Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-31-88 - SCHNEIDER - APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS This record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below. EPIC-31-88 APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS thst S 144 & 51 Ave S DIGITAL RECORDS (DR) EXEMPTION LOG THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION Page # Code Exemption Brief Explanatory Description Statute/Rule The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress' intent that social security numbers are a private concern. As such, individuals’ social security Personal Information – numbers are redacted to protect those Social Security Numbers individuals’ privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a), and are also exempt from disclosure 552(a); RCW DR1 Generally – 5 U.S.C. sec. under section 42.56.070(1) of the Washington 42.56.070(1) 552(a); RCW State Public Records Act, which exempts under 42.56.070(1) the PRA records or information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under any other statute. Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit Personal Information – expiration dates, or bank or other financial RCW account numbers, which are exempt from 73, 74 DR2 Financial Information – 42.56.230(5) disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5), RCW 42.56.230(4 5) except when disclosure is expressly required by or governed by other law. Personal Information – Redactions contain information used to prove RCW Driver’s License. – RCW identity, age, residential address, social security 42.56.230 (7a DR3 number or other personal information required to 42.56.230 & c) apply for a driver’s license or identicard. (7a & c) Redacted content contains a communication between client and attorney for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice exempt from RCW Attorney-Client Privilege – disclosure pursuant to RCW 5.60.060(2)(a), 5.60.060(2)(a); RCW 5.60.060(2)(a); RCW which protects attorney-client privileged DR4 RCW 42.56.070(1) communications, and RCW 42.56.070(1), which 42.56.070(1) protects, under the PRA, information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under another statute. CONTAINS FILES THAT REQUIRE REDACTION APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENT UNITS & RECREATIONAL BUILDING WITH PARKING S. 144T" & 51ST AVE. S0. EPIC 31 -88 • • King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600. 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila , WA 98188 December 2, 1989 RE: Appeal for File Number 88 -62 -C &: 227 -88 -R Dear Mr. Schneider, DEG 5 1999 The threshold determination issued on 11/08/88 for your proposal has been appealed. (See the attached). A public hearing before the Zoning and Subdvision Examiner is scheduled for January 31, 1989 at 11:30 AM in Hearing Room Number 2 , at the Building and Land Development Office, 3600 136th Place Southeast, Suite A, Bellevue, WA. You will receive a staff report approximately 2 weeks before the public hearing. Please contact the SEPA Center at 296 -6662 with your questions. Sincerely, Alton Smith Environmental Planner Appeal.prg /C /SEPA -CC: Pat Downs, Environmental Coordinator Examiner's Office File Number: 88 -62 -C & SEPA Filenumber: 88 -62 -C & Roger H. Hewell Tim Popejoy Scott Nangle Christopher Brown Thomas Evans, University P1. Law Offices • File: 81342-C & 7Z-89=ff Atiplevrood Apartments PriMonent: Proposal Description; Oeterminanun of Non-Slant Roger M. Newell far difrild - 3224192 The oxistruttion,of a 138-uti iifidifeliffa& with a. recreational unit i . i.ititileaTs470m: zone: A rezone Residential) and , ` ' -- • -..". (Multilde FalwilV) is Seismic . SeWsidie tails Ore LeCfstion: rerttwaei ilyilelymen,s044it aro 1,Vh. Mg 490; Ave, eiteiWeW and Sit AVe. . STR: NE 22-23-04 • King,; Caimtv and MOOT hove determined that no traffW triltigatidri Is required of thisdeveiopment. This review Is for the', rezone & CUP only. At the CemirterclaiMirtnit MOON Mere will, oe a 4t.pA review for water qualltv, landscaping, aesthetics.... pedestrian 'circulation, etc. ---5cott N / e 335-o i.or4 `7/1/(17 May 12, 1989 Walter K. Schmidt 4643 S. 146th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Schmidt: GREG NICKELS King County Council District Eight TvLW221989f Thank you for your April'29, 1989 letter inquiring about whether King County should be considering the permit applications for the proposed Applewood Apartments. Your concern was that since the property was within the newly- annexed portion of Tukwila, the county should no longer be involved in the permit application process. My staff checked on this issue for you and found that the county has already relinquished jurisdiction. The project applicant has been referred to the City of Tukwila for further consideration. As you may be aware, King County and Tukwila have an interlocal agreement in which King County agreed to continue handling a number of permit applications filed before the effective annexation date. Tukwila has the authority to choose which projects now within its boundaries will remain with the county, and has elected to take over the Applewood Apartments issue. You may want to discuss the matter further with the City of Tukwila. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila, is handling the project application. He can be reached at 433 -1847. I am returning the documents which you included with your letter. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GRE Lou—Pei stric KELS ember i ht Enclosures cc: Jim Tracy, Acting Director, Parks, Planning & Resources Dept. ATTN: Iry Berteig, Acting Manager, Building & Land Development Larry Faucher, Acting Manager, Administrative Services Section CJat kTPace— SentorTPl_a_nner_, City o_fIll w l_aT 0511F /pb 402 King County Courthouse Seattle, Washington 98104` (206) 296 -1008 Printed on Recycled Paper fd1AY — 11999 Apr 1 28, 1989 OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL. SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File No. 227 -88 -R Proposed Ordinance No. 88 -19 ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, ET AL -(Applewood Apartments) RS -7200 (Potential RM 2400), RS -7200 and BN to RM 2400 1.35 acres lying generally between South 144th Street and South 145th Street (if extended) and between 50th Avenue South (if extended)., and 51st Avenue South. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: Division's Preliminary: Division's Final: Examiner: p'p'r o ve in part, a n d deny remainder. Same as above. Same as above. PRELIMINARY REPORT.: The Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report on Item No. .227-88-R was received by the Examiner on January 17, 1989. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Building and Land Development Division's Report, examining available information on file with the application and visiting the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing on Item No. 227 -88 -R was opened by the Examiner at 2:35 p.m., Tuesday, March 14, 1989, in Room No. 402, King County Courthouse, Third Avenue and James Street, Seattle, Washington, and adjourned at 4:20 p.m. The hearing was continued for ten days for administrative purposes and closed at 4:30 p.m., Friday, March 24, 1989. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General Information: STR: Location: Existing Zone: Requested Zone: Size: Proposed Use: Sewage Disposal: Water Supply: Fire District: School District: 227 -88 -R Page 2 22 -23 -04 Generally between South 144th Street and South 145th Street (if extended) and between 50th Avenue South (if extended), and 51st Avenue South. RS -7200 (potential RM 2400); RS -7200; and BN RM 2400 1.35 acres Accommodate a portion of a proposed multifamily apartment project. Val Vue Sewer District King County Water District #125 King County Fire District No. 18 Highline School District No. 406 2. Except as modified below, the facts set forth in the King County Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner for the January 31, 1989, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Copies of the said report will be attached to the copies of this report submitted to the County Council. 3. The facts set forth in the King County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner's April 28, 1989 Decision on Appeal of Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance, copies of which will be attached to the copies of this report and recommendation submitted to the County Council, are incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The applicant's revised site plan would increase the total density on the subject property from 138 to 150 dwelling units. There is no evidence that this proposed increase would result in a probable significant adverse impact upon the environment. However, it is the responsibility of the Building and Land Development Division, as lead agency, to make the threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance. In the event a proposal to develop the site with 150 dwelling units is considered by King County, the Building and Land Development Division will be required to review the environmental threshold determination prior to King County taking action thereon. 5. There is no evidence that there have been authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property since the last previous area zoning which have undergone substantial and material change not anticipated or contemplated in the Highline Community Plan and Area Zoning. Only that portion of the subject property which is potentially zoned RM 2400 meets the requirements of KCC 20.24.190. CONCLUSIONS: The Examiner adopts and incorporates herein by this reference the conclusions set forth in the report and recommendation to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner by the King County Building and Land Development Division for the January 31, 1989, public hearing. 227 -88 -R Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE reclassification to RM 2400 -P on that portion of the subject property which is zoned RS -7200 (potential RM 2400) and DENY the balance of the request. ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1989. . •'Connor ng and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Dale Becker Christopher Brown Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Burnham Donald Conner Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Mr. and Mr.s Donald Gallacher Myrtle Granacki Ruth Reed Hoke Mauiets Larson Murrell and Donna Lee Mr. and Mrs. C. N. Malmberg Thomas and Donna Mauzeralle Scott Nangle Karen Pomeroy Mary Jane Purre Schneider Homes, Inc. City of Tukwila Wayne Weber R. J. Wilson Gerry and Paul Young Jerrill Anderson Lloyd and Emma Becker Erma Brown Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter Jr. Knut and Helen Duzell Thomas E. Evans Edward Goodall Keith Hanson Shirley Jones Pat Larson Clint Lynch John Marchiando Kim Mummert Roger Newell Tim and Linda Popejoy Mr. and Mrs. Walter Schmidt Albert and Hilda Steidl Judy Van Deen Elizabeth Williams Richard Wilson TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Building and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Building and Land Development Division Washington State Department of Transportation NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL In order to appeal the recommendation of the Examiner, written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council with a fee of $50.00 (check payable to King County Office of Finance) on or before Max 12, 1989. If a notice of appeal is filed, the original and 6 copies of a written appeal statement specifying the basis for the appeal and argument in support of the appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on or before Max 19, 1989. If a written notice of appeal and filing fee are not filed within 14 calendar days of the date of this report, or if a written appeal statement and argument are not filed within 21 calendar days of the date of this report, the Clerk of the Council shall place a proposed ordinance which implements the Examiner's recommended action on the agenda of the next available Council meeting. 227 -88 -R Page 4 Filing requires actual delivery to the Office of the Clerk of the Council, Room 403, King County Courthouse, prior to the close of business (4 :30 p.m.) on the date due. Prior mailing is not sufficient if actual receipt by the Clerk does not occur within the applicable time period. The Examiner does not have authority to extend the time period unless the Office of the Clerk is not open on the specified closing date, in which event delivery prior to the close of business on the next business day is sufficient to meet the filing requirement. Action of the Council Final. The action of the Council approving or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless within twenty (20) days from the date of the action an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the action taken. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING ON BALD FILE NO. 227 -88 -R -- ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, ET AL. James N. O'Connor was the hearing examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Gordon Thomson and Susan Storwick, representing the Building and Land Development Division, Mr. Schneider, Richard Wilson and Scott Nangle. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Entered February 17, 1989 Exhibit No. 1 Article from the Seattle Times, December 27, 1988. Exhibit No. 2 Building and Land Development Preliminary report dated January 31, 1989. Exhibit No. 3 Environmental Checklist received August 17, 1988. Exhibit No. 4 Traffic Study dated September 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 5 Letter from Lutz to Downs dated October 10, 1988. Exhibit No. 6 Determination of nonsignificance effective November 8, 1988. Exhibit No. 7 Popejoy appeal received November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 8 City of Tukwila appeal received November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 9 Hestia Alliance appeal received November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 10 Nangle comment letter dated November 14, 1988. Exhibit No. 11 Mummert comment letter dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 12 Anderson comment letter dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 13 Revised site plan Exhibit No. 14 Original site plan (2 parts) received October 6, 1988. Entered March 14, 1989 Exhibit No. 15 Building and Land Development Division Rezone Staff report dated January 31, 1989. Exhibit No. 16 Building and Land Development Division Conditional Use Permit /Variance Staff Report dated January 31, 1989. Exhibit No. 17 Rezone Application dated June 4, 1988. Exhibit No. 18 Conditional Use Permit Application Exhibit No. 19 Variance Application Exhibit No. 20 500 -foot radius notice dated December 14, 1988. Exhibit No. 21 Affidavit of Publication received January 19, 1989 (Seattle Times). 227 -88 -R Page 5 Exhibit No. 22 Affidavit of Posting received December 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 23 Thorndyke Annexation Comp. Plan Maps. Exhibit No. 24 Applicant's justification for variance. Exhibit No. 25 Floor Plan for Recreational Building received September 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 26 Letter from METRO received November 17, 1988. Exhibit No. 27 Letter from Ralph and Shirley Mathisen dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 28 Memo to Chuck Shields dated December 12, 1988. Exhibit No. 29 Letter from Al Smith to Schneider Homes dated December 2, 1989. Exhibit No. 30 Memo from Craig Larson dated December 7, 1988. Exhibit No. 31 Letter from Tim and Linda Popejoy (appeal) Exhibit No. 32 Letter from Walter Schmidt dated November 17, 1988. Exhibit No. 33 Letter for Olson dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 34 Letter from Richart Heitze dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 35 Letter from Thomas Mauzeralle dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 36 Letter from Albert STeidl dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 37 Letter from Dale Becker dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Gerry Young dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 39 Letter from Myrna Collins dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 40 Letter from Lloyd and Emma Becker dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 41 Letter from Pat Larson dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 42 Letter from John Marchiando dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 43 Letter from Kathy Becker dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 44 Letter from Knut and Helen Duzell dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 45 Letter from Cecil Malmberg dated November 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 46 Letter from Maurits Larson dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 47 Letter from Elizabeth Williams dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 48 Letter from Donald Gallach dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 49 Letter from Myrtle Granacki dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 50 Letter from Karen Pomeroy dated November 22, 198. Exhibit No. 51 Letter from Ruth Hoke dated November 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 52 Letter from Murrell R. Lee dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 53 Letter form Donna M. Lee dated November 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 54 Letter from Shirley Jones dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 55 Letter from Keith and Lorraine Hansen Exhibit No. 56 Letter from E. E. and Mary Burnham dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 57 Letter from Philip Efmenko dated November 23, 1988. Exhibit No. 58 Letter from Clarence and Pamela Carter dated November °21, 1988. Exhibit No. 59 Letter form Donald Conner dated November 18, 1988. 227 -88 -R Page 6 Exhibit No. 60 Letter from Mary Jane Purre dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 61 Letter from Craig Anderson reeceived November 29, 1988. Exhibit No. 62 Letter to Tom Quackenbush from Elizabeth Williams dated November 25, 1988. Exhibit No. 63 Memo from Paulette Norman to Gordon Thomson dated December 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 64 Letter from Harold Scoomas Exhibit No. 65 Letter from Tukwila dated February 9, 1989. Exhibit No. 66 Letter from Roger Newell dated February 7, 1989. Exhibit No. 67 Memo from Chuck Shields dated March 1, 1989. 4020D /JNO:ple April 28, • Y OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISIO N I EXAM�NE4 �A� "��9B9 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON d � DECISION ON APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NONSIGNIFICANCE. SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File No. 227 -88 -R 88 -62 -C 88 -61 -V APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS Applications for Reclassification, Variance and Conditional Use Permit; and Appeals of Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance. Property located between South 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Avenue South (if extended) and 51st Avenue South. Applications of Schneider Homes, Inc., and Ernest R. Robertson, et al.; Appeals of City of Tukwila and Tim and Linda Popejoy, et al. PRELIMINARY REPORT: The Report on the above referenced.appeal was received by the Examiner on January 17, 1989. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISION: Division's Preliminary: Division's Final: Examiner: Deny the appeal. Deny the appeal. Deny the appeal. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Report of the Building and Land Development Division, examining available information on file with the applications and appeals, and visiting the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the appeal as follows: The Pre - Hearing Conference on Item Nos. 227 -88 -R, 88 -62 -C, and 88 -61 -V was opened by the Examiner at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, January 24, 1989, in Room No. 2, King County Building and Land Development Division Offices, 3600 - 136th Place Southeast, Suite A, Bellevue, Washingtion, and adjourned at 2:45 p.m. The Public Hearing on this appeal was opened at 9:15 a.m., Wednesday, February 15, 1989, in Room No. 2, King County Building and Land Development Division Offices, and closed at 1:55 p.m. The hearing on Item Nos. 227 -88 -R, 88 -62 -C, and 88 -61 -V was re- opened by the Examiner at 9:30 a.m., Friday, February 17, 1989, in Room No. 2, King County Building and Land Development Division and was continued for administrative purposes at 11:15 a.m. On February 24, 1989, at 4:30 p.m., the Examiner declared the public hearing on the appeal closed. • 227- 88- R/88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 2 Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General Information: Location: Generally between South 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Avenue South, if extended, and 51st Avenue South. Zoning: RS- 7200;. RS -7200 (Potential RM 2400); BN; RM 2400 Size: 7.6 acres Request: Proposal: A reclassification to RM 2400, a Conditional Use Permit to establish a recreational facility (KCC 21.08.060.A), and a variance from the 25 -foot setback (KCC 21.08.060A.1). Development of a 138 unit apartment complex and establishment of a recreational facility to serve its residents. 2. On or about August 17, 1988, applications were filed with the King County Building and Land Development Division for the proposed development of -138 dwelling units and a recreational building, with required parking, on property lying south of South 144th Street and west of 51st Avenue South in King County, Washington. The proposed development is known as "Applewood Apartments." In order for the proposal to proceed as presented, a reclassification of a portion of the subject property and issuance of a conditional use permit, variance and building permit by King County would be required. The foregoing actions would be major actions as defined by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 3. On November 8, 1988, the King County Building and Land Development Division, as lead agency, issued a determination of nonsignificance for the proposed reclassification and conditional use permit. Further environmental review of the proposal at the time of application for a commercial building permit was reserved. On November 21, 1988, timely appeals of the determination of nonsignificance were filed by the City of Tukwila and Tim and Linda Popejoy, et al. (An appeal by the Hestia Alliance has been dismissed by prior order of the Examiner.) 4. Substantial impacts are asserted by the appellants as likely to occur as a result of the proposed development. The alleged impacts relate to traffic and access; pedestrian safety; increased number of transient residents in the area; noise; and light. 227- 88- R/88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 3 5. The total project site consists of 7.76 acres, of which 6.41 acres is currently zoned RM -2400. The application for reclassification requests that the other 1.35 acres be reclassified to RM -2400. The areas requested to be reclasified and their current classifications are: Area 40,000 square feet 7,000 square feet 12,000 square feet Existing Zone RS -7200 RS -7200 (Potential RM 2400) BN The overall density proposed for the total site would be 15.5 dwelling units per acre. In addition, a recreation building and outdoor recreation area, including swimming pool, are proposed. No construction is proposed to occur on the portion of the site presently zoned BN. 6. A traffic study for the proposed development was submitted to the Building and Land Development Division in September of 1988. The purpose was to obtain current traffic volume data on the adjacent arterial street system, projected background traffic growth and traffic to be generated by the proposed development, and identify current and anticipated future levels of service on the arterial street system serving the site. The study concluded that for the "current year" (1988), levels of service on all affected streets were "A" and "B." For the then projected "horizon year with project" (1989) levels of service were projected to be the same, with the exception that the intersection of SR 99 (Pacific Highway South) with South 144th Street would deteriorate from LOS "B' to °C." No evidence in contradiction of the foregoing conclusions was presented. The King County Road Adequacy Standards, KCC 21.49, are used to evaluate the impact of a proposed development on roadways and intersections, and to apply conditions assuring that road capacity will be adequate. KCC 21.49.020. On a scale of "A" to "F," the standard established for adequacy is Level of Service "E." KCC 21.49.030. 7. The development proposed has been modified from the initial proposal, so as to eliminate direct access to South 144th Street. Access will be to 51st Avenue South, which is a collector arterial. Fifty -first Avenue South is improved with approximately 22 feet width of paved driving surface; gravel shoulders front the subject property. It is reasonable to expect that any development of the subject property would be required to provide frontage improvements to 51st Avenue South and South 144th Street, to bring these streets to current King County Standards for collector arterials. Although pedestrian safety on 51st Avenue South was asserted as a concern, the evidence is that these streets are rarely utilized by pedestrians. Although concern based upon the vertical curvature of 51st Avenue South was also expressed, there is no indication that the proposed development would have more than a moderate impact upon the safety of 51st Avenue South, attributable to the increase of 850 average weekday vehicle trips which would be generated by this project. 