HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2005 ITEM VIII-A-3A
OF
WASHINGTON
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 5948 for Application No. REZ05-0001
Date:
and PUD05-0001 (Division 1) and REZ05-0002 and PUD05-0002 (Division
2
September 28, 2005
Department: Planning
Attachments: Ordinance No. 5948
Budget Impact:
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council introduce and adopt Ordinance No. 5948
Background Summary:
The Hearing Examiner on August 9, 2005, conducted a public hearing on the request of Wayne Jones,
Lakeridge Development (Kersey III Division 1) and Joyce & Peter Bowles on behalf of Landholdings, LLC
(Division 2). The request is for a rezone from R1 ("Single Family Residential") to PUD ("Planned Unit
Development"), PUD approval (and preliminary plat approval) for 1) a 169 lot single family residential
subdivision known as "Kersey III Division 1," and 2) a 204 lot single family residential subdivision known
at "Kersey III Division 2." The preliminary plats (PLTOS-0001 and PLT05-0002) are being processed
under Resolution No. 3915).
The project is located on the west side of Kersey Way at 53rd St. SE, extending approximately 660 feet
south to the Auburn City limits (Pierce County line) and approximately 1320 feet west.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Examiner recommended to the City Council approval of the rezone and
planned unit development. (The preliminary plats are being processed under Resolution No. 3915).
The City Council may now either affirm the Examiner's decision, remand to the Examiner or schedule a
closed record hearing. The Council can only modify or disaffirm the Examiner's decision after conducting
their own closed record hearing.
HE\ORD 5948 FOR KERSEY 3
L1003-5
Reviewed by Council & Committees:
by Departments & Divisions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES:
Building ® M&O
[IAirport ❑ Finance
FReviewed
Cemetery ElMa or
y
® Hearing Examiner ElMunicipal Serv.
Finance ❑ Parks
El Human Services E] Planning & CD
® Fire ® Planning
❑ Park Board ❑Public Works
El Legal El Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other
® Public Works ❑ Human Resources
Action:
Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No
Council Approval: ❑Yes []No Call for Public Hearing
Referred to Until
_/_/
Tabled Until
Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss
Meeting Date: October 3, 2005 1 Item Number: VIII.A.3
AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
ORDINANCE NO. 5 9 4 8
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 89.31
ACRES FROM R-1 RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVING THE
REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Application Nos. REZ05-0001, REZ05-0002, PUD05-0001
and PUD05-0002, dated April 8, 2005, have been submitted to the City of
Auburn, Washington by Wayne Jones on behalf of Lakeridge Development and
Joyce and Peter Bowles on behalf of Landholdings, LLC, requesting approval of
a rezone request for approximately 89.31 acres from R-1 Residential to Planned
Unit Development and requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development in
Auburn, Washington; and
WHEREAS, said requests referred to above were referred to the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said applications in the Council Chambers of the
Auburn City Hall on August 9, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner
recommended approval of the rezone and planned unit development on
September 2, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on September 19, 2005, considered said
request and affirmed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation for rezone and
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 1 of 21
Planned Unit Development based upon the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions, to -wit:
FINDINGS OF FACT
GENERAL FINDINGS:
1. Lakeridge Development, through Wayne Jones, and Landholdings LLC,
through Joyce and Peter Bowles, (Applicants) by and through their
representative, Mr. Chris Ferko of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, requests
approval of a rezone of three parcels of land totaling approximately 89.31 acres.
The rezone would reclassify the property from R-1 Single Family Residential to
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The property is located on the west side of
Kersey Way at 53rd Street SE, extending southward to the King -Pierce County
line. The parcels are within the city limits of Auburn and King County. Exhibit 1 ,
Staff Report pages 1 and 3; Exhibit 3, Rezone and PUD Applications; Testimony
of Mr. Pilcher.
2. Applicants have also requested approval of a PUD and Preliminary Plat
for Division I and Division II of Kersey III. Applicants propose to develop both
divisions in two phases. Applicants propose to develop Division I with 169 lots,
with an average density of 3.34 dwelling units per acre, and an average lot size
of 5,032 square feet. Applicants propose to develop Division II with 205 lots, with
an average density of 5.35 dwelling units per acre, and an average lot size of
4,863 square feet. The overall project density is 4.17 dwelling units per acre for
both divisions. Both divisions will be developed as single-family residential: no
multi -family is being proposed. Exhibit 3, Preliminary Plat Application and
Narrative; Exhibit 4, Site Plan.
3. Applicants have also requested a variance from certain design
requirements set forth in Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.69.070(A). They seek a
reduction in the front yard setback to 10 feet and an increase in the total
allowable lot coverage to 50%. Exhibit 5, Project Narrative; Exhibit 20, Planning
Dept. Memo, Part 1.
4. Three parcels of land are the subject of this proposal. Division I is
comprised of two tax parcels - King County Parcel No. 322105-9015 and No.
322105-9017 which are owned by Wayne and Debra Jones (Lakeridge
Development). Division II is comprised of one tax parcel - King County Parcel
'Note: All exhibits referenced herein are exhibits attached to the Hearing Examiner's Findings of
Fact and Conclusions, which exhibits are incorporated herein.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 2 of 21
No. 322105-9039 and is owned by Joyce and Elwood "Pete" Bolles
(Landholdings LLC). All three parcels are within the city limits of Auburn. Exhibit
1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 3, Rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat
Applications.
