,..... _ , ini 11® L5T LE\JtflOJ III Wain Sian? I I ildisartt 11111 l am 41 • . az VA! - r - _ __ . J. . • • %NM 1 • _.L 500T.1 e..tivr sin) ti•asacalc• AVISOS Lem• You.. ili 1 s• 1.•• • • • ■11, • ••• • sa...2 ••, cs....us. may. Is: Csescr ra so Moss It.. es cm.. IO- 7.0.• ••■••• 2•••• • 11:' C.41,1••• 54•111104‘. • •••••••■••• I • WEST t.LE VW We. ti WEST 51C • Stc lot.) A 1 Isea • • vs tr lbw ssm, PRE.11MitURy 1-474 iTcl.'iln RP. ;73- Earioos -IsEc JaN - 4 • l f'. tty Wv V Cws. Z i�o' 1. .• CLOS .^ lip K'• 13ED DOOM 12'•.c is. UJlue Dim WC. 12. )4• %c' 70 -A c•. 14 4 ESLO ROOM r; ` 1,512t, 9.:30,4 I1•K 14• 4 g J . )1•L iv � Q I t �, • �4 L Cs 4'• • 'AV u �TJS I TAO ' t.L.OJJL) i LO -0 LG Le .i O• 5 a' -R' Imo• -n• Ca - PAS sea. Dec is, .• 11 nrizo B4-I. FF u.u•YC SA-ora UvIUG a 171)JI X... 1 12'K 18• _ cor rue 7 FOURT IL P455csGE 14 • .4' 5 Dec14. °Enc. ;. $°• ler a B ° •io • 14Ai_ =•1 .II• NY G. • r.Z Y g HALL ?op FLOOP. UnuG 12% if.. L•. 1 be O QODM le IV. I4� 6ETS 1Z lo• 4 is CLOS Z•41CP FL ce c es 2' krtleJ Dlg l)1 . 1,1 a Wt KITCHEN c ✓. r DIVING UVU)G 8°u lo• 12°.,14.• L 4 . too• R%ON 10•,4 I5• CLOS 2 °c 2 L• 'JIU I2 ° .c ti 9F. PLOT PLAN rem. 01 52 885tME JT :>PecE S70¢Af G LGUUO¢le5 V CCrfir: now) N06t:V Gloomy SAUNa5 ►A ISce LUILIEIN 15 L r 5 . v F i LcOf LL'1T5 u FNTR•1 u • L ( Na i1 Pa SsC.0 Or= * 7.. • 1 6 ° '. IuN. 11 Y. I•[ Egg 0( NIY( T•.1s DECK. v0 � ILI MIT FL..1OR w.• �.. Lc t a:.¢LSZ1 e'Q• - Boni ` 0 TM ru 4.)T¢Y H V ;recta '-' 440 UVI)JG 12% I6' 13E0 Qoo IO ° a. 1.j• 'CI NJWC. Ak I0 REL IMNt... TYPICAL PLAtJS ;, .a A14£ STS �N L4 .4.A \.t .MC' II UI,r4NG•,v1 .. � LT 111•0; t .. R ficcL-1 ono u,..L.y 04,017.4111411.1 / C. 17441.11.4•04.E Scale:1*'►C . (PrILOK) 41k( 1104 oc114e0 t 'MuT JAciL IS '4 4Lek. r • CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION MATERIALS TESTING SOIL MECHANICS PROJECT Sub -grade Investigation Anderson Property Crestview Fast 160th St. 4 S3rd Ave. So. Tukwila, Washington Mr. Jack Anderson 10424 - 24th Ave. So. Seattle, Washington • o f ° PACIFIC TESTING LAU O tATOIR I ES Gentlemen: We herewith certify that we have completed five test borings at the above site and have the following to report. DESCRIPTION OF DRILLING EQUIPMENT B -61 'Mobile" heavy Duty Rotary Drill 2 3/4" Hollow Stem Auger Standard Penetration Equipment AS TM D 1586 -58T (1400 Hammer, 30 -inch Fall, "i3" Rod and Standard Spoon) NOTE ON ELEVATIONS All elevations mentioned in this report refer to existing grade and to elevations as shown on site plan prepared by Maurice E. Mullins, Professional Land Surveyor. EXECUTIVE OFFICES 322017TH AVENUE WEST PHONE AIWATER 2.0666 SEATTLE 98119 WASHINGTON 935.3 A WASHINGTON STATE ENGINEERING CORPORATION 17- 55-0 e o o • GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS SOIL TEST BORINGS RADIOGRAPHIC INSPECTION Certificate No. 692 -8 February 12, 1069 STRATIGRAPIiY The stratigraphy of the site is best illustrated by the enclosed drilling logs and Geologic Profile, but in general, foundation soils consist of grey hard clay overlain by 10% feet of grey, dense, interbedded silty clay and silt, and llfto 3 feet of brown, loose, silty, sandy organic topsoil. Test - boring No. 3 (See location map) was placed in the upper end of a shallow draw that trends northwesterly across the north -east portion of the site and shows grey, dense, interbedded silty clay and clayey silty sand over- lain by S feet of soft brown peat and 3% feet of sandy artificial fill. Test - boring No. .5 is on an artificial hill in the north -east property corner and shows grey, very dense sand overlain by 14 feet of grey medium fine sand and silt, and 11 feet of artificial fill. The property at some time in the past was heavily wooded with largo timber and contains many stump -holes that LICENSE NO C•79 Sub -grade Investigation Anderson Property Page -2- have accumulated organics and silt (See Test - borings Nos. 2 $ 4). . STRUCTURAL RE(CRM NDATIONS The . sed structures may' be safely 2+2m t by me ^.ns o °n • E. • !ill v • \ ventional spread foot n a safe- llowed soi ps , oxever, in order to obtain this bcarin exercis'�e(in setting mating c ovations. In the westerly half of the site, footings should be placed to bear in the redium dense silty sand found in test - borings Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Care should be exercised to place all footings below local organic soft spots. Depths to bearing in this portion of the site are listed below. Test - Boring No. Depth to Bearing, ft. below present grade 1 2 4 * (T . B . # 4 was inadvertently placed in a stump hole) It is recommended that the organic peat in the above nentioned draw be removed, and the excavation back- filled with select granular fill compacted to at least 958 of maximum dry density, in accordance with ASTM Standard D 1587 -S8T, under all structures, and that the column footings in this area then be extended through the fill to bear on dense original soils. Fill under parking and paved areas should be compacted to at least 908 of maximum dry density. In no case should footings for a structure be allowed to bear partially on fill and partially on original soils. It is our understanding that the artificial hill in the northwest property corner is to be removed, and although the fill in the hill appears to be quite compact, it is recommended that care be taken to place footings below all remnants of this fill. Depth below present grade to bearing at Test - boring No. 3 is 9 feet, at test - boring No. 5, 11 feet. Because soil conditions vary widely across the site, it is also re- commended that a qualified soils engineer be engaged to inspect all footing:excavations prior to construction. • C.ct) .CI FICTESTING LABOPATORIEC 6 feet 6 feet 7 feet Sub -grade Investigation Andersen Property Page -3- 4CIFICTESTING LABORATORI ,. It has been suggested that the proposed site has at sometime in the past been part of a large massive slide arca, however, all bedding noted in the soils of the test - borings was found to be horizontal, and large trees and stumps on the site are quite vertical,. There has been minor surficial soils creeping, but there is no evidence of recent or ten i massive movement. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service in this project, please call on us at any time. Very truly yours, Prepared by: George 0. Teague ljb PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES Robert L. Pclton, President A -2 -15 - -235 -230 -225 -2? ) pv9a_„es, p Cd� / ; � 4 20 • 34 ...... T. /0 • \ ...� L ( Flee 26 « z6 S6 30 /6 30 23 3 C r.) r 4. 16'-ey de ns< r�hd bed d -ed 3 - w w��1 $I /r- or T O 3^P G rey c , {/ .14 . - 1 6 c u.+, r.1 1 cl • ,, , .. • -` Grey /e.yd GEOLOGIC. F F i'.E 1, ..__. •• - _• • .� 11 . 1 • I . I = ° \ 121 4,1, Peat 4 /0 in 11 r r r e ✓ /.eoaC eJ.'yp Cl f� • PROJ1 CT: Anderson Property Tcst Boring No. 1 Location 0 0 r s 0---- 6 6 13 6 10 6 8/ 91 RESISTANCE Blows Pcn. 5 6 12 13 61 6 12 6 28 6 18 6 53 18/ 191 Grey dense silty fine to medium s 6 10 ; 15 1 24 61 6 6 At 3/ 41 23/ 24'4 Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Brown silty sand organic to soil Brown medium dense silt fine to medium sand. Occasional varve of silt - varves horizontal Grey dense fine sand bedded 3 -4" with grey silt, saturated 13/ '141 Same as above - bedding horizonta Brown dense fine sand. All beddi Grd.1i. 245± 1 1 2 STRATA 160th. 53rd Ave. So. C See Location Map hnri7nntfl1 PACIFIC TISTING LABORATORIES - x` 7 .0 - 17th Avenue West ttic, Washington 98119 Cert. No. 692 -8 Date 2/10/69 n Elev. Water Table 2' Below grade • • PROJECT: Test Boring No. Grd.E1. 