8. The proposal would generate additional population which would reside within this area, consistent with the zoning 227- 88- R/88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 4 established by the Highline Community Plan and Area Zoning. The proposed development would essentially implement the previously adopted area zoning, and would not, thereby, have more than a moderate adverse impact upon the environment. There is no evidence to support the assertion that persons who would reside in the proposed dwelling units would have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. 9. The proposed development would generate noise commonly experienced in apartment or condominium developments. There is no evidence that the noise generated would exceed the limits established by the King County Noise Control Ordinance (KCC 12.86 - 12.100), or that the noise generated by the proposed residential development would have more than a moderate impact upon the environment. 10. The application for a conditional use permit for the development of a recreational building and outdoor recreation area on the subject property will be acted on in a manner consistent with the requirements of KCC 21.58, which provides that a conditional use permit shall assure compatibility of uses within the general area of the proposed use, and that nuisance will not be permitted. KCC 21.58.040. There is no reason to believe that the review and action to be taken by King County on the request for a conditional use permit will not meet those criteria. 11. There is no evidence which would indicate that there will be more than a moderate impact upon the environment resulting from addition -al light associated with the proposed development, assuming that the aforementioned criteria for issuance of a conditional use permit for the recreation facility are met. 12. In considering an appeal of a threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance, the decision of the lead agency in making that determination is required to be accorded substantial weight. RCW 43.21C.090. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that the proposed development upon the subject property would have more than a moderate impact upon the environment, or that the determination of environmental nonsignificance issued by the King County Building and Land Development Division on November 8, 1988, was clearly erroneous. DECISION: The appeals of the City of Tukwila and of Tim and Linda Popejoy, et al., of the determination of environmental nonsignificance for this proposed development are DENIED. ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1989. am s N. O'Connor Zo ing and Subdivision Examiner 227- 88- R/88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 5 TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Jerrill Anderson Dale Becker Lloyd and Emma Becker Christopher Brown Erma Brown Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Burnham Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter Jr. Donald Conner Knut and Helen Duzell Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Thomas E. Evans Mr. and Mr.s Donald Gallacher Edward Goodall Myrtle Granacki Keith Hanson Ruth Reed Hoke Shirley Jones Mauiets Larson Pat Larson Murrell and Donna Lee Clint Lynch Mr. and Mrs. C. N. Malmberg John Marchiando Thomas and Donna Mauzeralle Kim Mummert Scott Nangle Roger Newell Karen Pomeroy Tim and Linda Popejoy Mary Jane Purre Mr. and Mrs. Walter Schmidt Schneider Homes, Inc. Albert and Hilda Steidl City of Tukwila Judy Van Deen Wayne Weber Elizabeth Williams R. J. Wilson Richard Wilson Gerry and Paul Young TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Building. and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Building and Land Development Division Washington State Department of Transportation Pursuant to Chapter 20.24, King County Code, the King County Council has directed that the Examiner make the final decision on behalf of the County regarding appeals of threshold determinations of environmental nonsignificance. The Examiner's decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within 20 days from the date of the decision an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the decision. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON BALD FILES 227-88-R, 88 -61 -C, and 88 -62 -V - APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS. James N. O'Connor was the hearing examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Alton Smith, Susan Storwick, and Gordon Thomson, representing the Building and Land Development Division, Tom Evans, Richard Wilson, Maura Bradshaw, Tim Popejoy, Scott Nangle, Christopher Brown, and Roger Newell. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1 Exhibit No. 2 Exhibit No. 3 Exhibit No. 4 Exhibit No. 5 Article from the Seattle Times, December 27, 1988. Building and _Land Development Preliminary report dated January 31, 1989. Environmental Checklist received August 17, 1988. . Traffic Study dated September 21, 1988. Letter from Lutz to Downs dated October 10, 1988. Exhibit No. 6 Exhibit No. 7 Exhibit No. 8 Exhibit No. 9 Exhibit No. 10 Exhibit No. 11 Exhibit No. 12 Exhibit No. 13 Exhibit No. 14 4018D /JNO:ple 227- 88- R/88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 6 Determination of nonsignificance effective November 8, 1988. Popejoy appeal received November 21, 1988. City of Tukwila appeal received November 21, 1988. Hestia Alliance appeal received November 21, 1988. Nangle comment letter dated November 14, 1988. Mummert comment letter dated November 18, 1988. Anderson comment letter dated November 22, 1988. Revised site plan Original site plan (2 parts) received October 6, 1988. PA i i 1218J89189 OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DECISION ON APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE. SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File No. 88 -61 -V 88 -62 -C SCHNEIDER HOMES (Applewood Apartments) Property located between South 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Avenue South (if extended) and 51st Avenue South. PRELIMINARY REPORT: The Report on the above referenced applications were received by the Examiner on January 17, 1989. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Report of the Building and Land Development Division, examining available information on file with the application and visiting the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the applications as follows: The public hearing on File Nos. 88 -61 -V and 88 -62 -C was opened by the Examiner, acting as the King County Zoning Adjustor, at 2:35 p.m., Tuesday, March 14, 1989, in Room No. 402, King County Courthouse, Third Avenue and James Street, Seattle, Washington and adjourned at 4:20 p.m. The hearing was continued for ten days for administrative purposes and closed at 4:30 p.m., Friday, March 24, 1989. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in the attached minutes. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the office of the zoning and Subdivision Examiner. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISI.ON: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. General Information: Location: Generally between South 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Avenue South, if extended, and 50th Avenue South. Zoning: RS -7200 Size: .9 acre Request: Proposal: 88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 2 A Conditional Use Permit to establish a recreational facility (KCC 21.08.060.A), and a variance from the 25 -foot setback (KCC ,21.08.060A.1). Establishment of a recreational facility to serve the proposed adjacent multifamily apartment complex. This proposal is part of a rezone request (File #227- 88 -R). The facility is proposed to operate 7 days per week between either 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The building will be approximately 4,500 square feet with a pool on the west side of the property. The proposed building will be 4 feet from the east property line rather than the required 25 feet. The floor plans indicate three parking stalls. 2. Except as modified below, the facts set forth in the King County Building and Land Development Division's Preliminary Report to the Zoning Adjustor for the January 31, 1989, public hearing are found to be correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Copies of the said report will be attached to the copies of this report. Access to the recreational facility from South 144th Street is no longer proposed. CONCLUSIONS: 1. A recreation facility to serve the residents of the proposed adjacent apartment complex is an authorized use of the subject property pursuant to KCC 21.08.060A, and can be constructed and operated in a manner which will not create an incompatible or hazardous condition and will reasonably assure that the compatibility of uses is maintained, if the conditions of use set forth in the decision below are met. 2. A variance in the requirement for a 25 -foot setback from the east property line of the property upon which the recreation facility is proposed is justified by the orientation of the use of the recreation building to the apartment complex to the east, and the fact that the property to the east will be developed in a manner that sets back residential development a substantial distance from the mutual property line. All buildings and structures on the site will be required to maintain a distance not less than 25 feet from all other property lines. ( "Structure" means anything constructed in or on the ground, except fences less than 6 feet in height or paved areas. KCC 21.04.840.) The proposed swimming pool must meet this setback requirement from the north, west and south property lines. DECISION: A Conditional Use Permit to establish a recreational facility, consisting of an outdoor swimming pool and multipurpose building, is GRANTED and a Variance from the 25 -foot setback requirement from the east property line for the said 88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 3 multipurpose recreational building is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. A minimum 20 foot wide Type I landscape area shall be provided along the north, west, and south property lines, together with a noise attenuating fence, both of which shall be approved by the Building and Land Development Divsision or its successor agency. Not less than 10 feet of the landscape area shall be outside the perimeter of the required fence. 2. Operating hours for the pool and multipurpose building shall not commence prior to 8:00 a.m., and shall end not later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. 3. Outside lighting, if provided, shall be consistent with KCC 21.08.060A.2, and shall be designed so as to not illuminate adjacent or nearby properties or residences. Any proposed outside lighting shall be approved by the Building and Land Development Division or its successor agency prior to installation. 4. By accepting this permit and variance, the property owner, its successors and assigns, acknowledges that violation of the foregoing conditions can result in termination of the Conditional Use Permit or additional restrictions on the permitted uses of the subject property. ORDERED this 28th day of April, 1989. . O'Connor g and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 28th day of April, 1989, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Dale Becker Christopher Brown Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Burnham Donald Conner Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Mr. and Mr.s Donald Gallacher Myrtle Granacki Ruth Reed Hoke Mauiets Larson Murrell and Donna Lee Mr. and Mrs. C. N. Malmberg Thomas and Donna Mauzeralle Scott Nangle Karen Pomeroy Mary Jane Purre Schneider Homes, Inc. City of Tukwila Wayne Weber R. J. Wilson Gerry and Paul Young Jerrill Anderson Lloyd and Emma Becker Erma Brown Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter Jr. Knut and Helen Duzell Thomas E. Evans Edward Goodall Keith Hanson Shirley Jones Pat Larson Clint Lynch John Marchiando Kim Mummert Roger Newell Tim and Linda Popejoy Mr. and Mrs. Walter Schmidt Albert and Hilda Steidl Judy Van Deen Elizabeth Williams Richard Wilson 88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 4 TRANSMITTED this 28th day of April, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Building and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Building and Land Development Division Washington State Department of Transportation Pursuant to Chapter 20.24, King County Code, the King County Council has directed that the Examiner make the final decision on behalf of the County regarding decisions on applications for Conditional Use Permits and Variance. The Examiner's decisions shall be final and conclusive unless within 20 days from the date of the decision an aggrieved party or person applies for a writ of certiorari from the Superior Court in and for the County of King, State of Washington, for the purpose of review of the decision. MINUTES OF THE MARCH 14, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING ON BALD FILE NO. 88 -61 -V and 88 -62 -C -- SCHNEIDER HOMES James N. O'Connor was the hearing examiner in this matter. Participating in the hearing were Gordon Thomson and Susan Storwick, representing the Building and Land Development Division, Mr. Schneider, Richard Wilson and Scott Nangle. The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record: Entered February 17, 1989 Exhibit No. 1 Article from the Seattle Times, December 27, 1988. Exhibit No. 2 Building and Land Development Preliminary report dated January 31, 1989. Exhibit No. 3 Environmental Checklist received August 17, 1988. Exhibit No. 4 Traffic Study dated September 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 5 Letter from Lutz to Downs dated October 10, 1988. Exhibit No. 6 Determination of nonsignificance effective November 8, 1988. Exhibit No. 7 Popejoy appeal received November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 8 City of Tukwila appeal received November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 9 Hestia Alliance appeal received November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 10 Nangle comment letter dated November 14, 1988. Exhibit No. 11 Mummert comment letter dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 12 Anderson comment letter dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 13 Revised site plan Exhibit No. 14 Original site plan (2 parts) received October 6, 1988. Entered March 14, 1989 Exhibit No. 15 Building and Land Development Division Rezone Staff report dated January 31, 1989. Exhibit No. 16 Building and Land Development Division Conditional Use Permit /Variance Staff Report dated January 31, 1989. Exhibit No. 17 Rezone Application dated June 4, 1988. Exhibit No. 18 Conditional Use Permit Application Exhibit No. 19 Variance Application Exhibit No. 20 500 -foot radius notice dated December 14, 1988. 88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 5 Exhibit No. 21 Affidavit of Publication received January 19, 1989 (Seattle Times). Exhibit No. 22 Affidavit of Posting received December 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 23 Thorndyke Annexation Comp. Plan Maps. Exhibit No. 24 Applicant's justification for variance. Exhibit No. 25 Floor Plan for Recreational Building received September 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 26 Letter from METRO received November 17, 1988. Exhibit No. 27 Letter from Ralph and Shirley Mathisen dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 28 Memo to Chuck Shields dated December 12, 1988. Exhibit No. 29 Letter from Al Smith to Schneider Homes dated December 2, 1989. Exhibit No. 30 Memo from Craig Larson dated December 7, 1988. Exhibit No. 31 Letter from Tim and Linda Popejoy (appeal) Exhibit No. 32 Letter from Walter Schmidt dated November 17, 1988. Exhibit No. 33 Letter for Olson dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 34 Letter from Richart Heitze dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 35 Letter from Thomas Mauzeralle dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 36 Letter from Albert STeidl dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 37 Letter from Dale Becker dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 38 Letter from Gerry Young dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 39 Letter from Myrna Collins dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 40 Letter from Lloyd and Emma Becker dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 41 Letter from Pat Larson dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 42 Letter from John Marchiando dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 43 Letter from Kathy Becker dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 44 Letter from Knut and Helen Duzell dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 45 Letter from Cecil Malmberg' dated November 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 46 Letter from Maurits Larson dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 47 Letter from Elizabeth Williams dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 48 Letter from Donald Gallach dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 49 Letter from Myrtle Granacki dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 50 Letter from Karen Pomeroy dated November 22, 198. Exhibit No. 51 Letter from Ruth Hoke dated November 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 52 Letter from Murrell R. Lee dated November 19, 1988. Exhibit No. 53 Letter form Donna M. Lee dated November 20, 1988. Exhibit No. 54 Letter from Shirley Jones dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 55 Letter from Keith and Lorraine Hansen Exhibit No. 56 Letter from E. E. and Mary Burnham dated November 22, 1988. Exhibit No. 57 Letter from Philip Efmenko dated November 23, 1988. Exhibit No. 58 Letter from Clarence and Pamela Carter dated November 21, 1988. 88- 61- V/88 -62 -C Page 6 Exhibit No. 59 Letter form Donald Conner dated November 18, 1988. Exhibit No. 60 Letter from Mary Jane Purre dated November 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 61 Letter from Craig Anderson reeceived November 29, 1988. Exhibit No. 62 Letter to Tom Quackenbush from Elizabeth Williams dated November 25, 1988. Exhibit No. 63 Memo from Paulette Norman to Gordon Thomson dated December 21, 1988. Exhibit No. 64 Letter from Harold Scoomas Exhibit No. 65 Letter from Tukwila dated February 9, 1989. Exhibit No. 66 Letter from Roger Newell dated February 7, 1989. Exhibit No. 67 Memo from Chuck Shields dated March 1, 1989. 4021D /JNO:ple April 26, 1989 OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDER DENYING SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF HEARING EXAMINER SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File Nos. 227 -88 -R; 88 -62 -C; 88 -61 -V APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS Applications for Reclassification, Variance and Conditional Use Permit; and Appeals of Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance Property located between South 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Avenue South (if extended) and 51st Avenue South. Applications of Schneider Homes, Inc. and Ernest R. Robertson, et al.; Appeals of Hestia Alliance, City of Tukwila, and Tim and Linda Popejoy et al. The Examiner acknowledges that subsequent to the issuance of the oral decision and memorandum decision in this matter on February 15 and February 22, 1989, respectivly, indicating my intent to grant the motion to dismiss the appeal of The Hestia Alliance, an evidentiary hearing was commenced on a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by The Hestia Alliance in Building and Land Development Division File No. C87 -1764 (known as Valley View Apartments). It is further acknowledged that the principal issues presented by the motions to dismiss the appeals of Hestia in the subject case and the Valley View case are similar (although there are differences between the two cases). The motion to dismiss the appeal of The Hestia Alliance in the subject case was submitted on affidavits, including the February 21, 1989 sworn statement of Michael E. Sterling which the Examiner authorized following announcement of the oral decision. Although I obviously have knowledge of the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing in File No. C87 -1764, the evidence presented in that case has not been considered in my rulings concerning The Hestia Alliance in the subject case. Having considered The Hestia Alliance's Supplemental Motion for Disqualification of Hearing Examiner and the sworn statement of Michael E. Sterling in support thereof, and believing myself fully informed, the motion is denied. ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1989. s N. O'Connor ing and Subdivision Examiner 227 -88 -R, 88 -62 -C, 88 -61V Page 2 Transmitted this 26th day of April, 1989 by certified mail to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Jerrill Anderson Dale Becker Lloyd and Emma Becker Christopher Brown Erma Brown Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Burnham Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter Jr. Donald Conner Knut and Helen Duzell Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Thomas E. Evans Mr. & Mrs Donald Gallacher Edward Goodall Myrtle Granacki Keith Hanson Ruth Reed Hoke Shirley Jones Mauiets Larson Pat Larson Murrell and Donna Lee Clint Lynch Mr. and Mrs. C. N.•Malmberg John Marchiando Thomas and Donna Mauzeralle Kim Mummert Scott Nangle Karen Pomeroy Mary Jane Purre Schneider Homes, Inc. Judy Van Deen Elizabeth Williams Richard Wilson Roger Newell Tim and Linda Popejoy Mr. and Mrs. Walter Schmidt Albert and Hilda Steidl Wayne Weber R. J. Wilson Gerry and Paul Young TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Building and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Building and Land Development Division City of Tukwila Washington State Department of Transportation 4016D;JNO'C;ja 227 -88 -R April 26, 1989 OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL OF THE HESTIA ALLIANCE SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File Nos. 227 -88 -R; 88 -62 -C; 88 -61 -V APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS Applications for Reclassification, Variance and Conditional Use Permit; and Appeals of Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance Property located between South 144th and 146th Streets and between. 49th Avenue South (if extended) and 51st Avenue South. Applications of Schneider Homes, Inc. and Ernest R. Robertson, et al.,; Appeals of Hestia Alliance, City of Tukwila, and Tim and Linda Popejoy, et al. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS 1. This matter came on regularly for hearing before the King County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner on February 15, 1989, upon Motion of Schneider Homes, Inc. (project applicant) for an Order Dismissing the Appeal by the Hestia Alliance of a Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignifiance. All parties to this proceeding were provided reasonable notice, and the project applicant and appellant Hestia appeared and submitted affidavits and memoranda concerning the issues raised by the Motion to Dismiss. 2. After arguments were concluded on February 15, 1989, the Examiner rendered an oral decision, following which Hestia requested authorization to submit additional affidavits in opposition to the motion. The examiner granted Hestia's request, and authorized submission of additional affidavits and memoranda through February 22, 1989. On February 22, 1989, the Examiner issued a Memorandum Decision on the Motion to Dismiss, which was intended as a convenience to the parties to document the Examiner's oral decision and was not a final decision. (Although the Memorandum Decision bears the date of February 22, it was largely drafted prior to the close of business on February 17, 1989). 3. On February 22, 1989, Hestia submitted a "Memorandum Regarding Motive Issues and Appeal Proceedings" and another "Sworn Statement of Michael E. Sterling." On March 14, 1989, Hestia submitted a "Supplemental Motion for Disqualification of Hearing Examiner." (That motion is being denied by separate order.) 