5. The parcels are currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and are
designated as Single Family Residential under the City of Auburn's
Comprehensive Plan. The 300- foot easement located on the western border of
Division I is designated as Open Space under the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 3, Rezone Applications and Narrative;
Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.5 - Land Use.
6. All applications - rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat - for Kersey III,
Division I and Division 11, are being processed by the City concurrently and were
consolidated at the public hearing. Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
7. Notice of Application was issued on June 15, 2005, for Division I of Kersey
Ill. Notice of Application was issued on June 15, 2005, for Division II of Kersey
111. Exhibit 9.
8. Notice of the public hearing was posted on the property on July 28, 2005.
Notice of the public hearing was mailed to all property owners located within 300
feet of the affected site and published in the King County Journal on July 29,
2005. Exhibits 10, 11, 12, and 13.
9. Public testimony was received into the record at the public hearing and
submitted as part of the environmental review for the proposal. Public comment
pertained primarily to impacts of the development on traffic, wildlife, 'vegetation,
schools, water supply, storm water runoff, and the overall density of homes.
Exhibit 8, FEIS, Comments -Response to Comments, Chapter 3.0, pages 27-128;
Testimony of Ms. Fassbind, Ms. Dubeck, Mr. Chambers, Ms. Knott, Ms. Brooke,
Mr. Chaffee, Mr. Barnett, Ms. Johns, Ms. Hill, and Mr. Hancock.
10. At the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner left the record open to allow
for the Auburn School District, the district affected by the proposal, to submit
comments. The District's comments were received into the record on August
16, 2005, and the Hearing Examiner issued an order officially closing the record
as of that date.
SPECIFIC FINDINGS: REZONE, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
PRELIMINARY PLAT. and REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 3 of 21
1. Pursuant to ACC 18.68.020(A)(1), a rezone is an amendment to the
Zoning Map and may be initiated by a request from one or more property owners.
The Applicants are the owners of the property involved in this rezone request.
The Applicants filed an application with the City on April 8, 2005. ACC
18.68.020; Exhibit 3, Rezone Applications.
2. Surrounding land uses consist of residential development ,and vacant
lands. Residential development is comprised of low and semi -rural densities in
the east and south, with the possibility of higher density PUD development to the
west (Kersey III, Division III). Land west of Kersey III, Division III is comprised of
Lakeland Hills, a high density PUD development. Land to the north is a mixture
of vacant land and natural (mineral) resource lands. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page
2; Exhibit 7, DENS, Chapter 3.5 Land Use; Exhibit 21, Segale/ICON Letter (aerial
photographs).
3. The R-1 zone is intended to create a living environment of optimum
standards for single-family detached dwellings by limiting development to
relatively low degrees of density. This district allows for one dwelling unit per
8000 square foot lot. A PUD zoning district is intended to offer enhanced
flexibility for developing a site by utilizing innovative and alternative development
standards and allowing for a greater range of residential densities. A PUD is
required to provide a significantly higher quality development, generate more
public benefit, and be a more sensitive proposal than it would have been using
standing zoning and subdivision procedures. ACC 18.12.010; ACC 18.69.010.
4. RCW 36.70A, Washington's Growth Management Act, requires the City of
Auburn to develop a Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to several sections of the
ACC, a rezone, PUD, and plat must be consistent and/or in accordance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. An analysis of the proposal's consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan is provided for in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS), issued July 2004. The DEIS reviewed goals and elements of the
Comprehensive Plan pertaining to utilities; transportation; the environment;
natural resources; natural and manmade hazards; and parks, recreation, and
open space. Exhibit 5, Project Narrative, page 6; Exhibit 7, DEIS, pages 77-86.
5. A conclusion of the DEIS is that the development of the parcels was
generally consistent with the "Single Family Residential" Comprehensive Plan
designation. The DEIS reviewed several Land Use Element Policies such as LU -
14 (single family residential density should not be greater than six units per acre);
LU -18 (topography, circulation, and amenities should guide development); LU -20
(development standards should be flexible so as to encourage urban
development and protect critical areas; PUDs allow for deviations in exchange for
enhanced standards and protection); LU -25 (residential units should be oriented
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 4 of 21
away from arterial roadways); and LU -26 and LU -27 (development should utilize
and preserve natural features, and open spaces and parks should be designed to
separate incompatible uses). The DEIS reviewed several Capital Facilities
Element Policies such as CF -1 (urban level essential public facilities - sewer,
water, storm drainage, and parks - must be developed prior to or concurrent with
development); CF -2 (fire and police services must not be reduced elsewhere);
CF -3 (developers must provide facilities unless public funds are available); CF -
13, CF -16, and CF -18 (water system policies); CF -23, CF -25, CF -27 (sewer
system policies); CF -37, CF -38, CF -39, and CF -45 (storm drainage policies); and
CF -52 and CF -53 (water quality - natural hydrology). The DEIS reviewed several
Transportation Element Policies such as TR -13 (develop an efficient
transportation system by spreading vehicle movement, including ingress/egress
to development and internal streets); TR -21 (applicants must assume a portion of
the construction costs of the transportation systems that serve development);
TR -43, TR -44, and TR -45 (sidewalks, trails, and other walking facilities); and TR -
61 (impact of road construction on environment and natural resources). The
DEIS reviewed several Environmental Element Policies such as EN -3 (minimized
degradation of surface water quality and aquatic habitat); EN -4, EN -6, EN -10,
EN -16, and EN 17 (regulate and mitigate storm water discharge); EN -13 and EN -
14 (water quality and habitat); EN -23, EN -24, EN -25, EN -26, EN -27, EN -28, and
EN -84 (endangered species, habitat conservation, wetland protection); EN -32
(native vegetation preservation); and EN -68, EN -72, and EN -73 (geotechnical
hazards). The DEIS reviewed several Parks, Recreation, and Open Space
Element Policies such as PR -2 and PR -4 (development of parks at a level
commensurate with demand); PR -7 (buffering between incompatible uses with
open space); PR -8 (preserve critical/hazard areas as open space); and PR -12
(non -intensive development). Exhibit 7, DEIS, pages 77-86.
