Treemont project faces more delays

Published 2:37 pm Thursday, October 2, 2008

FALL CITY — Because of a decision recently handed down by

the King County Council, the proposed 194-lot Treemont development

might not be built until next year, and its size could be pared down to 47 homes.

Neighbors are happy with the decision because the subdivision’s

planner, Port Blakely Communities, was ordered to conduct additional

environmental impact studies before the project can move forward.

“We were able to show enough issues in question that they listened,

and along with carefully reading the hearing examiner’s original report,

they had many concerns,” said Cindy Parks, who lives near the

proposed subdivision. Parks has formed a group called “Friends Against

Excessive Development” to fight the

subdivision, to be located near the Tall Chief

Golf Course in Fall City.

Many residents have said the project and its construction

could flood or otherwise damage their neighboring properties and negatively

impact Patterson Creek. They also feel the subdivision’s density would

jeopardize the area’s “rural character”

of quiet homes on five to ten acres.

Parks said keeping track of Port Blakely’s proposal has left her

exhausted. But this recent turn of events has given her hope that the

development will not be approved as originally planned, and most importantly,

not impact her neighborhood.

Parks’ neighbor, Janice Cannon-Kyte, agrees.

“The (decision) gives us hope that the county will do the right thing;

that they’ll look at the issues in a broader scope,” she said.

During a July King County Council meeting, Councilmember

Louise Miller initiated a motion to remand the decision back to the hearing

examiner so more studies could be done. The move should give the hearing

examiner more information on which to base his recommendation for

the development’s size and mitigation requirements.

Councilmember David Irons, who represents the Valley, agreed with

the vote.

“I voted to put it back to the hearing examiner because I was not

convinced that there was adequate protection for Patterson Creek while

they were building,” Irons said.

Later in July, a meeting was held to explain the remand decision

and outline the areas needing additional study. The main areas to be

reconsidered are traffic impacts, construction of an access road, stormwater

drainage and impacts to Patterson Creek.

“We’re in a different world today, and one of the things we have to do

is address the streams,” Miller said.

Many of the plans currently under fire were measures taken by

Port Blakely — with Department of Development and Environmental

Services support — to create as little impact

as possible to neighboring property, Patterson Creek and residential

traffic.

Developers planned to build a new access road to Treemont, and

they have already bought the additional land to support the road. A

quarter-mile-long drainage pipe was created as a solution to protect

Patterson Creek. But now the County Council has decided both the road and

pipe need further study.

Councilmembers have asked for studies that would eliminate the

road and drainage pipe, which could ultimately result in paring down the

number of homes built.

“We have to look for better ways to accommodate the growth and

development, and in this case, to eliminate the new road and modify

the drainage system,” Miller said.

She added she has had experience with erosion problems along

nearby Sahalee Way and doesn’t want to see those experiences repeated.

“We’ve lost great chunks of (land). It’s very steep and slide-prone, and

on more than one occasion they had to close and repair the road,” Miller

said. “There’s no way you can fix it once you’ve done the damage, and

it’s highly likely (the Treemont proposal) would damage the creek, and

same with the drainage,” she said.

John Adams of Port Blakely said his company has already spent

more than a decade of time, work and money in complying with the county.

“What we hope (additional studies) show is that our original

proposal is the best proposal,” Adams said. “Bottom line is we believe we have

a project that does mitigate impacts.”

Port Blakely submitted development applications for Treemont

in 1988, when zoning was one house per acre. Legally, the zoning is vested

and cannot be changed.

“Our approach is that we are vested to the one-acre zoning, and

as long as we mitigate the impacts, we don’t see any basis for the county

to deny it, ” Adams said.

Another issue confronting Treemont is water. The

development’s water-availability certification was also acquired under a vesting

policy in 1988. But last month, the Department of Ecology released findings

that suggest the aquifer that supplies the Sammamish Plateau Water and

Sewer District — which provides the Treemont water guarantee — was

severely compromised from overdevelopment and may not be a

sufficient water source.

Irons explained that King County could be open to a lawsuit if the

council were to try and enforce current zoning.

“The (county’s) prosecuting attorney, despite all of the

objections brought up, said (the project) is

legally vested. “But we have the right to require that they meet certain

standards,” Irons said. “I would rather hold

the builder to the highest environmental standards that we can” than

spend taxpayer’s money on lawsuits.

Adams said he and other Port Blakely officials will be

open-minded when considering the new studies’ findings, and will seek an

environmentally sound solution.

“It’s premature to say if those (new studies) would improve the project

or make it worse,” Adams said.

He estimates it could take another four to six months before the

proposal is up for another public hearing, because time is needed to complete

the additional studies and have them reviewed by county staff.

Rich Hudson, the Treemont project’s manager at DDES, said

the hearing examiner, Stafford Smith, could recommend one of four

options for the applicant. One might be Port Blakely’s option of 194 homes.

Two other alternatives would downsize the development to 83 or even 47 lots,

the latter being consistent with current five-acre zoning policies.

The fourth option could be to deny Port Blakely’s application

altogether. But even those who have raised questions about the development

aren’t rooting for the fourth alternative.

“The thing that people need to understand is that we’re not

saying they shouldn’t develop (the property), it’s just that they should develop it

with regard to rural character and the environment _ what the land will

tolerate,” Cannon-Kyte said.

Hudson said amid the delays, the Treemont approval process has

been hard on everyone.

“I’m sure the public’s been frustrated because (the property) has

been sitting there so long. The applicant is frustrated because (it is) trying to

accommodate the impacts, and the hearing examiner is wrestling with

the impacts and listening to public testimony, and he has to bring all of

that information into his decision to the County Council,” he said.