227 -88 -R Page 2 4. The following Opinion, Findings, Conclusions and Order are based upon the affidavits and memoranda submitted by the project applicant and Hestia, and the Examiner's independent legal research. They constitute the King County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner's final decision on the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal of the Hestia Alliance for lack of standing. The documents and evidence which have been considered are: a) Environmental Checklist, dated May 23, 1988 b) Determination of Nonsignificance, effective date November 8, 1988 c) Notice of Appeal; Statement of Objections to Proceedings by the Hestia Alliance, dated November 18, 1988 d) Applicant's Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Standing and To Dismiss. Allegations for Failure to State a Claim, dated January 24, 1989 e) Memorandum of Schneider Homes, Inc., in support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Standing and Motion to Dismiss Allegations for Failure to State a Claim, dated January 24, 1989 f) Supplemental Memorandum of Schneider Homes, Inc. in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Lack of Standing, dated February 3, 1989 g) Affidavit of Richard R. Wilson in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Standing, dated February 8, 1989 h) Appellant's Memorandum on "Standing" Issues, dated February 6, 1989 i) Sworn Statement Certifying Corporate Charter and Offer of Proof by Hestia Alliance, dated February 6, 1989 j) Reply Memorandum of Schneider Homes, Inc. in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing, dated February 14, 1989 k) Sworn Statement of Michael E. Sterling, dated February 21, 1989 1) Appellant Hestia's Memorandum Regarding "Motive" Issues and Appeal Proceedings, received February 22, 1989 EXAMINER'S OPINION: 1. This motion presents two questions of law which have major policy implications. The first is whether statements made or positions taken in the course of settlement negotiations are admissible into evidence. The second is the extent, if any, to which the doctrine of "Standing" is applicable to administrative proceedings initiated under the authority of the State Environmental Policy Act and King County Code. I. Admissibility of statements made in the course of settlement negotiations. Rule 408 of the Rules of Evidence (ER) is relied upon by the appellant as authority for excluding from consideration any statements made by Hestia representatives during the course of settlement discussions. Although the Rules of Evidence directly apply only to "proceedings in the courts of the State of Washington" (ER 101 and 1101), Rule 408 is nonetheless generally reflective of the common law. It provides: 227 -88 -R Page 3 RULE 408 "COMPROMISE AND OFFERS TO COMPROMISE Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was diputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution." Although statements made in the course of settlement negotiations are not privileged communications, protected from disclosure by statute (see Commentary to Title V, Privileges, Rules of Evidence, Vol. 0 RCW, B 197), offers to compromise a claim have long been held to be inadmissible in evidence as an admission of liability. From that common law position, ER 408 has evolved in the Federal and State Rules of Evidence (which are identical to one another) to also declare inadmissible any evidence of "conduct or statements" made in compromise negotiations. This broadening of the rule was intended to facilitate and encourage "complete freedom of communication in compromise negotiations" (Comment on ER 408, Vol. 0 RCW, B 197), in furtherance of policy favoring compromise and settlement of disputes. However, the basic thrust of the prior law, which held inadmissible actual or implied admissions of liability in settlement negotiations, was not intended to be altered by ER 408. The rule ". . .does not require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose . . .." Rule 408. In Matteson v. Ziebarth, 40 Wn.2d 286 (1952), a claim brought as a stockholders' derivative suit, the plaintiff shareholder was compelled by the trial court to testify as to his conversation with the defendant concerning a possible compromise of.the claim. In sustaining the trial court, the Supreme Court recognized the rule, "that offers of compromise are not admissible in evidence as admissions of liability of the party making them." 40 Wn.2d 286, 294. However, in the case then before the court, it said: . . .the testimony concerning the twenty -five percent demand was not elicited to establish an admission of liability on Matteson's part. It was introduced as one of the actual transactions between the parties while the Gold Seal proposal was under consideration. It has a bearing upon appellant's real objection to the proposal and his good faith in opposing it. The testimony was therefore relevant to the issues before the court and unobjectionable on the ground contended for." Ibid, at p. 294. The issue now before the Examiner is "on all fours" with that ruled on by the Supreme Court in Matteson v. Ziebarth, supra. The testimony that Hestia Alliance would dimiss its appeal of the determination of nonsignificance 227 -88 -R Page 4 only if there was a payment made to Hestia was not an admission of liability by Hestia, nor in any way related to a claim the parties were seeking to compromise. The testimony relates solely to the question of what interest Hestia was seeking to advance by pursuing this appeal. ER 408 was not intended to change the pre- existing Washington law in this respect. The evidence of Hestia's request for compensation is relevant to the motion and should be admitted. II. Applicability of "standing" to this proceeding. "Whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy is what has traditionally been referred to as the question of standing to sue." Sierra Club v..Morton, 405 U. S. 727 (1972). The State Environmental Policy Act and King County Code Chapter 20.24 (establishing the Office of Zoning and Subdivision Examiner) are both intended to facilitate public involvement in the County's processes for making land -use decisions which may impact the environment. SEPA promotes the development of information on environmental impacts at the earliest possible time in the decision - making process, to assure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values. WAC 197 -11 -055. One of the declared policies of the Act is that the State, "in cooperation with concerned public and private organizations," (underlining added) will use all practicable means and measures to foster and promote the general welfare, create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Washington citizens. RCW 43.21C.020. The Examiner system, also, is intended "to better protect and promote the interests of the public and private elements of the community; and. . .expand the principles of fairness and due process in public hearings. KCC 20.24.010. It is against the background of those purposes, which emphasize public participation, that the Examiner is asked by the applicant to determine whether this appeal by the Hestia Alliance is properly brought and maintainable. The principal questions raised by Hestia in opposition to the motion are whether the doctrine of "Standing" has any place in a proceeding attacking an environmental threshold determination, and, if it does, whether the doctrine applies at the administrative (quasi - judicial) level as well as upon judicial review. The first question was unequivocally decided by Concerned Olympia Residents for the Environment (CORE) v. City of Olympia, 33 Wn. App. 677 (1983). That case held that "standing" is a consideration when suit is brought to compel preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, i.e., when the issuance of a determination of environmental nonsignificance (DNS) is challenged by Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Superior Court. In that instance, the challenge was brought by an Olympia resident and the nonprofit corporation which he controlled. In response to the Superior Court's Order to Show Cause, the City of Olympia and project applicant (respondent) moved to dismiss the petition on the ground 227 -88 -R Page 5 of lack of standing of the petitioners. The appellant (Hazelrigg) averred by affidavit that he owned real property within one mile of the project site and that the proposal would have significant adverse environmental impacts. He also disclosed by supplemental affidavit that he owned property elsewhere in the city, on which he hoped to develop a project similar to the one for which the City of Olympia had issued a DNS. The petitioner's proposed hospital, it was asserted, was unlikely to be granted a State Certificate of Need in the event the respondent's hospital addition was constructed, in which event the petitioner Hazelrigg would be likely to suffer substantial financial loss. For the purpose of considering Hazelrigg's appeal, the court accepted the validity of the appellant's conclusory statement that there was "more than a reasonable probability that the proposal would have more than a reasonable impact upon the environment." Ibid. p. 681. But the Court of Appeals gave "short shrift" to the petitioners' contention that potential loss of profit from sale of the unrelated property "gives him standing to obtain this extraordinary writ." That type of "economic harm" is not even arguably within the "zone of interest" protected or regulated by enactment of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971'. 33 Wn. App. 677, 682. The court then went on to consider whether other statements of potential detrimental impacts were sufficient to give the petitioners standing, and concluded that they did not. The test applied was whether "the several affidavits collectively demonstrate sufficient evidentiary facts to indicate that he will suffer an 'injury in fact'." Ibid. 683. The Court stated that to invoke its power to review Olympia's DNS, "The petitioner must first establish standing by presenting facts that show a direct adverse effect upon him. . .(citing Coughlin v. Seattle School District, 27 Wn. App. 88). That showing is made through affidavits which set forth evidentiary facts. Here, Hazelrigg does not set forth any evidentiary facts to prove that he will sustain an 'injury in fact'." Ibid. 683. . . .Unless a litigant can demonstrate a direct stake in the controversy, i.e., that he will be specifically and perceptably harmed, he cannot invoke judicial intervention. Otherwise, the judicial process will become no more than a vehicle for the vindication of value interests of concerned by- standers." (citation) Ibid. 684. The next question is, to what extent does the rule of CORE v. Olympia, supra, requiring standing to appeal a DNS at the judicial level, apply to an administrative appeal of a DNS? It is implicit in the statement of facts in Core_v. Olympia, supra, that there was no administrative appeal there available. The sole recourse for a person dissatisified with the action of the City was to seek judicial review. SEPA allows for, but does not compel, administrative appeals of final threshold determinations. WAC 197- 11- 680(3)(a). (; 227 -88 -R Page 6 If administrative appeals are provided by an agency or municipal government, a record must be made for use in any subsequent appeal proceeding (which shall be conducted on that record). An adedquate record consists of findings and conclusions, testimony under oath and a taped or written transcript. Where an administrative appeal procedure is provided, it must be used before judicial review can be initiated. RCW 43.21C.075(3)(c). In effect, the administative appeal serves generally the same purpose as does Superior Court review when there is no administrative appeal available. The principal reasons for providing an administrative appeal are to simplify and reduce the expense of review. An ancillary benefit is the reduction of judicial workload for those types of hearings where a quasi - judicial proceeding (subject to judicial review) is believed, as a matter of policy, to adequately balance the various public interests, i.e., availability of a forum for impartial adjudication of rights, assurance of due process of law, an expeditious resolution, a hearing officer with expertise in the subject matter, and reasonable cost. The Doctrine of Standing arose from multiple bases. In the federal judicial system it is grounded on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which has consistently been interpreted as limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts to justicable cases and controversies. United States v. Johnson, 319 US 302; Va11e_Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 US 465 (1981). As an incident of this requirement, the Supreme Court has always required that a litigant have standing to challenge an action. However, the term "standing" subsumes not only constitutional but also "prudential considerations." Valley Forie, supra, at page 469. The doctrine reflects a need to protect the judicial system and the public from unreasonable burden (e.g., a vehicle for vindication of value interests of concerned by- standers, CORE v. Olymeia, supra, at page 84); Coughlin v. Seattle School District No. 1, 27 Wn App 888; Sierra Club v. Morton, supra, at pages 739 - 40. The Doctrine of Standing also evolved to assure that the opposing sides of disputes were advocated by the real parties in interest, so that issues would be adequately contested to assure, to the maximum extent feasible, effective presentations of fact and law. Absent that, the risk of uninformed decisions increases when the. position advocated by a party is not reflective of a true concern. Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186 (1962), at page 204. As a practical matter, all of the foregoing prudential considerations apply as well to quasi - judicial officers and the administrative appeal process. The need for protection of the system from undue burden and the need for effective presentation of positions to assist in decision - making are parallel. The principal commentator on administrative law in this country states the issue simply: The most important observation that can be made about the law of standing is obvious and simple and yet is sometimes ignored: elementary justice requires that one who is hurt by illegal action should have a remedy. 227 -88 -R Page 7 The central principle that grows out of that observation is also very simple: one who is adversely affected in fact by governmental action has standing to challenge its legality, and one who is not adversely affected in fact lacks standing." 4 Davis, Admin. Law, 2nd Ed. (1983) Section 24.2, pp. 211 -12. Consideration of whether a petitioner had standing in administrative proceedings has been adjudicated in several cases. In American Trucking Associations v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 627 F2d 1313 (1980), the issue was whether the Interstate Commerce Commission could adopt rules governing (and prospectively limiting) the right to intervene in its licensing hearings. Prior Interstate Commerce Commission rules had permitted any person to file a protest and to participate in such proceedings without any showing of interest. The court noted Professor Davis' criticism of those rules, . .in nearly any proceeding except a complaint case, one may become a party by merely entering an appearance without filing a petition for leave to intervene. The Interstate Commerce Commission thus avoids problems about adequacy of legal interest or right. . .." 627 F2d 1313, 1317. The new rules concerning intervention, promulgated by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1978, established criteria and required submission of a petition to intervene. The governing statutes permitted intervention by "interested persons" or "all interested parties." "Interested" was not defined by the statutes, nor could the court find a "ready and convenient" definition in the case law. Therefore, it elected to interpret the term in accordance with the rules relevant to standing to become a party, and held that the new Interstate Commerce Commission rules were a proper exercise of the Commission's authority. In reaching that decision, the court stated that a hearing under the Interstate Commerce Act is, "not like a legislative hearing and 'interest.' is not equivalent to 'concern'." (Alleghany Corn v. Breswick, 353 US 151.) Ibid. 1320. The Commission was not excluding persons with a cognizable interest, but merely asserting "the power to judge whether any given person has such an interest. . Ibid. 1320. Other cases in which the doctrine of standing has been applied to administrative proceedings are: Martin - Trigona v. Federal Reserve Board, 509 F2d 363 (D. C. Cir. 1974); National Welfare Rights Organization v. Finch, 429 F2d 725 (D. C. Cir. 1970); Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission, 359 F2d 994 (D. C. Cir. 1966); and Koniag, Inc., Village of Uyak v. Andrus, 580 F 2d 601 (D. C. Cir. 1978). On the other hand, no cases have been cited to or found by the Examiner which hold that the doctrine of standing does not apply to a person initiating or seeking to intervene in an administrative or quasi - judicial proceeding. 227 -88 -R Page 8 The so- called "two prongs" of standing are the suffering (or anticipated suffering) of actual injury by the person seeking relief, and an injury which is within the "zone of interests" to be protected or regulated by the statute in issue. Data Processing, Inc. v. CamE, 397 U.S. 150. The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) provides that a "person aggrieved" shall, prior to seeking any judicial review, use an agency appeal procedure if one is available. RCW 43.21C.075(4). Although this language does not itself state that only a person aggrieved can use the agency appeal procedure, the language is, on its face, reflective of a legislative intent that persons aggrieved would be the users of the appeal process provided. This is consistent with similar language in the Federal and Washington Administrative Procedure Acts, which permit judicial review of contested cases by "any person aggrieved." 5 USC Section 702; RCW 34.04.130. The "person aggrieved" language is clearly different from other SEPA references to "the public," for purposes of disseminating environmental information and identifying impacts (RCW 43.21C.030(d) and RCW 43.21C.031). The "person aggrieved" reference also differs significantly from the regulatory reference to "any person," who is permitted to submit comments to a lead agency within 15 days of the date of issuance of a DNS. WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(c). Sterling v. Spokane County, 31 Wn. App. 467 (1982), dealt with the issue of whether a person who was not a party to a rezone application had standing to subsequently seek judicial review. The Court held he did not, relying on the provision of the Spokane County Code that the County Commissioners' decision was final unless "a party with standing" applied for a Writ of Certiorari. In the opinion of the Court of Appeals, RCW 36.32.330, which provides, any person may appeal. . .from any decision or order of the Board of County Commissioners" (underlining added), was not applicable where the Board was acting as a appellate body pursuant to County, Code. The Spokane County Code provision granting a right to appeal to the Superior Court to "a party having standing" was also distinguished from the authorization of an appeal by "a person aggrieved." The Sterling v. Spokane decision does not address the substantive elements of standing which are of concern here, i.e., whether there was, or perspectively is, an injury in fact, and whether that alleged injury is within the zone of interests protected by the State Environmental Policy Act. The appellant Hestia is willing to assume, for purposes of argument only, "that Hestia's sole purpose in bringing this appeal is to obtain as much money, and as quickly as possible, from the project proponent," and asks, "Would such a motive undermine an otherwise valid appeal ?" Appellant Hestia's Memorandum regarding "Motive" Issues and Appeal Proceedings, received February 22, 1989, page 3. Without any citation of authority, Hestia states the answer to be "No." Ibid. page 4. That contention ignores the body of law which requires relief sought to be within the "zone of interest" protected by the statute under which the claim is made. Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 US 150. The principle has been specifically applied to claims brought under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Churchill Truck Lines v. Interstate Commerce 227 -88 -R Page 9 Commission, 533 F2d 411 (ith Cir. 1976); Clinton Community Hospital v. Southern Maryland Medical Center, 510 F2d 1037 (4th Cir. 1975), which are in accord with CORE v. Olympia, supra, interpreting the Washington Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). "Petitioners, whose sole motivation in this case was their own economic self- interest and welfare, are singularly inappropriate parties to be entrusted with the responsibility of asserting the public's environmental interest in proceedings concerning the issuance of operating authority to motor carriers. Petitioners do not allege any environmental injury to themselves. Their interest in their economic well -being vis -a -vis their competitors is clearly not within the zone of interests to be protected by the National Environmental Policy Act (citations) ... "Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Commission's determination that the grant of RPD's application was not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Churchill Truck Lines v. I.C.C., supra, at 416 -17. For the foregoing reasons, based on the authorities cited and the absence of any contrary authority, it is my opinion that the question of standing of the Hestia Alliance to appeal the DNS issued by the King County Building and Land Development Division on November 8, 1988, is appropriately raised in this proceeding, and must be ruled on by the Examiner. FINDINGS: 1. The State Environmental Policy Act declares a state policy to encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, and stimulate the health and welfare of man. RCW 43.21C.010. The state policy to use all practicable means and measures in a manner calculated to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony was adopted in recognition of the "critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of man ". RCW 43.21C.020. In addition: "The Legislature recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment." RCW 43.21C.020(3). 2. To accomplish these purposes, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires procedural mechanisms which are intended to assure that the impacts on the environment of any proposed major governmental action are disclosed and considered before the action is taken. (Major governmental actions include the issuance of permits which enable private development proposals to proceed.) The basic thrust of the procedural requirements is that an initial list (environmental checklist) be made of the expected impacts of the proposed action on each of the elements of the environment. The Washington Administrative Code requires that impacts on 21 elements of the natural environment and 25 elements of the built environment be addressed by the checklist. (WAC 197 -11 -444). 227 -88 -R Page 10 The responsible government agency, designated the "lead agency" is required to review the environmental checklist; determine if additional information is necessary prior to making a threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance; and then make that determination. In the case of this proposed development, the lead agency is the King County Building and Land Development Division. If the responsible official of the lead agency determines that there will be no probable significant adverse environmental impact from a proposal, the lead agency shall prepare and issue a DNS, which shall be sent, together with the environmental checklist, to other agencies with jurisdiction, the State Department of Ecology, affected tribes, and each local agency or political subdivision whose public services would be changed as a result of implementation of the proposal. The SEPA Rules provide that, "Any person, affected tribe or agency may submit comments to the lead agency within 15 days of the date of issuance of the DNS." WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(c). Following the 15 day comment period, the responsible official of the lead agency shall reconsider the DNS based on timely comments and may retain, or modify, or withdraw the DNS. The responsible official's threshold determination is then final and binding, subject to the provisions of WAC 197 -11 -340 and 360, (permitting withdrawal of a DNS by the lead agency under specified circumstances and withdrawal of a Determination of Significance when a proposed action is modified so that there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts). 3. On November 8, 1988, the King County Building and Land Development Division issued a Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance for the proposed construction of a 138 unit apartment complex between South 144th and 146th Streets, and between 49th and 51st Avenues South in King County, Washington. On November 18, 1988, a Notice of Appeal of the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was filed by the Hestia Alliance (Hestia). Part 6 of WAC Chapter 197 -11 interprets the statutory provisions for appeals from the lead agency's threshold determination. The appeal of a final threshold determination, such as Hestia's appeal of the November 8, 1,988 DNS, may occur prior to an agency's final decision on a proposed action. WAC 197- 11- 680(3)(a)(iii). If an agency (i.e., King County in this instance), " . . provides an administrative appeal procedure, that procedure must be used before anyone may initiate judicial review of any SEPA issue that could have been reviewed under the agency procedures." WAC 197- 11- 680(3)(c). The statutory section construed by the foregoing provisions of the Washington Administrative Code is RCW 43.21C.075, which provides, in part, "If a person aggrieved by an agency action has the right to judicial appeal and if an agency has an appeal procedure, such person shall, prior to seeking a judicial review, use such procedure if any such procedure is available, unless expressly provided otherwise by state statute." (Underlining added.) RCW 43.21C.075(4). 