6. ACC 18.68.030(13)(1) requires the Director of Planning and Community
Development to review a rezone application for consistency with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. If the Director determines that the application is
consistent, the application shall be scheduled for a public hearing. The Director
determined that the application was consistent, and the required public hearing
was held on August 9, 2005. ACC 18.68.030; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6.
7. When considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in
demonstrating that conditions have changed substantially since the original
zoning and that the rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health,
safety, morals, or general welfare. A variety of factors may satisfy a change in
circumstances including changes of public opinion, local land use patterns, and
circumstances relating to the property. ACC 18.69.150 provides specific criteria
for justifying the rezone of land to a PUD designation. ACC 18.68; ACC
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 5 of 21
18.69.150; Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2d 359 (1978); Bjarnson v.
Kitsap County, 78 Wn. App. 840, 846, 899 P.2d 1290 (Div. 1, 1995).
8. The three parcels have been zoned R1 since 1987. In the narrative
attached to the rezone applications (Exhibit 5 - revised May 19, 2005) and in the
Staff Report. The Applicants and the City state that: this area of the City has
experienced significant development because of Lakeland Hills, an existing PUD
community of 3000+ homes to the west; the overall market conditions in Puget
Sound have created a trend towards the smaller lot size found in a PUD zone;
because the property's topography makes it more suitable to the flexibility a PUD
zoning district has to offer; the proposal complies with the goals of the: GMA; and
because the proposal would create compatibility between the existing Lakeland
Hills PUD community and the proposed development. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
pages 6-7, Exhibit 5, Narrative; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
9. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C, the
City of Auburn acted as lead agency for the review of environmental impacts
caused by the proposed preliminary plat. For the purpose of SEPA review, the
City considered three proposals. The first alternative (Alternative 481) would
allow for a maximum of 481 dwelling units utilizing the City's PUD ordinance over
only a portion of the site. This alternative would accommodate up to 409 single
family lots and 18 multi -family lots. The second alternative (Alternative 700)
would allow for a maximum of 700 dwelling units utilizing the City's PUD
ordinance over the entire site. This alternative would accommodate up to 628
single family lots and 18 multi -family lots. The final alternative (No Action
Alternative) would allow for development of the property under its current zoning
designation, R1, resulting in approximately 34 lots. The Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) became final in February 2005. Exhibit 7, DEIS, ,pages 2-6;
Exhibit 8, FENS.
10. At the hearing, the Applicants asserted that several comments being
presented pertained to environmental impacts and should not be considered
because the SEPA process, specifically the EIS, had been finalized. Although a
challenge to the adequacy of the Kersey III EIS can no longer be brought, the
most important aspect of SEPA is the consideration of environmental values.
The key purpose of an EIS is to ensure full disclosure and consideration of
environmental information prior to the construction of a project. Norway Hill v.
King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 675 (1976). It is from the impacts
disclosed in the EIS that the decision -maker can make an informed decision
about the proposal. Public testimony at the hearing provided further detail in this
regard. Testimony of Ms. Fassbind; Testimony of Ms. Dubeck; Testimony of Mr.
Chambers, Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Ms. Knott, Testimony of Mr.
Barnett, Testimony of Ms. Johnson.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 6 of 21
11. Public comment was received into the record in regards to the: impact on
neighboring natural resource lands. North of the project site, directly across
Kersey Way SE, lies a 664 -acre gravel mining operation owned by Segale
Properties/ICON Materials. The gravel mine has been operating for over 35
years and is anticipated to operate for another 25 more years. Segale/ICON
expressed concern that a dense residential development has the potential for
generating homeowner complaints pertaining to air, noise, light, 'traffic, and
safety, and that the construction of Kersey III itself will generate traffic congestion
and safety issues, impacting the mine's operation. Testimony of Mr. Hancock.
12. Auburn's Comprehensive Plan designates Segale/ICON's land as a
Mineral Resource Area. RCW 36.70A requires the preservation of natural
resource lands. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, a City's development regulations
must ensure that the use of lands adjacent to natural resource land shall not
interfere with the continued use of the natural resource land. In the FEIS,
Chapter 3 - Response to Comments, the City stated that construction vehicles
related to the Kersey III development would only have an impact for a limited
span of time and that the impacts could be mitigated by development of a traffic
control plan prior to issuance of a hauling permit. The City determined that a
traffic signal to be installed at Kersey Way and Oravetz would mitigate impacts.
However, the City's mitigation measures only address mitigation during
construction, not future impacts that the mine may incur as a direct result of the
residential development. Exhibit 8, FEIS, ICON Material Letter and City's
Response, pages 28-30; Exhibit 21, Sega/e Letter; Testimony of Mr. Hancock;
Testimony of Mr. Pilcher, Testimony of Mr. Armstrong.