25 40 30— 35-- owomoalo ` I Anderson Property T.D. 391' .1 Pen. 9 6 9 15 6 14 6 6 1 ! cont. Blows 13 17 6 19 6 Ic SI'RNI'A RESISTANCE Locati At 28/ 33/ 38/ 351 391 on • Soil Classification F,Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Below 251' - brown interbedded silt and clayey silt Grey stiff silty clay bedded 4 -6" with clayey silt Grey hard silty clay PACIFIC TLST I NC LABORATORIES '20 - 17th Avenue West .attle, Washington 98119 Cert. No. 692 -8 Date 2/10/69 Elev. Water Table 1 • PRU.IE T: • ' Anderson Property Test Boring No. 21 STRATA Grd.L'1. 240± 0 5 15 —. 20___ 12 RESISTANCE Blows Pcn. At 7 6 2 1 6 6 10 6 6 13 6 14 6 17 17 6 15 6 ocati 3/ 41 8/ 91 13/ 14 18/ 23/ 191 24'5 on See Location Map Soil Classification $ Ilescription (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Dark - brown orzanic silt, peat and rotton wood sand bedded 3 -4" with clayey silt r11•."1. PACIPIC 77STINC LABORATORIES ?20 - 17th Avenue West . .nttic, Washington 98119 Cert. No. 692 -8 Date 2/11/69 - Bluish -grey dense medium to coarse 1 Grey dense silty fine to medium sand Brown dense silty fine to medium sand Below 231' - Brown dense sli h tly Elev. Water Table At grade I ROiI•CT: c. • I , rest Boring No. i 31 ocati i 1 0 VIA RESISTANCE 223± T.D. 14'' Blows . Pen. 7 1 11 16 61 6. 6 5 18/ 6 9', Peat to 8',' then ,grey dense 3/ At 41 13/ 141/2 Grey dense silt clad bedded Soil Classification F, Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Grey silty sand with minor gravel and organics (Artificial fi Below 31' - Brown peat clayey silty sand with 10 -15% gravel to 1" 3 -4" with clayey silty sand 5 15 -1r ST Crd,hl 10 • 20- — r Anderson 'Property1 on See Location Map PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES - 17th Avenue West Washington 98119 Cert. No. 692 -8 Date 2/11/69 Elev. Water Table 11) 3' Below grade • 1'1:(1TLCI': Anderson Property STRATA test Boring No. 4 Location See Location Map Grd.E1. 252± 0 T.D. 6 12 RESISTANCE Blows Pcn. At 6 191' 5 6 6 6 2 7 3/ 6 6 44 10 12 X41/ 6 6 6 6 7 X18[ 6 . 19' , Soil Classification . F, Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Brown loose silty sand and organics Organic debris and wood - (Drilling in old stump hole) Brown medium dense fine sand bedded 4 -6" with silt 5, 7 10 13/ 6 6i 14h Brown medium dense fine to medium sand Below 18Z' - Brown dense silt PACIFIC TEST I NC 1 ABOPATORI 1S (7 20 - 17th Avenue West .,;:attic, Washington 98119 Cert. No. 692 -8 Date 2/11/69 L•lev. Water Table PRoJ ECT : PACIFIC TESTING LABORA'i'O I S • 3220 - 17th Avenue Wcst Anderson Property � ` . •:tle, Washington 98119 Cert. No.692-8 pate 2/11/69 Crd.L'1. 'est Boring No. 5 STRATA I:IiSISTANCE Blows 222± Pen. At 10 — 15 j 20-- 6 6 3 4 S 4 I6 6 ;6 6 { 7 • • 1 ■ • 5 12 6 6 4 6 11 6 7 8/ 6 91 1 1S/ . 6 14'1 4 18/ 6 ' 1191 8 Location • See Location Map 3/ 41 Soil Classification F, Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Brown compact very silty sand with minor gravel (Artificial fill) Mottled grey brown medium compact clayey very silty sand with 10-15% gravel (Artificial fill) Grey medium dense silk fine to coarse sand Same as above - 1 foot bed brown silt and very fine sand 181 -191' Elev. Water Table • l'i�0,1 i;C1' rest Boring No. 5--- 1 301 38 48 6 16 6 1 28/ 291 Grey very dense fine to coarse san Grd.E1. 25 3 3 STRATA • 291' Anderson Property 5 rant Location • RESISTANCE Blows Pen. At 1. See • I,oratinn Map PACIFIC TI:STINC LAnowyroit11S 30 - 17th /Avenue Wcst .tt1e, washington 98119 Cert. No. 692 -8 Soil Classification F, hescription (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) d Date 2/11/69 Elev. Water Table C Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor CITY of TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 January .18, 1978 Mr. Jack W. Anderson 14022 24th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Your lot in Tukwila lying adjacent to and north of 160th Stree and adjacent to and west of 53rd Avenue South. Dear Mr: Anderson: As you know, on October 13, 1977, you made an application for a waiver to the City's Resolution No. 489 for the above referenced property. This was processed by the planning division of the Office of Community Development. The waiver request then appeared before the City Council in a Committee of the Whole Meeting on November 14, 1977. -At that .time,. the City.Council referred the matter to the City Attorney for a written interpretation regarding whether this waiver application was valid or not or if you should have applied under the more recently •adopted.OrdinanceNo. 1035, which was adopted prior to your most recent ' application under . Resolution No. 489. The City Council considered the attached letter from Mayor Bauch at their regular meeting of January 16, 1978. This letter, in essence, stated that if you want to pursue a waiver for your property, that you must do so with a new application under Ordinance No. 1035. (Ordinance and application are attached.) This is the position of_the City. The outcome is that your pending waiver request, as submitted to the City, per Resolution 489, has been declared to be not valid and no further action will be taken on it by the City. Should you wish to pursue a waiver on your property, you will have to submit a waiver request on the attached application as adopted by Ordinance No. 1035. KJ /mb cc: Mayor Bauch Council President Van Dusen . City Attorney . Fred Satterstrom City Clerk Enclosures: Mayor's letter to Council dated January 12, 1978 Ordinance No. 1035 and forms Very truly yqurs, 3 11 Stoknes, Director Of ice of Community Development Edgar D. Bauch, ayor CITY of T KWILA 14475 - 59TH AVE UE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHING ON 98067 January 12, 978 Tukwila City Council 14475 59th Avenue South Tukwila, t'IAshi,ngton 981.8 Ladies and Gentlemen: EDB:nb Enclosure Sincerely yours, Edgar D. Bauch Mayor COUNCIL AC' M:E1;9■ AGENDA 11E,, �3M //it. 96 • TYPE ra:: Attached is a copy of a letter from the City Attorney regarding a matter referred to hi by the Council concerning the Jack Anderson property in McMicken H- ights. Based on this letter I have decided that Mr. Anderson must file for a Waiver under the provisions of Ordinance No. 1035. OCD staff will notify Mr. Andersen of this decision. As this is a major policy action I will not send the letter until after January 17, 1978.in case the Council would want to override my decision. ION cc:la/oda 15 November 1977 The situation' is as. follows: Applicant: Jack Anderson History: 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH : TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor 1 CITY DF TUKWILA not present. Mr. Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten,: Fleming & Hartung 3900 Seattle. First National. Bank Building Seattle,' Washington 9815L1 .:.. Dear Larry: /905 The City Council would like a legal opinion from your office in.writing regarding~ whether or not an applicant has vested under Resolution #489 as opposed to. Ordinance. #1035.,.. : ,• . 1::::19 July_ 1977: •, Applied for waiver to Resolution #489.. 25. July 1977: Item was before City Council Committee-of-the-Whole. Motion made and passed to place on 1 August 1977 regular agenda. A_ppli - :.:;cant not present. • • . • 1 August 1977: Item was before the. Council at regular meeting. Motion made -and passed tabling item until 15 August 1977 since applicant was 4..:.15 August 1977 :. City Council denied waiver request to Resolution #489 per Staff recommendation, which was as follows: . "deny the waiver and instruct the applicant that he may apply for another waiver but not until such time as the development plans are revised to reflect a greater con - cern for the natural environment." 5.. 29 August 1977:. Letter from Jack Bryant requesting reasons for denial. Response made by City Attorney. 6.' 27 September 1977: Resolution #489 officially became repealed and Ordi- nance #1035 took effect. (Five days after publication.) . 7. 