227 -88 -R Page 11 For the purposes of RCW Sections 43.21C.075 and .080, "the word 'appeal' refers to administrative, legislative, or judicial appeals ". RCW 43.21C.075(8). 4. King County Code Section 20.24.080 grants to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner the jurisdiction to issue final decisions on appeals of threshold determinations (KCC 20.24.080.2). Notices of appeal are required to be filed with the county department or division issuing the original decision. KCC 20.24.090. Before rendering a decision on any appeal, the Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. KCC 20.24.130. No other statutory provisions or administrative rules have been cited or are otherwise known to the Examiner which govern or affect the question of standing to file an administrative appeal of a threshold determination of environmental nonsignificance. 5. Appellant Hestia Alliance is a Washington nonprofit corporation, the purposes of which, at the time of filing this appeal, included broad statements of intent to protect its members and the public at large from illegal government actions which might adversely impact the environment in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties; to protect its members, as taxpayers, from the costs of poor governmental decision - making; and "(5) to obtain the resources necessary to allow the corporation effectively and forcefully to challenge proposed land use actions. . ." (Sworn Statement Certifying Corporate Charter and Offer of Proof; dated February 6, 1989.) Additional statements of purpose are included in the November 21, 1988, Notice of Appeal, the February 6, 1989, Sworn Statement, and the February 21, 1989, Sworn Statement. However, the foregoing summary reasonably conveys the substance of the corporation's purposes. 6. The appeal issues identified in the Hestia Alliance's Notice of Appeal are: failure to identify air quality impacts, in particular, impacts from solid fuel burning devices and associated "wood smoke" concerns; degradation of water quality as a result of inadequate review of the project for purposes of identifying water contaminants to result from the proposed development, and failure to provide specific information concerning the surface water control and discharge system; failure to identify background traffic and traffic projections as well as specific impacts to roadways and mitigation of those impacts; and complete and total failure to analyze, at the earliest opportunity, all of the environmental impacts associated with the project, and relevant comprehensive plan policies. The relief requested is: "Reversal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance and substitution of an Order of Significance requiring production and circulation of Environmental Impact Statement including study of impacts on matters including but not limited to: Air 227 -88 -R Page 12 quality, water quality, and traffic, as identified above, and mandated consideration of impacts allegedly reserved for review at the 'commercial permit stage.' "In lieu of an Environmental Impact Statement or in conjunction therewith, further and much more stringent mitigation to offset the identified impacts as identified above and to be further identified in these proceedings ". Ibid. page 12. 7. In support of its standing to bring this appeal, Hestia alleges ". . .An interest in these proceedings, based in part, upon the above (Hestia's corporate purposes) and all such other effects on the corporation and its members as arise and are identified throughout these proceedings." Notice of Appeal; Statement of Objections to Proceedings, dated November 21, 1988, page 4. 8. The public hearing to be conducted by the Examiner for the purpose of considering an appeal of a determination of environmental nonsignificance is not a hearing of the King County Council, but is a quasi - judicial hearing. The outcome of the hearing is not a recommendation to the Council or any other legislative or administrative body, but is a final decision on behalf of King County. As such, it is subject to review on the record through the extraordinary procedure of application to the Superior Court of the State of Washington for a Writ of Certiorari. The only relationship of this appeal to the King County Council are the provisions of KCC 20.24.020 - .040, which create the office of the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner and provide for Council appointment and removal of the Examiner. A requirement for standing to file this appeal would not in any way limit the right of a person to petition or be heard by their representatives within the legislative or executive branches of the King County government. 9. The notice of appeal and affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant Hestia fail to present any evidentiary facts indicating that Hestia or any of its members would be injured in fact by the proposed development of a 138 unit apartment complex on the subject property. The closest appellant comes to doing so is to assert, in the February 21, 1989, sworn statement of Michael Sterling, that the "membership of Hestia is expanding "; "Hestia is prepared to establish and prove court -like standing in Superior Court "; "In order to be prepared to testify. . .I reviewed Hestia's mailing list to determine who, on the list, would be directly affected. . .In so doing, I discovered four names and addresses of people on 12th Avenue South in the vicinity of the project. Additionally, others were found to reside. . .within an area which is in relatively close proximity. . .." Sworn Statement of Michael E. Sterling, February 21, 1989. The impacts of this proposed development would have no direct affect on the Hestia Alliance or any of its members identified by Hestia. 10. The operative purposes of Hestia are to bring appeals "in cases where the Board of Directors of Hestia, on a policy established by them, believed that inadequate mitigation was being requested," and "to obtain resources necessary to allow the corporation effectively and forcefully to challenge proposed land use actions. . .." Sworn Statement of Michael E. Sterling dated February 21, 1989, pages 7 and 15. To accomplish these purposes, Hestia has 227 -88 -R Page 13 sought out "economically viable" land development proposals with no apparent regard for their direct affect on Hestia or its members, and has filed appeals in furtherance of a policy established by its board of directors. The foregoing course of action is commonly referred to as "private attorney general" enforcement, which is authorized by some statutes. It is not authorized by SEPA. 11. A primary purpose of this appeal has included acquisition of operating and consultant funds for Hestia. A portion of those funds would compensate Michael E. Sterling, who is president and general legal counsel of Hestia. (Sworn Statement, Ibid, page 1 and attached Exhibit 1, Articles of Amendment.) The Board of Directors of Hestia was controlled by Michael E. Sterling and his wife, but was expanded at an unspecified date to include five persons. Ibid. page 15. 12. Any additional facts set forth in the foregoing opinion or following conclusions are incorporated herein by this reference. CONCLUSIONS• 1. Any person may comment on a threshold determination of environmental significance or nonsignificance pursuant to WAC 197- 11- 340(c). Likewise, any person may participate in a public hearing conducted by the King County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner pursuant to KCC 20.24. However, only an "aggrieved person" may file or otherwise initiate an appeal of a threshold determination pursuant to RCW 43.21C.075(3) and WAC 197 -11- 680(3). 2. The legislative authorization for any aggrieved person to initiate an appeal of an environmental determination creates a broad class of persons with standing. However, it does not totally abrogate the requirement for standing as a condition of the right to adjudicate a claim. 3. The requirement for standing applies to the right to initiate administrative appeals in quasi - judicial proceedings. The project applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal of Hestia for lack of standing was made in proper form; Hestia was fully apprised of the motion and had reasonable opportunity to respond. The determination of whether a party has standing is appropriately made on the basis of pleadings and affidavits, or a fact finding hearing can be held. In this case, the project applicant and Hestia both chose to limit their presentation of evidence to affidavits and "sworn statements," although opportunity for oral testimony was also afforded to the said parties. 4. The purposes of the Hestia Alliance, as stated in its articles of incorporation, would be relevant in responding to an assertion that this appeal was an ultra vires act. That assertion is not made by the project applicant. The purposes of the corporation do not, in and of themselves, provide standing to bring this appeal. Standing must be based upon a real injury, actual or prospective, suffered or reasonably feared by one or more members of the corporation. The sworn statements submitted on behalf of Hestia do not aver any such real injury in other than speculative and conclusory fashion, or as "offers" to 227 -88 -R Page 14 provide such proof at some future time. Therefore, Hestia does not meet the first test for the standing requisite to bring this appeal. 5. A second test of standing relates to the appropriateness of the relief sought to address an alleged injury. An aggrieved person who appeals a threshold determination made pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act can have standing do so only to the extent that the injury for which redress is sought is within the zone of interests protected by SEPA. A claim for monetary damages, private compensation, or operating funds to maintain an "environmental watchdog" corporation, are not within the zone of interest protected by the State Environmental Policy Act. When an appeal is brought to challenge a SEPA determination, and the purpose of that appeal is to obtain monetary damages, private compensation or operating funds, the appellant lacks standing. Even accepting Hestia's version of the settlement discussion (Sworn Statement of Michael E. Sterling dated February 21, 1989), it is clear that a monetary payment from the project applicant to Hestia was a central issue to Hestia. Such monetary payment was intertwined with any mitigations of environmental impacts in which Hestia was interested, and there would be, as a practical matter, no "settlement" of this appeal without the exaction of a monetary payment to be made by the project applicant to Hestia. Therefore, even if Hestia was an aggrieved person, it would have no standing to appeal the determination of environmental nonsignificance for the purpose of seeking monetary compensation, as it did in this case. DECISION: The motion to dismiss the appeal of the Hestia Alliance for lack of standing is granted. ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1989. O'Connor ng and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Dale Becker Christopher Brown Mr. and Mrs. E. E. Burnham Donald Conner Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Mr. and Mr.s Donald Gallacher Myrtle Granacki Ruth Reed Hoke Mauiets Larson Murrell and Donna Lee Mr. and Mrs. C. N. Malmberg Thomas and Donna Mauzeralle Scott Nangle Jerrill Anderson Lloyd and Emma Becker Erma Brown Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter Jr. Knut and Helen Duzell Thomas E. Evans Edward Goodall Keith Hanson Shirley Jones Pat Larson Clint Lynch John Marchiando Kim Mummert Roger Newell Karen Pomeroy Mary Jane Purre Schneider Homes, Inc. Judy Van Deen Elizabeth Williams Richard Wilson 227 -88 -R Page 15 Tim and Linda Popejoy Mr. and Mrs. Walter Schmidt Albert and Hilda Steidl Wayne Weber R. J. Wilson Gerry and Paul Young TRANSMITTED this 26th day of April, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Building and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Building and Land Development Division City of Tukwila Washington State Department of Transportation 4005D /JNO:ja;cp;ple February 22, 1989 OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOTICE TO PARTIES OF RECORD: SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File Nos. 227 -88 -R; 88 -62 -C; 88 -61 -V APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS Applications for Reclassification, Variance and Conditional Use Permit; and Appeals of Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance Property located between South 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Avenue South (if extended) and 51st Avenue South. Applications of Schneider Homes, Inc. and Ernest R. Robertson, et al.,; Appeals of Hestia Alliance, City of Tukwila, and Tim and Linda Popejoy, et al. On February 15, 1989, the Examiner rendered an oral decision dismissing the appeal of the Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance (DNS) by the Hestia Alliance. A copy of the Examiner's Memorandum Decision is enclosed. On February 17, 1989, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the appeals of the DNS by Tim and Linda Popejoy and the City of Tukwila and considered the request that a public hearing on this matter be conducted in the evening in the vicinity of the property. For the reasons stated at the hearing and summarized below, the request for an evening community hearing is not granted. I appreciate the fact that it is far more convenient for most people to attend a hearing in the evening and close to home. However, King County has not budgeted the resources which would be required to accomplish this for all or even a substantial number of the public hearings conducted on land use applications. Consequently, criteria have been developed by which a determination is made as to when such a hearing is justified by exceptional circumstances. In the present case, the proposed development is primarily an implementation of the existing community plan and area zoning. The proposal does contain features and will have impacts which are of concern to adjacent and nearby residents. These will be addressed through the hearings, but the major planning decisions concerning the use of the property were previously made through the community planning and area zoning process. 227 -88 -R, 88 -62 -C, 88 -61 -V Page 2 In order to assure all interested persons that their evidence and arguments concerning the appeals of the DNS will be considered, the public hearing on the appeals will be held open for administrative purposes for ten days following this notice. Any person may submit written statements, documentary evidence or arguments on the appeals of the DNS through the close of business on March 3, 1989. The public hearing on the subjct applications for reclassification, conditional use permit and variance will be opened on Tuesday, March 14, 1989, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 402 of the King County Courthouse, Third Avenue and James Street, Seattle, Washigton. ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 1989. es N. O'Connor ning and Subdivision Examiner TRANSMITTED this 22nd day of February, 1989, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Dale Becker Christopher Brown Mr. & Mrs. E. E. Burnham Donald Conner Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Mr. & Mrs. Donald Gallacher Myrtle--Gra.nacki-- Ruth Reed Hoke Mauiets Larson Murrell & Donna Lee Mr. & Mrs. C. N. Malmberg Thomas & Donna Mauzeralle Scott Nangle Karen Pomeroy Mary Jane Purre Schneider Homes, Inc. City of Tukwila Wayne Weber R. J. Wilson Gerry & Paul Young Jerrill Anderson Lloyd & Emma Becker Erma Brown Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter, Jr. Knut & Helen Duzell Thomas E. Evans Edward Goodall Keith Ha -nccn Shirley Jones Pat Larson Clint Lynch John Marchiando Kim Mummert Roger Newell Tim and Linda Popejoy Mr. & Mrs. Walter Schmidt Albert & Hilda Steidl Judy VanDeen Elizabeth Williams Richard Wilson TRANSMITTED this 22nd day of February, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Manager, Land Use Controls Section, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical Services Section, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Technical Services Section, Building and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Land Use Controls Section, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Technical Services Section, Building and Land Development Division Washington State Department of Transportation 3861D;JNO;ja 227 -88 -R et al. City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 February 9, 1989 Mr. Gordon Thomson King County Building and Land Development Division 3600 136th Place S.E. Bellevue, WA 98006 Subject: APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS FILE NOS.: 227 -88 -R, 88 -62-C Dear Mr. Thomson: We have met with Gerald Schneider and Carl Bloss of Schneider Homes regarding our SEPA appeal and memo dated November 23, 1988, to Mr. Bloss. We were able to review a site plan with topographic information. Given the 22% grade, the concern over vacation of the 40 foot right -of -way is not considered significant. The applicant verbally agrees with us regarding pedestrian safety and the need to provide a safe surface along 51st Avenue South. The suggested process outlined in the above memo is dependant, of course, upon an appropriate implementation program with the County. Finally, in our review of the preliminary report to the Zoning Adjustor, METRO requests a condition that the applicant be required to develop a transportation management plan, which would satisfy our concern over coordination and integration with METRO for bus services. With regard to the rezone, we support the staff's position on the rezone issue but also feel that the rezone of the RM- 2400 -P zone is inappropriate -- given the lack of access and excess slopes of the property. As you know, the City of Tukwila recently underwent an update of our Comprehensive Plan for the area and designated the subject properties with commercial and medium density residential for the BN and RM -2400 zoned properties, respectively. We do not feel there has been any change in circumstances since our review. Your efforts to coordinate review and solicit comments is appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 433 -1848. Thank you. Yours very truly, cc Carl Bloss Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner Jdar- PARKS, PLANNING AND RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE ZONING ADJUSTOR JANUARY 31, 1989 - PUBLIC HEARING JAN 2 01989 138=-61-V3- APPLICANT: SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS.r8i8=62 =C ; A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner: Agent: Location: Gerald E. Schneider Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 248 -2471 Carl H. Bloss 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 248 -2471 Generally between S. 144th and 146th Streets and between 49th Ave. S., if extended, and 50th Avenue South. Zoning: RS -7200 Size: .9 acre Request: A Conditional Use Permit to establish a recreational facility (KCC 21.08.060.A), and a variance from the 25 -foot setback (KCC 21.08.060A.1). Proposal: Establishment of a recreational facility to serve the proposed adjacent multi - family apartment complex. This proposal is part of a rezone request (File #227- 88 -R). The facility will operate 7 days per week between either 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The building will be approximately 4,500 square feet with a pool on the west side of the property. The proposed building will be 4 feet from the east property line rather than the required 25 feet. The floor plans indicate three parking stalls (see Attach- ments 1 and 2; also see file for Exhibit D -6) . B. REQUEST BY APPLICANT: The establishment of the recreational facility is to be part of a 138 -unit apartment complex. This facility is adjacent to the west edge of the proposed complex. Operating hours are from 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., seven days per week. There will be one full -time employee. This facility is intended to serve only the residents of the apartment complex. A 25 -foot landscaping buffer is proposed on the north, west, and south sides of the property. C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT: Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the responsible official of the Building and Land Development Division (BALD) issued a threshold determination of non - significance (DNS) for the proposed development on Novem- ber 8, 1988. The determination is an indication that the pro- posal would not cause probable significant adverse impacts on the environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required prior to proceeding with the review process (see Attachment 3). SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS. 88 -61 -V & 88 -62 -C See the rezone file and staff report regarding this issue relative to the apartment development. D. EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1. General Zoning in the Area: The subject property and properties to the north, west, and south are zoned RS -7200. The property to the east is zoned RM -2400. 2. Development Existing on the Subject Property: The site is undeveloped. 3. Development on Adjoining Property: On the site to the east, there are now six single - family residences which will be demolished for construction of 138 multi - family units. All properties surrounding the subject site are developed with long- standing, single - family residences. 4. Physical Land Characteristics: The subject property that is proposed for the recreational use slopes down hill toward the northeast. This property is the highest part of the down hill apartment project. 5. Access: The applicant plans to access this site from the north side via S. 144th St. by developing a new circula- tion pattern through the proposed apartment complex. 6. Public Services: Sewer and Water: Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of ± 700 feet of lateral to be constructed. The sewer system improvement is in conform- ance with a county- approved sewer comprehensive plan. An- nexation or Boundary Review Board approval will be necessary to provide service. Val Vue Sewer District serves this area (see Attachment 4). The subject property is within the corporate limits of Water District #125. Water service will require 2,300 feet of water main and an amendment to the water comprehensive plan (see Attachment 5). E. AGENCIES CONTACTED: Washington State Department of Fisheries Washington State Department of Game Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Washington State Department of Transportation Val Vue Sewer District Water District #125 South Central School District #406 METRO King County Fire District #18 King County Department of Public Works Traffic Division King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department King County Natural Resources and Parks Division King County Planning Division King County Building and Land Development Division: Commercial /Multifamily Products Section, Drainage Review and Fire Engineering Code Enforcement Tukwila Planning Department 2 SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS. 88 -61 -V & 88 -62 -C F. COMMENTS RECEIVED BY AGENCIES: 1. King County Planning and Community Development Division: "The proposed recreation center and swimming pool should be designed, landscaped, and managed to minimize noise and glare for nearby single - family residences, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies R -308, R -309, and R -310. If impacts on nearby neighborhoods cannot be mitigated, we recommend the proposed recrea- tion center be located near the center of the subject property." 2. BALD Technical Services: There will be a SEPA condition on the building permit action which will require "...connection of the front- age improvement, sidewalk, and road widening on 51st Ave. S. to extend from S. 146th St. north to the inter- section with South 144th Street." 3. METRO: "METRO staff have reviewed this proposal and anticipate no significant impacts to its wastewater facilities." "Public Transportation The developer should be required to implement Transportation System Management actions for a residen- tial development of this size. The developer should contact Bob Flor, METRO Market Development Planner, to develop a transportation management plan." 4. Public Works, Traffic & PLanning: "Access to S. 144th St. will not meet King County Road Standards (KCRS) for entering sight distance. Access must be from 51st Ave. S. in a location that meets KCRS (see Attachment 6). G. REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED BY KING COUNTY ZONING CODE: 1. KCC 21.58.010 Authority to grant variances. A. Except as provided in K.C.C. 21.58.052, the manager or his designee shall have the authority to grant a variance from the provisions of this title when the conditions as set forth in Section 21.58.020 have been found to exist; provided, that any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. B. The zoning adjustor may grant variances as provided in K.C.C. 21.58.052, subject to the same limitations and requirements as set forth in this section. (Ord. 7714 ( 1, 1986: Res. 25789 ( 2800, 1963). 