13. RCW 36.70A.060 requires that any plat within 500 feet of land must
contain a notice that the property is near designated mineral resource land and
that commercial activity may occur that is not compatible with residential
development. For mineral resource lands, the notice must also inform that an
application may be made in the future for mining -related activities, including
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting, transporting, and
recycling of minerals. Segale/ICON asked that this notice be required not only
on the plat but on each individual lot's building permit and deed. The City stated
that it is aware of the notice requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 and would make
them required for the final plat, but that inclusion on the building permit would be
an "administrative nightmare," with no potential homeowner seeing the
requirement on the permit or the deed. The City Staff stated that it is possible to
include the notice on the title, but they did not think it would be effective.
However, Applicants, through Mr. Armstrong, agreed to the condition of each
deed containing notice. RCW 36.70A.060(1); Exhibit 8, FEIS, ICON Material
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 7 of 21
Letter and City's Response, pages 28-30; Exhibit 21, Segale Letter, Testimony of
Mr. Hancock; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong.
14. The proposal is within the Auburn School District. In Washington State,
however, ample provision for the education of children is a paramount duty of the
state. This requirement is further stated in the laws of the State and the City of
Auburn. RCW 58.17.110 requires that subdivisions make appropriate provisions
for the general welfare of the community, including provisions for schools and for
safe walking conditions for students. RCW 36.70A.020(12) states that when a
City is plans for growth, it is to ensure that public services, such as schools, that
are necessary to support development are adequate to serve the development.
ACC 17.060.070(A) states that a subdivision must make adequate provisions for
the general welfare of the community, including schools. At the hearing, public
comment was received on the issue of overcrowding in the local schools. The
anticipated increase in student population from the development was set as 0.59
students per dwelling unit, or 209 students. No reference to school provisions is
provided in the Staff Report but City Staff testified that the impact to schools was
addressed in the EIS. ACC 19.02 allows the City to collect school
impact/mitigation fees, approximately $4,500 per building permit, on behalf of the
school district. Applicants conceded that no communication has occurred
between the Auburn School District and themselves but that the road network
includes sidewalks, satisfying the requirement for safe walking conditions for
students. Exhibit 7, DENS, Chapter 3.7 -Public Services, page 117, Testimony of
Mr. Pilcher, Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong.
15. The DEIS does address schools, but only on a very limited basis. It
acknowledges that the development would be served by Gildo Ray Elementary,
Mount Baker Middle, and Auburn Riverside High, and that while the high school
is currently over capacity, this problem should be alleviated when another high
school opens in Fall 2005. The school district's comments (Exhibit 22B),
solicited by the Applicants (Exhibit 22A), are limited solely to transportation
issues (bus and walking) and not the ability of the schools to absorb the; incoming
students. Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.7 -Public Services, page 117, Exhibit 22A,
Exhibit 228, Testimony of Mr. Pilcher, Testimony of Mr. Ferko, Testimony of Mr.
Armstrong, Testimony of Ms. Fassbind, Testimony of Ms. Johnson; Testimony of
Ms. Hill.
16. Traffic impacts (volume and safety) were the most frequently cited issues
in public comment and testimony. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) was
completed for the proposal in March 2004. An addendum to the TIA was
completed in January 2005 as a result of public comment submitted on the DEIS.
Applicants propose to construct an internal road system, including the extension
of Evergreen Way from the Lakeland Hills development easterly to Kersey Way,
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 8 of 21
which would be dedicated to the public. Evergreen Way is a residentlial collector
and will be 55 feet wide with a five foot planting strip and five foot sidewalk on
both sides. Per City code, no parking is permitted along a residential collector,
but parking may be allowed in the park area (Road G). Internal residential roads
will be 50 feet wide with a five foot planting strip and five foot sidewalk on both
sides. Evergreen Way will intersect Kersey Way at 53`tl Street SE:, requiring
realignment and a traffic signal. The TIA recommended that Kersey Way be
modified to include a southbound deceleration lane along with northbound and
southbound left -turn lanes and an eastbound right -turn lane. The TIA Addendum
concluded that all corridors affected by the development are expected to meet or
exceed the LOS minimum threshold set by the City of Auburn, which is LOS -D
with the proposed signalization in place. Pursuant to ACC 19.04, the City of
Auburn may collect impact fees for transportation facilities impacted by proposed
development. Other mitigation measures were proposed to address safety
issues such as illuminated crosswalks, bulb -out curbing, and speed bumps.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 5, Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.60 -Transportation;
Exhibit 8, FEIS, Appendix A, TIA Addendum; Testimony of Mr. Welsh; Testimony
of Ms. Fassbind, Testimony of Ms. Dubeck; Testimony of Mr. Chambers;
Testimony of Ms. Knott; Testimony of Mr. Barnett, Testimony of Ms. Hill.
17. A mitigation measure proposed in the EIS was the construction of a round-
about at the intersection of Evergreen Way SE and Lakeland Hills Way SE.
Applicants testified that they are not opposed to the idea but are concerned
about their ability to secure the necessary land for construction. The; proposed
tracts of land are currently owned by the Lakeland Hills Homeowners'
Association. Applicants stated that they would "pursue with earnest" the
acquisition of this land but requested that City Staff remove the roundabout
condition from their recommendations. City Staff agreed to this modification.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, Page 10; Exhibit 8, Table 1, page 16, Exhibit 20,
Planning Department Memo, Part 4; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong; Testimony of
Mr. Welch.