14 October 1977: Jack Anderson submits new application for waiver under Resolution #489.. Project revised to be less dense. • Mr. Larry Hard LeSourd, Patten, Fleming & Hartung II II Sincerely, Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor EDB /KS /ch cc: Kjell Stoknes Attachments: 1. Original waiver application and attachments 2. Present waiver application and attachments Page 2 15 November 1977 • 8. 19 October 1977: Telephone conversation held between Jack Bryant, archi- tect for Jack Anderson, and Fred Satterstrom regarding whether or not waiver can be processed under Resolution #489 or must be processed under Ordinance #1035. 9. 20 October 1977: Telephone discussion occurred between Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner and Larry Hard, City Attorney, regarding whether the applicant can apply under Resolution #489 or not. 10. 20 October 1977: Letter from Fred Satterstrom to Jack Bryant setting forth the position of the City Attorney on the matter. Essentially, that Jack Anderson has the choice of applying under Resolution #489 or Ordinance #1035. Application for waiver to Resolution #489 accepted and scheduled for City Council action. 11. 14 November 1977: Item appeared before City Council Committee -of- the - Whole. City Council referred the matter to the City Attorney for written legal interpretation regarding whether or not Jack Anderson has vested rights in applying for a waiver under Resolution #489. 12. 15 November 1977: Letter sent to Larry Hard per Council request. Larry, the above represents the documented schedule of events on the Jack Anderson waiver requests. I am also attaching the old waiver request, new waiver request and related attachments. Would you please respond in writing regarding your position as City Attorney on whether or not Mr. Anderson has vested rights or not under resolution #489 or if he must apply under Ordinance #1035. too In order for this matter to be scheduled before the November 28, 1977 Committee - of- the - Whole, I•would appreciate receiving your response by November 24, 1977. e4•1 W11 v,•.s.y 0+A01441Mn"1 1 C. 1711.4wroc sc S1rm . 3caR.l. 4*11.ex9 1 Air 4•vf r"e✓r go` paoesack) VT ciao- .l l< w Aar &M, Ah&. i CLoS ZiIP 131111D1 M ■••■■ DIKNIJC. lo• 14 4' SW- 14.•-cr , PASSAGE Przt.V.- St -4 lea" -42. Ate, (r - 37:FIZT I-1 La P.MO It( vs: 70: 13 C1Se.m E STocenr... eg r7 00 NO tallY v 1 141u6 ,.• ... . r.o. CLoS UVI DOING. ea Se BED Q0C#A 10°. 0.0 L PEL1M iNtniZy TiFICAL PLAN 0, 7,11k V A FART MEW tot \ 4;7;1 at itt. C-T;‘.2 JACK N BR fAAt• AoCN , SCY tsocs ty. ••• so u• Am • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: 14 November 1977 PROPOSED ACTION: WAIVER from Resolution 489, Section 4.D.2 (a) (Construction of Apartment Complex in Environmentally Critical Area Sensitive area) APPLICANT: Jack Anderson (Jack Bryant, Architect) LOCATION: 53rd Avenue South and South 160th Street SITE SIZE: Approximately 3.1 acres ZONING: RMH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Prior Plan: Multiple - family Existing Plan: Single - family SUMMARY: (The proposed action requires a waiver from Resolution #489 because it is a pro- posal for grading, filling, and excavation in an area generally identified as naturally unstable, unstable when modified, or in areas of known landslides. SEE, Section 4.0.2 (b) of Resolution #489.) This waiver request has been heard by the City Council back in August of this year. At that time, the proposal was for a 130 -unit apartment complex. The waiver request was denied by the Council on 15 August 1977 due to its inconsistency with the policies of the Natural Environment element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant was notified that he might apply for another waiver from #489 if development plans were revised to show a greater concern for the natural environment. The applicant has subsequently revised his development plans to indicate a reduc- tion of 32 units (98 total units are now proposed in 11 separate structures) and preservation or retention of certain highly vegetated areas. According to the City Attorney, the applicant has vested rights under Resolution #489 by virtue of the Council's decision on 15 August 1977. Consequently, a waiver from Resolution #489, rather than Ordinance #1035, is in order. The following is an analysis of the criteria for review under Resolution #489: CRITERIA #1: Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? ANALYSIS: Several policies of the Comprehensive Plan relate to this proposal: City Council Page 2 Staff Report 14 November 1977 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Objective 1, Policy 1: Objective 2, Policy 1: Objective 3, Policy Objective 3, Policy Objective 6, Policy 1: 3: 1: "Maintain the wooded character of the sttep slopes and upland plateau..." "Strive to retain viable areas of wooded hillsides, agricultural lands, wetlands, streams, and the Green River for wildlife habitat." "Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent." "Preserve and promote the quality of natural land - form." "Discourage development in areas where slopes are known to be unstable. In areas where the stability of slopes is questionable, allow development only after a qualified professional can demonstrate that slopes will be stable even after site modification." As mentioned, the original proposal has been reduced by 32 units, from 130 to 98. Instead of 42 units per acre, the proposal now is for approximately 31 units per acre. Along with this reduction in units, there has also been a proportionate decrease in parking stalls and parking area. The result of this descrease in density has been an increase in uncovered or "unbuilt" area. Retention of large, significant vegetation around the site perimeter (especially along the property's south boundary) is proposed. A semblence of wildlife habitat may be retained as a result. Less building space and bulk is proposed in the revised development plans. Therefore, less development is proposed on the site's sloping terrain. More space between buildings is proposed and since less area is proposed for devel- opment, more of the natural land form will be retained. A soils report has been supplied by the applicant which indicates that the site will support the structures proposed. CRITERIA #2: Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? ANALYSIS: The revised proposal is not insignificant in scale. Ninety -eight (98) units are still proposed for 3.1 acres, representing about 31 units per acre. In addition, other reasonable alternatives are available under current zoning (RMH) which would have far less environmental impact on the site. These alternatives would include a further reduction in the overall proposed density which would reduce the size of the buildings and the required parking area and, hence, reduce the total environ- mental impact. City Council Staff Report Page 3 14 November 1977 CRITERIA #3: If the request for waiver involves grading, excavation, filling or development in geographical areas identified as having potential natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures proposed? ANALYSIS: The proposed action is located in a general area where the stability of the land is questionable and must be investigated prior to development. Some slopes on the property are steep and tend to limit development for this reason. However, a soils report submitted by the applicant has generally affirmed the ability of the site to hold the proposed structures. CRITERIA #4: Do the requirements contained in Resolution #489 impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to adoption of the Land Use Policy Plan? ANALYSIS: As mentioned, the revised development plans do reflect a greater concern for the natural environment than the previous proposal. This is not to say, however, that the proposed development could not be revised further to achieve even better harmony with the natural environment. Therefore, it does not appear that a special hardship necessarily exists for this site. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis of the criteria, Staff recommends that the City Council grant the request for waiver and allow the applicant to file a building permit. It should be noted here, and the Council should include it as part of their recommendation, that approval of the waiver does not constitute approval of either the site or building plans submitted with the waiver request. Environmental review pursuant' to SEPA and compliance with the Uniform Building Code may necessitate further mitigation of impact, thus affecting the site and building plans. FNS /ch 20 October 1977 Jack N. Bryant Architect 134 - C S.W. 153rd Seattle, Washington 98166 RE: WAIVER REQUEST: APARTMENT COMPLEX FOR ANDERSON /BUTLER Dear Mr. Bryant: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of 19 October 1977, I am sending this letter to put into writing what we have verbally discussed. According to our city attorney, you have the option of filing a waiver request under Resolution #489 for the above referenced project (even though this resolution is no longer in effect) by virtue of the city council's action on 15 August 1977. You have, in fact, filed this waiver request with the city and staff is presently processing it accordingly. At this time, your waiver request is tentatively scheduled for the city council's Committee -of -the -Whole meeting on 14 November 1977. If there is any change in this process, I will let you know as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. red Sa terst om Planning Supervisor FNS /ch ectfully, cc: Jack Anderson CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6230 Southcentor Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242-2177 (Please type or print) Date of Application: CITY OF TUKWILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER From the Provisions of Resolution Number 489 October 3, 1977 Name of Applicant: Jack W. Anderson Mailing Address: 14002. 24th Ave. so. City: Seattle, Wa. Zip:98168 Ownership Interest in Property:three owners, Alfred Schmid, Glen Butler, and Jack Anderson. Legal' Description of Property Affected:The Portion of lot #1, McMicken Heights Div. #1 lying north of South 160th St. and West of 53rd. Ave. So. General Location of Property: Northwest quadrant of intersection of So. 160th St. and 53rd Ave. So. 1. State specifically the action in Resolution No. 489, Section 4 to which you are requesting a waiver: TQ resolve queetionri misted by the staff at the previous 1 �. •. . . .: .! . .: .::. . eni 1 of applisati.on. (Jack N. Bryant AIA Phone: 244 -1370 ( 243 -3131 ) 2. Describe specifically the action you are proposing, including dimensional infor- mation about the development, site maps, etc., if available: Reduce the number of Apartment units to 98. Reduce parking to 147 spaces. More openness, and natural ground and vegetation to remain. Existing tree buffer to remain along the west side adjacent to so.,160th St.l7est row of buildings reduced to two stories. Recreation and covered pool moved to west side 6f property. Ge4erally, apartments are broken into individual eight unit buildings, with planting between. 3. What is your justification for your request: (Please refer to items 1-4 on the cover sheet and respond to them.) 1. yes, k rangitj onal (nuii fjpip rpRidentia1 ) zone is needed between the Commercial (South Center) freeway, and single family use on the top of the hill. 2. The scale is small as compared with density allowed in the present RMH zone. Without multiple res. use the property could be useless, • 3. Tests by Pacific Testing Laboratories show no serious soil stability problems. Normal spread footings are permissible with soil bearing at 40001 per ft. Surface organic material should be removed as in standard practice. Standard practice of requireing a qualified soils engineer to inspect footings is reccopmended. Drainage can be taken care of properly. 4. yes: denial to develop as proposed would impose a major economic hardship on the Owners. Approval would allow a use compatable with accepted planning practice. (attach additional sheet, if necessary) 4. What other factual evidence is relevant to your request for waiver (such asexist- ing development in the vicinity of your property, soils and geologic investiga- tions, etc.): Copy of report by Pacific Testing Laboratory is included in application. Report shows, in addition to #3(3) abovedrawing snowing locations of five test borings, with profiles showing log of findings. Tests were taken as deep as 40 ft. (Attach any other information available which substantiates your request) Date Received: J.3 Ochiti tri Received by: Date scheduled before City Council: Action of City Council: Date of City Council Action: (for office use only) ( wner ove*Vb6r 1977 Cii ! COUNCIL .1 .. . y ... 111 1i -)7 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Contd Request for Waiver -Build duplex or triplex in area designated single family (52nd Ave. So. & So. 151st) - Toltec Builders quest for Waiver Jack Bryant for apt. complex at So. 160th and 53rd Ave. So. Report - Sanitary sewer connection to Jim Patton residence COM..MI I EE OF THE WHOLE MEETING 1 Krell Stoknes, OCD Director, said Toltec Builders (Anton P. Skya, applicant) have applied for building permits fora single duplex one a single triplex on land located on the West side of 52nd Avenue So. near its intersection with South 151st Street. The size of the sit is approximately 1/2 acre. He said the subject property is currentl zoned RMH. The proposed project is within the density limits of RMH zoning. Mr. Stoknes said the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the subject location as low- density residential (single family). Neither the density proposed nor the bulk of the proposed structures conforms to the low desnity residential classification. Mr. Stoknes said the site is located near the I -5 freeway on the eas and near a designed and developed commercial area to the south. It is the intent of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan to create transition areas between low density residential districts and activity centers and because the Comprehensive Plan Map is by naturE a general guidline rather than a specific statement, staff recommenc waiver from Section 3.1 of Ordinance No. 1035. Councilman Traynor said he would like someone to contact the three houses in the area and see if they want to say something about the proposed project. Mr. Skya, applicant for the waiver, said the project will be deluxe units containing 1800 square feet of living space in each. They will have daylight basements. Councilman Pesicka said the planned buildings look nice and yards have been planned. Mr. Skya said there are tall poplars behind the buildings that break up the area. Mr.Skya said the whole area is high noise, the duplex and triplex will have double panes to shut out the noise. The homes in the are do not have them. He said it is not easy to get loans for single family buildings in high noise areas. MOVED BY PESICKA, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE PROPOSED WAIVER al TOLTEC BUILDERS BE ON THE NOVEMBER 21, 1977 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. Mayor Bauch said he had read the Staff report and contacted the City Attorney regarding this matter. It was the opinion of the City Attorney that he issue a written legal opinion on the matter. MOVED BY PESICKA, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM RESOLUTION NO. 489 BY JACK BRYANT FOR APARTMENT COMPLEX AT SOUTH 160TH AND 53RD AVENUE SOUTH BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATT0R