2. KCC 21.58.020 Required showings for a variance. Before any variance may be granted, it shall be shown: A. Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, 3 • • SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS. 88 -61 -V & 88 -62 -C location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning code is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; B. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injur- ious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated. (Res. 25789 ( 2801, 1963). 3. KCC 21.58.030 Zoning adjustor may grant conditional use permits. Upon application, the zoning adjustor may grant conditional use permits for such uses as require them under this title. The adjustor may deny an appli- cation if the characteristics of the intended use would create an incompatible or hazardous condition. 4. KCC 21.58.040 Purpose of a conditional use permit. The purpose of a conditional use permit shall be: A. To assure by means of imposing special conditions and requirements on development, that the compatibility of uses, a purpose of this title, shall be maintained, considering other existing and potential uses within the general area of the proposed use; B. The conditions imposed shall be those which will reasonably assure that nuisance or hazard to life . or property, will not develop. The adjustor may not use a conditional use permit to reduce the zoning re- quirements of the zone in which the use is to locate. Such reduction of requirements shall be accomplished through the medium of a variance. COMMENT: The Zoning Adjustor will review this request under the guidelines set forth above and those contained in the Highline Community Plan policies and other applicable functional plan requirements and /or policies. 5. KCC 21.08.060 Conditional uses. In an RS zone the following conditional uses are permitted, subject to the restrictions of this section, the off - street park- ing requirements, landscaping requirements, and the general provisions and exceptions set forth in this title beginning with Chapter 21.46, Chapter 21.58, and the provisions of the King County shoreline management master program, where applicable: A. Recreational facilities, community non- commercial, including clubhouse facilities, provided: 1. Any building or structure on the site shall maintain a distance not less than twenty -five feet from any abutting R, S or G classified property. 2. Any lights provided to illuminate any building or recreational area shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from any premises upon which a dwelling unit is located. 3. The site shall be located upon, or have adequate access to a public thoroughfare. COMMENT: The site plan indicates the building will be less than 25 feet from the abutting R classified property on the east for which a variance has been requested. A light- ing plan has not be submitted. The building floor plan has a note which states, "... shield all exterior lights away from adjacent uses." The site will be served by interior roads with access from South 144th Street. This is the only access point for the recreation facility and the 138 -unit complex. 4 • SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS. 88 -61 -V & 88 -62 -C 6. RCC 21.08.130 Height. In an RS zone no residential building or structure shall exceed a height of thirty feet. COMMENT: The elevation of the proposed recreation building (see Exhibit D -6, page 2, in the file) shows the height ranging from 11 to 17 feet. 7. RCC 21.51.030.E E. All public or institutional uses, including churches, commercial and non - commercial recreation facilities (e.g. country clubs, golf courses, tennis courts, yacht clubs), community clubs, schools, chari- table and fraternal organizations, hospitals, public utility facilities, sewage transfer plants, govern- mental facilities, museums, libraries, fire stations, retirement homes, nursing homes, and similar uses shall provide landscaping as prescribed by paragraphs A. 5, A. 6, A. 7, A. 8, B. 2, C. and D. of this section, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. A. 5. Uses permitted in B or C zones, and public or institutional uses (except parks or play- grounds) in all zones, unless proposed in an M zone RS or S Type I 20 Feet COMMENT: The site plan indicates a 25 -foot landscaping buffer on the north, west, and south property lines. There is no indication of the type proposed. 8. KCC 21.50.040 Parking spaces required. The amount of off - street parking required shall be no less than as set forth in this section: 3. Community clubs and One parking space community recreational for each employee centers and one parking space for each fourth square foot of gross floor area used for assembly purposes COMMENT: The building floor plan shows three parking stalls on the north side adjacent to the building. The site plan has no parking stalls in the vicinity of the recrea- tional facility. The application states there will be one on -site manager of the apartments. The building floor plan note states, "(1) full -time employee." The applicants state that the only patrons of the facility would be residents. Because parking is provided within the complex, no addi- tional spaces have been provided by the applicant. Commercial /Multifamily Products staff of BALD have reviewed the subject facility and state that when a recrea- tional facility is limited in use to the residents of an adjacent multi - family housing complex, additional parking for the recreation facility is not required. To obtain a building permit, this facility must provide one barrier -free parking stall, a barrier -free access ramp to the building, and a sidewalk from the barrier -free parking stall to the access ramp. 5 • • SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS. 88 -61 -V & 88 -62 -C H. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES: 1. Comprehensive Plan Principle and Policy R -210: R -210 Non - residential uses in Urban residential neighborhoods should be limited to those that: a. Do not result in heavy traffic, noise, smoke, or other adverse impacts; and b. Provide convenient local services for nearby residents; or c. Require location in a residential area. COMMENT: The recreational facility by itself will not produce heavy traffic or smoke. Outdoor recreational use of the pool and sport court will result in noise. 2. Comprehensive Plan Principle and Policies R -309 and R -310: R -309 Common facilities in multi- family development such as open space, internal walkways, roads, parking, laundry rooms, garbage disposal areas, and mailboxes should be located and designed to minimize noise and glare for nearby residents and to maintain their secur- ity and privacy. COMMENT: The pool is located between the recreation building and the adjacent single - family neighborhood. No lighting plan has been submitted. R -310 Multi- family development adjacent to single - family or non - residential development should have open space or landscaping for screening and buffering. COMMENT: Although there is no detailed landscaping plan, the applicant has proposed a 25 -foot landscaping buffer around the perimeter of the recreational facility. The type of screening has not been specified. I. EVALUATION: 1. Lighting: Additional information is needed to determine the impact of lighting on the adjoining property. 2. Noise: The outdoor pool is located next to the adjoining neighborhood. To reduce the probable noise impact generated by the use of the pool, it is suggested that the positions of the pool and the building be reversed. 3. Access: It is questionable that the proposed access from S. 144th St. and internal circulation are adequate. There is a sight distance problem entering from South 144th Street. The project will need to be redesigned and re- evaluated with access from 51st Avenue South. The circula- tion design for the area south of the road proposed for vacation (S. 146th St.) will need to be reconfigured and re- evaluated to provide adequate access for fire - fighting equipment. 4. Parking: If all the residents walk to this facility, there seems to be adequate parking. If residents are 6 SCHNEIDER HOMES FILE NOS. 88 -61 -V & 88 -62 -C permitted to bring guests to the facility, there may not be enough parking provided. This project is located on steep terrain. Is it logical to assume that all residents will walk up a grade to use this facility? It may be more real- istic to anticipate residents driving within the complex to use this facility. 5. Landscaping: One of the site plans indicates an adequate width of landscaping buffer. According to King County Code, a Type I screen is necessary. A detailed land- scaping plan is desirable in order to determine the impact of this recreational complex on the adjacent single - family residential community. 6. In justification of the variance, the application states: "Unique location of this site and topographical conditions support this requested variance. Strict inter- pretation of required side setback adjacent to multifamily zone creates unnecessary boundary between compatible uses." "Recreational facilities are permitted uses in RS zones. A 25 -foot setback with screening is not required in residential developments where accessory recreation facili- ties are provided." COMMENT: This is the provision from which the variance is requested. SS:lg Attachments 1/13/89 TRANSMITTED to parties listed hereafter: See Rezone File #227 -88 -R. 7 rail. tOl ∎ leI 4 RECREATIONAL BUILDING FLOOR PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT '4, PROJECT PROPOSAL A PROPPSW MULTI -Frr1iLT betAKOrrlEgT. PROJECT DATA SEWER WATER. King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 November Effective File: 2, 1988 Determination of Non - Significance Determination Date: November 8, 1988 88 -62 -C & 227-88 -R Applewood Aptms Proponent: Roger H. Newell for Gerald E. Schneider 1102 19th Avenue East Seattle, WA 98112 322 -1192 Proposal Description: The construction of a 138 -unit apartments in 13 buildings, with a recreational unit in the RS- 7200(Single- Family Residential)zone. A rezone of 1.35 acres from RS7200(single- Family Residential) and BN(Neighborhood Business) to RM2400 (Multiple Family) is requested. Seismic Sensitive soils are onsite. Location: Generally between S. 144th and 146th streets and 49th Ave. S., (if extended) and 51st Ave. S. STR: NE 22 -23 -04 King County and WSDOT have determined that no traffic mitigation is required of this development. This review is for the rezone & CUP only. At the Commercial Permit stage, there will be a SEPA review for water quality, land- scaping, aesthetics, pedestrian circulation, etc. The Building and-Land Development Division has determined that the above proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environ- ment. An environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RWC 43. 21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen- tal checklist and other information on file at the Division's office. Any interested party may submit written comments on this proposal. Written comments or appeals will be accepted until November 23, 1988 Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. ALL APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON - REFUNDABLE $50.00 FILING FEE. ATTACHMENT -3 - Page 2 FILE: 88 -62 -C & Comments or appeals should be addressed to: King County Building and Land Development Division 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA Center Phone: (206) 296 -6662 PLEASE REFERENCE FILE NUMBBEERSi NOfOiRiSPONDING. c) (5-v\mAa ATTACHMENT .s - • This certificate provides :e Department of Health and Building & Land Development with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. Pleas eturn to: BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT 450 Administration Building Seattle, Washington 98104 206- 344.7900 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY Do not write in this box number name ❑ Building Permit ❑ Short Subdivision ® Preliminary Plat or PUD Jg Rezone or other APPLICANT'S NAME Schneider Homes, Inc. PROPOSED USE Multi- family apartments LOCATION S. 144th St. & 51st Ave. S. - see attached map and legal description (Attach map & legal description if necessary) $ # # # # # # # # # # # # # SEWER AGENCY INFORMATION 1. a. OR b. 0 Sewer service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer feet from the•site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: ❑ (1) feet of sewer trunk or latteral to re.ach,the'sitet and /or ' . 0(2) the construction of a collection system on the site;., and /or N other (describe) tju,.a. g rptlR,e, -r -7Op ft e 4 lt.5 INC R16•LT 641..1.6y To BE attires sTaw,tTi6A 2. (Must be completed if Z.b above is checked)' a. Ivl The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR b. ❑ The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a. ❑ The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district or city. Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: a. Connection charge: e& totiID AS«ssw:ICivr wtt.1- ee GNAs «o b. Easement (s) : /a $ I46"WILL 'gE1',roe•, p 516I66cLO C 144L 'Yfr Ihica/160 c. Other: OR b. I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature. VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT Agency Name MANAGER ATTACHMENT J MATELICH Signatory Name Title F279 -4r Signature • Date cw;GlriCat:e provid{ the Department of Health a •iO Building i Land Develo nt with information necessary to evaluate development proposals. ) of t+ P • return to: 6 DING & LAND DEVELOPMENT 450 Administration Building bank Wuh.neton 90104 • 209344.7900 KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY tV.r O Building Permit O Short Subdivision APPLICANT'S NAME SCHNEIDER HOMES. INC. PROPOSED DBE Multi- Family Apartments / 3 S 4Niy LOCAT mN South 144th St. & 51st Ave. S. - See attached map and legal description Preliminary Plat or PDD Rezone or other (Attach sup a legal description it necessary) 0 0 MAR PURVEYOR INFORMATION 1. a. 16.3 Water will be provided by service connection only to an existing water main feet from the site. size b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system oft O (1) 230 0 feet of eater main to reach the sites and/or O (2) the construction of a distribution system on the site; and/or 0 (3) other (describe) 0 0 2. a. 0 The water OR system is in conformance with a County approved rates comprehensive plan. b. 04. water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a. The proposed project is within the corporate LL::77 granted Boundary Review Board approva orextensionoofLservics outside has been or city, or is within the County Approved service area of a private water purveyor. 0* b• 0 Annexation or BR3 approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. a. water is /or will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant building/propeny (or as . narked on the attached ati , 50 "feet from the Rate of Flow Duration 0 less than S00 spa (approx., 0W Mess than 1 hour hours 0 1000 gpm or sure MR O 2 hours rs or more flow test of � Clothes oR 0 calculation of 1 Soo f a>aa (Commercial Building test or Permits require flaw b. Crater system is not capable of providing fire flow Pion) Z hereby certify that the above water certification shall be valid for one year from dater of signature, This WATER DISTRICT 41125RECEWVED. Agency Name F? el a /� �i�t Devrd'O AUG 111988 Signatory Name it c 278 , /00 Lc: S gnature Date 88..61V TO L—__Lctr)d aILD SUBJECT RQz7. 0Q-7 88 MESSAGE 7%e, 4rj,-, 712f. ,S ortRliOh F P AJ5rrdkvn M � s P /Gnn DATE /eV/ /88 /S-& s .11 / C 0r J1rlejya s �..S74,7 // uar�S, timpape 447€ • $` cC 5$ • 7� 5 /VK 154 5f ait, )7e7Leet r - h -111! A% 74arJC 41 IC SZ2 / -- 5/ •ors' met tee RS RFDIFORM. 4S 472 SIGNED SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 INTACT - PART 3 WILL lE RETURNED WITH REPLY. / DATE /0- / / /e23/.. ATTACHMENT D_ PALY PAK (S0 SETS) 4P472 • APPLICANT: ERNEST R. ROBERTSON REQUEST: RS -7200 & B -N (potential RM -2400) to RM -2400 STR: r NE 22 -23 -4 Proposed Reclassification 227- 88 -Ft; ; 1,7 !- APPENDIX B ' ' - DEC 301988 1 4 0 0' RS -3200 S -R TU a ORD. No.12$2 r 12 -17-02 WILA S 138th. S -R ._.._..— ST. RS -7,200 S. S -7,200 140T" ST. RM -2,400 RS-7,200 RM -2,400 S. 142nd. ST S-R 1 W 4 i N 14S • - •- •--- --•- 144T" RS -7,200 RM- 2,400 -- S. —• —•— —. RS. -7200- RM-2,400 S. 146^ ST. RM -2,400 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RM -2,40 RS-7,200 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RM -2,400 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RM -2,400 PARKS, PLANNING AND RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER JANUARY 31, 1989 - PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT: ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, ET AL NO.: 227 -88 -R PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.: 88 -19 I. GENERAL INFORMATION: OWNER: AGENT: Ernest R. Robertson, et al 4915 South 144th Street Seattle, WA 98166 Phone: 247 -2753 Gerald Schneider 6510 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: 248 -2471 REQUEST: RS -7200 (POTENTIAL RM 2400), RS -7200 and BN to RM 2400. LOCATION: Generally between South 144th Street and South 145th Street (if extended) and between 50th Avenue South (if extended), and 51st Avenue South. STR: SIZE: Agencies contacted: 22 -23 -04 Rezone 1.35 acres Washington State Department of Fisheries Washington State Department of Game Washington State Department Transportation Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Parks and Recreation Water District #125 Val Vue Sewer District King County Fire District No. 18 School District No. 406 METRO King County Traffic Division King County Health Department King County Parks and Natural Resources Division King County Planning and Community Development Division Tukwila Planning Department B. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The rezone_request request= is- _3- fo1d -: (a) from RS 7200 to RM 2400, (b) —R S 772Q0__(Potential - RM._.2.4.0.0)_to_RM_24.0.0 -,?and (c) BN to RM 2400 on a 1.35 acre site. The RS 7200 portion is 40,000 square feet; the RS 7200 (Potential RM 2400) portion is 7000 square feet, and the BN portion is 12,000 square feet. The rezone site would accommodate a portion of a proposed multifamily apartment project. The rezone site is adjacent to a 6.41 acre site which is currently zoned RM 2400, and part of the total (7.76 acres) project site. Approximately 139 dwelling units (du's) (11 buildings at 12 dwellings each, and one building at 6. dwellings each)are proposed for the total site. Density on the rezone site would be 17.78 du's /acre. Twentyone du's in 2 1/4 buildings would be constructed on the proposed rezone site, primarily on the existing RS 7200 portion of the site. Density on the rezone site would be 15.5 du's /acre. The applicants preliminary site plan shows no construction proposed for the existing BN zoned portion of the site, and a corner of an apartment building on the southwest corner of the potential RM 2400 portion of the site. 1 ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, et al NO.: 227 -88 -R 3. Fire Protection: Minimum fire flow requirements depend upon site topography, building type, and building materials. Mitigation measures (e.g. sprinklers, rated fire walls) may reduce minimum fire flow requirements (sprinklers are now required in multifamily structures per Ordinance 8737). Actual fire flow calculations are required by the Fire Protection Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Schools: The South Central School District (which administers schools in the area) was notified of the proposed rezone. The District stated (personal communication) that sidewalks should be required along the frontage of the subject property. Schowalter Middle School and Foster High School are located within 1/2 mile of the site, on South 144th Street. The District stated they had sufficient capacity to accommodate additional students from the proposal. B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: King County Code 21.49 (Road Adequacy Standards) does not require rezones to comply with Level -of- Service (LOS) standards. The standards, however, do not limit the authority of King County to deny or approve with conditions: A. Zone reclassification requests based on traffic impacts, or B. Proposed developments or zone reclassifications if King County determines a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare would result from direct traffic impacts without roadway or intersection improvements, regardless of LOS, or C. Proposed developments reviewed under the authority of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (Ord. 7544(12, 1986). The subject property fronts on 51st Avenue South and South 144th Street. The applicant proposes to vacate South 146th Street. Access is proposed from South 144th Street at the west end of the RS 7200 zoned portion of the site, and on 51st Avenue South where South 146th Street would be vacated. The applicant was requested to prepare a traffic analysis prior to the Divisions' SEPA determination. Specifically, the following roadways were reviewed for trip distribution and average daily traffic (ADT): 1. 53rd Avenue South to 52nd Place and 53rd Avenue South connection with 52nd Avenue South. 2. 52nd Avenue South /Interurban 3. south 144th Street /SR 99 4. South 133rd Street /SR 99 southbound off and on ramp. The applicant's study analyzed traffic impacts for the entire Applewood Apartments proposal (139 units) encompassing both the 1.35 acre rezone site and the 6.41 acres of RM 2400 zoned property included in the project. Trip generation was estimated at: Average weekday Daily Traffic A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound 850 trips per day 13 vehicles per hour 61 vehicles per hour 64 vehicles per hour 30 vehicles per hour The analysis concluded: 1) "inclusion of traffic generated by the project will not cause any significant lowering of the levels -of- service at the intersections studied," 2) the project would generate 850 additional vehicular trips per day with 94 in the evening peak hour, and 3) the new site access to be created 3 ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, et al NO.: 227 -88 -R 15.5 dus' per acre (RM2400 would allow up to 18 du's per acre). There are currently 3 single family residences on the subject property. b. R -208 Residential densities should be based on street access as follows: Residential development at 3 to 8 units per acre should be convenient to a neighborhood collector street; - Residential development at 8 to 12 units per acre should be convenient to a collector arterial; - Residential development at 12 to 18 units per acre should be convenient to a minor arterial; and - Residential development at 18 to 30 units or more per acre should be convenient to a principal arterial, unless it is within Urban Activity Centers, Community Centers, or Neighborhood centers where the area -wide pattern of roads and transit service provides adequate access. c. R -311 Where the allowed average density is three units per acre or greater (Urban Areas and Rural Activity Centers), residential development should include the following improvements: Paved streets, curbs, and sidewalks or paved sidewalks; Adequate off - street parking; - Street lighting; Adequate storm drainage control; Public water supply; and Sanitary sewers. COMMENT: The intent of policies R -208 and R -311 is to assure adequate public services for high density residential development in King County. The applicant proposes a density of 17.78 du's per acre. The King County Interim Transportation Plan designates both South 144th Street and 51st Avenue South, collector arterials. The nearest minor arterial is located approximately one mile west of 51st Avenue South, at Military Road. Public water and sewer are available to the site. Road improvements, off - street parking, street lighting, and storm drainage control could be required as P- suffix conditions. 