18. Public comment was received into the record pertaining to water supply,
storm water, and water quality. No private wells would be utilized for water
service. Water will be supplied by the City of Auburn - Valley Water System.
Existing groundwater rights are sufficient to serve the needs of the development.
Applicants will be required to construct a- booster pump station at the; corner of
Oravetz Road and Kersey Way SE and extend a water line along Kersey Way
and Evergreen Way, connecting to the existing lines in the Lakeland Hills
development. Storm water will be collected and conveyed to a combined
wetpond/detention pond prior to discharge into Bowman Creek, an off-site creek
to the north of the development. The drainage facility, designed to the City's
criteria, is located on Tract A of both Division I and Division II and will operate as
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 9 of 21
a single unit. An energy dissipater will be installed to reduce erosion and the
admission of sediment into the creek system. Due to the creation of impervious
surfaces, the EIS concluded that increased surface run-off could affect the
hydrology of the area by changing the recharge pattern and depositing sediment
into the stream system, impacting water quality. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3;
Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.4.3, page 74; Exhibit 8, FEIS, Chapter 3, Comments &
Responses, Muckleshoot Tribe Letter, page 121; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15;
Testimony of Mr. Pilcher; Testimony of Mr. Armstrong, Testimony of Ms.
Fassbind.
19. Public comment was received into the record pertaining to impacts of
wildlife and their associated habitat. The EIS concluded that many of the impacts
to wildlife and habitat were unavoidable. Unavoidable impacts include loss of
native vegetation, fragmentation and isolation of habitat, reduction in native
wildlife populations, and disturbance of retained habitat (open space) by human
encroachment. Specific comment was received from the Muckleshoot Tribe
(Exhibit 8, FEIS, Chapter 3.0, page 121) as to possible impacts on the Tribe's
treaty fisheries resources. Neither Division I nor Division II contains wetlands or
streams on-site. Stormwater run-off will be dissipated prior to discharge into
Bowman Creek, a non -salmonid bearing creek which drains in to the White River,
so as to eliminate/reduce possible sedimentation/erosion impacts on the fishery
resource of the river. Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter 3.3.4, page 60, Exhibit 8, FEIS,
Table 1, page 14; Exhibit 8, FEIS, Chapter 3. 0, Comments & Responses, Letters
from Murphy, Bykonen, Covey, Richards, Cocke, Shoemaker, and the
Muckleshoot Tribe; Exhibit 16; Testimony of Ms. Fassfind, Testimony of Ms.
Knott, Testimony of Ms. Brooke; Testimony of Ms. Johnson.
20. The sanitary sewer service will be provided to the development by the City
of Auburn. A Sewer Alternative Analysis, dated March 2004, was prepared by
Apex Engineering and is attached to the DEIS as Technical Appendix H. A
temporary sewage pump station must be constructed in order to service the
development. A deviation from the comprehensive sewer plan is required for the
use of a pump station. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3, Exhibit 7, DEIS, Chapter
3.8.1; Exhibit 14; Exhibit 15; Exhibit 16; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher.
21. The western 300 feet of Parcels 322105-9015 and 322105-9017 (Division
1) are encumbered by an easement held by the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) for a high-voltage power transmission lines. Applicants propose to utilize
this area to satisfy both open space and park requirements for the development.
City of Auburn Parks Department is requiring that BPA approve the park
elements and locations. Applicants testified that they have had several
meetings/discussions with BPA regarding a land use agreement and that BPA
supports the project. According to the Applicants, BPA will not give approval
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 10 of 21
until the City has approved the rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat. Exhibit 1,
Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 4, Site Plan; Exhibit 20, Part 5, Testimony of Mr.
Scapilina; Testimony of Mr. Ferko.
22. ACC 18.69.080(A) requires each PUD to set aside 20% of the gross area
of the PUD as open space. For the purpose of the Kersey III Development,
Division II's open space is dependent upon the open space being provided within
Division I. Total acreage for both divisions is 89.31 acres, requiring '17.86 acres
to be allocated for open space. This figure may include landscaped areas, native
areas, storm water facilities, and parks. ACC 18.69.030(H). Applicants propose
a total of 22.81 acres of open space in Division I and 6.13 acres in Division ll, for
total open space acreage of 28.94 acres, which is 32.4% of the site. ACC
17.12.60 requires that a subdivision provide for 6.03 acres of park land for each
1000 -person increase in population. Of the 22.81 acres of open space,
Applicants propose that 7.16 acres be dedicated to the City for park land, all of
which are contained within the BPA easement except for two small tracts, Tract P
and Tract Q, totaling less than 0.50 acres. Applicants propose to develop the
park land with both passive and active recreation amenities, including a walking
path and open play fields. A sport court and children's play area will be provided
on Tract P and Tract Q. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 4; Exhibit 4, Site Plan;
Exhibit 5, Exhibit 14; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 19; Exhibit 20.
23. Applicants request variance from ACC 18.69.070(A) for both the required
front yard setback and total lot coverage. Applicants seek to reduce the front
yard setback to ten feet and increase the allowed lot coverage to 50%. ACC
18.69.070(A) requires a detached single-family home within a PUD to cover no
more than 40% of the total lot square footage and for the garage to be setback
20 feet from the street with the remainder of the home set back 15 feet. A
variance to design standards is generally only granted if the land has unique
physical or topographical conditions such that strict conformity with the ACC
would not allow for a reasonable and harmonious use of the land. Applicants
state that approval of the variances will allow them to construct a "neo -traditional"
lot layout, providing a more interesting streetscape by allowing for varying
building orientation/placement and utilizing front porches, which would create a
pedestrian -oriented neighborhood. Applicants further state that variances would
allow them to create a more useable backyard on lots in Division II that have
slope issues. City Staff did not recommend approval of the variance: requests.