E FOR A LEGAL OPINION. CARRIED. Mayor Bauch said the Staff Report was distributed about 4:30 p.rn. this date and the Council has not had an opportunity to read-it. He said Alternative 5 is preferred and the quoted cost would be $5,600. He said the Pattons have not seol the Staff Report. Council man Saul.asked if the City could get some more bids. Mayor Bauch said they had called everyone they thought would be interested: He said the area to be worked on is beyond the reach of the City -owned back hoe so the City cannot do the job. Councilman Traynor asked if a back hoe could be rented that would reach. Mayor Bauch said they had already looked into that possibility and it was not feasible. Council President Hill said he thought the Council should study the Staff Report and go down and look at the situation. He said he woul like to talk to the Pattons about the problem. Councilman Van Duser said all of the figures on the alternatives were just up to the property line. Mayor said the City Attorney has said the City is liable for providing sewer service. Councilman Van Dusen said t� Pattons had followed the direction of the Staff and had gone to the expense of having a drain field put in. He said he thought it was 1 to the City to connect the sewer for the Pattons. Mayor Bauch said the City authorized the drain field put in by the Pattons and he thought the City should be obligated to pay for that. rlr.i. 1'n\.1.1i, rli_iiiMil. ♦r said Cri1v LnuCl 4 Ilcau ilviic the win k 1UI �I;r.• and he was reasonable. She srigies'ted he be contacted to do r.o.v111 C; t: Is o l IgIflt d .(.,...J L J.i ° tin .: =» A CI ?Y COUNCIL RECU MEETING ,..:.,;::rt > t 15, 1977 RECESS gia pr 8:40 P.M. - 8:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont. Comprehensive Land Use Plan AND Interim Zoning Measures - Cont. CITIZENS' COMMENTS McMicken Park PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS fiver from Res. #489, (Slope Stability) 53rd Ave. South & South 160th, • requested by Jack Anderson MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch called the meeting back to order with all Council Members present as previously reported. Mayor Bauch stated that the question had been raised if the Public Hearing was closed or whether the Interim Zoning Measure would be discussed. He stated that the Public Hearing has been closed but it is a policy of the Council to hear the public at any meeting and these items will be discussed again next Monday night. Dennis Robertson commented that the Tukwila McMicken Action Committee will discuss work in the new park in September, after vacations. Mayor Bauch announced that this request for waiver has been continued from two previous meetings because of lack of attendance.by those requesting the waiver. Mr. Jack Bryant, architect representing the owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Jack Anderson and Mr. Glen Butler, explained the request for a waiver to build 130 -unit apartment complex. The proposed construction site is located at 53rd Ave. South and South 160th Street. Mr. Bryant stated that, historically, multiple residential zoning surrounds industrial and commercial areas. Zoning is to put land to its best use. The proposal to change this area to single- family is opposed to logical planning, and it should be left the zoning it is now. It has been RMH for the last 16 years. Mr. Bryant addressed the staff report. The waiver request is not for zoning but has to do with potential stability problems. He stated that they had furnished staff with a report from Pacific Testing Laboratorie completed in 1969 and quoted from the structural recommendations sectio of the report. Based on the report, the reasoning behind the instabili of this site is not well founded. The density of the proposed develop- ment is considerably less than that allowed under the RMH zoning. Mr. Bryant stated that the objectives. listed in the staff report are practically impossible to comply with in development of RMH property. He again stated that the major question raised by staff is the stabilit and the tests that have been made, compared to the proposed development show they are not taking any chances with the stability of the property He explained that the state has gone to great expense to stabilize the hillside by installing a number of pumps to bring the sub -water to the surface. Their proposed development will help in that the surface drainage will be directed into a drain system and not enter the sub - water problem. Mr. Bryant discussed the staff report further and explained the propose regrading of the site. He stated that they felt traffic would go towar Klickitat rather than up into the residential area. If the property is down graded to single- family, the property becomes worthless and this is not logical. The down grade to single - family is completely against all planning rules. Councilman Saul asked how many units per acre the developer is proposin and he was told approximately 43. Councilman Gardner asked how they intend on handling water that comes down the hill. Mr. Bryant explained the drainage system and how they propose to use holding tanks along the north boundary. ,TUK CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 15, 1977 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver from Res. #489, (Slope Stability) 53rd Ave. South & South 160th, requested by Jack Anderson RECESS 9:55 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. Ordinance #1031 - Reclassification of certain land from R -3 and C -1 to RMH and C -2, VIP Restaurant Site Dennis Robertson stated that there is a creek running through the property right now and it could not be retained in a 4 -inch main. Paving this area isn't going to help. He felt that most of the traffic will go up the hill into the residential area. Mr. Glen Butler, owner, stated that everyone wants this to be resider;{ but no one has considered that the first sewer hookup will cost $20,( and this property would only accommodate about six houses. Councilman Bohrer asked if the trees on the drawing exist and was toll no, not in the size shown. Fred Satterstrom, speaking on behalf of the staff report, stated that the proposal was analyzed with respect to the natural environment element of the Corphrehensivd Plan and generally was not found to be in conformance with the emerging policy. He explained that he has not seen a proposal come as close to disturbing or influencing the entire site as this one. As many units as this on this small piece of ground, laid out in this manner, necessarily disturbs the entire and it must be regraded. This is why staff recommended as they did, have the applicant revise the plans to reflect a greater concern for natural environment. Jack Anderson, owner, stated that the going rate for apartment proper is $2,000 per unit. Councilman Bohrer stated that the soils report doesn't appear to addr the slide areas. Mr. Bryant read a short section from the soils repot concerning the slides: ".... There is no evidence of recent or potent tial massive movement." MOVED BY MRS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT COUNCIL GO ALONG WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE WAIVER. * Councilman Bohrer stated that if the waiver is denied and the applicar' comes back with a less severe proposal he would like to see the subjec of a scale drawing addressed and the sub - surface water issue. Also, he would like to have the City consider having a soils expert review t! the data submitted. Councilman Dusen agreed with Staff's recommendation. * MOTION CARRIED. �C• v., MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE? MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch called the meeting back to order with Council Members , present as previously stated. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE AGENDA BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE, ITEM 9a AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance approving the reclassifi- cation of certain land from R -3 (Three and Four Family Dwellings) and C -1 (Neighborhood Retail Business) to RMH (High Density Multiple Residence) and C -2 (Local Retail Business) for a new motel and expansion of the present restaurant, all subject to certain conditions. MOVED BY MRS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1031 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* PLANNING PARKS a RECREATION BUILDING c CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 August 1977 Mr. Jack Anderson 14002 - 24th Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Sincerely, KS /cw 1 Stoknes Director cc: City„Council President )pderson Waiver File RE: Your waiver request to resolution #489 Dear Mr. Anderson: To date, the City Council has reviewed your waiver request at their Com- mittee-of- the -Whole meeting of July 25, 1977, and considered it at their regular meeting of August 1, 1977. They noted your absence at both meetings. Rather than act on your application on August 1, 1977, without your presence, they tabled it until their next regular meeting of August 15, 1977. I would recommend that you or a representative attend the City Council's August 15, 1977 meeting to represent your interests. The meeting is at 14475 - 59th Avenue South at 7:00 P.M. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177 • • n t /•_�., L. , , J. . 643U FLAG SALUTE AND CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTE APPROVAL VOUCHER APPROVAL CITIZENS' COMMENTS Candidates filed for council positions t.iver from es. #489 - (Slope stability) 53rd Ave. So. and So. 160th, Requested by Jack Anderson Current Fund Street Fund Fed. Shared Revenue Water Fund Sewer Fund TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL rn1 L n .•rrrt MINUTES Mayor Pro Tem George Hill, presiding in the absence of Mayor Bauch, called the regular meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. LIONEL C. BOHRER, DWIGHT R. GARDNER, GEORGE D. HILL, PESICKA, DANIEL J. SAUL, DWAYNE TRAYNOR, GARY L. VAN DUSEN. KJELL STOKNES, OCD Director; JOHN MCFARLAND, Administrative Assistant; MABEL J. HARRIS, City Treasurer; LAWRENCE HARD, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. MOVED BY MRS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 18, 1977, BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. LID 25 C69 -70 -71 $ 1,326.83 LID 27 C20 - 25 152,329.81 LID 28 C8 - 9 1,122,21 3182 - 3263 3264 - 3276 3277 - 3289 3290 - 3301 3302 - 3309 7 uk4; l a c; ty Hall Council Chambers MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT THE VOUCHERS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. MOTION CARRIED. Vouchers No. 3182 - 3309 $ 12,445.54 17,172.05 4,784.13 19,136.73 3,843.75 $ 57,382.20 R 37 $ 1,326.83 R 5 152,329.81 Special financing -no Revenue warrant BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS Demolition and Mayor Pro Tem Hill explained that the bids will be opened for the demo - removal of building lition and removal of a building located at 14424 56th Avenue South. at 14424 -56th Nine contractors had picked up specifications but only one has been Avenue South returned. It is from Center Dozing, Inc., 2117 S.W. 114th, Seattle, 98146. Mayor Pro Tem Hill opened, noted the bid bond enclosed, and read the bid in the amount of $3,267.40 (tax included). It was explained that, if awarded, a lien in this amount would be placed on the property. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE BID OF CENTER DOZING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,267.40. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Van Dusen commented that he was glad to see ten people had filed for the Council positions. This will give the citizens a choice when they go to the poles. Mayor Pro Tem Hill noted a memo from the Secretary of State that only those positions where three or more candidates have filed will appear on the primary ballot in September. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS Kjell Stoknes gave Staff Report on the Waiver from Resolution #489, Section 4.D.2(a) (Slope Stability) requested by Jack Anderson for property located at the Northwest corner of 53rd Avenue South and South 160th Street. The proposed development of a 130 unit apartment complex is on a site approximately 3.1 acres. The present zoning is RMH which allows this type of use. Staff feels that the development is inconsistent with several of the policies of the natural environment clement. The proposed Ce prehensiv Plan is recommending .single family residence in this area. V Based on the analysis of thn c tl,.nl -\ .' y\' y t-, . th V I t \I =n�. y i � r 1 /2 the. waiver. 1 UKW1LA CITY COUNCIL REGULMEETING August' 1, 1977 Page 2 Waiver from Res. #489 - (Slope stability) 53rd Ave. South and South 160th, Requested by Jack Anderson - Cont. Ordinance #1029 - Reimbursement of mileage expense PETITIONS, C ^vM=NICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Mayor Pro Tem Hill asked if anyone in the audience would like to spear for or against this proposal. - Mr. Ernie Onorati, 5102 South 163rd Place, noted that the Highline Community Plan recommends this site for single family residence and this also agrees with the latest proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He recommended following these plans. It was noted that there was no one present to speak for the development df the property. MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT COUNCIL DEFER ANY ACTION ON THE WAIVER UNTIL AUGUST 15, 1977, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TIME TO APPEAR AND DISCUSS THIS: * Attorney Hard stated that if Council wanted to make it a fact - finding hearing, they could advertise a Public Hearing but recommended it be set for the September meeting to allow time for publication. Mayor Pro Tem Hill stated that there was a lot of discussion on this proposal at the last Committee of the Whole meeting. Mr. Anderson was not in attendnace at that meeting. Councilman Van Dusen stated that he would like all the facts before making a decision. Councilman Bohrer questioned whether the developer is serious since he has not appeared at the two scheduled meetings. Councilman Saul stated he did not feel a public hearing was necessary as it had already been discussed. Councilman Gardner stated he thought they should have a Public Hearing. * MOTION CARRIED WITH GARDNER VOTING NO. Mr. Ernie Onorati, 5102 So. 163 Pl., asked if a Public Hearing will be set on this proposal at the August 15 meeting? Mayor Pro Tem Hill stated that Council has three choices - deny, approv or set a Public Hearing. Attorney H Hard stated that if Council denies the waiver, under Resolutic No. 489 (tlie gevelo Wave the right to appeal the negative decision. Waiver from MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT AGENDA ITEM NO. 7B BE Res.. #489 DEFERRED UNTIL LATER. MOTION CARRIED. requested by Peter Skarbo (Cont. Page 4) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES Mabel Harris, City Treasurer, explained that it has been the policy of the City since 1964 to reimburse employees and Councilmembers 10 cents per mile for travel expense. At that time, an ordinance was drawn granting the Police Chief 10 cents per mile for the use of his private vehicle. The State Auditor, at that time, felt that if one employee received mileage, all should. Mrs. Harris stated that she has checked with surrounding cities and find that most now pay 15 cents per mile. MOVED BY MRS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, providing for reimbursement of mileage expense. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY ."RS. PESICKA, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1029 BE APPROVED AS READ. * ;" 7:O0 P.M. C31_L TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES DISCUSSION Prop. Ord. - Providing for reimbursement of mileage expense rop. Waiver - Res. #489, Sec. 4.D.2(a), Slope Stability - Request of J. Anderson for property at 53rd Ave. & So. 160th Prop. Waiver - Res. #489 to allow rezone from R -1 -7.2 to C -2, request of P. Skarbo for property at Southcenter Pkwy. near Puget Power Substation . 4.\.. . . M V . a.J 1 11A 1 1 1r C0;•;i iITT OF THE ti11HG t /IEET1 1= Council Chambers MINUTES Council President Hill called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to orde GARDNER, TRAYNOR, HILL, SAUL, BOHRER. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY BOHRER:THAT THE MINUTES 0_F THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1977 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, TO AMEND THE AGENDA AND CONSIDER ITEM 4 PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE EXPENSE, AT THIS TIME. CARRIED. Mae Harris, City Treasurer, stated the proposed ordinance will reimburse City employees for the use of their private vehicles in the amount of 15 cents per mile. It has previously been paid in the amount of 10 cent The average mileage paid in surrounding cities is 15 cents per mile at the present time. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDIN FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE EXPENSE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 1, 1977 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. * Councilman Bohrer asked if the City presently has an ordinance regarding the reimbursement of mileage expense. Mae Harris, Treasurer, said there is an old ordinance stating Police Chief Edward G. Boze would be reim- bursed in the amount of 10 cents per mile for use of his private automo- bile. Councilman Bohrer asked if it could be City policy to pay employe 15 cents per mile and not have to be an ordinance. Council President Hill said when the City spends money there has to be an ordinance author izing the expenditure. Administrative Assistant John McFarland agreed. Councilman Bohrer said his concern is not with the rate of reimbursement but with the establishment of an administrative policy. *CARRIED. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained the proposed action is the con- struction of a 130 unit apartment complex on a 3.1 acre site located at the northwest corner of South 160th and 53rd Avenue South in McMicken Heights. The present zoning is RMH (Multiple Residence High Density) which allows this type of use, but the site has been identified by staff as posing potential stability problems, thus a waiver from Resolution No. 489, Section 4.D.2(a), is required. Mr. Stoknes read the Planning Staff Report with the recommendation that Council deny the waiver and instruct applicant to apply for another waiver at such time as developme plans are revised to reflect greater concern for the natural environment MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED WAIVER FROM RESOLUTION NO. 489, SECTION 4.0.2(a), SLOPE STABILITY, REQUESTED BY JACk ANDERSON FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 53RD AVENUE AND SOUTH 160TH STREET, BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 1, 1977 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. Mr. Stoknes, OCD Director, explained the proposed action is a waiver request to allow rezoning from R -1 -7.2 to C -2 on a parcel of property located along and west of Southcenter Parkway just north of the Puget Power Substation. The objective of the rezone is to allow the subject site to be added to presently zoned C -2 parcel to the north to allow con struction of a 20,000 square foot retail sales building called "Skarbo's Mr. Stoknes stated the staff recommends the City Council approve the waiver request and allow the applicant to apply for rezone. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE PROPOSED WAIVER FROM RESOLU- TION NO. 489 TO ALLOW REZONE FROM R -1 -7.2 TO C -2, REQUESTED BY PETER SKARBO FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY NEAR PUGET POWER SUBSTATION BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE AUGUST 1, 1977 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETD * Councilman Traynor asked if the waiver is granted w i l l Council g L to see the site plans. Mr. Stoknes said they would. Councilman Saul said • CITY OF TUI4WILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: 25 July 1977 PROPOSED ACTION: Waiver from Resolution #489 Section 4.D.2(a) APPLICANT: Jack Anderson (Bryant, architect) LOCATION: 53rd Avenue and South 160th Street SIZE: Approximately 3.1 acres ZONE: RMH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Existing Plan: Multiple - family Emerging Plan: Single- family SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL: The proposed action is the construction of a 130 -unit apartment complex on a 3.1 acre site located at the Northwest corner of South 160th and 53rd Avenue South in MeMicken Heights. Present zoning is RMH (Multiple Residence High Density) which allows this type of use, but the site has been identified by staff as posing potential stability problems. Hence, a waiver from Resolution #489, Section 4.D.2(a) is required. Because the proposed action is generally consistent with present zoning and requires a waiver only from Section 4.D.2(a) of Resolution #489, the staff report examines the proposed action only as it relates to environmental constraints. Map 1 -3 (Slope Stability) in the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area" identifies the general area of the proposal as "unstable when modified" and "may become unstable" (See, Legend of Map 1 -3). Map 1 -2 (Geology) indicates the site is generally split between lacustrine deposits (Qic) and outwash deposits (Qvo), the latter being associated with generally poor slope stability. In addition, according to Map 1 -4 (slope), certain areas on the subject site reach up to 15+ percent slope. The applicant has submitted a soils test with the waiver application, dated 12 February 1969, and completed by Pacific Testing Laboratories. • " 11 . /t •..‘56. Ft. El. 212'. RA .*Evcavorriot=J 2sagto, (atm) 01)-r tu,) .(os .Z. '':' '''4 ' '' '' ' ' "‘• ;37 1.11 'il'tAYIP.!.7•.:;i ':r : ' P ' •,'■ 1 , 0 :,‘• "' ' '''''''1•."1111 . 'f,t&'iglfk',.‘..-Ar':^ W.•'..",,,:,"' i l l:: 1 . .4.,..,t. 4,74) voo e' ' LECL PR TL - 65 , .L- 1$G;tkt u iJ t LumzEc.43$.tien) , Ot11 &ut tiitk=ccv tt.o Li :.••• • ••• ..7(§)FLEXIBLE RULER • 302 AWrinnIrm GE fiZ 94 LE 9E SE VE Ca EE te c 61 EU 1.1 91 I I. 'CI 11 Ot • _JI111111111011.1 .• . ..... . . ., . ,.... . ..--....--;.:,.:,.....:::.'—: — 11111111111111111111TIVITM111111111111111111Tifliiii 1 1419111111RITIPITR UMW I il l'ipil (INT 1 i Ito 1 , :t, s. -- ----t , .: i, 4 ' ' '' , : 1 '• 3 e CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS! , 1 THE QUALITY OF J HEORIGINALDOCUMENT . DT -,. 1" h EL■7...1 F: ." N JACK t.t. r- 134.0 site plan floor plan floor plan i 5OMIL'15t- OIt71��i4 tiL Tug A uP 'A 'W11.Lc l i r wltu . ou-I_ G Ws oyrtJVJQ uqr, } .t I .. 7 T)SL • t ?:,.�� ' hiGU1Q t:LiJ:U1i2.: : 1 `? ;'.. i` `•.'•,! . IT loo e 1 (EdvT sine e1JL�t) • �I : fjwct <i I( ti Ca�'+Y ....... , •SE$'SF1a P.7�sWu.tas' 61L6 Y vl( s lF 4 'Pn : rot. /SO ST/s.12., . /9F£."ELEVIITI,OIUS 7 (i)Ct u' l OtL FiJ�� Leadg1 ': Ot?k1:1L�11.::'SO'�'61 T t1S mEN7 1.; �zIPI eS 8 I111111N1111111 N mrl1T rrrtrrr,�fm: TilME 0! ui1T I® mom= IISMINZEI EMS It IE91 I!!!!R{11111111111111 : •�I2TJ OrauS']dIST1 tl. "O:G'• I NVE YtGA:re eel.% W. CAN › t -Ir cirJ FTEX: :E CAt/47t OK.) ' (i..1 G. Mil LL: OESIGt - lt0` '("o: Sul S PEc.i IG CoN Ot11 .EC.T 10 .f Die 11:). sCALe. 