2. Highline Community Plan - Policy H -10: "Provide for a range of housing densities, both single and multifamily." COMMENT: There are four policies (H -10, H -11, H -12, and H -13) in the Highline Community Plan which address multifamily housing. Policies H -11 through H -13 are concerned primarily with low- income housing. Policy H -10 is the only policy which does not address low income multifamily housing. The intent of the policy is to recognize the need for a variety of housing densities in the HCP area. The policy, however, provides no location criteria, nor does the text preceding the policy on page 28 of the HCP provide guidance as to where multifamily development should be located. The HCP does, however, note, under an objectives 5 ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, et al NO.: 227 -88 -R "B. In the review of a request for a zone reclassification, planned unit development, subdivision or unclassified use permit, the county finds that the request is inconsistent with an adopted community plan, but circumstances affecting the area in which the proposal is located may have undergone changes substantially and materially different from those anticipated or contemplated by the community plan, and that the impacts from the changed circumstances make consideration of a plan revision necessary. The applicant shall be denied without prejudice, or deferred at the request of the applicant until the Department of Planning and Community Development completes a study to determine the need for a plan revision and a plan revision, if any, is adopted by the council. "C. Issues of current concern to area residents or the county, including but not limited to: policy conflicts due to subsequent comprehensive plan amendments, regional service or facility needs, annexations or other circumstances not anticipated in the community plan make it necessary to consider a revision to one or more plans." KCC 20.24.180 Examiner findings. When the examiner renders a decision or recommendation, he shall make and enter findings of fact and conclusions from the record which support his decision, and the findings and conclusions shall set forth and demonstrate the manner in which the decision or recommendation is consistent with, carries out, and helps implement applicable state laws and regulations; and the regulations, policies, objectives, and goals of the comprehensive plan, the community plans, the sewerage general plan, the zoning code, the subdivision code, and other official laws, policies, and objectives of King County; and that the recommendation or decision will not be unreasonably incompatible with or detrimental to affected properties and the general public. (Ord. 4461 ( 9, 1979: Ord. 263 Art. 5 ( 14, 1969.) KCC 20.24.190 Additional examiner findings - Reclassifications and shoreline redesignations. When the examiner issues a recommendation regarding an application for a reclassification of property or for a shoreline environment redesignation, the recommendation shall include additional findings which support the conclusion that at least one of the following circumstances applies: A. The�property_is potentially - zoned -for the) Creclassification being requested and_ conditionshave been Curet. - which - indicate the reclassification -is- appropriate; Cor B. An adopted community plan or area zoning specifies that the property shall be subsequently considered through an individual reclassification application; or C. Where a community plan has been adopted but subsequent area zoning has not been adopted, that the proposed reclassification or shoreline redesignation is consistent with he adopted community plan; or D. The applicant has demonstrated with substantial evidence that: 1. Since the last previous area zoning or shoreline environment designation of the subject property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or other conditions or circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone substantial and material change not anticipated or contemplated in the community plan or area zoning; 7 ERNEST R. ROBERTSON, et al NO.: 227 -88 -R multifamily development north of South 144th street. Interstate 5 constitutes the east boundary of the neighborhood. Schowalter Middle School and Foster High School are located on South 144th Street within 1/2 mile of the subject site. E. The subject property is within the City of Tukwila's proposed annexation area. Boundary Review Board (BRB) approved a ballot measure for March 14, 1989. Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan and revised zoning designates the subject property low density residential (single family), medium density residential (multifamily 6 -16 du's per acre), and C -1 (neighborhood commercial). IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposal, although located in the Urban Area, is inconsistent with Policy R -204 which encourages the continuation of existing densities. The proposal is also, in large part, inconsistent with the Highline Communities Plan. That portion of the site which is zoned RS 7200 and BN without an accompanying potential is inconsistent with the Highline Communities Plan. 2. There is no evidence to suggest that since the last HCP area zoning, circumstances affecting the subject have undergone substantial material change not anticipated in the community plan. No basis exists, therefore, for approving the non - potential portions of the request. 3. A revision of the site plan will be required before the potential RM 2400 could be approved, and before a building permit could be issued on the remainder of the existing RM 2400 property. The question of access to the property is significant enough so as to call into question the practicability of the entire proposal. Access from South 144th Street is not allowed, and multiple access from 51st Avenue South is questionable because of steep slopes along the property's west side. Other internal traffic circulation considerations have to be made as well south of South 146th Street in order to provide for a better system for fire equipment. 4. rFor_that__portion of- the - subject _proper-ty_.which.__.is classified7 potential - RM 2400!,_ there .is_,.sufficient cdesign� and - site - plan - information- to- estab-l-ish-the L practicability of reclassifying the property to_RM_24001 Further site design and site plan information shall be required at the time of building permit submittal per KCC 21.46.200. B. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE RM 2400 -P on the RS 7200 (potential RM 2400) portion of the request. DENY the RS 7200 and BN portions of the request. GWM:GT:jf 1/17/89 TRANSMITTED to: Mr \Mrs. Burnham 14437 - 46th Avenue South, Seattle WA 98168 Mr. /Mrs. Walter Schmidt 4643 South 146th Street, Seattle WA 98168 R. J. Wilson 4642 South 146th, Seattle WA 98168 9 • APPLICANT: ERNE,ST R. ROBERTSON REQUEST: RS -7200 & B -N (potential RM -2400) to RM -2400 STR: NE 22 -23 -4 Yl l Proposed Reclassification 1 • RS1200 of I• W S-R ORD. No.1282 12 -17- P2 4 +0' S-R ST. a RS -7,200 S -2200 S: 14 OT"--L--ST.--A RN-2400 S. 142nd. ST. RS-7,200 RM -2400 14N% RS -7,200 •22 B -N RM- 2400 RS••7,200 RM -2,400 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RM -2,400 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RM -2,400 RS -7,200 RS -7,200 RM -2,400 U • • King County Building & land Development Division Parts, 'Planning and Resources Department • 3600.23Qh Place southeast Bellevue, Waahington 9eoo64400 November 2, 1988 Determination of Non - Significance Effective Determination Date: November 8, 1988 File: 88 -62 -C & 227 -88 -R Applewood Aptms Proponent: Roger H. Newell for Gerald E. Schneider 1102 19th Avenue East Seattle, WA 98112 322 -1192 Proposal Description: The construction of a 138 -unit apartments in 13 buildings, with a recreational unit in the RS- 7200($ingle- Family Residential)zone. A rezone of 1.35 acres from RS7200(single- Family Residential) and BN(Neighborhood Business) to RM2400 (Multiple Family) is requested. Seismic Sensitive soils are onsite. Location: Generally between S. 144th and 146th streets and 49th Ave. S., (if extended) and 51st Ave. S. STR: NE 22 -23 -04 Ring County and WSDOT have determined that no traffic mitigation is required of this development. This review is for the rezone & CUP only. At the Commercial Permit stage, there will be a SEPA review for water quality, land- scaping, aesthetics, pedestrian circulation, etc. The Building and Land Development Division has determined that the above proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environ- ment. An environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RWC 43. 21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen- tal checklist and other information on file at the Division's office. Any interested party may submit written comments on this proposal. Written comments or appeals will be accepted until November 23, 1988 Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. ALL APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON - REFUNDABLE $50.00 FILING FEE. • January 27, 1989 OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON NOTICE TO PARTIES OF RECORD AND ORDER ON MOTION ON APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS SUBJECT: JAN 3 01989 \ Building and Land Development File No. 88 -61 -V 88 -62 -C Applications for Reclassification, Variance and Conditional Use Permits; and Appeals of Threshold Determination of Environmental Nonsignificance Property located between South 144th and 146th Streets and 49th Avenue South (if extended) and 51st Avenue South (known as Applewood Apartments) Applications of Schneider Homes, Inc. and Ernest R. Robertson, et al.; Appeals of Hester Alliance; City of Tukwila and Tim and Linda Poge.ox, et al. Having considered the written and oral arguments of the appellant, Hestia Alliance, and having disclosed on the record the full extent of the Examiner's knowledge of the Hestia Alliance, the undersigned Zoning and Subdivision Examiner for King County declines to disqualify himself from hearing this matter due to either actual bias or violation of the "appearance of fairness" doctrine, and the appellant's motion that I do so is hereby denied. The public hearing previously scheduled on this matter is hereby continued to February 15, 1989, at 9:15 a.m., Hearing Room No. 2, King County Building and Land Development Division, 3600 - 136th Place Southeast, Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, at which time the Examiner will consider the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal of the Hestia Alliance for lack of standing, and other procedural issues. The public hearing will be reconvened February 17, 1989, at 9:15 a.m., Hearing Room No. 2, King County Building and Land Development Division, 3600 - 136th Place Southeast, Suite A, Bellevue, Washington, at which time it is anticipated the presentation of evidence will commence. Enclosed for the parties' information is a list of the criteria used by the Examiner in determining whether to conduct late afternoon and evening community public hearings. The Examiner intends to address the request for a community hearing on February 17, 1989. ORDERED this 27th day of January, 1989. es N. O'Connor oning and Subdivision Examiner 227 -88 -R Page 1 TRANSMITTED this 27th day of January, 1989, by certified mail, to the following parties of record: Craig Anderson Dale Becker Christopher Brown Mr. & Mrs. E. E. Burnham Donald Conner Mr. & Mrs. Phillip Efimenko Mr. & Mrs. Donald Gallacher Myrtle Granacki Ruth Reed Hoke Mauiets Larson Murrell & Donna Lee Mr. & Mrs. C. N. Malmberg Thomas & Donna Mauzeralle Scott Nangle Karen Pomeroy Mary Jane Purre Schneider Homes, Inc. City of Tukwila Wayne Weber R. J. Wilson Gerry & Paul Young Jerrill Anderson Lloyd & Emma Becker Erma Brown Mr. & Mrs. Clarence Carter, Jr. Knut & Helen Duzell Thomas E. Evans Edward Goodall Keith Hanson Shirley Jones Pat Larson Clint Lynch John Marchiando Kim Mummert Roger Newell Tim and Linda Popejoy Mr. & Mrs. Walter Schmidt Albert & Hilda Steidl Judy VanDeen Elizabeth Williams Richard Wilson TRANSMITTED this 27th day of January, 1989, to the following: Jerry Marbett, Manager, Land Use Controls Section, Building and Land Development Division Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical Services Section, Building and Land Development Division Al Smith, Technical Services Section, Building and Land Development Division Gordon Thomson, Land Use Controls Section, Building and Land Development Division Pat Downs, Technical Services Section, Building and Land Development Division Washington State Department of Transportation 3810D /JNO:ple ra /. 1) OFFICE OF THE RING COUNTY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER Criteria for Conducting Public Hearings at Locations Other than the King County Courthouse, and During Late Afternoon and Evening Hours A significant number of people would be able to attend in the evening at a community location, who could not attend during the day at the Courthouse. 2) Additional information could be made available to the Examiner and the Council if the hearing were conducted in the evening at a community location. 3) The information that could be entered into the public record through testimony of technical experts and County personnel would not be significantly reduced by removing the hearing from the Courthouse. 4) A convenient and suitable facility is available for the hearing at reasonable cost and without undue delay. 5) The required County participants can be available without serious disruption to the performance of their other duties, or unreasonable costs to the County. 6) The hearing concerns a matter of major community interest, rather than one of concern primarily to the immediate neighbors, (e.g., a major shopping center, community facility, or planning issue, rather than an administrative issue related to the technical review of a proposal). 7) The energy resources which would be necessarily expended for the community hearing are not substantially greater than those which would be expended for a hearing conducted at the Courthouse. d£ On /U aaS AV HESV f 9 AV Hag£ AV S AV H14£ EienrI�A, *mac �� a y 9ArHU= s nr � rI' —°o 'S: sA.Has �• x� spry AV aa£Z a S AV oa 5 �- N EZ y z S AV aH22 g �bI $ nV 1sIZ �'�1SlL r< N ® ®�® N Nf::.Ar HIES 1 �� M N H102� a OZ ® � RiplE_f .� mr""L,' Hi81 2b/S .xitP— �i9T — .H191 s ,d w n aS/ S3NION S3BF, o HIV! I H11 N ��111 IAV .i0I a II ... i AV HI s N 3 n N AV z w101 101 y � - Ha8 AV 9 AV 1419 N HISS HlSt .. '' MB rzz Fz�i MS AVN __-.- r� MS AV ��,$yH19m, ���� } a2 t22 22 NP;. o rrual,. .��$ J �; y py ®t1 sfA .EPSO. ¢ C °fl r - 19 • :17 rci �,�, MSc A_ nV _ ,.% y Ai 1.1 ®'il�� xH101 e z �f( � c HHlIII ° °� WG=� `r itliil 111111111E • --r Nltl �w �i�'a~ rb AV - � MERE BL ` 'MIETALLIming. v.1Vi € ti ,_= MS =�— 3 � 14151 1 MS ®® P °`�I V u Of laillialiiirtalleirillEJEMS Plis 3 e H qi. I. �� �_�_� mu • SE •otlrl' yyyy �,i.�N Hlll AV "' w +H_ 1'ut1 Y� . _ 14121 1.2 ' r Hln` F I io �'p��p I R'; 7_- -7i Ma AV 14121 'ti • it �1 MS .0., r AV ; „a:;•.�S r.':-.:-I,; N - © I�I� N� ,0� {nT j�fl ` �'p�51� IJ6Z (J • "' r r 14191 At MSA . O Q i- r I MS MS AV N S _- !• f .t MS AVHISI_ . _ �. AV 14191 ��� 1 2 1 2 1 _ (�_r-�I AV �F,� 196 x M ®10I ,i MS En I _ A • MS MS AV .•: Ms Ar IH. f, , � Ma}'c� 1DC '�J ; ,A, v -ti Sy., i p" i •q1 ..• % i6A1 C® q1' •C. -, C. •;y _ .:.1, _ ,' Sr .�3PQ o■ 2 't.0' ©fr r4 - �.MS m _= g -E MS 'AV z O Hall N1BI �_ = ��� MS AV .161 m 'Y N )p -._ _ r @� _ �� 1 r•. rL. u A - aHR.�. [. —._.. ~- N �'@ SSI"s _.i� ' .i -- o ) d � ; 3'Yyn/ ¢ -. ND AV Sr Mi �: mo , • :[✓9 l] .r i .•:r:: ��b¢.__-- N1w �� -+w ._.._�y/Q4'l. n L' A'666 /s cr) /e/ ei/ex--62 O + SUBJECT MESSAGE DATE i XV/d(h0? c ii ibkoino _senlx 4 ) Yie- a/4/3/79/-a-taL.- , a1;V7,,a --rx /, 64I7 /CA ,,I1A ?-()/COs 'A gore dihaz/ ,, _/9-',..r i:`9 =7V2 2f/2 A}.-- _42/7 � / is 4,92&___--4--,----/ 2/-a4-; L REPLY SIGNED SIGNED DATE / / • REDIFORM, as 472 SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 INTACT - PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW -UP POLY PAK (50 -SETS) 4P472 City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 TO: CARL BLOSS FROM: MOIRA CARR BRADSHAW DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1988 SUBJECT : APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS REGARDING YOUR PROJECT. WE DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL BUT HOPE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE AND HELPFUL. WE MAKE THESE SUGGESTIONS BECAUSE NEW VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WILL AFFECT EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THE PROJECT WILL ALSO CREATE NEW RECREATIONAL AND SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 1. 0 PROTEST LID AGREEMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR 51ST AVENUE S. BETWEEN S. 144TH STREET AND S. 154TH STREET. IN LIEU OF IMMEDIATE CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK ALONG 51ST AVENUE S. , A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY WOULD BE MORE ECONOMICAL UNTIL FULL STREET IMPROVEMENT. A "NO PARKING" ZONE SHOULD BE IN PLACE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 51ST AVENUE S. TO ALLOW USE OF THE ASPHALT PEDESTRIAN PATH. THIS PATHWAY WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF THE STREET TREATMENT FOR MACADAM ROAD NORTH OF 144TH STREET. 2. IF WITHIN 5 YEARS, THE LID IS NOT READY TO BE FORMED; THE DEVELOPER SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THEIR RATIO OF PEDESTRIAN AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF 51ST AVENUE S. THE RATIO SHOULD BE DETERMINED AT BUILDING PERMIT STAGE BASED ON THE RATIO OF PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC TO EXISTING 51ST AVENUE S. TRAFFIC. 3. THE EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 144TH STREET SHOULD BE. CONTINUED ALONG ANY PROPERTY FRONTAGE ON 144TH STREET. 4. CONTACT WITH METRO SHOULD BE MADE REGARDING THE TRANSIT ROUTE AND BUS STOP ON 144TH AND MACADAM, CATERCORNER FROM THE PROJECT. IS A BUS SHELTER WARRANTED AT THE STOP? 5. FINALLY, VACATION OF 146TJY STREET IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY HAVE MANY VALUABLE USES INCLUDING OPEN SPACE, PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEMS, UTILITY EASEMENTS AND FUTURE EAST /WEST ACCESS. WE FEEL THESE SUGGESTIONS WILL PROTECT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND LEAD TO AN OVERALL ENHANCEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IN TURN WILL BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF YOUR PROJECT. 19.10/030 1250 * *50.00 TO THE TREASURER OF City of Tukwila :::;) TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 99159 PEOPLES NATIONAL SANK OP WASHINGTON SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 9.ISS CLAIMS FUND NO. WARRANT DOLLARS AND NO CENTS KING COUNTY CtT'r TLIKIANJ A City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 3600 - 136TH PLACE S.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA OFFICIAL Re,d.-Lc.f )a,� UL tAc& + 4.16 CITY OF TUKWILA TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DOCUMENT NUMBER ,DOCUMENT` DATE IRCHA$E ' NUMBI COMMENT LOSS AMOUNT AMOUNT NET AMOUNT 11/22/88 FILING FEE 88 -62 -C & 227 -88 -R 11/22/88 WARRANT TOTAL 50.00 50.00 50.00 CODE FOR TYPE: I - INVOICE C - CREDIT EMO - DEBIT MEMO P CONTRACTS PAVABt-E-: • w "A wq City of Tukwila Z PLANNING DEPARTMENT -4 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 November 21, 1988 King County Building and Land Development Division 3600 136th Place SE Bellevue, Washington 98006 Subject - File: 88 -62 -C & 227 -88 -R Dear SEPA Official: The City of Tukwila appeals the Determination of Non - Significance issued on November 8, 1988 on the above project. We understand that no traffic mitigation is being required on the rezone from RS -7200 to RM -2400 of 1.35 acres of land abutting 144th Street. We feel the likely traffic impacts on 51st Avenue S., which is sub - standard for a majority of its length, will have significant impact. The majority of southerly access to the parcel will be along 51st Avenue S. and therefore should be addressed. Yours truly, Moira Carr Bradshaw Enclosure SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. /4 g(O AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.14.330, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KNOWN AS THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA. On , 1988, the City Council of the City of Tukwila passed 0 dinanc ?No. l i4glp , which provides as follows: Amends the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area known as the Thorndyke Annexation Area and establishes an effective date. The full text of this ordinance will be mailed without charge to anyone who submits a written request to the City Clerk of the City of Tukwila for a copy of the text. APPROVED by the City Council at their meeting of , 1988. NE ANDERSON, CITY CLERK F1417 Its 1, : Ir News - 7 3359C2/ 392A ! /-/g- sr CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. /14e6 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ENACTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.14.330, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE POLICY PLAN MAP FOR THE AREA DESCRIBED LYING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND KNOWN AS THE THORNDYKE ANNEXATION AREA. WHEREAS, it is reasonable to expect that the hereinafter described area, at some future time, will be annexed to the City of Tukwila, and WHEREAS, said area is within the City's planning area and therefore subject to the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and Plan Map, and WHEREAS, a petition has been filed proposing annexation of said area and petitioners have requested Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map amendments, and WHEREAS, the SEPA responsible official made a determination of nonsignificance, and WHEREAS, the planning staff held land use meetings in the community, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing August 30, 1988, and on September 8, 1988 recommended amending the existing Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the area, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Tukwila held two public hearings on September 12 and October 17, 1988 to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the comments of all those wishing to be heard, NOW, THEREFORE, THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map for the property known as Thorndyke Annexation Area as described in attached Exhibit A is hereby amended as shown on the map which is attached as Exhibit B. Section 2. A certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the King County Department of Records and Elections. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in force and effect five days after publication of the attached Summary which is hereafter approved. TON, this ')/t7- PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, day of , 1988. ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: I RK EANDERSON APPRO OFFIC$ By AS TO FO F HE CI //.tLAA FI. D WITH T u CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: //- 7- 54' PUBLISHED: //-/2-71" EFFECTIVE DATE: 1/-.t3-1i18 ORDINANCE NO.: / 4/ P6 A • 335.9C2/392A ,a4/ _� R, 'G.' VAN DUSEN 765ev/AZ:64-701. ._'/ lc; ,;14/'/L,4 ,+44)g. M 4 suBJEcT,/,./razli derW7 . DATE ,/7 !- MESSAGE 41 Le7)7 a'44,e///ki(w /M7e csoleOneetc% aodr,ia-b-'62 5 _71 7,'nk- ,a1V-e5b1)-7 //0-, /de. Laabee eiV6/ g/la e al/) td lie dtv*.zr1 IfI"-%/2)0,41 dzk,0_4c../7 2;5.z$ SIGNEDAWWY ; REPLY King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600. 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 November 2, 1988 Determination of Non - Significance 1 NOV 221988 LA Effective Determination Date: November 8, 1988 File: 88 -62 -C & 227 -88 -R Applewood Aptms Proponent: Roger H. Newell for Gerald E. Schneider 1102 19th Avenue East Seattle, WA 98112 322 -1192 Proposal Description: 0 -I The construction of a 138 -unit apartments in 13 buildings, with a recreational unit in the RS- 7200(Single- Family Residential)zone. A rezone of 1.35 acres from RS7200(single- Family Residential) and BN(Neighborhood Business) to RM2400 (Multiple Family) is requested. Seismic Sensitive soils are onsite. Location: Generally between S. 144th and 146th streets and 49th Ave. S., (if extended) and 51st Ave. S. STR: NE 22 -23 -04 King County and WSDOT have determined that no traffic mitigation is required of this development. This review is for the rezone & CUP only. At the Commercial Permit stage, there will be a SEPA review for water quality, land- scaping, aesthetics, pedestrian circulation, etc. The Building and Land Development Division has determined that the above proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environ- ment. An environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RWC 43. 21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmen- tal checklist and other information on file at the Division's office. Any interested party may submit written comments on this proposal. Written comments or appeals will be accepted until November 23, 1988 Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. ALL APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON - REFUNDABLE $50.00 FILING FEE. • Page 2 FILE: 88 -62 -C & Comments or appeals should be addressed to: King County Building and Land Development Division 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA Center Phone: (206) 296 -6662 PLEASE REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS WHEN CORRESPONDING. Responsible Official () Washington State Department of Transportation Ds:,,ct 1 15325 S E 30th Place Beuev:,e. Washmgtor 98007.6568 (206) 562.4000 October 10, 1988 t3 Af t•2l Duane Berentson Secre:a•r Mr. Pat Downs Building and Land Development 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Mr. Downs: I. 1 SR 99 MP 21.1 Vic. CS 1732 Traffic Impact Analysis For Applewood Apartments • This letter is in response to the traffic impact analysis that we received for the subject development located between 46th Avenue South and 51st Avenue South, west of SR 5, and south of South 144th Street. We have reviewed the submitted traffic study and have the following comments: 1. A LOS of D or better is recognized as acceptable by the Department. Proposed developments that decrease the LOS of state roadways to E or lower are encouraged to include mitigation measures. 2. The LOS at the intersection of SR 99 /South 144th Street for buildout of the project is acceptable. No mitigation is required of this development. Should you have any questions, please contact Donald Hurter (562 -4274) or Phillip Riggins (562 -4298) of my Developer Section. PR:jjk m2.wk3 Sincerely, J ES L. LUTZ, P ilities /Developer Engineer • Christopher brown pe N OV 291988 9688 rainier avenue & attie washin ton 7234567 x•.118 APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS TRAFFIC STUDY for a 139 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX in central King County for Schneider Homes, Inc. September 21, 1988 • Table of Contents APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS TRAFFIC STUDY Introduction Purpose Location Scope Adjacent Land Uses Traffic Characteristics Trip Generation Assignment Horizon Year Traffic Levels of Service Adverse Consequences Conclusions List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 List of Tables Vicinity Map Current (1988) Traffic Volumes Project Trip Distribution Horizon Year (1989) Traffic Volumes With Project Table I Trip Generation Table II Traffic Growth Rates Table III Levels of Service Appendix Computer data Input and Results 1. 