City Staff noted that all lots are 100 feet in depth, with many greater than 100
feet, allowing for varied structure placement. City Staff further noted that the
purpose of limiting lot coverage in a smaller lot development, such as a PUD, is
to prevent overcrowding. Allowing for 50% lot coverage would annount to a
footprint of up to 2500 square feet or a 4000-4500 square foot two-story home.
ACC 18.70.010, Exhibit 5, Narrative; Exhibit 20, Planning Department Memo,
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 11 of 21
Part 1; Testimony of Mr. Pilcher, Testimony of Mr. Ferko; Testimony of Mr.
McBride.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearings Examiner is granted
jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations to the City Council. Jurisdiction
for the Hearings Examiner to make recommendations for an application for
rezone is pursuant to ACC 14.03.040(D) and 18.68.030, for approval of an
application for a PUD is pursuant to ACC 18.69.140.
Criteria for Review:
Along with the requirements set forth by the Washington State Supreme Court, in
order TO APPROVE A REZONE, the Hearings Examiner must find that the
following criteria, as set forth in ACC 18.68, are satisfied:
1. The rezone shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The rezone was initiated by a party, other than the City, in order for the
Hearing Examiner to hold a public hearing and consider the request.
3. Any change or modification to the rezone request made by the Hearing
Examiner or the City Council shall not result in a more intense zone than the one
requested.
In order TO APPROVE A PUD, the Applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that
the proposed PUD achieves, or is consistent with, in whole or in part, desired
public benefits and expectations. Pursuant to ACC 18.69.150, the proposal must
demonstrate sufficient findings of facts to support the following:
1. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health, safety,
and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other
public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for
schools.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the comprehensive plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the
public benefits required of the development of PUDs by providing an
improvement in the quality, character, architectural and site design, housing
choice and/or open space protection over what would otherwise be attained
through a development using the existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable
policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 12 of 21
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards of the zoning district the PUD is located in.
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of
the neighborhood, including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map
designations, and the design guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D)..
Conclusions Based on Findinas
1. The rezone was initiated by the Applicant -Property Owner and not
the City.
Pursuant to ACC 18.68.030(B)(1), in order for the Hearing Examiner to hold a
public hearing and consider a rezone request, the rezone must not be initiated by
the City. The Applicant in this matter is the owner of the property subject to the
rezone. Specific Findings No. 1.
2. Conditions in the area have substantially changed and the rezone
bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare.
In considering a rezone, the Applicant has the burden of proof in demonstrating
that conditions have substantially changed since the original zoning and that the
rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454 (1978). A variety of factors
may satisfy a change in circumstances, including changes in public opinion, local
land use patterns, and on the property itself. Bjamson v. Kitsap County, 78 Win.
App. 840, 846 (Div. 1, 1995). The City and the Applicants have stated that the
area where the subject property is located has experienced significant
development as a result of the Lakeland Hills PUD; overall market conditions in
Puget Sound creating a demand for smaller lots; topography making the land
more suitable for the flexibility of a PUD zoning district; compliance with the goals
of the GMA; and compatibility between the existing PUD community and the
proposed development. The fact that the existing zoning dates back to the
original adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a plan that has since been
amended three times, and the fact that the proposal is consistent with the goals
and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan, give credence to the "change in
circumstances" within the community warranting a rezone of the property.
However, neither the Applicants nor the City cites to specific quantitative data
demonstrating the need for additional housing of this type, the trend in Puget
Sound towards small lot development, or population growth projections for the
City. This type of information would provide further justification for changed
circumstances and approval of a rezone and a PUD. The Planning Director and
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 13 of 21
the DEIS both concluded that the proposal was consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. General Findings No. 2, 5; Specific Findings Nos. 2, 3, 4,
6, 7, and 8.
3. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or
modification to the rezone request that will result in a more intense zone
than the one requested by the Applicant.
4. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and policies of the City
Council.
The Director of Planning determined the proposal was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions in the EIS concurred with this result, finding
several goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan satisfied by the
development, including improving the City's transportation network; creating and
maintaining park land and open space; developing diversity of architectural
design; providing for adequate urban density; improvement to the City's public
utility (water/sewer) system; and protecting streams and natural areas. The
goals and policies of the City Council are embraced in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and ACC. General Findings No. 5; Specific Findings Nos. 4, 5, and 6.
5. The proposal contains adequate provisions for the public health,
safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets,
water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools.
Applicants have made provisions for streets with sidewalks for pedestrian safety,
including safe walking for school children and pedestrian passage ways for park
access. EIS mitigation measures and conditions of approval will provide for
traffic control and calming devices to provide safety within and to the community.
The development will be served by City water and sanitary sewer. Storm water
facilities will collect and convey run-off, utilizing an energy dissipater to reduce
sedimentation output. Applicants have provided for a total of 28.94 acres of open
space, of which 7.16 acres are to be developed for both active and passive
recreation. Specific Findings Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 22.
6. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, and
provides for the public benefits required of the development of PUDs.