1 / - 4 -I & 2' Mita. Co.r. tot \ "_t.Ll \f_ILF1J tu, QS Sl..lf• • rl 111%•• utLN tde1L:EY' it .�:YI MIS I��.JmT FCtX) 2(' u:S16. 1wa/ fi''y?}3hT'ytq k ' %, ::t51 „p , ria S'ir �SIf.''S!'il I.I•'.w.�r - IIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1( 1111111111111111 1111111 IIIITIIITII[ 111111111111111111111 IIIj111111111111111 0 '•1'i'•' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TLEkIIILE I7utE14•302 AWnr::1= OE 6C OE LC 9C SC VS CC EC IZ pG Gl 91 LI 91 SI • t Cl 21 II 01 . IIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111IIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111II11111111I1111111111111111111111I11111II111111111111111111I111111111 11111111111111 24x IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN TIIIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO TIIE QUALITY OF TIIE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT k i'�LLGJka6E �LLoLJ4t,4CFr • IN j Llnli.]G.WInt)O LLJ .' Do c= -3 .. ou•SS 3rL- o- L� .A.:10O @.D 2 k4: 'TOD5_ I b "o. G•. I /Zr Tt..`eW coo . S IIL`.6711I NG� 1 /4" t L6' . °can (Ai Bsssas) : •- (11 --SH21t� Ar...E. �I_L..r�we..LF � t_t. GE-S, DT. T�uiuC11 . x1257:. F L�17 ° DILe I NJ. • SEE '. la2Lilnie �� L Pttat� k: �j._ �E?.,..' �T ..'�r5i:'rr`<'s�...:.�,''.,.�.A :.:.'.:.:.':J.n�..•:3. •.. •t �:�1[i.. n.. ; k S E..•77 1.6 LL) s k "t t'ynxt l .., ic_ ONDOh�tnlllJhl ttiL r S i^�4 S 'i,91 fiD ra. f ! • addpG�� qz $ ; EA4T'VI E - LtJ QSSCiC,1.GTCxi ;• }':;c" '1 t•t191 TL11c I LLN, WD . • 1 • 1 IIEBONOEURIE111111111316111111111112111V1111 =,i�iC JTfr,'e" 111111111111111111111111111 iMMIROMMOIAINIMINOMMUMMION t -- is 6L;;Da1-:- �.- II1II;(111111110111111111ffiffil] II'I IN l iiiiiiioie ;i.!U 1 • s0auumieo1ui!1111iU1 6 {{ fi 11111! l„ ; 4 I I11II1111111 : . f."'(:W". .. is TS otrPED EKP.3 GJ1LN£1L . �w . Passil To At.1bIIJ- . , I a 1 v.) ,Qesscc.d -'Co. ,6Tu1'}T f .o )w\ . I TYPICdL. END:::EL� �/L�Ti =1= 0•. .:, ,. 1 . F5. c,e v IZ U411J I{ LC,l .'C pCN r�r.oIL 11 f�.7vC LJ • 1LC Ort::. 3 °E,8 • uDote. S�trIDIJ. PASSSAGf /U(GSS Ta STDRAGk: P.Cbn15 , IIIiII�ililill�ilillllliHlilllilil 1 r e 24x t L� %II17E NULEIi-]U]AWii(PS .i QC liZ OL L7 9Z 9Z 9e CZ ZZ 12 0Z MM Ll 9I 1 ' 1 MM II Ol Inidnu1nidnu1uulmi1uulnn1uuluy1unluu1nuluu1unluu1unluu1mdunlnu6m1unlmi1mdmi1miluu1nidnn1imhm1llidun1uulmi1uulml1unhmlu IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN TIIIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO TIIE QUALITY OF TIIE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT �a t .i ua*kAra • 1 r1 k ti- r tXt1: ? otircm iv1UNA ,Pat. �3��g E.Si TUk W IL . LA./ &SFI. • 9 • 5/g 1 • 7. 4 ?4 w ,•' .„ • , „ , PERFORATED ;D:cmIty PERPOR rqp, SEALED : • . , . 1;.,,A0/■,■,A,;*(4,:i...r..1, ..,''`V9P-1,4$Vt,'"gi)/,',`,4,M4.4?Y'Nf/.:41/1.11'1'441/71 gj tl t::. Pi/ ".: 1; ,/./.= h tfr I f-r. ,,. , .,,,, , , ..,, ...., ..' ;II . „ • ....'''''.`• ' , `.:''',','..''.' ''. : .":'' ' ,...:.'.. ' ''' - :t , ,k. ..:•: : ; ''' . '•-• . 2:, ...C7ChiliqaTOD.'";qR(41 , 10 . 1'.i1R 1314Se, ' ..,.,.., , • ••,,:,;: ,',:',"' ."-...-', t,' •-:••••• • . • . . • - ••.`. RA',1?/41?40 :• ■4 ,1 4 , ; ; ;qR.??.Dg . - • - .7.,.... , . f' •'•••;;:::: • ' '•',' '' ';',''...- • :..' -:: :':'," ' •• • ' • . ":',.',•,' '=•-•'• ' • •-• •.•••,° • ,•.;,•:• 7:• „•,':.,. ::,•:,', •,...' ' . • .,:,->,::'•:, :: '. •••• • ".-- -::.*-:•:•-c-• :::•• • . :• - ' •• . - ''''''•; • ' • ' • '••• • • • . ' -- : , : `••-- ;';'. • ••••i •'-•• ." . .. : ': i• - • i-:; - ,:. : . ,:•"';,..,,-":,.• 03:f/p_ #4 e 05e NOTE; 1:)EP771-1 VARIES , 1. ' ACCORD W /r.H solLs r • OC GZ OL LZ. 9it SZ VZ CZ ZZ IZ Gt DI LI 91 St 9t 'CI ZI 11 01 . 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1111 ' • • ,-/&". • • • , , • • L... . • „ .„.. 1717f7frffiffrififrillitijiirrinfrripliviiiiiiiiiqiiilifillomrp 4x OF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS: jCLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO' 0 1 2 3 4 5 7 I.ExItitE GUM{ •392 Gvirrunti3 'THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • Q.., of' Ar4/Veil-AR: , . • : • •• • , • . . • : •••.- 41 DRAY IV 1 :," • • , .'",/-1.7,n7SY/ MER • • 1.,. •caprifortri , .." • •, f 4000 p$;- 7rr • • . •;,.• •.• "••••••••'. • ; • , • • ;.; : ▪ • CoiteiYil ' 'be t he City af - .71rIe , • .••,; • . • SECTIOkt. • • • • :jejlet";-44.:- ! 71-1- ‘ 1 U 17-7:"41 . . 6/8 issacta ‘.LLi • Mai 1.5. Ilcapa , • I • V4.0 S.i. SM ST, - 243: 313 i - L t�'+Iam'ri. %ufiKT= y�i.k. ":1` „�.at Via.. ar,• �:rF at t7ti ";:;rP •1'iiti " ;�i { . y , ;}��T j`.'i> F •ar. ttµ_., -.t. 71r'r'idu.•' \ti eta xa;i• 3wi ' � , . C +� r. , t •� x., •+�: � ^'!j-'- a7:'..>�1^n, r . s ^'4� . r t • • '�"T"�� a � . i . .a ,}1 � ;. �+• t •a...w.i........i.,..::.., -..;: 'i�� " ?i.. �'C:s n.f/ -i;: d M�' P!.:1 .a ��) rft� a li's f.' •L, i ,�:} ,j ;�<' a�.d� _� %;+y1 �� q'35��?13. �. try tS5 �. a ,J .� y. � � S. { :E2t^�:'; y:.'.17': �''•' ; "`I a' 1"f'' •�� •_.'_'_�; -�,�� .. o� r.i�iti }..�__ , i f'r1 &I .S� e.'mv`�:a,�,.n:..+ 1 1,0 mill^ ��II�I ��I�� �IIII�II�III�I� II�IiI}Il IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 24 CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT c ®Fi �trrwutCff -aui nws1.v..,._ OE: eC ae 9a 9' or. Cz z:: ¢ Od fi, m u 91 .f 'f CI zf a Ol IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIpIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIpIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlA1011111111111i1 ,_ �A4C'If11 "C�l. CU, fr „n f,J}v,P. 1 rG , ` 1 . :rtYO. 1 JACK N. urns 7 - a 4 : ,'j■• ••• 15.1at ST. r L OfFsr — _ TL MA , CrLe- -rE 4 ),II2' L — WET T e_vAT of...) V-. • ..S6,i • c_430c..T.:t Lc:. 4.. VS - vot o E. L. V: A T I [DN.) '77 1 /4 4 0 7 ' r1c.• LJJ 1 • HA- er.— cziCm;-1- >. P. .at137rvt EVJ PoDL n •••••', `.• • W ;ui . k =t ;-.•• • " .1 • iv& irirrEn.s ar3Necti • „ . • , la■Tren■LOi476 : ; • . -re r...wsibo • Th. y 4" LO EL/ n7 • 1,10-t Ler _ zzl.,1 ;23 LC E.- pt_.c.-r 12L PL■N.1:. ttExIBLE nUttn•Ju2Awrihm.,,. oc LZ 9Z SZ UZ CZ Zit l O I GI 13 91 GI 'I CI Zi II 01 . 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111,111111 S C :E_Kyr E1 LEL1./A. _ Nor L. L&17.— • . • t's . i14E;SW • . • •.,• • 11111111111111/1111111111111[11101101011[11111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111(111111111111111-11INIIIIIIIVIIII • 24x IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO TIIE QUALITY OF TIIE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • :::71:17 : .r--, • • - v.,:e4maocp.:4 5 • VOUL 1t.) 1,LO 11.JCa . , i Kt 1 ,,, , ..w .ozo . 4ot .c....wDom,,,,th„, 'ent2.-..„ . 7 7 1 i • -•7- A"1", ..,.. sj ,r - C... u) ._ U suALL.'" 6 / 6 : i . l i wt.9.1?„:47V;r7*c, j 1 . - •; , it' 1—aiLe , GC , E.i. •.... • i:,,,, ,:; AT . • 1:)c4; —Le r 7OCT ZK5 C-• r L OfFsr — _ TL MA , CrLe- -rE 4 ),II2' L — WET T e_vAT of...) V-. • ..S6,i • c_430c..T.:t Lc:. 4.. VS - vot o E. L. V: A T I [DN.) '77 1 /4 4 0 7 ' r1c.• LJJ 1 • HA- er.— cziCm;-1- >. P. .at137rvt EVJ PoDL n •••••', `.• • W ;ui . k =t ;-.•• • " .1 • iv& irirrEn.s ar3Necti • „ . • , la■Tren■LOi476 : ; • . -re r...wsibo • Th. y 4" LO EL/ n7 • 1,10-t Ler _ zzl.,1 ;23 LC E.- pt_.c.-r 12L PL■N.1:. ttExIBLE nUttn•Ju2Awrihm.,,. oc LZ 9Z SZ UZ CZ Zit l O I GI 13 91 GI 'I CI Zi II 01 . 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111,111111 S C :E_Kyr E1 LEL1./A. _ Nor L. L&17.— • . • t's . i14E;SW • . • •.,• • 11111111111111/1111111111111[11101101011[11111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111(111111111111111-11INIIIIIIIVIIII • 24x IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO TIIE QUALITY OF TIIE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • :::71:17 : .r--, • • - v.,:e4maocp.:4 5 • VOUL 1t.) 1,LO 11.JCa . , i Kt 1 ,,, , ..w .ozo . 4ot .c....wDom,,,,th„, 'ent2.-..„ . 7 7 1 i • -•7- A"1", ..,.. sj ,r - C... u) ._ U suALL.'" 6 / 6 : i . l i wt.9.1?„:47V;r7*c, j 1