1. 1. 3. 3. 3. 5. 5. 5. 8. 9. 9. 2. 4. 6. 7. 5. 8. 8. APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS • TRAFFIC STUDY for a 139 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX in central King County for Schneider Homes, Inc. Introduction The implementation of a multi family residential development will introduce additional vehicular traffic onto the adjacent arterial street system. If the additional traffic volumes are large or if the current arterial street system is at or near its' capacity, it may be necessary to implement appropriate mitigating measures to ensure that the carrying capacity of the system is not compromised. Alternatively, if current levels of congestion are severe, it may be appropriate to participate, with others, in funding remedial improvement projects so that site generated traffic may be safely accommodated on the street system. purpose The purpose of this study is to obtain current traffic volume data on the adjacent arterial street system serving the Applewood Apartments, to identify a growth factor for including background traffic growth, to define and assign site generated traffic, to identify current levels of service (LOS) on the arterial system and then complete the study by identifying the future levels of service (LOS) given the completion of the development. Location The location of the project is to the south of South 144th Street and to the west of 51st Avenue South. The site is shown on Figure 1, Vicinity Map. -1- christopher Brown 9688 rainier avenue s Battle washin • ton j tel:7234567 x•:118 . • 40 Fs • N N •n TJ UI N k N IOW s1 E • �LtSJN �i 5 1241. 5, rc gam f 116 122 "O N N \'1,i.,. `' } i sT �.. A. > N ST 4 a = 124r.' 5 S 1 ?9r4 o �I `+ n y . ..,t. 1 1. 7ATN,1T 7N 1117 30 " iO;ST • sitt is 9 LANGSTON • RD S EIWV;; 11E Ij TNs ENO1•G NNB 'PO t•R i73.D e 4 1441 $T 1 S 154T14 ST ��La .� •. it 1• 1 ALT 17517. '. wy s L _ 1'3 ti RIVER�`�"" -'� VOCT[. -�'�� 14310 J S 11. TI E '/' 1 INMA INTERNATIONAL I AIRPORT :I t S'.4-TAU I' 11 1 D II 11 —2— MUM 4' ®ei67TM T wuE L ST 17tTN' 1 T eT Figure 1 Vicinity Map 26 14641 TN LAU.1LN=T [pip UPLAND OR Y47dtl0. christopher Brown pe 9688 rainier avenue a &cattle washin •ton to : 7234567 " •:118 • • Scope For the purposes of this study, the horizon year for the project, or the year of full occupancy is 1989 with the scope limited to 139 apartment units. Adjacent Land Uses The adjacent land uses are a mix of single family homes and small commercial businesses. The major neighborhood and regional shopping centers are situated to the south, at the Southcenter Mall, and to the west along SR 99. This project, insofar as the immediate land uses are concerned, continues the same general land uses found in the general area and will, consequently, be in harmony with the neighborhood as it has developed. Essentially, this is not a conflicting development. Traffic Characteristic Current (mid- September) traffic data was obtained in the field for the afternoon peak hour periods at the intersections of S. 144th Street with 53rd Avenue S., 51st Avenue S., and SR 99. Traffic data for 52nd Avenue S. at Interurban Avenue S. was also obtained in the field. The p.m. peak hour is the largest and, as a consequence, is used as the "design hour" of the project. Current evening peak hour data is shown on Figure 2, entitled Current Traffic Volumes. Average daily traffic data (A.D.T.) is from the files of the King County Traffic Engineering Division and WSDOT. Traffic observations did not indicate significant pedestrian traffic at the intersections observed by this firm. Truck volumes at the intersections of S. 144th Street /SR 99 and 52nd Avenue S. /Interurban Avenue S. was significant. Intersection geometrics and traffic stream composition, as well as peak hour turning movement volumes, can be found as part of the input section of computer analysis in the appendix. -3- Christopher brown pc 9688 rainier avenue s. 8cattle Washin •ton LCI:7234567 x•:118 • \19\ r,((k 3 0 n. 20 - A.D.T. 53rd Avenue S. 53 xxx - P.M. Peak Hour Volume • poseemoim us< { 2Z20) 51st Avenue S. 14 7 14 / Figure 2 Current (1988) Traffic Volumes -4- christopher Brown pe-- 9688 rainier avenue s. &cattle washin •ton tel: 7234567 •:118 / Trip Generation Trip generation for the project is based on generation rates published in Trip Generation, An Informational Report, 4th edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. For this land use, Land Use Code 220 for apartments is used. The expected trip production is noted below in Table I. TABLE I Trip Generation Applewood Apartments A.W.D.T.* A.M. inbound A.M. outbound P.M. inbound P.M. outbound .8.19._ Trips per day 13 vehicles per hour 61 vehicles per hour 64 vehicles per hour 30 vehicles per hour * Average Weekday Daily Traffic Assignment Traffic assignment is based on employment projections for the Puget Sound region as published in Population and Employment Forecasts, 1984 by the Puget Sound Council of. Governments and locations of the major shopping opportunities in the area. The PSCOG document predicts employment demands for the South King County area. By using the employment data and shopping center locations along with expected travel routes a distribution model was developed as shown in Figure 3, Project Trip Distribution. Horizon Year Traffic The horizon year for this project, as noted earlier, is assumed to be 1989. The background growth rate for the roadways in the vicinity of the project are from historical traffic volume data as supplied by King County and W.S.D.O.T. These growth rates are summarized in Table II, on the following page. With background traffic and project traffic, the latter being distributed to the network in accordance with Figure 3, Figure 4, 1989 Traffic Volumes With Project is derived. Figure 4 is used for the capacity analysis with the project in place. -5- Christopher Brown p� 9688 rainier avenue a cattle washin • ton te1:7234567 '•:118 • Figure 3 Project Trip Distribution Christopher brown 9688 rainier avenue s &cattle washin • ' ton j to : 7234567 •:118 A.D.T. • 53rd Avenue S. -r 64 )1 xxx - P.M. Peak Hour Volume • ,47 �9 �55 51st Avenue S. 5° 57 SR 99 Figure 4 Horizon Year (1989) Traffic Volumes With Project -7- christopher brown pc 9688 rainier avenue s. seattle washin•xton teI :7234567 •:118 Table II Traffic Growth Rates South 144th Street Highway 99 Interurban Avenue S. Levels of Service 2.1 percent per year 2.4 percent per year 1.4 percent per year The Level of Service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, 'A', usually denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest of worst level 'F'. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one where traffic is severely constrained. It is usually denoted by "jam" conditions and attendant long traffic delays. Capacity computations were performed in accordance with Special Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2 published by Roger Creighton and Associates. Signalized intersection analysis was done with the "Operations and Design" methods which are more rigorous than the "Planning" method. STOP sign controlled intersections used parameters for arterial roads with speeds under 35 m.p.h. and populations over 250,000. The intersection of 51st Avenue South /South 144th Street is a four way STOP controlled intersection. The level of service for this intersection is calculated based upon approach volume splits and the intersection capacity as shown in the Highway Capacity Manual, page 10 -14. As mentioned earlier, all input data is listed in the appendix, . along with computer output. Levels of service for both conditions, Current traffic and Horizon Year traffic with project are shown in Table III, below. -8- TABLE III 1,evels of Service Intersection Interurban Ave. S. /52nd Ave. S. SR 99/S. 144th Street 53rd Ave. S. /S. 144th Street 51st Ave. S. /S. 144th Street Site Access /51st Ave. S. Current Horizon Year Year With Project A B A A A A C A A A Christopher brown lit 9688 rainier avenue s. scattle washin ton Lei: 7234%7 x•.118 Adverse Consequences The inclusion of traffic generated by the project will not cause any significant lowering of the level's of service at the intersections studied. Generally, adequate geometrics and signal timings exist to allow the additional traffic to be accommodated without capacity problems. Therefore, level's of service remain acceptable. No adverse consequences are anticipated to be associated with the subject proposal. Conclusions The following conclusions may be drawn. -9- 1. The project will generate about 850 additional vehicular trips per day with 94 of these taking place in the evening peak hour. 2. The inclusion of the project's traffic will not alter the current levels of service at the key intersections studied. 3. The new site access to be created from 51st Avenue South will have an acceptable level of service with no revision in the current geometrics of South 144th Street. christopher brown 9688 minier BVenue a €attle waihln • ' ton te:7234567 •:118 // File Number Current Year APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS TRAFFIC STUDY Appendix Intersection APLWDO1 Interurban Ave. S. /52nd Ave. S. APLWDO2 SR 99/S. 144th Street APLWDO3 53rd Ave. S. /S. 144th Street Horizon Year With Project APLWD11 Interurban Ave. S. /52nd Ave. S. APLWD12 SR 99/S. 144th Street APLWD13 53rd Ave. S. /S. 144th Street APLWD14 Site Access /51st Ave. S. 9/15/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/15/1988 INTERSECTION APLWDO1 411033 SB TOTAL 650 50 v 567 N INTERSECTION : 52ND AVENUE S. @ W -+- E INTERURBAN AVENUE S WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 CBD ?N S ACTUATED SIGNAL APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS APLWDO1 INTERURBAN AVENUE S N/S STREET 2 1 v *> 1 - - -* v •2ND AVENUE S. E/W STREET 38 ^ EB TOTAL 86 14 34 v i 1 2 INTERURBAN AVENUE S N/S STREET T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE ^ 31 - -- - -- ---- - - -- . EB -4 0 N 0 0 0.86 5 Y 21.0 3 WB TOTAL WB 0 8 N 0 0 0.96 5 Y 21.0 3 18 88 NB 0 7 N 0 0 0.93 5 Y 10.5 3 < SB 0 10 N 0 0 0.91 5 Y 15.0 3 39 v 52ND AVENUE S. E/W STREET 843 20 NB' TOTAL 921 58 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 38 14 34 LT 1 12.0 R 1 14.0 WB 39 18 31 LTR 1 13.0 NB 20 843 58 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 SB 50 567 33 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R - -- - - -- - --- -- --- EB 1 LT R LR 15 85 WB 1 LTR LR 15 85 NB 2 L TR LR 85 15 SB 2 L TR LR 85 15 PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/15/1988 PAGE 2 APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS APLWDO1 INTERSECTION : 52ND AVENUE S. @ INTERURBAN AVENUE S WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C "'- + --- - --- APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB LT 52 60 1.00 60 0.74 0.00 - -- - -- - - -- R 34 40 1.00 40 0.00 1.00 EB LT 60 0 1726 0.035 N 0.150 259 0.232 WB 410 LTR 88 92 1.00 92 0.44 0.35 R 40 0 1670 0.024 N 0.150 250 0.160 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : 52ND AVENUE S. @ INTERURBAN AVENUE S WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL 9/15/1988 APLWDO1 C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S WB LTR 92 0 1498 0.061 Y 0.150 225 0.409 NB L 20 22 1.00 22 1.00 0.00 TR 901 969 1.00 969 0.00 0.06 NB L 22 0 768 0.029 N 0.850 653 0.034 SB L 50 55 1.00 55 1.00 0.00 TR 969 0 3457 0.280 Y 0.850 2938 0.330 TR 600 659 1.00 659 0.00 0.06 SB L 55 0 467 0.118 N 0.850 397 0.139 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W TR 659 0 3421 0.193 N 0.850 2908 0.227 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.341 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 6 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.363 IDEAL fi OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW L E V E L OF S E R V I C E EB LT 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1726 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP R 1800 1 1.07 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1670 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS - -- --- --- - -- -- - -- WB LTR 1800 1 1.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.98 1498 EB LT 0.232 0.150 100 28.4 259 0.1 0.85 24.2 C R 0.160 0.150 100 28.1 250 0.0 0.85 23.9 C 23.8 C NB L 1800 1 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 768 WB LTR 0.409 0.150 100 29.2 225 0.7 0.85 25.4 D 24.9 C TR 1800 2 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 3457 SB 4110 1800 1 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 467 NB L 0.034 0.850 100 0.9 653 0.0 0.85 0.8 A 1800 2 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 3421 TR 0.330 0.850 100 1.2 2938 0.0 0.85 1.0 A 1.0 A SB L 0.139 0.850 100 1.0 397 0.0 0.85 0.8 A TR 0.227 0.850 100 1.1 2908 0.0 0.85 0.9 A 0.9 A INTERSECTION DELAY : 3.4 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : A 9/15/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION APLWD02 SB TOTAL 1137 92 i 101 v 944 1 - - *> v 411! 144TH STREET E/W STREET 82 ^ EB TOTAL 414 i" 257 75 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/15/1988 APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS APLWD02 N INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ W -+- E SR 99 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 CBD ?N S ACTUATED SIGNAL SR 99 N/S STREET 1 2 1 > SR 99 N/S STREET v T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds/hr) Y/N SEC TYPE • 32 --- - - -- -- -- - - -- - - -- • EB 1 1 N 0 0 0.92 5 Y 21.0 3 WB TOTAL WB 4 1 N 0 0 0.87 0 Y 21.0 3 259 346 NB -2 3 N 0 0 0.92 0 Y 14.0 3 < SB 2 2 N 0 0 0.98 0 Y 14.0 3 55 v S. 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 1 v 524 144 46 NB TOTAL 714 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 82 257 75 L 1 12.0 TR 1 15.0 WB 55 259 32 L 1 11.0 TR 1 12.0 NB 144 524 46 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 11.0 SB 101 944 92 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 11.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R - -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- EB 1 L TR LR 40 60 WB 1 L TR LR 40 60 NB 2 L L 14 86 NB 3 T R R 46 54 SB 2 L L 14 86 SB 3 T R R 46 54 PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 ACTUATED SIGNAL CBD ? N 9/15/1988 APLWD02 APPROACH LANE GROUP MVM VOLUME EB WB • NB SB L 82 TR 332 V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T FLOW RATE LANE UTIL IN GROUP FACTOR 89 361 1.00 1.00 ADJ FLOW RATE 89 361 PROP OF TURNS LT RT 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 L 55 63 1.00 63 1.00 0.00 TR 291 334 1.00 334 0.00 0.11 L T R L T R 144 524 46 101 944 92 157 570 50 103 963 94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 157 570 50 103 963 94 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL 1/ OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 882 TR 1800 1 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1901 WB L 1800 1 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 787 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1729 NB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 1800 1 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1484 SB il, 1800 1 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1676 T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3528 R 1800 1 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1455 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 ACTUATED SIGNAL CBD ? N 9/15/1988 APLWD02 CAPACITY A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 89 0 882 0.101 N 0.400 353 0.252 TR 361 0 1901 0.190 N 0.400 760 0.475 WB L 63 0 787 0.080 N 0.400 315 0.200 TR 334 0 1729 0.193 Y 0.400 692 0.483 NB L 157 T 570 R 50 SB L 103 T 963 R 94 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : O 1710 0.092 Y 0.140 O 3600 0.158 N 0.460 O 1484 0.034 N 0.460 O 1676 0.061 N 0.140 O 3528 0.273 Y 0.460 O 1455 0.065 N 0.460 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.613 239 1656 683 235 1623 669 RATIOS 0.657 0.344 0.073 0.438 0.593 0.141 : 0.558 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY EB L 0.252 0.400 100 15.2 353 0.1 TR 0.475 0.400 100 16.9 760 0.4 WB L 0.200 0.400 100 14.9 315 0.0 TR 0.483 0.400 100 17.0 692 0.4 NB L 0.657 0.140 100 31.0 239 4.4 T 0.344 0.460 100 13.2 1656 0.1 R 0.073 0.460 100 11.5 683 0.0 SB L 0.438 0.140 100 29.9 235 0.9 T 0.593 0.460 100 15.2 1623 0.4 R 0.141 0.460 100 11.8 669 0.0 LN GR LN GR APP APP PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 0.85 13.0 B 0.85 14.7 B 0.85 12.7 B 0.85 14.8 B 1.00 35.4 D 0.85 11.3 B 0.85 9.8 B 1.00 30.8 D 0.85 13.3 B 0.85 10.0 B 14.3 B 14.4 B 16.1 C 14.6 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 14.9 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B 9/19/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION APLWD03 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ 53RD AVENUE S. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1988 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N 9/19/1988 APLWD03 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE SB TOTAL - -- - -- 74 EB 2 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 I 1 WB 4 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 i i SB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 57 i 17 V G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S 0 LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT 'TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD 53RD AVENUE S. N/S STREET 53 ^ EB TOTAL 204 151 • 1 25 EB 53 151 0 LT 2 24.0 WB 0 154 25 TR 2 24.0 WB TOTAL SB 17 0 57 LR 1 12.0 154 179 S. 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 2 S. 144TH STREET E/W STREET • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/19/1988 APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS APLWD03 INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ 53RD AVENUE S. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAR HOUR 1988 UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST CBD ?N U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S APP CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB 5.00 WB SB 6.50 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 53 43 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 WB 0 89 0 0 65 25 0 0 0 SB 17 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP EB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR. STREET - EB/WB LANE 1 938 A 831 A LANE 2 LANE 3 9/19/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION APLWD11 SB TOTAL 677 51 i 51 v 575 v •2N0 AVENUE S. E/W STREET 48 ^ • EB TOTAL 100 14 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS N INTERSECTION : 52ND AVENUE S. @ W - +- E INTERURBAN AVENUE S WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N S ACTUATED SIGNAL INTERURBAN AVENUE S N/S STREET 1 2 INTERURBAN AVENUE S 9/19/1988 APLWD11 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE ^ 31 - -- - -- - --- - - -- ■ EB -4 0 N 0 0 0.86 5 Y 21.0 3 WB TOTAL WB 0 8 N 0 0 0.96 5 Y 21.0 3 18 89 NB 0 7 N 0 0 0.93 5 Y 10.5 3 < SB 0 10 N 0 0 0.91 5 Y 15.0 3 40 v 52ND AVENUE S. E/W STREET 22 855 N/S STREET NB TOTAL 38 936 v 59 .> G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 48 14 38 LT 1 12.0 R 1 14.0 WE 40 18 31 LTR 1 13.0 NB 22 855 59 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 SB 51 575 51 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R --- - --- - - -- -- - -- EB 1 LT R LR 15 85 WB 1 LTR LR 15 85 NB 2 L TR LR 85 15 SB 2 L TR LR 85 15 PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 9/19/1988 APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS APLWD11 INTERSECTION : 52ND AVENUE S. @ INTERURBAN AVENUE S WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : 52ND AVENUE S. @ INTERURBAN AVENUE S WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL 9/19/1988 APLWD11 C A P A C I T Y ANA L Y S I S APPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB LT 62 72 1.00 72 0.77 0.00 --- --- • R 38 44 1.00 44 0.00 1.00 EB LT 72 0 1707 0.042 N 0.150 256 0.281 R 44 0 1670 0.026 N 0.150 250 0.176 WB LTR 89 93 1.00 93 0.45 0.35 WB LTR 93 0 1467 0.063 Y 0.150 220 0.423 NB L 22 24 1.00 24 1.00 0.00 TR 914 983 1.00 983 0.00 0.06 NB L 24 0 751 0.032 N 0.850 638 0.038 TR 983 0 3457 0.284 Y 0.850 2938 0.335 SB L 51 56 1.00 56 1.00 0.00 TR 626 688 1.00 688 0.00 0.08 SB L 56 0 449 0.125 N 0.850 382 0.147 TR 688 0 3421 0.201 N 0.850 2908 0.237 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.347 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 6 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.369 IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW L E V E L OF S E R V I C E - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- EB LT 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1707 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP R 1800 1 1.07 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1670 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS WB LTR 1800 1 1.03 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.96 1467 EB LT 0.281 0.150 100 28.7 256 0.2 0.85 24.6 C R 0.176 0.150 100 28.2 250 0.0 0.85 24.0 C 24.2 C NB L 1800 1 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 751 WB LTR 0.423 0.150 100 29.3 220 0.8 0.85 25.6 D 25.1 D 1800 2 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 3457 SB 0 1800 1 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 449 NB L 0.038 0.850 100 0.9 638 0.0 0.85 0.8 A TR 1800 2 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 3421 TR 0.335 0.850 100 1.2 2938 0.0 0.85 1.0 A 1.0 A SB L 0.147 0.850 100 1.0 382 0.0 0.85 0.8 A TR 0.237 0.850 100 1.1 2908 0.0 0.85 0.9 A 0.9 A INTERSECTION DELAY : 3.5 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : A 9/19/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION APLWD12 SB TOTAL 1168 107 v 967 SR 99 N/S STREET 1 2 1 <* V *> CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N ACTUATED SIGNAL 9/19/1988 APLWD12 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE 35 - -- --- - --- - --- - --- 1 EB -1 1 N 0 0 0.92 5 Y 21.0 3 WB TOTAL WB 4 1 N 0 0 0.87 0 Y 21.0 3 273 365 NB -2 3 N 0 0 0.92 0 Y 14.0 3 < SB 2 2 N 0 0 0.98 0 Y 14.0 3 57 v S. 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 1 *- -- 1 v S I G N A L PHA S I N G A APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R \/ - -- ---- - --- -- - -- 1 - - -* EB 1 L TR LR 40 60 WB 1 L TR LR 40 60 NB 2 L L 14 86 1 - - *> NB 3 T R R 46 54 v SB 2 L L 14 86 SB 3 T R R 46 54 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP ' LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 84 279 77 L 1 12.0 TR 1 15.0 WB 57 273 35 L 1 11.0 TR 1 12.0 NB 148 537 50 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 11.0 SB 107 967 94 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 11.0 III144TH STREET E/W STREET 84 ^ EB TOTAL 440 279 SR 99 1 2 1 537 148 i 50 N/S STREET NB TOTAL 77 735 v PAGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL 9/19/1988 APLWD12 APPROACH LANE GROUP MVM VOLUME EB WB NB SB • L 84 TR 356 L TR L T R L T R V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T FLOW RATE IN GROUP 91 387 LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW FACTOR RATE 1.00 91 1.00 387 PROP OF TURNS LT RT 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 57 66 1.00 66 1.00 0.00 308 354 1.00 354 0.00 0.11 148 537 50 107 967 94 161 584 54 109 987 96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 161 584 54 109 987 96 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 TR 1800 1 1.10 1.00 WB L 1800 1 0.97 1.00 TR 1800 1 1.00 1.00 NB L 1800 1 1.00 0.99 1800 2 1.00 0.99 1800 1 0.97 0.99 SB 1800 1 1.00 0.99 T 1800 2 1.00 0.99 R 1800 1 0.97 0.99 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 846 0.97 1.00 1921 1.00 0.43 736 0.98 1.00 1729 1.00 0.95 1710 1.00 1.00 3600 0.85 1.00 1484 1.00 0.95 1676 1.00 1.00 3528 0.85 1.00 1455 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ? N ACTUATED SIGNAL 9/19/1988 APLWD12 APP EB CAPACITY ANAL Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT L 91 0 846 0.108 TR 387 0 1921 0.201 FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO WB L 66 TR 354 NB L 161 T 584 R 54 SB L 109 T 987 R 96 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : O 736 0.090 O 1729 0.205 N N Y 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.400 O 1710 0.094 Y 0.140. O 3600 0.162 N 0.460 O 1484 0.036 N 0.460 O 1676 0.065 N 0.140 O 3528 0.280 Y 0.460 O 1455 0.066 N 0.460 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.636 338 0.269 768 0.504 294 0.224 692 0.512 239 1656 683 235 1623 669 RATIOS 0.674 0.353 0.079 0.464 0.608 0.143 : 0.579 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY EB L 0.269 0.400 100 15.3 338 0.1 TR 0.504 0.400 100 17.1 768 0.5 WB L 0.224 0.400 100 15.0 294 0.1 TR 0.512 0.400 100 17.2 692 0.5 NB L 0.674 0.140 100 31.0 239 5.0 T 0.353 0.460 100 13.2 1656 0.1 R 0.079 0.460 100 11.5 683 0.0 SB L 0.464 0.140 100 30.1 235 1.1 T 0.608 0.460 100 15.4 1623 0.5 R 0.143 0.460 100 11.9 669 0.0 LN GR LN GR APP APP "PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 0.85 13.1 B 0.85 15.0 B 14.6 B 0.85 12.8 B 0.85 15.0 B 14.6 B 1.00 36.0 D 0.85 11.3 B 0.85 9.8 B 16.2 C 1.00 31.2 D 0.85 13.5 B 0.85 10.1 B 14.8 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.1 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : C 9/19/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION APLWD13 W -+- E SB TOTAL 97 80 17 v 0 53RD AVENUE S. N/S STREET 64 26 EB TOTAL 218 154 1 WB TOTAL 157 183 S. 