A PUD must provide certain public benefits. Applicants propose to preserve
natural amenities through the use of open spaces. Tract B and Tract I are both
steeply sloped. The preliminary plat and its associated conceptual design
demonstrate a pedestrian -oriented community with sidewalks, pedestrian
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 14 of 21
passageways, and parks with both active and passive recreation amenities. The
plat is structured to utilize the property efficiently by layout, house design, and
open space. Homes will not be facing the residential collector, Evergreen Way
SE, and will be separated from the arterial collector, Kersey Way SE, by open
space. Privacy fencing will separate the development from adjoining low-density
residential areas. Development is consistent with and implements the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Applicants proposed a variety of architectural styles,
providing a varied streetscape, and have submitted landscape plans. Applicants
propose over seven acres of active and passive recreation parklands.
Affordable housing is a concern within the entire Puget Sound area. Applicants
are providing only single-family housing, no multi -family, thereby limiting the
"affordability" of housing provided. Applicants do not state the price range for
the homes but due state that the increased density helps to distribute overall
construction and development costs among a greater number of buyers. Specific
Findings Nos. 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
7. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact
upon the surrounding area than any other project would have if developed
using the existing zoning standards.
The property is currently zoned R-1, which would allow for development of 34
dwelling units. Applicants seek to develop 373 dwelling units. Development of
over 300 more dwelling units will have more adverse impacts than the existing
zoning standard. EIS provided for impacts on transportation, public services,
wildlife, and utilities, some of which could not be avoided even with mitigation
measures. General Findings No. 2; Specific Findings Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
8. The PUD is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood.
Surrounding land use consists of natural resource land (gravel pit), bow -density
residential development, and Lakeland Hills PUD's 3000+ homes. The
Comprehensive Plan designation for the area is Single -Family Residential.
Development would be consistent with the character of the Lakeland Hills
community but not with the low-density development. General Findings No. 2;
Specific Findings Nos. 2, 3, and 8.
9. The Preliminary Plat conforms to the City of Auburn"s zoning
ordinance and any other applicable planning or engineering standards and
specifications.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 15 of 21
With conditions, the Applicants' proposal for the PUD complies with all related
City codes and standards. Specific Findings No. 23.
10. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated
such that the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the
quality of the environment.
According to the EIS, all potential environmental impacts have not been mitigated
to the point that they would not have an adverse effect. Namely, wildlife and
their associated habitat will be directly affected and no mitigation measures were
available to ameliorate this impact. Wildlife would suffer from loss of native
vegetation, fragmentation of habitat, reduction in native populations, and
disturbance in retained habitat due to human encroachment. While this impacts
can not be adequately mitigated, none of the impacted species are listed as
endangered, threatened, or sensitive pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
In addition to wildlife impacts, off-site streams would be affected by the increase
in impervious surface which would affect the hydrology of the area due to a
change in recharge patterns. Additional sediment/erosion will enter the water
system, impacting water quality. Public Services - Police, Fire, Schools - will all
be impacted by the increased population generated by the development.
Specific Findings Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22.
11. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will
prevent or abate public nuisances.
Public Nuisances are addressed generally throughout the ACG and are
addressed directly in ACC 8.12. A public nuisance affects public health and
property values by creating visual blight, harboring rodents and/or pests, or
creating unsafe pedestrian and traffic situations. Compliance with City design
standards for road safety (width, sidewalks, and visibility) will ensure safe
pedestrian and traffic access within the development. As conditioned the
development of a Homeowners' Association and the associated Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions will ensure that visual blights and dangers to public
health are reduced/eliminated, thereby promoting both general public welfare and
property values. Specific Findings Nos. 16.
12. The subject property does not possess physical conditions or
exceptional topographic features that warrant deviating from the applicable
design requirements.
DECISION
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 16 of 21
The Hearing Examiner recommends that the request for a rezone of 89.31
acres from R-1 Single Family Residential to PUD and approval of a PUD be
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060, the following notice shall be placed on the
final plat and on all building permits and deeds issued within the Kersey III
development (Division I and Division II):
NOTICE: This property is near designated mineral resource
lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur that
are not compatible with residential development. The owner of
the mineral resource lands may, at any time, apply to the City for
a permit for mining -related activities including, but not limited to,
mining, extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporting, and recycling of minerals.
2. Any final plat for Kersey III, Division Il, shall not be recorded until (a) the
planned park sites contained in Kersey III, Division I have been dedicated to the
City of Auburn AND (b) the final plat for Division I that defines and restricts the
planned open space tracts as such has been recorded, or in lieu of final plat
recording, Applicant has filed the necessary documents to impose a restrictive
covenant or easement on these lands to ensure that they are maintained as open
space.
3. Prior to issuance of final plat approval for any phase containing an open
space tract, Applicant shall submit, or enter into an agreement to submit, a
Declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions that conforms to ACC
19.69.200.
4. As part of the engineering/construction drawings submitted for the
construction of interior improvements to the subdivision, Applicant shall also
submit engineering/construction drawings for the construction of all park
improvements as depicted on the drawings submitted (Exhibit 19) . The park
improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn's Parks Director prior to
the approval of the construction drawings for the plat. Any materials supplied
and installed for the parks must meet current City Parks Department standards
and be approved by the Parks Director prior to installation and final plat; approval.