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 2 S. 144TH STREET E/W STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ 53RD AVENUE S. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST 9/19/1988 APLWD13 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 2 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 4 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 64 154 0 LT 2 24.0 WB 0 157 26 TR 2 24.0 SB 17 0 80 LR 1 12.0 • • ♦, CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : S. 144TH STREET @ 53RD AVENUE S. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED MAJOR STREET RUNS EAST / WEST U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I CAL GAPS CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB 5.00 WB SB 6.50 5.00 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 64 38 0 0 116 0 0 0 0 WB 0 91 0 0 66 26 0 0 0 SB 17 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 920 LEVEL OF SERVICE A WB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE SB RESERVE CAPACITY 839 LEVEL OF SERVICE A MAJOR STREET - EB/WB 9/19/1988 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION APLWD14 SB TOTAL 195 • <' 45 150 EB TOTAL 30 21 ^ • 9 v SITE ACCESS E/W STREET 19 144 NB TOTAL 163 51ST AVENUE S. N/S STREET 1 <* v 51ST AVENUE S. N/S STREET CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : SITE ACCESS @ 51ST AVENUE S. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH 9/19/1988 APLWD14 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB 2 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / VOLUMES LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 21 0 9 LR 1 14.0 NB 19 144 0 LT 1 11.0 SB 0 150 45 TR 1 11.0 • CHRISTOPHER BROWN APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS INTERSECTION : SITE ACCESS @ 51ST AVENUE S. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAR HOUR 1989 W/ PROJECT CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN EB 6.00 5.00 NB 4.50 SB V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 21 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 150 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 "LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 706 LEVEL OF SERVICE A NB RESERVE CAPACITY 966 LEVEL OF SERVICE A SB RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAJOR STREET - NB /SB THORNDYKE REV. MAY 17, 1988 A parcel of land situated in Section 22, and in a portion of the west 1/2 of Section 23, all in T23N, R4E, W.M. described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 23, T23N, R4E; thence north 1'34'41.5" east, 30 feet to the easterly extension of the north margin of South 144th Street and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing easterly along said easterly extension to the east line of Primary State Highway No. 1 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 598539, records of King County, WA; thence southerly along said east line to its intersection with the centerline of 53rd Avenue South; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly extension of the north margin of South 151st Street, said centerline also being the Corporate Boundary of the City of Tukwila as filed in the office of the Secretary of State, in Washington State per King County Commissioner's Resolution #23309, dated 10- 11 -61; thence westerly along said north margin and the westerly extension thereof to the centerline of 51st Avenue South; thence southerly along the centerline of 51st Avenue South to the southerly margin of State Highway 518 as condemned under Superior Court Cause No. 656772, records of King County, WA; thence westerly along said southerly margin to its intersection with the east margin of 42nd Avenue South; thence southerly along said east margin to it intersection with the north margin of South 160th Street; thence westerly along said north margin to the east margin of Pacific Highway South; thence northerly along said east margin to the north margin of South 144th Street; thence easterly along said north margin to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXHIBIT A J c___J S 144TH ST dull srag dlllllcIIIIIIfA1CY■1� g ffi 111111111111 1 1 U1UuhiHflN 11111111 MINIM 1111111=4 11111111111111111...... .....% MN NW 11111111 -- O Mini iHIw•0 flfl! 11 ...., I....l PLR MI Maii•••1111 Film we 111•11•MO MMMMM IIIIIIIIIII► nnnnnu IIIIIIlii HIIlllllll esimf `II11110 uI'!IIIIIIII) IIIIIIIIIIhiI IIi IIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ► . !141 IIII . IIIIIIlIIIIIII U �lllllllll II oo° °° I IIIIII IIIIII I,! I • THORNDYKE ANNEXATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGEND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE D PUBLIC FACILITIES E COMMERCIAL OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL King County Executive Tim Hill ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider . the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: • This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- cies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with, the most precise information known, or give the best de- scription you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal. write 'do not know' or 'does not ap- ply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. . Some questions ask about governmental regulations. such as zoning. shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. • The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered 'does not apply.' IN AD- DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonprojeet actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project,' 'applicant,' and 'property or site should be read as 'proposal,' 'proposer,' and 'affected geographic area,' respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Applewooci Apartments 2- 8- fr /2_ 2. Name of applicant: Roger H. Newell, AIA 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Roger H. Newell, AIA 1102 - 19th Avenue East 4. Dsaee cticYlisi, shin on 98112 • (206)322 -1192 rit S/12/8G S. Agency requesting checklist: King County Building and Land Development 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing. if applicable): N/A RECEIVED 7. Do you have/16141A ?ot iture additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Recl th RS 7200, 7200 RM 2400P and BN zones to RM 2400 per attached G, & LAND ii�i8 . t _ st = >t , cats• - of South 146th St. (unimproved) approximately 379.7' eof ,t1st A _o th. (1913 Laws) SEPA Rules 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared. directly related to this proposal. NONE 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Building Permit Demolition Permit Electrical Permit Plumbing Permit Street Use Permit • Temporary Electrical Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific infor- mation on project description.) ,'Construct approximately 138 units (11 buildings @ -12 units each and 1 building @ 6 units) and recreational building with required surface parking. .12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed project. including a street address. if any. and section. township. and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description. site plan, vicinity map. and topographic map. if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submittcd with any permit applications related to this checklist. S.W. corner of South 144th St. and 51st Avenue South •(See attached legal description). TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Eartb a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes. mountainous, •other Easterly sloping site b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 27% • • SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. .Glacial till /silty sand d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. . No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro- posed. Indicate source of 1111. No grading or fill that is not incidental to construction f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Temporary site erosion during foundation construction and driveway /parking grading. g. About what percent of the site 4111 be .covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 4C% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion. or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary filter fabric will be used at property boundaries during construction - Landscaping used for permanent erosion control. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Temporary emissions from construction vehicles, temporary construction odors, emissions from approximately 138 vehicles. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Water spray during construction (1987 tars) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT 3. Water a. Surface: I) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year —round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NONE 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes. please describe and attach available plans. NO 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. In- dicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de- scription, purpose. and approximate quantities if known. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Yes, seasonal surface water to be collected and diverted into storm drainage system. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 —year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so. describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO b. Ground: I) Will ground water be withdrawn. or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description. purpose, and approximate quantities if known. NO 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, thc number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or thc number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE 11983 Laws) SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? if so, describe. Storm water to be collected in downspouts and catchbasins and diverted to storm drainage system (see civil drawings) and diverted to storm sewer. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. NO d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Drainage control systems (see civil drawings), landscaping. . 4. Plaab a. Check or circle ty .._of vie etation found on the site: deciduous tree: Oder. i'a :aspen, other evergreen tree: fir.. r, pine, other shrubs — grass _ pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None except above trees that need to be removed for construction. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE t. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: New landscaping (proposed landscaping plan to follow with building permit) 5. Animals , a. Circle . any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other. . AtgfThig.4 , .44Yt=nA, mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other ....44M P11 9prL fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. . Nvr b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE (19113 Laws) SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT EVALUATION FOR • AGENCY USE ONLY c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NONE 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manu- facturing. etc. Electric Heating b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Proposed apartments should not effect potential use of solar energy by buildings to the North c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Limited glazing, insulation; 7. Environmental Heskb a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk• of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NONE b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from interstate 5 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term - trucks, saws, hammers, pumps from 7am -5pm, Monday - Friday. Long term - passenger vehicles. 6 SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 3) Proposed measures w reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NONE 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Single Family b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. 6 Single Family residences d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 6 Single Family: residences' e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RH 2400, Rs 7200, 7200Rm 2400 P, BN f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rm 2400, Rs 7200, BN g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an 'environmentally sensitive' area? If so, specify. NONE i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 200 j. Approximately how many people Would the completed project displace? Approximately 12 -15 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement 'impacts, if any: Purchase owners property 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans. if any: Use permitted outright under current zoning codes for most of the site, application for zone reclassification for Northern 7200 RM 2400 P and BN zones to RM 2400. (1983 Laws) SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT EVALUATION FOR ' • AGENCY USE ONLY 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low— income housing. Approximately 138 middle income units b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be. eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low— income housing. . 6 units middle income c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Approximately 35' high above existing grade•principal building material cedar siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Minimal view blockage. ofresidences to West c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Major building modulation, deck modulation. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light from new dwellings 6pm to lam, light from vehicles b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Lights from adjacent properties d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and 'glare impacts, if any: Indirect exterior lighting, window. shades. 12. Recreation . a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities arc in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park, Earlington Golf Course, Foster Golf Course b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO SEPA Rules • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation - a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 51st Avenue South and South 144th Street b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? NO c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Approximately 220 spaces proposed d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). NO e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water. rail, or air transporta- tion? If so, generally describe. NO f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 200 — 500 from lam -9am and 4pm -6pm (1983 Law'*) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any Provide adequate parking for the proposed project 15. Public Service a. Would the project result in an increased nerd for public services (for example: fire pro- tertian. police protection, health care. schools. other)? If so. generally describe. NO b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services. if any. N /A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water. refuse serv- ice. telephone. sanitary sewer. septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities . that are proposed for the project. the utility providing the service. and the general construction activities. on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricty - Puget Power Water - King County Telephone - PNB, Cable T.V. - Viacom C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ... Date Submitted: .,r'Z ? : e8 EV ALUATVVA FOB AGENCY USE ONLY • • tall re m sort, rea, s e de. must twee Is, 3rkir,. petwo is 8 .e. H -23 H -24 N -25 Transportation • • The emphasis in transportation is on safe, efficient, low cost/improve- ments iLhas well ascaccsortmodatetautottravels of walking, biking and tra Goal: Develop an Improved and Balanced Transportation System. Objective: Provide more and better bicycle facilities ObjeCt1Ve: Provide more and better pedestrian facilities Objective: Improve circulation Objective: Improve transit service Objective: Emphasize upgrading of arterials and improvements in business centers to provide adequate circulation and levels of service. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation: Citizens want low -cost bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Emphasizing use of publicly owned right -of -way rather than buying new right -of -way will reduce costs and result in the development of more facilities. Secondary and collector arterial rights -of -way should be emphasized for bikeway construction for safety reasons; speed limits and number of vehicle are generally lower than on major arterials. The inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements with road con- struction or reconstruction would also help reduce total costs. Hard surface pathways cost less than sidewalks and should be emphasized, although sidewalks may in some cases remain desirable, particularly in or adjacent,to business areas. Finally, new development should provide linkages to bicycle and pedestrian systems as they do to the auto circulation system. policy: Bikeway development should emphasize the use of secondary and collector arterial rights -of -way and utility rights - of -way. policy: Pedestrian facilities development should emphasize the use of street and utility rights -of -way. • policy: Road construction, including major improvement projects, should include provisions for pedestrian and bicycle movement. 40 H -26 H -27 policy: : Emphasize the development of hard surface pathways rather than sidewalks. policy: New development should include provisions for pedestrian circulation. Primarily, the above policies would be carried out by implementing the project proposals of this plan. Continuing review of new development, i.e. rezone, planned unit development, zoning P- suffix and subdivision approvals, would be a second means of implementation. A clear emphasis desired by Highline residents is for the development of functional bicycle and pedestrian routes. That is, the routes would link activity centers of employment, education, commerce, recreation and governmental activities. Leisure or-touring routes are clearly less desirable for this area. Integrating bicycle and pedestrian facilities with schools, business areas and parks will place the facilities where the demand is high. H -28 policy: Integrate bicycle and pedestrian routes with school locations, activity centers and walkway systems. Transit: Most citizen comments on transit have been general . . . "improve transit service." The most mentioned specific concern has been to improve east -west transit service. Presently there is only one east - west transit route and it connects Burien, Sea -Tac Airport, Southcenter, Renton, Newport Hills, Bellevue, Kirkland, Bothell and Kenmore. Poten- tial service improvements to be examined include: better coverage of the Highline area, better service to major attractions within Highline, and better connections to regional attractions like Southcenter, the Duwamish industrial area, Kent and Renton. Also to be considered is the feasibility of providing para- transit services such as dial -a -ride and carpool or vanpool related improvements. H -29 policy: Improve local transit or para- transit service, especially east -west. Metro's current transit emphasis is to provide a competitive transpor- tation mode (i.e., transit) as an alternative to auto travel. Shifting commuters from private autos to transit decreases the pressure on streets and highways during the peak period of use thereby lessening the need for new highway facilities and major improvements to existing facilities. Concentrating on major employment areas will enable transit to serve the greatest number of people during the peak travel hours. 41 'H.30 H -31 -32 Another area of concern h Highline residents is serving on -work tries (shopping, recreation, etc.) more adequately during the off -peak times of the day, including service to the population dependent on non - auto travel (the elderly, young, poor and handicapped). lic Provide good transit connections to major employment areas. l Integrating the different transportation modes to increase mode transfer possibilities can improve travel times and reduce dependence on the private auto. Examples of mode coordination are: adjustment of bus schedules, provision of bicycle storage facilities at major transit transfer points and construction of park- and -ride lots, transit flyer stops and transit shelters. policy: Integrate bicycle, pedestrian, bus and street systems to emphasize easy transfer between different modes of transportation (e.g. bicycle and bus) Streets and Highways: Two major problem spots affecting Highline are the SR 509 terminus and the 1st Ave. S. bridge in Seattle. SR 509, a limited access facility, currently terminates at Des Moines Way S. The auto traffic is dumped on to Des Moines Way S. which is not designed to handle it. The State Department of Highways owns right -of -way south to Kent -Des Moines Road (SR 516); funding and environmental problems have delayed further construction. The Sea -Tac Communities Plan recognized the future extension of SR 509 to Kent - Des Moines Road, and proposed provisions for integrating a south access to Sea -Tac Airport. The State Department of Highways (DOH) is also cooperating in the Burien Area Transportation Study and examining the issue of a terminus for SR 509. The 1st Ave. S. bridge is also under the jurisdiction of the DOH. Work on it has also been postponed because of funding problems. Reconstruction of the bridge would eleminate a severe congestion and safety problem and enhance the SR 509 link from Seattle to South King County. El/Li: Encourage final determination of the terminus of the SR 509 route with immediate emphasis on completion to S. 188th St. and improvements to the 1st Ave. S. Bridge corridor. Along major arterials consolidation of access points would help to reduce confusing traffic movements and would increase safety for the 42 ::So. 152nd St, •.... m., 1 000 •o o o • - o " o o o o _ o o o o o o o o b o'onoop o o o o o o o o o )Co 0 o . _ .10....--,: o 0 o a _ 0- ——m-" . .-:-____- ,,,,,,,, _o_o _ 0 0 .7 .. . -", -- , . ..'""?.!..!......rt .1......... . - • - .;.--_;:.::•—•----SR-518 THORNDYKE ZONING 1••111•111 1111•111•1111 1111••••11 MOM' R-1 SINGLE 'FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 7200 R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-3 THREE AND FOUR FAMILY DWELLINGS R-4 DISTRICT LOW APARTMENTS RMH MULTIPLE RESIDENCE HIGH. DENSITY C-1 COMMUNITY RETAIL C-2 REGIONAL RETAIL BUSINESS C-M INDUSTRIAL PARK P-0 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRY .1.1■•■•■■ M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRY ADOPTED BY ORD. =.1 If • 245.564 _•r M. !14716 • ,_ EP f' S7ti •016rf LA .13160, B65w • 3 199 r: 6129 1 own ur&200 I. EGSt urn BIS1 STL •0+0.00 51•0f. CA IO. USN P' LA • tl96� • fA, .162.41 109. • /61BY .. J,• 9601 69•.5799 1£. IP'.LL •15)60 �J' tE. /2' t4 •460]4. ALE 11'S •161.00 I, E •Y . 4Ufc E r1' r • •56JB •f rS': •'5.0 . _ i a• 159,in 5. OWELLING>U.NITS' 122 PARKING,STALL, 191 TOWNSEND — CHASTAIN & ASSOC., INC. 'SURVEYORS - ENGINEERS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS '409 SOUTH 3,0 AVENUE KENT.. WASHINGTON 96032 '1 206 : 1 834 - 2043- APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS SITE PLAN I • E L' z5 Z: Y 260 7.5' _250 0 240 _42$0 27.$' 38.5 I ;PARKING '240 23Q 1220 X210 Y 7 TR S• NARKING '200 i_180 170 3,0 FLOOR ELEI'ATION'- 220.75' 2,0 FLOOR ELEVAT,ON • 212.00 ' 7 215ERS IE1 FLOOR ELEVATION • 203.25 SECTION 3.0'. FLOOR ELEVATION • 24250 PARKING 10•. — I A" Y•-• — I : FLOOP ELEV. LEV.A 770N - 225.00' • 1250 ( .__240 __..____.__. 230 _ . _ i• 220___.__ 210_.---_ 170 J60 150 1140 PLATE 3 -FULL CROSS SECTIONSUu. oOi TO SEND'— CHASTAIN 8, ASSOC., INC. I SURVEYORS — ENGINEERS- - DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 409 SOUTH 34 AVENUE KENT. WASN21670AI 98032 -. -.1/ -206 1 854 2043 11/30/88 _ REVISED_ ELL-VA TONS__ lEM SCHNEIDER HOMES,' INC. APPLEWOOD APARTMENTS-- - SITE PLAN CROSS SECTION WAN, A PEN '�`E ONE INCH - 10 FEET,'H: & V. ---,I 0II ;e an 21.NOV88 :' ;'0188084: 260 0 o' :2 240 230 4i ens r dnw.NO./ • -- 25P ,240 -230 275' 25• :y- 2484750 13' 385' 25 5 314 FLOOR EL • 224.00' 210 .200 '189 good FLOOR EL. • 215.25' 7 RISERS :180 1st. FLOOR ' EL. • 206.00' [usf 8' PARKING IO 390, 10 .175' 13' 17' PARKING 38 9' --3,4 FLOOR • Ft • 24025 i land FLOOR EL. • 231.50' ISERS £L. • OR .. - . Et. • 22tss_ P4RK150 - • 1O'• 13• t7'. PAPIONG SECTION "B B" I � I • i r 115 38.5' 2 3,4 FLOOR £L. • 20025' 2an4 FLOOR I EL • 19/50' 40' 151 FLOOR AFL • 1 R2 75' I 55 10 TOWNSEND CHASTAIN &' ASSOC., INC. - URVEYORS -- -ENGINEERS, DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 409 500711 3ra AVENUE RENT • - WASHINGTON 98032. ! 5 ' 206 1 854 • 2043 . 190 180.. - -: 170_ _ 160_. .— .. - -- Liar' 4.5011(1.' .. 260_ 250 240- 230 220 m . 51 11130/88 NY IC DM 4a.+ REVISED. _ELEVATORS_ SCHNEIDER HOMES. INC. --- - APPLEWOOD=APAR:TMENTS_ SITE PLAN CROSS SECTION 0"•••' DGL 1Y•" ONE INCH 4 10 FEET - H & V. art 21 NOV 88 1.a. 88084. v 4 PLATE S. ULL CROSS SECTION•uu 007