5. Proposed Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the future
Kersey III Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for review and approval
by City Staff prior to final plat approval. This document shall include
architectural design criteria for new homes and specify the financial means of
maintenance of all common open spaces.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 17 of 21
6. Home designs shall be consistent with the Kersey 3 Division I & II
Conceptual Building Design Guidelines (Exhibit 6). The Conceptual Building
Design Guidelines shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs for the project. The final
design guidelines shall include a color palette for proposed house exterior colors.
In addition, the following conditions shall apply:
a) Homes shall feature multiple roof pitches on their street -facing
facades.
b) Garages shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the front
property line. No more than a two -car garage shall be used;
tandem parking is acceptable.
c) The first floor living portion of each house shall be located 5 feet
closer to the street than any garage.
d) Home designs shall be varied such that no more than two homes
sharing the same floor plan are located adjacent to one another.
7. Final landscaping design shall be generally consistent with the Preliminary
Overall Landscaping Plan, dated March 17, 2005, which was included with the
Applicants' application for rezone, PUD, and preliminary plat approval. The
Applicants shall maximize the use of native and/or drought -resistant plants
throughout the plat, including park and landscaped open space areas. Emphasis
should be on the use of native vegetation, thereby mitigating the loss of native
vegetation.
8. Any entrance sign shall be a low monument style with accenting
landscaping. The number, style, and placement of signs and associated
landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director.
9. Fencing along the boundary of the plat shall be of consistent material,
style, and color. The Planning Director shall approve such fences, which shall be
equivalent to a six foot high solid wood fence. Any fencing to be erected
adjacent to any of the planned pedestrian pathways requires the approval of the
Planning Director. All residential properties that border on a native/open space,
park, or drainage tract (Tract A, B, C, D, and 1) shall be separated from these
areas by use of a two- rail wooden fence of approximately three to four feet in
height. This fence shall delineate the property line and prevent encroachment by
the property owner into the native/open space, park, or drainage tract.
10. Approval of the rezone and PUD are valid only upon approval and
execution of the associated preliminary plat.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 18 of 21
11. Compliance with all of the mitigation measures as noted on pages 9-19 of
the Kersey III Preliminary Plat Final EIS (Exhibit 8), dated February 2005, and as
otherwise noted throughout this recommendation, is required.
12. Applicants shall construct a traffic signal at Evergreen Way SE and Kersey
Way SE. This traffic signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
13. Applicants shall construct an active warning signal on southbound Kersey
Way SE in advance of the intersection of Kersey Way SE and Evergreen Way
SE. This active warning signal must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
14. Applicants shall provide auxiliary lanes at the intersection of Evergreen
Way SE and Kersey Way SE. These auxiliary lanes must be constructed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct traffic controls
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at the intersection of Lakeland Hills Way
and Evergreen Way SE. These traffic controls shall be designed and
constructed as a round -about unless the City Engineer determines, based on
design, that a round -about is not feasible. If the City Engineer determines that a
round -about is not feasible, then the traffic controls shall be designed and
construction as a traffib signal.
16. Prior to any final plat approvals, Applicants shall construct traffic calming
and pedestrian safety amenities on Evergreen Way SE, in the vicinity of the park
area near Olive Avenue. These traffic calming and pedestrian safety, amenities
must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
17. The EIS states that there are unavoidable significant impacts on the
environment, namely impacts on wildlife populations and their associated habitat.
Two main impacts pertain to loss of native vegetation and fragmentation of
habitat. Applicants shall endeavor to provide for preservation of a wildlife habitat
by creating a corridor containing native vegetation, thereby mitigating these
impacts.
18. Applicants shall engage in meaningful consultation with the Auburn School
District. Communications should not merely seek to ensure that the school
district can provide transportation, but that schools have the capacity to serve the
students generated by the proposal without burdening or creating overcapacity at
any school. Applicants shall be responsible for all school impact fees in a
manner consistent with local and state law requirements.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 19 of 21
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Approval. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Decision of the Hearing Examiner are adopted herein by this reference, and the
rezone request is hereby approved to rezone approximately 81.39 acres from R-
1 Residential to Planned Unit Development and the request for approval of a
Planned Unit Development is hereby approved, and as legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto, subject to the conditions as outlined above.
Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to
be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph,
subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application
thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or
circumstances.
Section 3. Recording. Upon the passage, approval and publication of
this Ordinance as provided by law, the City Clerk of the City of Auburn shall
cause this Ordinance to be recorded in the office of the King County Auditor.
Section 4. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to
implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the
directions of this legislation.
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 20 of 21
Section 5. Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect: and be in
force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided
by law.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
APPROVED:
CITY OF AUBURN
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
AS
DMiel B. Heid,
City Attorney
Publication:
Ordinance No. 5948
September 14, 2005
Page 21 of 21
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
REZ05-0001 and PUD05-0001 — Division 1
The southwest quarter of the southeast quarter and that portion of
the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter lying southerly of
the N.B. Carter County Road; All in Section 32, Township 21. North,
Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington;
EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to King County for Stuck Road
and by Deed recorded under Recording Number 5407388;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed by King County for Lake
,-fapps Access Road, by deed recorded under Recording Number 5801756_
Exhibit to Ordinance No. 6948
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
REZ05-0002 and PUD05-0002 — Division 2
Lot 1, City of Auburn Short Plat Number SP -22-77, recorded under
Recording Number 7905301012, being a revision of Short Plat recorded
under Recording Number 7712130917, in King County, Washington, being
a portion of the east half of the southwest quarter of Section 32,
Township 21 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in King County, Washington.
Exhibit to Ordinance No. 5948